No criticism really, only a note that this field - on both sides - is seriously appalling. Is this the most pathetic presidential field ever produced? Or am I just getting increasingly cynical?
No criticism really, only a note that this field - on both sides - is seriously appalling. Is this the most pathetic presidential field ever produced? Or am I just getting increasingly cynical?
I know for a fact I'm getting increasingly cynical, but I also agree it's a pathetic field...
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet? Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet? Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?an alternate point of view: I couldn't stop laughing during the last election here when so many stories started with lines like "..in this grueling 11 week campaign..."
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet? Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet? Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?an alternate point of view: I couldn't stop laughing during the last election here when so many stories started with lines like "..in this grueling 11 week campaign..."
It's kind of like saying "oh my god, I live three miles from work! how could i ever bike there? It's so long!"
Agree that the US election cycle is waaaaaay too long, but 11 weeks hardly seemed long enough. Just my opinion...
Yeah, well... we both have perception bias on this one. I came to Canada after the 2012 US elections and have that to compare the recent Canadian elections to. Your experience was likely the previous Canadian federal elections, which were...what... 6-8 weeks long?Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet? Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?an alternate point of view: I couldn't stop laughing during the last election here when so many stories started with lines like "..in this grueling 11 week campaign..."
It's kind of like saying "oh my god, I live three miles from work! how could i ever bike there? It's so long!"
Agree that the US election cycle is waaaaaay too long, but 11 weeks hardly seemed long enough. Just my opinion...
11 weeks felt kinda long to me to be honest . . .
Yea, I can't believe anyone in the GOP would ever give a Bush another shot. Even if you love him and his politics, there's just the reality you have to face. For 16 years everything that's gone wrong has been blamed on Bush, that's just an unstoppable PR momentum. Cut the losses and move on.
John Kasich really has come off well in the debates, I haven't looked into his claims regarding Ohio's finances yet, but some Ohioans are coming to Thanksgiving dinner so I'll quiz them on it, see if it's really his doing or some oil/gas boom like Trump claimed.
It all matters naught, if Hillary gets the nomination she wins the general, which is a sorry state of affairs, but we could probably do worse. Just be prepared for her to lose her shit on national TV when someone asks her what Bill thinks about something. Democrats have lost their mind. All those wonderful women in that party and you seriously support this person? I just don't understand it.
John Kasich really has come off well in the debates
John Kasich really has come off well in the debates
Really? Every time I've seen him in the debates he's come off as a whiny, old man. Especially this last one. He was more annoying than anything.
BOOM! Jindal is out. I am going to pretend like my first post predicted that, even though he never really had a shot.His politics aside, does anyone else think that Jindal looks exactly like a muppet come to life would look like?
Marco Rubio: His personal finances, if he cannot handle his own... how can he be expected to handle the country as a whole?
BOOM! Jindal is out. I am going to pretend like my first post predicted that, even though he never really had a shot.His politics aside, does anyone else think that Jindal looks exactly like a muppet come to life would look like?
Not to Godwin this, but people laughed at Hitler for his ridiculous ideas in the beginning too . . .
BOOM! Jindal is out. I am going to pretend like my first post predicted that, even though he never really had a shot.His politics aside, does anyone else think that Jindal looks exactly like a muppet come to life would look like?
He looks like Kenneth from _30 Rock_.
(http://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcunbc/files/files/styles/nbc_gallery_slide/public/scet/photos/38/6193/kenneth_01.jpg?itok=BsHKgfYb)
Jesus, you Americans still haven't voted yet? Why the hell do you have such a long campaign period?
That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada. Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP. Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.
Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?). We just dick around less getting to the results.
Not to Godwin this, but people laughed at Hitler for his ridiculous ideas in the beginning too . . .
Yeah, for a while now I've bee forcing myself to push away any thoughts of history repeating itself on that front as irrational, but lately... It's getting a little harder to avoid,
That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada. Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP. Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.
Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?). We just dick around less getting to the results.
Um... sorta, not really.That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada. Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP. Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.
Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?). We just dick around less getting to the results.
I admit to not knowing the mechanics of the Canadian system very well, but my understanding was that there is only a leadership votewhen the previous party leader steps down.
In contrast, the American electorate selectseach party's candidates every four years.
Um... sorta, not really.That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada. Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP. Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.
Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?). We just dick around less getting to the results.
I admit to not knowing the mechanics of the Canadian system very well, but my understanding was that there is only a leadership vote when the previous party leader steps down.
In contrast, the American electorate selects each party's candidates every four years.
In the Canadian system the party in power decides when the next election will be (within a given time frame). The ruling party will frequently try to call an election when they feel they have a strong position and/or could pick up more seats during an election.
A party leader stepping down doesn't change things; in fact a party leader can step down and a new leader can be chosen without an election. Then again, a US President resigning doesn't trigger an election either (Nixon). Technically the Governor General (the Queen's representative) has to approve the party's choice for Prime Minister, but in today's democracy it's almost unthinkable that the GG would object/use this power.
In the US system we vote for the President every four years. Technically citizens vote for the electoral college, but with a few random examples the members of the electoral college follow the popular vote for that state. Every member of the US House is up for election every two years, and 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election every 2 years (6 year terms, staggered to minimize the number of 'frosh' members). Unlike the Canadian elections, one can accurately predict when the next 10+ US elections will be.
My post wasn't intended to be inflammatory, and I'm sorry if it was taken that way. I was just trying to highlight a few of the differences based on GuitarStv's earlier post and your follow up.Um... sorta, not really.That sounds pretty similar to the way that things work in Canada. Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign, then you vote for your local MP. Whichever party gets the most MPs wins and gets their Prime Minister in power.
Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?). We just dick around less getting to the results.
I admit to not knowing the mechanics of the Canadian system very well, but my understanding was that there is only a leadership vote when the previous party leader steps down.
In contrast, the American electorate selects each party's candidates every four years.
In the Canadian system the party in power decides when the next election will be (within a given time frame). The ruling party will frequently try to call an election when they feel they have a strong position and/or could pick up more seats during an election.
A party leader stepping down doesn't change things; in fact a party leader can step down and a new leader can be chosen without an election. Then again, a US President resigning doesn't trigger an election either (Nixon). Technically the Governor General (the Queen's representative) has to approve the party's choice for Prime Minister, but in today's democracy it's almost unthinkable that the GG would object/use this power.
How does this mesh with GuitarStv's point that individual voters select party leaders?QuoteIn the US system we vote for the President every four years. Technically citizens vote for the electoral college, but with a few random examples the members of the electoral college follow the popular vote for that state. Every member of the US House is up for election every two years, and 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election every 2 years (6 year terms, staggered to minimize the number of 'frosh' members). Unlike the Canadian elections, one can accurately predict when the next 10+ US elections will be.
Yes, I know the US system. I was only talking about Presidential elections since that was the subject of conversation.
Edit: And, moreover, you completely missed the point of this series of posts, which is how each country selects the candidate for Prime Minister / President, not how that individual is elected, let alone how the rest of the government is elected.
The citizens of Canada didn't select Justin Trudeau out of a list of other potential liberal candidates to lead the Liberal party ahead of the federal election.
Not to Godwin this, but people laughed at Hitler for his ridiculous ideas in the beginning too . . .
Yeah, for a while now I've bee forcing myself to push away any thoughts of history repeating itself on that front as irrational, but lately... It's getting a little harder to avoid,
This is genuinely frightening and shocking, even in light of Trump's already outrageous rhetorical track record. Trump's remarks to Yahoo News earlier in the week could have, at least, been chalked up to obfuscation on his part -- undoubtedly, when asked by the reporter if his proposed "unthinkable" security measures would include requiring "registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion," he should have responded with "of course not," but at least he did not say "yes." According to the Yahoo News report, this is how he responded:
"'We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,' Trump said when presented with the idea. 'We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.'"
But now he has gone farther and is clearly, affirmatively advocating for exactly that proposal:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716
It's scary enough knowing that society always possesses some members who hold these types of views, but I am truly shocked, horrified and embarrassed for our nation to see that a leading candidate for the presidency of the country is espousing them.
My post wasn't intended to be inflammatory, and I'm sorry if it was taken that way. I was just trying to highlight a few of the differences based on GuitarStv's earlier post and your follow up.
The difference I most wanted to highlight from GuitarStv's post was that in Canada you vote for directly for your local MP (equivalent to House and Senate Leaders) and the party with the most MPs selects the Prime Minister. That's a sharp contrast from the US, where you vote for both your district's legislators AND the president, and these are separate votes.
I wasn't implying that you don't understand the US system. I was just trying to clarify the differences for anyone following along. The one error I saw in your post was about how the Canadian system works ( there is only a leadership vote when the previous party leader steps down.). A leadership votes for a new prime minster whenever the party with the most seats changes or he/she steps down. There are no term limits, and the party in power calls the next election which decides who has the most seats in Parliament.
Unlike the US system, there isn't the equivalent of the US primary system. The citizens of Canada didn't select Justin Trudeau out of a list of other potential liberal candidates to lead the Liberal party ahead of the federal election. It's not a selection process like we currently have for the GOP/Dem party candidate. The reason why brings us back full circle - in Canada we don't vote directly for the Prime Minister, so the method which he/she is chosen is fundamentally different than the US.
Does that make it any clearer?
Individual voters select party leaders by vote, then there's a campaign,
…
Seems about as democratic as the US version (unless I'm missing something?). We just dick around less getting to the results.
QuoteThe citizens of Canada didn't select Justin Trudeau out of a list of other potential liberal candidates to lead the Liberal party ahead of the federal election.
Trudeau was voted into place by his party long before the federal election took place. Each member of his party got one vote. He was selected from a group of six other potential candidates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_elections#2013_leadership_election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_elections#2013_leadership_election)). Is that not how the primaries in the US work?
We're an apathetic bunch. Plus, it costs 10$ a year to be a Liberal Party member. Fuuuck that noise.
We're an apathetic bunch. Plus, it costs 10$ a year to be a Liberal Party member. Fuuuck that noise.
Interesting. Also, it's worth pointing out here that about 1/3 of US States have an "open primary" which means that they can vote in any one party's primary election.
After seeing the embarrassing reactionary response regarding the Syrian refugees I will be voting against every Republican on the ballot.
You can't live in a place of such incredible largess and not help in this situation. If we took them all in and a small handful turned out to be terrorists, and that handful reached out and hurt us, it would be tragic. The hypothetical attack. Turning them all away IS tragic, it isn't hypothetical. No amount of potential future badness justifies current badness, two wrongs don't make a right, you can't fight evil with evil.
I have never been more ashamed of my country.
After seeing the embarrassing reactionary response regarding the Syrian refugees I will be voting against every Republican on the ballot.
You can't live in a place of such incredible largess and not help in this situation. If we took them all in and a small handful turned out to be terrorists, and that handful reached out and hurt us, it would be tragic. The hypothetical attack. Turning them all away IS tragic, it isn't hypothetical. No amount of potential future badness justifies current badness, two wrongs don't make a right, you can't fight evil with evil.
I have never been more ashamed of my country.
And now there's this: a literal fascist is leading in the GOP race.
http://theslot.jezebel.com/donald-trump-would-support-registry-for-muslim-american-1743504288
Weird. I'd be inclined to vote for the worst candidate for the party I dislike to try and sabotage his/her chances.
Remember Christians, support for Rubio's brand of Conservative Christianity "defending the family" also literally involves endorsing anti-semitism, just for starters.
Well i'm obviously not doing a very good job here. Here's another attempt. Yes, in Canada the party's leader is decided by a popular vote. However, there's some differences that, while subtle, i think are very important. When the populous votes for the party's leader, they are (at least in modern times) voting for an MP. The person with the most votes becomes the declared party leader. Even if the party does not gain a majority during the elections that person typically remains the party leader. Tom Mulcair is still the leader of the NDP and has more power than other MPs in his party, even though he is not Prime Minister. Also important, you have to be a member of that political party to vote for party leader (I know this is true for at least the Liberal and NDP parties). The rules differ by state for voting in Presidential primaries, but in many states you can vote for whomever you like, regardless of your party affiliation.QuoteThe citizens of Canada didn't select Justin Trudeau out of a list of other potential liberal candidates to lead the Liberal party ahead of the federal election.
Trudeau was voted into place by his party long before the federal election took place. Each member of his party got one vote. He was selected from a group of six other potential candidates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_elections#2013_leadership_election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_elections#2013_leadership_election)). Is that not how the primaries in the US work?
Remember Christians, support for Rubio's brand of Conservative Christianity "defending the family" also literally involves endorsing anti-semitism, just for starters.
Your post and the linked article in it was the first I've heard about this, but, unless there's more to the story, I don't see any evidence of anti-Semitism. Holding a fundraising event at the household of a wealthy individual whose collection of historical memorabilia includes Nazi artifacts does not qualify, if that's all there is to the story.
I do think Ben Carson is a very brilliant man, particularly when it comes to medicine, however I haven't felt like he understands and even grasps the majority of what is necessary to be the President.
He has his own advisers stating that he struggles with foreign policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0
I do think Ben Carson is a very brilliant man, particularly when it comes to medicine, however I haven't felt like he understands and even grasps the majority of what is necessary to be the President.
He has his own advisers stating that he struggles with foreign policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0
I do think Ben Carson is a very brilliant man, particularly when it comes to medicine, however I haven't felt like he understands and even grasps the majority of what is necessary to be the President.
He has his own advisers stating that he struggles with foreign policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html?_r=0
I don't know why he doesn't start at least a little smaller like running for Senate. Maybe if the GOP wins the WH next year he could be Surgeon General...
An executive order Mr. Christie signed in 2010 allows New Jersey governors to have travel and related expenses paid by foreign governments. - NY Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/nyregion/in-christies-career-a-fondness-forluxe-benefits-when-others-pay-the-bills.html?_r=0).
-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.
-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.
Insider foreign policy knowledge gleaned from years of failure to achieve ends good for the United States.
-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.
Insider foreign policy knowledge gleaned from years of failure to achieve ends good for the United States.
Let's talk successes. As Sec of State Clinton:
1. helped secure the crippling sanctions (not just the U.S., but also getting cooperation from Russia, the E.U., etc) on Iran that brought them to the negotiating table
2. helpeded secure the new START treaty with Russia
3. negotiated a cease fire in Gaza in 2012 that halted Hamas firing rockets into Israel and averting all out war
4. laid the groundwork for normalization of relations with Cuba encouraging Obama to lift the embargo
5. was a tireless ambassador for U.S. relations and global women's rights traveling to over 100 countries during her tenure
These are just a few examples that I could dig up with some simple googling.
At the very least these reinforce the following:
1. Clinton is very experienced in foreign policy matters
2. Clinton has a solid working relationship with many leaders in many countries
3. Clinton has a track record of effective negotiations
No other candidate, Republican nor Democrat can make any of these claims to the same degree. Lindsey Graham probably comes the closest in terms of foreign policy knowledge, but in terms of actual working diplomatic experience and working relationships with foreign leaders, he falls short compared to Clinton.
-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.
Insider foreign policy knowledge gleaned from years of failure to achieve ends good for the United States.
Let's talk successes.
As Sec of State Clinton:
1. helped secure the crippling sanctions (not just the U.S., but also getting cooperation from Russia, the E.U., etc) on Iran that brought them to the negotiating table
2. helpeded secure the new START treaty with Russia
3. negotiated a cease fire in Gaza in 2012 that halted Hamas firing rockets into Israel and averting all out war
4. laid the groundwork for normalization of relations with Cuba encouraging Obama to lift the embargo
5. was a tireless ambassador for U.S. relations and global women's rights traveling to over 100 countries during her tenure
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.
Kinda a tough question, but I think a fair one since you appear to be laying the blame for the state of the country on a single person:
What do you think Clinton should have done that would fix Afghanistan?
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.
Kinda a tough question, but I think a fair one since you appear to be laying the blame for the state of the country on a single person:
What do you think Clinton should have done that would fix Afghanistan?
Ditto, plus I'm not sure how the private email server really contributes to any arguments regarding foreign policy failures. Irresponsible, yes. Illegal, still being decided. Foreign policy failure, no.
Critics can point to areas where U.S. foreign policy has not worked. That's fair. Even so, that does not erase Clinton's foreign policy successes and it doesn't elevate any of the other candidates in comparison to her. Like her or not, agree with her or not, there is no other candidate in either party with her level of foreign policy experience. Period.
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.
Kinda a tough question, but I think a fair one since you appear to be laying the blame for the state of the country on a single person:
What do you think Clinton should have done that would fix Afghanistan?
When the plumber stays four hours and water's still leaking everywhere after he told me it would be done in three, it's not a counterargument for him to ask me what I think should be done.
To answer your question, though: Nothing, that's why I'm anti-intervention across the board. I don't think we should have troops in Afghanistan. It's not accomplishing anything, so Clinton has participated in putting American troops in danger and causing the inevitable collateral damage of war for no good reason.
I don't think it's a fair assessment to say I'm laying the blame for the state of it solely on her, but she did voluntarily take partial responsibility for it and didn't succeed.
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.
Kinda a tough question, but I think a fair one since you appear to be laying the blame for the state of the country on a single person:
What do you think Clinton should have done that would fix Afghanistan?
When the plumber stays four hours and water's still leaking everywhere after he told me it would be done in three, it's not a counterargument for him to ask me what I think should be done.
To answer your question, though: Nothing, that's why I'm anti-intervention across the board. I don't think we should have troops in Afghanistan. It's not accomplishing anything, so Clinton has participated in putting American troops in danger and causing the inevitable collateral damage of war for no good reason.
I don't think it's a fair assessment to say I'm laying the blame for the state of it solely on her, but she did voluntarily take partial responsibility for it and didn't succeed.
So, you believe that the solution to the problems in Afghanistan would be to say 'fuck it' and leave after invading and ousting the ruling powers? That approach didn't work really well in Iraq when the US did it . . . why do you think it would be a better plan in Afghanistan?
You don't see how storing data important to national security on an unsecure email server is a foreign policy failure? You don't think any Russians or Chinese got into it?
There's no other candidate who's had anywhere near the magnitude of effect on foreign policy that she has. Obviously when you have a job, sometimes you'll get it right and sometimes you won't. My argument is that she got it wrong in much more important ways than she ever got it right.
True, no other candidate has done as much to normalize relations with Cuba. But none of the others (Lindsey Graham possibly excepted) have had such a high degree of participation in the utter destruction of nations for no good reason.
Best theories I've heard on the Republican race. Donald Trump is just running as a favor for Bill Clinton. Or, it's demographically impossible for a Republican to win a presidential election in 2016, and everyone knows it.
Best theories I've heard on the Republican race. Donald Trump is just running as a favor for Bill Clinton. Or, it's demographically impossible for a Republican to win a presidential election in 2016, and everyone knows it.
I'm pretty sure the Republicans have decided to run clowns for President to distract everyone from the fact that they're winning everything else, from the Congress right on down to state legislatures and gubernatorial races. In about ten years they're going to have a really full bench for future electioneering and the Democrats won't have squat. Hell, they don't seem to now.
I agree, Clinton's failures are not restricted to the foreign policy realm. As President she will have the opportunity to fail in all aspects of administration of the country.You don't see how storing data important to national security on an unsecure email server is a foreign policy failure? You don't think any Russians or Chinese got into it?
I don't think we really know one way or the other. It is not unimaginable. Even if that did take place, however, that would be defined as a IT security failure, not a foreign policy failure. Foreign policy is a government's strategy for dealing with other countries. Could it put foreign policy at risk. Yes. Therefore I would define it as a potential foreign policy risk, but not a foreign policy failure.
There's no other candidate who's had anywhere near the magnitude of effect on foreign policy that she has. Obviously when you have a job, sometimes you'll get it right and sometimes you won't. My argument is that she got it wrong in much more important ways than she ever got it right.
I suspect that your judgement is based more on an emotional reaction to Clinton in general than a serious critique of all her successes and failures. I doubt very few of us really have the knowledge to give her an objective report card. I know I'm not. My point has merely been that any accusation that she is only associated with failed foreign policy is inaccurate.
True, no other candidate has done as much to normalize relations with Cuba. But none of the others (Lindsey Graham possibly excepted) have had such a high degree of participation in the utter destruction of nations for no good reason.
I would counter that many of the problems that you lie at the feet of Clinton did not originate with her. The Obama admin inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The freedom movements that started in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria were not of her devising. Events began to play out that had no clear path to what was the best resolution. Would the Middle East be a safer place if Libya was still in civil war like Syria?
You claim to be non-interventionist, but blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS, yet the only way that probably would have been avoided would be if the U.S. had maintained a significant fighting force in Iraq.
The region has been screwed up for decades and I haven't seen any evidence that someone other than Clinton with any significantly different foreign policy would have resulted in any better situation over there.Then let's stop voting in people who want to intervene in the region. You and I both know that it won't get anything done. So let's stop wasting blood and treasure there.
I agree, Clinton's failures are not restricted to the foreign policy realm. As President she will have the opportunity to fail in all aspects of administration of the country.You don't see how storing data important to national security on an unsecure email server is a foreign policy failure? You don't think any Russians or Chinese got into it?
I don't think we really know one way or the other. It is not unimaginable. Even if that did take place, however, that would be defined as a IT security failure, not a foreign policy failure. Foreign policy is a government's strategy for dealing with other countries. Could it put foreign policy at risk. Yes. Therefore I would define it as a potential foreign policy risk, but not a foreign policy failure.QuoteThere's no other candidate who's had anywhere near the magnitude of effect on foreign policy that she has. Obviously when you have a job, sometimes you'll get it right and sometimes you won't. My argument is that she got it wrong in much more important ways than she ever got it right.
I suspect that your judgement is based more on an emotional reaction to Clinton in general than a serious critique of all her successes and failures. I doubt very few of us really have the knowledge to give her an objective report card. I know I'm not. My point has merely been that any accusation that she is only associated with failed foreign policy is inaccurate.
Obviously it's subjective, but I think destroying two countries is of pretty substantial magnitude. Nobody says Dick Cheney is qualified to be President because he was a successful Secretary of Defense.QuoteTrue, no other candidate has done as much to normalize relations with Cuba. But none of the others (Lindsey Graham possibly excepted) have had such a high degree of participation in the utter destruction of nations for no good reason.
I would counter that many of the problems that you lie at the feet of Clinton did not originate with her. The Obama admin inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They spent a long time and millions of dollars requesting that responsibility. It's not unfair to expect them to handle it.QuoteThe freedom movements that started in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria were not of her devising. Events began to play out that had no clear path to what was the best resolution. Would the Middle East be a safer place if Libya was still in civil war like Syria?
Libya is still in civil war! How are you trumpeting Clinton's successes if you don't know this? These are the top headlines from Libya according to Google News:
IS could expand from Libya but faces hostile environment
JOHN R BRADLEY on ISIS's barbaric new crucible of terror
Those who think US troops should be in Libya are wrong
...
Can Peace Deal Bring Relief to South Libya's 'Chinese Camp'?
This is Wikipedia's map of the "current military situation in Libya:"
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Libyan_Civil_War.png/270px-Libyan_Civil_War.png)
Does that look a nation where the United States brought peace to you?QuoteYou claim to be non-interventionist, but blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS, yet the only way that probably would have been avoided would be if the U.S. had maintained a significant fighting force in Iraq.
Clinton was a Senator in 2003. She voted to invade Iraq in the first place. She had an opportunity to lead, and failed. ISIS existed in Iraq during the US occupation.QuoteThe region has been screwed up for decades and I haven't seen any evidence that someone other than Clinton with any significantly different foreign policy would have resulted in any better situation over there.Then let's stop voting in people who want to intervene in the region. You and I both know that it won't get anything done. So let's stop wasting blood and treasure there.
Best theories I've heard on the Republican race. Donald Trump is just running as a favor for Bill Clinton. Or, it's demographically impossible for a Republican to win a presidential election in 2016, and everyone knows it.
I'm pretty sure the Republicans have decided to run clowns for President to distract everyone from the fact that they're winning everything else, from the Congress right on down to state legislatures and gubernatorial races. In about ten years they're going to have a really full bench for future electioneering and the Democrats won't have squat. Hell, they don't seem to now.
Yes, an even stronger fact than "Republicans can't win a presidential election" is "Republicans can't lose the House of Congress." That's just the facts of how these things are set up at this point. This set up pushes the Republicans to the right (primaries are all that matter for the vast majority of representatives). Ironically, that pushes Democrats to the right as well. Democrats can move right and gain votes in the center. They have nothing to lose on the left because Democratic primaries are less about litmus tests and more about the "who can beat the Republican" test.
...
Your ideal candidate would be someone who as a member of congress never voted to invade Iraq, as Sec. of State in 2009-12 would have somehow solved all the problems in the Middle East and have had perfect foresight to prevent future problems and would be totally non-interventionist at the same time. Good luck finding anything even close to that among any of the candidates out there.This is a nonsensical strawman version of what I have argued so far. I would prefer somebody less experienced to a candidate like Clinton who has been tested and failed.
...
I don't think you're having this discussion in good faith. You didn't know that Libya has an ongoing civil war, but your post after learning that didn't reflect any consideration of how that fact might alter your perception of Clinton's success. Instead you moved the goalposts - instead of discussing whether Clinton has been successful in her foreign policy you want to shift the discussion to who is a better candidate than her.QuoteYour ideal candidate would be someone who as a member of congress never voted to invade Iraq, as Sec. of State in 2009-12 would have somehow solved all the problems in the Middle East and have had perfect foresight to prevent future problems and would be totally non-interventionist at the same time. Good luck finding anything even close to that among any of the candidates out there.This is a nonsensical strawman version of what I have argued so far. I would prefer somebody less experienced to a candidate like Clinton who has been tested and failed.
I don't think Clinton can count as "the devil you know" when you didn't know the outcome of one of her major foreign policy projects.
Best theories I've heard on the Republican race. Donald Trump is just running as a favor for Bill Clinton. Or, it's demographically impossible for a Republican to win a presidential election in 2016, and everyone knows it.
I'm pretty sure the Republicans have decided to run clowns for President to distract everyone from the fact that they're winning everything else, from the Congress right on down to state legislatures and gubernatorial races. In about ten years they're going to have a really full bench for future electioneering and the Democrats won't have squat. Hell, they don't seem to now.
Yes, an even stronger fact than "Republicans can't win a presidential election" is "Republicans can't lose the House of Congress." That's just the facts of how these things are set up at this point. This set up pushes the Republicans to the right (primaries are all that matter for the vast majority of representatives). Ironically, that pushes Democrats to the right as well. Democrats can move right and gain votes in the center. They have nothing to lose on the left because Democratic primaries are less about litmus tests and more about the "who can beat the Republican" test.
The problem facing Republicans is that as they continue to double down on their base of white, angry conservatives, who Trump knows how to whip into a frenzy, everyone can see that their base is becoming smaller and smaller as the demographics continue to move the other direction. They have gerrymandered themselves into holding onto Congress for the time being, but this is a temporary solution at best. Their best solution is to focus on widening the base and moving back towards the center to appeal to more moderate minorities, yet their current base and the power it holds over the party will not allow this to happen. From a Political Science perspective, this is absolutely fascinating. From a personal perspective, watching a demagogue like Trump whip his followers into a frenzy, this is damn frightening.
I didn't pursue ANY particular trouble areas in the Middle East because it seemed like you were basically holding Clinton up to unreasonable expectations in general. I don't deny that outcome in Libya and other areas in the Middle East have not been as we would have liked. I also think it is unlikely that ANYTHING the US did while Clinton was Secretary of State would have likely made things any better. Can you honestly say that we would be in a better situation if Kaddafi was in power in Libya and that nation was now another Syria?You're uninformed on this topic. Libya is in no way in a better condition than Syria is.
I don't think I am presenting a strawman. You are blaming Clinton for not being able to solve almost every major existing problem (except for the Palestinian situation) in the Middle East during her tenure as Sec of State. To top it off, the only solution you accept as legit is non-interventionism, however, you also blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS which would have only been prevented by even MORE interventionism.You aren't acknowledging the "vote not to invade Iraq in the first place" option that Clinton had in 2003. Clinton was one of the more well-known Senators in 2003 and had she shown leadership by opposing the war, she might have gotten some traction. Claiming that interventionism would have been the only way to prevent ISIS from rising makes no sense, when interventionism created the vacuum that ISIS is filling.
The problem facing Republicans is that as they continue to double down on their base of white, angry conservatives, who Trump knows how to whip into a frenzy, everyone can see that their base is becoming smaller and smaller as the demographics continue to move the other direction. They have gerrymandered themselves into holding onto Congress for the time being, but this is a temporary solution at best. Their best solution is to focus on widening the base and moving back towards the center to appeal to more moderate minorities, yet their current base and the power it holds over the party will not allow this to happen. From a Political Science perspective, this is absolutely fascinating. From a personal perspective, watching a demagogue like Trump whip his followers into a frenzy, this is damn frightening.
It is frightening. It's made me thankful that our two-party system generally keeps the fringes out of view. I think the Trump supporters are the same people that give far-right parties 10-15% of the vote in much of western Europe. Disaffected people looking for someone to blame.
I didn't pursue ANY particular trouble areas in the Middle East because it seemed like you were basically holding Clinton up to unreasonable expectations in general. I don't deny that outcome in Libya and other areas in the Middle East have not been as we would have liked. I also think it is unlikely that ANYTHING the US did while Clinton was Secretary of State would have likely made things any better. Can you honestly say that we would be in a better situation if Kaddafi was in power in Libya and that nation was now another Syria?You're uninformed on this topic. Libya is in no way in a better condition than Syria is.QuoteI don't think I am presenting a strawman. You are blaming Clinton for not being able to solve almost every major existing problem (except for the Palestinian situation) in the Middle East during her tenure as Sec of State. To top it off, the only solution you accept as legit is non-interventionism, however, you also blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS which would have only been prevented by even MORE interventionism.You aren't acknowledging the "vote not to invade Iraq in the first place" option that Clinton had in 2003. Clinton was one of the more well-known Senators in 2003 and had she shown leadership by opposing the war, she might have gotten some traction. Claiming that interventionism would have been the only way to prevent ISIS from rising makes no sense, when interventionism created the vacuum that ISIS is filling.
I don't apologize for expecting people who take on a job to do it well. You seem to think it's unfair to judge Clinton on whether her actions led to improvements where she involved herself, because making improvements is really hard. I think it's dangerous to have a President who isn't aware that there are limits to what the government can accomplish.
Forget whether present day Libya is worse or better than present day Syria. I doubt either of us have the knowledge to really make a good case one way or the other. My point is that you seem to expect that if the US had not intervened in Libya, that Libya (and the Middle East) would be a better, more stable place and that assumption is hypothetical at best and naive at worst. Would a Libya with Kaddafi in power that is in civil war like Syria with Sadat be a better place? That seems to be the most logical alternative if the US had not intervened and Kaddafi has managed to stay in power. I suppose it is possible that Kaddafi could have won the civil war. Its really hard to say one way or the other.
Okay, you hold Clinton's vote against her in 2003, placing blame for the Iraq War and the situations leading to ISIS on her shoulders. I guess EVERYONE who supported that war also hold the blame as well.
You are being unreasonable if you blame a person for failing to fill a hole the size of a grand canyon with a shovel in the matter of six years. The problems in the Middle East are the combined results of over a century of failed policy decisions, starting with colonial imperialism and the countries that were created by colonial powers. Current day problems usually amount to no-win situations in which you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. In any given situation, non-intervention can be just as equally or more wrong than intervening. Or vice versa. To mix metaphors, its a damned minefield that like it or not we have to traverse and in terms of experience I think Clinton is one of the better (if not best) candidates among those we have available to navigate that minefield.So it's impossible for anybody to know what to do, and we shouldn't hold government officials to any standard of performance. What's the point of picking the most experienced person, then?
So for all your criticism of Clinton, who among the other candidate is your preferred alternative to handle the foreign policy troubles in general and the Middle East specifically?I think Rand Paul would mostly stay out of things, but he obviously isn't going to win the nomination, and he's not a great candidate for other reasons (no executive experience, appears to be a simply unpleasant person). I'm very disappointed in the 2016 field and it gives me a lot of trepidation. I have nobody to hold up and say "this person has the answer." But that doesn't justify pretending that Hillary Clinton was a successful Secretary of State.
Forget whether present day Libya is worse or better than present day Syria. I doubt either of us have the knowledge to really make a good case one way or the other. My point is that you seem to expect that if the US had not intervened in Libya, that Libya (and the Middle East) would be a better, more stable place and that assumption is hypothetical at best and naive at worst. Would a Libya with Kaddafi in power that is in civil war like Syria with Sadat be a better place? That seems to be the most logical alternative if the US had not intervened and Kaddafi has managed to stay in power. I suppose it is possible that Kaddafi could have won the civil war. Its really hard to say one way or the other.
It's Assad. Anwar Sadat was Egyptian and died in 1981.
I'll sum this up by saying that when the US spends money and risks lives to intervene in a country, it should make things better there. I agree that Libya might still be in a civil war if we hadn't intervened, just as you learned it is in reality this morning. If the best you can say about the war against Libya is that it didn't accomplish anything, I count that as a failure.
QuoteOkay, you hold Clinton's vote against her in 2003, placing blame for the Iraq War and the situations leading to ISIS on her shoulders. I guess EVERYONE who supported that war also hold the blame as well.
Certainly every legislator who voted for it does.
QuoteYou are being unreasonable if you blame a person for failing to fill a hole the size of a grand canyon with a shovel in the matter of six years. The problems in the Middle East are the combined results of over a century of failed policy decisions, starting with colonial imperialism and the countries that were created by colonial powers. Current day problems usually amount to no-win situations in which you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. In any given situation, non-intervention can be just as equally or more wrong than intervening. Or vice versa. To mix metaphors, its a damned minefield that like it or not we have to traverse and in terms of experience I think Clinton is one of the better (if not best) candidates among those we have available to navigate that minefield.So it's impossible for anybody to know what to do, and we shouldn't hold government officials to any standard of performance. What's the point of picking the most experienced person, then?
QuoteSo for all your criticism of Clinton, who among the other candidate is your preferred alternative to handle the foreign policy troubles in general and the Middle East specifically?I think Rand Paul would mostly stay out of things, but he obviously isn't going to win the nomination, and he's not a great candidate for other reasons (no executive experience, appears to be a simply unpleasant person). I'm very disappointed in the 2016 field and it gives me a lot of trepidation. I have nobody to hold up and say "this person has the answer." But that doesn't justify pretending that Hillary Clinton was a successful Secretary of State.
Careful dramaman, there's no room for nuance on the internet :-)
If you go back and read the thread, I merely countered your own initial reply in which you claimed that her foreign policy experience was that of failure. I have offered several examples of her successes. Some of those examples you have even agreed were successes. Thus, we should both agree that her foreign policy experience is associated with failures AND successes. The degree of which one way or the other is an argument that I really don't want to wade into and probably neither of us are really qualified to make.
In addition, I have repeated that in terms of judging her as a candidate for President in the area of foreign policy, one needs to judge her in relation to the other candidates, their foreign policy experiences and positions. That fact that you can't find a candidate that you actually like, does NOT invalidate that comparison and my own conclusion that Clinton is one of the best among the candidates, and probably THE best among the likely nominees, in terms of foreign policy experience and positions, particularly for a person who is a non-interventionist.
Thus even though you seem to not like Clinton, she is possibly the best of a bad set of alternatives.
Thus, we should both agree that her foreign policy experience is associated with failures AND successes. The degree of which one way or the other is an argument that I really don't want to wade into and probably neither of us are really qualified to make.
Thus, we should both agree that her foreign policy experience is associated with failures AND successes. The degree of which one way or the other is an argument that I really don't want to wade into and probably neither of us are really qualified to make.
There is no point to this conversation, then. I hope you're right about Clinton, because I'm pretty sure she'll be President. I'm not looking forward to it.
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.
Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point?
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg,
Dan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is).
Elon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.ROFL, the GOP is not going to follow a liberal.
Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point? Just a feeling, but there seems to be so much discontent around our menu of candidates that it wouldn't surprise me if either:
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
b) Someone nationally recognized and generally well-respected appears out of the woodwork and mobilizes a tactically effective campaign. People with the resources to do this might be someone like: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Dan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is). Not that any of these people are necessarily even interested in participating in the shitstorm of US politics, just food for thought. Elon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.
With the way information and ideas can spread with the advent of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, a protracted but intense campaign near the critical election dates might be able to sway voters. Our system has been analyzed to death from so many different angles that someone may believe they have figured out an alternate path to winning votes.
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
Why, Bernie seems popular.a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.
Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
Why, Bernie seems popular.a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.
Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
Eh, this seems a repeat of Obama, the GOP leadership did not like him running either. The dems were fine with supporting him.Why, Bernie seems popular.a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.
Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
I am not saying that he is not popular, or he does not have a legitimate shot. But if you look at the way the establishment democrats have set up the race so far it is to get Hillary elected. Bernie has the grass roots support and is more of a fringe candidate and he frightens the establishment. Much like Trump (not comparing them on stances or as people, but the situation is similar of a fringe candidate having success) on the republican side. He has crazy grass roots backing but the Republican establishment is hoping he crashes and burns and are horrified at the thought of him actually being the nominee.
Eh, this seems a repeat of Obama, the GOP leadership did not like him running either. The dems were fine with supporting him.Why, Bernie seems popular.a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.
Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
I am not saying that he is not popular, or he does not have a legitimate shot. But if you look at the way the establishment democrats have set up the race so far it is to get Hillary elected. Bernie has the grass roots support and is more of a fringe candidate and he frightens the establishment. Much like Trump (not comparing them on stances or as people, but the situation is similar of a fringe candidate having success) on the republican side. He has crazy grass roots backing but the Republican establishment is hoping he crashes and burns and are horrified at the thought of him actually being the nominee.
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.
Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point?
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.
Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point?
No. Or at least, not unless there's a brokered convention. There's not enough time for someone not currently in the race to win enough primaries.QuoteBill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg,
Neither of these have any interest or qualifications.QuoteDan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is).
Who? Someone without substantial national name recognition has no shot without a full campaign.QuoteElon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.
No. Business-people do not make the jump to President without substantial government experience. See Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and Herman Cain.
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
It's "Democratic," not "Democrat." "Democratic" is an adjective. "Democrat" is a noun. Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
It's "Democratic," not "Democrat." "Democratic" is an adjective. "Democrat" is a noun. Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.ROFL, the GOP is not going to follow a liberal.
Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point? Just a feeling, but there seems to be so much discontent around our menu of candidates that it wouldn't surprise me if either:
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
b) Someone nationally recognized and generally well-respected appears out of the woodwork and mobilizes a tactically effective campaign. People with the resources to do this might be someone like: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Dan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is). Not that any of these people are necessarily even interested in participating in the shitstorm of US politics, just food for thought. Elon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.
With the way information and ideas can spread with the advent of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, a protracted but intense campaign near the critical election dates might be able to sway voters. Our system has been analyzed to death from so many different angles that someone may believe they have figured out an alternate path to winning votes.
They wanted her against Obama, but he had the grass roots working for him. Dems want to win, if we have to go with an old liberal white man, oh well. No one is going to try to "fix" it, they are going to say ok and try to win. NNU (nurses union) endorsed Sanders and they really like to win. Why should the Dems not vote for him?Eh, this seems a repeat of Obama, the GOP leadership did not like him running either. The dems were fine with supporting him.Why, Bernie seems popular.a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.
Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
I am not saying that he is not popular, or he does not have a legitimate shot. But if you look at the way the establishment democrats have set up the race so far it is to get Hillary elected. Bernie has the grass roots support and is more of a fringe candidate and he frightens the establishment. Much like Trump (not comparing them on stances or as people, but the situation is similar of a fringe candidate having success) on the republican side. He has crazy grass roots backing but the Republican establishment is hoping he crashes and burns and are horrified at the thought of him actually being the nominee.
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee? My point was the democrat establishment has it in the bag for Hillary. And if she cannot win by some crazy happening I think they would scramble to prop someone else up over Bernie.
I did not say establishment and Trump is appealing to the GOP base not because of his money but because of his bigotry.I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.ROFL, the GOP is not going to follow a liberal.
Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point? Just a feeling, but there seems to be so much discontent around our menu of candidates that it wouldn't surprise me if either:
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
b) Someone nationally recognized and generally well-respected appears out of the woodwork and mobilizes a tactically effective campaign. People with the resources to do this might be someone like: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Dan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is). Not that any of these people are necessarily even interested in participating in the shitstorm of US politics, just food for thought. Elon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.
With the way information and ideas can spread with the advent of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, a protracted but intense campaign near the critical election dates might be able to sway voters. Our system has been analyzed to death from so many different angles that someone may believe they have figured out an alternate path to winning votes.
The GOP follows the money, though. But more to my point, Trump right now is showing that when one has enough individual clout, it becomes increasingly irrelevant what the GOP establishment would "go for", especially if one chose not to align with a party in the first place.
They wanted her against Obama, but he had the grass roots working for him. Dems want to win, if we have to go with an old liberal white man, oh well. No one is going to try to "fix" it, they are going to say ok and try to win. NNU (nurses union) endorsed Sanders and they really like to win. Why should the Dems not vote for him?Eh, this seems a repeat of Obama, the GOP leadership did not like him running either. The dems were fine with supporting him.Why, Bernie seems popular.a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
While this is compelling I have a hard time believing adding to an already cluttered Republican field would help thin the herd and unite the base around someone. However, I could absolutely see this happening on the Democrat side. If for some reason the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton turns up something crazy enough to severely damage her chance of winning her party's nomination I think there would be a massive effort by the Democrat establishment to prop someone up besides Bernie. With O'Malley's inability to catch on at this point in the race they would have to bring someone fresh in. Be it Al Gore, John Kerry, maybe even Warren or someone I haven't thought of yet.
Either way every day that goes by it is increasingly less likely due to all the groundwork that has to be done to get on the Ballot in each primary state.
I am not saying that he is not popular, or he does not have a legitimate shot. But if you look at the way the establishment democrats have set up the race so far it is to get Hillary elected. Bernie has the grass roots support and is more of a fringe candidate and he frightens the establishment. Much like Trump (not comparing them on stances or as people, but the situation is similar of a fringe candidate having success) on the republican side. He has crazy grass roots backing but the Republican establishment is hoping he crashes and burns and are horrified at the thought of him actually being the nominee.
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee? My point was the democrat establishment has it in the bag for Hillary. And if she cannot win by some crazy happening I think they would scramble to prop someone else up over Bernie.
I did not say establishment and Trump is appealing to the GOP base not because of his money but because of his bigotry.I've finally caught up reading this thread. You all make fair points, there are certainly downsides to each of the options we currently have.ROFL, the GOP is not going to follow a liberal.
Anyone think the person who might ultimately be president could not even be in the race at this point? Just a feeling, but there seems to be so much discontent around our menu of candidates that it wouldn't surprise me if either:
a) the Republicans eschew (a toxic, yet poll-leading) Trump and somehow draft Mitt Romney or another moderate out of retirement to run down the center. Everyone already knows who he is, and he's got the resources and party establishment backing to quickly overtake everyone else.
b) Someone nationally recognized and generally well-respected appears out of the woodwork and mobilizes a tactically effective campaign. People with the resources to do this might be someone like: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Dan Gilbert (Midwesterners may know him well enough to give him leverage in Iowa), or even Bill McRaven (would win a LOT of respect quickly, once people learn who he is). Not that any of these people are necessarily even interested in participating in the shitstorm of US politics, just food for thought. Elon Musk would probably have a really good shot if he were eligible.
With the way information and ideas can spread with the advent of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, a protracted but intense campaign near the critical election dates might be able to sway voters. Our system has been analyzed to death from so many different angles that someone may believe they have figured out an alternate path to winning votes.
The GOP follows the money, though. But more to my point, Trump right now is showing that when one has enough individual clout, it becomes increasingly irrelevant what the GOP establishment would "go for", especially if one chose not to align with a party in the first place.
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
It's "Democratic," not "Democrat." "Democratic" is an adjective. "Democrat" is a noun. Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
Why is it a slur? I hear "Democrat" and don't think of anything other than the DNC. What connotations does it have to you?
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
It's "Democratic," not "Democrat." "Democratic" is an adjective. "Democrat" is a noun. Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
I think we may be talking about different things. I am talking about the party nominee. There will be a nominee for the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
It's "Democratic," not "Democrat." "Democratic" is an adjective. "Democrat" is a noun. Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
I think we may be talking about different things. I am talking about the party nominee. There will be a nominee for the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.
No. It is "The Democratic Party." Not "The Democrat Party."
A person can be "a Democrat", or a member (or supporter) of the Democratic Party. Or, a Democratic nominee.
Why is it a slur? I hear "Democrat" and don't think of anything other than the DNC. What connotations does it have to you?
It has historically been used as a slur by conservatives, as a derogatory way to refer to Democratic ideas and positions. Its used in this way has really ramped up since about the middle of the last decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
It's "Democratic," not "Democrat." "Democratic" is an adjective. "Democrat" is a noun. Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
Why is it a slur? I hear "Democrat" and don't think of anything other than the DNC. What connotations does it have to you?
It has historically been used as a slur by conservatives, as a derogatory way to refer to Democratic ideas and positions. Its used in this way has really ramped up since about the middle of the last decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
The GOP follows the money, though. But more to my point, Trump right now is showing that when one has enough individual clout, it becomes increasingly irrelevant what the GOP establishment would "go for", especially if one chose not to align with a party in the first place.
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
It's "Democratic," not "Democrat." "Democratic" is an adjective. "Democrat" is a noun. Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
Why is it a slur? I hear "Democrat" and don't think of anything other than the DNC. What connotations does it have to you?
It has historically been used as a slur by conservatives, as a derogatory way to refer to Democratic ideas and positions. Its used in this way has really ramped up since about the middle of the last decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
I've never in my short life heard about Democrat being used negatively. Socialist yes. Libtard, yes. Liberal? A little bit. Democrat? No, never that's a first.
Well it's all semantics anyway. Sanders is popularizing the word "socialist" taking the negative connotation out. Much like other words.
There's a difference between blacks calling each other the N word in conversation and a non-black calling someone an N word. And probably w/malice too. It's not just words that matter, it's delivery. Like when Jeremy Lin came on scene, and jokes were made using "chink in the armor" I don't think it was made w/malice and quite a few Asians weren't offended at all. Some were, most didn't care.
Changing a word's connotation can help shape elections so it's kinda important.
The GOP follows the money, though. But more to my point, Trump right now is showing that when one has enough individual clout, it becomes increasingly irrelevant what the GOP establishment would "go for", especially if one chose not to align with a party in the first place.
Please, the everyone follows the $$. Even Mustachians.
Have you ever listened into a hearing, and then combed through FEC.gov to look at the donations they receive? And why they take certain positions?
The one I followed was PBM anti-competitiveness. It was amazing but eye-opening to see it all. How money explained the divisions, even amongst people in the same party. And how politicans can take a position that may be contradictory to their party platform.
This is why I don't trust any of the candidates or news media unless you take a good look at the money. It was disgusting and absolutely undemocratic.
The only person I could trust 100% to represent American people and not corporations is Elizabeth Warren. Her donors are almost entirely small donors and so many. As opposed to all the rest. Sanders is okay and Hillary isn't too bad but Hillary has no control on spending habits like 100K for Executive Fliteways.
If you look at their disbursements, they are hardly mustachian but some are interesting. I've looked at Congressmen and they like Capital Grille or fancy club restaurants. Carson spends a lot on traveling back to FL, which I later found is where he lives. Strangely he spends a lot on some small printing business in PA to do his posters and stuff. I bet if you look at the individual contributions you might find the owners there too.
If you look through FEC, you'll realize they're all charlatans and none are really interested in the people. The closest who are free from big money and influence are Sanders and especially Warren.
What does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
It's "Democratic," not "Democrat." "Democratic" is an adjective. "Democrat" is a noun. Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
I think we may be talking about different things. I am talking about the party nominee. There will be a nominee for the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.
No. It is "The Democratic Party." Not "The Democrat Party."
A person can be "a Democrat", or a member (or supporter) of the Democratic Party. Or, a Democratic nominee.
Forgive my ignorance (I mean this sincerely), I have honestly never heard anyone get offended over this discrepancy until just now and I live in the liberal bastion of the West Coast. Still I think my reasoning in my argument rings true if you replace Democrat with Democratic.
I am totally going to derail this thread right nowWhat does the GOP leadership have to do with who wins the Democrat nominee?
It's "Democratic," not "Democrat." "Democratic" is an adjective. "Democrat" is a noun. Despite the Republicans' concerted effort for the past five years or so to make "Democrat" into a slur by using it in place of the adjective.
I think we may be talking about different things. I am talking about the party nominee. There will be a nominee for the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.
No. It is "The Democratic Party." Not "The Democrat Party."
A person can be "a Democrat", or a member (or supporter) of the Democratic Party. Or, a Democratic nominee.
Forgive my ignorance (I mean this sincerely), I have honestly never heard anyone get offended over this discrepancy until just now and I live in the liberal bastion of the West Coast. Still I think my reasoning in my argument rings true if you replace Democrat with Democratic.
No worries. It could well be because you live in a liberal bastion that you aren't aware of it. I wasn't taking issue with your argument, only the use.
As to others who are saying one can "choose" to be offended or dismissing it... back in the day, one could certainly also choose to be offended by "fag" or other words used to denigrate others, as well. The fact is, though, that they were meant as epithets. And this usage of Democrat was designed to be a slyly denigrating term by the conservative establishment. So, yeah, it's not something that keeps me awake at night, but it is something that was done on purpose by the Republican party, to insert a level of insult when those politicians were referring to their colleagues across the aisle. That is true, whether you care or not, or whether you ever noticed it. It was designed to be that way. It just happens to be the case that the word "Republican" and the word "conservative" are the same in noun and adjective forms, so it's not as easy to do that in the other direction.
I am totally going to derail this thread right now
Speaking of epithets to denigrate certain groups of people, I have always wondered this and figure you would be the perfect person to ask based on this conversation thus far because it has been respectful and you taught me something new. Regardless of stating why this groups ideology is right or wrong, when it comes to people that consider themselves "Tea Party" members I have always wondered why people on the left call them "teabaggers".
While only one member needs to be male in the act of teabagging, usually the context is used to reference two if not multiple males which would make it a reference to homosexuality for the most part. Is it used in the context that calling someone homosexual is a negative trait? Doesn't that sound odd coming from the left that is the primary driver of lgbt rights? Or is it used just because it would piss them off even more because many oppose lgbt rights?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/anderson-cooper-its-hard_n_187318.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/anderson-cooper-its-hard_n_187318.html) Video clip of Anderson Cooper who is gay using the term as derogatory towards them for reference.
I think, instead, the act of teabagging is more to express dominance over another person. It's aggressive and invasive and it submits the recipient to an unwanted gesture of a sexual nature.
I think, instead, the act of teabagging is more to express dominance over another person. It's aggressive and invasive and it submits the recipient to an unwanted gesture of a sexual nature.
Interesting take, but in that context wouldn't it be saying that Tea Party members are dominant? Or are you saying that is essentially calling them out as bullies?
I think, instead, the act of teabagging is more to express dominance over another person. It's aggressive and invasive and it submits the recipient to an unwanted gesture of a sexual nature.
Interesting take, but in that context wouldn't it be saying that Tea Party members are dominant? Or are you saying that is essentially calling them out as bullies?
But you have made me curious enough to try to find the origin of this insult.
But you have made me curious enough to try to find the origin of this insult.
If you find anything, please share!
But you have made me curious enough to try to find the origin of this insult.
If you find anything, please share!
Hmmm. It looks as though there is some evidence that it came from the Tea Party itself. It seems as though they might not have known what the term meant, and then after they realized it tried to scrub the term.
http://aattp.org/the-tea-party-actually-did-call-themselves-teabagger/
These are my personal thoughts attempting to make a legitimate criticism about each of the presidential candidates left on the stage. Feel free to address my criticisms and tell me why I am wrong, or add your own.
Democrats:
Hillary Clinton: Age (68) which could lead to some health issues. Her cozy relationship with Wall-Street may be a liability in the primaries, which seems to be a major rift between her and Sanders. The e-mail "scandal" may turn something up that actually damages her politically. Her last name (people don't want a "Dynasty").
Bernie Sanders: Age (74) which could lead to some health issues. Identifying as a Democratic Socialist. When asked at the debate what the tax rate would have to be on wealthy American's to fund the programs he wants to implement he said " it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 90 percent". Not having a Super Pac, or receiving large donations could be a problem further down the road. He is also attempting to become commander in chief of the military which he deemed himself a conscientious objector when it came to personally serving.
Martin O'Malley: Name recognition, with only 4 debates left (one on a Saturday, and one on a Sunday of a long weekend) he does not have much more opportunity to get his name out there on the national stage.
Republicans:
Jeb Bush: Family name along with poor debate performances thus far. In general I think he comes off as awkward and is out shined by many in the current field. I think he is going to have major money issues moving forward and will eventually have to concede.
Ben Carson: While he is hot in the polls currently I think his lack of political knowledge in setting up a ground game or field operations in the primary states is going to hurt him. He has also made some strange comments, I am sure more are to come. However, he did a good job brushing it off in the last debate.
Chris Christie: His personality may have been strong prior to the race, but Donald Trump's ascent to the top of the polls essentially edges him out as the candidate that says what is directly on his mind. In addition the "bridgegate" scandal and his acceptance of Obama's federal help during the Hurricane hurt his standing as a conservative.
Ted Cruz: His main following is made up of the very far right. While that certainly will fly in a few of the primary states, when it comes to a general election you need someone that can "pivot" themselves as a more centrist candidate. He also has a terrible track record of "reaching across the aisle" with his main accomplishments being stopping legislation from happening.
Carly Fiorina: Her business record keeps coming back up, along with two lackluster debates.
Jim Gilmore: Who?
Lindsey Graham: Presents himself as a hawk amongst hawks in the GOP field, I don't think I have heard him talk about anything policy-wise besides going to war.
Mike Huckabee: This is incredibly biased and not substantive but I have an image seared into my head of this fat jolly man jumping across the fox tv screen trying to be "hip" playing a guitar. He says some very strange things at times, overall I do not believe he is very presidential.
Bobby Jindal: No need to explain.
John Kasich: While he is very centrist and could appeal to a larger base of moderates, it is the die hards that come out to vote in the primaries. I think this will destroy his candidacy.
George Pataki: Name recognition and current polling trends.
Rand Paul: His appeal is stretched between a few candidates that are outshining him. His attempt to re-brand the republican party as more libertarian and "isolationist" will be his downfall.
Marco Rubio: His personal finances, if he cannot handle his own... how can he be expected to handle the country as a whole?
Donald Trump: His comments about shutting mosques down, building a giant wall and kicking every illegal immigrant out, etc. Also in general just being a huge asshole.
I was running off the top of my head, there were so many I just picked the first few. :)These are my personal thoughts attempting to make a legitimate criticism about each of the presidential candidates left on the stage. Feel free to address my criticisms and tell me why I am wrong, or add your own.
Democrats:
Hillary Clinton: Age (68) which could lead to some health issues. Her cozy relationship with Wall-Street may be a liability in the primaries, which seems to be a major rift between her and Sanders. The e-mail "scandal" may turn something up that actually damages her politically. Her last name (people don't want a "Dynasty").
Bernie Sanders: Age (74) which could lead to some health issues. Identifying as a Democratic Socialist. When asked at the debate what the tax rate would have to be on wealthy American's to fund the programs he wants to implement he said " it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 90 percent". Not having a Super Pac, or receiving large donations could be a problem further down the road. He is also attempting to become commander in chief of the military which he deemed himself a conscientious objector when it came to personally serving.
Martin O'Malley: Name recognition, with only 4 debates left (one on a Saturday, and one on a Sunday of a long weekend) he does not have much more opportunity to get his name out there on the national stage.
Republicans:
Jeb Bush: Family name along with poor debate performances thus far. In general I think he comes off as awkward and is out shined by many in the current field. I think he is going to have major money issues moving forward and will eventually have to concede.
Ben Carson: While he is hot in the polls currently I think his lack of political knowledge in setting up a ground game or field operations in the primary states is going to hurt him. He has also made some strange comments, I am sure more are to come. However, he did a good job brushing it off in the last debate.
Chris Christie: His personality may have been strong prior to the race, but Donald Trump's ascent to the top of the polls essentially edges him out as the candidate that says what is directly on his mind. In addition the "bridgegate" scandal and his acceptance of Obama's federal help during the Hurricane hurt his standing as a conservative.
Ted Cruz: His main following is made up of the very far right. While that certainly will fly in a few of the primary states, when it comes to a general election you need someone that can "pivot" themselves as a more centrist candidate. He also has a terrible track record of "reaching across the aisle" with his main accomplishments being stopping legislation from happening.
Carly Fiorina: Her business record keeps coming back up, along with two lackluster debates.
Jim Gilmore: Who?
Lindsey Graham: Presents himself as a hawk amongst hawks in the GOP field, I don't think I have heard him talk about anything policy-wise besides going to war.
Mike Huckabee: This is incredibly biased and not substantive but I have an image seared into my head of this fat jolly man jumping across the fox tv screen trying to be "hip" playing a guitar. He says some very strange things at times, overall I do not believe he is very presidential.
Bobby Jindal: No need to explain.
John Kasich: While he is very centrist and could appeal to a larger base of moderates, it is the die hards that come out to vote in the primaries. I think this will destroy his candidacy.
George Pataki: Name recognition and current polling trends.
Rand Paul: His appeal is stretched between a few candidates that are outshining him. His attempt to re-brand the republican party as more libertarian and "isolationist" will be his downfall.
Marco Rubio: His personal finances, if he cannot handle his own... how can he be expected to handle the country as a whole?
Donald Trump: His comments about shutting mosques down, building a giant wall and kicking every illegal immigrant out, etc. Also in general just being a huge asshole.
Interesting that you point out Clinton's age as a negative, but not Trump's age.
Speaking of epithets to denigrate certain groups of people, I have always wondered this and figure you would be the perfect person to ask based on this conversation thus far because it has been respectful and you taught me something new. Regardless of stating why this groups ideology is right or wrong, when it comes to people that consider themselves "Tea Party" members I have always wondered why people on the left call them "teabaggers".
Speaking of epithets to denigrate certain groups of people, I have always wondered this and figure you would be the perfect person to ask based on this conversation thus far because it has been respectful and you taught me something new. Regardless of stating why this groups ideology is right or wrong, when it comes to people that consider themselves "Tea Party" members I have always wondered why people on the left call them "teabaggers".
As I recall, in the early days of the Tea Party, that was their self-applied moniker. Some of them even showed up to their rallies with tea bags stapled to their tricorn hats. Eventually they figured out that it also has sexual connotations and stopped doing it, but the name lived on among those who thought it was funny.
They all suck. Wouldn't trust any of 'em. But that's the nature of politics. Triangulating your moves to affect other things that affect other things in mysterious ways to achieve your goal.If I could be president, I would want like 6-8 years to study up before taking the job, you need to know a lot about foreign affairs. You also need to know how everything works and why it works that way, and if it should change. If you want to change something, you need to think about all the effects it could have and then think of the optimal way to change it. I think there should be a vast study on each major policy and it should specify, what is currently in place, what will change, what the major differences, possible negative effects, and how it will affect everyone. I don't think people like Trump, Fiorina or Carson have enough experience, they need to spend 6-8 years studying too, maybe while holding a much lower level political position.
I remember McCain's age being a factor, surprised it's not discussed in the media as much (guess maybe some bias) but Clinton is a woman and women live longer so if I'm voting, I'm not as worried about her. Sanders maybe. I mean do 70 year olds have the energy for president? Obama has gotten so gray. It really takes a toll on you.
There are a lot of Mustachians I'd rather see president than any up for election. Maybe cause I share more similar values.
If you could be president, what would be your platform?
They all suck. Wouldn't trust any of 'em. But that's the nature of politics. Triangulating your moves to affect other things that affect other things in mysterious ways to achieve your goal.If I could be president, I would want like 6-8 years to study up before taking the job, you need to know a lot about foreign affairs. You also need to know how everything works and why it works that way, and if it should change. If you want to change something, you need to think about all the effects it could have and then think of the optimal way to change it. I think there should be a vast study on each major policy and it should specify, what is currently in place, what will change, what the major differences, possible negative effects, and how it will affect everyone. I don't think people like Trump, Fiorina or Carson have enough experience, they need to spend 6-8 years studying too, maybe while holding a much lower level political position.
I remember McCain's age being a factor, surprised it's not discussed in the media as much (guess maybe some bias) but Clinton is a woman and women live longer so if I'm voting, I'm not as worried about her. Sanders maybe. I mean do 70 year olds have the energy for president? Obama has gotten so gray. It really takes a toll on you.
There are a lot of Mustachians I'd rather see president than any up for election. Maybe cause I share more similar values.
If you could be president, what would be your platform?
I generally have voted republican, but if Trump wins I am moving to Europe (Canada not being far enough away from his insanity).
I like that new yorker article, it was great. He may have learned to be a great neurosurgeon, but learning up on foreign policy is a bit different.... There are a lot of unreported things that you have to know as well, as usually the news just spits out the things that will get the most viewers.They all suck. Wouldn't trust any of 'em. But that's the nature of politics. Triangulating your moves to affect other things that affect other things in mysterious ways to achieve your goal.If I could be president, I would want like 6-8 years to study up before taking the job, you need to know a lot about foreign affairs. You also need to know how everything works and why it works that way, and if it should change. If you want to change something, you need to think about all the effects it could have and then think of the optimal way to change it. I think there should be a vast study on each major policy and it should specify, what is currently in place, what will change, what the major differences, possible negative effects, and how it will affect everyone. I don't think people like Trump, Fiorina or Carson have enough experience, they need to spend 6-8 years studying too, maybe while holding a much lower level political position.
I remember McCain's age being a factor, surprised it's not discussed in the media as much (guess maybe some bias) but Clinton is a woman and women live longer so if I'm voting, I'm not as worried about her. Sanders maybe. I mean do 70 year olds have the energy for president? Obama has gotten so gray. It really takes a toll on you.
There are a lot of Mustachians I'd rather see president than any up for election. Maybe cause I share more similar values.
If you could be president, what would be your platform?
Kind of reminds me of this:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/carson-announces-detailed-plan-to-google-syria
But back on serious mode: yes to the above. The appeal of people who are unqualified for the job is mind boggling to me. Experience in diplomacy and foreign relations is pretty important for a job description where those responsibilities are specifically written into the Constitution (Article 2).
I generally have voted republican, but if Trump wins I am moving to Europe (Canada not being far enough away from his insanity).
You, fine sir, are a voice of reason:-) I am not of your political ilk, but am so frustrated by what I have heard coming out of Trump's mouth just this very day I am apoplectic. I live in Iowa and we're constantly being bugged this time of year by party activists. The truth is, I'm unenthused... period. I have issues with Sanders (age, temperament, experience, too far left), Hillary (establishment)... which leaves O'Malley (who is likely to get FEW delegates).
I just wish both parties would tone down the rhetoric. We're reaching the boiling point very quickly.
I generally have voted republican, but if Trump wins I am moving to Europe (Canada not being far enough away from his insanity).
You, fine sir, are a voice of reason:-) I am not of your political ilk, but am so frustrated by what I have heard coming out of Trump's mouth just this very day I am apoplectic. I live in Iowa and we're constantly being bugged this time of year by party activists. The truth is, I'm unenthused... period. I have issues with Sanders (age, temperament, experience, too far left), Hillary (establishment)... which leaves O'Malley (who is likely to get FEW delegates).
I just wish both parties would tone down the rhetoric. We're reaching the boiling point very quickly.
While it is said every election cycle I think it may actually ring true for once to have the "Most important election of our lifetime" and "the dirtiest smear campaign ever". If Trump gets is the Republican nominee.
If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
Speaking of hatred of the other party...If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
I agree. Not to mention, if they simply decide to nominate someone else, that will make it easier for them to just jump over the very difficult work that they NEED to do of actually figuring out how to become a decent, non-insane party with actual policies instead of social and racial dog-whistles and hatred of the other party as the only ways to attract their voters.
In other words, they need to figure out how to mop up the giant, steaming pile of a mess that they have created over the past (insert number of) years and then proceeded to step in.
Speaking of hatred of the other party...If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
I agree. Not to mention, if they simply decide to nominate someone else, that will make it easier for them to just jump over the very difficult work that they NEED to do of actually figuring out how to become a decent, non-insane party with actual policies instead of social and racial dog-whistles and hatred of the other party as the only ways to attract their voters.
In other words, they need to figure out how to mop up the giant, steaming pile of a mess that they have created over the past (insert number of) years and then proceeded to step in.
Speaking of hatred of the other party...If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
I agree. Not to mention, if they simply decide to nominate someone else, that will make it easier for them to just jump over the very difficult work that they NEED to do of actually figuring out how to become a decent, non-insane party with actual policies instead of social and racial dog-whistles and hatred of the other party as the only ways to attract their voters.
In other words, they need to figure out how to mop up the giant, steaming pile of a mess that they have created over the past (insert number of) years and then proceeded to step in.
... not sure if that was directed at me or at Kris, but I certainly do not hate the republican party. I think overall changes in which party controls both the legislature and the presidency are good things, and conversely a single party controlling one branch for a decade+ can be detrimental to democracy. I would be very tempted to vote for a republican candidate this time around if there were a more moderate version available. A McCain (sans Palin) or Romney would probably get my vote this time around if only because I think 'more-of-the-same' from Hillary wouldn't be as constructive.Speaking of hatred of the other party...If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
I agree. Not to mention, if they simply decide to nominate someone else, that will make it easier for them to just jump over the very difficult work that they NEED to do of actually figuring out how to become a decent, non-insane party with actual policies instead of social and racial dog-whistles and hatred of the other party as the only ways to attract their voters.
In other words, they need to figure out how to mop up the giant, steaming pile of a mess that they have created over the past (insert number of) years and then proceeded to step in.
Speaking of hatred of the other party...If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
I agree. Not to mention, if they simply decide to nominate someone else, that will make it easier for them to just jump over the very difficult work that they NEED to do of actually figuring out how to become a decent, non-insane party with actual policies instead of social and racial dog-whistles and hatred of the other party as the only ways to attract their voters.
In other words, they need to figure out how to mop up the giant, steaming pile of a mess that they have created over the past (insert number of) years and then proceeded to step in.
... not sure if that was directed at me or at Kris, but I certainly do not hate the republican party. I think overall changes in which party controls both the legislature and the presidency are good things, and conversely a single party controlling one branch for a decade+ can be detrimental to democracy. I would be very tempted to vote for a republican candidate this time around if there were a more moderate version available. A McCain (sans Palin) or Romney would probably get my vote this time around if only because I think 'more-of-the-same' from Hillary wouldn't be as constructive.Speaking of hatred of the other party...If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
I agree. Not to mention, if they simply decide to nominate someone else, that will make it easier for them to just jump over the very difficult work that they NEED to do of actually figuring out how to become a decent, non-insane party with actual policies instead of social and racial dog-whistles and hatred of the other party as the only ways to attract their voters.
In other words, they need to figure out how to mop up the giant, steaming pile of a mess that they have created over the past (insert number of) years and then proceeded to step in.
Speaking of hatred of the other party...If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
I agree. Not to mention, if they simply decide to nominate someone else, that will make it easier for them to just jump over the very difficult work that they NEED to do of actually figuring out how to become a decent, non-insane party with actual policies instead of social and racial dog-whistles and hatred of the other party as the only ways to attract their voters.
In other words, they need to figure out how to mop up the giant, steaming pile of a mess that they have created over the past (insert number of) years and then proceeded to step in.
"The other party", as if there were only one. ;-) We have a whole spectrum of options out there, choose your flavor.
To be fair to Kris here, I think "Republican" in her neck of the woods is more or less synonymous with "Scott Walker", not exactly the standard-bearer of the party and a figure who has been particularly divisive. (see: recall elections and the whole 9 yards...)
[snip]yeah, I actually lived in Mass when Romney was a governor, and while I didn't agree with everything, he did reasonably well leading a blue-leaning state. My objection to him in '08 was how far to the right he tried to tack in order to pander to the 'wingnuts' as you call them. Sadly, I think that's what our primary system has done. In order to survive through "Super Tuesday" you have to be pretty far off center, which ultimately hurts how many in the middle or fro the other party will support you. I'm speaking specifically about the GOP, but the Democrats also have a similar problem.
Ditto, nereo. We have some experience with Romney up here in MA and overall, I'd say he did a pretty good job as our governor. Very much a moderate Republican, although with the way these primaries seem to work he might not make it through without selling the farm pandering to the wingnuts.
The way I read what you said, you were talking about the republican party and not Trump. I think Trump is an asshole and don't want him to get the nomination, I'm hoping Rand Paul gets it. Anyhow anyone that calls a party a non-decent, insane party with social and racial dog whistles and hatred of the other party instead of policies, and then say they don't hate that party, is pretty crazy to me. But you know, 90% of you are dems so what's the point in me speaking upSpeaking of hatred of the other party...If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
I agree. Not to mention, if they simply decide to nominate someone else, that will make it easier for them to just jump over the very difficult work that they NEED to do of actually figuring out how to become a decent, non-insane party with actual policies instead of social and racial dog-whistles and hatred of the other party as the only ways to attract their voters.
In other words, they need to figure out how to mop up the giant, steaming pile of a mess that they have created over the past (insert number of) years and then proceeded to step in.
Ugh. Dude, it is not hatred of the other party. It is recognition that Donald Trump did not emerge fully-formed from the head of Zeus. Even the Republican Party realizes that Trump is a monster, and many of them will publicly or privately admit that he is in some ways the logical "conclusion" of policies and positions that they have used to polarize the country and drive hatred for Obama. Believe me, I would much prefer to have two functioning parties.
I am prefacing this because I do not want an answer from someone completely determined, at least not without good evidence, to not vote for these candidates. I am traditional in a social/religions way and vote republican/libertarian. Hoping rand would get the nod, (I don't think he is some sort of savior, just the best candidate) but that is not going to happen, which has led me to analyze what would be the next best thing for a Presidential candidate. I have come up with one that is less of a war hawk...Trump or Cruz, ug.
How much of what Trump says is just bluster and how much does he actually believe this is necessary? I mean if he were somehow elected would he actually submit a bill to Congress to shut down mosques and create a muslim immigrant data-base? I want to doubt he would carry through with some of the things he says, for example when he says; Mexico does not send their best. He is clearly insensitive, but what does that mean really, policy wise? My point is he says things outlandishly to get big crowds and build support but what do people think he will really do? If he is really bent on doing some of the things he says or implies he could be the worse "thing" to happen to the United States, ever. I guess my point is he can have Congress shoot down these things and just say "I tried" and leave it at that.
Cruz has some weird moments, lots of praying on camera(I pray just not in front of cameras) and standing with Kim Davis(even the people who agree with the sentiment don't agree with the tactic) but I wonder how much of this stuff really means policy change.
I keep trying to be open minded and the thing I keep coming back to is staying out of foreign conflicts, which makes these my two highest choice for the moment. So what are the worse things these candidates could actually do, either with Congress or unilaterally, that we should be concerned over.
Would Consider Bernie too; since it will be politically divided branches of gov't, and he might be the best candidate at respecting personal liberty.
Not trying to get into a political fight, just want honest opinions at the forums of MMM of what to do in a bad situation.
But you know, 90% of you are dems so what's the point in me speaking up
In order to survive through "Super Tuesday" you have to be pretty far off center, which ultimately hurts how many in the middle or fro the other party will support you. I'm speaking specifically about the GOP, but the Democrats also have a similar problem.
How much of what Trump says is just bluster and how much does he actually believe this is necessary? I mean if he were somehow elected would he actually submit a bill to Congress to shut down mosques and create a muslim immigrant data-base? I want to doubt he would carry through with some of the things he says, for example when he says; Mexico does not send their best. He is clearly insensitive, but what does that mean really, policy wise? My point is he says things outlandishly to get big crowds and build support but what do people think he will really do? If he is really bent on doing some of the things he says or implies he could be the worse "thing" to happen to the United States, ever. I guess my point is he can have Congress shoot down these things and just say "I tried" and leave it at that.
Would Consider Bernie too; since it will be politically divided branches of gov't, and he might be the best candidate at respecting personal liberty.
And again, I repeat, I have had conversations with a number of Republican friends about this, who have said to me that they are so demoralized by the slate that they don't know what to do. Anyone who looks like they have a sliver of hope getting the nomination is someone they feel they cannot vote for, and they are so frustrated by the whole situation that they are considering sitting it out entirely. Rand Paul… well, one, he's more libertarian than Republican, right? And two, he doesn't have a prayer anyway. The Republicans I talk with don't see him as an option because they know they won't get the chance to vote for him in the generals. So before you continue dismissing the "90 percent of dems," recognize that I have said more than once some Republicans I know are feeling the same way.
I am prefacing this because I do not want an answer from someone completely determined, at least not without good evidence, to not vote for these candidates. I am traditional in a social/religions way and vote republican/libertarian. Hoping rand would get the nod, (I don't think he is some sort of savior, just the best candidate) but that is not going to happen, which has led me to analyze what would be the next best thing for a Presidential candidate. I have come up with one that is less of a war hawk...Trump or Cruz, ug.
How much of what Trump says is just bluster and how much does he actually believe this is necessary? I mean if he were somehow elected would he actually submit a bill to Congress to shut down mosques and create a muslim immigrant data-base? I want to doubt he would carry through with some of the things he says, for example when he says; Mexico does not send their best. He is clearly insensitive, but what does that mean really, policy wise? My point is he says things outlandishly to get big crowds and build support but what do people think he will really do? If he is really bent on doing some of the things he says or implies he could be the worse "thing" to happen to the United States, ever. I guess my point is he can have Congress shoot down these things and just say "I tried" and leave it at that.
Cruz has some weird moments, lots of praying on camera(I pray just not in front of cameras) and standing with Kim Davis(even the people who agree with the sentiment don't agree with the tactic) but I wonder how much of this stuff really means policy change.
I keep trying to be open minded and the thing I keep coming back to is staying out of foreign conflicts, which makes these my two highest choice for the moment. So what are the worse things these candidates could actually do, either with Congress or unilaterally, that we should be concerned over.
Would Consider Bernie too; since it will be politically divided branches of gov't, and he might be the best candidate at respecting personal liberty.
Not trying to get into a political fight, just want honest opinions at the forums of MMM of what to do in a bad situation.
Is that what you want out of a leader for your party? Someone who just does things to get big crowds? Is that what we value in leadership these days, a Macy's Day Parade of PR rather than someone/something that's worth following?
And even if that's a yes then is that what you truly want that leader to try to do? Do you want them to craft legislation that reflects discrimination in order for it to get shot down? If so WTF?!
I am prefacing this because I do not want an answer from someone completely determined, at least not without good evidence, to not vote for these candidates. I am traditional in a social/religions way and vote republican/libertarian. Hoping rand would get the nod, (I don't think he is some sort of savior, just the best candidate) but that is not going to happen, which has led me to analyze what would be the next best thing for a Presidential candidate. I have come up with one that is less of a war hawk...Trump or Cruz, ug.
How much of what Trump says is just bluster and how much does he actually believe this is necessary? I mean if he were somehow elected would he actually submit a bill to Congress to shut down mosques and create a muslim immigrant data-base? I want to doubt he would carry through with some of the things he says, for example when he says; Mexico does not send their best. He is clearly insensitive, but what does that mean really, policy wise? My point is he says things outlandishly to get big crowds and build support but what do people think he will really do? If he is really bent on doing some of the things he says or implies he could be the worse "thing" to happen to the United States, ever. I guess my point is he can have Congress shoot down these things and just say "I tried" and leave it at that.
Cruz has some weird moments, lots of praying on camera(I pray just not in front of cameras) and standing with Kim Davis(even the people who agree with the sentiment don't agree with the tactic) but I wonder how much of this stuff really means policy change.
I keep trying to be open minded and the thing I keep coming back to is staying out of foreign conflicts, which makes these my two highest choice for the moment. So what are the worse things these candidates could actually do, either with Congress or unilaterally, that we should be concerned over.
Would Consider Bernie too; since it will be politically divided branches of gov't, and he might be the best candidate at respecting personal liberty.
Not trying to get into a political fight, just want honest opinions at the forums of MMM of what to do in a bad situation.
Is that what you want out of a leader for your party? Someone who just does things to get big crowds? Is that what we value in leadership these days, a Macy's Day Parade of PR rather than someone/something that's worth following?
And even if that's a yes then is that what you truly want that leader to try to do? Do you want them to craft legislation that reflects discrimination in order for it to get shot down? If so WTF?!
first off read the last line, "what to do in a bad situation"
second, they all pander to get the biggest crowds/poll numbers so nothing new there.
Third, they all make promises they know they don't have to keep, at least the ones who win do.
Yes, trump is awful, but step back and ask yourself who is really better? Seriously, who is better(in the moral/not destroy our liberties/run us into debt and over the cliff) that actually has a shot at winning? They are all scum, I am just wondering if there is anything that could be gleamed from this, like not going into another war or whatever.
As i see this unfolding I believe we could have a Trump or Cruz that is hated by their party and nothing gets done, not so bad. Or Rubio, where we have 500k troops in Syria, Iraq and Iran. What is your choice?
Do I like the lack of gravity of our political process or substantive policy proposals? Absolutely not!
As i see this unfolding I believe we could have a Trump or Cruz that is hated by their party and nothing gets done, not so bad. Or Rubio, where we have 500k troops in Syria, Iraq and Iran. What is your choice?
I am prefacing this because I do not want an answer from someone completely determined, at least not without good evidence, to not vote for these candidates. I am traditional in a social/religions way and vote republican/libertarian. Hoping rand would get the nod, (I don't think he is some sort of savior, just the best candidate) but that is not going to happen, which has led me to analyze what would be the next best thing for a Presidential candidate. I have come up with one that is less of a war hawk...Trump or Cruz, ug.
How much of what Trump says is just bluster and how much does he actually believe this is necessary? I mean if he were somehow elected would he actually submit a bill to Congress to shut down mosques and create a muslim immigrant data-base? I want to doubt he would carry through with some of the things he says, for example when he says; Mexico does not send their best. He is clearly insensitive, but what does that mean really, policy wise? My point is he says things outlandishly to get big crowds and build support but what do people think he will really do? If he is really bent on doing some of the things he says or implies he could be the worse "thing" to happen to the United States, ever. I guess my point is he can have Congress shoot down these things and just say "I tried" and leave it at that.
Cruz has some weird moments, lots of praying on camera(I pray just not in front of cameras) and standing with Kim Davis(even the people who agree with the sentiment don't agree with the tactic) but I wonder how much of this stuff really means policy change.
I keep trying to be open minded and the thing I keep coming back to is staying out of foreign conflicts, which makes these my two highest choice for the moment. So what are the worse things these candidates could actually do, either with Congress or unilaterally, that we should be concerned over.
Would Consider Bernie too; since it will be politically divided branches of gov't, and he might be the best candidate at respecting personal liberty.
Not trying to get into a political fight, just want honest opinions at the forums of MMM of what to do in a bad situation.
Is that what you want out of a leader for your party? Someone who just does things to get big crowds? Is that what we value in leadership these days, a Macy's Day Parade of PR rather than someone/something that's worth following?
And even if that's a yes then is that what you truly want that leader to try to do? Do you want them to craft legislation that reflects discrimination in order for it to get shot down? If so WTF?!
first off read the last line, "what to do in a bad situation"
second, they all pander to get the biggest crowds/poll numbers so nothing new there.
Third, they all make promises they know they don't have to keep, at least the ones who win do.
Yes, trump is awful, but step back and ask yourself who is really better? Seriously, who is better(in the moral/not destroy our liberties/run us into debt and over the cliff) that actually has a shot at winning? They are all scum, I am just wondering if there is anything that could be gleamed from this, like not going into another war or whatever.
As i see this unfolding I believe we could have a Trump or Cruz that is hated by their party and nothing gets done, not so bad. Or Rubio, where we have 500k troops in Syria, Iraq and Iran. What is your choice?
Do I like the lack of gravity of our political process or substantive policy proposals? Absolutely not!
So to you Trump is the on the side of lesser of evils?
That's why I lean Bernie ;)QuoteAs i see this unfolding I believe we could have a Trump or Cruz that is hated by their party and nothing gets done, not so bad. Or Rubio, where we have 500k troops in Syria, Iraq and Iran. What is your choice?
So . . . a broken government paralyzed by terrible leadership and infighting is your ideal? That's actually what you're aiming for?
Like, I'm pretty cynical and all . . . but sheeeeeeiiiiiiiittt.
How much of what Trump says is just bluster and how much does he actually believe this is necessary?
How much of what Trump says is just bluster and how much does he actually believe this is necessary?
The scariest thing about the rise of a demagogue in a democratic society is what it reveals about the populace that allows it. The parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric--whether he means it or not--and modern historical atrocities are not hyperboles, yet he continues to be the leading Republican candidate. There are dark things afoot here.
So to you Trump is the on the side of lesser of evils?
No, perhaps the most evil.
I think he will be the least effective. While he is fighting Congress about a Muslim data-base or whatever next crazy thing he comes up with he would also not start a nuclear war with Russia. I remember watching him on Larry King in the late 90s, he is very moderate, in some ways. Assuming things do not escalate and are basically the same, internationally, a year from now I think he would be one of the least likely to go to war.
FWIW, if the election was today between Trump and Bernie, i lean bernie.
My mother's side of the family is from New York, and I vividly remember asking my mother what a 'blowhard' was after my aunt was talking about Trump. When this first started I wondered whether this wasn't just a clever ploy to elevate the Trump "brand" and allow him to leverage his name in business and television for years to come. I gave up on this idea once I saw him developing a very large, dedicated ground campaign in Iowa, Nevada and SC. Even if he didn't believe it to start, there are thousands of volunteers and dozens of staffers who do.So to you Trump is the on the side of lesser of evils?
No, perhaps the most evil.
I think he will be the least effective. While he is fighting Congress about a Muslim data-base or whatever next crazy thing he comes up with he would also not start a nuclear war with Russia. I remember watching him on Larry King in the late 90s, he is very moderate, in some ways. Assuming things do not escalate and are basically the same, internationally, a year from now I think he would be one of the least likely to go to war.
FWIW, if the election was today between Trump and Bernie, i lean bernie.
That reminds me of something I was thinking about regarding Trump earlier: I've heard that he used to be pretty darn liberal, which makes me think he might be putting on a completely false persona now. I genuinely wonder if his candidacy isn't some sort of massive prank -- maybe he's planning to win the Republican nomination, then withdraw from the race the day before the general election or something. You've got to admit, he's been behaving more like a 4chan troll than a President, after all!
It's probably wishful thinking, though.
How much of what Trump says is just bluster and how much does he actually believe this is necessary?
The scariest thing about the rise of a demagogue in a democratic society is what it reveals about the populace that allows it. The parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric--whether he means it or not--and modern historical atrocities are not hyperboles, yet he continues to be the leading Republican candidate. There are dark things afoot here.
That reminds me of something I was thinking about regarding Trump earlier: I've heard that he used to be pretty darn liberal, which makes me think he might be putting on a completely false persona now. I genuinely wonder if his candidacy isn't some sort of massive prank -- maybe he's planning to win the Republican nomination, then withdraw from the race the day before the general election or something. You've got to admit, he's been behaving more like a 4chan troll than a President, after all!
It's probably wishful thinking, though.
So to you Trump is the on the side of lesser of evils?
No, perhaps the most evil.
I think he will be the least effective. While he is fighting Congress about a Muslim data-base or whatever next crazy thing he comes up with he would also not start a nuclear war with Russia. I remember watching him on Larry King in the late 90s, he is very moderate, in some ways. Assuming things do not escalate and are basically the same, internationally, a year from now I think he would be one of the least likely to go to war.
FWIW, if the election was today between Trump and Bernie, i lean bernie.
That reminds me of something I was thinking about regarding Trump earlier: I've heard that he used to be pretty darn liberal, which makes me think he might be putting on a completely false persona now. I genuinely wonder if his candidacy isn't some sort of massive prank -- maybe he's planning to win the Republican nomination, then withdraw from the race the day before the general election or something. You've got to admit, he's been behaving more like a 4chan troll than a President, after all!
It's probably wishful thinking, though.
That reminds me of something I was thinking about regarding Trump earlier: I've heard that he used to be pretty darn liberal, which makes me think he might be putting on a completely false persona now. I genuinely wonder if his candidacy isn't some sort of massive prank -- maybe he's planning to win the Republican nomination, then withdraw from the race the day before the general election or something. You've got to admit, he's been behaving more like a 4chan troll than a President, after all!
It's probably wishful thinking, though.
I thought the same thing because I find his views so jaw-dropping, surely he can't seriously believe the venom he is spouting?
Rand Paul is definitely a different kind of republican and doesn't have much of a shot... But my point was merely that you bashed Republicans very harshly and one of the reason you were bashing them is because they bash democrats, it just didn't make sense to me, nor did the rest of what you said. I agree that Donald Trump is an asshole and Carson and Fiorina is a joke, I don't like Rubio or Cruz either, but none of that makes what you said make sense. When we had a poll on the forums, I think there were 50% votes for sanders, about 25% for Clinton, and maybe 10 more for other dems, therefore almost 90% of mustachians that identify politically probably identify themselves as democrats.But you know, 90% of you are dems so what's the point in me speaking up
Lol. I think you might protest too much.
On a local/state level, I think there are still Republicans who are reasonable and responsible people. The replacement of Michele Bachmann in Minnesota, Tom Emmer is one example. He seems to have realized that her particular brand of crazy wasn't the way to go, moving forward, and that's a bit of a relief. But on the presidential level this time around, it seems as though a good number of the candidates have decided that the only way to get elected is to try to out-Trump Trump. Carson and Cruz come to mind immediately, but it doesn't seem that they can outdo him. Things are bad enough that most of the candidates are to afraid to contradict him on even his most egregious statements -- which makes them seem pretty much as crazy as he is. Unfortunately, the effect is to make the entire slate look a little nuts.
And again, I repeat, I have had conversations with a number of Republican friends about this, who have said to me that they are so demoralized by the slate that they don't know what to do. Anyone who looks like they have a sliver of hope getting the nomination is someone they feel they cannot vote for, and they are so frustrated by the whole situation that they are considering sitting it out entirely. Rand Paul… well, one, he's more libertarian than Republican, right? And two, he doesn't have a prayer anyway. The Republicans I talk with don't see him as an option because they know they won't get the chance to vote for him in the generals. So before you continue dismissing the "90 percent of dems," recognize that I have said more than once some Republicans I know are feeling the same way.
But my point was merely that you bashed Republicans very harshly and one of the reason you were bashing them is because they bash democrats.But you know, 90% of you are dems so what's the point in me speaking up
Lol. I think you might protest too much.
On a local/state level, I think there are still Republicans who are reasonable and responsible people. The replacement of Michele Bachmann in Minnesota, Tom Emmer is one example. He seems to have realized that her particular brand of crazy wasn't the way to go, moving forward, and that's a bit of a relief. But on the presidential level this time around, it seems as though a good number of the candidates have decided that the only way to get elected is to try to out-Trump Trump. Carson and Cruz come to mind immediately, but it doesn't seem that they can outdo him. Things are bad enough that most of the candidates are to afraid to contradict him on even his most egregious statements -- which makes them seem pretty much as crazy as he is. Unfortunately, the effect is to make the entire slate look a little nuts.
And again, I repeat, I have had conversations with a number of Republican friends about this, who have said to me that they are so demoralized by the slate that they don't know what to do. Anyone who looks like they have a sliver of hope getting the nomination is someone they feel they cannot vote for, and they are so frustrated by the whole situation that they are considering sitting it out entirely. Rand Paul… well, one, he's more libertarian than Republican, right? And two, he doesn't have a prayer anyway. The Republicans I talk with don't see him as an option because they know they won't get the chance to vote for him in the generals. So before you continue dismissing the "90 percent of dems," recognize that I have said more than once some Republicans I know are feeling the same way.
... Republican party ...refuse to discuss sensible solutions to mass violence because they are too worried about losing the Tea Party vote to do the right thing...Never going to happen. Do not concern yourself with it whether you very much want it to or very much do not want it to. FWIW, Democrats would never do it either, even if they did do something it would only be to sure up the base nothing dramatic that would actually have even a negligible effect. I say all this assuming you are speaking of some form of gun control and not ISIS or something.
If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
If Trump is the leader going into the convention, I can't imagine the Republican Party actually letting him get the nomination. It would be a crazy, brokered, horse-trading convention like the old days.
but imagine the alternative... If Trump wins the nomination and the Republican Party decide to instead nominate someone else, it will invalidate the entire primary election to begin with. If the establishment is worried that they've lost the trust of everyday republicans, imagine how people would feel when they were told that all of their votes were immaterial. They might never get those voters back... and those are the energized core of the GOP right now.
No--- much as I'd hate to see Trump get the nomination, I think the Republicans would be far better off rolling the dice and hoping he gets slaughtered in the general election and drifts back into obscurity (or at least back to Reality TV).
If he wins.... well ... that's still just one branch of government. Lord help and hope that Ryan, McCarthy, Pelosi McConnell and Reid don't just bend to Trump's will.
Well holy-smokes.... according to the WaPo, there was a meeting today among GOP leaders to discuss what would happen should Trump either get the nomination or have a large percentage of the votes. I *still* can't imagine the party not nominating whomever gets the most delegates, but at least they're talking about it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-preparing-for-contested-convention/2015/12/10/d72574bc-9f73-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-preparing-for-contested-convention/2015/12/10/d72574bc-9f73-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html)
A move like this would really kill the party. I am a registered Republican and would be upset it they would decide to chose someone other than who wins the nomination as the nominee (even if it is Trump who I will not vote for and think is a bad choice.) The GOP already has the image of being made up of angry, old white men, this would absolutely ruin any trust in the party that is left and why would someone join a party they cannot trust? To me this would be the type of "government overreach" the GOP is constantly saying they are opposed to.
Yeah, it reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once: Government for the people, by the people and of the people.... except when people are being stupid, and then we'll just tell them what to do.
A move like this would really kill the party. I am a registered Republican and would be upset it they would decide to chose someone other than who wins the nomination as the nominee (even if it is Trump who I will not vote for and think is a bad choice.) The GOP already has the image of being made up of angry, old white men, this would absolutely ruin any trust in the party that is left and why would someone join a party they cannot trust? To me this would be the type of "government overreach" the GOP is constantly saying they are opposed to.
Yeah, it reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once: Government for the people, by the people and of the people.... except when people are being stupid, and then we'll just tell them what to do.
A move like this would really kill the party. I am a registered Republican and would be upset it they would decide to chose someone other than who wins the nomination as the nominee (even if it is Trump who I will not vote for and think is a bad choice.) The GOP already has the image of being made up of angry, old white men, this would absolutely ruin any trust in the party that is left and why would someone join a party they cannot trust? To me this would be the type of "government overreach" the GOP is constantly saying they are opposed to.
Yeah, it reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once: Government for the people, by the people and of the people.... except when people are being stupid, and then we'll just tell them what to do.
Isn't that why the Electoral College exists?
A move like this would really kill the party. I am a registered Republican and would be upset it they would decide to chose someone other than who wins the nomination as the nominee (even if it is Trump who I will not vote for and think is a bad choice.) The GOP already has the image of being made up of angry, old white men, this would absolutely ruin any trust in the party that is left and why would someone join a party they cannot trust? To me this would be the type of "government overreach" the GOP is constantly saying they are opposed to.
Yeah, it reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once: Government for the people, by the people and of the people.... except when people are being stupid, and then we'll just tell them what to do.
Isn't that why the Electoral College exists?
Yes, and also why Senators were initially chosen by state legislatures instead of directly elected (IMO, the 17th Amendment was a mistake).
Yes, and also why Senators were initially chosen by state legislatures instead of directly elected (IMO, the 17th Amendment was a mistake).
Yes, and also why Senators were initially chosen by state legislatures instead of directly elected (IMO, the 17th Amendment was a mistake).
+1
I am slowly coming around to that same opinion.
Heh, yes those are examples of how the U.S. was founded on the principal that the elites didn't trust the unwashed masses with pure democracy. Personally I'm happy that in practice the EC was never used for that purpose and that the 17th Amendment was passed. Once the EC is rid of altogether, I'll be even happier.
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.
The other thing people don't realize when they think "democracy is good, so direct election must be better, right?" Is that, by having the Senators elected by the state legislatures, citizens were forced to care who their state reps were. The problem with the 17th Amendment was not so much that it turned Senate elections into base popularity contests, but rather that it skewed the balance of power away from the individual states and towards the Federal government.
Right now, a big chunk of those "unwashed masses" are cheering for Trump. That's the best example I'll ever need of the dangers of a democracy that's too "pure!"Quote from: Marvin Simkin, L.A. Times journalistDemocracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights
The other thing people don't realize when they think "democracy is good, so direct election must be better, right?" Is that, by having the Senators elected by the state legislatures, citizens were forced to care who their state reps were. The problem with the 17th Amendment was not so much that it turned Senate elections into base popularity contests, but rather that it skewed the balance of power away from the individual states and towards the Federal government.
Yeah, the old system of letting Senate seats be part of some elaborate horse trading system was SOOO much more enlightened and produced SOOO much better results than letting the people choose for themselves. Frankly I much prefer my senators being directly accountable to me as a voter, states rights be damned.Right now, a big chunk of those "unwashed masses" are cheering for Trump. That's the best example I'll ever need of the dangers of a democracy that's too "pure!"Quote from: Marvin Simkin, L.A. Times journalistDemocracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights
I'm no Trump supporter, but... Oh Please! I don't know how anyone can look at our system and complain that we have a democracy that is too "pure". If anything, people complain that elites still control too much. The problem isn't democracy. The problem is the GOP has spent years encouraging their base to be angry, fearful and paranoid and are now reaping what they've sown in a candidate who has mastered the technique and is not under their thumb.
And don't you think its time that silly, tired, old wolf-lamb hyperbole was put out to pasture? It proves absolutely nothing, other than that Simkin was clever. If a democracy is two wolves and a lamb, then let's take the analogy to other forms of government...
A Republic is two wolves and lamb electing a wolf to decide dinner.
A Dictatorship is a wolf forcing the lamb to accept whats for dinner.
A Monarchy is a wolf ordained by god to declare what's for dinner.
An Oligarchy is a group of wolves...
A Theocracy is a religion of wolves...
QuoteAs i see this unfolding I believe we could have a Trump or Cruz that is hated by their party and nothing gets done, not so bad. Or Rubio, where we have 500k troops in Syria, Iraq and Iran. What is your choice?
So . . . a broken government paralyzed by terrible leadership and infighting is your ideal? That's actually what you're aiming for?
Like, I'm pretty cynical and all . . . but sheeeeeeiiiiiiiittt.
https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?language=en
If only Lessig could've run...or Warren.
I've tracked money donations to candidates and Congressmen on FEC and watched hearings. It was clear that money, districts, explained their positions. All politicians are bought and known.
I have to give credit, if there's any candidate out there that's most like a Mustachian, it's Trump, given how little he's spent, wealth built, and success in polling, I've got to say that's impressive. And I think he's helping to change how elections operate a bit.
I think we're also being too critical of Trump. I remember reading in an article where he was asked about his rhetoric. He said he first had to win the primary. If you don't win the primary, you have no chance. You have to clear the first hurdle before moving to the next. If Trump did become the Republican candidate, his rhetoric would change. So I don't believe he means everything he says.
Look at his past runs. The Trump pre-2015 feels a lot different than the Trump I knew. And isn't he less of a religious zealot compared to other Republicans? He's not hell-bent on Crusading for Christ like the others. I think a lot more liberals who switched to Trump were afraid of religious crazies more than applying the law to illegals (and breaking the law on Muslims). Trump himself knows he has to be "crazy" to get the publicity and support to stay in the game. And Trump's words gave "freedom" to many of his supports who felt the same way, but couldn't say it because of political correctness. And it has gone too far in some cases like safe spaces. He also ran before and knows if he did the same strategy before, he'd lose. So he had to do something different which is saying stuff far-out.
If Trump makes it to general election, he might lose many core supporters who were religious, but he also gained a lot of converts. And the flip-flopping makes me think his Presidency will be different than his campaign. I mean come on, look at every President, have they delivered on everything they said they would? Trump knows if you want to be President, you have to do what it takes to clear each hurdle. Polls matter. Like in soccer, you can play beautiful and well but results and winning matters in the end.
Yeah, the old system of letting Senate seats be part of some elaborate horse trading system was SOOO much more enlightened and produced SOOO much better results than letting the people choose for themselves. Frankly I much prefer my senators being directly accountable to me as a voter, states rights be damned.
...
Oh Please! I don't know how anyone can look at our system and complain that we have a democracy that is too "pure". If anything, people complain that elites still control too much.
If only Lessig could've run...or Warren.
A candidate making blatantly racist statements....
Also, he seems to have a hard time understanding the 1st amendment....
A candidate making blatantly racist statements....
Also, he seems to have a hard time understanding the 1st amendment....
There is plenty not to like about Trump, but he does seem to understand the 1st amendment well enough: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That freedom of speech thing can be tough to swallow when one disagrees with what is being said, but so it goes.
I think a law banning Muslims from entering the country runs pretty counter to this amendment.This may belong in Ripley's Believe It Or Not, but actually such a law not only wouldn't violate the 1st amendment, it already exists - not to ban Muslims at this time, but giving whoever is President the authority to do so.
When a candidate's public statements, reiterated and supported repeatedly, are so reprehensible that it mobilizes people in other countries to have them symbolically banned from entering their country, it might be a red flag that they should not be president. Especially when that country is a close and trusted ally. The petition had 548,444 signatures last I looked, which is nearing 1% of the full population of the UK (64.1 million). That is not trivial.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003
It wouldn't be just a symbolic ban, though, if it happens. The UK government can and does ban people from entering the country for making these kinds of comments. Of course, there's no way that they will ban Trump. There's a longstanding convention of our government not commenting on elections in other countries, but every party leader has condemned what Trump said and because of the numbers involved with the petition, they are now legally obliged to debate a ban in parliament.Sorry to hear that US politics is causing the UK parliament to debate this. I would hope they have better things to do....
Boris Johnson, the right-wing Mayor of London and probably the favorite to be our next prime minister said that the comments make Trump "unfit to hold the office of President" which could make it interesting if they're both at NATO or UN meetings in a couple of years time.Eh, "politics makes strange bedfellows." As Abe said, "lack of principles and willingness to say anything for votes...is pretty much every politician." I think some politicians really do dislike each other, but for many it's not personal, just business.
I think a law banning Muslims from entering the country runs pretty counter to this amendment.This may belong in Ripley's Believe It Or Not, but actually such a law not only wouldn't violate the 1st amendment, it already exists - not to ban Muslims at this time, but giving whoever is President the authority to do so.
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182, including "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Once someone comes into the country, then constitutional protections apply.
But Trump has said that he would even ban legal residents/citizens on holiday from coming back in. Surely that can ot be constitutional.Agreed - don't know any basis to justify that.
But Trump has said that he would even ban legal residents/citizens on holiday from coming back in. Surely that can ot be constitutional.Agreed - don't know any basis to justify that.
I think the "class of aliens" law cited above was directly primarily at Communists during the Cold War (there is a specific reference to Communism in a different paragraph), but for better or worse it is still on the books.
I thought this was part of the alien and sedition acts that ended in like 1800, which ended John Adams political career and the federalist political party. It's crazy that something like this still exists.I think a law banning Muslims from entering the country runs pretty counter to this amendment.This may belong in Ripley's Believe It Or Not, but actually such a law not only wouldn't violate the 1st amendment, it already exists - not to ban Muslims at this time, but giving whoever is President the authority to do so.
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182, including "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Once someone comes into the country, then constitutional protections apply.
So we should really care about those perceptions/biases.But Trump has said that he would even ban legal residents/citizens on holiday from coming back in. Surely that can ot be constitutional.Agreed - don't know any basis to justify that.
I think the "class of aliens" law cited above was directly primarily at Communists during the Cold War (there is a specific reference to Communism in a different paragraph), but for better or worse it is still on the books.
Not just on the books but was used by President Carter. To me the law makes sense as, in my belief, the President needs to be concerned about the safety and welfare of the citizens before those of non-citizens. Unfortunately the application is subject to the perceptions/biases of the President.
I thought this was part of the alien and sedition acts that ended in like 1800, which ended John Adams political career and the federalist political party. It's crazy that something like this still exists.
This may belong in Ripley's Believe It Or Not, but actually such a law not only wouldn't violate the 1st amendment, it already exists - not to ban Muslims at this time, but giving whoever is President the authority to do so.
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182, including "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Once someone comes into the country, then constitutional protections apply.
The U.S. had camps on the west coast filled withasiansJapanese during WW2, the camps weren't quite as bad as the concentration camps in Germany like Auschwitz... But it was still messed up that we had them.
The U.S. had camps on the west coast filled withasiansJapanese during WW2, the camps weren't quite as bad as the concentration camps in Germany like Auschwitz... But it was still messed up that we had them.
(I could be wrong about this, but I think most of the other Asian countries were on the Allied side and thus immigrants from them weren't interned.)
I'm really surprised we haven't heard folks like George Takei (who isn't just Sulu from Star Trek, but is also a politician who grew up in an internment camp) protesting that Trump's ideas are "internment 2.0."
He has. I have seen it on his facebook page.The U.S. had camps on the west coast filled withasiansJapanese during WW2, the camps weren't quite as bad as the concentration camps in Germany like Auschwitz... But it was still messed up that we had them.
(I could be wrong about this, but I think most of the other Asian countries were on the Allied side and thus immigrants from them weren't interned.)
I'm really surprised we haven't heard folks like George Takei (who isn't just Sulu from Star Trek, but is also a politician who grew up in an internment camp) protesting that Trump's ideas are "internment 2.0."
I'm sure he has commented in some manner, feel free to dig through his twitter feed.
The U.S. had camps on the west coast filled withasians JapaneseUS Citizens during WW2, the camps weren't quite as bad as the concentration camps in Germany like Auschwitz... But it was still messed up that we had them.
I am currently watching the under-card "kid table" debate right now. This is coming from someone that is a Republican but this is what I have seen thus far.
Huckabee: We can conduct surveillance on all Muslims and it is not infringing upon their rights, because if they are such a peaceful religion they should welcome us there and hope we convert. (wtf?)
Santorum: Islam is bad, it is a government system not a religion so they should not have constitutional rights (wtf?)
Lindsey Graham: WAR WITH EVERYONE! I know what I am talking about cause I was in the military.
Pitaki: Does anyone know who I am?
I am currently watching the under-card "kid table" debate right now. This is coming from someone that is a Republican but this is what I have seen thus far.
Huckabee: We can conduct surveillance on all Muslims and it is not infringing upon their rights, because if they are such a peaceful religion they should welcome us there and hope we convert. (wtf?)
Santorum: Islam is bad, it is a government system not a religion so they should not have constitutional rights (wtf?)
Lindsey Graham: WAR WITH EVERYONE! I know what I am talking about cause I was in the military.
Pitaki: Does anyone know who I am?
Sigh.
Yeah, I can't bring myself to watch the kiddie debate, but I will be watching the big kids' go at it. I am positive I will need to drink for this.
I am currently watching the under-card "kid table" debate right now. This is coming from someone that is a Republican but this is what I have seen thus far.
Huckabee: We can conduct surveillance on all Muslims and it is not infringing upon their rights, because if they are such a peaceful religion they should welcome us there and hope we convert. (wtf?)
Santorum: Islam is bad, it is a government system not a religion so they should not have constitutional rights (wtf?)
Lindsey Graham: WAR WITH EVERYONE! I know what I am talking about cause I was in the military.
Pitaki: Does anyone know who I am?
Sigh.
Yeah, I can't bring myself to watch the kiddie debate, but I will be watching the big kids' go at it. I am positive I will need to drink for this.
My tradition for every debate (D or R) is take out sushi and a giant beer (usually an IPA). Not mustachian but it only happens every 4 years so I give myself a pass because I enjoy it so much. I could not listen any longer to the kiddie table though. Just tuned out.
Good tradition. We have been popping popcorn, literally.
Conspiracy theory time, inspired by a news grab I just saw 5 minutes ago about another silly line from the Don.
Is the whole trump thing a ploy by the GOP to put up someone so objectionable and ridiculous to get the populace shit-scared and worried and so conditioned that by the time the primaries begin, and their real candidate (whoever that may be) turns up, who is slightly less objectionable but no less a gun-toting, pro-life, raging-defend-the-faith conservative, their real candidate looks brilliant compared to what could have been and swinging voters will look at him/her and say "hey, he doesn't look like that other right wing basket case, I might vote for the GOP this time"?
haha, that's a mouthful to read... sorry folks.
As a note, the war hawk thing I don't really consider to be a conservative credential; see Hillary or most in the democratic party for that matter(I know that what they want to do is "no boots on the ground" or "soft power" but at the end of the day they still want to mettle).
Yes it would be, lol, at least on the Dem side. Many Dems find Pres. Obama too conservative.As a note, the war hawk thing I don't really consider to be a conservative credential; see Hillary or most in the democratic party for that matter(I know that what they want to do is "no boots on the ground" or "soft power" but at the end of the day they still want to mettle).
Interesting comment, to me, as a non-American. Our views on US presidents tend to be formed based on economic & foreign policy only. Many prominent commentators in Europe see (Bill) Clinton as your last good president, which I'm sure won't be echoed by many people in the US itself.
This is based on his reduction of US deficit and the long period of economic growth during his 2 terms, but also succesfully keeping the US out of large-scale, ineffective military action, while still managing to bring US influence to bear on sorting out several ongoing conflicts (e.g. Haiti, Bosnia, Northern Ireland.) Very much talk softly but carry a large stick approach.You could argue that he could have done more in Rwanda, but then in hindsight, so could other world leaders.
So it's interesting that 20 years on, both parties are relatively hawkish.
Yes, with that it would be Bush or Obama, whether reluctantly or not, have been "warring" presidents. So if looking at the last three presidents I would agree.Yes it would be, lol, at least on the Dem side. Many Dems find Pres. Obama too conservative.As a note, the war hawk thing I don't really consider to be a conservative credential; see Hillary or most in the democratic party for that matter(I know that what they want to do is "no boots on the ground" or "soft power" but at the end of the day they still want to mettle).
Interesting comment, to me, as a non-American. Our views on US presidents tend to be formed based on economic & foreign policy only. Many prominent commentators in Europe see (Bill) Clinton as your last good president, which I'm sure won't be echoed by many people in the US itself.
This is based on his reduction of US deficit and the long period of economic growth during his 2 terms, but also succesfully keeping the US out of large-scale, ineffective military action, while still managing to bring US influence to bear on sorting out several ongoing conflicts (e.g. Haiti, Bosnia, Northern Ireland.) Very much talk softly but carry a large stick approach.You could argue that he could have done more in Rwanda, but then in hindsight, so could other world leaders.
So it's interesting that 20 years on, both parties are relatively hawkish.
Except for Trump--you better cough up good, you poofy-haired bastard.
Dear Republican Candidates:As much as I would like to see a Republican president who supported womens rights, gay rights, etc. I personally don't think they would be electable. Many republicans are very religious and will not vote for a candidate just because they support womens rights. Sure they will get some votes and make a lot of people happy, and they might even slowly start to move republicans to the left on some social issues, but they will almost certainly not get the nomination. If they somehow got the nomination I think they would have a slightly better chance at winning the presidency as a lot of times the more central candidates have a slight edge, but it's just that I don't think they could become the GOP candidate
I, MandalayVA, humbly offer my services to you as a campaign advisor.
You know how you see those ads on the internet like "one weird trick to lose belly fat" or "one simple rule to lower your car insurance"?
Well, what if I told you there was one simple way to ensure that you will be the next president of the United States? Really, just one little thing you would need to do that will have millions upon millions of voters standing in line on Election Day frothing at the mouth to cast their precious votes for you, totally not kidding.
Come closer and I'll whisper it to you:
Support a woman's right to choose.
You don't have to like it. Just support it. And mean it. No lip service, no bait and switch.
If you choose to take my advice, I do expect to be compensated according to your means, as I am not greedy. Except for Trump--you better cough up good, you poofy-haired bastard.
Sincerely,
MandalayVA
Support a woman's right to choose.
I thought from the beginning the only legitimate chance Bernie would have is if the FBI investigation regarding Hillary's emails turned up something huge. Something I thought was highly unlikely. This just hit the news today (front page of drudge, however I have never heard of the publication Lifezette and do not know how reputable they are) Clinton instructed an aide to remove the classification marking from information, a federal offense. http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/ (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/)
What say you? Will this actually catch on and give Bernie a shot? Or will the Right get super into the story while the Left blows it off and most moderates of either party shrug their shoulders and ask about more important issues?
I thought from the beginning the only legitimate chance Bernie would have is if the FBI investigation regarding Hillary's emails turned up something huge. Something I thought was highly unlikely. This just hit the news today (front page of drudge, however I have never heard of the publication Lifezette and do not know how reputable they are) Clinton instructed an aide to remove the classification marking from information, a federal offense. http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/ (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/smoking-gun-email-suggests-hillary-committed-a-crime/)
What say you? Will this actually catch on and give Bernie a shot? Or will the Right get super into the story while the Left blows it off and most moderates of either party shrug their shoulders and ask about more important issues?
That's Laura Ingraham's personally made news site. About as unbiased as breitbart.
my legitimate criticism here is that we need to shuffle up our entire primary system if we ever want to select presidential candidates that are agreeable to one party yet still tolerable to the opposing party.
...republicans have masterfully exploited this system since NixonDole, McCain, and Romney might disagree, or I might have misunderstood the point...?
my legitimate criticism here is that we need to shuffle up our entire primary system if we ever want to select presidential candidates that are agreeable to one party yet still tolerable to the opposing party.
I agree that the entire primary system makes no sense. Why do some states get all the electoral power by being early while others with more people get ignored? Why isn't this process just randomized every year, or put on a fixed rotating schedule? I don't care what the order is, you could alphabetize then and then skip ahead three places every year for all I care, as long as every state eventually gets to decide. Fuck Iowa and New Hampshire, why are they so special.
No criticism really, only a note that this field - on both sides - is seriously appalling. Is this the most pathetic presidential field ever produced? Or am I just getting increasingly cynical?
I know for a fact I'm getting increasingly cynical, but I also agree it's a pathetic field...
As for your suggestion that we might choose a candidate who is agreeable to both parties, that's not how America was set up. Our electoral system is deliberately confrontational. There are lots of other fair ways to choose presidents that maximize everyone's happiness, but we choose the system that is guaranteed to disappoint a majority of people the most instead. The republicans have masterfully exploited this system since Nixon, and Trump is just all those chickens coming home to roost. Congratulations on reaping what ye have sown.
agree with you guys.
Democrats are just trying to ram Clinton down our throats
I think she is as corrupt and evil as a politican can be
and Sanders...the guy brags about being a socialist.
I'm a limited government fiscally conservative type guy...I'm not going to vote for someone that wants to increase spending by 17 trillion over the next decade...
and I especially don't want to get socked by the tax increased that will accompany that.
Democrats lately also disgust me in their support of illegal aliens trying to pander to them for the hispanic vote.
If we were being invaded by millions of illegal white European immigrants I'd be saying send them out too
every other country boots their illegals out...we put ours on welfare and let them stay.
I find myself agreeing with quite a bit of what Trump says...
agree with you guys.
Democrats are just trying to ram Clinton down our throats
Ram? She'll either get a majority of the votes or she won't. She hasn't even won a primary yet, that hardly feels like ramming.
I think she is as corrupt and evil as a politican can be
That's a bold statement. Maybe exaggerated a bit? Do you really think she's more evil than Pol Pot? More evil than Stalin? I can think lots of politicians I think are way more evil than Hillary Clinton.
and Sanders...the guy brags about being a socialist.
The guy brags about being a socialist because he recognizes that effective governance requires accepting good ideas no matter where they come from. Obama adopted Republican's version of health care and pushed for it, even though the idea came from his political opposition. GHW Bush signed the START treaties. Try not to let the labels scare you too much. They tend to interfere with critical thinking.
I'm a limited government fiscally conservative type guy...I'm not going to vote for someone that wants to increase spending by 17 trillion over the next decade...
Did you vote for George W Bush?
and I especially don't want to get socked by the tax increased that will accompany that.
What kind of tax increase do you think that will be? Higher than we had under Bill Clinton in the late 1990s? Higher than we had under Eisenhower in the 1950s?
Democrats lately also disgust me in their support of illegal aliens trying to pander to them for the hispanic vote.
I don't think it's "pandering" to say "not all Mexican immigrants are drug dealers and rapists" but maybe you do. What else have you seen that you consider pandering, and how is it different from voter outreach to other groups? Say farmers, or Wall St, or senior citizens?
If we were being invaded by millions of illegal white European immigrants I'd be saying send them out too
When did your family arrive in America? Where your ancestors despised Italian immigrants, or maybe despised Irish immigrants? Poles? Jews? Pilgrims? Man, if only the Native Americans had done a better job of enforcing their borders...
every other country boots their illegals out...we put ours on welfare and let them stay.
You're clearly very confused about the state of the world, so let's see if I can clear these up for you.
1. The US deports more people than any other country in the world.
2. Illegal immigrants do not and cannot receive welfare in the United States.
If you're still unclear on either of those points, just ask and I'll try to be more clear. I suspect someone has been feeding you faulty information. Maybe someone pandering to your xenophobia.
I find myself agreeing with quite a bit of what Trump says...
Awesome! I've been waiting to meet someone like you. Can you be a little more specific about what Trump has said that you agree with? Because from my perspective, everything that comes out of that man's mouth is either nonsense or a lie. Or bravado, I guess, but I consider that a little of both.
Like do you agree with his plans to round up and deport every illegal immigrant in America? Do you agree with his plan to outlaw Islam in America? Do you agree that Carly Fiorina has an ugly face?
Do you agree with his position on prison reform, nonproliferation, abortion, drug legalization, social security reform, energy policy, foreign policy, education reform, homeland security, environmental regulation, and how to best reduce crime rates and teen pregnancy? No? Is it because he doesn't have an expressed opinion on any of those things and you just like him because he's a loudmouth jerk who pisses people off for fun and that's funny?
That's a bold statement. Maybe exaggerated a bit? Do you really think she's more evil than Pol Pot? More evil than Stalin? I can think lots of politicians I think are way more evil than Hillary Clinton.
I was speaking in regards to American politicians...and yes, I do believe she is one of the most evil and corrupt political figures in American politics right now.
and Sanders...the guy brags about being a socialist.
I'm a limited government fiscally conservative type guy...I'm not going to vote for someone that wants to increase spending by 17 trillion over the next decade...
Well let's just look at the facts. Our federal deficit last year was about 500b, and Sanders wants to increase spending by 17 trillion over the next 10 years...so 1.7 trillion a year. Tax revenue would have to go up by 2.3 trillion a year for Sanders just to balance the budget...let alone start paying the debt down. Our gdp last year was 18.125 trillion...so we'd have to increase taxation by 12.6% of our gdp to balance the budget. What would the tax rates be? I have no clue...maybe income taxes would stay where they are and we'd get a national sales tax. Its really irrelevant what the tax rates would be, the bottom line is I don't want the government owning another 12.6% of our gdp, and the only alternative to that under Sanders would be to keep running the debt up.
agree with you guys.
Democrats are just trying to ram Clinton down our throats
Ram? She'll either get a majority of the votes or she won't. She hasn't even won a primary yet, that hardly feels like ramming.
Yes ram...the same way the republicans have tried to do it with Bush. Even Bernie's campaign says the same...Saying the national party violated its pledged neutrality with the punishment, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver threatened to sue the DNC in federal court and accused the national party of “trying to help the Clinton campaign” with “our data [that] has been stolen by the DNC.”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-campaign-declares-war-the-dnc
Or...how about that O'Malley fellow complaining the democrats debate schedule is an attempt to rig the process.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/08/omalley-slams-dnc-rigged-debate-schedule-wasserman-schultz-not-pleased/
Yeah...I think the democratic party was trying their hardest to ram Clinton down our throats.
Let's just be clear. When the government collects taxes, it just doesn't hoard the money in some treasure chest. It does not OWN that part of GPD. The government uses that money. In Sanders case he wants to provide free college education. Thus the tax money would go to pay for college education, allowing more kids to attend college without the current debt. In multiple ways the money would stimulate the economy.
If government were actually producing the goods and services, that WOULD be owning the GDP. In regards to the military industrial complex, which only exists because of military spending, that can be considered the government owning that part of the GDP. That's just not the case in regards to what Sanders is proposing.
Now it is reasonable to oppose this if you don't like government redistribution, which based on your other opinions I presume you do not.
For a thread that started out about "legitimate criticisms" of each candidate and tried to list pros vs cons, we've really gone down hill. Now we're on to accusations of evil and ugly name calling? How are those legitimate criticisms?
Here's my legitimate criticism of Donald Trump: he's a jerk with a big mouth and bad hair. That seems about as legitimate as the rest of the recent posts in this thread.
What is the world coming to? Are we truly unable to have adult conversations here?
he's a loudmouth jerk
Plus you really can't justify spending a ton of money on something, just because we spend a lot on our military. Its just like when you were a wee little dramaman and your mommy told you two wrongs don't make a right. If we spend too much on our military and foreign intervention, we should be look at our military spending, not just using it as an excuse to throw a bunch of money at another broken system...
why the hell has the cost of college been exploding over the last several decades?
the problem with college right now is exploding costs...simply spreading the cost out a bit more isn't going to do anything to solve the actual problem
The primary driver of rising college costs in the US over the past few decades has been the reduction in funding from state legislatures to support public universities. You may have noticed that expensive private colleges have gotten a little bit more expensive, while previously inexpensive public colleges have gotten WAY more expensive.
So ultimately, when people complain about the rising cost of college what they're really complaining about is reduced state spending on education.
There is some additional complication to this system because the process for granting federal financial aid was not constant over these decades, and increased aid probably helped offset rising tuition costs too. But the amount of federal aid available didn't rise by 500% the way that state university tuition did. Those cost increases were mostly driven by the drastic reductions in support from state legislatures.
A third reason why college costs have gone up so much is unrelated to tuition; the total Cost of Attendance at any university is the combination of tuition costs and living expenses and the living expenses in college towns have been rising much faster than the national average. At some schools (here's looking at you, NYC) students typically pay more for rent than they do for tuition. So in practice, the rising cost of college has been at least partly due to rising real estate prices. Hard to fault anyone for that one.
I think spreading the cost is exactly the right answer.
The cost to provide a university education hasn't actually changed that much over the years; schools always needed building and chalkboards and books and teachers. The big thing that has changed is that we've stopped "spreading the cost out" because we no longer pay those costs with tax dollars, and instead charge the students themselves, via higher tuition rates. Just look at the cost increases at public vs private universities if you need convincing.
We're a little off topic, Nick, but your criticisms of Sanders were largely based on his desire to make college more affordable by reallocating taxes back to the way they were before, so that states would support public education in the interest of growing their own economies by producing educated workers.
I don't see that as "taking" money from anyone to pay for anyone else, I see that as good public policy. I think America should be investing in an educated workforce just like it should be investing in a skilled trade workforce. Every time you cut government spending for education, you diminish the productivity of our aggregate economic engine. Maybe not right away in the first year, but eventually. If you make college unaffordable then we won't have college educated workers, and those professional jobs will go to people educated in Europe or Asia instead.
And don't even get me started on the national security implications of letting the American population fall behind the rest of the world. China already graduates almost twice as many PhD engineers as the US does, and over half of US engineering PhDs are people from foreign countries who will graduate and then return to their home countries. At the bachelor's level, some estimates suggest that China graduates more working engineers each year than the US has currently employed across our entire economy. How long do you think we can maintain superior military technology if that imbalance isn't rectified?
I don't see that as "taking" money from anyone to pay for anyone else, I see that as good public policy. I think America should be investing in an educated workforce just like it should be investing in a skilled trade workforce. Every time you cut government spending for education, you diminish the productivity of our aggregate economic engine. Maybe not right away in the first year, but eventually. If you make college unaffordable then we won't have college educated workers, and those professional jobs will go to people educated in Europe or Asia instead.
We need to invest in education? Sir, we are.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp
"At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures per FTE student were $26,021, almost twice as high as the OECD average of $13,619."
Its like I've said...the cost is the problem. Our government is already outspending other nations...why are college costs still unaffordable? Our government outspending other countries by even more isn't going to make us more competitive when the problem is the baseline cost here is simply out of control.
Education expenditures are from public revenue sources (governments) and private revenue sources, and include current and capital expenditures. Private sources include payments from households for school-based expenses such as tuition, transportation fees, book rentals, or food services
Actually you are both correct (but mostly Sol).The primary driver of rising college costs in the US over the past few decades has been the reduction in funding from state legislatures to support public universities. You may have noticed that expensive private colleges have gotten a little bit more expensive, while previously inexpensive public colleges have gotten WAY more expensive.The cost to provide a university education hasn't actually changed that much over the years; schools always needed building and chalkboards and books and teachers. The big thing that has changed is that we've stopped "spreading the cost out" because we no longer pay those costs with tax dollars, and instead charge the students themselves, via higher tuition rates. Just look at the cost increases at public vs private universities if you need convincing.
No Sol...the price of college has been out pacing inflation for decades. You are simply wrong Sol. Research some facts before posting lies.
The sad truth is when I was in college...a lot of people who chased these types of degrees did so because they were easy. After a year in a STEM program they switch to general studies, because they can put in half the effort, get better grades, and have more time to party! Perhaps a big part of the problem is cultural issues...our college students are more fixated on the college experience, and the standards of getting into college are so low practically anyone can go, where as getting into college in China is a lot more competitive and for the cream of the crop that do get accepted, they are more focused on meaningful degrees and education. Throwing more money at colleges isn't going to change this...free college for all would just mean more people are going to go take advantage of 4 years of tax dollar subsidized partying just to end up with less than useful degrees.
So why are people going into 10s of thousands almost 100s of thousands of dollars of debt for a less than useful degree(one that is out of comparison) to their expected compensation? Because 18 yo are young and impressionable and their parents feel the world is changing too fast so they really do not know what is a good degree/potential job. Myself for example; no STEM degree and grad school all for a job when I could have made more money with a 2year degree. When I would have started working 5 years earlier, with no debt, possibly more money.
So why are people going into 10s of thousands almost 100s of thousands of dollars of debt for a less than useful degree(one that is out of comparison) to their expected compensation? Because 18 yo are young and impressionable and their parents feel the world is changing too fast so they really do not know what is a good degree/potential job. Myself for example; no STEM degree and grad school all for a job when I could have made more money with a 2year degree. When I would have started working 5 years earlier, with no debt, possibly more money.
Most people think there are far more benefits to an education than how it impacts their starting compensation in their first job.
So why are people going into 10s of thousands almost 100s of thousands of dollars of debt for a less than useful degree(one that is out of comparison) to their expected compensation? Because 18 yo are young and impressionable and their parents feel the world is changing too fast so they really do not know what is a good degree/potential job. Myself for example; no STEM degree and grad school all for a job when I could have made more money with a 2year degree. When I would have started working 5 years earlier, with no debt, possibly more money.
Most people think there are far more benefits to an education than how it impacts their starting compensation in their first job.
I know and agree. However I think most of what I gained could have come from normal maturity and maybe a little more parental teacher guidance for how to self educate on indulging subjects (history, finance, philosophy, etc).
On another note here is an article that from NY times, not exactly known for their conservative bias.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html?_r=1
The GOP underestimated Trump in part because it overestimated the conservatism of its own southern, rural northern, and Midwestern base. It underestimated the extent to which many of its voters hadn’t so much embraced the corporate conservatism of the Chamber of Commerce or the constitutional conservatism of the Tea Party as much as they had rejected the extremism of the increasingly shrill and politically correct Left. And, yes, the size of this population calls into question the very process of building a national Republican electoral majority, but it also threatens Democrats who seem intent on drumming every blue-collar white male straight out of the party.
At present, Donald Trump’s greatest electoral danger (at least in the GOP primary) is that his supporters are so alienated from both parties that they disproportionately choose to stay home. But if they turn out, and he can escape with a win in Iowa, the early primary calendar is largely a march through Trump country. America may end up with three distinct ideological movements: the progressive Left, the constitutional Right, and populist core that will now say of both political parties: I didn’t leave you. You left me.
More a criticism of both the Democratic and Republican leadership (and with a conservative spin consistent with the publication), but it seems generally well reasoned:QuoteThe GOP underestimated Trump in part because it overestimated the conservatism of its own southern, rural northern, and Midwestern base. It underestimated the extent to which many of its voters hadn’t so much embraced the corporate conservatism of the Chamber of Commerce or the constitutional conservatism of the Tea Party as much as they had rejected the extremism of the increasingly shrill and politically correct Left. And, yes, the size of this population calls into question the very process of building a national Republican electoral majority, but it also threatens Democrats who seem intent on drumming every blue-collar white male straight out of the party.
At present, Donald Trump’s greatest electoral danger (at least in the GOP primary) is that his supporters are so alienated from both parties that they disproportionately choose to stay home. But if they turn out, and he can escape with a win in Iowa, the early primary calendar is largely a march through Trump country. America may end up with three distinct ideological movements: the progressive Left, the constitutional Right, and populist core that will now say of both political parties: I didn’t leave you. You left me.
Excerpt from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429853/donald-trump-voters-conservatism
LOL, exactly what I'd expect from National Review. I would say its well reasoned only in its ability to spin an answer to the question of why so many in the GOP base support a misogynistic, racist, jingoist demagogue. Surprise, surprise, the author spends 3/4 of the article bashing the Democrats for being unpatriotic, soft on immigration and supporting gay rights and claiming Trump supporters are really disaffected Democrats who joined the GOP. So what does that say about the GOP if they are considered the preferable party for people who appreciate a misogynistic, racist, jingoistic demagogue?I suspect Trump's supporters would say that your characterization of him is inaccurate.
LOL, exactly what I'd expect from National Review. I would say its well reasoned only in its ability to spin an answer to the question of why so many in the GOP base support a misogynistic, racist, jingoist demagogue. Surprise, surprise, the author spends 3/4 of the article bashing the Democrats for being unpatriotic, soft on immigration and supporting gay rights and claiming Trump supporters are really disaffected Democrats who joined the GOP. So what does that say about the GOP if they are considered the preferable party for people who appreciate a misogynistic, racist, jingoistic demagogue?I suspect Trump's supporters would say that your characterization of him is inaccurate.
Personally, my objection to Trump is the same as my objection to Obama: both men seem to exhibit the narcissism "it's all about me - I'm the smartest guy in the room." Of course, Trump's supporters tell me I'm wrong about Trump and Obama's supporters tell me I'm wrong about Obama, so....
I don't understand the insistence on Obama's supposed hyper-narcissism....Does that mean Trump and Obama really are both collegial, collaborative leaders who work well with others?
...it's even harder to find reputable sources that discuss Trump's level of narcissism.
I don't understand the insistence on Obama's supposed hyper-narcissism....Does that mean Trump and Obama really are both collegial, collaborative leaders who work well with others?
...it's even harder to find reputable sources that discuss Trump's level of narcissism.
I don't understand the point of your question.Mostly looking to understand if you think they are similar to or different from each other in their leadership styles.
I don't understand the point of your question.Mostly looking to understand if you think they are similar to or different from each other in their leadership styles.
I think they are similar in that each seems to believe he alone knows best and isn't much interested in weighing opposing ideas.
But I've never been in a closed door meeting with either, so maybe each has a private style different from the political posturing we see in public.
That is a significantly different question from whether one or both of them is a narcissist.Maybe, but "narcissist" = "he alone knows best" is an equivalence that many non-psychiatrically trained would make.
That is a significantly different question from whether one or both of them is a narcissist.Maybe, but "narcissist" = "he alone knows best" is an equivalence that many non-psychiatrically trained would make.
Would you like to answer either question?
I don't understand the point of your question.Mostly looking to understand if you think they are similar to or different from each other in their leadership styles.
I think they are similar in that each seems to believe he alone knows best and isn't much interested in weighing opposing ideas.
Anyone who believes they should be President clearly has an enlarged ego. I'm not sure what evidence you have for separating out Trump and Obama for extra criticism other than you probably don't like them.We all decide whether to vote for someone or not based on how much we "like" (defined however each person chooses) one candidate vs. another, correct?
Anyone who believes they should be President clearly has an enlarged ego. I'm not sure what evidence you have for separating out Trump and Obama for extra criticism other than you probably don't like them.We all decide whether to vote for someone or not based on how much we "like" (defined however each person chooses) one candidate vs. another, correct?
Sure, but it is also possible to try to be objective about their qualities.Indeed it is.
Sure, but it is also possible to try to be objective about their qualities.Indeed it is.
What I observe, though, is when I look at a Democrat (e.g., Obama) and a Republican (e.g., Trump) and opine that I see similar shortcomings in each, the partisans on each side will tell me how wrong I am about their favorite, while allowing that my perceptions about the other guy are valid.
Not that there is anything particularly noteworthy about this observation....
Okay. But you and I began our conversation with whether Trump and Obama were narcissistic. My point was that it was partisan to fling about the word narcissistic to demonize the other person. Perhaps that's the other side of the same coin: if you use words without paying attention to what they mean, you can tar anyone with whatever demonizing word you want (e.g., narcissist, fascist, nazi...).You may well be correct about the implications of the word "narcissism" when discussed in medical school, a psychiatric journal, etc.
I do not see a lot of similar shortcomings between Obama and Trump. But they do both have shortcomings. In terms of "narcissism", my sense from reading and discussing with people trained to diagnose is that Trump exhibits many of these traits, whereas Obama does not. You may not like his style of leadership, but that is a separate issue. Flinging words without care as to their meaning does no one any good in the long run.
Okay. But you and I began our conversation with whether Trump and Obama were narcissistic. My point was that it was partisan to fling about the word narcissistic to demonize the other person. Perhaps that's the other side of the same coin: if you use words without paying attention to what they mean, you can tar anyone with whatever demonizing word you want (e.g., narcissist, fascist, nazi...).You may well be correct about the implications of the word "narcissism" when discussed in medical school, a psychiatric journal, etc.
I do not see a lot of similar shortcomings between Obama and Trump. But they do both have shortcomings. In terms of "narcissism", my sense from reading and discussing with people trained to diagnose is that Trump exhibits many of these traits, whereas Obama does not. You may not like his style of leadership, but that is a separate issue. Flinging words without care as to their meaning does no one any good in the long run.
I'm happy to be judged in the court of general usage, in which "extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type" (as found in a google search for "narcissism" - highlight added) is an accepted definition.
As it seems we are in agreement on Trump, I won't belabor the point on him. For Obama I offer http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/us/politics/obama-plays-to-win-in-politics-and-everything-else.html, including “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
I'd much rather vote for a person - of either party - who is willing to listen to competing ideas without dismissing them out of hand.
One: this seems like a really subjective way to judge a president or a candidate. Dependent upon, for example, the media sources and the ways they choose to report on him or her.Well, yes. Lacking a calibrated tricorder, most judgments by one person of another are subjective.
Two: without actual discussions with people who work with this person (as you say, you have never been in a closed meeting with either person), the whole point seems pretty moot.Perhaps. As I'm unlikely to have such discussions with the inner circle of any of the current candidates, however, I'm left to form opinions based on other inputs. Suggestions for improving this process are welcome.
One: this seems like a really subjective way to judge a president or a candidate. Dependent upon, for example, the media sources and the ways they choose to report on him or her.Well, yes. Lacking a calibrated tricorder, most judgments by one person of another are subjective.QuoteTwo: without actual discussions with people who work with this person (as you say, you have never been in a closed meeting with either person), the whole point seems pretty moot.Perhaps. As I'm unlikely to have such discussions with the inner circle of any of the current candidates, however, I'm left to form opinions based on other inputs. Suggestions for improving this process are welcome.
...certain organizations may be more academic minded and less partisan, and a corresponding effort to seek out the analyses of those organizationsA modern day Diogenesian search for an honest organization, eh? Not a bad idea - any candidates?
...certain organizations may be more academic minded and less partisan, and a corresponding effort to seek out the analyses of those organizationsA modern day Diogenesian search for an honest organization, eh? Not a bad idea - any candidates?
It can be interesting to see the left- and right-wing takes on issues often juxtaposed in realclearpolitics.com (or any other site that does so). E.g., today it has http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jonathan-alter-article-1.2498468 next to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/17/obama_sired_americas_discontent_129348.html. Reading through each with a critical eye to determine which perspective is more accurate can be a good exercise in challenging one's own preconceptions.
Okay. But you and I began our conversation with whether Trump and Obama were narcissistic. My point was that it was partisan to fling about the word narcissistic to demonize the other person. Perhaps that's the other side of the same coin: if you use words without paying attention to what they mean, you can tar anyone with whatever demonizing word you want (e.g., narcissist, fascist, nazi...).You may well be correct about the implications of the word "narcissism" when discussed in medical school, a psychiatric journal, etc.
I do not see a lot of similar shortcomings between Obama and Trump. But they do both have shortcomings. In terms of "narcissism", my sense from reading and discussing with people trained to diagnose is that Trump exhibits many of these traits, whereas Obama does not. You may not like his style of leadership, but that is a separate issue. Flinging words without care as to their meaning does no one any good in the long run.
I'm happy to be judged in the court of general usage, in which "extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type" (as found in a google search for "narcissism" - highlight added) is an accepted definition.
As it seems we are in agreement on Trump, I won't belabor the point on him. For Obama I offer http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/us/politics/obama-plays-to-win-in-politics-and-everything-else.html, including “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
I'd much rather vote for a person - of either party - who is willing to listen to competing ideas without dismissing them out of hand.
He certainly did so when proposing expanding healthcare. The ACA was based on Republican ideas from the 90's and Republican Romney's Massachusetts healthcare reform in 2006.
Based upon your own definition, you've certainly provided evidence that Obama thinks highly of his own abilities. Whether or not that is terrible in and of itself, it doesn't even meet the requirements of your own definition. According to your definition, Obama must also crave admiration and be selfish. The former is easier to assume than the latter, but for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct on both accounts, as except for a convenient ad hominem attack, the alleged narcissism is not the real problem you seem to have with Obama.
You consistently claim that Obama is not 'willing to listen to competing ideas without dismissing them out of hand'. What exactly do you mean by this? Are you complaining that Obama refuses to negotiate and compromise? The last 7 years has proven that to be false. Are you criticizing him for being unwilling to change his ideas and positions? He certainly did so in regard to gay marriage. Are you claiming that this Democrat won't consider Republican ideas? He certainly did so when proposing expanding healthcare. The ACA was based on Republican ideas from the 90's and Republican Romney's Massachusetts healthcare reform in 2006.
Or perhaps you dislike the confidence that Obama projects in certain core convictions that are contrary to what you believe. Hmmm, a confident politician with core convictions in which they believe they are right and those who disagree with them are wrong. I suppose there are some spineless politicians who have no convictions and simply do whatever is politically expedient. Is that what you prefer?
What I observe, though, is when I look at a Democrat (e.g., Obama) and a Republican (e.g., Trump) and opine that I see similar shortcomings in each, the partisans on each side will tell me how wrong I am about their favorite, while allowing that my perceptions about the other guy are valid.
Not that there is anything particularly noteworthy about this observation....
Not too long ago, the President and I were working on a speech that we knew would get a lot of attention. Here, let me point out that he’s really the chief speechwriter. He’s a better writer than I am — which he won’t hesitate to point out — and if he had 48 hours in a day, he’d write his own speeches. So I view my job as to gather his thoughts, and try to give him a draft he can work with — one that says what he would if he had the time.https://medium.com/@WhiteHouse/watch-and-read-white-house-chief-speechwriter-cody-keenan-s-commencement-address-to-nyu-s-wagner-d6a543585af#.70l6oygzx
...certain organizations may be more academic minded and less partisan, and a corresponding effort to seek out the analyses of those organizationsA modern day Diogenesian search for an honest organization, eh? Not a bad idea - any candidates?
It can be interesting to see the left- and right-wing takes on issues often juxtaposed in realclearpolitics.com (or any other site that does so). E.g., today it has http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/jonathan-alter-article-1.2498468 next to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/17/obama_sired_americas_discontent_129348.html. Reading through each with a critical eye to determine which perspective is more accurate can be a good exercise in challenging one's own preconceptions.
Well, in terms of science, Nature and Science might be better than, say, Breitbart.
Psychology Today, for example, may be a more honest organization in discussing narcissism than, say, Breitbart.
Well, in terms of science, Nature and Science might be better than, say, Breitbart.Psychology Today, for example, may be a more honest organization in discussing narcissism than, say, Breitbart.
It would seem Breitbart is not your favorite.... ;)
Look, though. You yourself have acknowledged that you don't actually care whether Obama is actually a narcissist. So the discussion of whether and where to find objective sources is kind of moot.
And then maybe we can let this discussion get back to *legitimate* criticisms of *actual* 2016 presidential candidates?
Look, though. You yourself have acknowledged that you don't actually care whether Obama is actually a narcissist. So the discussion of whether and where to find objective sources is kind of moot.
And then maybe we can let this discussion get back to *legitimate* criticisms of *actual* 2016 presidential candidates?
I did mean the search for objective sources in the context of the 2016 presidential candidates, and I agree that such a forward-looking discussion is much more useful than a retrospective of who said and meant what in the past.
He certainly did so when proposing expanding healthcare. The ACA was based on Republican ideas from the 90's and Republican Romney's Massachusetts healthcare reform in 2006.
This is such a weak talking point. The fact is he wasn't willing to compromise with the republicans in office now...its really irrelevant if he said he borrowed ideas some Republicans had 25 years ago, or borrowed ideas from a centrist republican from a super liberal state.
By your logic I could claim I'm a proud member of the KKK and I got the idea from the democrats, because democrats were the party of the KKK and often targeted republicans alongside blacks as republicans fought for equal rights and passed anti lynching laws.
You could find people from either party at some point in history that supported pretty much any whacky idea you'd want to propose...that's not compromising, compromising is dealing with the other people currently in office who are actually relevant right now. When social security was originally passed, there were as many democrats who voted no for it as republicans, can I claim I'm anti social security because democrats voted against its creation?
Actually, the ACA being based on a Republican idea was not intended as an example of compromising. I used it as an example of one party borrowing ideas originally proposed by another party. But now that you mention it, it was also an example of compromising given that the traditional Democratic solution for expanding healthcare was to use the public option, AKA government insurance. That was abandoned early on as a sign to the Republicans that Obama wanted to meet them in the middle. Of course the Republicans decided that they would rather shut the door in his face and obstruct rather than pass anything even resembling healthcare expansion.
Another example is the budget deal of 2010 in the Bush tax cuts were preserved for families of ALL income levels for 2 years, despite Obama's original pledge to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy. He also compromised on the so-called fiscal cliff legislation in 2013 eliminating most of the planned tax increases. These are all well documented, notable compromises that Obama made. It stands to reason that many more compromises took place behind the scenes as well.
As for out of the blue bringing up the KKK and pre-1960's racist Democrats... Hey, I have an idea, let's inject irrelevant racism into a discussion of modern day politics. Because, you know, that ALWAYS goes so well.
is "Endorsed by someone who's ideology you don't agree with" considered a legitimate criticism of a candidate?Sure, it's legitimate to draw inferences from the company a person keeps. Of course, not every endorsement is welcomed by a candidate, so in general it would be worth confirming that. In this instance it seems clear Trump welcomes Palin's endorsement.
I'm honeslty asking here. IF endorsements matter, and you don't agree with the person giving the endorsement, is it valid to then extend that as a reason not to want to support a candidate?
...and yes, I am speaking specifically of Palin's endorsement of Trump here, but this question extends beyond just this particular endorsement.
Good points. I guess I don't put as much stock into industries and companies giving compaign contributions to a particular (or multiple) candidates. I see this is just business, and contributing to more than one compaign is basically them hedging their bets. If you are in the defense industry a few million$ might be a wise investment to make sure the future president doesn't feel snubbed by you, regardless of who that might be.is "Endorsed by someone who's ideology you don't agree with" considered a legitimate criticism of a candidate?Sure, it's legitimate to draw inferences from the company a person keeps. Of course, not every endorsement is welcomed by a candidate, so in general it would be worth confirming that. In this instance it seems clear Trump welcomes Palin's endorsement.
I'm honeslty asking here. IF endorsements matter, and you don't agree with the person giving the endorsement, is it valid to then extend that as a reason not to want to support a candidate?
...and yes, I am speaking specifically of Palin's endorsement of Trump here, but this question extends beyond just this particular endorsement.
There can be a problem of multiple endorsements. E.g., if you don't like the defense industry and are trying to decide between Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, it probably doesn't help to learn that each has received about the same amount from that source: https://www.rt.com/usa/326058-defense-donors-clinton-cruz/.
Actually, the ACA being based on a Republican idea was not intended as an example of compromising. I used it as an example of one party borrowing ideas originally proposed by another party. But now that you mention it, it was also an example of compromising given that the traditional Democratic solution for expanding healthcare was to use the public option, AKA government insurance. That was abandoned early on as a sign to the Republicans that Obama wanted to meet them in the middle. Of course the Republicans decided that they would rather shut the door in his face and obstruct rather than pass anything even resembling healthcare expansion.
Right...it literally got 0 republican votes and it only passed because reconciliation was controversially used.
Another example is the budget deal of 2010 in the Bush tax cuts were preserved for families of ALL income levels for 2 years, despite Obama's original pledge to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy. He also compromised on the so-called fiscal cliff legislation in 2013 eliminating most of the planned tax increases. These are all well documented, notable compromises that Obama made. It stands to reason that many more compromises took place behind the scenes as well.
Interesting how those other examples of Obama compromising you give all come after Republicans took control of the house...you know...when he was forced to compromise...unlike with Obamacare where all he had to do was get democrats on board.
I'm not saying the guy has never compromised since he has been in office...
but trying to paint out Obamacare as a great compromise is simply laughable.
As for out of the blue bringing up the KKK and pre-1960's racist Democrats... Hey, I have an idea, let's inject irrelevant racism into a discussion of modern day politics. Because, you know, that ALWAYS goes so well.
Yeah its about as pointless as trying to say a bill was bipartisan even though it got zero votes from one side of the aisle because some republicans 30 years ago would have supported it or, or a republican governor from one of the most liberal states tried something similar.
What is laughable is the idea that the Republicans didn't participate because Obama didn't compromise enough. Here is basically what happened....
Democrats and Republicans stand at opposite ends of a football field.
Obama: Let's walk to the 50 yard line and meet the Republicans where they last passed healthcare reform just two years ago in Massachusetts.
Obama: C'mon guys. The people elected me president. Elections have meaning. How much farther are you asking for?
As for out of the blue bringing up the KKK and pre-1960's racist Democrats... Hey, I have an idea, let's inject irrelevant racism into a discussion of modern day politics. Because, you know, that ALWAYS goes so well.
Yeah its about as pointless as trying to say a bill was bipartisan even though it got zero votes from one side of the aisle because some republicans 30 years ago would have supported it or, or a republican governor from one of the most liberal states tried something similar.
Heh. I never said Obamacare was bipartisan. But let's pretend I did. Here is what you are justifying...
Dramaman: Obamacare was bipartisan.
TheNick: Democrats used to be racists and lynched people!
Even if the first statement is false, which we know it is, and the second statement is true, which we know it is, you don't think that was a tad bit non sequitur and over the line?
What is laughable is the idea that the Republicans didn't participate because Obama didn't compromise enough. Here is basically what happened....
Democrats and Republicans stand at opposite ends of a football field.
Obama: Let's walk to the 50 yard line and meet the Republicans where they last passed healthcare reform just two years ago in Massachusetts.
Lol...my you have a warped sense of reality. You keep drawing back to the same point for some reason that some republicans in mass passed a bill, so clearly all republicans supported it 100%
He didn't start on the 50 year line, he started so far out the back of his end zone he was up in the bleachers somewhere and his own party wouldn't even support him lol. So effectively his great "compromise" was hey guys, I'm on the 90 yard line, why don't you come down here and meet with me.
https://youtu.be/KoE1R-xH5To (https://youtu.be/KoE1R-xH5To)
Oh wait...you mean...people didn't even have enough time to read this bill before it was passed? Yeah...compromise...lol....
As for out of the blue bringing up the KKK and pre-1960's racist Democrats... Hey, I have an idea, let's inject irrelevant racism into a discussion of modern day politics. Because, you know, that ALWAYS goes so well.Quote from: TheNickYeah its about as pointless as trying to say a bill was bipartisan even though it got zero votes from one side of the aisle because some republicans 30 years ago would have supported it or, or a republican governor from one of the most liberal states tried something similar.Heh. I never said Obamacare was bipartisan. But let's pretend I did. Here is what you are justifying...
Dramaman: Obamacare was bipartisan.
TheNick: Democrats used to be racists and lynched people!
Even if the first statement is false, which we know it is, and the second statement is true, which we know it is, you don't think that was a tad bit non sequitur and over the line?
No Sir...I'm saying you claiming Obamacare is a republican idea because Mitt Romney passed similar legislation in Mass. is the same as saying racism is an idea of the democrat party because democrats were originally the party of the KKK. Just because at some point in time some members of a party may have supported an idea doesn't make it a permanent platform piece of that a majority of the party is behind indefinitely.
Look here's some pro gun democrats.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/second-amendment/8-surprisingly-pro-gun-democrats/
Does it mean I can turn around and claim its an idea of the democrat party to expand our gun rights even though the bulk of them don't support that? That is what you keep trying to do, and its just silly.
This is the funniest thing I've read all week so I thought I'd share so everyone else can enjoy it too
New Mexico, old Mexico -- it doesn't matter. You still have to go through your country's Olympic Committee.https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19960229&id=dPoeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GUgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6737,2873667&hl=en
I'm happy and proud to belong to the MMM group. Nearly 85% identify as other than politically conservative. We are truely conservative, we hate waste and strive for efficiency and fairness. We have above average net worth and savings rates. We are independant and self motivated. We hate debt. Yet, 85 percent of us do not identify as conservative politically. I think you guys are awesome.
So what I'm hearing you say is that the Republicans were so far gone that even their own originally conceived market based insurance oriented expansion of health care was so unacceptable when proposed by Democrats that it only amounted to 10% of what they might accept.
You pretty much make my case that no effective solution that the Democrats could propose would have EVER been acceptable to them. To use your 90 yard example, the Democrats stepped 10 yards toward the Republicans and the Republicans proceeded to step 10 yards back.
Sigh. Its a matter of manners. When discussing an issue that has nothing to do with racism, injecting racism into the argument is not only pointless, but also rude and risks blowing up the whole discussion. You've demonstrated that you can argue your point without resorting to such crude artifices. There is no justification for it. It's rude and wrong and just don't do it.
So what I'm hearing you say is that the Republicans were so far gone that even their own originally conceived market based insurance oriented expansion of health care was so unacceptable when proposed by Democrats that it only amounted to 10% of what they might accept.
I'm just going to ignore this part because I've already demonstrated repeatedly that its faulty logic making this claim.
You pretty much make my case that no effective solution that the Democrats could propose would have EVER been acceptable to them. To use your 90 yard example, the Democrats stepped 10 yards toward the Republicans and the Republicans proceeded to step 10 yards back.
The democrats all wouldn't even get on board with a single payer system or a public option...it wasn't just the republicans that blocked those things. The far left dropped those ideas because their own party couldn't even get fully behind them. Backing off of those ideas wasn't concessions to republicans lol.
Sigh. Its a matter of manners. When discussing an issue that has nothing to do with racism, injecting racism into the argument is not only pointless, but also rude and risks blowing up the whole discussion. You've demonstrated that you can argue your point without resorting to such crude artifices. There is no justification for it. It's rude and wrong and just don't do it.
There is nothing wrong with discussing things or using facts as examples...its not like I'm dropping racial slurs or saying anything crude...just talking about historical facts.
-Hillary: No one on either stage has the insider foreign policy knowledge that she has.
Insider foreign policy knowledge gleaned from years of failure to achieve ends good for the United States.
Let's talk successes.
Fixed thatIranUS is funding insurgencies which have direct control over parts of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Their leaders still regularly call out theUnited StatesIran for special enmity. There is no reason to believe that they are trustworthy or that they are complying with what they agreed to.
Okay.QuoteAs Sec of State Clinton:
1. helped secure the crippling sanctions (not just the U.S., but also getting cooperation from Russia, the E.U., etc) on Iran that brought them to the negotiating table
Iran is funding insurgencies which have direct control over parts of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Their leaders still regularly call out the United States for special enmity. There is no reason to believe that they are trustworthy or that they are complying with what they agreed to.
Sanctions are a cruel method of extracting compliance from other countries.Quote2. helpeded secure the new START treaty with Russia
OK. Overall relations with Russia haven't been great, but alright.Quote3. negotiated a cease fire in Gaza in 2012 that halted Hamas firing rockets into Israel and averting all out war
Stabbings have been substituted for rockets. A fleeting success.Quote4. laid the groundwork for normalization of relations with Cuba encouraging Obama to lift the embargo
I am all in favor of lifting the embargo.Quote5. was a tireless ambassador for U.S. relations and global women's rights traveling to over 100 countries during her tenure
U.S. relations with other nations have not substantively improved during the current administration.
Let's talk failures!
1. Clinton helped the United States join in the complete destruction of the Libyan state, with no useful plan for what came next. Libya is now divided between Islamists, a wanna-be dictator, and the Islamic State. The participation of the United States was illegal, constituting a violation of the War Powers Act with the embarrassing figleaf of "kinetic military action." Clinton and the administration did not have the courage to describe destroying a country with airstrikes as "war".
2. Afghanistan is still in awful shape.
3. A US Ambassador was murdered while she was Secretary of State. There's probably nothing she could have done to avoid that, other than not destroying Libya in the first place, but at that point it was done. The initial public response focused on the arrest of an amateur filmmaker.
4. The growth and success of the Islamic State came as a complete surprise to the US and our allies. Clinton was Secretary of State while its progenitor, Jabhat al-Nusra, was capturing territory in Syria.
5. She violated the law by keeping a private, unsecure email server at her private residence. There is no valid excuse or justification for this.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot:
6-9999: She voted to invade Iraq.
Here's a legitimate criticism of Trump (one more, that is):
A German center-right newspaper is basically portraying him as someone who will burn down the United States. The title means "insanity." And you know, the Germans know from insane leadership.
Whoever is the democratic nominee, I sure hope that he or she will be able to convince Republican voters that Donald Trump is an incredibly large threat to us in terms of foreign relations. He risks our relationships with our ALLIES, for God's sake.
Well, it seems we can rejoice that the electorate are slowly making their way back in the direction of reason! Cruz took first, and Trump narrowly beat Rubio for second. Also, a shout-out to Paul for 5th place, 1 delegate, 5%, and beating Jeb!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus-results/iowa (yeah, I quoted Fox, because I click on the big thing on top when Google feeds me my answers)
On another note, I still don't understand why some people are so repulsed by Cruz. I went along with the general wisdom of Reddit (pardon the oxymoron) that Cruz was insane, but on watching plenty of videos I just didn't see it. He seemed ruthless and uncompromising, but well-reasoned and articulate. Maybe people don't like that he has nothing but enemies, but the thought of nothing getting done doesn't bother me at all.
On the other hand, most of the active GOP politicians (gov's, and congress apart from the hard core Tea Party types) and most of the establishment donors would rather support Trump over Cruz. Pretty much everyone who actually works with Cruz hates him, and their personal animosity is probably driving some of this. But also, the establishment just wants the country to continue to run more or less on the same track it has been, since they profit from that. And they view Trump as 'manageable' and a practical deal-maker; and Cruz as a radical.
Very engaging to watch this play out.
Cruz is partnered with the extreme 'conservative' ideologues. Their attitude is our way or no way. They want to take the government back to the gilded age and no means towards that end is too extreme. Cruz was the instigator in the failed government shutdown hoping to somehow blackmail Obama into agreeing to end Obamacare. Cruz wanted to do the same thing in regards to the debt ceiling, forcing everyone else in government to capitulate to his demands or else the government would default on its debt. Forget bipartisanship, Cruz couldn't even work with members of his own party in the Senate, often attacking them and calling them liars and liberals because they actually wanted to get things done and because attacking them was a way to make himself look good to the ideologues he championed. The result is that almost every Republican Senator hates Cruz and NO Republican Senator has endorsed him.
Cruz is partnered with the extreme 'conservative' ideologues. Their attitude is our way or no way. They want to take the government back to the gilded age and no means towards that end is too extreme. Cruz was the instigator in the failed government shutdown hoping to somehow blackmail Obama into agreeing to end Obamacare. Cruz wanted to do the same thing in regards to the debt ceiling, forcing everyone else in government to capitulate to his demands or else the government would default on its debt. Forget bipartisanship, Cruz couldn't even work with members of his own party in the Senate, often attacking them and calling them liars and liberals because they actually wanted to get things done and because attacking them was a way to make himself look good to the ideologues he championed. The result is that almost every Republican Senator hates Cruz and NO Republican Senator has endorsed him.
I always find it funny when people say that Congress is blackmailing the President like it's a bad thing. That's what they're supposed to do. We have a separation of powers for a reason. If Congress just went along with the President all of the time we might as well just abolish Congress altogether and let the President have free reign. They're supposed to use the power of the purse to put pressure on the President to sign certain legislation he may not be particularly fond of. It's called politics, not blackmail.
Well, it seems we can rejoice that the electorate are slowly making their way back in the direction of reason! Cruz took first, and Trump narrowly beat Rubio for second. Also, a shout-out to Paul for 5th place, 1 delegate, 5%, and beating Jeb!But for all intensive purposes Paul tied Jeb as they both got 1 delegate. I was hoping Rand would do slightly better, but he did do better than expected anyways.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus-results/iowa (yeah, I quoted Fox, because I click on the big thing on top when Google feeds me my answers)
On another note, I still don't understand why some people are so repulsed by Cruz. I went along with the general wisdom of Reddit (pardon the oxymoron) that Cruz was insane, but on watching plenty of videos I just didn't see it. He seemed ruthless and uncompromising, but well-reasoned and articulate. Maybe people don't like that he has nothing but enemies, but the thought of nothing getting done doesn't bother me at all.
Cruz wants to abolish the IRS and implement a regressive flat tax. That's pretty crazy just there.I agree Cruz is crazy, but to be fair, a lot of candidates want to do this, including Ben Carson, Rand Paul, and Cruz, and I think more.
No one is talking about how Sanders basically tied Clinton, I thought that was pretty crazy
On the other hand, most of the active GOP politicians (gov's, and congress apart from the hard core Tea Party types) and most of the establishment donors would rather support Trump over Cruz. Pretty much everyone who actually works with Cruz hates him, and their personal animosity is probably driving some of this. But also, the establishment just wants the country to continue to run more or less on the same track it has been, since they profit from that. And they view Trump as 'manageable' and a practical deal-maker; and Cruz as a radical.
Very engaging to watch this play out.
I'm not so sure about this. Judging from endorsements, the "establishment Republicans" – Bush, Rubio, Christie, Kasich – have much more support than Ted Cruz from the establishment, who in turn has much more support from the establishment than Trump:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/
Cruz is partnered with the extreme 'conservative' ideologues. Their attitude is our way or no way. They want to take the government back to the gilded age and no means towards that end is too extreme. Cruz was the instigator in the failed government shutdown hoping to somehow blackmail Obama into agreeing to end Obamacare. Cruz wanted to do the same thing in regards to the debt ceiling, forcing everyone else in government to capitulate to his demands or else the government would default on its debt. Forget bipartisanship, Cruz couldn't even work with members of his own party in the Senate, often attacking them and calling them liars and liberals because they actually wanted to get things done and because attacking them was a way to make himself look good to the ideologues he championed. The result is that almost every Republican Senator hates Cruz and NO Republican Senator has endorsed him.
Considering the fastest economic growth in U.S. history occurred during the Gilded Age, it might not be a bad thing to go back to. At least in terms of economic policy.
I always find it funny when people say that Congress is blackmailing the President like it's a bad thing. That's what they're supposed to do. We have a separation of powers for a reason. If Congress just went along with the President all of the time we might as well just abolish Congress altogether and let the President have free reign. They're supposed to use the power of the purse to put pressure on the President to sign certain legislation he may not be particularly fond of. It's called politics, not blackmail.
And while Republicans often get blamed for government shutdowns, the root cause can actually be traced back to Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate of 2008. During Harry Reid's term as the majority leader, the U.S. Senate did not pass an annual budget. In fact, Harry Reid even refused to bring one to vote for several years. As a result, the U.S. has been operating on these continuing resolutions that need to be voted on every 3 to 6 months. This forces members of Congress to try and air out their woes and convince others to see it their way and vote on spending changes when they're up against a hard deadline with default pending. Usually they'd have anywhere from 8-10 months to try and work with their fellow Congressmen and women to come up with spending cuts and spending increases that both parties can reasonably agree to. I must admit it was a brilliant political strategy on the part of Harry Reid. Don't pass a budget and force these continuing resolutions. Every time it comes up for a vote, hold your ground and refuse to make any changes, then blame the other party for being willing to shutdown the government. Unfortunately, that's no way to run a country and it's also extremely poor leadership. So I don't blame Ted Cruz for a government shutdown.
In fact, I wish he would have been able to hold his ground even longer. Obamacare has proven to be a terrible piece of legislation. It's been much more costly than anticipated for the average American. Most have seen their premiums skyrocket making health insurance unaffordable. Some of the largest health insurance companies in the country like Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Health, and Aetna, have all expressed concerns about the sustainability of the exchanges. Blue cross exited several exchanges across the country back in October. United Health has indicated they may leave the exchanges all together. All of these result in less competition within the exchanges and often results in higher premiums because the larger insurance companies tend to be able to absorb some of the costs better than smaller companies. It really is awful. Perhaps instead of vilifying Cruz, we should be commending him for his vision and asking other Senators to stand with him to try and fix this mess?
Well, it seems we can rejoice that the electorate are slowly making their way back in the direction of reason! Cruz took first, and Trump narrowly beat Rubio for second. Also, a shout-out to Paul for 5th place, 1 delegate, 5%, and beating Jeb!But for all intensive purposes Paul tied Jeb as they both got 1 delegate. I was hoping Rand would do slightly better, but he did do better than expected anyways.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus-results/iowa (yeah, I quoted Fox, because I click on the big thing on top when Google feeds me my answers)
On another note, I still don't understand why some people are so repulsed by Cruz. I went along with the general wisdom of Reddit (pardon the oxymoron) that Cruz was insane, but on watching plenty of videos I just didn't see it. He seemed ruthless and uncompromising, but well-reasoned and articulate. Maybe people don't like that he has nothing but enemies, but the thought of nothing getting done doesn't bother me at all.Cruz wants to abolish the IRS and implement a regressive flat tax. That's pretty crazy just there.I agree Cruz is crazy, but to be fair, a lot of candidates want to do this, including Ben Carson, Rand Paul, and Cruz, and I think more.
No one is talking about how Sanders basically tied Clinton, I thought that was pretty crazy, of the top 5 candidates, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, and Sanders, I think I would prefer Rubio? although I think they are all shitty options
Cruz is partnered with the extreme 'conservative' ideologues. Their attitude is our way or no way. They want to take the government back to the gilded age and no means towards that end is too extreme. Cruz was the instigator in the failed government shutdown hoping to somehow blackmail Obama into agreeing to end Obamacare. Cruz wanted to do the same thing in regards to the debt ceiling, forcing everyone else in government to capitulate to his demands or else the government would default on its debt. Forget bipartisanship, Cruz couldn't even work with members of his own party in the Senate, often attacking them and calling them liars and liberals because they actually wanted to get things done and because attacking them was a way to make himself look good to the ideologues he championed. The result is that almost every Republican Senator hates Cruz and NO Republican Senator has endorsed him.
Considering the fastest economic growth in U.S. history occurred during the Gilded Age, it might not be a bad thing to go back to. At least in terms of economic policy.
I always find it funny when people say that Congress is blackmailing the President like it's a bad thing. That's what they're supposed to do. We have a separation of powers for a reason. If Congress just went along with the President all of the time we might as well just abolish Congress altogether and let the President have free reign. They're supposed to use the power of the purse to put pressure on the President to sign certain legislation he may not be particularly fond of. It's called politics, not blackmail.
And while Republicans often get blamed for government shutdowns, the root cause can actually be traced back to Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate of 2008. During Harry Reid's term as the majority leader, the U.S. Senate did not pass an annual budget. In fact, Harry Reid even refused to bring one to vote for several years. As a result, the U.S. has been operating on these continuing resolutions that need to be voted on every 3 to 6 months. This forces members of Congress to try and air out their woes and convince others to see it their way and vote on spending changes when they're up against a hard deadline with default pending. Usually they'd have anywhere from 8-10 months to try and work with their fellow Congressmen and women to come up with spending cuts and spending increases that both parties can reasonably agree to. I must admit it was a brilliant political strategy on the part of Harry Reid. Don't pass a budget and force these continuing resolutions. Every time it comes up for a vote, hold your ground and refuse to make any changes, then blame the other party for being willing to shutdown the government. Unfortunately, that's no way to run a country and it's also extremely poor leadership. So I don't blame Ted Cruz for a government shutdown.
In fact, I wish he would have been able to hold his ground even longer. Obamacare has proven to be a terrible piece of legislation. It's been much more costly than anticipated for the average American. Most have seen their premiums skyrocket making health insurance unaffordable. Some of the largest health insurance companies in the country like Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Health, and Aetna, have all expressed concerns about the sustainability of the exchanges. Blue cross exited several exchanges across the country back in October. United Health has indicated they may leave the exchanges all together. All of these result in less competition within the exchanges and often results in higher premiums because the larger insurance companies tend to be able to absorb some of the costs better than smaller companies. It really is awful. Perhaps instead of vilifying Cruz, we should be commending him for his vision and asking other Senators to stand with him to try and fix this mess?
+1, I wanted to say something but you said it much better.
Too, when you pass something as monumental as the ACA you better have a bigger consensus that what the Dems had at the time. They should have campaigned more on this or go at least a few Republicans to go along with it, but more likely to have waited a few more years. I know some will say it was to save people's lives or was necessary or whatever but this political blow back was to be expected.
I always find it funny when people say that Congress is blackmailing the President like it's a bad thing. That's what they're supposed to do. We have a separation of powers for a reason. If Congress just went along with the President all of the time we might as well just abolish Congress altogether and let the President have free reign. They're supposed to use the power of the purse to put pressure on the President to sign certain legislation he may not be particularly fond of. It's called politics, not blackmail.
Cruz is a guaranteed loser in the general, for a variety of reasons. Trump at least had an outside chance of exploiting people's fear and stupidity to take the white house.
Rubio is the only credible threat to a third Democratic term, but he's had to tack so far right for the primary that he's probably sunk himself in the general too.
I expect the next four years will look an awful lot like the last four. Congress will obstruct. A Democratic president will continue the Bush era foreign policy. The economy will chug along.
Everyone take a deep breath, it will be fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8
I really hope Cruz or Trump loose a general, but I don't really even want to see them come that close. Cruz is derange and Trump is giving legitimacy to peoples hate and racism, which is absolutely something we don't want to encourage at the presidential level.
At this point I would prefer to see Rubio get the nomination, I am still not a fan of most of the Republican agenda but he seems a much better option than the other two.
This is becoming my dream. Bernie will win. Congress will not pass anything he wants (Dems will vote against him too) but everything will be fine.
Rubio is the only credible threat to a third Democratic term, but he's had to tack so far right for the primary that he's probably sunk himself in the general too.
Except that there is a large chance Trump will say that the GOP did not respect him enough and run as an independent.Rubio is the only credible threat to a third Democratic term, but he's had to tack so far right for the primary that he's probably sunk himself in the general too.
I think Rubio has a much better chance in the general against both Clinton and Sanders. The RealClearPolitics average has Rubio beating Clinton by 2.5% and Sanders by 1%. He's the only candidate to beat both of them. They have Trump losing to both Clinton and Sanders and Cruz only beats Clinton and his victory margin is only 1.3%. If people are concerned about winning, Trump is definitely not the guy. I think he splits the party more than unites it. People like me will not vote for that man if he gets the nomination. I'll write-in a candidate before I vote for him. I could vote for Cruz, but I think we lose a lot of the moderate and independent votes if he gets the nomination.
I am personally a big Rubio fan. I defend Cruz a lot in conversations with people because I feel he gets a lot of undeserved flack (see above about the government shutdowns) but he's not my first choice. Rubio still conservative enough that the establishment don't really like him all that much, but they're at least willing to work with him on a majority of issues. I was really excited when I was watching the results of the Iowa caucus. I was so hoping he would overtake Trump and finish second. I think if we can get some of these other candidates like Santorum, Christie, and Jeb to just drop out already I think his chances of winning the nomination go up.
I would just like to see a conservative get into the White House and remove some of the red tape and bureaucracy that we currently have. The VA is the example I point to the most because I have personal experience in dealing with them. The crap we put our veterans through is ridiculous and unnecessary. I have zero faith that Trump would do any of that. If anything, I think he would make it worse. I'm pretty sure Cruz would at least try, though Congress may not go through with some of the changes he proposes. I think Rubio would do it to a degree and I think he probably has the best chance overall of getting Congress approval as well.
Not to mention he's charismatic, well spoken, and his life story seems to be very relatable for a lot of people.
Rubio is the only credible threat to a third Democratic term, but he's had to tack so far right for the primary that he's probably sunk himself in the general too.
I think Rubio has a much better chance in the general against both Clinton and Sanders. The RealClearPolitics average has Rubio beating Clinton by 2.5% and Sanders by 1%. He's the only candidate to beat both of them. They have Trump losing to both Clinton and Sanders and Cruz only beats Clinton and his victory margin is only 1.3%. If people are concerned about winning, Trump is definitely not the guy. I think he splits the party more than unites it. People like me will not vote for that man if he gets the nomination. I'll write-in a candidate before I vote for him. I could vote for Cruz, but I think we lose a lot of the moderate and independent votes if he gets the nomination.
I am personally a big Rubio fan. I defend Cruz a lot in conversations with people because I feel he gets a lot of undeserved flack (see above about the government shutdowns) but he's not my first choice. Rubio still conservative enough that the establishment don't really like him all that much, but they're at least willing to work with him on a majority of issues. I was really excited when I was watching the results of the Iowa caucus. I was so hoping he would overtake Trump and finish second. I think if we can get some of these other candidates like Santorum, Christie, and Jeb to just drop out already I think his chances of winning the nomination go up.
I would just like to see a conservative get into the White House and remove some of the red tape and bureaucracy that we currently have. The VA is the example I point to the most because I have personal experience in dealing with them. The crap we put our veterans through is ridiculous and unnecessary. I have zero faith that Trump would do any of that. If anything, I think he would make it worse. I'm pretty sure Cruz would at least try, though Congress may not go through with some of the changes he proposes. I think Rubio would do it to a degree and I think he probably has the best chance overall of getting Congress approval as well.
Not to mention he's charismatic, well spoken, and his life story seems to be very relatable for a lot of people.
Rubio is the only credible threat to a third Democratic term, but he's had to tack so far right for the primary that he's probably sunk himself in the general too.
I think Rubio has a much better chance in the general against both Clinton and Sanders. The RealClearPolitics average has Rubio beating Clinton by 2.5% and Sanders by 1%. He's the only candidate to beat both of them. They have Trump losing to both Clinton and Sanders and Cruz only beats Clinton and his victory margin is only 1.3%. If people are concerned about winning, Trump is definitely not the guy. I think he splits the party more than unites it. People like me will not vote for that man if he gets the nomination. I'll write-in a candidate before I vote for him. I could vote for Cruz, but I think we lose a lot of the moderate and independent votes if he gets the nomination.
I am personally a big Rubio fan. I defend Cruz a lot in conversations with people because I feel he gets a lot of undeserved flack (see above about the government shutdowns) but he's not my first choice. Rubio still conservative enough that the establishment don't really like him all that much, but they're at least willing to work with him on a majority of issues. I was really excited when I was watching the results of the Iowa caucus. I was so hoping he would overtake Trump and finish second. I think if we can get some of these other candidates like Santorum, Christie, and Jeb to just drop out already I think his chances of winning the nomination go up.
I would just like to see a conservative get into the White House and remove some of the red tape and bureaucracy that we currently have. The VA is the example I point to the most because I have personal experience in dealing with them. The crap we put our veterans through is ridiculous and unnecessary. I have zero faith that Trump would do any of that. If anything, I think he would make it worse. I'm pretty sure Cruz would at least try, though Congress may not go through with some of the changes he proposes. I think Rubio would do it to a degree and I think he probably has the best chance overall of getting Congress approval as well.
Not to mention he's charismatic, well spoken, and his life story seems to be very relatable for a lot of people.
I agree that Rubio is the most sane sounding of the Republican candidates. It's unfortunate that he's a climate change denier, fervent pro-lifer and 100% anti-gay marriage.
If your big issue is bureaucracy / the VA - Bernie may be your man. He cuts through that red tape and advocates for veterans. Just because he wants the government to ensure everyone gets healthcare and education doesn't mean he wants services to be delivered inefficiently.
If your big issue is bureaucracy / the VA - Bernie may be your man. He cuts through that red tape and advocates for veterans. Just because he wants the government to ensure everyone gets healthcare and education doesn't mean he wants services to be delivered inefficiently.
Rubio is the only credible threat to a third Democratic term, but he's had to tack so far right for the primary that he's probably sunk himself in the general too.
I think Rubio has a much better chance in the general against both Clinton and Sanders. The RealClearPolitics average has Rubio beating Clinton by 2.5% and Sanders by 1%. He's the only candidate to beat both of them. They have Trump losing to both Clinton and Sanders and Cruz only beats Clinton and his victory margin is only 1.3%. If people are concerned about winning, Trump is definitely not the guy. I think he splits the party more than unites it. People like me will not vote for that man if he gets the nomination. I'll write-in a candidate before I vote for him. I could vote for Cruz, but I think we lose a lot of the moderate and independent votes if he gets the nomination.
I am personally a big Rubio fan. I defend Cruz a lot in conversations with people because I feel he gets a lot of undeserved flack (see above about the government shutdowns) but he's not my first choice. Rubio still conservative enough that the establishment don't really like him all that much, but they're at least willing to work with him on a majority of issues. I was really excited when I was watching the results of the Iowa caucus. I was so hoping he would overtake Trump and finish second. I think if we can get some of these other candidates like Santorum, Christie, and Jeb to just drop out already I think his chances of winning the nomination go up.
I would just like to see a conservative get into the White House and remove some of the red tape and bureaucracy that we currently have. The VA is the example I point to the most because I have personal experience in dealing with them. The crap we put our veterans through is ridiculous and unnecessary. I have zero faith that Trump would do any of that. If anything, I think he would make it worse. I'm pretty sure Cruz would at least try, though Congress may not go through with some of the changes he proposes. I think Rubio would do it to a degree and I think he probably has the best chance overall of getting Congress approval as well.
Not to mention he's charismatic, well spoken, and his life story seems to be very relatable for a lot of people.
I agree that Rubio is the most sane sounding of the Republican candidates. It's unfortunate that he's a climate change denier, fervent pro-lifer and 100% anti-gay marriage.
If your big issue is bureaucracy / the VA - Bernie may be your man. He cuts through that red tape and advocates for veterans. Just because he wants the government to ensure everyone gets healthcare and education doesn't mean he wants services to be delivered inefficiently.
The fact that we have had complaints about bureaucracy and the VA for decades, regardless of administration and political party in charge makes me extremely skeptical of any pledge that a candidate makes to fix it. The problems are deeply ingrained and would likely take a lot of effort to address and the I imagine once a candidate is in office, they find it easier to to focus on lower hanging fruit issues.
Does it really surprise anyone that Ted Cruz would do this?
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/ted-cruz-cheated-his-staffers-told-iowa-caucus-goers-that-ben-carson-had-already-dropped-out/23729/
Rubio is the only credible threat to a third Democratic term, but he's had to tack so far right for the primary that he's probably sunk himself in the general too.
I think Rubio has a much better chance in the general against both Clinton and Sanders. The RealClearPolitics average has Rubio beating Clinton by 2.5% and Sanders by 1%. He's the only candidate to beat both of them. They have Trump losing to both Clinton and Sanders and Cruz only beats Clinton and his victory margin is only 1.3%. If people are concerned about winning, Trump is definitely not the guy. I think he splits the party more than unites it. People like me will not vote for that man if he gets the nomination. I'll write-in a candidate before I vote for him. I could vote for Cruz, but I think we lose a lot of the moderate and independent votes if he gets the nomination.
I am personally a big Rubio fan. I defend Cruz a lot in conversations with people because I feel he gets a lot of undeserved flack (see above about the government shutdowns) but he's not my first choice. Rubio still conservative enough that the establishment don't really like him all that much, but they're at least willing to work with him on a majority of issues. I was really excited when I was watching the results of the Iowa caucus. I was so hoping he would overtake Trump and finish second. I think if we can get some of these other candidates like Santorum, Christie, and Jeb to just drop out already I think his chances of winning the nomination go up.
I would just like to see a conservative get into the White House and remove some of the red tape and bureaucracy that we currently have. The VA is the example I point to the most because I have personal experience in dealing with them. The crap we put our veterans through is ridiculous and unnecessary. I have zero faith that Trump would do any of that. If anything, I think he would make it worse. I'm pretty sure Cruz would at least try, though Congress may not go through with some of the changes he proposes. I think Rubio would do it to a degree and I think he probably has the best chance overall of getting Congress approval as well.
Not to mention he's charismatic, well spoken, and his life story seems to be very relatable for a lot of people.
I agree that Rubio is the most sane sounding of the Republican candidates. It's unfortunate that he's a climate change denier, fervent pro-lifer and 100% anti-gay marriage.
If your big issue is bureaucracy / the VA - Bernie may be your man. He cuts through that red tape and advocates for veterans. Just because he wants the government to ensure everyone gets healthcare and education doesn't mean he wants services to be delivered inefficiently.
The first Republican to rebuke the climate denial trend will be the first Republican I take seriously.
Does it really surprise anyone that Ted Cruz would do this?
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/ted-cruz-cheated-his-staffers-told-iowa-caucus-goers-that-ben-carson-had-already-dropped-out/23729/
I don't know. I frankly can't stand Ted Cruz, but I'm leaning on this having been something that was done spur of the moment by the individual staffers all pumped up to win Iowa for Cruz. On the other hand, it could have been coordinated by someone higher up in his campaign. I doubt Cruz himself specifically had a hand in it. I imagine the campaign managers would want to preserve plausible deniability when it comes to dirty tricks. I can see this happening with almost any campaign and not endemic to Cruz specifically. Bleah, how I hate defending Cruz.
The first Republican to rebuke the climate denial trend will be the first Republican I take seriously.
The first Republican to rebuke the climate denial trend will be the first Republican I take seriously.
LINDSEY GRAHAM
https://newrepublic.com/article/121936/lindsey-graham-republican-environmentalists-can-love
looks like the person I most wanted to be president, Rand Paul, has dropped out, as well as Mike Huckabee.
The first Republican to rebuke the climate denial trend will be the first Republican I take seriously.
LINDSEY GRAHAM
https://newrepublic.com/article/121936/lindsey-graham-republican-environmentalists-can-love
Is a perfect example of why Republican politicians have to deny climate change. Even suggesting that you might maybe agree with science is enough to make you a laughing stock with the voters. Poor guy never had a chance.
If he'd just gone with "I'm gonna build a wall!" he would have gotten a lot farther in the primaries.
looks like the person I most wanted to be president, Rand Paul, has dropped out, as well as Mike Huckabee.
Next least unfortunate after Rand for me is John Kasich, he will do well in New Hampshire and there is like a .1% chance that it will then lead to him doing better in other states, especially if he nails the next couple debates as well. But on the other hand, Rubio already has like a 25% chance of winning, which is much better than .1%looks like the person I most wanted to be president, Rand Paul, has dropped out, as well as Mike Huckabee.
Same for me. Too bad I didn't already send in my absentee ballot; now I have to find the least unfortunate option. Looks like that's Rubio, even though he just seems like a younger and angrier Bush. I'd vote for Cruz in the spirit of gridlock, but I don't think he could win against Sanders. He can't out-sleaze a Clinton, so he'd do well there, but I think Sanders would look pretty good up against him.
The first Republican to rebuke the climate denial trend will be the first Republican I take seriously.
I think you might be surprised at how many of them take climate change very seriously, but can't say so publicly.
You'll just have to take my word for it on this; most of our senior political leadership knows climate change is real, caused by humans, and a long term threat to our economy, our health, and our national security. Despite popular opinion, Congress is not populated by morons.
But it is accountable to morons. A huge number of those politicians are beholden to constituents who believe NASA faked the moon landing, Obama is a Muslim, and climate change is all a hoax. Their political agenda (which is about 90% economic) is subject to their continued reelection, which is contingent on telling the people what they want to hear, which means catering to their misguided beliefs. Behind closed doors, most of the Republican leadership talks openly and seriously about climate change in a way that would get them tossed on their asses if they did it in public.
There are exceptions, of course. James Inhofe is a dyed-in-the-wool climate denier, and he chairs the Environment and Public Works committee. He's an idiot, but most senior Republicans aren't like that privately, even while they back him publicly.
I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to be some kind of panacea, but it would be a step in the right direction. I disagree with many of his spending initiatives (although I appreciate that he's transparent about where the taxes will come from that will pay for those programs), but right now he seems to me to be the least corrupt of either side and the most honest in both word and action about wanting to get money out of politics.
I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to be some kind of panacea, but it would be a step in the right direction. I disagree with many of his spending initiatives (although I appreciate that he's transparent about where the taxes will come from that will pay for those programs), but right now he seems to me to be the least corrupt of either side and the most honest in both word and action about wanting to get money out of politics.
I don't necessarily agree with the policy positions or rhetoric that Bernie Sanders supports, but I'll agree with you on one count; I think he's the least corrupt politician currently in the race on either side. Love him or hate him, at least he's not lying to you.
The first Republican to rebuke the climate denial trend will be the first Republican I take seriously.I'm reading the book "This Changes Everything" and it's a very compelling case for why conservatives (and conservative politicians especially) feel threatened by climate change as a problem with their ideology - because if free-rein capitalism caused such a messed up problem, we may have to look elsewhere to fix it. That would hurt a lot of rich people in their pocketbooks, and they spend millions on propaganda in conservative news sources to combat the idea that free market solutions might actually turn out to spawn free market problems, and a big problem at that.
I grew up an Ayn Rand-toting libertarian, but have gradually morphed into a socialist because I've become disillusioned with the dishonesty and fraud that plague the free market, resulting in an inequality not only of wealth but of power and influence, so that the majority of poor people in this world are getting screwed over in a million ways just to make the rich richer. What's good for 99% of the world, like strict pollution standards, can be overthrown easily by the money and power of the 1% who stand to lose money if those solutions happen. The problems that face our world today are so wide-spread that I feel like they can't be solved without government interventions, as inefficient or costly as they may be.
Mostly what I hate is that our own government seems so entrenched with moneyed interests that they're not doing what's best for the people they're supposed to represent. I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to be some kind of panacea, but it would be a step in the right direction. I disagree with many of his spending initiatives (although I appreciate that he's transparent about where the taxes will come from that will pay for those programs), but right now he seems to me to be the least corrupt of either side and the most honest in both word and action about wanting to get money out of politics.
At a town hall Monday morning in Coralville, Cruz rejected the “binary” framing of a choice between a foreign policy philosophy where “we want to retreat from the world and be isolationist and leave everyone alone, or we’ve got to be these crazy neo-con invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East.”
“Most people I know don’t agree with either one of those,” he said. “They think both of those are nuts.”
Bernie Sanders: ... he may recruit economist Paul Krugman ... whom I'm unfamiliar with.
(if you still love the neoconservatives and their philosophy - I urge you to learn about Doug Feith - the architect of DeBaathification and prison policy in Iraq - a guy who General Tommy Franks called "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet" - and when you're done reading, check back in).Oh Lord, no, I was done with the neoconservatives by the time I graduated school. It's not a philosophy that survives a great deal of scrutiny, but I was young and wanted to believe that our system was more meritocratic and less corrupt than it is.
Bernie Sanders: ... he may recruit economist Paul Krugman ... whom I'm unfamiliar with.
See http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4 and http://www.investmentu.com/article/detail/40590/paul-krugman-meet-worlds-worst-economist.
Bernie Sanders: ... he may recruit economist Paul Krugman ... whom I'm unfamiliar with.
See http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4 and http://www.investmentu.com/article/detail/40590/paul-krugman-meet-worlds-worst-economist.
Thanks for the two articles of opposing viewpoints. The positive argument is about how his general viewpoint / side of the debate has been proved correct (spending vs austerity during financial crises). The other article is much more pointed and directed at him as a person. If indeed he's as the article says: prone to confirmation bias, thinking he knows it all, and quick to use ad hominem attacks - well, those are all large red flags. I suppose the next step is to read his blog. Whoa - he writes something just about every day. A quick scan and I can say this: he doesn't hold back with his opinion. It is of course, his blog. I'm not sure if I want to go down that rabbit hole right now though. Maybe later. Thanks again MDM.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/)
This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.
Was there any law or policy in place at the time? No, then none of them are.http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/)
This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.
In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/)
This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.
In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/)In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.
This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.
You're wrong. It's not a crime to receive classified info, and neither Colin Powell nor Condoleezza Rice are alleged to have sent any classified e-mails from an unsecured server. Moreover, the article says it wasn't Rice but her staff.
In short, RTFA before lobbing wildly unjustified accusations.
"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."
Was there any law or policy in place at the time? No, then none of them are.http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/)
This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.
In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.
Was there any law or policy in place at the time? No, then none of them are.http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/)
This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.
In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.
Freedom of Information Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29), effective 1967 and amended to include electronic records in 1996. Storing the emails out of State Department control makes it impossible to comply with FOIA requests. I don't give a shit about the "classified" BS; FOIA-noncompliance by itself is bad enough!
Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?
This was in a document Hillary signed:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTYSqixWEAAMrXI.jpg:large)
So "it wasn't classified at the time" isn't a very good excuse.
You really think anybody can choose to accept that explanation when you refuted it in the same paragraph?Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.
You really think anybody can choose to accept that explanation when you refuted it in the same paragraph?Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
I can kind of understand. The multiple devices were a blackberry, ipads, etc. I also have multiple devices, but I can see how having to rotate around them just to manage email would be annoying.QuoteThe more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.
So control is more important to her than the law? Sounds like Presidential material!
You really think anybody can choose to accept that explanation when you refuted it in the same paragraph?Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
I can kind of understand. The multiple devices were a blackberry, ipads, etc. I also have multiple devices, but I can see how having to rotate around them just to manage email would be annoying.QuoteThe more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.
So control is more important to her than the law? Sounds like Presidential material!
At this point, nobody can say for certain that the law was actually broken. So your point is kind of moot. If there was some kind of technical violation, personally I don't think any malice was intended.
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.
The conspiratorial justification is the Clinton needed to do this to hide her crimes against humanity.
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.
The conspiratorial justification is the Clinton needed to do this to hide her crimes against humanity.
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
You really think anybody can choose to accept that explanation when you refuted it in the same paragraph?Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
I can kind of understand. The multiple devices were a blackberry, ipads, etc. I also have multiple devices, but I can see how having to rotate around them just to manage email would be annoying.QuoteThe more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.
So control is more important to her than the law? Sounds like Presidential material!
At this point, nobody can say for certain that the law was actually broken. So your point is kind of moot. If there was some kind of technical violation, personally I don't think any malice was intended.
Okay. If you can look at all of it and say "Seems legit! I want to give this person more power" I think that's foolish but there's no convincing you to change your mind.
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.
The conspiratorial justification is the Clinton needed to do this to hide her crimes against humanity.
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
Does that strike you as a legitimate reason? She broke the rules so nobody could criticize her, and you say, "Good idea!"
...
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
The point is that almost EVERYONE was breaking the rules at that time.
And not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.
...
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.
Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.
The point is that almost EVERYONE was breaking the rules at that time.
Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?QuoteAnd not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.
How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.
...
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.
I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.
That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.
Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?QuoteAnd not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.
How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.
Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.
It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.
...
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.
I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.
That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.
I don't expect her to have a thorough knowledge of everything.
But I expect her to do at least one of these:
1. Place some value on transparency in a democratic society, so insist on following the rules.
2. Have staff that understand the rules.
3. Replace staff that do not follow the rules.
If she can't do any of those, that's a serious concern about her qualifications as president.
As in this case, she will expose more dangerous information to enemies of the country. If she places loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States, I don't want her to be President. If, when it becomes a major issue, she still can't educate herself enough about it to recognize that it's a problem, that's an issue.
Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?QuoteAnd not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.
How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.
Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.
It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.
The State Department IT staff would have been happy to set up her devices, too, without her having to touch a single Ethernet cable. If she just has rogue staff violating FOIA regulations, some people need to be fired. If she can't fire the people responsible, and she won't take responsibility herself, she shouldn't be President.
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.
That by itself is an evil quality in a politician.
Voters should support a candidate who values integrity and good ideas, not "loyalty."
...
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.
I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.
That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.
I don't expect her to have a thorough knowledge of everything.
So we are in agreement that her lack of knowledge about the minutiae of cybersecurity does not disqualify her.But I expect her to do at least one of these:
1. Place some value on transparency in a democratic society, so insist on following the rules.
2. Have staff that understand the rules.
3. Replace staff that do not follow the rules.
If she can't do any of those, that's a serious concern about her qualifications as president.
If #1 is your expectations, I think you are going to be disappointed no matter who is elected president. Regarding #2 and #3, the minute these are done, the politician then gets accused of throwing staffers under the bus rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. Clinton chose to take responsibility for it and she gets accused of not making anyone pay. Its kind of a no win situation.As in this case, she will expose more dangerous information to enemies of the country. If she places loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States, I don't want her to be President. If, when it becomes a major issue, she still can't educate herself enough about it to recognize that it's a problem, that's an issue.
Loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States? Wow!
Your traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mindlessness; a journey into a terrifying land whose boundaries are that of the wildest conspiracies. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the WINGNUT ZONE! BA BA BA BA BUMMMM!Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?QuoteAnd not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.
How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.
It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.The State Department IT staff would have been happy to set up her devices, too, without her having to touch a single Ethernet cable. If she just has rogue staff violating FOIA regulations, some people need to be fired. If she can't fire the people responsible, and she won't take responsibility herself, she shouldn't be President.
My understanding was that the setup was done prior to her joining the State Department. Like I said, there was some internal emails of her staff trying to determine an alternative solution. It just never happened.
From my point of view it all comes down to whether the mistake of the private email was one of malice or poor oversight of the IT infrastructure? The fact that this was done with prior secretaries and that it lasted for YEARS with nobody bothering to escalate this as a risk shows that it was an institutional problem that was simply ignored until it was turned into a political scandal.
If you want to talk about responsibility, then EVERYONE in the government who ever sent or received an email to or from Hillary Clinton. Everyone who saw her email address should have escalated it as an issue.
But let's be honest. This isn't about risk or responsibility. This is about crucifying Clinton with whatever tool available.
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.
That by itself is an evil quality in a politician.
Voters should support a candidate who values integrity and good ideas, not "loyalty."
Loyalty is evil? I guess that must mean that treachery is virtuous.
...
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.
I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.
That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.
I don't expect her to have a thorough knowledge of everything.
So we are in agreement that her lack of knowledge about the minutiae of cybersecurity does not disqualify her.But I expect her to do at least one of these:
1. Place some value on transparency in a democratic society, so insist on following the rules.
2. Have staff that understand the rules.
3. Replace staff that do not follow the rules.
If she can't do any of those, that's a serious concern about her qualifications as president.
If #1 is your expectations, I think you are going to be disappointed no matter who is elected president. Regarding #2 and #3, the minute these are done, the politician then gets accused of throwing staffers under the bus rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. Clinton chose to take responsibility for it and she gets accused of not making anyone pay. Its kind of a no win situation.As in this case, she will expose more dangerous information to enemies of the country. If she places loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States, I don't want her to be President. If, when it becomes a major issue, she still can't educate herself enough about it to recognize that it's a problem, that's an issue.
Loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States? Wow!
Your traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mindlessness; a journey into a terrifying land whose boundaries are that of the wildest conspiracies. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the WINGNUT ZONE! BA BA BA BA BUMMMM!Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?QuoteAnd not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.
How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.
It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.The State Department IT staff would have been happy to set up her devices, too, without her having to touch a single Ethernet cable. If she just has rogue staff violating FOIA regulations, some people need to be fired. If she can't fire the people responsible, and she won't take responsibility herself, she shouldn't be President.
My understanding was that the setup was done prior to her joining the State Department. Like I said, there was some internal emails of her staff trying to determine an alternative solution. It just never happened.
From my point of view it all comes down to whether the mistake of the private email was one of malice or poor oversight of the IT infrastructure? The fact that this was done with prior secretaries and that it lasted for YEARS with nobody bothering to escalate this as a risk shows that it was an institutional problem that was simply ignored until it was turned into a political scandal.
If you want to talk about responsibility, then EVERYONE in the government who ever sent or received an email to or from Hillary Clinton. Everyone who saw her email address should have escalated it as an issue.
But let's be honest. This isn't about risk or responsibility. This is about crucifying Clinton with whatever tool available.
I've been nothing but civil here and you're calling me a wingnut and accusing me of arguing in bad faith.
Loyalty to Abedin over loyalty to the United States isn't overstating it at all - you either follow the rules of the United States as a civil servant or you protect your staff who violate them while endangering national security.
Can you find me a politician who got heavily criticized for firing a lawbreaking staffer? Is "but she'll get criticized" an acceptable reason to not stand up for what's right?
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.
That by itself is an evil quality in a politician.
Voters should support a candidate who values integrity and good ideas, not "loyalty."
Loyalty is evil? I guess that must mean that treachery is virtuous.
No, the truth of a statement does not imply the truth of its inverse.
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.
That by itself is an evil quality in a politician.
Voters should support a candidate who values integrity and good ideas, not "loyalty."
Loyalty is evil? I guess that must mean that treachery is virtuous.
No, the truth of a statement does not imply the truth of its inverse.
The inverse certainly highlights the ridiculousness of the original statement. Loyalty is Evil? Yeah, right. Whatever you want to believe in that looking glass world.
Normally, I take any articles written by Slate with more than a few grains of salt, but this is a pretty fair description of Rubio's performance at last night's debate. He screwed up. And I think it will matter.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/marco_rubio_was_a_disaster_in_the_gop_debate_on_abc.html
Normally, I take any articles written by Slate with more than a few grains of salt, but this is a pretty fair description of Rubio's performance at last night's debate. He screwed up. And I think it will matter.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/marco_rubio_was_a_disaster_in_the_gop_debate_on_abc.html
And against Rubio’s disdain for experience, he scoffed. “You have not been involved in a consequential decision where you had to be held accountable,” Christie said.
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth.I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.
She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.
Why are you defending her?
Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth.I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.
She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.
Why are you defending her?
"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."
I found the Rubio debate gaffe interesting. I don't love him by any means, but I was ok with him compared to that creeper Cruz and all Mexicans are criminal Trump. So now it is looking like more chaos. The R primaries are seriously amazing this year (and also scary).
I read a theory that Jeb!, Kasich, and Christie are hanging in for the long haul because many of the delegates are obligated to vote for their candidate for the first round of voting, but then if there is no majority (which at this point, seems like a strong possibility) they become free agents. So the more traditional GOP candidates have a distinct chance of becoming the nominee even if they finish in the 3-4-5th place range behind the crazy ones.
Where Rubio fits in there is interesting to me. Why do establishment GOP'ers not like him? Because he is brown-ish? I expected the establishment to throw itself behind anyone who wasn't Trump or Cruz, but I never have gotten the sense they liked Rubio.
Where Rubio fits in there is interesting to me. Why do establishment GOP'ers not like him? Because he is brown-ish? I expected the establishment to throw itself behind anyone who wasn't Trump or Cruz, but I never have gotten the sense they liked Rubio.
Powell and Clinton are two different situations. Clinton's emails were classified from the start Powell's were not. Powell's email's did not contain any SCI material while Clinton's did. Material can go from being unclassified to being classified Confidential, Secret, or even Top Secret. It will never go from unclassified to TS/SCI though. So material that is TS/SCI today was also TS/SCI 12 months ago. SCI protects sources and methods. Sources and methods are classified from their inception.Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth.I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.
She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.
Why are you defending her?
No you wouldn't. These materials only became SCI in the last 12 months, AFTER they were discovered on Clinton's server and in Powell's online account. Prior to that they were NON CLASSIFIED. As I quoted Powell...Quote"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."
It's bogus to hold them responsible for a classification that didn't exist at the time.
It's also bogus to single out Clinton criminal punishment (if a crime was actually committed) for doing something that MANY, MANY other high ranking government officials have done - using a private email account to conduct official business. Palin did it as governor in Alaska. Jeb Bush did it as governor in Florida. Powell did it. Rice's aides did it. The way I see it is this was an error in judgment that Clinton already took a big hit politically for. She became the poster child for why government officials should NOT use private email and hopefully we'll be seeing less of it. I just don't see this rising to the level of a criminal conviction, particularly when we can't even hold our officials accountable for REAL criminal acts like kidnapping and torture and spying on congress.
Where Rubio fits in there is interesting to me. Why do establishment GOP'ers not like him? Because he is brown-ish? I expected the establishment to throw itself behind anyone who wasn't Trump or Cruz, but I never have gotten the sense they liked Rubio.
They do like Rubio. He's kind of their boy-wonder, who, like Obama, was lunched onto the national radar during his very first term as a US Senator. Remember he was selected to give the GOP's response to Obama's State of the Union address in 2013 (became talked about because he took a "water break" during the speech)? I think the establishment is having a very difficult time deciding where to throw their weight during this election season since it has been such an unusual cast of candidates. I think the phenomenon of Bush, Christie, Kasich hanging on has to due with (1) we're not yet at Super Tuesday, and (2) perhaps vying for the VP spot.
Powell and Clinton are two different situations. Clinton's emails were classified from the start Powell's were not. Powell's email's did not contain any SCI material while Clinton's did. Material can go from being unclassified to being classified Confidential, Secret, or even Top Secret. It will never go from unclassified to TS/SCI though. So material that is TS/SCI today was also TS/SCI 12 months ago. SCI protects sources and methods. Sources and methods are classified from their inception.Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth.I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.
She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.
Why are you defending her?
No you wouldn't. These materials only became SCI in the last 12 months, AFTER they were discovered on Clinton's server and in Powell's online account. Prior to that they were NON CLASSIFIED. As I quoted Powell...Quote"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."
It's bogus to hold them responsible for a classification that didn't exist at the time.
It's also bogus to single out Clinton criminal punishment (if a crime was actually committed) for doing something that MANY, MANY other high ranking government officials have done - using a private email account to conduct official business. Palin did it as governor in Alaska. Jeb Bush did it as governor in Florida. Powell did it. Rice's aides did it. The way I see it is this was an error in judgment that Clinton already took a big hit politically for. She became the poster child for why government officials should NOT use private email and hopefully we'll be seeing less of it. I just don't see this rising to the level of a criminal conviction, particularly when we can't even hold our officials accountable for REAL criminal acts like kidnapping and torture and spying on congress.
It has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.
Powell and Clinton are two different situations. Clinton's emails were classified from the start Powell's were not. Powell's email's did not contain any SCI material while Clinton's did. Material can go from being unclassified to being classified Confidential, Secret, or even Top Secret. It will never go from unclassified to TS/SCI though. So material that is TS/SCI today was also TS/SCI 12 months ago. SCI protects sources and methods. Sources and methods are classified from their inception.Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth.I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.
Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.
She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.
Why are you defending her?
No you wouldn't. These materials only became SCI in the last 12 months, AFTER they were discovered on Clinton's server and in Powell's online account. Prior to that they were NON CLASSIFIED. As I quoted Powell...Quote"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."
It's bogus to hold them responsible for a classification that didn't exist at the time.
It's also bogus to single out Clinton criminal punishment (if a crime was actually committed) for doing something that MANY, MANY other high ranking government officials have done - using a private email account to conduct official business. Palin did it as governor in Alaska. Jeb Bush did it as governor in Florida. Powell did it. Rice's aides did it. The way I see it is this was an error in judgment that Clinton already took a big hit politically for. She became the poster child for why government officials should NOT use private email and hopefully we'll be seeing less of it. I just don't see this rising to the level of a criminal conviction, particularly when we can't even hold our officials accountable for REAL criminal acts like kidnapping and torture and spying on congress.
Where do you get that Clinton's emails were classified from the start? I have not seen any indication of that. Juan Williams (Fox News Commentator) did a good writeup on the Clinton email matter just other day. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but I don't see Williams having an axe to grind one way or the other in this.Quote from: Juan WilliamsIt has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.
http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga (http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga)
I had security clearance with the DoD when I was designing flight sims for F-18s. Took about two weeks to get, and I think they did a police background check. Not really a big deal at all, and simply having clearance certainly doesn't make me an expert on security matters as you seem to imply.
We regularly dealt with an awful lot of military documents. I usually had no idea if the technical weapons specs I was looking at were classified or not. Has the US policy changed that much in the last six years, or are you just making things up for the sake of your argument?
Where do you get that Clinton's emails were classified from the start? I have not seen any indication of that. Juan Williams (Fox News Commentator) did a good writeup on the Clinton email matter just other day. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but I don't see Williams having an axe to grind one way or the other in this.Quote from: Juan WilliamsIt has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.
http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga (http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga)
I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community, said he has concluded two of Mrs. Clinton’s emails met the standard of “top secret/SCI level,” while other messages are still being scrutinized to see how secret they should have been.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-top-secret-materi/?page=all
I had security clearance with the DoD when I was designing flight sims for F-18s. Took about two weeks to get, and I think they did a police background check. Not really a big deal at all, and simply having clearance certainly doesn't make me an expert on security matters as you seem to imply.Having a secret clearance is much different than a TS/SCI. It took me 6 months to get mine and that is considered fast, most people are waiting around a year for one. They not only conduct a background check on yourself but all of your immediate family. They interview the neighbors of your past residences and co-workers of past employers. They also conduct background checks on any non-us citizen you know. Finally depending on the agency you will be working for and accesses you may need to have you, you will also take a polygraph test. A secret clearance pretty much only requires a criminal background check and a credit check.
We regularly dealt with an awful lot of military documents. I usually had no idea if the technical weapons specs I was looking at were classified or not. Has the US policy changed that much in the last six years, or are you just making things up for the sake of your argument?
Where do you get that Clinton's emails were classified from the start? I have not seen any indication of that. Juan Williams (Fox News Commentator) did a good writeup on the Clinton email matter just other day. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but I don't see Williams having an axe to grind one way or the other in this.Quote from: Juan WilliamsIt has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.
http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga (http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga)QuoteI. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community, said he has concluded two of Mrs. Clinton’s emails met the standard of “top secret/SCI level,” while other messages are still being scrutinized to see how secret they should have been.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-top-secret-materi/?page=all
As I have stated before the SCI material doesn't go from unclassified to TS/SCI. If it SCI now it was SCI when it was created. People that think she didn't commit a crime don't understand how classification works in the US.
Where do you get that Clinton's emails were classified from the start? I have not seen any indication of that. Juan Williams (Fox News Commentator) did a good writeup on the Clinton email matter just other day. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but I don't see Williams having an axe to grind one way or the other in this.Quote from: Juan WilliamsIt has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.
http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga (http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga)
There is only one reason why the Secretary of State of the US govt. would bypass the required secure email and conduct business on a private server...she wanted total control over her emails. And that was proven when she immediately deleted thousands of emails when the FOI request was made.
Anyone who thinks it was a "honest mistake" or due to her "technical limitations" is a gullible fool. Clinton has a long history of lying and dishonest behavior....this is just another example.
There is only one reason why the Secretary of State of the US govt. would bypass the required secure email and conduct business on a private server...she wanted total control over her emails. And that was proven when she immediately deleted thousands of emails when the FOI request was made.
Anyone who thinks it was a "honest mistake" or due to her "technical limitations" is a gullible fool. Clinton has a long history of lying and dishonest behavior....this is just another example.
Can we also all be angry about this too, then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Slightly different context, but still shows that the RNC is inconsistent in their indignation (not a uniquely GOP trait).
There is only one reason why the Secretary of State of the US govt. would bypass the required secure email and conduct business on a private server...she wanted total control over her emails. And that was proven when she immediately deleted thousands of emails when the FOI request was made.
Anyone who thinks it was a "honest mistake" or due to her "technical limitations" is a gullible fool. Clinton has a long history of lying and dishonest behavior....this is just another example.
Can we also all be angry about this too, then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Slightly different context, but still shows that the RNC is inconsistent in their indignation (not a uniquely GOP trait).
What's your point...Bush had an email controversy, so that means Hillary should get a free pass today?
"Waaaa...he did it so I can do it too?"
There is only one reason why the Secretary of State of the US govt. would bypass the required secure email and conduct business on a private server...she wanted total control over her emails. And that was proven when she immediately deleted thousands of emails when the FOI request was made.
Anyone who thinks it was a "honest mistake" or due to her "technical limitations" is a gullible fool. Clinton has a long history of lying and dishonest behavior....this is just another example.
Can we also all be angry about this too, then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Slightly different context, but still shows that the RNC is inconsistent in their indignation (not a uniquely GOP trait).
I think we should dislike Hillary because she is a shitty candidate, not because of an email scandal
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
Ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner.
I believe that she used her private server to hide emails from potential future FOIA requests that would be used politically. She was absolutely wrong to do so.
In the grand scheme of things, if this is the worst thing that she has done in 20+ years of public service, its not that bad. That doesn't make it right, it makes it not worth dwelling on.
She should have admitted a mistake and issued a series of mea culpas over this ages ago. Denying it is what makes it news.
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
Ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner.
I believe that she used her private server to hide emails from potential future FOIA requests that would be used politically. She was absolutely wrong to do so.
In the grand scheme of things, if this is the worst thing that she has done in 20+ years of public service, its not that bad. That doesn't make it right, it makes it not worth dwelling on.
She should have admitted a mistake and issued a series of mea culpas over this ages ago. Denying it is what makes it news.
Wow!! So to hide from the opposition, she should be allowed to hide GOVERNMENT emails? And from your post, you are ok with Government secrets getting out? and not having an easy way for accountability? wow!
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
Ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner.
I believe that she used her private server to hide emails from potential future FOIA requests that would be used politically. She was absolutely wrong to do so.
In the grand scheme of things, if this is the worst thing that she has done in 20+ years of public service, its not that bad. That doesn't make it right, it makes it not worth dwelling on.
She should have admitted a mistake and issued a series of mea culpas over this ages ago. Denying it is what makes it news.
Wow!! So to hide from the opposition, she should be allowed to hide GOVERNMENT emails? And from your post, you are ok with Government secrets getting out? and not having an easy way for accountability? wow!
I think the general answer is No, No and No. I would counter, however, saying that even so this is a breach of trust for which Clinton is already being made accountable for in the court of public opinion. Let the people decide whether that makes her unfit for the Presidency. Barring the release of new details, there is nothing that Clinton did that is worthy of prosecution, much less conviction.
Where do you get that Clinton's emails were classified from the start? I have not seen any indication of that. Juan Williams (Fox News Commentator) did a good writeup on the Clinton email matter just other day. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but I don't see Williams having an axe to grind one way or the other in this.Quote from: Juan WilliamsIt has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.
http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga (http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga)QuoteI. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community, said he has concluded two of Mrs. Clinton’s emails met the standard of “top secret/SCI level,” while other messages are still being scrutinized to see how secret they should have been.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-top-secret-materi/?page=all
As I have stated before SCI material doesn't go from unclassified to TS/SCI. If it is SCI now, it was SCI when it was created. People that think she didn't commit a crime don't understand how classification works in the US. My job requires me to read through various agencies classification manuals and I know how things are classified and when classifications might change.I had security clearance with the DoD when I was designing flight sims for F-18s. Took about two weeks to get, and I think they did a police background check. Not really a big deal at all, and simply having clearance certainly doesn't make me an expert on security matters as you seem to imply.Having a secret clearance is much different than a TS/SCI. It took me 6 months to get mine and that is considered fast, most people are waiting around a year for one. They not only conduct a background check on yourself but all of your immediate family. They interview the neighbors of your past residences and co-workers of past employers. They also conduct background checks on any non-us citizen you know. Finally depending on the agency you will be working for and accesses you may need to have you, you will also take a polygraph test. A secret clearance pretty much only requires a criminal background check and a credit check.
We regularly dealt with an awful lot of military documents. I usually had no idea if the technical weapons specs I was looking at were classified or not. Has the US policy changed that much in the last six years, or are you just making things up for the sake of your argument?
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
Ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner.
I believe that she used her private server to hide emails from potential future FOIA requests that would be used politically. She was absolutely wrong to do so.
In the grand scheme of things, if this is the worst thing that she has done in 20+ years of public service, its not that bad. That doesn't make it right, it makes it not worth dwelling on.
She should have admitted a mistake and issued a series of mea culpas over this ages ago. Denying it is what makes it news.
Wow!! So to hide from the opposition, she should be allowed to hide GOVERNMENT emails? And from your post, you are ok with Government secrets getting out? and not having an easy way for accountability? wow!
I think the general answer is No, No and No. I would counter, however, saying that even so this is a breach of trust for which Clinton is already being made accountable for in the court of public opinion. Let the people decide whether that makes her unfit for the Presidency. Barring the release of new details, there is nothing that Clinton did that is worthy of prosecution, much less conviction.
Oh good, so you are fine with me and my fellow workers to break policy? GREAT!! Ill just let public opinion shout and spout, but just walk home without any punishment.
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
Ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner.
I believe that she used her private server to hide emails from potential future FOIA requests that would be used politically. She was absolutely wrong to do so.
In the grand scheme of things, if this is the worst thing that she has done in 20+ years of public service, its not that bad. That doesn't make it right, it makes it not worth dwelling on.
She should have admitted a mistake and issued a series of mea culpas over this ages ago. Denying it is what makes it news.
Wow!! So to hide from the opposition, she should be allowed to hide GOVERNMENT emails? And from your post, you are ok with Government secrets getting out? and not having an easy way for accountability? wow!
I think the general answer is No, No and No. I would counter, however, saying that even so this is a breach of trust for which Clinton is already being made accountable for in the court of public opinion. Let the people decide whether that makes her unfit for the Presidency. Barring the release of new details, there is nothing that Clinton did that is worthy of prosecution, much less conviction.
Oh good, so you are fine with me and my fellow workers to break policy? GREAT!! Ill just let public opinion shout and spout, but just walk home without any punishment.
Of course you shouldn't break policy. On the other hand, if the violation was simply a mistake of judgment while you were just trying to do your job, I think it would be a dick move to threaten you with legal action for it.
The reason people are showing that others in the state department did it, is to show it was not policy AT THE TIME. Obviously it was acceptable to use private emails (her server was actual more secure than the ones use by GOP appointed people) as shown by the activities of her predecessors.
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
Ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner.
I believe that she used her private server to hide emails from potential future FOIA requests that would be used politically. She was absolutely wrong to do so.
In the grand scheme of things, if this is the worst thing that she has done in 20+ years of public service, its not that bad. That doesn't make it right, it makes it not worth dwelling on.
She should have admitted a mistake and issued a series of mea culpas over this ages ago. Denying it is what makes it news.
Wow!! So to hide from the opposition, she should be allowed to hide GOVERNMENT emails? And from your post, you are ok with Government secrets getting out? and not having an easy way for accountability? wow!
I think the general answer is No, No and No. I would counter, however, saying that even so this is a breach of trust for which Clinton is already being made accountable for in the court of public opinion. Let the people decide whether that makes her unfit for the Presidency. Barring the release of new details, there is nothing that Clinton did that is worthy of prosecution, much less conviction.
Oh good, so you are fine with me and my fellow workers to break policy? GREAT!! Ill just let public opinion shout and spout, but just walk home without any punishment.
Of course you shouldn't break policy. On the other hand, if the violation was simply a mistake of judgment while you were just trying to do your job, I think it would be a dick move to threaten you with legal action for it.
She broke policy! and it is not a simple mistake of one or two emails, there were thousands. Our policy states that NO government emails should be sent to private emails or outside the workplace. She had her own server!! that they IT did not even know about or approve! You keep making excuses, but she broke our policies. Just the other day I had to take our annual security training and classified information is not always labeled, but you know when it has sensitive information on it. Ignorance is not an excuse against the law.
The reason people are showing that others in the state department did it, is to show it was not policy AT THE TIME. Obviously it was acceptable to use private emails (her server was actual more secure than the ones use by GOP appointed people) as shown by the activities of her predecessors.
Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.
Ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner.
I believe that she used her private server to hide emails from potential future FOIA requests that would be used politically. She was absolutely wrong to do so.
In the grand scheme of things, if this is the worst thing that she has done in 20+ years of public service, its not that bad. That doesn't make it right, it makes it not worth dwelling on.
She should have admitted a mistake and issued a series of mea culpas over this ages ago. Denying it is what makes it news.
Wow!! So to hide from the opposition, she should be allowed to hide GOVERNMENT emails? And from your post, you are ok with Government secrets getting out? and not having an easy way for accountability? wow!
I think the general answer is No, No and No. I would counter, however, saying that even so this is a breach of trust for which Clinton is already being made accountable for in the court of public opinion. Let the people decide whether that makes her unfit for the Presidency. Barring the release of new details, there is nothing that Clinton did that is worthy of prosecution, much less conviction.
Oh good, so you are fine with me and my fellow workers to break policy? GREAT!! Ill just let public opinion shout and spout, but just walk home without any punishment.
Of course you shouldn't break policy. On the other hand, if the violation was simply a mistake of judgment while you were just trying to do your job, I think it would be a dick move to threaten you with legal action for it.
She broke policy! and it is not a simple mistake of one or two emails, there were thousands. Our policy states that NO government emails should be sent to private emails or outside the workplace. She had her own server!! that they IT did not even know about or approve! You keep making excuses, but she broke our policies. Just the other day I had to take our annual security training and classified information is not always labeled, but you know when it has sensitive information on it. Ignorance is not an excuse against the law.
Emails and scandals aside, what to think of the primary results?
is this the last blossom of the socialist dream or does sanders really have a chance?
Will the trump rout of republicans only continue or can any defeat him?
Will the establishment coalesce around someone?
Will Micheal Bloomberg run, if so how will that play out in the general?
For the Democrats, Mr. Sanders's popularity with liberals, young people, and some women and working-class white men has underscored potential vulnerabilities for Mrs. Clinton in the nominating contests ahead. She is now under enormous pressure to prove that her message can inspire and rally voters.
As for criticisms? I'm disappointed by the rhetoric coming from Hillary supporters. They make her seem desperate. Really Gloria and Madeline? Women only like Bernie because the boys like Bernie? Gloria Steinem, in one stroke, undid her life's work, IMO. She shamed, judged and ridiculed potential voters in one little sentence. It's not helping Hillary.
I'm annoyed at the spin the NY Times put on Bernie's win. They wrote:QuoteFor the Democrats, Mr. Sanders's popularity with liberals, young people, and some women and working-class white men has underscored potential vulnerabilities for Mrs. Clinton in the nominating contests ahead. She is now under enormous pressure to prove that her message can inspire and rally voters.
By talking about "potential vulnerabilities," the NY Times is acting like Clinton is still the front-runner. No, you silly newspapermen! Sanders has tied one state and won the other outright (and by a veritable landslide). That means Clinton's vulnerabilities are actual, not "potential," and that her message has been proven not to inspire.
Hillary is losing, and continuing to pretend Sanders is somehow anything less than the most-viable Democratic candidate is simply inaccurate.
I think the older women have had more gender inequality in their lives and It would mean more to them to have a woman president, and some of them will look past policies and focus more on gender, whereas younger women have had less gender inequality and care less about gender and more about policies. That being said, I don't understand why everyone is so mad at Gloria Steinem for making one slip up on a talk show, she is one of the reasons that women have less gender inequality today, and to say that she undid her life's work in one sentence I think is ignorant and downright stupid.
millennial women don't have any memory of Hillary from the 90s.
millennial women don't have any memory of Hillary from the 90s.
My kids and their friends (like 10-12 years old) were talking about the election in the car a few days ago, and were shocked to learn that Hillary Clinton's husband had once been a US President.
millennial women don't have any memory of Hillary from the 90s.
My kids and their friends (like 10-12 years old) were talking about the election in the car a few days ago, and were shocked to learn that Hillary Clinton's husband had once been a US President.
There you go. And I don't think it's all that much better for 18-22 year-olds. My stepdaughters are 23 and 22. The 23 year-old is pretty politically engaged, so she knows, but she didn't live it, you know? She was one year old when Bill won the election.
millennial women don't have any memory of Hillary from the 90s.
My kids and their friends (like 10-12 years old) were talking about the election in the car a few days ago, and were shocked to learn that Hillary Clinton's husband had once been a US President.
There you go. And I don't think it's all that much better for 18-22 year-olds. My stepdaughters are 23 and 22. The 23 year-old is pretty politically engaged, so she knows, but she didn't live it, you know? She was one year old when Bill won the election.
OMG, amazing how old this makes me feel, and I'm in my early 30's! I think that's a pretty insightful observation, Kris.
Hey, what do you all think of Kasich? I really would like to know peoples thoughts. Is he an honest guy? Is he hiding anything or putting on a false front? I am trying to do research on him, but I want to hear what you guys would have to say.
Hey, what do you all think of Kasich? I really would like to know peoples thoughts. Is he an honest guy? Is he hiding anything or putting on a false front? I am trying to do research on him, but I want to hear what you guys would have to say.I used to like him as much as I like Rand Paul, at the start of his campaign he talked about reducing all spending, including military, and thus balancing the budget. He has since put out his actual plan that shows him wanting to increase military spending, I'm aware that any republican that wants to decrease military spending is unelectable, but that was one of the biggest reasons I liked him to begin with.
But this recent spate of venom from some of Hillary's female backers is making me reconsider how I feel about her.
New Hampshire primaries are now 100% reported,
Trump had a HUGE win, getting 10 delegates, Kasich got 2nd with a mere 4 delegates, while Cruz, Bush and Rubio each got 3 delegates
Sanders had a HUGE win, getting 15 delegates while Clinton got a mere 9 delegates
Honestly, I have been mostly on the fence re Bernie vs. Hillary. They are such different candidates, and though I agree in so many ways with Bernie about domestic issues, I am not very comfortable with him in terms of foreign policy experience.
The DNC has already decided that Hillary will be the winner.wow, I just read a brief description of democratic superdelegates, and they are way different from republican delegates, there are only 3 republican superdelegates per state totaling less than 200 and they now have to vote the way their state votes, their are over 700 democratic superdelegates and they can vote however they want, crazy
It doesn't matter how many states Bernie wins, they will hand it to her with the "superdelegates".
But Cressida, that guy works at the Krusty Krab!
He doesn't pull the weight of Gloria Steinem. On second thought, Mr. Krabs is quite the mustachian. Maybe we should give him an ear.
I think the point is that Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright are high profile endorsers, who I would imagine Hillary is counting on for support. They're failing her. Krusty Krab guy ain't in their league, and I doubt Bernie is relying on his endorsement.
That said, yeah, I get that these were gaffes, and I can get over it. I just couldn't believe what I was reading, then I went and double checked and yep - that's what they said. It reinforces the idiotic comments Hillary made about not being establishment because, as a woman, that would be impossible. *what?*
I just don't think pointing at statements of a candidate's supporters is any kind of gotcha.
Relevant article (http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html) that explains it well - correct me if I'm wrong - I'm just now coming up to speed on superdelegates myself..The DNC has already decided that Hillary will be the winner.wow, I just read a brief description of democratic superdelegates, and they are way different from republican delegates, there are only 3 republican superdelegates per state totaling less than 200 and they now have to vote the way their state votes, their are over 700 democratic superdelegates and they can vote however they want, crazy
It doesn't matter how many states Bernie wins, they will hand it to her with the "superdelegates".
But Cressida, that guy works at the Krusty Krab!
He doesn't pull the weight of Gloria Steinem. On second thought, Mr. Krabs is quite the mustachian. Maybe we should give him an ear.
I think the point is that Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright are high profile endorsers, who I would imagine Hillary is counting on for support. They're failing her. Krusty Krab guy ain't in their league, and I doubt Bernie is relying on his endorsement.
That said, yeah, I get that these were gaffes, and I can get over it. I just couldn't believe what I was reading, then I went and double checked and yep - that's what they said. It reinforces the idiotic comments Hillary made about not being establishment because, as a woman, that would be impossible. *what?*
Honestly, I have been mostly on the fence re Bernie vs. Hillary. They are such different candidates, and though I agree in so many ways with Bernie about domestic issues, I am not very comfortable with him in terms of foreign policy experience.
I'm of the opposite opinion. On foreign policy, Bernie >> Hillary. Here's why.
1. Bernie's been on the right side of just about every major foreign policy debate going back to Nicaragua under Reagan. I get the impression that the man honestly evaluates the facts before making hasty decisions, at least that's the impression I get from reading about his time in the Senate, HoR, and as Mayor of Burlington. And that's a quality I want in someone directing foreign policy.
2. Hillary seems to be a continuation of the long tradition of foreign policy thinking that stretches back to WW2. Since the Dulles brothers under Eisenhower, we've had Sec of States, Directors of CIA and various white house advisors, who've recommended vigorous action without doing their homework*. With Hillary's track record as Sec of State, she seems to me to be a military hawk. Her handling of Libya was hasty. From what I have read, she knew what she wanted to do before doing her homework. Right in line with Kissinger or John Foster Dulles**. I see her as more of the same. To be fair, Iran deal seemed somewhat better thought out, and planned, and may turn out okay, so there is hope there.
Yes, perhaps I'm unfairly ascribing all the transgressions of the past on Hillary. I'm aware of this. But I don't see her as a bastion of clear eyed analytical and logical thinking when it comes to foreign policy. Experienced? Yes. Biased? Yes.
The thing is, lately I've been wondering which candidate will be the most likely to be sure of his/her facts before taking action. It certainly ain't Carly Fiorina. I think she still believes those planned parenthood videos represented reality. But no need to worry about her as she'll be out soon. It ain't Trump. That guy calls it from the gut, which sometimes works out, but often won't. Oh I shudder to think of it. Hillary, well, I think she's in the middle. But Bernie seems better suited to the job. He seems the most willing to evaluate facts before jumping to conclusions.
*These leaders not only failed to combat confirmation bias, but seem to have not comprehended its existence. They formed opinions of who the bad guys were, what should be done, and then cherry-picked data, real or imagined, to support their proposals. And the consequences have been tragic. There's a long list of examples, I'd recommend starting with Iran's Mossedegh 1953, Guatamala's Arbenz 1954, and Chile's Allende, 1973. (but wait, there's MORE! Congo, Dominican Republic, Iraq, Pakistan, Nicaragua, ...). The common theme in these grave and meddlesome activities, is that our leaders, who we trusted with all that power, didn't appreciate the importance of double checking their facts, seeking out dissenting opinions, or striving to understand reality before approving military action that cost lives. Many lives. Too many lives. These people, highly educated people, authorized, or pushed their presidents to authorize, often illegal, usually covert actions that largely contributed to the shit storms the middle east (and parts of Latin America) are in today.
** The worst offenders I've come across in terms of pursing a strategy without doing their homework: Nixon, George W Bush, Henry Kissinger, William J Casey, the Dulles brothers, all the neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, I. Krystall, Doug Feith).
Sorry for the long, footnoted post. Lately I've been obsessing on post-WWII foreign policy of the US, and just about at every turn I am gobsmacked to learn how little homework was done before ordering actions that, in retrospect, have resulted in tragedies of unexpected consequences. I want that shit to stop. IMO, Bernie >> Hillary on this score.
Honestly, I have been mostly on the fence re Bernie vs. Hillary. They are such different candidates, and though I agree in so many ways with Bernie about domestic issues, I am not very comfortable with him in terms of foreign policy experience.
I'm of the opposite opinion. On foreign policy, Bernie >> Hillary. Here's why.
1. Bernie's been on the right side of just about every major foreign policy debate going back to Nicaragua under Reagan. I get the impression that the man honestly evaluates the facts before making hasty decisions, at least that's the impression I get from reading about his time in the Senate, HoR, and as Mayor of Burlington. And that's a quality I want in someone directing foreign policy.
2. Hillary seems to be a continuation of the long tradition of foreign policy thinking that stretches back to WW2. Since the Dulles brothers under Eisenhower, we've had Sec of States, Directors of CIA and various white house advisors, who've recommended vigorous action without doing their homework*. With Hillary's track record as Sec of State, she seems to me to be a military hawk. Her handling of Libya was hasty. From what I have read, she knew what she wanted to do before doing her homework. Right in line with Kissinger or John Foster Dulles**. I see her as more of the same. To be fair, Iran deal seemed somewhat better thought out, and planned, and may turn out okay, so there is hope there.
Yes, perhaps I'm unfairly ascribing all the transgressions of the past on Hillary. I'm aware of this. But I don't see her as a bastion of clear eyed analytical and logical thinking when it comes to foreign policy. Experienced? Yes. Biased? Yes.
The thing is, lately I've been wondering which candidate will be the most likely to be sure of his/her facts before taking action. It certainly ain't Carly Fiorina. I think she still believes those planned parenthood videos represented reality. But no need to worry about her as she'll be out soon. It ain't Trump. That guy calls it from the gut, which sometimes works out, but often won't. Oh I shudder to think of it. Hillary, well, I think she's in the middle. But Bernie seems better suited to the job. He seems the most willing to evaluate facts before jumping to conclusions.
*These leaders not only failed to combat confirmation bias, but seem to have not comprehended its existence. They formed opinions of who the bad guys were, what should be done, and then cherry-picked data, real or imagined, to support their proposals. And the consequences have been tragic. There's a long list of examples, I'd recommend starting with Iran's Mossedegh 1953, Guatamala's Arbenz 1954, and Chile's Allende, 1973. (but wait, there's MORE! Congo, Dominican Republic, Iraq, Pakistan, Nicaragua, ...). The common theme in these grave and meddlesome activities, is that our leaders, who we trusted with all that power, didn't appreciate the importance of double checking their facts, seeking out dissenting opinions, or striving to understand reality before approving military action that cost lives. Many lives. Too many lives. These people, highly educated people, authorized, or pushed their presidents to authorize, often illegal, usually covert actions that largely contributed to the shit storms the middle east (and parts of Latin America) are in today.
** The worst offenders I've come across in terms of pursing a strategy without doing their homework: Nixon, George W Bush, Henry Kissinger, William J Casey, the Dulles brothers, all the neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, I. Krystall, Doug Feith).
Sorry for the long, footnoted post. Lately I've been obsessing on post-WWII foreign policy of the US, and just about at every turn I am gobsmacked to learn how little homework was done before ordering actions that, in retrospect, have resulted in tragedies of unexpected consequences. I want that shit to stop. IMO, Bernie >> Hillary on this score.
While I'm sympathetic towards a generally non-interventionist foreign policy, I'm afraid that right now any tough talking Republican would eat Sander's lunch with that platform in the general contest come next fall. Although most people seem to agree the Iraq War was a mistake, paranoia and anxiety regarding ISIS seems to be winning the day and a Democrat will need to come across pretty aggressive with a solid 'protect our nation/take the fight to them' message to counter the Republican fear mongering and 'waterboard and carpet bomb them' posturing.
The fruits of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=libya&oq=libya&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j0l9j43i53.1810.2180.0.2306.5.5.0.0.0.0.89.385.5.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.hJKT27eUKEQ):
Islamic State Foothold in Libya Poses Threat to Europe
RAF Flying Libyan Missions
Can Tunisia's Border Barrier Stop Extremism Entering from Libya?
Islamic State-Linked Fighters Seizing Oil-Rich Land in Libya
Ansar al Sharia claims to have downed jet flying over Derna
Note this last one: those are the guys who attacked the "consulate" in Benghazi and killed Ambassador Stevens. There's good reason to believe they have anti-aircraft capabilities (pictures of the crashed plane were shown). The US government is letting the rebellion in Syria fail because they're unwilling to give the rebels there anti-aircraft missiles for fear of them going to al-Qaeda - but Hillary's war in Libya seems to have already accomplished that!While I'm sympathetic towards a generally non-interventionist foreign policy, I'm afraid that right now any tough talking Republican would eat Sander's lunch with that platform in the general contest come next fall. Although most people seem to agree the Iraq War was a mistake, paranoia and anxiety regarding ISIS seems to be winning the day and a Democrat will need to come across pretty aggressive with a solid 'protect our nation/take the fight to them' message to counter the Republican fear mongering and 'waterboard and carpet bomb them' posturing.
Hillary Clinton has as much credibility as Dick Cheney on how to contain extremists.
These are the countries where al-Qaeda, IS, or Iranian-sponsored Shia extremists hold territory:
Iraq
Syria
Libya
Egypt
Saudi Arabia (yes, some Saudi towns are occupied by Yemeni proxies of Iran)
Yemen
Well, that is your personal assessment of Clinton's past foreign policy, laying the blame for all those situations at her feet. Given the extreme volatility of that region, I'm find it difficult to argue that the situation would have been drastically better had someone else been Secretary of State. Ultimately it's rather a moot point one way or the other as I maintain the American people are currently fixated on the latest 'existential threat' of ISIS and a tough talking Hillary will be more successful than a non-interventionist Sanders against a likely rabid "take the fight to them" Republican come this next fall. It doesn't matter how much I like Sanders' non-interventionism if enough people won't vote for him.
Well, that is your personal assessment of Clinton's past foreign policy, laying the blame for all those situations at her feet. Given the extreme volatility of that region, I'm find it difficult to argue that the situation would have been drastically better had someone else been Secretary of State. Ultimately it's rather a moot point one way or the other as I maintain the American people are currently fixated on the latest 'existential threat' of ISIS and a tough talking Hillary will be more successful than a non-interventionist Sanders against a likely rabid "take the fight to them" Republican come this next fall. It doesn't matter how much I like Sanders' non-interventionism if enough people won't vote for him.
She takes credit for the intervention in Libya and counts it as a success (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/). So it's not my opinion laying it at her feet, it's her own.
Well, that is your personal assessment of Clinton's past foreign policy, laying the blame for all those situations at her feet. Given the extreme volatility of that region, I'm find it difficult to argue that the situation would have been drastically better had someone else been Secretary of State. Ultimately it's rather a moot point one way or the other as I maintain the American people are currently fixated on the latest 'existential threat' of ISIS and a tough talking Hillary will be more successful than a non-interventionist Sanders against a likely rabid "take the fight to them" Republican come this next fall. It doesn't matter how much I like Sanders' non-interventionism if enough people won't vote for him.
She takes credit for the intervention in Libya and counts it as a success (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/). So it's not my opinion laying it at her feet, it's her own.
It's all spin one way or the other. Her's is a positive spin, your's is a negative. I happen to think there is some middle ground, particularly when comparing her to everyone else who might end up being President.
While I'm sympathetic towards a generally non-interventionist foreign policy, I'm afraid that right now any tough talking Republican would eat Sander's lunch with that platform in the general contest come next fall. Although most people seem to agree the Iraq War was a mistake, paranoia and anxiety regarding ISIS seems to be winning the day and a Democrat will need to come across pretty aggressive with a solid 'protect our nation/take the fight to them' message to counter the Republican fear mongering and 'waterboard and carpet bomb them' posturing.
Well, that is your personal assessment of Clinton's past foreign policy, laying the blame for all those situations at her feet. Given the extreme volatility of that region, I'm find it difficult to argue that the situation would have been drastically better had someone else been Secretary of State. Ultimately it's rather a moot point one way or the other as I maintain the American people are currently fixated on the latest 'existential threat' of ISIS and a tough talking Hillary will be more successful than a non-interventionist Sanders against a likely rabid "take the fight to them" Republican come this next fall. It doesn't matter how much I like Sanders' non-interventionism if enough people won't vote for him.
She takes credit for the intervention in Libya and counts it as a success (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/). So it's not my opinion laying it at her feet, it's her own.
It's all spin one way or the other. Her's is a positive spin, your's is a negative. I happen to think there is some middle ground, particularly when comparing her to everyone else who might end up being President.
What is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?
Honestly, I have been mostly on the fence re Bernie vs. Hillary. They are such different candidates, and though I agree in so many ways with Bernie about domestic issues, I am not very comfortable with him in terms of foreign policy experience.
I'm of the opposite opinion. On foreign policy, Bernie >> Hillary. Here's why.
1. Bernie's been on the right side of just about every major foreign policy debate going back to Nicaragua under Reagan. I get the impression that the man honestly evaluates the facts before making hasty decisions, at least that's the impression I get from reading about his time in the Senate, HoR, and as Mayor of Burlington. And that's a quality I want in someone directing foreign policy.
2. Hillary seems to be a continuation of the long tradition of foreign policy thinking that stretches back to WW2. Since the Dulles brothers under Eisenhower, we've had Sec of States, Directors of CIA and various white house advisors, who've recommended vigorous action without doing their homework*. With Hillary's track record as Sec of State, she seems to me to be a military hawk. Her handling of Libya was hasty. From what I have read, she knew what she wanted to do before doing her homework. Right in line with Kissinger or John Foster Dulles**. I see her as more of the same. To be fair, Iran deal seemed somewhat better thought out, and planned, and may turn out okay, so there is hope there.
Yes, perhaps I'm unfairly ascribing all the transgressions of the past on Hillary. I'm aware of this. But I don't see her as a bastion of clear eyed analytical and logical thinking when it comes to foreign policy. Experienced? Yes. Biased? Yes.
The thing is, lately I've been wondering which candidate will be the most likely to be sure of his/her facts before taking action. It certainly ain't Carly Fiorina. I think she still believes those planned parenthood videos represented reality. But no need to worry about her as she'll be out soon. It ain't Trump. That guy calls it from the gut, which sometimes works out, but often won't. Oh I shudder to think of it. Hillary, well, I think she's in the middle. But Bernie seems better suited to the job. He seems the most willing to evaluate facts before jumping to conclusions.
*These leaders not only failed to combat confirmation bias, but seem to have not comprehended its existence. They formed opinions of who the bad guys were, what should be done, and then cherry-picked data, real or imagined, to support their proposals. And the consequences have been tragic. There's a long list of examples, I'd recommend starting with Iran's Mossedegh 1953, Guatamala's Arbenz 1954, and Chile's Allende, 1973. (but wait, there's MORE! Congo, Dominican Republic, Iraq, Pakistan, Nicaragua, ...). The common theme in these grave and meddlesome activities, is that our leaders, who we trusted with all that power, didn't appreciate the importance of double checking their facts, seeking out dissenting opinions, or striving to understand reality before approving military action that cost lives. Many lives. Too many lives. These people, highly educated people, authorized, or pushed their presidents to authorize, often illegal, usually covert actions that largely contributed to the shit storms the middle east (and parts of Latin America) are in today.
** The worst offenders I've come across in terms of pursing a strategy without doing their homework: Nixon, George W Bush, Henry Kissinger, William J Casey, the Dulles brothers, all the neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, I. Krystall, Doug Feith).
Sorry for the long, footnoted post. Lately I've been obsessing on post-WWII foreign policy of the US, and just about at every turn I am gobsmacked to learn how little homework was done before ordering actions that, in retrospect, have resulted in tragedies of unexpected consequences. I want that shit to stop. IMO, Bernie >> Hillary on this score.
What is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?
Past, present or future?
If Hillary were a republican, then i really believe we'd all be calling her a neocon. Like the above poster, i'm more a believer in the ron/rand paul foreign policy.
I was wishing Rand would of became president, but I don't think he did crappy, I think he was great in debates. It's just hard to get votes with a moderate view. Wanting less military spending is almost political suicide as a republicanWhat is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?
Past, present or future?
The one Hillary Clinton was involved in, obviously.If Hillary were a republican, then i really believe we'd all be calling her a neocon. Like the above poster, i'm more a believer in the ron/rand paul foreign policy.
I knocked on doors for Ron Paul in Iowa in December 2007 for this reason. It's a shame Rand did such a crappy job this year.
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now. The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.I was wishing Rand would of became president, but I don't think he did crappy, I think he was great in debates. It's just hard to get votes with a moderate view. Wanting less military spending is almost political suicide as a republicanWhat is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?
Past, present or future?
The one Hillary Clinton was involved in, obviously.If Hillary were a republican, then i really believe we'd all be calling her a neocon. Like the above poster, i'm more a believer in the ron/rand paul foreign policy.
I knocked on doors for Ron Paul in Iowa in December 2007 for this reason. It's a shame Rand did such a crappy job this year.
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now. The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.I was wishing Rand would of became president, but I don't think he did crappy, I think he was great in debates. It's just hard to get votes with a moderate view. Wanting less military spending is almost political suicide as a republicanWhat is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?
Past, present or future?
The one Hillary Clinton was involved in, obviously.If Hillary were a republican, then i really believe we'd all be calling her a neocon. Like the above poster, i'm more a believer in the ron/rand paul foreign policy.
I knocked on doors for Ron Paul in Iowa in December 2007 for this reason. It's a shame Rand did such a crappy job this year.
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now. The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.
That is completely false. It was about restricting political expenditures by a corporation. Nothing else.Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now. The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.
Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now. The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.
Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now. The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.
Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.
Shoulderthing, you are the first person I've ever "met" who agrees with the Citizens United decision.
Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.That is completely false. It was about restricting political expenditures by a corporation. Nothing else.
Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton).That is completely false. It was about restricting political expenditures by a corporation. Nothing else.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization named Citizens United filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising....
In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found...no reason to believe the respondents violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act
In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its latest political documentary Hillary: The Movie....
That is completely false. It was about restricting political expenditures by a corporation. Nothing else.Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now. The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.
Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.
Kasich - Wants ground troops in middle east, opposes public transport, only recently "evolved" on civil rights issues, wamts to intensify the war on drugs, would allow schools to teach alternatives to evolution, and he was an investment banker at lehman brothers.Beautiful.
Is that enough?
Kasich - Wants ground troops in middle east, opposes public transport, only recently "evolved" on civil rights issues, wamts to intensify the war on drugs, would allow schools to teach alternatives to evolution, and he was an investment banker at lehman brothers.I've paid a lot of attention to Kasich, not once have I heard him say he wants ground troops in the middle east he usually says he wants to support our allies in the area to deal with the situation, I've watched every debate and it seems he is the person 2nd least republican candidate likely to send ground troops there(after Rand Paul). I'm not sure what his deal with public transport is but it seems he might oppose it. If by civil right issues you mean gay marriage, he is still against gay marriage but supports the supreme court decision. He is in favor of rehabilitation over imprisonment, and is one of very few republicans that accepted medicaid expansion to help a lot with the drug problem.
Is that enough?
Kasich - Wants ground troops in middle east, opposes public transport, only recently "evolved" on civil rights issues, wamts to intensify the war on drugs, would allow schools to teach alternatives to evolution, and he was an investment banker at lehman brothers.I've paid a lot of attention to Kasich, not once have I heard him say he wants ground troops in the middle east he usually says he wants to support our allies in the area to deal with the situation, I've watched every debate and it seems he is the person 2nd least republican candidate likely to send ground troops there(after Rand Paul). I'm not sure what his deal with public transport is but it seems he might oppose it. If by civil right issues you mean gay marriage, he is still against gay marriage but supports the supreme court decision. He is in favor of rehabilitation over imprisonment, and is one of very few republicans that accepted medicaid expansion to help a lot with the drug problem.
Is that enough?
An Australian here, offering my humble opinion on the group of Presidential candidates that can only be described as surreal. Our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, recently visited Washington, and in a televised meeting with I think American government officials, was asked how he would work with any of the Presidential candidates, if they became President. He replied that he would work with any President that the American people - in their wisdom - elected to the post. The room laughed good naturedly at this deft diplomatic reply.
I watched Trump's performances on TV with my mouth open. Why does anyone support this man? I remember last year when he criticized John McCain for incompetence on being taken prisoner during the Vietnam War. In any other rich country, Trump would have been thrown out of the door for that atrocity alone. His feet would not even have touched the ground.
Australians remain baffled by the American fixation of rejecting a national health scheme - alone of all rich countries; supporting the right to bear arms; dodgy ideas on pro life; and lukewarm support for vaccination.
For an middle of the road Australian voter, it is a two horse race; Clinton and Sanders. There is nobody else. Clinton has experience, and I am amazed at those posters who criticize her for being part of earlier efforts to intervene in the even more surreal Middle East. People in the Middle East were living in cities when the ancestors of the posters here were sitting round camp fires, yet western Europe overtook the Middle East by about the seventeenth century. It is a two way street; successive American administrations have not failed in the Middle East because the Middle East is so irrational, incompetent and intransigent that success is not possible.
Sanders wants to turn the US into another Sweden, which would be good for the US, but Congress will block his proposals.
So it seems both Sanders and maybe also Trump want to tax qualified dividends and capital gains at the same rate as normal income, how much impact would this have for an early retired person? Would tax loss harvesting negate most of this? How much impact would it have for someone in the accumulation phase?I think that Congress writes the budget and he has not fought for this prior so there is no reason to do so now.
I assume someone in the accumulation phase in a high tax bracket with a lot of money in taxable accounts will be hurt by this most. I’m also worried Sanders might try to prevent things like tax loss harvesting, he’d probably say something like, “the Wall Street top one percenters are using this to avoid paying any taxes and it’s unethical, we bailed them out of the 2008 crisis and now they get to pay for it! No avoiding it!” What does everyone else think
So it seems both Sanders and maybe also Trump want to tax qualified dividends and capital gains at the same rate as normal income, how much impact would this have for an early retired person? Would tax loss harvesting negate most of this? How much impact would it have for someone in the accumulation phase?
I assume someone in the accumulation phase in a high tax bracket with a lot of money in taxable accounts will be hurt by this most. I’m also worried Sanders might try to prevent things like tax loss harvesting, he’d probably say something like, “the Wall Street top one percenters are using this to avoid paying any taxes and it’s unethical, we bailed them out of the 2008 crisis and now they get to pay for it! No avoiding it!” What does everyone else think
What Bernie Sanders says about changing tax laws doesn't worry me in the least. The President has exactly zero power to do that, and the people who DO have that power (Congress) are still very much in the pocket of Wall Street and the wealthiest 1%, so they won't change anything.Except Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?
But it would be hilarious to watch. Every week, Sanders would go on youtube and say "I want the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who have benefited the most from capitalism, to pay for the services that capitalism provides" and Congress would immediately say "Fuck you Bernie Sanders, we hate the poor. More tax breaks for the rich!" And then they would pass more tax breaks for the rich, because they have the power to do that and the President doesn't.
What Bernie Sanders says about changing tax laws doesn't worry me in the least. The President has exactly zero power to do that, and the people who DO have that power (Congress) are still very much in the pocket of Wall Street and the wealthiest 1%, so they won't change anything.
But it would be hilarious to watch. Every week, Sanders would go on youtube and say "I want the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who have benefited the most from capitalism, to pay for the services that capitalism provides" and Congress would immediately say "Fuck you Bernie Sanders, we hate the poor. More tax breaks for the rich!" And then they would pass more tax breaks for the rich, because they have the power to do that and the President doesn't.
Hillary's Campaign logo is hideous, reminds me of a hospital. Who the hell got paid the big bucks to come up with THAT?
Clinton has experience, and I am amazed at those posters who criticize her for being part of earlier efforts to intervene in the even more surreal Middle East.
Except Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?
it just seems like a lot of people like him for his policies, and simultaneously think he has no chance of getting any of his policies through congress, it seems weird to me. Nobody expected Obama to pass Obamacare but he got a democratic majority in the senate and house and was able to pass it, it could happen with Bernie, but who knows, democrats might be under pressure from donors who don't want to fund a single payer system but who knowsExcept Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?
That seems like a stretch -- I can't speak for sol, but I'm backing Sanders because he's the best person for the job, and the gridlock (blocking further corporatist abuse) is just an added bonus.
I really don't like Trumps candidacy and I think he is a dangerous candidate for one very simple reason. He is giving validity to peoples are and hate and focusing it on immigrants and Muslims. This is a very negative and dangerous path to encourage. Immigration reform is one thing but he is playing on peoples anger and focusing it in a way that is encouraging hate among his supports and emboldening racists.Trump definitely cares about being booed or cheered, he gets pissed when people boo during the debates and he always tries to say oh that's just jeb supporters or something, he is an egotist and wants to be the center of attention and wants to be cheered. I really wish Rand Paul would become our president, maybe 2020 will be his year
Though I will say it is nice to see a GOP candidate sticking it to their establishment candidates. The guy really doesn't give a shit if he gets booed or cheered, he just gives whatever over the line opinion he feels like giving that night.
Policy wise, neither Bernie nor Trump can do a great deal to mess up or improve our current political system, at least not in 2 terms. Neither have the full backing of their party. I fear Trumps social influence which is the only reason I don't want him to win. Bernie winning could influence the Democratic party to start to shift some of its stances to be more socialist if that is where our base is moving.
Rand Paul never had a chance because there needs to be a ground swell of support for more libertarian ideas within the Republican party. Bernie is similar extreme, the only difference is the current popular sentiment. Like Socialist ideas I think some libertarian ideas can be implemented to help find ways to strip away bureaucracy where it is not working.
it just seems like a lot of people like him for his policies, and simultaneously think he has no chance of getting any of his policies through congress, it seems weird to me. Nobody expected Obama to pass Obamacare but he got a democratic majority in the senate and house and was able to pass it, it could happen with Bernie, but who knows, democrats might be under pressure from donors who don't want to fund a single payer system but who knowsExcept Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?
That seems like a stretch -- I can't speak for sol, but I'm backing Sanders because he's the best person for the job, and the gridlock (blocking further corporatist abuse) is just an added bonus.
I watched Trump's performances on TV with my mouth open. Why does anyone support this man? I remember last year when he criticized John McCain for incompetence on being taken prisoner during the Vietnam War. In any other rich country, Trump would have been thrown out of the door for that atrocity alone. His feet would not even have touched the ground.
it just seems like a lot of people like him for his policies, and simultaneously think he has no chance of getting any of his policies through congress, it seems weird to me. Nobody expected Obama to pass Obamacare but he got a democratic majority in the senate and house and was able to pass it, it could happen with Bernie, but who knows, democrats might be under pressure from donors who don't want to fund a single payer system but who knowsExcept Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?
That seems like a stretch -- I can't speak for sol, but I'm backing Sanders because he's the best person for the job, and the gridlock (blocking further corporatist abuse) is just an added bonus.
Here is a good criticism...Nothing wrong with changing one's mind. As the saying goes (regardless of who said it (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/)), "When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
BIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.
Well, here is his stance on Foreign Policy and National Defense,I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
While the debt did balloon under Bush and Obama a lot of that was the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars mixed with decreased revenues and increased welfare due from the great recession. If you take a look at the size of the deficit from the last few years under Obama, it has increased at a decelerating rate and percentage wise is much smaller than the previous years. If we can get the next president to keep us out of any new major wars and forgo any unpaid tax cuts or spending increases, the debt is not unmanageable.
From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlementsI think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:QuoteBIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.
So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?
From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlementsI think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:QuoteBIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.
So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?
Well, here is his stance on Foreign Policy and National Defense,I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
While the debt did balloon under Bush and Obama a lot of that was the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars mixed with decreased revenues and increased welfare due from the great recession. If you take a look at the size of the deficit from the last few years under Obama, it has increased at a decelerating rate and percentage wise is much smaller than the previous years. If we can get the next president to keep us out of any new major wars and forgo any unpaid tax cuts or spending increases, the debt is not unmanageable.
"The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms.
Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.
Radical Islam and sharia ideology were not created by our actions, but they have prospered in the wake of the instability to which our actions contributed. And while our leaders have thrust our military and our resources into regime changes, failed nation-building and interventions that have strained valuable strategic relationships, the murderers of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other violent extremes have found new homes, established the caliphate of their warped dreams and secured the resources to become very real threats to our lives and our liberty.
As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those who would, if able, destroy the very liberties on which this nation is founded."
Sure they are just sound bites, and I like the way governor veto sounds. I remember seeing a statistic that said our military was larger, stronger, and costed more, than the next 3 strongest militaries. I assume he would reduce the size and cost of the military. I also assume he would reform entitlements to give less benefits, and figure a way to spend the leftover money in place of taking on more debt. It doesn't really matter as he has 0 chance of being President, he just needs to bring as much attention as he can to the libertarian agenda.From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlementsI think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:QuoteBIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.
So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?
Okay, but how? Spending on military in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are running under $100 billion annually. (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf) So what other military programs will get cut?
What entitlements are going to get cut?
Without an actual plan, all of this is just sound bites.
"All political parties except mine are nutty and stupid and make poor decisions, and so are those that support them, my political party is clearly the only choice"Well, here is his stance on Foreign Policy and National Defense,I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
While the debt did balloon under Bush and Obama a lot of that was the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars mixed with decreased revenues and increased welfare due from the great recession. If you take a look at the size of the deficit from the last few years under Obama, it has increased at a decelerating rate and percentage wise is much smaller than the previous years. If we can get the next president to keep us out of any new major wars and forgo any unpaid tax cuts or spending increases, the debt is not unmanageable.
"The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms.
Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.
Radical Islam and sharia ideology were not created by our actions, but they have prospered in the wake of the instability to which our actions contributed. And while our leaders have thrust our military and our resources into regime changes, failed nation-building and interventions that have strained valuable strategic relationships, the murderers of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other violent extremes have found new homes, established the caliphate of their warped dreams and secured the resources to become very real threats to our lives and our liberty.
As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those who would, if able, destroy the very liberties on which this nation is founded."
Sounds great, but overall I trust Gary Johnson's overall grasp of foreign policy about as much as that of Ben Carson. Regardless, NO WAY EVER would I vote for a libertarian.
Libertarians, for those who think Republicans aren't nutty enough.
Sure they are just sound bites, and I like the way governor veto sounds. I remember seeing a statistic that said our military was larger, stronger, and costed more, than the next 3 strongest militaries. I assume he would reduce the size and cost of the military. I also assume he would reform entitlements to give less benefits, and figure a way to spend the leftover money in place of taking on more debt. It doesn't really matter as he has 0 chance of being President, he just needs to bring as much attention as he can to the libertarian agenda.From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlementsI think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:QuoteBIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.
So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?
Okay, but how? Spending on military in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are running under $100 billion annually. (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf) So what other military programs will get cut?
What entitlements are going to get cut?
Without an actual plan, all of this is just sound bites.
I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.Sure they are just sound bites, and I like the way governor veto sounds. I remember seeing a statistic that said our military was larger, stronger, and costed more, than the next 3 strongest militaries. I assume he would reduce the size and cost of the military. I also assume he would reform entitlements to give less benefits, and figure a way to spend the leftover money in place of taking on more debt. It doesn't really matter as he has 0 chance of being President, he just needs to bring as much attention as he can to the libertarian agenda.From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlementsI think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,
"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."
I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:QuoteBIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.
So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?
Okay, but how? Spending on military in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are running under $100 billion annually. (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf) So what other military programs will get cut?
What entitlements are going to get cut?
Without an actual plan, all of this is just sound bites.
One of the reasons candidates like this get negligible numbers of votes is that they propose plans that simply won't work. Another reason is that people don't agree on the issues.
Most American do not want cuts to Social Security, or Medicare if said cuts would reduce their level of service.
I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/
<snip>
I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/
I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/
I believe that you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Governments simply do not work the same way as households. Your argument is nonsensical.
I understand national debt is good and think Alexander Hamiltons plans for a national bank and taking on national debt are one of the main reasons we advanced as fast as we did. I've read his reasoning that he argued for the national debt and agree with them. That being said, ours is growing exponentially and will soon be unsustainable, we need to treat it like an emergency and get our deficit much closer to 0.I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/
I believe that you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Governments simply do not work the same way as households. Your argument is nonsensical.
I agree with your questions to ask 100%, but believe we have too much debt.
<snip>
I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/
... except that US government debt does not behave the same as household debt.
i.e.: http://econproph.com/2011/07/14/private-debt-vs-government-debt/
(and many other similar analyses just a google away... but unlikely to be foudn anywhere in the Austrian school of econ)
That isn't to say that I support he strawman of unbridled expenditure, but neither do I accept the strawman that debt is necessarily a bad thing. It is more nuanced than that. A more appropriate set of questions would be:
- What is the optimal debt level for us to have relative to other economic indicators such as GDP, total government spending, or [black box metric an economist would specify]?
- What types of things should we borrow money (as a govt issuing bonds) to accomplish?
I understand national debt is good and think Alexander Hamiltons plans for a national bank and taking on national debt are one of the main reasons we advanced as fast as we did. I've read his reasoning that he argued for the national debt and agree with them. That being said, ours is growing exponentially and will soon be unsustainable, we need to treat it like an emergency and get our deficit much closer to 0.I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/
I believe that you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Governments simply do not work the same way as households. Your argument is nonsensical.
Okay, I think our debt to GDP ratio is at least twice as high as it should be, many believe that a debt to GDP ratio over 60% threatens sustainability.I understand national debt is good and think Alexander Hamiltons plans for a national bank and taking on national debt are one of the main reasons we advanced as fast as we did. I've read his reasoning that he argued for the national debt and agree with them. That being said, ours is growing exponentially and will soon be unsustainable, we need to treat it like an emergency and get our deficit much closer to 0.I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/
I believe that you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Governments simply do not work the same way as households. Your argument is nonsensical.
Using the fact that the debt is "growing exponentially" as a scare tactic might work in some forums, but not here. Of course it's exponential! Lots of things are exponential! In fact, because inflation is also exponential, if the debt grew anything less than exponentially then the deficit would necessarily asymptotically approach zero and the deficit spending that you just admitted is (at least sometimes) useful would be impossible.
Lowering the deficit, or even balancing the budget or running a surplus, is fine if the economic situation calls for it. But trying to make the debt "not exponential" implies excluding deficit spending from consideration regardless of the circumstances, which is not something I can agree with.
Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.09/30/15 $18,150,000,000,000.00
Date US Debt Change from Previous Year
09/30/15 $18,150,604,277,750.60 1.83%
09/30/14 $17,824,071,380,733.80 6.49%
09/30/13 $16,738,183,526,697.30 4.18%
09/30/12 $16,066,241,407,385.90 8.63%
09/30/11 $14,790,340,328,557.20 9.06%
09/30/10 $13,561,623,030,891.80 13.87%
09/30/09 $11,909,829,003,511.80 18.80%
09/30/08 $10,024,724,896,912.50 11.29%
09/30/07 $9,007,653,372,262.48 5.89%
09/30/06 $8,506,973,899,215.23 7.24%
09/30/05 $7,932,709,661,723.50 7.50%
09/30/04 $7,379,052,696,330.32 8.78%
09/30/03 $6,783,231,062,743.62 8.91%
09/30/02 $6,228,235,965,597.16 7.25%
09/30/01 $5,807,463,412,200.06 2.35%
09/30/00 $5,674,178,209,886.86
Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.09/30/15 $18,150,000,000,000.00
Date US Debt Change from Previous Year
09/30/15 $18,150,604,277,750.60 1.83%
09/30/14 $17,824,071,380,733.80 6.49%
09/30/13 $16,738,183,526,697.30 4.18%
09/30/12 $16,066,241,407,385.90 8.63%
09/30/11 $14,790,340,328,557.20 9.06%
09/30/10 $13,561,623,030,891.80 13.87%
09/30/09 $11,909,829,003,511.80 18.80%
09/30/08 $10,024,724,896,912.50 11.29%
09/30/07 $9,007,653,372,262.48 5.89%
09/30/06 $8,506,973,899,215.23 7.24%
09/30/05 $7,932,709,661,723.50 7.50%
09/30/04 $7,379,052,696,330.32 8.78%
09/30/03 $6,783,231,062,743.62 8.91%
09/30/02 $6,228,235,965,597.16 7.25%
09/30/01 $5,807,463,412,200.06 2.35%
09/30/00 $5,674,178,209,886.86
02/17/16 $19,020,000,000,000.00
870 billion in 140 days, if it continues that way we will end the fiscal year with $20,418,000,000,000.00, and the percent change will be 7.35%,
What level of national debt would be dangerous for the United States, if the current level isn't?
Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect timeto borrow forfor a bubble to develop ininfrastructureconstruction and other investment type activities that wouldbenefitharm the country in the long term.
Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect timeto borrow forfor a bubble to develop ininfrastructureconstruction and other investment type activities that wouldbenefitharm the country in the long term.
Fixed it for you.
In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?
If we're nowhere near the danger line on the national debt, I take it you don't support any tax increases?
Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect timeto borrow forfor a bubble to develop ininfrastructureconstruction and other investment type activities that wouldbenefitharm the country in the long term.
Fixed it for you.
In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?
False, the GDP is smaller than the debt
Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect timeto borrow forfor a bubble to develop ininfrastructureconstruction and other investment type activities that wouldbenefitharm the country in the long term.
Fixed it for you.
In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?
"In what rational world is $100 in debt just no big deal?" -- a guy from 1800.
Everything is relative. The fact that the debt is a big number is okay because the GDP is an even bigger number. Trying to scare people with big numbers taken out of context is both disingenuous and insulting. What do you think we are, idiots?
Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect timeto borrow forfor a bubble to develop ininfrastructureconstruction and other investment type activities that wouldbenefitharm the country in the long term.
Fixed it for you.
In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?
Really guy? If we gain no more debt the rest of the fiscal year we will still be growing the debt faster than inflation, and growing the debt to gdp ratio to a level that is even more unsustainable.Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.09/30/15 $18,150,000,000,000.00
Date US Debt Change from Previous Year
09/30/15 $18,150,604,277,750.60 1.83%
09/30/14 $17,824,071,380,733.80 6.49%
09/30/13 $16,738,183,526,697.30 4.18%
09/30/12 $16,066,241,407,385.90 8.63%
09/30/11 $14,790,340,328,557.20 9.06%
09/30/10 $13,561,623,030,891.80 13.87%
09/30/09 $11,909,829,003,511.80 18.80%
09/30/08 $10,024,724,896,912.50 11.29%
09/30/07 $9,007,653,372,262.48 5.89%
09/30/06 $8,506,973,899,215.23 7.24%
09/30/05 $7,932,709,661,723.50 7.50%
09/30/04 $7,379,052,696,330.32 8.78%
09/30/03 $6,783,231,062,743.62 8.91%
09/30/02 $6,228,235,965,597.16 7.25%
09/30/01 $5,807,463,412,200.06 2.35%
09/30/00 $5,674,178,209,886.86
02/17/16 $19,020,000,000,000.00
870 billion in 140 days, if it continues that way we will end the fiscal year with $20,418,000,000,000.00, and the percent change will be 7.35%,
Sooo, by your logic future growth should be projected based upon the growth of one single frame of reference. Last week my church had an attendance of 10. This week it had an attendance of 12. My god, if it continues to grow at a rate of 20% per week, by next year we'll have an attendance of over 130,000.
Given you have provided only one single data point with no equivalent previous October-January growth figures, making any kind of prediction is speculation at best. I'll stick with looking at general trends. They tell me that the explosive growth of the debt that we saw in the mid-to late 00's were an exception, NOT a rule.
False, the GDP is smaller than the debt
Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect timeto borrow forfor a bubble to develop ininfrastructureconstruction and other investment type activities that wouldbenefitharm the country in the long term.
Fixed it for you.
In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?
"In what rational world is $100 in debt just no big deal?" -- a guy from 1800.
Everything is relative. The fact that the debt is a big number is okay because the GDP isan even biggera similarly large number. Trying to scare people with big numbers taken out of context is both disingenuous and insulting. What do you think we are, idiots?
not really, I don't think it is "okay" that our debt is higher than our GDPFalse, the GDP is smaller than the debt
Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect timeto borrow forfor a bubble to develop ininfrastructureconstruction and other investment type activities that wouldbenefitharm the country in the long term.
Fixed it for you.
In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?
"In what rational world is $100 in debt just no big deal?" -- a guy from 1800.
Everything is relative. The fact that the debt is a big number is okay because the GDP isan even biggera similarly large number. Trying to scare people with big numbers taken out of context is both disingenuous and insulting. What do you think we are, idiots?
Fine; I fixed it. Happy now?
Really guy? If we gain no more debt the rest of the fiscal year we will still be growing the debt faster than inflation, and growing the debt to gdp ratio to a level that is even more unsustainable.Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.09/30/15 $18,150,000,000,000.00
Date US Debt Change from Previous Year
09/30/15 $18,150,604,277,750.60 1.83%
09/30/14 $17,824,071,380,733.80 6.49%
09/30/13 $16,738,183,526,697.30 4.18%
09/30/12 $16,066,241,407,385.90 8.63%
09/30/11 $14,790,340,328,557.20 9.06%
09/30/10 $13,561,623,030,891.80 13.87%
09/30/09 $11,909,829,003,511.80 18.80%
09/30/08 $10,024,724,896,912.50 11.29%
09/30/07 $9,007,653,372,262.48 5.89%
09/30/06 $8,506,973,899,215.23 7.24%
09/30/05 $7,932,709,661,723.50 7.50%
09/30/04 $7,379,052,696,330.32 8.78%
09/30/03 $6,783,231,062,743.62 8.91%
09/30/02 $6,228,235,965,597.16 7.25%
09/30/01 $5,807,463,412,200.06 2.35%
09/30/00 $5,674,178,209,886.86
02/17/16 $19,020,000,000,000.00
870 billion in 140 days, if it continues that way we will end the fiscal year with $20,418,000,000,000.00, and the percent change will be 7.35%,
Sooo, by your logic future growth should be projected based upon the growth of one single frame of reference. Last week my church had an attendance of 10. This week it had an attendance of 12. My god, if it continues to grow at a rate of 20% per week, by next year we'll have an attendance of over 130,000.
Given you have provided only one single data point with no equivalent previous October-January growth figures, making any kind of prediction is speculation at best. I'll stick with looking at general trends. They tell me that the explosive growth of the debt that we saw in the mid-to late 00's were an exception, NOT a rule.
One reason that national debt is good, is because inflation eats away at itReally guy? If we gain no more debt the rest of the fiscal year we will still be growing the debt faster than inflation, and growing the debt to gdp ratio to a level that is even more unsustainable.Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.09/30/15 $18,150,000,000,000.00
Date US Debt Change from Previous Year
09/30/15 $18,150,604,277,750.60 1.83%
09/30/14 $17,824,071,380,733.80 6.49%
09/30/13 $16,738,183,526,697.30 4.18%
09/30/12 $16,066,241,407,385.90 8.63%
09/30/11 $14,790,340,328,557.20 9.06%
09/30/10 $13,561,623,030,891.80 13.87%
09/30/09 $11,909,829,003,511.80 18.80%
09/30/08 $10,024,724,896,912.50 11.29%
09/30/07 $9,007,653,372,262.48 5.89%
09/30/06 $8,506,973,899,215.23 7.24%
09/30/05 $7,932,709,661,723.50 7.50%
09/30/04 $7,379,052,696,330.32 8.78%
09/30/03 $6,783,231,062,743.62 8.91%
09/30/02 $6,228,235,965,597.16 7.25%
09/30/01 $5,807,463,412,200.06 2.35%
09/30/00 $5,674,178,209,886.86
02/17/16 $19,020,000,000,000.00
870 billion in 140 days, if it continues that way we will end the fiscal year with $20,418,000,000,000.00, and the percent change will be 7.35%,
Sooo, by your logic future growth should be projected based upon the growth of one single frame of reference. Last week my church had an attendance of 10. This week it had an attendance of 12. My god, if it continues to grow at a rate of 20% per week, by next year we'll have an attendance of over 130,000.
Given you have provided only one single data point with no equivalent previous October-January growth figures, making any kind of prediction is speculation at best. I'll stick with looking at general trends. They tell me that the explosive growth of the debt that we saw in the mid-to late 00's were an exception, NOT a rule.
I'm not sure why you are comparing the growth of debt with the inflation rate. For a chuckle, I thought it might be interesting to look at % debt change compared to inflation from 1950 to 1999. I see nothing indicating any kind of harbinger when the debt increases faster than inflation. In fact, in the last 30 years when we've had mostly low inflation, that has almost always been the case.
Date Debt Ann % Chg Avg Infl Debt Change > Inflation?
9/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 2.4% 2.2% TRUE
9/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 2.1% 1.6% TRUE
9/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 3.6% 2.3% TRUE
9/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 5.0% 3.0% TRUE
9/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 6.0% 2.8% TRUE
9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 6.4% 2.6% TRUE
9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 8.5% 3.0% TRUE
9/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66 10.9% 3.0% TRUE
9/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03 13.4% 4.2% TRUE
9/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25 13.2% 5.4% TRUE
9/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 9.8% 4.8% TRUE
9/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 10.7% 4.1% TRUE
9/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00 10.6% 3.6% TRUE
9/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42 16.6% 1.9% TRUE
9/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00 16.0% 3.6% TRUE
9/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00 14.2% 4.3% TRUE
9/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00 20.6% 3.2% TRUE
9/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00 14.4% 6.2% TRUE
9/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00 9.9% 10.3% FALSE
9/30/1980 907,701,000,000.00 9.8% 13.5% FALSE
9/30/1979 826,519,000,000.00 7.1% 11.3% FALSE
9/30/1978 771,544,000,000.00 10.4% 7.6% TRUE
9/30/1977 698,840,000,000.00 12.6% 6.5% TRUE
6/30/1976 620,433,000,000.00 16.4% 5.8% TRUE
6/30/1975 533,189,000,000.00 12.2% 9.1% TRUE
6/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55 3.7% 11.0% FALSE
6/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09 7.2% 6.2% TRUE
6/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50 7.3% 3.2% TRUE
6/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54 7.3% 4.4% TRUE
6/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93 4.9% 5.7% FALSE
6/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41 1.8% 5.5% FALSE
6/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88 6.5% 4.2% TRUE
6/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54 2.0% 3.1% FALSE
6/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48 0.8% 2.9% FALSE
6/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64 1.8% 1.6% TRUE
6/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30 1.9% 1.3% TRUE
6/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41 2.6% 1.3% TRUE
6/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87 3.2% 1.0% TRUE
6/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05 0.9% 1.0% FALSE
6/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37 0.6% 1.7% FALSE
6/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22 3.0% 0.7% TRUE
6/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81 2.1% 2.8% FALSE
6/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43 -0.8% 3.3% FALSE
6/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32 -0.6% 1.5% FALSE
6/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62 1.1% -0.4% TRUE
6/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46 2.0% 0.7% TRUE
6/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57 2.7% 0.8% TRUE
6/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43 1.5% 1.9% FALSE
6/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93 -0.8% 7.9% FALSE
6/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04 1.3%
Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
I agree, I think that is way too regulated, and maybe 3 months or so would be better than 2 weeks, but still a better system than we have.Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though. I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field.
Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made. Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)
Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.
I agree, I think that is way too regulated, and maybe 3 months or so would be better than 2 weeks, but still a better system than we have.Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though. I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field.
Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made. Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)
Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.
I'll answer a slightly different question. The debt become more dangerous when we have politicians willing to not raise the debt ceiling to honor money we have already committed to spending. Defaulting on that debt would cause all major ratings agencies and large investors to devalue Treasury notes and our cost to borrow would go up significantly. The point being that there are two elements: the size of the debt relative to our economy and how responsible we are about fulfilling our obligations. Back to the original point of the thread, a fundamental willingness to misunderstand the debt ceiling and play with dynamite is one of the main reasons I have a deep dislike of Ted Cruz. From his own mouth: https://www.tedcruz.org/news/ted-cruz-has-been-leading-the-fight-on-the-debt-ceiling/
The debt ceiling is not the prudent place to fight that fight.
The United States of America is the exceptional nation, the nation other countries aspire to be like. We should stand as a shining beacon of what free people enjoying a free market and system of government can achieve. But while our intentions towards the rest of the world are peaceful, that does not mean we have no enemies, and the fact of the matter is our enemies are on the march.
... we need to judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America. Because what is best for America is best for the world.
More off of tedcruz.com:Quote... we need to judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America. Because what is best for America is best for the world.
FFS. There's a name for this logical fallacy, isn't there? What be it?
Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though. I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field.
Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made. Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)
Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.
Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though. I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field.
Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made. Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)
Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.
France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.
Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.
That is not true. The amount of money spend is directly correlated with elected. That is one of the major issues with Citizen United. And no, citizen united was about presenting that movie during a time where no pro- or anti- candidate promotions were allowed by COMPANIES. Now we have this BS.Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though. I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field.
Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made. Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)
Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.
France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.
Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.
France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.
(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)
Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.
That is not true. The amount of money spend is directly correlated with elected. That is one of the major issues with Citizen United. And no, citizen united was about presenting that movie during a time where no pro- or anti- candidate promotions were allowed by COMPANIES. Now we have this BS.
They should not be promoting a candidate, they should be reporting the news. If they are promoting, they should get the same penalties.That is not true. The amount of money spend is directly correlated with elected. That is one of the major issues with Citizen United. And no, citizen united was about presenting that movie during a time where no pro- or anti- candidate promotions were allowed by COMPANIES. Now we have this BS.
What do you think the press is? Not companies, somehow?
More off of tedcruz.com:Quote... we need to judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America. Because what is best for America is best for the world.
FFS. There's a name for this logical fallacy, isn't there? What be it?
"Local optimum" possibly fits. But that's more mathematical than logical....
Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though. I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field.
Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made. Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)
Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.
France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.
Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.
France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.
(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)
Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.
Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though. I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field.
Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made. Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)
Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.
France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.
Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.
France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.
(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)
Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.
Please tell me what the bolded sentences have to do with France's election laws.
Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.
I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though. I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field.
Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made. Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)
Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.
France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.
Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.
France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.
(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)
Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.
Please tell me what the bolded sentences have to do with France's election laws.
All or Nothing Fallacy. Apparently you can't restrict political campaigns without also endangering religious and personal freedoms.
They should not be promoting a candidate, they should be reporting the news. If they are promoting, they should get the same penalties.That is not true. The amount of money spend is directly correlated with elected. That is one of the major issues with Citizen United. And no, citizen united was about presenting that movie during a time where no pro- or anti- candidate promotions were allowed by COMPANIES. Now we have this BS.
What do you think the press is? Not companies, somehow?
They should not be promoting a candidate, they should be reporting the news. If they are promoting, they should get the same penalties.You don't care much for the First Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)?
If they are behaving like the press, they get treated as such. That was specifically about reporting what the government did not like. There are rules about promoting a candidate within X ft of the voting booth, should a news company get to do that because "they are the press", no. Same fallacy here.They should not be promoting a candidate, they should be reporting the news. If they are promoting, they should get the same penalties.You don't care much for the First Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)?
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press"
If they are behaving like the press, they get treated as such.
France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.Did you seriously call France a country without freedom of speech, based on your disapproval of a law that prohibits people from hiding their faces in public?
Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.
France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.
(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)
Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.
France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.Did you seriously call France a country without freedom of speech, based on your disapproval of a law that prohibits people from hiding their faces in public?
Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.
France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.
(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)
Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.
France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.Did you seriously call France a country without freedom of speech, based on your disapproval of a law that prohibits people from hiding their faces in public?
Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.
France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.
(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)
Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.
Yes. Another example I found with quick internet research is that it is apparently illegal to insult the national flag or anthem.
Well ShoulderThingThatGoesUp right on that one. It's a fairly new development, but yes burning the French flag will land you in hot water.France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.Did you seriously call France a country without freedom of speech, based on your disapproval of a law that prohibits people from hiding their faces in public?
Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.
France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.
(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)
Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.
Yes. Another example I found with quick internet research is that it is apparently illegal to insult the national flag or anthem.
So, maybe some sources for your "quick internet search"?
Free speech isn't a all or nothing proposition, crying fire in a crowded theater and all that.
The bolded parts above are contradictoryFree speech isn't a all or nothing proposition, crying fire in a crowded theater and all that.
NONE of our rights are absolute. Speech is defensibly restricted, because you can't cry fire in a crowded theater. Free press is restricted, because you can't slander. Religion is restricted, because you can't murder/sacrifice to your god. Bearing arms is restricted, because you can't own a nuke. Assembly is restricted, because pedophiles can't be alone with children. Every single right that libertarians like to claim should be respected absolutely is already limited, restricted, confined, and subjugated for good reason, all legally within the confines of the Constitution they claim to love.
The relevant questions are merely about the degree of limitations we accept, and I think that debate is a healthy part of democracy. And if you suggest that there can be no debate, that these questions have one obvious answer and every other citizen is an idiot, then you're the one who's unAmerican.
The bolded parts above are contradictory
I'm suggesting when you say things like,The bolded parts above are contradictory
Please elaborate on why you think so.
Are you suggesting that I am being absolutist by saying that there can be honest debate about how restricted our various Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be?
I'm suggesting when you say things like,
"NONE of our rights are absolute"
Which suggests that you are saying this can't be debated, it's the one obvious answer and people who disagree (libertarians) are idiots.
That it is contradictory of your other statement
I watched Trump's performances on TV with my mouth open. Why does anyone support this man? I remember last year when he criticized John McCain for incompetence on being taken prisoner during the Vietnam War. In any other rich country, Trump would have been thrown out of the door for that atrocity alone. His feet would not even have touched the ground.
Fair to post your observances, its very interesting to read... as I've been curious how people in other countries are taking it all, without knowing the full backgrounds of, well, everything you name here. I will comment on this one thing, as I'm a military veteran, I work for veterans here in the US, and I will tell you this much... veterans here do not like McCain, especially the former POWs. A lot of them use the word "hate", and if you feel like it, you can google up on that one and learn why. I was working in my job a few years before I learned why they hate him so much, it is worth a google search. So its not a shock to a lot of veterans that when Trump pointed out some things about that issue that he gained a lot of popularity.
Anyway, just a little food for your thought there.
Clinton has experience, and I am amazed at those posters who criticize her for being part of earlier efforts to intervene in the even more surreal Middle East.
This argument works equally well for Donald Rumsfeld. The Middle East is difficult, so success or failure shouldn't be judged, just years of experience? Actual people die when the USA bombs and invades places. It's a moral imperative to judge failure harshly.
I have a hard time calling people in the middle east irrational. Yes - there are quite a few maniacs causing major mayhem right now. But most people have their reasons for believing what they believe, and doing what they do.Clinton has experience, and I am amazed at those posters who criticize her for being part of earlier efforts to intervene in the even more surreal Middle East.
This argument works equally well for Donald Rumsfeld. The Middle East is difficult, so success or failure shouldn't be judged, just years of experience? Actual people die when the USA bombs and invades places. It's a moral imperative to judge failure harshly.
My point was that the Middle East is so irrational that NOBODY outside can bring positive change! Why should Americans shoulder the blame for the shambles in the Middle East? That is the point.
I have a hard time calling people in the middle east irrational. Yes - there are quite a few maniacs causing major mayhem right now. But most people have their reasons for believing what they believe, and doing what they do.Clinton has experience, and I am amazed at those posters who criticize her for being part of earlier efforts to intervene in the even more surreal Middle East.
This argument works equally well for Donald Rumsfeld. The Middle East is difficult, so success or failure shouldn't be judged, just years of experience? Actual people die when the USA bombs and invades places. It's a moral imperative to judge failure harshly.
My point was that the Middle East is so irrational that NOBODY outside can bring positive change! Why should Americans shoulder the blame for the shambles in the Middle East? That is the point.
If the US hadn't meddled at all in the middle east, from say, 1900 onwards, it would be a much different place today. Democracies might be thriving in Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps, Iraq. Maybe even Saudi Arabia. We are to blame for Iran being the way it is. We are to blame for Iraq. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia too.Not to mention Israel. It probably wouldn't exist. And ISIS, it wouldn't exist.
I wonder the region would be like if the US had never sent a single dollar in military aid, nor backed any factions, nor overthrew any leaders. (yes technically you might say Afghanistan and Pakistan aren't middle east but IMO they are the region we are discussing).
The other de-stabilizing factor, of course, is oil. That could have destabilized the region no matter what. I'll acknowledge that.
But to say the US has no blame, and to say people of the middle east are irrational, well, I don't agree. It's a total cluster-fuck right now. I'll agree with that. But our hands are not clean. ( I acknowledge you might be saying we shouldn't shoulder responsibility for cleaning it up now - but you said blame so I went with this. )
I also agree that we have few options. There's no bringing peace with bombs. How could we contribute to a solution? Maybe the first step would be to see the various factions as actual humans. Maybe stop seeing every country as a pawn in the realpolitik of US vs Russia. Stop taking 'us versus them' stances. Talk to people.
Unfortunately, the scary organization that is ISIS is the embodiment of everything we ever feared. There is probably no talking to them. It saddens me, as I see the rise of ISIS as being of our own making. It's born of decades of foreign policy that can be summed up like this: unexamined assumptions and wrong-headed aggressions, both covert and overt.
Our unwillingness to see our part in the current situation makes me ... I don't know ... angry / sad / baffled / discouraged / disgusted. And all I see people talking about is more of the same. Yeah, to me, people with experience are people who will pursue the same Dulles/Kissinger/Casey/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Cheney policies. Puerile. Deadly. Wrong. Clinton is a hawk too. She will solve nothing in the middle east.
@dramaman - I agree - total non-intervention probably won't work. And yes, I tried to acknowledge, in my post, that Leisured's point, perhaps, wasn't to totally disavow blame on the US.
I have a really hard time with opinions - TBH usually outside of this forum - that are based in ignorance of our history. It upsets me. So @Leisured - I didn't mean obtusely argue with you in particular. You merely bore the brunt of my pent up frustration with things like the Ted Cruz Defend Our Nation (https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/defend-our-nation/) foreign policy page.
So no comments on saturday's results?Bernie got beat in Nevada big time, 15-20, or 16-23 if you count superdelegates. The polls were showing a much closer race than this, so I'm not sure what you mean.
the biggest surprise for me was how close bernie kept nevada.
So no comments on saturday's results?For me the biggest (non?) surprise was the poor turnout of Sander's youthful base. Young people have never voted in particularly large numbers, but a small part of me was hoping that the split between Iowa and New Hampshire might have brought more people out. I'm not pulling for Sanders mind you - i'm simply pulling for increased democratic participation.
the biggest surprise for me was how close bernie kept nevada.
I like Kasich more than the rest of the candidates on either side. But I've been thinking that I should stop looking at presidents policies, and ask myself the following questions,So no comments on saturday's results?For me the biggest (non?) surprise was the poor turnout of Sander's youthful base. Young people have never voted in particularly large numbers, but a small part of me was hoping that the split between Iowa and New Hampshire might have brought more people out. I'm not pulling for Sanders mind you - i'm simply pulling for increased democratic participation.
the biggest surprise for me was how close bernie kept nevada.
Agree with Jeremey E. that I didn't see Bush dropping out until at least the day after Super Tuesday. That will go down as one of the biggest primary campaign failures since WWII. High expectations, a huge campaign-chest and name recognition. I suppose the last one hurt him here though.
IMO Kasich is the only sane one left in that field that has a snowball's chance of winning, and it's getting warmer each week.
@Jeremy E: Another question: how will this candidate negotiate trade deals?I have negotiate with leaders and other countries, but Congress needs to approve trade deals I thought?
This is the one area where the Bernster semi-frightens me. Opposing bad trade deals is good. Opposing free trade on principle is bad. All that tax law talk doesn't matter as Congress won't be passing any FTT, increased cap gains, or increased marginal tax rates anytime soon. But the president handles trade negotiations.
@Jeremy E: Another question: how will this candidate negotiate trade deals?
This is the one area where the Bernster semi-frightens me. Opposing bad trade deals is good. Opposing free trade on principle is bad. All that tax law talk doesn't matter as Congress won't be passing any FTT, increased cap gains, or increased marginal tax rates anytime soon. But the president handles trade negotiations.
So no comments on saturday's results?Biggest surprise for me was Bush dropping out and Trump winning all 46 counties to get all 50 delegates.
I like Kasich more than the rest of the candidates on either side. But I've been thinking that I should stop looking at presidents policies, and ask myself the following questions,
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
etc. things that the president actually does, I then think what effects they would have and which effects I would prefer.
I have an excel spreadsheet and I ended up choosing Kasich, but what scares me is that he wasn't far ahead of Clinton who got 3rd (Kasich, Rubio, Clinton)
Some people prefer stubborn candidates that won't compromise, I think the biggest examples of these are Sanders and Cruz. I've heard people on this forum say that is the reason they are rooting for Sanders.
I like Kasich more than the rest of the candidates on either side. But I've been thinking that I should stop looking at presidents policies, and ask myself the following questions,
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
etc. things that the president actually does, I then think what effects they would have and which effects I would prefer.
I have an excel spreadsheet and I ended up choosing Kasich, but what scares me is that he wasn't far ahead of Clinton who got 3rd (Kasich, Rubio, Clinton)
Forgive me if this is flogging a dead horse, but watching Trump's campaign strategy there's a reoccurring motif. Anytime an individual challenges him he lashes out saying his critic is a "loser" or "stupid" or with a similar personal character attack. When it's an organization criticizing him he says it is a "failure" or going "bankrupt". His attacks are lobbed at Republicans and Democrats alike.
My point here is how can we ever hope Trump will get along with other leaders or avoid gridlock? If what people hate about our current state of politics is the 'establishment' and gridlock, how will electing a person who personally insults just about everyone who doesn't agree with him make things better?
A list of people and organizations Trump has insulted on twitter. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0)
Cruz certainly has shown he won't compromise by shutting down the government and filibustering for 21 hours. He seems to relish the idea that he can blow things up.Some people prefer stubborn candidates that won't compromise, I think the biggest examples of these are Sanders and Cruz. I've heard people on this forum say that is the reason they are rooting for Sanders.
I like Kasich more than the rest of the candidates on either side. But I've been thinking that I should stop looking at presidents policies, and ask myself the following questions,
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
etc. things that the president actually does, I then think what effects they would have and which effects I would prefer.
I have an excel spreadsheet and I ended up choosing Kasich, but what scares me is that he wasn't far ahead of Clinton who got 3rd (Kasich, Rubio, Clinton)
Forgive me if this is flogging a dead horse, but watching Trump's campaign strategy there's a reoccurring motif. Anytime an individual challenges him he lashes out saying his critic is a "loser" or "stupid" or with a similar personal character attack. When it's an organization criticizing him he says it is a "failure" or going "bankrupt". His attacks are lobbed at Republicans and Democrats alike.
My point here is how can we ever hope Trump will get along with other leaders or avoid gridlock? If what people hate about our current state of politics is the 'establishment' and gridlock, how will electing a person who personally insults just about everyone who doesn't agree with him make things better?
A list of people and organizations Trump has insulted on twitter. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0)
But I think Trump would be a horrible president as much as you.
Sanders - I admit I know less about his legislating style and more about his ideology. What in his history suggests he won't compromise (serious question)?
For better and for worse, compromise isn’t Sen. Bernie Sanders’ strong suit. If you want somebody to make nice with those on the other side of an issue, the Vermont independent isn’t your man. On the other hand, if you want someone to rise up in righteous indignation, he’s a reliable bet.
“What I said is that, if you are good at politics, and you have 70 [percent]-80 percent of the people behind you in issues like raising the minimum wage or rebuilding our infrastructure or family and medical leave. ... You should win those fights and it’s not good enough to sit down with Boehner and say, ‘No, I can’t support’ — ‘Oh OK, guess we’re not going to do it.’”
In terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
Rubio is heavily winning general matchups in Clinton vs Rubio, and Florida is his state, I see 0 chance of Clinton winning itIn terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
I agree that think Trump will have a very hard time defeating Clinton, but I'm less convinced that Rubio would beat her.
In a Rubio vs Clinton contest, neither seem to have very many states "locked up", but with the very high delegate states of CA and NY polling towards Hillary (and Florida remaining a battleground state) it gives Hillary a few more paths to victory.
Also interesting - NY seemed to reject Trump for Clinton, even though (or perhaps because of) Trump's longer history in the state.
worth a look: http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/ (http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/)
But you also have to take into account what happens if Trump does not get the nomination, he could run as an independent.Rubio is heavily winning general matchups in Clinton vs Rubio, and Florida is his state, I see 0 chance of Clinton winning itIn terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
I agree that think Trump will have a very hard time defeating Clinton, but I'm less convinced that Rubio would beat her.
In a Rubio vs Clinton contest, neither seem to have very many states "locked up", but with the very high delegate states of CA and NY polling towards Hillary (and Florida remaining a battleground state) it gives Hillary a few more paths to victory.
Also interesting - NY seemed to reject Trump for Clinton, even though (or perhaps because of) Trump's longer history in the state.
worth a look: http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/ (http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/)
Clinton doesn't have to win Florida to defeat Rubio...but she can make him play a lot of defense in his home state. That could really cost MarcoRubio is heavily winning general matchups in Clinton vs Rubio, and Florida is his state, I see 0 chance of Clinton winning itIn terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
I agree that think Trump will have a very hard time defeating Clinton, but I'm less convinced that Rubio would beat her.
In a Rubio vs Clinton contest, neither seem to have very many states "locked up", but with the very high delegate states of CA and NY polling towards Hillary (and Florida remaining a battleground state) it gives Hillary a few more paths to victory.
Also interesting - NY seemed to reject Trump for Clinton, even though (or perhaps because of) Trump's longer history in the state.
worth a look: http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/ (http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/)
With Kasich VP, Rubio wins Ohio easy, Kasich is also more moderate, whereas hillary has been going far towards the left and Sanders is all the way leftClinton doesn't have to win Florida to defeat Rubio...but she can make him play a lot of defense in his home state. That could really cost MarcoRubio is heavily winning general matchups in Clinton vs Rubio, and Florida is his state, I see 0 chance of Clinton winning itIn terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
I agree that think Trump will have a very hard time defeating Clinton, but I'm less convinced that Rubio would beat her.
In a Rubio vs Clinton contest, neither seem to have very many states "locked up", but with the very high delegate states of CA and NY polling towards Hillary (and Florida remaining a battleground state) it gives Hillary a few more paths to victory.
Also interesting - NY seemed to reject Trump for Clinton, even though (or perhaps because of) Trump's longer history in the state.
worth a look: http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/ (http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/)
The way I see it in a Clinton/Rubio matchup Clinton would most likely take all of New England, the mid-atlantic states (MD, Del, NJ) and the West Coast (CA, WA & OR) plus MI an IL. That gets her to 206/270, and leaves PA, OH, VA and MN as the biggest battleground states, plus FL (which Rubio will win after a protracted fight).
Rubio absolutely needs to win FL, VA and at least one of the following OH, PA & MN.
If Clinton wins OH, PA & MN and Rubio wins FL and VA then it sets up a really interesting race that could be decided on Colorado and Nevada. I think Rubio has an edge in Nevada (which would give him the win) but Colorado in 2016 leans much more towards democrats than it has during the last several decades.
On a related note..I don't think people generally turn down VP offerings, I think Kasich or Nikki Haley could be Rubios VP, Rubio or Kasich could be Trumps VP, For Democratic VPs I'd guess maybe Elizabeth Warren or Julian Castro, maybe Tim Kaine or Joe Biden assuming he is willing/can be VP more than twice, I'm not sure if that rule extends to VPs
who the heck do each of the front-runners pick for their VP?
I have a hard time seeing any of the current GOP candidates agreeing to be Trump's #2 after the insults he's lobbed at them.
Likewise, I think a Clinton/Sanders ticket is unlikely (but not completely out of the question). I could see her picking a southern candidate or a minority candidate to help her electoral chances. Maybe she'll see Texas and it's 38 electoral votes as finally being up for grabs and try to beat (presumably) Trump there and squash virtually any chance he has of beating her. I think that's a big stretch, but Texas doesn't seem as much a lock to me with Trump on the ballot as it has in the past several cycles.
With Kasich VP, Rubio wins Ohio easy, Kasich is also more moderate, whereas hillary has been going far towards the left and Sanders is all the way left
I don't see any chance of Gilmore being VP, maybe Trump will throw a huge curveball and offer VP to one of his lawyers or buddies or some celebrity
With Kasich VP, Rubio wins Ohio easy, Kasich is also more moderate, whereas hillary has been going far towards the left and Sanders is all the way left
I think that's the easiest way for Rubio to win; get Kasich to be his VP and secure OH, and make Clinton fight for OH.
of course he needs to somehow trip up "The Donald" to ever get that chance.
A Trump/Gilmore ticket might make VA go towards teh GOP and make that hypothetical race a lot closer. He's also a bit more moderate so it should give Trump an easier time winning states like NC and keep Ohio & PA competitive. Gilmore is one of the few contenders who didn't receive quite as many insults from Trump as the others (partially because he didn't last long).
There is no world where Kasich is moderate. In fact, the entire political system has been going right.With Kasich VP, Rubio wins Ohio easy, Kasich is also more moderate, whereas hillary has been going far towards the left and Sanders is all the way leftClinton doesn't have to win Florida to defeat Rubio...but she can make him play a lot of defense in his home state. That could really cost MarcoRubio is heavily winning general matchups in Clinton vs Rubio, and Florida is his state, I see 0 chance of Clinton winning itIn terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
I agree that think Trump will have a very hard time defeating Clinton, but I'm less convinced that Rubio would beat her.
In a Rubio vs Clinton contest, neither seem to have very many states "locked up", but with the very high delegate states of CA and NY polling towards Hillary (and Florida remaining a battleground state) it gives Hillary a few more paths to victory.
Also interesting - NY seemed to reject Trump for Clinton, even though (or perhaps because of) Trump's longer history in the state.
worth a look: http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/ (http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/)
The way I see it in a Clinton/Rubio matchup Clinton would most likely take all of New England, the mid-atlantic states (MD, Del, NJ) and the West Coast (CA, WA & OR) plus MI an IL. That gets her to 206/270, and leaves PA, OH, VA and MN as the biggest battleground states, plus FL (which Rubio will win after a protracted fight).
Rubio absolutely needs to win FL, VA and at least one of the following OH, PA & MN.
If Clinton wins OH, PA & MN and Rubio wins FL and VA then it sets up a really interesting race that could be decided on Colorado and Nevada. I think Rubio has an edge in Nevada (which would give him the win) but Colorado in 2016 leans much more towards democrats than it has during the last several decades.
everyone that rates conservatism shows him as being the most moderate of the republicans that ran for president, right next to Christie. He was able to compromise with Bill Clinton to pass a balanced budget, and was able to compromise a lot while in congress.There is no world where Kasich is moderate. In fact, the entire political system has been going right.With Kasich VP, Rubio wins Ohio easy, Kasich is also more moderate, whereas hillary has been going far towards the left and Sanders is all the way leftClinton doesn't have to win Florida to defeat Rubio...but she can make him play a lot of defense in his home state. That could really cost MarcoRubio is heavily winning general matchups in Clinton vs Rubio, and Florida is his state, I see 0 chance of Clinton winning itIn terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
I agree that think Trump will have a very hard time defeating Clinton, but I'm less convinced that Rubio would beat her.
In a Rubio vs Clinton contest, neither seem to have very many states "locked up", but with the very high delegate states of CA and NY polling towards Hillary (and Florida remaining a battleground state) it gives Hillary a few more paths to victory.
Also interesting - NY seemed to reject Trump for Clinton, even though (or perhaps because of) Trump's longer history in the state.
worth a look: http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/ (http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/bJVb/)
The way I see it in a Clinton/Rubio matchup Clinton would most likely take all of New England, the mid-atlantic states (MD, Del, NJ) and the West Coast (CA, WA & OR) plus MI an IL. That gets her to 206/270, and leaves PA, OH, VA and MN as the biggest battleground states, plus FL (which Rubio will win after a protracted fight).
Rubio absolutely needs to win FL, VA and at least one of the following OH, PA & MN.
If Clinton wins OH, PA & MN and Rubio wins FL and VA then it sets up a really interesting race that could be decided on Colorado and Nevada. I think Rubio has an edge in Nevada (which would give him the win) but Colorado in 2016 leans much more towards democrats than it has during the last several decades.
I never said that Kasich was a moderate. Merely that he is more moderate than Rubio has been.
There is no world where Kasich is moderate. In fact, the entire political system has been going right.
In terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
In terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
Rubio has an "outsider" problem, more so than Clinton. As the establishment preferred candidate, his nomination wouldn't inspire the "change" votes that Trump and Cruz are getting. He would have a harder and lengthier time getting those voters to actually care enough to vote. Of course, those same voters have a vitriolic response to Clinton, which may be enough.
If Trump looks like he has a good chance of winning the presidency, the Senate will flip.
I'm pretty sure Trump has a good chance at winning Republican nomination, as about half of republicans like him, but about 1/2 hate him. So in a general election, half the republicans hate him and will probably not vote, whereas almost all the democrats hate him so much they'll make sure they go and vote against him. He has no chance at winning general election.In terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
Rubio has an "outsider" problem, more so than Clinton. As the establishment preferred candidate, his nomination wouldn't inspire the "change" votes that Trump and Cruz are getting. He would have a harder and lengthier time getting those voters to actually care enough to vote. Of course, those same voters have a vitriolic response to Clinton, which may be enough.
If Trump looks like he has a good chance of winning the presidency, the Senate will flip.
I'm pretty sure Trump has a good chance at winning Republican nomination, as about half of republicans like him, but about 1/2 hate him. So in a general election, half the republicans hate him and will probably not vote, whereas almost all the democrats hate him so much they'll make sure they go and vote against him. He has no chance at winning general election.In terms of whether or not we have a republican or democrat president, I don't think the democratic nomination will make a difference.
I think there is a 5% chance of Sanders getting nomination and a 95% chance of Clinton getting nomination.
I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.
If Trump gets nomination, he loses against either Hillary or Sanders
If Rubio gets nomination, he wins against either Hillary or Sanders
Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, but these are mine.
Rubio has an "outsider" problem, more so than Clinton. As the establishment preferred candidate, his nomination wouldn't inspire the "change" votes that Trump and Cruz are getting. He would have a harder and lengthier time getting those voters to actually care enough to vote. Of course, those same voters have a vitriolic response to Clinton, which may be enough.
If Trump looks like he has a good chance of winning the presidency, the Senate will flip.
As for Rubio, I'm not sure what you mean by an outsider problem, sure he's "establishment", but not compared to Clinton, and people see him as young and up and coming. He'll also attack Hillary on emails and Benghazi, and she won't have a chance, regardless whether or not those attacks have any warrant.
I'm pretty sure Trump has a good chance at winning Republican nomination, as about half of republicans like him, but about 1/2 hate him. So in a general election, half the republicans hate him and will probably not vote, whereas almost all the democrats hate him so much they'll make sure they go and vote against him. He has no chance at winning general election.
As for Rubio, I'm not sure what you mean by an outsider problem, sure he's "establishment", but not compared to Clinton, and people see him as young and up and coming. He'll also attack Hillary on emails and Benghazi, and she won't have a chance, regardless whether or not those attacks have any warrant.
I disagree with redstate, and so do the general election polls and favorability pollsI'm pretty sure Trump has a good chance at winning Republican nomination, as about half of republicans like him, but about 1/2 hate him. So in a general election, half the republicans hate him and will probably not vote, whereas almost all the democrats hate him so much they'll make sure they go and vote against him. He has no chance at winning general election.
I'm inclined to agree. He'll be the nominee, unless the Republican elite can figure out a way to stop him (no superdelegates to help).QuoteAs for Rubio, I'm not sure what you mean by an outsider problem, sure he's "establishment", but not compared to Clinton, and people see him as young and up and coming. He'll also attack Hillary on emails and Benghazi, and she won't have a chance, regardless whether or not those attacks have any warrant.
Rubio is seen by the Republican establishment as the candidate to stop Trump. See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-last-ditch-hope-to-stop-donald-trump/ and http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/13/endorsements-reinforce-rubios-image-gop-establishment-candidate/78754932/.
Interestingly, redstate claims that Rubio can't beat Clinton but Trump can. http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/02/24/ted-cruz-drop-race.-neither-marco-rubio./
As far as Clinton, if we ignore those who would never vote for her, she is vulnerable on the emails. Benghazi? That's echo chamber material right there. It's become a meme ("But...Benghazi!!") and no one cares except for those who would never vote for her anyway.
The popular vote isn't as interesting to me or as important politically as the electoral map. Trump's largest block of supporters are conservative white males who work blue collar jobs or have less than a college education. Problem is, the largest concentrations of those voters are in states that the GOP has already had a lock on even in the '08 and '12 elections. Rubio at least makes Florida a pretty solid bet for the GOP, while Trump leaves Florida and NC in play, will probably give up Virgina entirely thanks to the beltway-heavy voters who have a more favorable view of Hillary. Trump might make the popular vote close but he isn't polling favorably in states that the GOP really need if they want to take the white house.I don't think Hillary would stand a chance in South Carolina or Texas, regardless what trump is campaigning there, Trump is now polling better than Cruz in Texas
Hillary's main challenge is to win the same battleground states that Obama carried in both '08 and '12. Those include Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. If she wins just half of those I don't see how Trump can win the general election- and Hillary could force Trump to spend time and energy defending and fighting for the Carolinas, Iowa and even Texas (Trump has been running a scorched-earth campaign there against Cruz - the texas senator and Tea Party darling).
I've been adding up numbers with each primary, and with just the votes he has received, he alone got more than all the democrat votes combined. Those of you speculating about half this and half that are going to be surprised come election day.
I've been adding up numbers with each primary, and with just the votes he has received, he alone got more than all the democrat votes combined. Those of you speculating about half this and half that are going to be surprised come election day.
Unless there's something quite non-representative about the states that have thus far voted (for Republicans), it seems like Trump has to be the winner for the nomination. Republicans who just want to beat Trump love to rally around Rubio. Republicans who get serious about picking the best conservative tend to favor Cruz. At least, that's what I've seen from my reading and from talking to well-read conservatives in my family.
I sent my ballot in this morning, so now I'm just watching out of morbid curiosity. The far more interesting scene is the Supreme Court nomination. Obama put up a frontrunner who was just approved 97-0 couple years back, and 24 of the 34 Senators up for election are Republican..I was unaware of Obama officially nominating anyone. I had heard rumors that Nevada's Sandoval (a Republican) was one likely candidate.
Well, folks, I locked in my primary vote this morning with early voting ahead of Super Tuesday. I'm pretty sure I ended up with a different person than whom I originally selected in the MMM poll thread. Tomorrow I leave the country for a little vacation, where I plan to have a drink on the beach and unplug from all the crazy politics. Odds I'll manage to ignore election news until I'm back in a week? Hmm, I shall do my best!Have a good vacation and enjoy your low information diet. Hopefully the laws won't be changed in your absence and you won't be barred from re-entry :-P
Unless there's something quite non-representative about the states that have thus far voted (for Republicans), it seems like Trump has to be the winner for the nomination. Republicans who just want to beat Trump love to rally around Rubio. Republicans who get serious about picking the best conservative tend to favor Cruz. At least, that's what I've seen from my reading and from talking to well-read conservatives in my family.
I think Trump definitely has the fast track right now to the nomination, but just to play devil's advocate... Of the four states that have voted, Trump has won 3/4. They are all states with small populations andare largely rural with just a few metropolitan areas. For example, the largest cities in each state are Des Moins, Las Vegas, Columbia and Manchester. Of those, only Las Vegas has a population of over 200k.
Which is to say, their demographics are very different from, say, Texas, Georgia, Massachussets or Virginia.QuoteI sent my ballot in this morning, so now I'm just watching out of morbid curiosity. The far more interesting scene is the Supreme Court nomination. Obama put up a frontrunner who was just approved 97-0 couple years back, and 24 of the 34 Senators up for election are Republican..I was unaware of Obama officially nominating anyone. I had heard rumors that Nevada's Sandoval (a Republican) was one likely candidate.
I believe if HIllary wins who her next supreme court choice will be will almost certainly depend on whether there's a republican house. As I said earlier, I expect the GOP to loose seats but still hold onto a slim majority.
We shall see....
Unless there's something quite non-representative about the states that have thus far voted (for Republicans), it seems like Trump has to be the winner for the nomination. Republicans who just want to beat Trump love to rally around Rubio. Republicans who get serious about picking the best conservative tend to favor Cruz. At least, that's what I've seen from my reading and from talking to well-read conservatives in my family.
I think Trump definitely has the fast track right now to the nomination, but just to play devil's advocate... Of the four states that have voted, Trump has won 3/4. They are all states with small populations andare largely rural with just a few metropolitan areas. For example, the largest cities in each state are Des Moins, Las Vegas, Columbia and Manchester. Of those, only Las Vegas has a population of over 200k.
Which is to say, their demographics are very different from, say, Texas, Georgia, Massachussets or Virginia.QuoteI sent my ballot in this morning, so now I'm just watching out of morbid curiosity. The far more interesting scene is the Supreme Court nomination. Obama put up a frontrunner who was just approved 97-0 couple years back, and 24 of the 34 Senators up for election are Republican..I was unaware of Obama officially nominating anyone. I had heard rumors that Nevada's Sandoval (a Republican) was one likely candidate.
I believe if HIllary wins who her next supreme court choice will be will almost certainly depend on whether there's a republican house. As I said earlier, I expect the GOP to loose seats but still hold onto a slim majority.
We shall see....
I assume you meant whether there is a republican Senate. The GOP totally slamming the door on even meeting with any nominees before a nominee is even named may have an impact on that if the Democrats are able to use this as another example of the GOP being an obstructionist Congress who won't do their jobs. Makes a Republican senator getting reelected in a moderate district that much harder.
Trump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.
This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.
...
Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits.
“I'm a progressive, but I'm a progressive who likes to get things done,” Hillary Clinton said at the first Democratic debate, in response to a question from moderator Anderson Cooper about whether she defines herself as a moderate or a progressive.
The implication was that progressive Bernie Sanders is too far to the left to accomplish anything—all of his ideas are pie-in-the-sky. You have to be able to find the bipartisan, “warm, purple space” as Clinton said earlier this year, to get anything done. Slate's Jamelle Bouie was super-impressed by this rationale, saying Clinton has “skilled use of bureaucratic power.”
The problem with this narrative is that it is completely false. Not only has Sanders gotten a lot more things done than Clinton did in her own short legislative career, he's actually one of the most effective members of Congress, passing bills, both big and small, that have reshaped American policy on key issues like poverty, the environment and health care.
Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you)Can legislative success translate to executive success? Is the ability to work in the comparatively civil senate mean you will be able to translate that strategy to the Presidency where you are the sole target for about half the nation?Quote from: article“I'm a progressive, but I'm a progressive who likes to get things done,” Hillary Clinton said at the first Democratic debate, in response to a question from moderator Anderson Cooper about whether she defines herself as a moderate or a progressive.
The implication was that progressive Bernie Sanders is too far to the left to accomplish anything—all of his ideas are pie-in-the-sky. You have to be able to find the bipartisan, “warm, purple space” as Clinton said earlier this year, to get anything done. Slate's Jamelle Bouie was super-impressed by this rationale, saying Clinton has “skilled use of bureaucratic power.”
The problem with this narrative is that it is completely false. Not only has Sanders gotten a lot more things done than Clinton did in her own short legislative career, he's actually one of the most effective members of Congress, passing bills, both big and small, that have reshaped American policy on key issues like poverty, the environment and health care.
Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you)Can legislative success translate to executive success? Is the ability to work in the comparatively civil senate mean you will be able to translate that strategy to the Presidency where you are the sole target for about half the nation?
(again, playing devil's advocate)
The big question is, can Sanders translate his time as an effective senator into an effective president? After all, a legislative job is different than an executive job.
But Sanders has a theory of change, in order to be an executive who can pass progressive policy even in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. He frequently talks about a “political revolution” that means vastly increasing voter turnout and participation in political activities so conservative lawmakers and Big Money are unable to overwhelm public opinion. During the Democratic debate, this line had its doubters, from former Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) to a skeptical Anderson Cooper.
Sanders is probably not so unsure of himself. After all, he's done it before. When Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vermont, one of his big accomplishments was to increase civic life in the city. During the course of his terms, voter turnout doubled. In his eight years as mayor, he rejuvenated a city that was considered by many to be dying, laying out progressive policies that cities around the country later adopted, and he did all this without particularly alienating Republicans. As one former GOP Alderman noted, he implemented ideas from the Republican party that he felt were not particularly harmful to working people, such as more efficient accounting practices.
It's easy for the establishment media and politicians to make the assumption that Bernie Sanders is not an effective lawmaker or executive. He has strong convictions and he stands by them, and we're often told that makes one a gadfly—someone who is out to make a point rather than make an actual change. But with Sanders we have the fusion of strong principles and the ability to forge odd bedfellow coalitions that accomplish historic things, like the audit of the Federal Reserve or the rejuvenation of Burlington that has served as a model for cities around the country. “Don't underestimate me,” Sanders said at the beginning of the race, words that anyone who knows his political and policy history take to heart.
Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you)Can legislative success translate to executive success? Is the ability to work in the comparatively civil senate mean you will be able to translate that strategy to the Presidency where you are the sole target for about half the nation?
(again, playing devil's advocate)
Tsk, tsk -- you didn't read the article.
Unless the Democrats Nominate Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency (http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency)The writer of this article clearly wants a Sanders president, but he won't get what he wants. Currently we have like a 93% chance of Hillary getting nomination and 75% chance of Hillary becoming president. Like it or not, it's happening. The only real challenge Clinton faces is if Trump loses the nomination, which is also unlikely. All of the general election matchups of Hillary vs Trump show Hillary winning. All of the general election matchups that show Hillary vs Rubio or Hillary vs Kasich(since Kasich became known) show Hillary losing. All of the national polls show Hillary beating Sanders for the nomination, she's also already winning, and is the establishment candidate which means she'll have a very large majority of superdelegates on her side. Even if Hillary goes up against Trump and loses the popular vote slightly, I wouldn't be surprised if she wins the electoral college. It would be crazy and some people would be pissed, but she would become president. I see 0 chance of a Trump president, and anyone who tries to say Trump will beat Clinton as more than just their opinion, is talking out their ass.Quote from: articleTrump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.
This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.
...
Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits.
I love political models that say there is a 93% of this or a 75% chance of someone being elected 9 months down the road. It is so precise, but lacks accuracy (to use scientific terminology).Unless the Democrats Nominate Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency (http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency)The writer of this article clearly wants a Sanders president, but he won't get what he wants. Currently we have like a 93% chance of Hillary getting nomination and 75% chance of Hillary becoming president. Like it or not, it's happening. The only real challenge Clinton faces is if Trump loses the nomination, which is also unlikely. [snip]Quote from: articleTrump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.
This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.
...
Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits.
.... I see 0 chance of a Trump president, and anyone who tries to say Trump will beat Clinton as more than just their opinion, is talking out their ass.
I didn't say someone will win, I put out percentages. Someone else said flatout "Hillary can't beat Trump in General Election" which was what my whole response was based on.I love political models that say there is a 93% of this or a 75% chance of someone being elected 9 months down the road. It is so precise, but lacks accuracy (to use scientific terminology).Unless the Democrats Nominate Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency (http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency)The writer of this article clearly wants a Sanders president, but he won't get what he wants. Currently we have like a 93% chance of Hillary getting nomination and 75% chance of Hillary becoming president. Like it or not, it's happening. The only real challenge Clinton faces is if Trump loses the nomination, which is also unlikely. [snip]Quote from: articleTrump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.
This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.
...
Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits.
.... I see 0 chance of a Trump president, and anyone who tries to say Trump will beat Clinton as more than just their opinion, is talking out their ass.
I agree with you that Hillary has the easiest path to victory right now. But a lot can happen in that time period. Just look to the 2012 primary - even at this stage pundants were predicting her to win the nomination, only she faded big time and lost to Obama. Or consider all that could happen between then or now. Some damning evidence (beyond Bengazi or the damn email servers) for Hillary. Or something in Trump's tax records. Or a terrorist attack on US soil committed by an immigrant. Any of those could flip people pretty fast.
Look at Bush's approval ratings just after he took office compared to 2 years later (after 9/11). Or look at his Dad's two years in, when he had the highest approval ratings ever and then when he ran head-to-head against Clinton two years later (and lost badly). Consider how Larry Craig went from a respected senator to resigning because of a single incident of lewd behavior (and the insinuations that came with it). Kerry's strength was supposed to be his military record, but hten he got 'swift-boated' and spent half his time defending his record and ironically lost ground with military voters to someone who endured far less during his term of service.
What happens if Bloomberg decides to jump in as an independent? I'm guessing he'll steal more moderate voters from Hillary than Trump.
Point is - what looks to be an absolute certainty now can change very quickly. Call them 'black swan' events or just the unpredictableness of modern politics, but I think it's a bit premature to say someone "will" win the presidency before the primaries are even over.
The writer of this article clearly wants a Sanders president, but he won't get what he wants. Currently we have like a 93% chance of Hillary getting nomination and 75% chance of Hillary becoming president.
I didn't say someone will win, I put out percentages. Someone else said flatout "Hillary can't beat Trump in General Election" which was what my whole response was based on.
she'll have a very large majority of superdelegates on her side
I didn't say someone will win, I put out percentages. Someone else said flatout "Hillary can't beat Trump in General Election" which was what my whole response was based on.
I see 0 chance of a Trump president, and anyone who tries to say Trump will beat Clinton as more than just their opinion, is talking out their ass.this to me indicates a 0% chance. If you are going to suggest a 93% or 100% chance that Hillary will beat Trump (which you seemed to do in the same post) it's helpful to know how you reached this conclusion. Calling others an ass doesn't foster discussion.
I didn't say Hillary had a 93% chance of beating trump, I said she had a 93% chance of beating sanders
I didn't say someone will win, I put out percentages. Someone else said flatout "Hillary can't beat Trump in General Election" which was what my whole response was based on.
And as Jack said, putting out percentages is relatively meaningless unless you are detailing the reasoning about how you reached those percentages. Further down in your response you then said:QuoteI see 0 chance of a Trump president, and anyone who tries to say Trump will beat Clinton as more than just their opinion, is talking out their ass.this to me indicates a 0% chance. If you are going to suggest a 93% or 100% chance that Hillary will beat Trump (which you seemed to do in the same post) it's helpful to know how you reached this conclusion. Calling others an ass doesn't foster discussion.
If you go onto RealClearPolitics.com, Hillary wins general elections against Trump easily, she's also winning democratic nomination polls against Sanders handily, not counting superdelegates which do matter a lot.
My mistake, you did state that she had a 93% chance of winning the nomination (ergo 'beating Sanders').I didn't say Hillary had a 93% chance of beating trump, I said she had a 93% chance of beating sanders
I didn't say someone will win, I put out percentages. Someone else said flatout "Hillary can't beat Trump in General Election" which was what my whole response was based on.
And as Jack said, putting out percentages is relatively meaningless unless you are detailing the reasoning about how you reached those percentages. Further down in your response you then said:QuoteI see 0 chance of a Trump president, and anyone who tries to say Trump will beat Clinton as more than just their opinion, is talking out their ass.this to me indicates a 0% chance. If you are going to suggest a 93% or 100% chance that Hillary will beat Trump (which you seemed to do in the same post) it's helpful to know how you reached this conclusion. Calling others an ass doesn't foster discussion.
2 of Bernies best states are already behind him, Nationally Hillary is winning by 5 points, but look at SC, winning by 24 points, march 1 she is winning all but 2 states, 1 of those being only 26 delegates and the other being only a 3.5 point lead for Sanders. Remember that none of these take into consideration the superdelegates.If you go onto RealClearPolitics.com, Hillary wins general elections against Trump easily, she's also winning democratic nomination polls against Sanders handily, not counting superdelegates which do matter a lot.
Uh huh. So you think this set of polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html), which shows Clinton and Sanders tied within the margin of error (not to mention a clear upward trend for Sanders), somehow means Clinton is winning "handily?"
Forgive me for being blunt, but you're delusional. That's not a personal attack; I'm simply stating a fact based on the divorce between your assertions and reality, as presented by the source you yourself asked us to go check.
So many people hate Trump, if he gets the republican nomination I will just vote libertarian, which basically means not vote, I think a large percent of republicans will also choose not to vote if he gets nom, allowing an easy win for democratic party for whoever their nom is, most likely Clinton. The chance for Rubio to beat Trump is growing slimmer with Kasich seeming to want to stay in, but I'm thinking maybe Kasich has a small 3% chance or so now. I think Cruz has about a 0% chance to beat Trump. I think Rubio will be smart and if he gets nom, he'll offer Kasich the VP slot and he'll keep saying things like "Hillary is inelligible to be president because of Benghazi." I think they'll coast through the general election.My mistake, you did state that she had a 93% chance of winning the nomination (ergo 'beating Sanders').I didn't say Hillary had a 93% chance of beating trump, I said she had a 93% chance of beating sanders
I didn't say someone will win, I put out percentages. Someone else said flatout "Hillary can't beat Trump in General Election" which was what my whole response was based on.
And as Jack said, putting out percentages is relatively meaningless unless you are detailing the reasoning about how you reached those percentages. Further down in your response you then said:QuoteI see 0 chance of a Trump president, and anyone who tries to say Trump will beat Clinton as more than just their opinion, is talking out their ass.this to me indicates a 0% chance. If you are going to suggest a 93% or 100% chance that Hillary will beat Trump (which you seemed to do in the same post) it's helpful to know how you reached this conclusion. Calling others an ass doesn't foster discussion.
However, I'm still confused by all of your numbers. In your last posts you've said that Clinton has a 75% chance of becoming President, and that Trump has "0 chance".
But you've stated that "All of the general election matchups that show Hillary vs Rubio or Hillary vs Kasich(since Kasich became known) show Hillary losing" and said that 'I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.'
So... if Rubio wins he'll defeat Hillary, and that's where the 75% (or presumably 70%) chance is that you're giving Hillary? And therefor both Cruz and Kasich must have 0% chance?
I'm really not seeing it as a slam-dunk for Rubio should he get the nomination, nor do I see a 100% certainty that Hillary would beat Trump in a one-on-one.
Remember that none of these take into consideration the superdelegates.
Now what is your reasonable explanation for "Unless the Democrats Nominate Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency", as I see no reasonable logic behind this
So many people hate Trump, if he gets the republican nomination I will just vote libertarian, which basically means not vote, I think a large percent of republicans will also choose not to vote if he gets nom, allowing an easy win for democratic party for whoever their nom is, most likely Clinton.My mistake, you did state that she had a 93% chance of winning the nomination (ergo 'beating Sanders').I didn't say Hillary had a 93% chance of beating trump, I said she had a 93% chance of beating sanders
I didn't say someone will win, I put out percentages. Someone else said flatout "Hillary can't beat Trump in General Election" which was what my whole response was based on.
And as Jack said, putting out percentages is relatively meaningless unless you are detailing the reasoning about how you reached those percentages. Further down in your response you then said:QuoteI see 0 chance of a Trump president, and anyone who tries to say Trump will beat Clinton as more than just their opinion, is talking out their ass.this to me indicates a 0% chance. If you are going to suggest a 93% or 100% chance that Hillary will beat Trump (which you seemed to do in the same post) it's helpful to know how you reached this conclusion. Calling others an ass doesn't foster discussion.
However, I'm still confused by all of your numbers. In your last posts you've said that Clinton has a 75% chance of becoming President, and that Trump has "0 chance".
But you've stated that "All of the general election matchups that show Hillary vs Rubio or Hillary vs Kasich(since Kasich became known) show Hillary losing" and said that 'I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.'
So... if Rubio wins he'll defeat Hillary, and that's where the 75% (or presumably 70%) chance is that you're giving Hillary? And therefor both Cruz and Kasich must have 0% chance?
I'm really not seeing it as a slam-dunk for Rubio should he get the nomination, nor do I see a 100% certainty that Hillary would beat Trump in a one-on-one.
Clinton is just the status quo, no one knows what the f*** Trump is. If it's Trump vs Clinton, I vote Johnson, if it's Clinton vs another republican, i'll vote that republican.So many people hate Trump, if he gets the republican nomination I will just vote libertarian, which basically means not vote, I think a large percent of republicans will also choose not to vote if he gets nom, allowing an easy win for democratic party for whoever their nom is, most likely Clinton.My mistake, you did state that she had a 93% chance of winning the nomination (ergo 'beating Sanders').I didn't say Hillary had a 93% chance of beating trump, I said she had a 93% chance of beating sanders
I didn't say someone will win, I put out percentages. Someone else said flatout "Hillary can't beat Trump in General Election" which was what my whole response was based on.
And as Jack said, putting out percentages is relatively meaningless unless you are detailing the reasoning about how you reached those percentages. Further down in your response you then said:QuoteI see 0 chance of a Trump president, and anyone who tries to say Trump will beat Clinton as more than just their opinion, is talking out their ass.this to me indicates a 0% chance. If you are going to suggest a 93% or 100% chance that Hillary will beat Trump (which you seemed to do in the same post) it's helpful to know how you reached this conclusion. Calling others an ass doesn't foster discussion.
However, I'm still confused by all of your numbers. In your last posts you've said that Clinton has a 75% chance of becoming President, and that Trump has "0 chance".
But you've stated that "All of the general election matchups that show Hillary vs Rubio or Hillary vs Kasich(since Kasich became known) show Hillary losing" and said that 'I think there is a 70% chance of Trump getting nomination and a 30% chance of Rubio getting nomination.'
So... if Rubio wins he'll defeat Hillary, and that's where the 75% (or presumably 70%) chance is that you're giving Hillary? And therefor both Cruz and Kasich must have 0% chance?
I'm really not seeing it as a slam-dunk for Rubio should he get the nomination, nor do I see a 100% certainty that Hillary would beat Trump in a one-on-one.
You know, I hear that attitude expressed by many now, especially 'true' conservatives who hate that Trump may derail their ideal candidate or Cruz and/or Rubio. I am a bit skeptical, however. What will happen if November comes around and the choice is essentially Trump or Clinton. Will their hatred of Trump really be so great that they will prefer to have 4-8 years of Hillary Clinton? When push comes to shove, I wonder if their hatred of Clinton will prove to be greater than their hatred of Trump.
It is not debunked whatsoever, which I've said already, your article doesn't make superdelegates go away, they'll vote for Clinton, some people will be pissed but she'll still get democratic nom.Remember that none of these take into consideration the superdelegates.
Seriously, what part of "quit repeating that BS; it's already been debunked earlier in this thread (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg973499/#msg973499)" did you not understand?Now what is your reasonable explanation for "Unless the Democrats Nominate Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency", as I see no reasonable logic behind this
That sentence is the title of an article which I linked (http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency) (and partially quoted). Did you read the article? I'm guessing not, since you're apparently incapable of even reading this thread itself. Still, you should probably go figure out how to do that before you complain that there's no explanation -- because unlike you, I cite my sources!
(In fact, that post consisted entirely of a link to the article, and contained no actual arguments or claims from me. In other words, I posted it because I found it interesting, not because I necessarily agreed or disagreed with it.)
Specifically, what is it that you don't like about the status quo? I agree that Clinton has been running more-or-less on continuing the policies of the Obama administration, but which one(s) do you want to see changed and how?
Clinton is just the status quo, no one knows what the f*** Trump is. If it's Trump vs Clinton, I vote Johnson, if it's Clinton vs another republican, i'll vote that republican.
I'm saying I would prefer the status quo over Trump. That being said, what I currently like the least is that we are increasing our national debt to gdp ratio and there are no realistic plans from the status quo to increase tax revenue or decrease spending to deal with this. Neither is there solutions from any of the presidential hopefuls that actually have a chance at becoming president.Specifically, what is it that you don't like about the status quo? I agree that Clinton has been running more-or-less on continuing the policies of the Obama administration, but which one(s) do you want to see changed and how?
Clinton is just the status quo, no one knows what the f*** Trump is. If it's Trump vs Clinton, I vote Johnson, if it's Clinton vs another republican, i'll vote that republican.
Ok - so why vote for Rubio/Cruz/Kasich in you don't think that they have a solution to the national debt either. Is the logic here that it's better to try something new than to keep doing what we are doing?I'm saying I would prefer the status quo over Trump. That being said, what I currently like the least is that we are increasing our national debt to gdp ratio and there are no realistic plans from the status quo to increase tax revenue or decrease spending to deal with this. Neither is there solutions from any of the presidential hopefuls that actually have a chance at becoming president.Specifically, what is it that you don't like about the status quo? I agree that Clinton has been running more-or-less on continuing the policies of the Obama administration, but which one(s) do you want to see changed and how?
Clinton is just the status quo, no one knows what the f*** Trump is. If it's Trump vs Clinton, I vote Johnson, if it's Clinton vs another republican, i'll vote that republican.
I'm not choosing who to vote for over their tax plans, but rather what presidents actually doOk - so why vote for Rubio/Cruz/Kasich in you don't think that they have a solution to the national debt either. Is the logic here that it's better to try something new than to keep doing what we are doing?I'm saying I would prefer the status quo over Trump. That being said, what I currently like the least is that we are increasing our national debt to gdp ratio and there are no realistic plans from the status quo to increase tax revenue or decrease spending to deal with this. Neither is there solutions from any of the presidential hopefuls that actually have a chance at becoming president.Specifically, what is it that you don't like about the status quo? I agree that Clinton has been running more-or-less on continuing the policies of the Obama administration, but which one(s) do you want to see changed and how?
Clinton is just the status quo, no one knows what the f*** Trump is. If it's Trump vs Clinton, I vote Johnson, if it's Clinton vs another republican, i'll vote that republican.
I fear Rubio's tax plan more than I fear the status quo (which I'll admit is also worrying). The fact that the right-leaning Tax Foundation are suggesting it would add $6T to our deficit is eyebrow-raising and puts it at one of the most expensive plans out there. While the better treatment of capitol gains on his plan would benefit me and many mustachians, I'm not sure I buy the "double-taxation" argument he keeps touting, especially when there's so many ways to shelter a reasonable amount of money from taxation already.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/11/pf/taxes/marco-rubio-tax-plan/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/11/pf/taxes/marco-rubio-tax-plan/)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/11/capital-and-21st-century-candidate (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/11/capital-and-21st-century-candidate)
I'm not choosing who to vote for over their tax plans, but rather what presidents actually doOk - so why vote for Rubio/Cruz/Kasich in you don't think that they have a solution to the national debt either. Is the logic here that it's better to try something new than to keep doing what we are doing?I'm saying I would prefer the status quo over Trump. That being said, what I currently like the least is that we are increasing our national debt to gdp ratio and there are no realistic plans from the status quo to increase tax revenue or decrease spending to deal with this. Neither is there solutions from any of the presidential hopefuls that actually have a chance at becoming president.Specifically, what is it that you don't like about the status quo? I agree that Clinton has been running more-or-less on continuing the policies of the Obama administration, but which one(s) do you want to see changed and how?
Clinton is just the status quo, no one knows what the f*** Trump is. If it's Trump vs Clinton, I vote Johnson, if it's Clinton vs another republican, i'll vote that republican.
I fear Rubio's tax plan more than I fear the status quo (which I'll admit is also worrying). The fact that the right-leaning Tax Foundation are suggesting it would add $6T to our deficit is eyebrow-raising and puts it at one of the most expensive plans out there. While the better treatment of capitol gains on his plan would benefit me and many mustachians, I'm not sure I buy the "double-taxation" argument he keeps touting, especially when there's so many ways to shelter a reasonable amount of money from taxation already.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/11/pf/taxes/marco-rubio-tax-plan/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/11/pf/taxes/marco-rubio-tax-plan/)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/11/capital-and-21st-century-candidate (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/11/capital-and-21st-century-candidate)
I choose who to vote for based on the followingI'm not choosing who to vote for over their tax plans, but rather what presidents actually doOk - so why vote for Rubio/Cruz/Kasich in you don't think that they have a solution to the national debt either. Is the logic here that it's better to try something new than to keep doing what we are doing?I'm saying I would prefer the status quo over Trump. That being said, what I currently like the least is that we are increasing our national debt to gdp ratio and there are no realistic plans from the status quo to increase tax revenue or decrease spending to deal with this. Neither is there solutions from any of the presidential hopefuls that actually have a chance at becoming president.Specifically, what is it that you don't like about the status quo? I agree that Clinton has been running more-or-less on continuing the policies of the Obama administration, but which one(s) do you want to see changed and how?
Clinton is just the status quo, no one knows what the f*** Trump is. If it's Trump vs Clinton, I vote Johnson, if it's Clinton vs another republican, i'll vote that republican.
I fear Rubio's tax plan more than I fear the status quo (which I'll admit is also worrying). The fact that the right-leaning Tax Foundation are suggesting it would add $6T to our deficit is eyebrow-raising and puts it at one of the most expensive plans out there. While the better treatment of capitol gains on his plan would benefit me and many mustachians, I'm not sure I buy the "double-taxation" argument he keeps touting, especially when there's so many ways to shelter a reasonable amount of money from taxation already.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/11/pf/taxes/marco-rubio-tax-plan/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/11/pf/taxes/marco-rubio-tax-plan/)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/11/capital-and-21st-century-candidate (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/11/capital-and-21st-century-candidate)
Then I'm really, really not following you at all. You state that if it's Trump vs. Clinton you'll vote for the 3rd party Johnson, but if it's any other republican vs. Hillary you'll vote for that republican candidate. You stated that you don't like the 'status quo' of Clinton (whom you won't vote for under any circumstance)
So I asked you what specifically you didn't like about the status quo, and you mentioned the national debt to gdp ratio. But now you won't choose a candidate over their tax plans - so help me out here. What will Rubio/Kasich/Cruz *do* that would garner your vote?
36% chance Hillary get s the nomIt's okay to be mad that Sanders has no chance
76% chance that sanders get sthe nom
108% chance trump would win over Hillary
-8% chance Kasich get nom
88% sure these percentages are about as accurate as Jeremy's
I'm not mad, just think it is bullshit that you spout phony statistics, which are really just your opinion. Then you try and shut down anyone else that has an opinion. But hey, since you put some bullshit percentages to your opinions it is somehow more valid?I said Hillary has a very high chance of winning the nomination, which is supported by polls, statistics and odds.
I'm not mad, just think it is bullshit that you spout phony statistics, which are really just your opinion. Then you try and shut down anyone else that has an opinion. But hey, since you put some bullshit percentages to your opinions it is somehow more valid?I said Hillary has a very high chance of winning the nomination, which is supported by polls, statistics and odds.
I said Trump has a high chance of winning the nomination, which is supported by polls, statistics and odds.
I said Hillary would most likely win against Trump, which is supported by polls, statistics and odds.
I said Hillary would most likely lose against Rubio or Kasich, which is supported by polls.
superdelegates are a big deal, I don't understand how you can ignore their existence all together,I'm not mad, just think it is bullshit that you spout phony statistics, which are really just your opinion. Then you try and shut down anyone else that has an opinion. But hey, since you put some bullshit percentages to your opinions it is somehow more valid?I said Hillary has a very high chance of winning the nomination, which is supported by polls, statistics and odds.
I said Trump has a high chance of winning the nomination, which is supported by polls, statistics and odds.
I said Hillary would most likely win against Trump, which is supported by polls, statistics and odds.
I said Hillary would most likely lose against Rubio or Kasich, which is supported by polls.
And then I linked to the polls you said you were citing, but it turns out they directly contradicted you by actually showing Clinton and Sanders running neck-and-neck. So then (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg991428/#msg991428) you apparently decided that polls are irrelevant compared to your opinion and repeated your utter bullshit about superdelegates as if you somehow thought it would somehow have non-zero persuasiveness despite all the times you've beat that dead horse before.
Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
whoa guy, you were talking about tax plans not budgets, you do know those aren't the same thing right?Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
So - let's stick to Rubio since that seems to be the only republican candidate that you'll vote for who has a 30% chance of winning (your estimation).
What about about Rubio do you prefer about:
Military
Supreme Court
Executive orders
Compromise/avoid gridlock
(the above is based on the items you've said you are using to evaluate candiates, minus the budget which you've already said doesn't matter to you)
superdelegates are a big deal, I don't understand how you can ignore their existence all together,
whoa guy, you were talking about tax plans not budgets, you do know those aren't the same thing right?Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
So - let's stick to Rubio since that seems to be the only republican candidate that you'll vote for who has a 30% chance of winning (your estimation).
What about about Rubio do you prefer about:
Military
Supreme Court
Executive orders
Compromise/avoid gridlock
(the above is based on the items you've said you are using to evaluate candiates, minus the budget which you've already said doesn't matter to you)
whoa guy, you were talking about tax plans not budgets, you do know those aren't the same thing right?
first off, he aint' your guy.......buddy
Now, pal, are taxes and budgets interrelated somehow? I just don't know?
I'll tell you what I prefer about Rubio over Clinton anyways,Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
So - let's stick to Rubio since that seems to be the only republican candidate that you'll vote for who has a 30% chance of winning (your estimation).
What about about Rubio do you prefer about:
Military
Supreme Court
Executive orders
Compromise/avoid gridlock
(the above is based on the items you've said you are using to evaluate candiates, minus the budget which you've already said doesn't matter to you)
I disagree that the superdelegates would flip to support him.superdelegates are a big deal, I don't understand how you can ignore their existence all together,
Show me where I ignored them. I dare you. I disregarded them, which is different.
The truth that you refuse to acknowledge is that if Sanders won the popular vote all the superdelegates would flip to support him. The only real function they serve is in the pre-Super Tuesday campaigning environment, where their existence serves as establishment propaganda to dissuade anti-establishment voters. They use their own existence to push the message that Sanders "can't win" in hopes it would become a self-fulfilling prophesy, but all it is is propaganda -- and it's not working.
I can play this game too:that is not a statistic
Political Science Professor: Odds Of President Trump Range BETWEEN 97% AND 99%
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/political-science-professor-odds-of-president-trump-range-between-97-and-99/
PERCENTAGES! Statistic are never wrong or bent to someone's opinion!
yes taxes and budgets are interrelated, however he said he brought up Rubios budget, which he never did.whoa guy, you were talking about tax plans not budgets, you do know those aren't the same thing right?Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
So - let's stick to Rubio since that seems to be the only republican candidate that you'll vote for who has a 30% chance of winning (your estimation).
What about about Rubio do you prefer about:
Military
Supreme Court
Executive orders
Compromise/avoid gridlock
(the above is based on the items you've said you are using to evaluate candiates, minus the budget which you've already said doesn't matter to you)
first off, he aint' your guy.......buddy
Now, pal, are taxes and budgets interrelated somehow? I just don't know?
I love that you think someone with less experience (or let's be honest none) has more knowledge than someone who has worked on the international field as both First Lady and Secretary of State. That is just so out of the realm of reality it is funny. The only reason to think this is bias. And then for Roe v Wade, you may want to learn about Casey vs PP and Rubio's appointments would reverse Roe v Wade, based on GOP behavior in multiple states.I'll tell you what I prefer about Rubio over Clinton anyways,Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
So - let's stick to Rubio since that seems to be the only republican candidate that you'll vote for who has a 30% chance of winning (your estimation).
What about about Rubio do you prefer about:
Military
Supreme Court
Executive orders
Compromise/avoid gridlock
(the above is based on the items you've said you are using to evaluate candiates, minus the budget which you've already said doesn't matter to you)
In terms of military I think it's a wash, I don't like either of their foreign policies. Rubio seems to have slightly better ideas when it comes to foreign policy and he seems to be more knowledgable on the subject, but Hillary has a lot more experience (although it includes some negatives). Hillary would maybe spend slightly less, so maybe a very slight edge to Hillary on this subject.
In terms of Supreme court justices/judges, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I think because Roe vs Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges already dealt with the main social issues I wanted to get dealt with, I'd prefer Rubio nominating the next few supreme court justices/appoint the next judges(after Obamas term of course, I think him and the senate should do their jobs and start the process to replace Scalia.
I don't know a lot about executive orders, I liked most of Obamas executive orders so I'll give a slight edge to Hillary here, but I don't really know what type of executive orders Rubio would do.
I think Rubio would veto some bills that would increase spending, I think he would be somewhat compromising and be able to pass some moderate legislation as well. I think Clinton would pass more legislation that increases spending, and be equally compromising.
I think Rubio would focus more on reducing spending when it comes to budgets, the only negative would be that he probably would increase the military budget slightly more than Clinton.
I think Rubio would be slightly stricter than Hillary when dealing with foreign policy, which I think is a good thing.
The truth that you refuse to acknowledge is that if Sanders won the popular vote all the superdelegates would flip to support him.I disagree that the superdelegates would flip to support him.
Firstly I think Sanders will drop out well before it gets to this point, but if it came down to it I think they would vote Hillary, a few people would get mad but I in no way think that it would alienate an entire generation of voters, or destroy the party, or guarantee a republican win. I think if Hillary is against Trump in that situation she still wins.The truth that you refuse to acknowledge is that if Sanders won the popular vote all the superdelegates would flip to support him.I disagree that the superdelegates would flip to support him.
Really? You think the Democrats would prefer to alienate an entire generation of voters, destroying the party and guaranteeing a Republican win, instead? Where are your "statistics" for that extraordinary opinion?
I should say seems more knowledgeable on what is currently happening in the middle east, not more knowledgeable in foreign policy in general. How would his appointments reverse Roe v Wade? Not that I don't believe you I'm just curiouisI love that you think someone with less experience (or let's be honest none) has more knowledge than someone who has worked on the international field as both First Lady and Secretary of State. That is just so out of the realm of reality it is funny. The only reason to think this is bias. And then for Roe v Wade, you may want to learn about Casey vs PP and Rubio's appointments would reverse Roe v Wade, based on GOP behavior in multiple states.I'll tell you what I prefer about Rubio over Clinton anyways,Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
So - let's stick to Rubio since that seems to be the only republican candidate that you'll vote for who has a 30% chance of winning (your estimation).
What about about Rubio do you prefer about:
Military
Supreme Court
Executive orders
Compromise/avoid gridlock
(the above is based on the items you've said you are using to evaluate candiates, minus the budget which you've already said doesn't matter to you)
In terms of military I think it's a wash, I don't like either of their foreign policies. Rubio seems to have slightly better ideas when it comes to foreign policy and he seems to be more knowledgable on the subject, but Hillary has a lot more experience (although it includes some negatives). Hillary would maybe spend slightly less, so maybe a very slight edge to Hillary on this subject.
In terms of Supreme court justices/judges, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I think because Roe vs Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges already dealt with the main social issues I wanted to get dealt with, I'd prefer Rubio nominating the next few supreme court justices/appoint the next judges(after Obamas term of course, I think him and the senate should do their jobs and start the process to replace Scalia.
I don't know a lot about executive orders, I liked most of Obamas executive orders so I'll give a slight edge to Hillary here, but I don't really know what type of executive orders Rubio would do.
I think Rubio would veto some bills that would increase spending, I think he would be somewhat compromising and be able to pass some moderate legislation as well. I think Clinton would pass more legislation that increases spending, and be equally compromising.
I think Rubio would focus more on reducing spending when it comes to budgets, the only negative would be that he probably would increase the military budget slightly more than Clinton.
I think Rubio would be slightly stricter than Hillary when dealing with foreign policy, which I think is a good thing.
You are correct that I brought up Rubio's tax plan and not his specific budget (which to my knowledge he has not laid out in detail). However, it was in response to your concern about the deficit and debt-to-gdp. You did specifically mention his budget until later.yes taxes and budgets are interrelated, however he said he brought up Rubios budget, which he never did.whoa guy, you were talking about tax plans not budgets, you do know those aren't the same thing right?Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
So - let's stick to Rubio since that seems to be the only republican candidate that you'll vote for who has a 30% chance of winning (your estimation).
What about about Rubio do you prefer about:
Military
Supreme Court
Executive orders
Compromise/avoid gridlock
(the above is based on the items you've said you are using to evaluate candiates, minus the budget which you've already said doesn't matter to you)
first off, he aint' your guy.......buddy
Now, pal, are taxes and budgets interrelated somehow? I just don't know?
And I would say it is your bias that makes you think that. There is no way that someone in his position has more knowledge than the former Secretary of State and if you don't think she was dealing with the Middle East during her husband's term I have a bridge to sell you. ;)I should say seems more knowledgeable on what is currently happening in the middle east, not more knowledgeable in foreign policy in general. How would his appointments reverse Roe v Wade? Not that I don't believe you I'm just curiouisI love that you think someone with less experience (or let's be honest none) has more knowledge than someone who has worked on the international field as both First Lady and Secretary of State. That is just so out of the realm of reality it is funny. The only reason to think this is bias. And then for Roe v Wade, you may want to learn about Casey vs PP and Rubio's appointments would reverse Roe v Wade, based on GOP behavior in multiple states.I'll tell you what I prefer about Rubio over Clinton anyways,Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
So - let's stick to Rubio since that seems to be the only republican candidate that you'll vote for who has a 30% chance of winning (your estimation).
What about about Rubio do you prefer about:
Military
Supreme Court
Executive orders
Compromise/avoid gridlock
(the above is based on the items you've said you are using to evaluate candiates, minus the budget which you've already said doesn't matter to you)
In terms of military I think it's a wash, I don't like either of their foreign policies. Rubio seems to have slightly better ideas when it comes to foreign policy and he seems to be more knowledgable on the subject, but Hillary has a lot more experience (although it includes some negatives). Hillary would maybe spend slightly less, so maybe a very slight edge to Hillary on this subject.
In terms of Supreme court justices/judges, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I think because Roe vs Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges already dealt with the main social issues I wanted to get dealt with, I'd prefer Rubio nominating the next few supreme court justices/appoint the next judges(after Obamas term of course, I think him and the senate should do their jobs and start the process to replace Scalia.
I don't know a lot about executive orders, I liked most of Obamas executive orders so I'll give a slight edge to Hillary here, but I don't really know what type of executive orders Rubio would do.
I think Rubio would veto some bills that would increase spending, I think he would be somewhat compromising and be able to pass some moderate legislation as well. I think Clinton would pass more legislation that increases spending, and be equally compromising.
I think Rubio would focus more on reducing spending when it comes to budgets, the only negative would be that he probably would increase the military budget slightly more than Clinton.
I think Rubio would be slightly stricter than Hillary when dealing with foreign policy, which I think is a good thing.
In terms of Supreme court justices/judges, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I think because Roe vs Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges already dealt with the main social issues I wanted to get dealt with, I'd prefer Rubio nominating the next few supreme court justices/appoint the next judges(after Obamas term of course, I think him and the senate should do their jobs and start the process to replace Scalia.
My point, which i'll iterate once again, is that congress won't pass his tax plan so there is no point in me thinking about it, and I'll instead think about things the president actually does.You are correct that I brought up Rubio's tax plan and not his specific budget (which to my knowledge he has not laid out in detail). However, it was in response to your concern about the deficit and debt-to-gdp. You did specifically mention his budget until later.yes taxes and budgets are interrelated, however he said he brought up Rubios budget, which he never did.whoa guy, you were talking about tax plans not budgets, you do know those aren't the same thing right?Ok - so you mentioned that you don't like the current deficit of the status quo which you expect Hillary to keep, and I brought up Rubio's budget but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue for you (or at least you said you wouldn't vote for a candidate based on that).
I choose who to vote for based on the following
how will this candidate handle the military
what type of supreme court justices/other judges will this candidate nominate to the senate/appoint, and what big issues do I think these judges have to decide on
what type of executive orders will this candidate produce
what bills will this candidate veto, is he more compromising or will he create gridlock
what type of budget would he submit/approve/veto
can he get along with other leaders of other countries and negotiate well
Also, I don't think Cruz will be republican nomination, if he does idk if i'll vote for him, I know I said any other republican, but I'm assuming that's Rubio or Kasich.
But after guessing on what the candidates would do on the things I stated above, I would prefer Rubio or Kasich over Clinton or Sanders
So - let's stick to Rubio since that seems to be the only republican candidate that you'll vote for who has a 30% chance of winning (your estimation).
What about about Rubio do you prefer about:
Military
Supreme Court
Executive orders
Compromise/avoid gridlock
(the above is based on the items you've said you are using to evaluate candiates, minus the budget which you've already said doesn't matter to you)
first off, he aint' your guy.......buddy
Now, pal, are taxes and budgets interrelated somehow? I just don't know?
My point there is simply that both the right-leaning Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center both project that his tax plan would add $6.8T to the national debt over a decade. Whether his budget would alleviate some or all of this loss in revenue is an open question. However, his calls to singificantly increase military spending makes me question whether the actual national debt might increase. You can read about his plans for the military here on his website, (https://marcorubio.com/sidebar-featured/marco-rubio-military-defense-spending-policy/) but in brief he calls to "restore the $1T in indescriminate military cuts" caused by the sequester, increase the number of troops, immediately increase the number of navy ships, accelerate F-35A procurement and expand our missile defense.
By some estimates, this will cost an additional $1T (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/marco-rubio-rand-paul-conservative-debate-military-spending/)over the next decade.
My points here are that Rubio's proposed tax plan and increased defense budget could add $7.8T over ten years, or an average of $780B each year. I'm not sure how he can shrink the deficit (which he has also promised) with this loss in tax revenue and increase in defense spending. A budget would be helpful here but the 2015 federal budget is $3.8T.
I don't agree with Rubios social views, but I don't think as president he would have the power to reverse Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe he could help push a 20 week limit through, but it's doubtful.
In terms of Supreme court justices/judges, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I think because Roe vs Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges already dealt with the main social issues I wanted to get dealt with, I'd prefer Rubio nominating the next few supreme court justices/appoint the next judges(after Obamas term of course, I think him and the senate should do their jobs and start the process to replace Scalia.
I'm just going to comment on this one for now - Rubio is a pro-life candidate. In the senate he opposed Sotomayor nomination based on her Roe support. He's also said that there's a consensus that life beings at conception so no abortion, and that we must ban all abortions after 20 weeks (and co-sponsored a bill in 2013 to ban abortions after 20 weeks).
more about his abortion views here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Marco_Rubio_Abortion.htm).
Regarding Obergefell v. Hodges, here Rubio's recent statements are even more conservative. He's stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, that "One-man-one-woman marriage existed before our laws", and that he "opposes gay marriage".
I'm not saying that these are bad views to have, merely that they may be in contrast to your 'socially liberal' views and belief that Roe vs Wade is somehow unretractable.
I firmly agree that the Senate should do their jobs and vote on Obama's pending nomination to the supreme court in a timely fashion (which history shows is, on average, within a month or so).
My point, which i'll iterate once again, is that congress won't pass his tax plan so there is no point in me thinking about it, and I'll instead think about things the president actually does.
You are correct that I brought up Rubio's tax plan and not his specific budget (which to my knowledge he has not laid out in detail). However, it was in response to your concern about the deficit and debt-to-gdp. You did specifically mention his budget until later.
My point there is simply that both the right-leaning Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center both project that his tax plan would add $6.8T to the national debt over a decade. Whether his budget would alleviate some or all of this loss in revenue is an open question. However, his calls to singificantly increase military spending makes me question whether the actual national debt might increase. You can read about his plans for the military here on his website, (https://marcorubio.com/sidebar-featured/marco-rubio-military-defense-spending-policy/) but in brief he calls to "restore the $1T in indescriminate military cuts" caused by the sequester, increase the number of troops, immediately increase the number of navy ships, accelerate F-35A procurement and expand our missile defense.
By some estimates, this will cost an additional $1T (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/marco-rubio-rand-paul-conservative-debate-military-spending/)over the next decade.
My points here are that Rubio's proposed tax plan and increased defense budget could add $7.8T over ten years, or an average of $780B each year. I'm not sure how he can shrink the deficit (which he has also promised) with this loss in tax revenue and increase in defense spending. A budget would be helpful here but the 2015 federal budget is $3.8T.
I don't agree with Rubios social views, but I don't think as president he would have the power to reverse Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe he could help push a 20 week limit through, but it's doubtful.
Did you google what I said? Because the GOP has effectively done so in multiple states done so for the majority of the citizens. So yes, you have him nominating anti-choice justices, the GOP pushing the laws at the federal level that they did on the states and poof, Roe v Wade effectively gone. And a twenty week limit means fetuses with no capacity to life on their own being forced to term because we can't find that out till twenty weeks. The only reason to make a twenty week ban is to force women, who want a child, to care a fetus which they will be unable to care, will die or will only live on life support.I don't agree with Rubios social views, but I don't think as president he would have the power to reverse Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe he could help push a 20 week limit through, but it's doubtful.
In terms of Supreme court justices/judges, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I think because Roe vs Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges already dealt with the main social issues I wanted to get dealt with, I'd prefer Rubio nominating the next few supreme court justices/appoint the next judges(after Obamas term of course, I think him and the senate should do their jobs and start the process to replace Scalia.
I'm just going to comment on this one for now - Rubio is a pro-life candidate. In the senate he opposed Sotomayor nomination based on her Roe support. He's also said that there's a consensus that life beings at conception so no abortion, and that we must ban all abortions after 20 weeks (and co-sponsored a bill in 2013 to ban abortions after 20 weeks).
more about his abortion views here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Marco_Rubio_Abortion.htm).
Regarding Obergefell v. Hodges, here Rubio's recent statements are even more conservative. He's stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, that "One-man-one-woman marriage existed before our laws", and that he "opposes gay marriage".
I'm not saying that these are bad views to have, merely that they may be in contrast to your 'socially liberal' views and belief that Roe vs Wade is somehow unretractable.
I firmly agree that the Senate should do their jobs and vote on Obama's pending nomination to the supreme court in a timely fashion (which history shows is, on average, within a month or so).
I've been adding up numbers with each primary, and with just the votes he has received, he alone got more than all the democrat votes combined. Those of you speculating about half this and half that are going to be surprised come election day.
Could you please tell us more specifically who and what you're talking about? I have a feeling it would be interesting. Since Republicans are always a smaller party than Democrats, it would be surprising if that trend is being reversed. There's certainly been a lot of build up around the Republican primary, but I'm doubtful that the same excitement could carry into the primary.
I'm not very surprised that there have been more republican votes cast thus far, and I wouldn't read too much into those tea-leaves just yet. The Republican nomination is way more interesting to most people (look at shear # of candidates as one measure), and I get the sensation that a lot of people who are eitehr independent or moderate democrats are choosing to vote in the republican primaries because that outcome appears to have greater consequences (i.e. the difference between Bernie and Hillary is not as great as the differences between Cruz/Rubio/Trump/Bush/Kasich/etc.)I've been adding up numbers with each primary, and with just the votes he has received, he alone got more than all the democrat votes combined. Those of you speculating about half this and half that are going to be surprised come election day.
Could you please tell us more specifically who and what you're talking about? I have a feeling it would be interesting. Since Republicans are always a smaller party than Democrats, it would be surprising if that trend is being reversed. There's certainly been a lot of build up around the Republican primary, but I'm doubtful that the same excitement could carry into the primary.
I'm not using speculation, I'm looking at the vote counts so far, for BOTH sides. There have been more voters, period, for the republicans than for the democrats. That would show that if the trend continues into the general election, republicans will have more votes than democrats in each state. No, we don't go by popular votes in the U.S., its an electoral college, but this is looking as though it is going to be the Regan election all over again... a landslide.
The president submits the budget to congress, who usually changes whatever they want, and they eventually send it back to the president for approval. So I think his tax planning is a moot point since he has no control over it and it won't happen, but he could reject the budget so it isn't a moot point.My point, which i'll iterate once again, is that congress won't pass his tax plan so there is no point in me thinking about it, and I'll instead think about things the president actually does.
You are correct that I brought up Rubio's tax plan and not his specific budget (which to my knowledge he has not laid out in detail). However, it was in response to your concern about the deficit and debt-to-gdp. You did specifically mention his budget until later.
My point there is simply that both the right-leaning Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center both project that his tax plan would add $6.8T to the national debt over a decade. Whether his budget would alleviate some or all of this loss in revenue is an open question. However, his calls to singificantly increase military spending makes me question whether the actual national debt might increase. You can read about his plans for the military here on his website, (https://marcorubio.com/sidebar-featured/marco-rubio-military-defense-spending-policy/) but in brief he calls to "restore the $1T in indescriminate military cuts" caused by the sequester, increase the number of troops, immediately increase the number of navy ships, accelerate F-35A procurement and expand our missile defense.
By some estimates, this will cost an additional $1T (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/marco-rubio-rand-paul-conservative-debate-military-spending/)over the next decade.
My points here are that Rubio's proposed tax plan and increased defense budget could add $7.8T over ten years, or an average of $780B each year. I'm not sure how he can shrink the deficit (which he has also promised) with this loss in tax revenue and increase in defense spending. A budget would be helpful here but the 2015 federal budget is $3.8T.
Here i'm scratching my head again. You don't think that congress will pass his tax plan so it should be a moot point, but you somehow think that he'll pass his budget (that only Congress has the power to draft)? I don't follow the logic.
Even if this is true, the only solid thing we seem to know about his budget is that he wants $1T in extra military spending.QuoteI don't agree with Rubios social views, but I don't think as president he would have the power to reverse Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe he could help push a 20 week limit through, but it's doubtful.
Only the Supreme Court could reverse Roe v. Wade (short of a constitutional amendment). However, you were the one that brought up nominations of Supreme Court justices. I'm just pointing out that he's opposed judges because he viewed them to by "pro-choice" (Sotomayor) and he seems very firm in his beliefs that gay marriage is wrong. ARe you not afraid that he would try to select judges who would share these views?
I'll tell you what I prefer about Rubio over Clinton anyways,
In terms of military I think it's a wash, I don't like either of their foreign policies. Rubio seems to have slightly better ideas when it comes to foreign policy and he seems to be more knowledgable on the subject, but Hillary has a lot more experience (although it includes some negatives). Hillary would maybe spend slightly less, so maybe a very slight edge to Hillary on this subject.
You keep saying this like it is true. I literally checked to see if somehow posts got deleted. If you look at abortion access after PP vs Casey you would be able to tell that abortion rights are be eroded in many areas in a concentrated effort using TRAP laws. How about go a little googling before just repeating the same FALSE statement that I personally have responded against three times? You are posting in "legitimate criticisms" which means you have to deal with reality not fantasy.The president submits the budget to congress, who usually changes whatever they want, and they eventually send it back to the president for approval. So I think his tax planning is a moot point since he has no control over it and it won't happen, but he could reject the budget so it isn't a moot point.My point, which i'll iterate once again, is that congress won't pass his tax plan so there is no point in me thinking about it, and I'll instead think about things the president actually does.
You are correct that I brought up Rubio's tax plan and not his specific budget (which to my knowledge he has not laid out in detail). However, it was in response to your concern about the deficit and debt-to-gdp. You did specifically mention his budget until later.
My point there is simply that both the right-leaning Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center both project that his tax plan would add $6.8T to the national debt over a decade. Whether his budget would alleviate some or all of this loss in revenue is an open question. However, his calls to singificantly increase military spending makes me question whether the actual national debt might increase. You can read about his plans for the military here on his website, (https://marcorubio.com/sidebar-featured/marco-rubio-military-defense-spending-policy/) but in brief he calls to "restore the $1T in indescriminate military cuts" caused by the sequester, increase the number of troops, immediately increase the number of navy ships, accelerate F-35A procurement and expand our missile defense.
By some estimates, this will cost an additional $1T (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/marco-rubio-rand-paul-conservative-debate-military-spending/)over the next decade.
My points here are that Rubio's proposed tax plan and increased defense budget could add $7.8T over ten years, or an average of $780B each year. I'm not sure how he can shrink the deficit (which he has also promised) with this loss in tax revenue and increase in defense spending. A budget would be helpful here but the 2015 federal budget is $3.8T.
Here i'm scratching my head again. You don't think that congress will pass his tax plan so it should be a moot point, but you somehow think that he'll pass his budget (that only Congress has the power to draft)? I don't follow the logic.
Even if this is true, the only solid thing we seem to know about his budget is that he wants $1T in extra military spending.QuoteI don't agree with Rubios social views, but I don't think as president he would have the power to reverse Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe he could help push a 20 week limit through, but it's doubtful.
Only the Supreme Court could reverse Roe v. Wade (short of a constitutional amendment). However, you were the one that brought up nominations of Supreme Court justices. I'm just pointing out that he's opposed judges because he viewed them to by "pro-choice" (Sotomayor) and he seems very firm in his beliefs that gay marriage is wrong. ARe you not afraid that he would try to select judges who would share these views?
Since abortions and gay marriage already are in place due to supreme Court decisions, I would prefer some Rubio nominated justices over Clinton justices. I think there could be some gun control decisions in the future and I sure do like my guns.
You keep saying this like it is true. I literally checked to see if somehow posts got deleted. If you look at abortion access after PP vs Casey you would be able to tell that abortion rights are be eroded in many areas in a concentrated effort using TRAP laws. How about go a little googling before just repeating the same FALSE statement that I personally have responded against three times? You are posting in "legitimate criticisms" which means you have to deal with reality not fantasy.
The president submits the budget to congress, who usually changes whatever they want, and they eventually send it back to the president for approval. So I think his tax planning is a moot point since he has no control over it and it won't happen, but he could reject the budget so it isn't a moot point.
I don't agree with Rubios social views, but I don't think as president he would have the power to reverse Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe he could help push a 20 week limit through, but it's doubtful.
Only the Supreme Court could reverse Roe v. Wade (short of a constitutional amendment). However, you were the one that brought up nominations of Supreme Court justices. I'm just pointing out that he's opposed judges because he viewed them to by "pro-choice" (Sotomayor) and he seems very firm in his beliefs that gay marriage is wrong. ARe you not afraid that he would try to select judges who would share these views?
Since abortions and gay marriage already are in place due to supreme Court decisions, I would prefer some Rubio nominated justices over Clinton justices. I think there could be some gun control decisions in the future and I sure do like my guns.
I'm just going to comment on this one for now - Rubio is a pro-life candidate. In the senate he opposed Sotomayor nomination based on her Roe support. He's also said that there's a consensus that life beings at conception so no abortion, and that we must ban all abortions after 20 weeks (and co-sponsored a bill in 2013 to ban abortions after 20 weeks).
more about his abortion views here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Marco_Rubio_Abortion.htm).
Regarding Obergefell v. Hodges, here Rubio's recent statements are even more conservative. He's stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, that "One-man-one-woman marriage existed before our laws", and that he "opposes gay marriage".
I'm not saying that these are bad views to have
Hmm... perhaps I should ahve worded that (bolded section) differently. I do not agree with these views, but I was attempting to present the issues in as factual a manner as possible.I'm just going to comment on this one for now - Rubio is a pro-life candidate. In the senate he opposed Sotomayor nomination based on her Roe support. He's also said that there's a consensus that life beings at conception so no abortion, and that we must ban all abortions after 20 weeks (and co-sponsored a bill in 2013 to ban abortions after 20 weeks).
more about his abortion views here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Marco_Rubio_Abortion.htm).
Regarding Obergefell v. Hodges, here Rubio's recent statements are even more conservative. He's stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, that "One-man-one-woman marriage existed before our laws", and that he "opposes gay marriage".
I'm not saying that these are bad views to have
Well I will! These are bad views to have.
The president submits the budget to congress, who usually changes whatever they want, and they eventually send it back to the president for approval. So I think his tax planning is a moot point since he has no control over it and it won't happen, but he could reject the budget so it isn't a moot point.
I don't agree with Rubios social views, but I don't think as president he would have the power to reverse Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe he could help push a 20 week limit through, but it's doubtful.
Only the Supreme Court could reverse Roe v. Wade (short of a constitutional amendment). However, you were the one that brought up nominations of Supreme Court justices. I'm just pointing out that he's opposed judges because he viewed them to by "pro-choice" (Sotomayor) and he seems very firm in his beliefs that gay marriage is wrong. ARe you not afraid that he would try to select judges who would share these views?
Regarding the former, you are correct that a president submits to congress his or her budget request in the first month of the year. After the CBO evaluates an analysis of the budget it goes to both the house and senate sub-committees where each makes budget resolutions and can tack on amendments to the budget. THey can also refuse to pass any budget and funding levels will default to the prior-year's budget. Then it gets voted on and sent back to the president to sign. Which is all to say that the President has no legal control over the extensive amendment process; congress (not the President) ultimately decides what goes into the Budget. THe President can merely decide to sign or veto the budget Congress ultimately approvesI see about a 0% chance of Rubios tax plan happening, and more than a 0% chance of him affecting the budget. I'm confused why you can't understand this.
Changes to the tax code aren't really different. Any member of Congress can propose changes to the tax code. The President can propose a tax cut by having the bill sponsored by someone in congress (see the Bush Tax Cuts for an example). Again, the bill goes to committee where it can be extensively altered and members can tack on amendments, then it gets voted on by Congress (H+S) before being sent back to the President, who can sign or veto the bill.
In other words, the President cannot control what Congress does with regards to the budget OR taxation. In political campaigns ALL candidates like to tout how their tax plan or their budget will lead to relief and prosperity for all, but in reality they have no direct control over what ultimately lands on the desk of the Oval Office.
Take Obama's latest budget proposal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-final-budget-proposal-calls-for-an-almost-5-percent-spending-boost/2016/02/09/0286da7e-cf3a-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html). It's largely seen as being completely symbolic, calling for an almost 5% increase in annual spending and almost everyone concluded that it was "Dead On Arrival." The ultimate budget (if one gets passed) will look absolutely nothing like what Obama requested. That's ok. the Constitution always intended for Congress (not the President) to be in control of both budgeting and taxation.QuoteSince abortions and gay marriage already are in place due to supreme Court decisions, I would prefer some Rubio nominated justices over Clinton justices. I think there could be some gun control decisions in the future and I sure do like my guns.
I think you have a very unique view that those decisions are somehow 'safe'. There are two major decisions on the Supreme Court's docket just for 2016 that deal directly with abortion (Mississippi and Texas, both focusing on the "admitting privledges" of doctors) as well as one about Contraception and the ACA. Proponents on both sides of the debate fiercely argue that the Supreme Court's decisions could have a lasting impact on everything from abortion to affirmative action.
To flip this question around, what issues that are likely to come before the Supreme Court do you think would better be heard by a judge nominated by Marco Rubio, since you seem to disagree with him on both abortion and gay marriage?
I hate to say it, but if I were voting for a candidate based only on who he might nominate to the Supreme Court, I'd actually prefer Trump over Cruz, Rubio, or even Kasich. Maybe even over Clinton too, given 2nd Amendment issues.
I suppose because I completely disagree. The president affects both the taxsand the budget in the same manner - by signing (or vetoing) legislation put in front of him by Congress. Since you brought up the national debt and debt-to-GDP it seems reasonable to consider both revenue and expenses.
I see about a 0% chance of Rubios tax plan happening, and more than a 0% chance of him affecting the budget. I'm confused why you can't understand this.
I see about a 0% chance of Rubios tax plan happening, and more than a 0% chance of him affecting the budget.
I wish I could just watch highlights of the GOP debate, but I feel all of the places that make highlights are biased towards a specific candidate and will think anything they do is a highlight and anything against them isn't......
I wish I could just watch highlights of the GOP debate, but I feel all of the places that make highlights are biased towards a specific candidate and will think anything they do is a highlight and anything against them isn't......Agreed. That's the problem with all highlights - they are inherently biased. I watched some of the debate last night and my only conclusion is that it was more a verbal street fight than a debate.
Kris, how did you get through, I have not been able this entire season.
Yes. I can't finish one. It just seems like such a train-wreak.Kris, how did you get through, I have not been able this entire season.
To watch the debate, you mean?
Yes. I can't finish one. It just seems like such a train-wreak.Kris, how did you get through, I have not been able this entire season.
To watch the debate, you mean?
Yes. I can't finish one. It just seems like such a train-wreak.Kris, how did you get through, I have not been able this entire season.
To watch the debate, you mean?
Ah. Yes, it is a complete train wreck. My husband and I mix a shaker of cocktails first, and when we're buzzed, he pops popcorn. I'm not kidding. Without this ritual, I wouldn't be able to stand what a complete clusterfuck the Republican slate is.
Yes. I can't finish one. It just seems like such a train-wreak.Kris, how did you get through, I have not been able this entire season.
To watch the debate, you mean?
Ah. Yes, it is a complete train wreck. My husband and I mix a shaker of cocktails first, and when we're buzzed, he pops popcorn. I'm not kidding. Without this ritual, I wouldn't be able to stand what a complete clusterfuck the Republican slate is.
at first we were going to make a drinking game out of it, but we couldn't come up with any phrase or event that wouldn't happen so many times that we'd be in great danger of alcohol poisoning by the end. In the end we sat there and periodically yelled at our computer. About half way through we decided to pay a game of Ticket to Ride instead.
Yeah, for the first debate, we did devise a simple drinking game, but we had to stop about half an hour in. Again, not kidding.
I'm pretty sure if someone tried to play the GOP one they would die. The part about drinking every time Carson recites part of the constitution or bible made me laugh a lot hahaYeah, for the first debate, we did devise a simple drinking game, but we had to stop about half an hour in. Again, not kidding.
For 1/2 the country: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-official-gop-debate-drinking-game-rules-pt-10-20160225.
For the other 1/2: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/meme-reveals-hilarious-official-bernie-sanders-drinking-game.
Finally we find that 38% of Florida voters think it's possible that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. 10% say he for sure is, and another 28% say that they are just not sure. Cruz is exonerated from being a toddler serial killer by 62% of the Sunshine State populace.
Going back to the previous discussion about polling, I found this one (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_FL_22516.pdf) amusing:QuoteFinally we find that 38% of Florida voters think it's possible that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. 10% say he for sure is, and another 28% say that they are just not sure. Cruz is exonerated from being a toddler serial killer by 62% of the Sunshine State populace.
(Note: Cruz was born in 1970, two years after the Zodiac killer began murdering people. Insert Fark.com "Florida" tag here.)
(Note: Cruz was born in 1970, two years after the Zodiac killer began murdering people. Insert Fark.com "Florida" tag here.)
Yeah, for the first debate, we did devise a simple drinking game, but we had to stop about half an hour in. Again, not kidding.
For 1/2 the country: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-official-gop-debate-drinking-game-rules-pt-10-20160225.
For the other 1/2: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/meme-reveals-hilarious-official-bernie-sanders-drinking-game.
31% of people in South Carolina that voted for Trump think white people are a superior race or are unsure if white people are a superior race, while 69% of them think races are equal.Going back to the previous discussion about polling, I found this one (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_FL_22516.pdf) amusing:QuoteFinally we find that 38% of Florida voters think it's possible that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. 10% say he for sure is, and another 28% say that they are just not sure. Cruz is exonerated from being a toddler serial killer by 62% of the Sunshine State populace.
(Note: Cruz was born in 1970, two years after the Zodiac killer began murdering people. Insert Fark.com "Florida" tag here.)
If I was the Zodiak killer that is precisely the kind of alibi that I'd want to have lined up.
31% of people in South Carolina that voted for Trump think white people are a superior race or are unsure if white people are a superior race, while 69% of them think races are equal.
Only 1% of the South Carolina Carson supporters think it and 8% of South Carolina Kasich supporters. To be fair South Carolina is a pretty racist state though.Holy crap that's an inflammatory statement. Can we tone it down a bit?
I was toning it down when I used "pretty racist"
31% of people in South Carolina that voted for Trump think white people are a superior race or are unsure if white people are a superior race, while 69% of them think races are equal.
The breakdown of that 31% is pretty crucial here. There's a big gap between thinking something and being unsure. We're also talking about a subset of a subset of a population (less than 5% of the total population of SC voted for Trump, of which only 31% answered that question "i don't know" or "yes" - which means about 1.5% of the population in SC overall.)QuoteOnly 1% of the South Carolina Carson supporters think it and 8% of South Carolina Kasich supporters. To be fair South Carolina is a pretty racist state though.Holy crap that's an inflammatory statement. Can we tone it down a bit?
That's still way out of line, IMO. You just called a state with almost 5 million people "Pretty racist". holy crap man.I was toning it down when I used "pretty racist"
31% of people in South Carolina that voted for Trump think white people are a superior race or are unsure if white people are a superior race, while 69% of them think races are equal.
The breakdown of that 31% is pretty crucial here. There's a big gap between thinking something and being unsure. We're also talking about a subset of a subset of a population (less than 5% of the total population of SC voted for Trump, of which only 31% answered that question "i don't know" or "yes" - which means about 1.5% of the population in SC overall.)QuoteOnly 1% of the South Carolina Carson supporters think it and 8% of South Carolina Kasich supporters. To be fair South Carolina is a pretty racist state though.Holy crap that's an inflammatory statement. Can we tone it down a bit?
Well that is nicer than "most racist state":That's still way out of line, IMO. You just called a state with almost 5 million people "Pretty racist". holy crap man.I was toning it down when I used "pretty racist"
31% of people in South Carolina that voted for Trump think white people are a superior race or are unsure if white people are a superior race, while 69% of them think races are equal.
The breakdown of that 31% is pretty crucial here. There's a big gap between thinking something and being unsure. We're also talking about a subset of a subset of a population (less than 5% of the total population of SC voted for Trump, of which only 31% answered that question "i don't know" or "yes" - which means about 1.5% of the population in SC overall.)QuoteOnly 1% of the South Carolina Carson supporters think it and 8% of South Carolina Kasich supporters. To be fair South Carolina is a pretty racist state though.Holy crap that's an inflammatory statement. Can we tone it down a bit?
That's not even an article or empirical evidince, it's just online hate... a bunch of random strangers voting.
http://www.thetoptens.com/most-racists-states-us/south-carolina-459214.asp
I think if you use the textbook definition of racism and then use the state as verbiage for "the people of the state of", he might be accurate. Is that nice? No, but it may be reality. Should we not say truthful statements because they might upset someone especially when that fact harms others or is it better to call out that harm (racism/sexism etc)?
I did not say it was accurate. I said it was nicer than it could be. I also said he might be right.That's not even an article or empirical evidince, it's just online hate... a bunch of random strangers voting.
http://www.thetoptens.com/most-racists-states-us/south-carolina-459214.asp
I think if you use the textbook definition of racism and then use the state as verbiage for "the people of the state of", he might be accurate. Is that nice? No, but it may be reality. Should we not say truthful statements because they might upset someone especially when that fact harms others or is it better to call out that harm (racism/sexism etc)?
MOD NOTE: Please get the discussion back on track. In other words, not what's been happening. Try to avoid over-generalizations, if possible. Cheers!
Here's the bottom line: you can choose between a fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist... or Sanders.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2016.png) (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016)
Here's the bottom line: you can choose between a fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist... or Sanders.
So, are y'all disagreeing with politicalcompass.org's characterization of every candidate except Sanders as a radical right-wing authoritarian, or my characterization that radical right-wing authoritarian = fascist? (I'm trying to find out if y'all are delusional, or if we're just quibbling over vocabulary.)
So, are y'all disagreeing with politicalcompass.org's characterization of every candidate except Sanders as a radical right-wing authoritarian, or my characterization that radical right-wing authoritarian = fascist? (I'm trying to find out if y'all are delusional, or if we're just quibbling over vocabulary.)
I'm disagreeing with YOUR characterization of the candidates as fascist. I could go into more detail, but let's just use Ted Cruz as an example.
So, are y'all disagreeing with politicalcompass.org's characterization of every candidate except Sanders as a radical right-wing authoritarian, or my characterization that radical right-wing authoritarian = fascist? (I'm trying to find out if y'all are delusional, or if we're just quibbling over vocabulary.)
I'm disagreeing with YOUR characterization of the candidates as fascist. I could go into more detail, but let's just use Ted Cruz as an example.
I do not doubt that Ted Cruz is very, very far to the right. However, he does not want a very strong federal government - his views are very clearly to take away power from the Federal Government and give/return it to the individual states and (in many case) individuals. IN many ways it is the exact opposite of a fascist (who wants a very strong, authoritarian federal government that controls all facets of individual citizens' lives).
So, are y'all disagreeing with politicalcompass.org's characterization of every candidate except Sanders as a radical right-wing authoritarian, or my characterization that radical right-wing authoritarian = fascist? (I'm trying to find out if y'all are delusional, or if we're just quibbling over vocabulary.)
I'm disagreeing with YOUR characterization of the candidates as fascist. I could go into more detail, but let's just use Ted Cruz as an example.
I do not doubt that Ted Cruz is very, very far to the right. However, he does not want a very strong federal government - his views are very clearly to take away power from the Federal Government and give/return it to the individual states and (in many case) individuals. IN many ways it is the exact opposite of a fascist (who wants a very strong, authoritarian federal government that controls all facets of individual citizens' lives).
Okay, so... apparently, you inexplicably think Ted Cruz is libertarian? How do you explain him being at the top right of the graph instead of the bottom right? What other right-wing authoritarian label do you think fits him better? Dominionist, maybe? I can agree with that...
I do not doubt that Ted Cruz is very, very far to the right. However, he does not want a very strong federal government - his views are very clearly to take away power from the Federal Government and give/return it to the individual states and (in many case) individuals. IN many ways it is the exact opposite of a fascist (who wants a very strong, authoritarian federal government that controls all facets of individual citizens' lives).
You can find someone's political ideology completely repulsive even though they aren't fascist. Your response about allowing people to carry as many guns at they can proves that - a fascist government wouldn't individuals to arm themselves. They also wouldn't try to strip powers from the federal government and give them to the states.I do not doubt that Ted Cruz is very, very far to the right. However, he does not want a very strong federal government - his views are very clearly to take away power from the Federal Government and give/return it to the individual states and (in many case) individuals. IN many ways it is the exact opposite of a fascist (who wants a very strong, authoritarian federal government that controls all facets of individual citizens' lives).
Well, as a woman of reproductive age, he seems pretty fucking fascist to me.
That's the thing with nut jobs like Ted Cruz -- they say they are for individual freedom, but really they are for the freedom for rich people to make as much money as they like, in any way they like. That and the freedom for white people to have and carry as many guns as they can.
As for the freedom for women to determine what's done with their own bodies, or for normal people to have the same access to politicians that rich people get, or for communities to have clean drinking water, or for children to eat, well, those all seem to somehow fall outside the "freedom" umbrella.
I do not doubt that Ted Cruz is very, very far to the right. However, he does not want a very strong federal government - his views are very clearly to take away power from the Federal Government and give/return it to the individual states and (in many case) individuals. IN many ways it is the exact opposite of a fascist (who wants a very strong, authoritarian federal government that controls all facets of individual citizens' lives).
Well, as a woman of reproductive age, he seems pretty fucking fascist to me.
That's the thing with nut jobs like Ted Cruz -- they say they are for individual freedom, but really they are for the freedom for rich people to make as much money as they like, in any way they like. That and the freedom for white people to have and carry as many guns as they can.
As for the freedom for women to determine what's done with their own bodies, or for normal people to have the same access to politicians that rich people get, or for communities to have clean drinking water, or for children to eat, well, those all seem to somehow fall outside the "freedom" umbrella.
I do not doubt that Ted Cruz is very, very far to the right. However, he does not want a very strong federal government - his views are very clearly to take away power from the Federal Government and give/return it to the individual states and (in many case) individuals. IN many ways it is the exact opposite of a fascist (who wants a very strong, authoritarian federal government that controls all facets of individual citizens' lives).
Well, as a woman of reproductive age, he seems pretty fucking fascist to me.
That's the thing with nut jobs like Ted Cruz -- they say they are for individual freedom, but really they are for the freedom for rich people to make as much money as they like, in any way they like. That and the freedom for white people to have and carry as many guns as they can.
As for the freedom for women to determine what's done with their own bodies, or for normal people to have the same access to politicians that rich people get, or for communities to have clean drinking water, or for children to eat, well, those all seem to somehow fall outside the "freedom" umbrella.
Those 'freedoms', with the exception of your own body, are results of depriving other people of their stuff. If you need to deprive someone of their labor or property by force, it's not a freedom. I wish people would understand this. Taxpayer funding to an organization that performs abortions is not a freedom. It's not a right. Eating is not a right. Healthcare is not a right. Water is not a right. You have the right to purchase food that someone else grew, to purchase water that someone else purifies and extracts, to pay a doctor for their services, to pay for an abortion.
The Constitution clearly spells this out, try reading it once.
"Water is not a right."
Wow.
How about when laws are passed to close clinics for no reason except that they provide abortion care? Right to personal autonomy is very much a right.I do not doubt that Ted Cruz is very, very far to the right. However, he does not want a very strong federal government - his views are very clearly to take away power from the Federal Government and give/return it to the individual states and (in many case) individuals. IN many ways it is the exact opposite of a fascist (who wants a very strong, authoritarian federal government that controls all facets of individual citizens' lives).
Well, as a woman of reproductive age, he seems pretty fucking fascist to me.
That's the thing with nut jobs like Ted Cruz -- they say they are for individual freedom, but really they are for the freedom for rich people to make as much money as they like, in any way they like. That and the freedom for white people to have and carry as many guns as they can.
As for the freedom for women to determine what's done with their own bodies, or for normal people to have the same access to politicians that rich people get, or for communities to have clean drinking water, or for children to eat, well, those all seem to somehow fall outside the "freedom" umbrella.
Those 'freedoms', with the exception of your own body, are results of depriving other people of their stuff. If you need to deprive someone of their labor or property by force, it's not a freedom. I wish people would understand this. Taxpayer funding to an organization that performs abortions is not a freedom. It's not a right. Eating is not a right. Healthcare is not a right. Water is not a right. You have the right to purchase food that someone else grew, to purchase water that someone else purifies and extracts, to pay a doctor for their services, to pay for an abortion.
The Constitution clearly spells this out, try reading it once.
"Water is not a right."
Wow.
Go into a store, grab a jug of water off the shelf and walk out, see if the store protests. If they do, blithely tell them that you have a right to that stolen water.
"Water is not a right."
Wow.
Go into a store, grab a jug of water off the shelf and walk out, see if the store protests. If they do, blithely tell them that you have a right to that stolen water.
It terrifies me that there are people who have bought so far into the commodification of EVERYTHING that they have lost their basic humanity.
"Water is not a right."
Wow.
Go into a store, grab a jug of water off the shelf and walk out, see if the store protests. If they do, blithely tell them that you have a right to that stolen water.
It terrifies me that there are people who have bought so far into the commodification of EVERYTHING that they have lost their basic humanity.
It's actually basic economics. People work to provide that water, to build the infrastructure, to do maintenance and services. People that need a wage to support their family. If no one paid them, there would be no water available for anyone. Even your warped sense of 'humanity' has to bow to reality.
How about when laws are passed to close clinics for no reason except that they provide abortion care? Right to personal autonomy is very much a right.
You can find someone's political ideology completely repulsive even though they aren't fascist. Your response about allowing people to carry as many guns at they can proves that - a fascist government wouldn't individuals to arm themselves. They also wouldn't try to strip powers from the federal government and give them to the states.I do not doubt that Ted Cruz is very, very far to the right. However, he does not want a very strong federal government - his views are very clearly to take away power from the Federal Government and give/return it to the individual states and (in many case) individuals. IN many ways it is the exact opposite of a fascist (who wants a very strong, authoritarian federal government that controls all facets of individual citizens' lives).
Well, as a woman of reproductive age, he seems pretty fucking fascist to me.
That's the thing with nut jobs like Ted Cruz -- they say they are for individual freedom, but really they are for the freedom for rich people to make as much money as they like, in any way they like. That and the freedom for white people to have and carry as many guns as they can.
As for the freedom for women to determine what's done with their own bodies, or for normal people to have the same access to politicians that rich people get, or for communities to have clean drinking water, or for children to eat, well, those all seem to somehow fall outside the "freedom" umbrella.
colloquially people like to call any political ideology they don't like 'fascist' but that makes the term somewhat meaningless.
Then you might want to think a bit differently, and google TRAP laws.How about when laws are passed to close clinics for no reason except that they provide abortion care? Right to personal autonomy is very much a right.
Not if it's supported by public funding. The public, even the people that disagree with you, have the right to where their money goes and what it goes towards. Now if they closed privately funded clinics I'd think differently.
So I'm guessing that you think the only reason air is a basic right is that no one has figured out how to bottle it?
Or do you think breatheable air isn't a right, either?
So I'm guessing that you think the only reason air is a basic right is that no one has figured out how to bottle it?
Or do you think breatheable air isn't a right, either?
As far as I know no one has to work in order to provide breathable air for you. Does breathable air deprive anyone of their liberty?
So I'm guessing that you think the only reason air is a basic right is that no one has figured out how to bottle it?
Or do you think breatheable air isn't a right, either?
As far as I know no one has to work in order to provide breathable air for you. Does breathable air deprive anyone of their liberty?
Then you might want to think a bit differently, and google TRAP laws.How about when laws are passed to close clinics for no reason except that they provide abortion care? Right to personal autonomy is very much a right.
Not if it's supported by public funding. The public, even the people that disagree with you, have the right to where their money goes and what it goes towards. Now if they closed privately funded clinics I'd think differently.
So I'm guessing that you think the only reason air is a basic right is that no one has figured out how to bottle it?
Or do you think breatheable air isn't a right, either?
As far as I know no one has to work in order to provide breathable air for you. Does breathable air deprive anyone of their liberty?
Maybe google Clean Air Act.
And also recognize that part of the reason drinkable water is an issue is because of industrial water use that pollutes water and then has to be cleaned.
So I'm guessing that you think the only reason air is a basic right is that no one has figured out how to bottle it?
Or do you think breatheable air isn't a right, either?
As far as I know no one has to work in order to provide breathable air for you. Does breathable air deprive anyone of their liberty?
Maybe google Clean Air Act.
And also recognize that part of the reason drinkable water is an issue is because of industrial water use that pollutes water and then has to be cleaned.
Both of you ladies are talking about the damage of pollutants which can cause physical harm. Your right in this case is a question as to whether the right to pollute (the company) is greater or less than your right to not be poisoned by the reasonable act of breathing. Basically it's saying that harming you is bad, not that you have a right to pure mountain spring air.
I would agree with you, I don't want to be poisoned but certain levels of poison are acceptable. But that's not an inherent right, merely a measurement as to the level of pollution which is acceptable vs the harm that it does to society.
Can you honestly say that the people of Flint have not had their rights violated?What has happened in Flint is awful.
Those 'freedoms', with the exception of your own body, are results of depriving other people of their stuff. If you need to deprive someone of their labor or property by force, it's not a freedom. ... Water is not a right. ...
The Constitution clearly spells this out, try reading it once.
It terrifies me that there are people who have bought so far into the commodification of EVERYTHING that they have lost their basic humanity.
| ... taxation involves taking money from one person and applying that taking to the greater good of many, if not all. That is an extraordinary thing to ask of people. ... When we talk about taxpayers’ willingness to comply, we really have to consider the relationship between the taxpayer and the government. This essentially involves an analysis of the dynamics between power and trust. Specifically, the government — and by extension, the tax agency — holds the awesome power of the state . For the tax system to work, the taxpayer has to trust that the government will use its power wisely and legitimately. If it does, taxpayers will be more willing to comply with the tax laws and meet their tax obligations. |
Those 'freedoms', with the exception of your own body, are results of depriving other people of their stuff. If you need to deprive someone of their labor or property by force, it's not a freedom. ... Water is not a right. ...
The Constitution clearly spells this out, try reading it once.It terrifies me that there are people who have bought so far into the commodification of EVERYTHING that they have lost their basic humanity.
Yaeger might not have picked the most eloquent example or given much of an explanation, but if you construe his or her post charitably, it does contain a substantive point that can't just be summarily dismissed -- certainly not with a bold assertion that this person is not human. That is a personal attack, not an argument. I think it's very likely that Yaeger is human, although I'm not completely sure given the progress discussed in the AI thread (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/robots-and-their-impact-on-the-future/).
As for the merits, Yaeger refers to the US Constitution. This is the same Constitution that specifically authorises Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Art 1, § 8, cl 1 (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.8.1) (emphasis mine). The power to provide for the general welfare through taxation necessarily involves taking the property of other people -- by coercive measures if necessary, up to and including violence -- and redistributing that property to those in need. This is clearly part of the vision of freedom that exists in the United States, as measured by the Constitution itself.
That said, we can and should recognise that employing coercive force to redistribute property is a serious matter that needs to be carefully considered at every step. As the National Taxpayer Advocate has recently explained (https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/National-Taxpayer-Advocate-Delivers-Annual-Report-to-Congress;-Focuses-on-IRSs-Future-Plans-for-Taxpayer-Service),Annual Report to Congress 2015, Executive Summary (http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Media/Default/Documents/2015ARC/ARC15_ExecSummary.pdf) at *13 (emphasis mine).
... taxation involves taking money from one person and applying that taking to the greater good of many, if not all. That is an extraordinary thing to ask of people. ...
When we talk about taxpayers’ willingness to comply, we really have to consider the relationship between the taxpayer and the government. This essentially involves an analysis of the dynamics between power and trust. Specifically, the government — and by extension, the tax agency — holds the awesome power of the state . For the tax system to work, the taxpayer has to trust that the government will use its power wisely and legitimately. If it does, taxpayers will be more willing to comply with the tax laws and meet their tax obligations.
In conclusion, the US Constitution supports depriving people of their property by force in order to redistribute wealth, but that doesn't mean this is a trivial thing to do. It is an action that needs to be carefully justified.
Those 'freedoms', with the exception of your own body, are results of depriving other people of their stuff. If you need to deprive someone of their labor or property by force, it's not a freedom. ... Water is not a right. ...
The Constitution clearly spells this out, try reading it once.It terrifies me that there are people who have bought so far into the commodification of EVERYTHING that they have lost their basic humanity.
Yaeger might not have picked the most eloquent example or given much of an explanation, but if you construe his or her post charitably, it does contain a substantive point that can't just be summarily dismissed -- certainly not with a bold assertion that this person is not human. That is a personal attack, not an argument. I think it's very likely that Yaeger is human, although I'm not completely sure given the progress discussed in the AI thread (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/robots-and-their-impact-on-the-future/).
As for the merits, Yaeger refers to the US Constitution. This is the same Constitution that specifically authorises Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Art 1, § 8, cl 1 (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.8.1) (emphasis mine). The power to provide for the general welfare through taxation necessarily involves taking the property of other people -- by coercive measures if necessary, up to and including violence -- and redistributing that property to those in need. This is clearly part of the vision of freedom that exists in the United States, as measured by the Constitution itself.
That said, we can and should recognise that employing coercive force to redistribute property is a serious matter that needs to be carefully considered at every step. As the National Taxpayer Advocate has recently explained (https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/National-Taxpayer-Advocate-Delivers-Annual-Report-to-Congress;-Focuses-on-IRSs-Future-Plans-for-Taxpayer-Service),Annual Report to Congress 2015, Executive Summary (http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Media/Default/Documents/2015ARC/ARC15_ExecSummary.pdf) at *13 (emphasis mine).
... taxation involves taking money from one person and applying that taking to the greater good of many, if not all. That is an extraordinary thing to ask of people. ...
When we talk about taxpayers’ willingness to comply, we really have to consider the relationship between the taxpayer and the government. This essentially involves an analysis of the dynamics between power and trust. Specifically, the government — and by extension, the tax agency — holds the awesome power of the state . For the tax system to work, the taxpayer has to trust that the government will use its power wisely and legitimately. If it does, taxpayers will be more willing to comply with the tax laws and meet their tax obligations.
In conclusion, the US Constitution supports depriving people of their property by force in order to redistribute wealth, but that doesn't mean this is a trivial thing to do. It is an action that needs to be carefully justified.
I'd also note what you posted is incorrect. The phrase is "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare." Meaning the government has the express permission to levy taxes for a military and defense force, but it can just promote the general Welfare. In addition to that, the 10th Amendment specifically grants the rights not specified in the Constitution (healthcare, anti-poverty, etc) to the states.
People may disagree, but I don't read "promote" to mean "provide".
Those 'freedoms', with the exception of your own body, are results of depriving other people of their stuff. If you need to deprive someone of their labor or property by force, it's not a freedom. ... Water is not a right. ...
The Constitution clearly spells this out, try reading it once.It terrifies me that there are people who have bought so far into the commodification of EVERYTHING that they have lost their basic humanity.
Yaeger might not have picked the most eloquent example or given much of an explanation, but if you construe his or her post charitably, it does contain a substantive point that can't just be summarily dismissed -- certainly not with a bold assertion that this person is not human. That is a personal attack, not an argument. I think it's very likely that Yaeger is human, although I'm not completely sure given the progress discussed in the AI thread (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/robots-and-their-impact-on-the-future/).
As for the merits, Yaeger refers to the US Constitution. This is the same Constitution that specifically authorises Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". Art 1, § 8, cl 1 (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.8.1) (emphasis mine). The power to provide for the general welfare through taxation necessarily involves taking the property of other people -- by coercive measures if necessary, up to and including violence -- and redistributing that property to those in need. This is clearly part of the vision of freedom that exists in the United States, as measured by the Constitution itself.
That said, we can and should recognise that employing coercive force to redistribute property is a serious matter that needs to be carefully considered at every step. As the National Taxpayer Advocate has recently explained (https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/National-Taxpayer-Advocate-Delivers-Annual-Report-to-Congress;-Focuses-on-IRSs-Future-Plans-for-Taxpayer-Service),Annual Report to Congress 2015, Executive Summary (http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Media/Default/Documents/2015ARC/ARC15_ExecSummary.pdf) at *13 (emphasis mine).
... taxation involves taking money from one person and applying that taking to the greater good of many, if not all. That is an extraordinary thing to ask of people. ...
When we talk about taxpayers’ willingness to comply, we really have to consider the relationship between the taxpayer and the government. This essentially involves an analysis of the dynamics between power and trust. Specifically, the government — and by extension, the tax agency — holds the awesome power of the state . For the tax system to work, the taxpayer has to trust that the government will use its power wisely and legitimately. If it does, taxpayers will be more willing to comply with the tax laws and meet their tax obligations.
In conclusion, the US Constitution supports depriving people of their property by force in order to redistribute wealth, but that doesn't mean this is a trivial thing to do. It is an action that needs to be carefully justified.
I'd also note what you posted is incorrect. The phrase is "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare." Meaning the government has the express permission to levy taxes for a military and defense force, but it can just promote the general Welfare. In addition to that, the 10th Amendment specifically grants the rights not specified in the Constitution (healthcare, anti-poverty, etc) to the states.
People may disagree, but I don't read "promote" to mean "provide".
Dude, when you're disagreeing with someone who's trying to defend you to correct them, you better be damn sure you're right. And when that person provides a link to the text at hand, and you still erroneously "correct" them, you're just making sure that no one else is going to help you try to make your argument.
That Cathy knows the Constitution better than you is secondary to the fact that you ignore the text of the Constitution in favor of the preamble. Don't bite the hand that tries to help you out.
You're right, when you're reading something like the Constitution interpreting the document based upon the intentions of the drafters is the most important thing. I'd recommend reading the Federalist Papers, good insight on the Constitution from the drafters and the reasoning behind it. I feel as if the Preamble is the most important part of the document, as it outlines the intentions of the Constitution and frames the general role of the federal government in one paragraph.
Posting that phrase from Art. 1 Sec. 8 doesn't really, in my opinion, better reflect the intentions of the document than the more descriptive phrase in the Preamble.
You're right, when you're reading something like the Constitution interpreting the document based upon the intentions of the drafters is the most important thing. I'd recommend reading the Federalist Papers, good insight on the Constitution from the drafters and the reasoning behind it. I feel as if the Preamble is the most important part of the document, as it outlines the intentions of the Constitution and frames the general role of the federal government in one paragraph.
Posting that phrase from Art. 1 Sec. 8 doesn't really, in my opinion, better reflect the intentions of the document than the more descriptive phrase in the Preamble.
Speaking of laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes. :)
Those 'freedoms', with the exception of your own body, are results of depriving other people of their stuff. If you need to deprive someone of their labor or property by force, it's not a freedom. I wish people would understand this. Taxpayer funding to an organization that performs abortions is not a freedom. It's not a right. Eating is not a right. Healthcare is not a right. Water is not a right. You have the right to purchase food that someone else grew, to purchase water that someone else purifies and extracts, to pay a doctor for their services, to pay for an abortion.
The Constitution clearly spells this out, try reading it once.
Those 'freedoms', with the exception of your own body, are results of depriving other people of their stuff. If you need to deprive someone of their labor or property by force, it's not a freedom. I wish people would understand this. Taxpayer funding to an organization that performs abortions is not a freedom. It's not a right. Eating is not a right. Healthcare is not a right. Water is not a right. You have the right to purchase food that someone else grew, to purchase water that someone else purifies and extracts, to pay a doctor for their services, to pay for an abortion.
The Constitution clearly spells this out, try reading it once.
Bull. People like Cruz support the "right" for polluters to foul my air and water, but not my right to defend myself against them (indeed: as you pointed out, they'd destroy my ability to harvest it for myself, and then add insult to injury by forcing me to buy theirs instead!). People like Cruz support the "right" for theocrats to force their religiously-motivated laws upon me. People like Cruz would think it's perfectly fine for all technology to spy on everyone and for the corporations who control communications networks to shut off the free speech of anyone they don't agree with, and instead claim I'm "free" to build my own billion-dollar chip fab and build my own multi-billion dollar nationwide telecom network! (If you don't see how that's a problem, you can straight up go fuck yourself.) People like Cruz would have us all be bound by contracts of adhesion that destroy our right to bring class-action lawsuits, or indeed, redress grievances in court at all and instead be subject to blatantly biased 'binding arbitration' based on the utterly absurd and contemptible idea that an individual can reasonably negotiate a contract with a billion-dollar corporation. Cruz's philosophy is that money makes right, public good be damned. Maybe that kind of corporatism isn't technically fascist because the oppression has been outsourced instead of executed by the government directly, but it leads to the same result.
Trump - who knows. In the last 20 years he's been a Democrat, an independent, a moderate republican, "the most conservative guy in this race", and very lately someone who has gone against some of the right-wings dearest philosophies.
I think it's humorous that crony capitalism and corporatism exists in the form that it does today because people feel the need to regulate and control businesses and free enterprise for 'the common good'. That's always the cry isn't it? Big evil corporations doing big evil bad things, so we need to give government more power to benevolently swoop in and save us from the uncaring, greedy capitalists. Sadly, people don't realize that the only REAL threat to these big guys is market competition, yet our predilection towards increasing labor, regulations, and general restrictions only serves to disproportionally hurt their smaller competitors.
Also, I don't think your base argument is well-reasoned. Corporations derive their power from money, specifically voluntary transactions from consumers. People willingly GIVE them money. I guess it's easier for you to vilify business instead of telling people to stop buying Starbucks.
Also, I think some of what your describing is a result of our tax policy. The government cares more about the taxpayers than it does the voters, like it should. People that contribute to the government, to the public good, will naturally have more influence on the use of those tax dollars than the people that contribute nothing. If you want a say in government, you pay your equal share of taxes. If you push the lion's share of the public burden on the shoulder's of the few, you're setting yourself up for failure, for cronyism, for corruption. It's partially the reason that prior to the 16th Amendment the government was only able to levy taxes proportionally across the population. For most of our history the federal government couldn't tax one citizen more than another. People were less likely to use votes to steal things from fellow citizens like healthcare, food, water, etc. "Trading votes for food" used to be a common phrase during the 1930's.
I'll just add this to the discussion - when people talk about our current income inequality, and how it's reaching historical levels, what they are comparing it to is the income distribution of the 1950s-1980s. In truth our current 'income inequality' is considerably less than it was prior to the 1920s, when an actual majority of Americans lived at or near the subsitanve level and a very small percentage were fantastically wealthy. That was actually the income distribution for the first ~150 years of our nation.Also, I think some of what your describing is a result of our tax policy. The government cares more about the taxpayers than it does the voters, like it should. People that contribute to the government, to the public good, will naturally have more influence on the use of those tax dollars than the people that contribute nothing. If you want a say in government, you pay your equal share of taxes. If you push the lion's share of the public burden on the shoulder's of the few, you're setting yourself up for failure, for cronyism, for corruption. It's partially the reason that prior to the 16th Amendment the government was only able to levy taxes proportionally across the population. For most of our history the federal government couldn't tax one citizen more than another. People were less likely to use votes to steal things from fellow citizens like healthcare, food, water, etc. "Trading votes for food" used to be a common phrase during the 1930's.
Equal taxation is great in theory -- it would work fine if society were relatively egalitarian -- but in reality how do you propose to do that while still being confiscatory enough to the upper class to prevent inequality from spiraling out of control and leading to peasant revolts? I mean, is a communist revolution what you want? 'Cause insufficiently-progressive taxation is how you get it!
Equal taxation is great in theory -- it would work fine if society were relatively egalitarian -- but in reality how do you propose to do that while still being confiscatory enough to the upper class to prevent inequality from spiraling out of control and leading to peasant revolts? I mean, is a communist revolution what you want? 'Cause insufficiently-progressive taxation is how you get it!
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2016.png) (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016)I certainly disagree with political compasses graph here. It basically says Sanders is a centrist that most people align with and everyone else is right wing including Hillary. I think the center should be the center of the US. The black dots on the following show the center of the US, you can notice that if you choose Hillary she is to the left of every black dot, so for your graph to show her right of the center I think proves that this is a messed up graph.
Here's the bottom line: you can choose between a fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist, fascist... or Sanders.
The center of this graph is NOT meant to be the center of the US populace.I think it's misleading to post a graph like this with no explanation, and that looking at a graph that is more in line with the US would be more valuable.
The center of this graph constitutes the center of what's actually possible in terms of the political spectrum. Sweden/Denmark would be on the left. The US would be on the right. Someone like Canada or the UK would be in the center.
The center of this graph is NOT meant to be the center of the US populace.I think it's misleading to post a graph like this with no explanation, and that looking at a graph that is more in line with the US would be more valuable.
The center of this graph constitutes the center of what's actually possible in terms of the political spectrum. Sweden/Denmark would be on the left. The US would be on the right. Someone like Canada or the UK would be in the center.
The center of this graph is NOT meant to be the center of the US populace.
The center of this graph constitutes the center of what's actually possible in terms of the political spectrum. Sweden/Denmark would be on the left. The US would be on the right. Someone like Canada or the UK would be in the center.
[snipped out graph for conciseness]
Translation: source is ridiculous.
I think to be in the lower left, 100% of your sallary goes to the government, who provides what they think you need, which I think would put you to the left of the graph. They also have probably very few or no laws, which would put you lower on the graph. I don't think I would like living in this type of society...[snipped out graph for conciseness]
Translation: source is ridiculous.
Yup. Kind of makes me wonder what kind of a society would fit in the lower-left hand corner if places like Finland and Sweden are way right of center and Authoritarian in nature.
Your argument also marginalizes the impact of other factors contributing to inequality: a decreased savings rate (14% in 1965 to less than 4% today), a cultural shift in accepting non-monetary benefits in lieu of pay, globalization, etc.
The KKK is a historically Democrat party organization. It was founded by Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat Delegate and former Confederate General. It was the cultural arm of the southern Democrat during the Reconstruction and helped Democrat oppose civil rights legislation proposed by Republicans. They supported Democrat initiatives in passing the Jim Crow laws and upholding southern segregation.
I think the center should be the center of the US.
I think it's misleading to post a graph like this with no explanation, and that looking at a graph that is more in line with the US would be more valuable.
I think to be in the lower left, 100% of your sallary goes to the government, who provides what they think you need, which I think would put you to the left of the graph. They also have probably very few or no laws, which would put you lower on the graph. I don't think I would like living in this type of society...[snipped out graph for conciseness]
Translation: source is ridiculous.
Yup. Kind of makes me wonder what kind of a society would fit in the lower-left hand corner if places like Finland and Sweden are way right of center and Authoritarian in nature.
If I were in North Korea and actually got the right to vote, I would still find more value in a graph showing how the opinions of the candidates compare to that of the North Koreans, rather than how the opinions of the candidates compare to the "entire political spectrum"I think the center should be the center of the US.
By that logic, Kim Jong Un would be "centrist" relative to North Korea because all other ideologies are disallowed.
(But yes, I concede the point that the calibration is off if all EU countries are portrayed right of center.)
I think the lower left would be something like a hippie commune, lower center (but maybe not all the way at the bottom) would be the Amish, and lower right would be Somalia.
(But yes, I concede the point that the calibration is off if all EU countries are portrayed right of center.)
If I were in North Korea and actually got the right to vote, I would still find more value in a graph showing how the opinions of the candidates compare to that of the North Koreans, rather than how the opinions of the candidates compare to the "entire political spectrum"
there's a lot of racism that's popped up in the EU as they've had influxes of non-white immigrants
notice how I said, "and actually got the right to vote"
If I were in North Korea and actually got the right to vote, I would still find more value in a graph showing how the opinions of the candidates compare to that of the North Koreans, rather than how the opinions of the candidates compare to the "entire political spectrum"
They would exactly match, because it's a dictatorship and everyone who didn't match would be sent to the gulag. Kind of defeats the point of the graph, don't you think?
Your argument also marginalizes the impact of other factors contributing to inequality: a decreased savings rate (14% in 1965 to less than 4% today), a cultural shift in accepting non-monetary benefits in lieu of pay, globalization, etc.
First of all, I think there's been a decrease in non-monetary benefits along with the decrease in pay. Namely, the loss of pensions. That decrease in total compensation, coming without a commensurate decrease in cost-of-living, means its no surprise the savings rate would decrease.
Things look bad for all presidential candidates not named Hillary according to predictwise.com,I believe you are confounding the likelihood of Trump winning the nomination (currently at 80% according to you/predictwise.com) and the likelihood of a republican becoming president (currently at 36%) and concluding that Trump has a 29% chance of being president (0.8 x 0.36 = 0.288 ~0.29 or 29%).
Predictwise.com uses prediction markets, polling and odds to come up with percentages. Currently it says Hillary has a whopping 97% chance of getting the democratic nomination, up from last month when it was only 85%. Compared to Sanders 3% that was 15% last month.
It also says democrats have a 64% to win the general election, which predicts that Hillary has a 62% chance of being the next president and Sanders has a 2% chance.
It also predicts that Donald Trump has an 80% of getting the republican nomination, Rubio has a 16% chance, both Cruz and Kasich have a 2% chance, and Carson has essentially a 0% chance.
Since Republicans have a predicted 36% chance of winning the general election, that means Trump has a 29% chance of being president, Rubio has a 6% chance and Cruz/Kasich have less than a 1% chance. My backup hope of a Kasich presidency(now that Rand is out), and even a last resort hope of a Rubio presidency are both dwindling away. Hopefully there will be a miracle and Kasich or Rubio surprises everyone with a super tuesday victory.
With the given information, then it can be extrapolated this way. Sure, maybe statistics show that if Rubio wins nomination then he has a 100% chance of beating Clinton. Then he would have a 16% chance of being president rather than 6%, and Trump would have a lower percent chance of becoming president, but we don't know this information.Things look bad for all presidential candidates not named Hillary according to predictwise.com,I believe you are confounding the likelihood of Trump winning the nomination (currently at 80% according to you/predictwise.com) and the likelihood of a republican becoming president (currently at 36%) and concluding that Trump has a 29% chance of being president (0.8 x 0.36 = 0.288 ~0.29 or 29%).
Predictwise.com uses prediction markets, polling and odds to come up with percentages. Currently it says Hillary has a whopping 97% chance of getting the democratic nomination, up from last month when it was only 85%. Compared to Sanders 3% that was 15% last month.
It also says democrats have a 64% to win the general election, which predicts that Hillary has a 62% chance of being the next president and Sanders has a 2% chance.
It also predicts that Donald Trump has an 80% of getting the republican nomination, Rubio has a 16% chance, both Cruz and Kasich have a 2% chance, and Carson has essentially a 0% chance.
Since Republicans have a predicted 36% chance of winning the general election, that means Trump has a 29% chance of being president, Rubio has a 6% chance and Cruz/Kasich have less than a 1% chance. My backup hope of a Kasich presidency(now that Rand is out), and even a last resort hope of a Rubio presidency are both dwindling away. Hopefully there will be a miracle and Kasich or Rubio surprises everyone with a super tuesday victory.
Unfortunately this is not how statistics works.
(But yes, I concede the point that the calibration is off if all EU countries are portrayed right of center.)
That's good to hear. I thought it odd that my comment on this was getting crickets when I posted the same link yesterday.
Clinton = Sweden = fascist (as you said before) is a nonsensical equation.
(But yes, I concede the point that the calibration is off if all EU countries are portrayed right of center.)
That's good to hear. I thought it odd that my comment on this was getting crickets when I posted the same link yesterday.
Clinton = Sweden = fascist (as you said before) is a nonsensical equation.
Yup, I saw your post, beltim, and thought you had a great point. I took the quiz out of curiosity and it put me almost dead center of the plot -- actually, on the left/right scale, I was at dead center -- which is super weird, and inconsistent with how they plot the presidential candidates, in light of my views of several of the biggest issues being debated in our country. Perhaps I misinterpreted several of their questions?
Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Oh, and let me double down: despite what is routinely agreed upon as a disastrous first term, Trump gets reelected in 2020.
Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Why do you use last names to refer to one candidate and first names to refer to the other?
That is what I most commonly hear them called.
I would assume it's because just saying "Clinton" did something could cause confusion over which one.
Just like after George W., George Bush suddenly became George HW Bush. Almost no one called him that before, but after just saying Bush could be confusing.
No, it can't be extrapolated this way, at least not correctly. It assumes that whomever wins the party nomination has the same proportional chance of winning the Presidency, which isn't true (and which you've already argued against upthread).With the given information, then it can be extrapolated this way. Sure, maybe statistics show that if Rubio wins nomination then he has a 100% chance of beating Clinton. Then he would have a 16% chance of being president rather than 6%, and Trump would have a lower percent chance of becoming president, but we don't know this information.Things look bad for all presidential candidates not named Hillary according to predictwise.com,I believe you are confounding the likelihood of Trump winning the nomination (currently at 80% according to you/predictwise.com) and the likelihood of a republican becoming president (currently at 36%) and concluding that Trump has a 29% chance of being president (0.8 x 0.36 = 0.288 ~0.29 or 29%).
Predictwise.com uses prediction markets, polling and odds to come up with percentages. Currently it says Hillary has a whopping 97% chance of getting the democratic nomination, up from last month when it was only 85%. Compared to Sanders 3% that was 15% last month.
It also says democrats have a 64% to win the general election, which predicts that Hillary has a 62% chance of being the next president and Sanders has a 2% chance.
It also predicts that Donald Trump has an 80% of getting the republican nomination, Rubio has a 16% chance, both Cruz and Kasich have a 2% chance, and Carson has essentially a 0% chance.
Since Republicans have a predicted 36% chance of winning the general election, that means Trump has a 29% chance of being president, Rubio has a 6% chance and Cruz/Kasich have less than a 1% chance. My backup hope of a Kasich presidency(now that Rand is out), and even a last resort hope of a Rubio presidency are both dwindling away. Hopefully there will be a miracle and Kasich or Rubio surprises everyone with a super tuesday victory.
Unfortunately this is not how statistics works.
Edit: Predictwise does have this information,
Clinton 64%, Trump 26%, Rubio 5%, Sanders 2%, Cruz/Kasich/Bloomberg 1%
Actually no. Her stated preference to be called Rodham Clinton, yet many people used Hillary instead even though it was clear she wanted to be treated as the men were. Since that did not work, and she is in the business of doing what is most likely to get her elected, she went with what people wanted to call her and made it work. Same as she positively responded to the question about Mr. Clinton doing First Lady behavior, she does what will make the voter less displeased.Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Why do you use last names to refer to one candidate and first names to refer to the other?That is what I most commonly hear them called.
I would assume it's because just saying "Clinton" did something could cause confusion over which one.
Just like after George W., George Bush suddenly became George HW Bush. Almost no one called him that before, but after just saying Bush could be confusing.
Plus, Hillary wants to be called Hillary -- hence, her campaign logo of the capital H. Also, if you go to her website, you'll see that the writing refers to her as Hillary (e.g., "Hillary has a plan . . . "). Purportedly that also makes her more relatable to everyday Americans -- i.e., she's your best girlfriend, not some titled society member. In contrast, Trump has worked decades to build a "Trump" brand, and if you go to the Trump website, it appears he prefers to use his last name (e.g., "Mr. Trump has . . . ").
Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Vote. Talk to people (that are sane) and get them to register to vote. Order registration cards so you have them around so people can register. We moved and I requested a new voter reg card, it has been 2 weeks and no card. That is a problem.Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Why do you think this, Rebs? Just a hunch? What's your thinking behind it?
I keep thinking about people in 1930s Germany, and everyone is like "Why didn't they do anything when Hitler was rising to power?"
But now that we are watching our own terrible person rising to power I'm just wondering -- what CAN we do? It's not like Trump supporters can be reasoned with. They are voting out of a feeling that something is being taken away from them by the bad brown people, and I just don't know how you can reason with that level of insanity and myopia.
Vote. Talk to people (that are sane) and get them to register to vote. Order registration cards so you have them around so people can register. We moved and I requested a new voter reg card, it has been 2 weeks and no card. That is a problem.Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Why do you think this, Rebs? Just a hunch? What's your thinking behind it?
I keep thinking about people in 1930s Germany, and everyone is like "Why didn't they do anything when Hitler was rising to power?"
But now that we are watching our own terrible person rising to power I'm just wondering -- what CAN we do? It's not like Trump supporters can be reasoned with. They are voting out of a feeling that something is being taken away from them by the bad brown people, and I just don't know how you can reason with that level of insanity and myopia.
Well you could connect with the local labor council and do precinct walking or phone banking, but that normally seems like more effort than most people want to do. The voting and "happening to have voter reg cards", is more than most people do and would be be a help.Vote. Talk to people (that are sane) and get them to register to vote. Order registration cards so you have them around so people can register. We moved and I requested a new voter reg card, it has been 2 weeks and no card. That is a problem.Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Why do you think this, Rebs? Just a hunch? What's your thinking behind it?
I keep thinking about people in 1930s Germany, and everyone is like "Why didn't they do anything when Hitler was rising to power?"
But now that we are watching our own terrible person rising to power I'm just wondering -- what CAN we do? It's not like Trump supporters can be reasoned with. They are voting out of a feeling that something is being taken away from them by the bad brown people, and I just don't know how you can reason with that level of insanity and myopia.
Right. It just ... Doesn't seem like enough.
Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
* I'll go even a bit further than arebelspy. Clinton wins the following states: HI, CA, OR, WA, NV, all of New England, PA, OH, MI, WI, IL, MD, DE, VA, DC That pushes her past 270 (273 by my counts) before considering FL, MN & NM (which could all be interesting and close races).
Oops, sorry. Yes I do think Hillary will win NY (a bit ironically given Trump has been a presence there much longer than Hillary). Hillary's winning in NY was part of my prediction that she would win the electoral vote. I have edited my prediction above to reflect this.* I'll go even a bit further than arebelspy. Clinton wins the following states: HI, CA, OR, WA, NV, all of New England, PA, OH, MI, WI, IL, MD, DE, VA, DC That pushes her past 270 (273 by my counts) before considering FL, MN & NM (which could all be interesting and close races).
You don't think Hillary will take New York?
Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Optimism gun in the shop rebs?
I hold different beliefs:
If Rubio wins the nomination (not likely) either Dem will likely lose.
If Trump wins the nomination, either Dem will likely win.
If there is a major terrorist attack or a financial crisis before the election, the Republican wins, no matter who.
I hold different beliefs:
If Rubio wins the nomination (not likely) either Dem will likely lose.
If Trump wins the nomination, either Dem will likely win.
If there is a major terrorist attack or a financial crisis before the election, the Republican wins, no matter who.
I believe your first two points. I'm not so certain about the third - I'd say it depends on what Obama's reaction is to the crisis. Don't forget how support of hte current president often spikes after an attack - that support could carry over to Hillary if it's close enough to the election.
I hold different beliefs:I agree with your first 2 points as well, I actually made those predictions like 3 pages ago in this thread, but no one agreed with me at the time.
If Rubio wins the nomination (not likely) either Dem will likely lose.
If Trump wins the nomination, either Dem will likely win.
If there is a major terrorist attack or a financial crisis before the election, the Republican wins, no matter who.
I think most people would agree with those, and I think most people will be wrong, and it will shift to more disbelief that it can't happen over the summer. That's why I had to call it now. :)I don't know any democrats willing to vote for Trump, I also know a lot of republicans that will choose to not vote, rather than vote for Trump. I think Rubios next closing speech should be as follows,
I remember your predictions, and I never disagreed with them. I did question the rather precise %ages you gave.I hold different beliefs:I agree with your first 2 points as well, I actually made those predictions like 3 pages ago in this thread, but no one agreed with me at the time.
If Rubio wins the nomination (not likely) either Dem will likely lose.
If Trump wins the nomination, either Dem will likely win.
If there is a major terrorist attack or a financial crisis before the election, the Republican wins, no matter who.
I think most people would agree with those, and I think most people will be wrong, and it will shift to more disbelief that it can't happen over the summer. That's why I had to call it now. :)I don't know any democrats willing to vote for Trump, I also know a lot of republicans that will choose to not vote, rather than vote for Trump. I think Rubios next closing speech should be as follows,
"People need to stop voting for Trump, he has no path to the presidency. If Trump becomes the republican presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton will win. There are many republicans that hate him, and every democrat hates him. Every democrat will go out to vote for Clinton to stop Trump, and half of the republicans will stay home because they hate Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, so be smart and vote Rubio.
I think most people would agree with those, and I think most people will be wrong, and it will shift to more disbelief that it can't happen over the summer. That's why I had to call it now. :)I don't know any democrats willing to vote for Trump, I also know a lot of republicans that will choose to not vote, rather than vote for Trump. I think Rubios next closing speech should be as follows,
"People need to stop voting for Trump, he has no path to the presidency. If Trump becomes the republican presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton will win. There are many republicans that hate him, and every democrat hates him. Every democrat will go out to vote for Clinton to stop Trump, and half of the republicans will stay home because they hate Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, so be smart and vote Rubio.
I think most people would agree with those, and I think most people will be wrong, and it will shift to more disbelief that it can't happen over the summer. That's why I had to call it now. :)I don't know any democrats willing to vote for Trump, I also know a lot of republicans that will choose to not vote, rather than vote for Trump. I think Rubios next closing speech should be as follows,
"People need to stop voting for Trump, he has no path to the presidency. If Trump becomes the republican presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton will win. There are many republicans that hate him, and every democrat hates him. Every democrat will go out to vote for Clinton to stop Trump, and half of the republicans will stay home because they hate Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, so be smart and vote Rubio.
I think people will come out against Hillary, and actual numbers of people that support Trump will grow as well.
Like I said though, it's the only interesting matchup. Hillary autoloses to anyone else, and Republicans autolose to any non-Hillary candidate.
I dislike Rubio for the same reasons, but I still prefer him over Hillary or SandersI think most people would agree with those, and I think most people will be wrong, and it will shift to more disbelief that it can't happen over the summer. That's why I had to call it now. :)I don't know any democrats willing to vote for Trump, I also know a lot of republicans that will choose to not vote, rather than vote for Trump. I think Rubios next closing speech should be as follows,
"People need to stop voting for Trump, he has no path to the presidency. If Trump becomes the republican presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton will win. There are many republicans that hate him, and every democrat hates him. Every democrat will go out to vote for Clinton to stop Trump, and half of the republicans will stay home because they hate Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, so be smart and vote Rubio.
I cannot vote for Rubio because I do not agree with his opinions on climate change and gay marriage. I'm deeply concerned about any candidate that wants to increase defense spending by $1T over 10 years and desires a balanced budget. I'm deeply troubled that he appears to want to block access to abortions even in the cases of rape and incest. His stump line of "optimizing America's natural resources" seems a slightly subtler way of saying "drill-baby-drill".
I think Rubio or Kasich would beat either Sanders or Hillary, whichever gets the nom.I think most people would agree with those, and I think most people will be wrong, and it will shift to more disbelief that it can't happen over the summer. That's why I had to call it now. :)I don't know any democrats willing to vote for Trump, I also know a lot of republicans that will choose to not vote, rather than vote for Trump. I think Rubios next closing speech should be as follows,
"People need to stop voting for Trump, he has no path to the presidency. If Trump becomes the republican presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton will win. There are many republicans that hate him, and every democrat hates him. Every democrat will go out to vote for Clinton to stop Trump, and half of the republicans will stay home because they hate Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, so be smart and vote Rubio.
Ah, see, I think it's the opposite.
I think people will come out against Hillary, and actual numbers of people that support Trump will grow as well.
Like I said though, it's the only interesting matchup. Hillary autoloses to anyone else, and Republicans autolose to any non-Hillary candidate.
I dislike Rubio for the same reasons, but I still prefer him over Hillary or SandersI think most people would agree with those, and I think most people will be wrong, and it will shift to more disbelief that it can't happen over the summer. That's why I had to call it now. :)I don't know any democrats willing to vote for Trump, I also know a lot of republicans that will choose to not vote, rather than vote for Trump. I think Rubios next closing speech should be as follows,
"People need to stop voting for Trump, he has no path to the presidency. If Trump becomes the republican presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton will win. There are many republicans that hate him, and every democrat hates him. Every democrat will go out to vote for Clinton to stop Trump, and half of the republicans will stay home because they hate Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, so be smart and vote Rubio.
I cannot vote for Rubio because I do not agree with his opinions on climate change and gay marriage. I'm deeply concerned about any candidate that wants to increase defense spending by $1T over 10 years and desires a balanced budget. I'm deeply troubled that he appears to want to block access to abortions even in the cases of rape and incest. His stump line of "optimizing America's natural resources" seems a slightly subtler way of saying "drill-baby-drill".
Louis Farrakhan praises Trump.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/louis-farrakhan-donald-trump-220021?cmpid=sf
The anti-semitism begins.
As of this moment, I'm afraid to say I agree with Arebelspy about the outcome of this election.
My husband told me many months ago that whoever wins this election is going to be one of the worst presidents we have ever had. I thought he was just being a pessimist, but I am beginning to believe he was right. I think a lot of people might be wishing for an Obama third term by 2020.
Question: How much weight do these endorsements really have? Put a slightly different way, does an endorsement from Christie or Farrakan really translate to votes, or just some flapping gums among the press?I think if Kasich were to resign today and back Rubio during his resignation speech, most of the votes Kasich is getting would translate to Rubio, although most of them would anyway. Christie used to get around 8% on a lot of polls, maybe some of that will transfer over to Trump now that he's backed by Christie?
I really don't know the answer to this folks...
Likewise, what would President D.J. Trump do that would make him one of the worst Presidents in US History?
Worse than Harding (Teapot Dome scandal) and Nixon (who resigned)? Worse than Buchanan, who's presidency proceeded (and failed to avert) the US civil war?
Likewise, what would President D.J. Trump do that would make him one of the worst Presidents in US History?
Worse than Harding (Teapot Dome scandal) and Nixon (who resigned)? Worse than Buchanan, who's presidency proceeded (and failed to avert) the US civil war?
Drumpf is so thin-skinned that I could easily see him getting us into a war because someone called his fingers short or something.
There's also that whole let's-deport-all-the-Muslims-and-Mexicans thing. I believe that denying entrance to whole swaths of people based on religion or nationality would pretty much qualify him as well.
I think the blatant disregard for our Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, by our last two Presidents (or rather, current and last one) has been some of the worst things US Presidents have done that I'm aware of.
I think the blatant disregard for our Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, by our last two Presidents (or rather, current and last one) has been some of the worst things US Presidents have done that I'm aware of.Ok, help me out here because I'm feeling a little dense. How have Obama and Bush violated an individual's right to search and seizure. I'm guessing you are referring to an increase wiretaps, etc all done in the name of "homeland security" but I'm not 100% sure that's what you're talking about.
Yes. NSA, TSA, Department of Homeland Security.
The fact that they record ordinary American's phone calls without a warrant, etc.
See: basically everything revealed by Snowden, and others before him.
Many policies started under Bush, and continued and extended under Obama. Especially disappointed in him, given he was a constitutional law professor, so he should have more respect for the Constitution, if anyone does.
Yes. NSA, TSA, Department of Homeland Security.
The fact that they record ordinary American's phone calls without a warrant, etc.
Yes. NSA, TSA, Department of Homeland Security.
The fact that they record ordinary American's phone calls without a warrant, etc.
Okay, I'm the last person to defend the Patriot Act or the NSA or any of that, but this seems like an overstatement. My understanding was that they were collecting metadata about ordinary American's phone calls, but I did not think they were out and out recording phone calls unless one of the individuals on the call was a person of interest in a terrorism investigation. Mind you, I agree that it should be done with warrants, but I don't think that they were simply recording the calls of just ANYONE in the U.S.
Yes. NSA, TSA, Department of Homeland Security.
The fact that they record ordinary American's phone calls without a warrant, etc.
Okay, I'm the last person to defend the Patriot Act or the NSA or any of that, but this seems like an overstatement. My understanding was that they were collecting metadata about ordinary American's phone calls, but I did not think they were out and out recording phone calls unless one of the individuals on the call was a person of interest in a terrorism investigation. Mind you, I agree that it should be done with warrants, but I don't think that they were simply recording the calls of just ANYONE in the U.S.
The Intercept has confirmed that as of 2013, the NSA was actively using MYSTIC to gather cell-phone metadata in five countries, and was intercepting voice data in two of them.
Yes. NSA, TSA, Department of Homeland Security.
The fact that they record ordinary American's phone calls without a warrant, etc.
Okay, I'm the last person to defend the Patriot Act or the NSA or any of that, but this seems like an overstatement. My understanding was that they were collecting metadata about ordinary American's phone calls, but I did not think they were out and out recording phone calls unless one of the individuals on the call was a person of interest in a terrorism investigation. Mind you, I agree that it should be done with warrants, but I don't think that they were simply recording the calls of just ANYONE in the U.S.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."
"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".
On Thursday night, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored:
Serious question for Americans that I've never understood . . . why isn't Snowden a revered hero?
He stood up for what he believed in, and exposed that people in power were abusing that power and lying about it. In return he was vilified, driven out of the country, and worst of all nobody even cared about the stuff he revealed. Certainly there has been little to no real change implemented to prevent or stop the problems he exposed.
Serious question for Americans that I've never understood . . . why isn't Snowden a revered hero?
Serious question for Americans that I've never understood . . . why isn't Snowden a revered hero?
He is a hero!
But the media is too corrupt to admit it, and has instead lied and misrepresented what he did to the American public so much that, like nereo said, many people don't understand what actually happened.
It's fucking scary that, for all the rhetoric we see about information suppression in places like China, they're amateurs compared to American propagandists.
On a side note, is there anything Hillary Clinton wouldn't do to become president? Do you think she would become a republican if it would allow her to become president? Do you think she would kill someone to become president?
On a side note, is there anything Hillary Clinton wouldn't do to become president? Do you think she would become a republican if it would allow her to become president? Do you think she would kill someone to become president?
Are you for real?
I think most people would agree with those, and I think most people will be wrong, and it will shift to more disbelief that it can't happen over the summer. That's why I had to call it now. :)I don't know any democrats willing to vote for Trump, I also know a lot of republicans that will choose to not vote, rather than vote for Trump. I think Rubios next closing speech should be as follows,
"People need to stop voting for Trump, he has no path to the presidency. If Trump becomes the republican presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton will win. There are many republicans that hate him, and every democrat hates him. Every democrat will go out to vote for Clinton to stop Trump, and half of the republicans will stay home because they hate Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, so be smart and vote Rubio.
There is some irrational-ass shit around fear of Hillary.
I am thinking about voting for Trump just because it would be extremely interesting watching the world react to him.(http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz124/azwolf25/Trump-7-deadly-sins.jpg) (http://s820.photobucket.com/user/azwolf25/media/Trump-7-deadly-sins.jpg.html)
Trump vs Putin ego match...hilarious
Trump vs Kim Jong...which would look more like a beet?
I also want to see how gaudy the Oval Office becomes. Can a president put his name in big letters on the Washington Monument by executive order?
Man this will be good tv. Yeah, I think I actually might vote for Trump.
Man this will be good tv. Yeah, I think I actually might vote for Trump.
Yes. Also, I am alarmed at how mis-informed so many voters are. A vague impression of the Trump brand paired with a general disgust with establishment politicians, seems to have taken the place of any honest evaluation of the candidates' integrity or proposed policies.Man this will be good tv. Yeah, I think I actually might vote for Drumpf.
Is anyone else worried that voters are actually choosing candidates based on who they think will most colorfully destroy America?
Man this will be good tv. Yeah, I think I actually might vote for Trump.
Is anyone else worried that voters are actually choosing candidates based on who they think will most colorfully destroy America?
Serious question for Americans that I've never understood . . . why isn't Snowden a revered hero?
He is a hero!
But the media is too corrupt to admit it, and has instead lied and misrepresented what he did to the American public so much that, like nereo said, many people don't understand what actually happened.
It's fucking scary that, for all the rhetoric we see about information suppression in places like China, they're amateurs compared to American propagandists.
Agreed. Count me as one American who considers Snowden a hero.
It's discouraging that so many Americans are unaware of the propaganda they're exposed to, also the many truths that are hushed. I wrote a bit of a rant about it on my blog and posted the link to my fb. A couple people who I thought would have called me a whacky nutjob actually said they liked the post. It's not impossible to raise this awareness but goof God it takes work.
There is some irrational-ass shit around fear of Hillary.
Yes, I've noticed that too, and it baffles me.
Is anyone else worried that voters are actually choosing candidates based on who they think will most colorfully destroy America?
Yes. Also, I am alarmed at how mis-informed so many voters are. A vague impression of the Trump brand paired with a general disgust with establishment politicians, seems to have taken the place of any honest evaluation of the candidates' integrity or proposed policies.
The tricky thing about Snowden is that the hero/traitor binary doesn't work. He's both. His conscience dictated that he violate not only an oath he took, but also some really serious laws we have in place to protect our national security. What he did was no doubt brave, and has shined a light on dark things, some of which improved our democracy for knowing, and some of which no doubt harmed our national security through his dissemination (probably both at the same time). We cannot have a national security establishment if we judge those who divulge top secret information on some amorphous normative test of "was democracy improved by the disclosure." The fact that folks on this thread draw a distinction between Assange/Manning and Snowden shows just how hard that kind of test would be to apply. This is similar in kind to conscientious objectors to the draft, who did time for it. The system has to work for everyone. The whole of Snowden's heroism is that he knew there would be consequences. And there must be. Conversely, "the government" has a duty to tamp down on disclosures of top secret information. It is playing its part in this process. I suspect that the recognition of the positive effects of Snowden's leak will be expressed in his sentence (which I expect to be lower, but probably not far lower, than Bradley Manning's).
The tricky thing about Snowden is that the hero/traitor binary doesn't work. He's both. His conscience dictated that he violate not only an oath he took, but also some really serious laws we have in place to protect our national security. What he did was no doubt brave, and has shined a light on dark things, some of which improved our democracy for knowing, and some of which no doubt harmed our national security through his dissemination (probably both at the same time). We cannot have a national security establishment if we judge those who divulge top secret information on some amorphous normative test of "was democracy improved by the disclosure." The fact that folks on this thread draw a distinction between Assange/Manning and Snowden shows just how hard that kind of test would be to apply. This is similar in kind to conscientious objectors to the draft, who did time for it. The system has to work for everyone. The whole of Snowden's heroism is that he knew there would be consequences. And there must be. Conversely, "the government" has a duty to tamp down on disclosures of top secret information. It is playing its part in this process. I suspect that the recognition of the positive effects of Snowden's leak will be expressed in his sentence (which I expect to be lower, but probably not far lower, than Bradley Manning's).
On a side note, is there anything Hillary Clinton wouldn't do to become president? Do you think she would become a republican if it would allow her to become president? Do you think she would kill someone to become president?
Trump vs Putin ego match...hilarious
The tricky thing about Snowden is that the hero/traitor binary doesn't work. He's both. His conscience dictated that he violate not only an oath he took...
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
I suspect that the recognition of the positive effects of Snowden's leak will be expressed in his sentence (which I expect to be lower, but probably not far lower, than Bradley Manning's).
I've told the government I would return if they would guarantee a fair trial where I can make a public interest defense of why this was done and allow a jury to decide.
Jack - Unconstitutional Wiretapping. I get that you are saying that, but thus far the vast majority of courts (barring all but one that I'm aware of, USDJ Leon) have disagreed. I understand you disagree with those courts, or find them illegitimate in some way. But that's the thing about our system -- they're the ones who get to decide, right or wrong. Maybe one day they will agree with you and strike the NSA phone surveillance program down.
As for the oath, fine. I've taken the same one and have a different view. But he's clearly violated the law.
I remain optimistic about the future of the world, long term.
I remain a realistic person, as well. I do think there may be some short term pain.
GuitarStv, the point I made is that determining whether someone was "doing what was right" is hard -- and not one that I think a court (which would likely decide the issue) can readily make.
I guess my question would be, would you actively encourage members of our national security establishment to disclose top secret information any time in their judgment they felt it contributed "protecting the freedoms of the people of this nation."
And then who would get to decide if they were right?
I obviously cannot convince anyone who doesn't believe in the concept of secrets in the service of national security. But if you start from the premise that they exist, the standard you're proposing to employ is a bit diffuse.
Serious question for Americans that I've never understood . . . why isn't Snowden a revered hero?
He stood up for what he believed in, and exposed that people in power were abusing that power and lying about it. In return he was vilified, driven out of the country, and worst of all nobody even cared about the stuff he revealed. Certainly there has been little to no real change implemented to prevent or stop the problems he exposed.
I remain optimistic about the future of the world, long term.
I remain a realistic person, as well. I do think there may be some short term pain.
The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world. Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic. Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large. He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it. Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.
The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world. Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic. ...
I hate Trump, I think he's a liar, a fool, and he'll say anything to get elected. The people that vote for him are doing so because they see no other candidate identify with their values. This is a crisis with both parties really, you go extreme or you go home.
I also think this a result of the Republican party splintering into the major groups. The conservatives, and the right, and libertarian. No one believes that the Republican party is upholding its values of limited government and negative rights yet people don't want cuts to 'their' benefits. /boggle
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, but I'm more likely to vote Trump than Hillary or Bernie. At least with Trump I'm taking a chance to shrink government and at least he's somewhat knowledgeable about the economy.
At least with Trump I'm taking a chance to shrink government and at least he's somewhat knowledgeable about the economy.
The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world. Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic. Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large. He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it. Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.
At least with Trump I'm taking a chance to shrink government and at least he's somewhat knowledgeable about the economy.
I suspect the parts of government he wants to shrink are probably the parts we need. I haven't heard him lay out any specifics though. If he wants to slash defense spending then that's something I can get behind.
I hate Trump, I think he's a liar, a fool, and he'll say anything to get elected. The people that vote for him are doing so because they see no other candidate identify with their values. This is a crisis with both parties really, you go extreme or you go home.Not really
I also think this a result of the Republican party splintering into the major groups. The conservatives, and the right, and libertarian. No one believes that the Republican party is upholding its values of limited government and negative rights yet people don't want cuts to 'their' benefits. /boggle
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, but I'm more likely to vote Trump than Hillary or Bernie. At least with Trump I'm taking a chance to shrink government and at least he's somewhat knowledgeable about the economy.
The usual path of presidential nominees is to pander toward their base to get the nomination, then "modify" their positions to appear to more of the country in the general election.
Not that we should believe everything either Clinton or Trump has said or will say once nominated, but at least some of what they say will likely be true and it will be interesting to see how they modify their respective positions in the months ahead.
I don't agree with a lot of your reasons, I have a separate reason that I don't want a Trump pres,I hate Trump, I think he's a liar, a fool, and he'll say anything to get elected. The people that vote for him are doing so because they see no other candidate identify with their values. This is a crisis with both parties really, you go extreme or you go home.Not really
I also think this a result of the Republican party splintering into the major groups. The conservatives, and the right, and libertarian. No one believes that the Republican party is upholding its values of limited government and negative rights yet people don't want cuts to 'their' benefits. /boggle
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, but I'm more likely to vote Trump than Hillary or Bernie. At least with Trump I'm taking a chance to shrink government and at least he's somewhat knowledgeable about the economy.
" It's interesting how many holes are in his economic plan since he has a degree in Economics from Wharton. You would think he would have a more sophisticated plan.
He plans to eliminate all income tax from about 1/2 the people in the US and then lower/simplify the brackets after that. This would give lower income folks more $$$ and increase consumer spending, especially as the multiplier effect is the strongest for lower income folks who don't save much/any.
He wants to cap all company taxes at 15%, regardless of size. He expects this to bring businesses back to the US from foreign locations. The idea being that 15% is a lower percentage, but if they are in the US at least we can tax them, and we can't tax some at all now as it is, so 15% is better than nothing.
That's very Supply Side economic theory.
He seems to think we have the 'worst' (I assume he means highest) corporate tax rate in the world, but that is misleading. Yes, our top marginal rate is the 3rd highest, but the effective rate is one of the lowest in the Industrialized world. He says he wants to close the loopholes, but lower the overall rate to 15%. Even if that worked, most US corporations are paying around 14% effective tax rate now---so how is that different? (other than putting all the Accountants out of a job).
He wants to have a Tax Holiday of 10% so corporations will repatriate the profits they are hiding overseas. The idea being that a short-term period where taxes are extra low will result in US based multi-national corporations bringing their cash back to the US, paying the low tax, and then using that money to invest in US based jobs. Except we did that once before---in 2004---and none of that happened.
As for Immigration: He talks about the number of illegal immigrants and how they 'take' benefits, but he doesn't talk about the number of jobs they work or the GDP they produce. Many illegal immigrants work low-skill positions, but still product goods/services. They also use their wages to consumer products like any other person. That consumer spending drives GDP as well.
He talks about 11 million jobs opening up for Americans when he deports all the illegals, but he forgets that most Americans don't want those low income jobs. The US economy is almost at full employment (meaning most of the people who want a job have one), so where exactly does he think these 11 million people are going to come from to take these jobs that are currently held by illegal immigrants?
Foreign Trade:
He threatens import tariffs on foreign produced goods, but neglects to remember that other nations will do the same to us----perhaps Wharton doesn't teach the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill of 1930? If we put a tax on imports, other nations will tax our exports. Considering US exports have been falling anyway (as our goods are more expensive because of the exchange rate) and having our partners add a tax would kill our exports. That would hurt the very American jobs he claims he's trying to help.
Also, since a lot of our imports are raw materials or unfinished goods, an tax on imports will drive up the cost of raw materials for goods made or finished in the US. Import tariffs drive up the cost of foreign goods to American consumers---in the end, the consumer pays the higher price, either through an already expensive American product or by purchasing a tax-inflated price for a foreign good. Cheap imports help American consumers.
Unemployment---I don't think he even knows how it's calculated, because his own website refers to the 92 million Americans who are 'outside' the work force. It's part of his plan to make companies hire Americans first instead of hiring foreign workers through H1-B visas. He makes it wound like there are 92 million Americans waiting around for a job---when that is ridiculously untrue. That number includes all people in the US who aren't working---not the number who want a job but don't have one. He is counting Not In Labor Force people (retired, SAHP, full-time students, etc) as if they can't get a job because of foreign workers. Blatantly mis-leading.
He also wants to force companies to 'pause' to hire from domestic work force instead of issuing green cards---except he's assuming the current group of immigrants or US citizens has the skill set needed. Our dept hired a new Professor not long ago. This requires a PhD in Economics. At least 75% of the applicants were foreign-born because US students don't get PhD in Economics anymore (mostly because they can't do the math). Who am I supposed to hire if there aren't any Americans?? He seems to think all 'immigrants' have the same job skills and are interchangeable.
He also states that this 'pause' will force companies to hire women and stop the 'Plummeting" female labor force participation rate. Also, complete BS, because the Female Labor Force participation rate has been relatively steady since the 1990's. (LFPR is the percentage of adult women who choose to join the labor force as opposed to being retired or a SAHP. It's different from the unemployment rate). You would think he would know this, but it seems he missed my class on Gender Economics."-quote from economics professor.
Trump has policies that can be found here,The usual path of presidential nominees is to pander toward their base to get the nomination, then "modify" their positions to appear to more of the country in the general election.
Not that we should believe everything either Clinton or Trump has said or will say once nominated, but at least some of what they say will likely be true and it will be interesting to see how they modify their respective positions in the months ahead.
That's true. But in the case of Trump, what he *has* said is ridiculously vague and overblown promises, with no actual policies or concrete details. That, and horribly inflammatorily, racist, sexist, insulting, hyper nationalistic ranting. So, with him, anyone who isn't a right-wing extremist but still would vote for him in certain cases is banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting. Again, I just can't figure out why someone with any sense at all would choose him.
Trump has policies that can be found here,The usual path of presidential nominees is to pander toward their base to get the nomination, then "modify" their positions to appear to more of the country in the general election.
Not that we should believe everything either Clinton or Trump has said or will say once nominated, but at least some of what they say will likely be true and it will be interesting to see how they modify their respective positions in the months ahead.
That's true. But in the case of Trump, what he *has* said is ridiculously vague and overblown promises, with no actual policies or concrete details. That, and horribly inflammatorily, racist, sexist, insulting, hyper nationalistic ranting. So, with him, anyone who isn't a right-wing extremist but still would vote for him in certain cases is banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting. Again, I just can't figure out why someone with any sense at all would choose him.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
some of them might not be as descriptive as others
I don't know enough about Sanders to make a complete summary of his entire plan, however I know he wants to allow free public college and a single payer health care plan. This will increase spending dramatically, which in general I think is a bad thing.
I don't know enough about Sanders to make a complete summary of his entire plan, however I know he wants to allow free public college and a single payer health care plan. This will increase spending dramatically, which in general I think is a bad thing.
Sanders' single payer healthcare plan would result in a net savings (in terms of total public and private healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS/countries/1W-US-EU-CA-AU-GB-XL?display=graph)). Taxes would go up to pay for it, but the fact that insurance premiums would drop to zero would more than cancel out the increase. (The net cost would be negative instead of zero because the entire insurance industry, and all the overhead and inefficiency it creates, would be destroyed.) Government "spending" would increase only in the sense that healthcare spending would be accounted for on the government's books instead of private industry's.
I was actually copy pasting that from one of my previous posts, I thought I just had a Trump summary there, but it seems I had more on the end of it, I know more about Sanders plans now and I don't like the way he will be funding them. One of the ways he plans on raising money to pay for it is by taxing dividends and capital gains at normal income, which I'm against. As far as it being a net savings, that is debated as well. None of this really matters though as it would take a miracle for Sanders to get the democratic nomination, a miracle I'm not hoping for.I don't know enough about Sanders to make a complete summary of his entire plan, however I know he wants to allow free public college and a single payer health care plan. This will increase spending dramatically, which in general I think is a bad thing.
Sanders' single payer healthcare plan would result in a net savings (in terms of total public and private healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS/countries/1W-US-EU-CA-AU-GB-XL?display=graph)). Taxes would go up to pay for it, but the fact that insurance premiums would drop to zero would more than cancel out the increase. (The net cost would be negative instead of zero because the entire insurance industry, and all the overhead and inefficiency it creates, would be destroyed.) Government "spending" would increase only in the sense that healthcare spending would be accounted for on the government's books instead of private industry's.
I don't know enough about Sanders to make a complete summary of his entire plan, however I know he wants to allow free public college and a single payer health care plan. This will increase spending dramatically, which in general I think is a bad thing.
Sanders' single payer healthcare plan would result in a net savings (in terms of total public and private healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS/countries/1W-US-EU-CA-AU-GB-XL?display=graph)). Taxes would go up to pay for it, but the fact that insurance premiums would drop to zero would more than cancel out the increase. (The net cost would be negative instead of zero because the entire insurance industry, and all the overhead and inefficiency it creates, would be destroyed.) Government "spending" would increase only in the sense that healthcare spending would be accounted for on the government's books instead of private industry's.
Sanders is batshit crazy. Nothing he proposes makes any sense. Even liberal economists mock his spending plans.
"You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on."
That's a quote from Sanders that really took me back. Wow.
I'm guessing someone else wrote it too, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's learned enough while training for the debates that he would maybe get a D on the quiz.Trump has policies that can be found here,The usual path of presidential nominees is to pander toward their base to get the nomination, then "modify" their positions to appear to more of the country in the general election.
Not that we should believe everything either Clinton or Trump has said or will say once nominated, but at least some of what they say will likely be true and it will be interesting to see how they modify their respective positions in the months ahead.
That's true. But in the case of Trump, what he *has* said is ridiculously vague and overblown promises, with no actual policies or concrete details. That, and horribly inflammatorily, racist, sexist, insulting, hyper nationalistic ranting. So, with him, anyone who isn't a right-wing extremist but still would vote for him in certain cases is banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting. Again, I just can't figure out why someone with any sense at all would choose him.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
some of them might not be as descriptive as others
I have to tell you, reading that site, I get the distinct impression that it was (obviously) written by someone else, but also that Trump himself wouldn't be able to tell you what is on it beyond the vague generalities that he says in his stump speeches. I bet if you gave him a pop quiz on those policies, he would get a failing grade.
I don't know enough about Sanders to make a complete summary of his entire plan, however I know he wants to allow free public college and a single payer health care plan. This will increase spending dramatically, which in general I think is a bad thing.
Sanders' single payer healthcare plan would result in a net savings (in terms of total public and private healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS/countries/1W-US-EU-CA-AU-GB-XL?display=graph)). Taxes would go up to pay for it, but the fact that insurance premiums would drop to zero would more than cancel out the increase. (The net cost would be negative instead of zero because the entire insurance industry, and all the overhead and inefficiency it creates, would be destroyed.) Government "spending" would increase only in the sense that healthcare spending would be accounted for on the government's books instead of private industry's.
Sanders is batshit crazy. Nothing he proposes makes any sense. Even liberal economists mock his spending plans.
"You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on."
That's a quote from Sanders that really took me back. Wow.
...banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting.That's a fair statement regarding Trump, so we agree on that. Go back 8 years and it seems a reasonably accurate portrayal of Obama also....
Sanders is batshit crazy. Nothing he proposes makes any sense. Even liberal economists mock his spending plans.What part of that quote, specifically, "took you back"?
"You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. I don't think the media appreciates the kind of stress that ordinary Americans are working on."
That's a quote from Sanders that really took me back. Wow.
What part of that quote, specifically, "took you back"?
Two things actually.
"You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems."
It assumes that growth is bad. In fact, the opposite is true. We require growth to innovate, to bring people out of poverty, to inspire free trade. Growth provides jobs, income, opportunities. Times are good in America when the economy is growing. What he's implying is sacrificing growth, prosperity, for environmentalism. This contradicts his next statement below.
"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country."
He falsely compares the wealth of choices for the consumer as a conscious move away from goods like food for children (cheap shot using starving children to push your weak argument, but whatever). Economically, you can absolutely have both. Abundance is the highest in free trade market systems. What he's arguing for is a system where we cut efficiency in favor of a more equitable solution, Communist style. You don't need two choices of toilet paper, so we're going to kill competition and deliver one, more costly product, to the shelves. However, market competition actually lowers product prices and maximizes the social use of capital and resources. Buying one of those 18 pairs of sneakers is cheaper with 18 on the market, than buying one pair of sneakers with 2 on the market. You have more money to spend on combating child hunger because the family buying shoes has more money leftover to buy food.
So what does any of that have to do with feeling nostalgic? Or did you mean to say that you were "taken aback," but used the wrong idiom?
I suck.
I hate Trump, I think he's a liar, a fool, and he'll say anything to get elected. The people that vote for him are doing so because they see no other candidate identify with their values. This is a crisis with both parties really, you go extreme or you go home.
I also think this a result of the Republican party splintering into the major groups. The conservatives, and the right, and libertarian. No one believes that the Republican party is upholding its values of limited government and negative rights yet people don't want cuts to 'their' benefits. /boggle
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, but I'm more likely to vote Trump than Hillary or Bernie. At least with Trump I'm taking a chance to shrink government and at least he's somewhat knowledgeable about the economy.
I honestly fail to see how one would imagine that a person like Trump, who is all about ego, control, and displays of power, would EVER shrink government while he is in charge of it, in spite of what he might say to the contrary to win votes.
The success of Drumpf's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world. Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Drumpf's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic. Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large. He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it. Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to cite a source refuting the claim that single-payer would reduce healthcare spending as a fraction of GDP.
So it seems the delegates after Super Tuesday are as follows(not counting superdelegates),
Clinton - 1099
Sanders - 745
Trump - 556
Cruz - 435
Rubio - 204
Kasich - 44
The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom
The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom
So it seems the delegates after Super Tuesday are as follows(not counting superdelegates),
Clinton - 1099
Sanders - 745
Trump - 556
Cruz - 435
Rubio - 204
Kasich - 44
The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom
You're double counting the Super Tuesday results. The actual numbers: (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results)
Clinton - 595
Sanders - 405
(need 2383 to win)
Trump - 319
Cruz - 226
Rubio - 110
Kasich - 25
(need 1237 to win)
So it seems the delegates after Super Tuesday are as follows(not counting superdelegates),
Clinton - 1099
Sanders - 745
Trump - 556
Cruz - 435
Rubio - 204
Kasich - 44
The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom
You're double counting the Super Tuesday results. The actual numbers: (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results)
Clinton - 595
Sanders - 405
(need 2383 to win)
Trump - 319
Cruz - 226
Rubio - 110
Kasich - 25
(need 1237 to win)
Hey now, don't forget Ben Carson! He still has 8 delegates.
I think Rubio could win in a brokered convention, and I think he could win in a 1 on 1 if Cruz and Kasich drop out in the near future. I think if like you suggest Cruz left and endorsed Rubio, he would blow Trump out of the water, although that is unlikely. I agree Trump will lose the general election, for many reasons mainly being that a large percentage of people hate him.The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom
Why is that? I'm not sure the GOP can avoid a Trump nomination at this point. Even if Cruz and Rubio were to team up on the same ticket, I think they'd lose to Trump. The party is broken.
And Trump will get absolutely savaged in the general election. America has never elected a President without any prior political experience. It would be like nominating my three year old, a complete blank slate of unknown and unknowable opinions, but clearly backed by irrational temper tantrums.
Hillary will point out that she has a lifetime of political experience at the highest levels, has worked tirelessly for the same causes and ideals her entire career, and while she's accumulated some mistakes along the way she is still clearly a competent and experienced politician. Trump is a reality tv star who has gone bankrupt four times. He's openly racist and hateful. I still believe in the American people enough to think that he has no chance at all. I predict Hillary will take 400 electors.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to cite a source refuting the claim that single-payer would reduce healthcare spending as a fraction of GDP.
I honestly don't know. I don't think anyone does. Even left-leaning economists question his plan. What we have now is broken. We have two solutions to reduce costs: go to a private healthcare system (best cost, efficient option), go to national healthcare (more costly, more equitable). My opposition to national healthcare is based primarily on Constitutional grounds, though of course I'd like the cheaper, more efficient private option for everyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0)
Healthcare costs per capita have skyrocketed since the 1965's Great Society programs of Medicare and Medicaid. You see a slow rise in healthcare costs then it takes off once government healthcare expands in the 1970s. Government medical spending, regulation, and controls has been the primary driver to healthcare costs.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us-health-spending-breaks-from-the-pack/ (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/us-health-spending-breaks-from-the-pack/)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa211.html (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa211.html)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Overall_costs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Overall_costs)
Hey now, don't forget Ben Carson! He still has 8 delegates.
And Trump will get absolutely savaged in the general election. America has never elected a President without any prior political experience.
He dropped out,So it seems the delegates after Super Tuesday are as follows(not counting superdelegates),
Clinton - 1099
Sanders - 745
Trump - 556
Cruz - 435
Rubio - 204
Kasich - 44
The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom
You're double counting the Super Tuesday results. The actual numbers: (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results)
Clinton - 595
Sanders - 405
(need 2383 to win)
Trump - 319
Cruz - 226
Rubio - 110
Kasich - 25
(need 1237 to win)
Hey now, don't forget Ben Carson! He still has 8 delegates.
He dropped out,So it seems the delegates after Super Tuesday are as follows(not counting superdelegates),
Clinton - 1099
Sanders - 745
Trump - 556
Cruz - 435
Rubio - 204
Kasich - 44
The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom
You're double counting the Super Tuesday results. The actual numbers: (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results)
Clinton - 595
Sanders - 405
(need 2383 to win)
Trump - 319
Cruz - 226
Rubio - 110
Kasich - 25
(need 1237 to win)
Hey now, don't forget Ben Carson! He still has 8 delegates.
I think if he endorses someone else his delegates can vote for someone else, but otherwise we can forget about his delegates
...banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting.That's a fair statement regarding Trump, so we agree on that. Go back 8 years and it seems a reasonably accurate portrayal of Obama also....
The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom
Why is that? I'm not sure the GOP can avoid a Trump nomination at this point. Even if Cruz and Rubio were to team up on the same ticket, I think they'd lose to Trump. The party is broken.
And Trump will get absolutely savaged in the general election. America has never elected a President without any prior political experience. It would be like nominating my three year old, a complete blank slate of unknown and unknowable opinions, but clearly backed by irrational temper tantrums.
Hillary will point out that she has a lifetime of political experience at the highest levels, has worked tirelessly for the same causes and ideals her entire career, and while she's accumulated some mistakes along the way she is still clearly a competent and experienced politician. Trump is a reality tv star who has gone bankrupt four times. He's openly racist and hateful. I still believe in the American people enough to think that he has no chance at all. I predict Hillary will take 400 electors.
Hey now, don't forget Ben Carson! He still has 8 delegates.
Who? ;)
Carson --> Out
https://www.bencarson.com/news/news-updates/official-statement-by-dr.-ben-carson
Seriously though, in 10 years do you think Ben Carson or Herman Cain will be better remembered?
Okay, if the primary driver of increased health care costs is government, then you should be able to explain why even more government (i.e., the single-payer systems in most other first-world countries) hasn't driven even higher cost increases in those places.
Ulysses S. Grant... Dwight Eisenhower... Washington
The crazy thing is that I still think Rubio is 10 times as likely as Cruz to become republican nom
Why is that? I'm not sure the GOP can avoid a Trump nomination at this point. Even if Cruz and Rubio were to team up on the same ticket, I think they'd lose to Trump. The party is broken.
And Trump will get absolutely savaged in the general election. America has never elected a President without any prior political experience. It would be like nominating my three year old, a complete blank slate of unknown and unknowable opinions, but clearly backed by irrational temper tantrums.
Hillary will point out that she has a lifetime of political experience at the highest levels, has worked tirelessly for the same causes and ideals her entire career, and while she's accumulated some mistakes along the way she is still clearly a competent and experienced politician. Trump is a reality tv star who has gone bankrupt four times. He's openly racist and hateful. I still believe in the American people enough to think that he has no chance at all. I predict Hillary will take 400 electors.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
Ulysses S. Grant... Dwight Eisenhower... Washington
I did think about them, but then decided that being in charge of the federal government's army is probably just as valid for political experience as being a Senator or Governor. It's not like those people became generals because of their marksmanship skills. They had decades of leadership experience inside of government.
Okay, if the primary driver of increased health care costs is government, then you should be able to explain why even more government (i.e., the single-payer systems in most other first-world countries) hasn't driven even higher cost increases in those places.
Trump sucks, I hate that guy. I hate him less than Bernie though. The studies aren't detailed because Sanders hasn't released specifics on his plans. Just reading his general proposals depresses me.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/ (https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/)
Single payer is cheaper because of two major things (probably more, I'm no expert in healthcare): they pay fixed prices on drugs, forcing US to pay the majority of the development costs, AND they control the supply. The national healthcare systems control all aspects of the service. So if you're a doctor, more than likely you're a government employee. The UK's NHS is under considerable stress as the population ages, young doctors are speaking with their feet, the doctors are even striking.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/
I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out. Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/
I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out. Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.
I doubt this source, the libertarian republic, is biased at all.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/
I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out. Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.
Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/
I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out. Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.
Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.
Yes, it is. But it's also telling that 10% of the population regard the public health system, that is already paid for by their taxes, with such low value that they are willing to replace it at their expense. These are employer sponsored plans, like are very common in the US, but businesses won't pay for these benefits if they aren't valued by employees, and that suggests that employees have been requesting these plans for many years; and the funds to pay for them are cut from an employee's potential wages.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/
I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out. Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.
Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/
I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out. Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.
Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.
Yes, it is. But it's also telling that 10% of the population regard the public health system, that is already paid for by their taxes, with such low value that they are willing to replace it at their expense. These are employer sponsored plans, like are very common in the US, but businesses won't pay for these benefits if they aren't valued by employees, and that suggests that employees have been requesting these plans for many years; and the funds to pay for them are cut from an employee's potential wages.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/
I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out. Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.
Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.
To put that 10% in context. And other crazy things.
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/
To: President Trump
From: Just a simple man
I’ve been following your campaign since your announcement, reading millions of words written about you, watching thousands of hours of video and speeches, listening to many talk radio show segments, and engaging in dozens of debates with people around me.
No candidate has ever captured my attention the way you have.
Now that it’s clear you will be the Republican nominee, I want to share with you something so personal, painful, and uplifting, that I almost don’t want to write it, but I will anyway…trolls be damned:
My whole life, up until yesterday, has been based on reaction to fear.
Growing up as a black man in Washington D.C. during the “crack 80’s”, when Marion Barry was mayor, I lived a lower middle class childhood in one of the most dangerous cities in America. Though I had many friends, I was also subject to the threats, intimidation, and bullying that happens when you’re not like the people around you.
There was no father in my life to steel me against the world I lived in. My mother was strong, but it’s not exactly the kind of strength I needed. I was a boy, and needed a Man.
Without strong male guidance, I learned to fear…but not how to face fear and win. Even joining the military and going to war didn’t overcome my weakness, and all my future decisions considered strongly the level of fear I had at the time.
As a result, my life has been full of conflict, as I have unintentionally signaled to adversaries that I am an easier opponent to beat than others. I have won victories, but never truly enjoyed them knowing the battle is never won for me…only endured. I have also suffered crushing defeats, and important people in my life lost confidence in me as a result. I have not reached my potential, and settled instead into apathy and stasis, content to only being “smart enough” or “good enough”…not great. Not strong. Not resolute…
Not a leader. Not a winner.
My life, in many important ways, mirrors the American experience. Potential to be great, but paralyzed by fear. Full of conflict. Enduring, not winning. No leadership. No strong Male inspiration. And occasional, crushing defeats that hit to the core of our country…most notably 9/11, but also with the erosion of our middle class and uniquely American culture.
Like you say so often: we don’t WIN anymore.
Watching your campaign, and being as invested in it as I am, has been an exercise in recognizing, and confronting, fear that I never expected. Every time your opponents hit you…I feel fear for your candidacy and our country. Every charge of racist, sexist, facist, etc. causes me to worry that no one, not even you, can really change the country for the better. That we’re doomed to failure…
Then…inevitably…you win the battle. You don’t “survive”, or “endure”…you attack, and put fear into your opponents. You don’t stop until they are buried under your feet. Until they become paralyzed…
Sometimes, you even bait them into hitting you, just so you can beat the crap out of them again. Your life is full of conflict, but it becomes yet another opportunity to WIN, and makes you MORE powerful…not less.
Then, once they are eliminated as a threat, you are generous to the vanquished. It’s not personal, and they are not evil. They were, simply…in the way. Once they are not, they become worthy of kindness and respect.
Furthermore, you’re not just a blunt instrument…your strategy is impeccable. You go into every conflict knowing exactly what your opponents weaknesses are, how to exploit them, and what levers to pull to ensure victory. Clearly, you spend good time before announcing your candidacy doing the things the military taught me as a young soldier: surveying, recon, intelligence-gathering, ammunition, discipline, execution…
You are defending America from our enemies within, and it’s an AMAZING thing to watch.
Last night, you also did something else. You became the Man that helped me see fear for what it is: an illusion of power, a powerful teacher, and the path to winning if used properly. There is no reason, regardless of the enormity of the task, to lose to fear if you prepare well, are disciplined in your execution, and have the faith necessary, in God, yourself, and in others…that leads to victory.
Winning is always possible, but becomes probable if you never back down, never quit, and become your dominant self. Once the battle is won, treat the vanquished with kindness and respect. Be the bigger man.
You taught me how to Win.
I appreciate what you’ve done for me personally, and what you’re doing for our country. I know I’m not the only man who admires you, and can’t wait for you to become the father, and leader, of our country. It’s been a long, cold winter for men in America the last 8 years, and I believe that your election will dramatically improve the level of respect, admiration, and love people will show for strong men and Fathers, and will create a new generation of leaders from impressionable young boys.
That, more than anything, will Make America Great Again.
-Troy
I wouldn't say that. Perhaps you can disagree with the policies he proposed, but he certainly seemed to have a good grasp of what he was proposing....banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting.That's a fair statement regarding Trump, so we agree on that. Go back 8 years and it seems a reasonably accurate portrayal of Obama also....
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/
I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out. Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.
Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.
Yes, it is. But it's also telling that 10% of the population regard the public health system, that is already paid for by their taxes, with such low value that they are willing to replace it at their expense. These are employer sponsored plans, like are very common in the US, but businesses won't pay for these benefits if they aren't valued by employees, and that suggests that employees have been requesting these plans for many years; and the funds to pay for them are cut from an employee's potential wages.
I think it is much more likely that those people do not think that it is of poor quality (and seriously, if that's how you interpret it, shouldn't you be marveling that 90% thinks that it is of great quality?) but rather that they have some special case that makes them want some supplemental insurance.
I suppose that is a valid perspective. BTW, accepting health care that costs the person net-zero has a value is not the same as quality. I said nothing about quality; I only said value, as in the program is worth what they pay. 10% are saying that it's not worth what they pay, whether or not the plans are supplemental in nature or not.
What do people think of this piece from Bloomberg View? http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse
I work in biomedical research, we already pay the majority of the developmental costs because grants fund the basic research. No pharmacology company does the basic research needed to start the drug research, that comes from university scientists (or a couple non-profits) which are funded our tax dollars or non-profit grants.Okay, if the primary driver of increased health care costs is government, then you should be able to explain why even more government (i.e., the single-payer systems in most other first-world countries) hasn't driven even higher cost increases in those places.
Trump sucks, I hate that guy. I hate him less than Bernie though. The studies aren't detailed because Sanders hasn't released specifics on his plans. Just reading his general proposals depresses me.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/ (https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/)
Single payer is cheaper because of two major things (probably more, I'm no expert in healthcare): they pay fixed prices on drugs, forcing US to pay the majority of the development costs, AND they control the supply. The national healthcare systems control all aspects of the service. So if you're a doctor, more than likely you're a government employee. The UK's NHS is under considerable stress as the population ages, young doctors are speaking with their feet, the doctors are even striking.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35535704 (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35535704)
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I wouldn't say that. Perhaps you can disagree with the policies he proposed, but he certainly seemed to have a good grasp of what he was proposing....banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting.That's a fair statement regarding Trump, so we agree on that. Go back 8 years and it seems a reasonably accurate portrayal of Obama also....
I didn't think you would. :)
But Obama has modified his public position on major items, e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/10/did-obama-warn-about-obamacare/.
Obama has in the past, and Trump has recently, said things to promote his own election chances. One could say that Obama appealed to our better instincts, and Trump is appealing to our baser instincts, and that is defensible. One could also say, with good supporting reasons, that both Obama and Trump have worked to appeal to a majority of voters by running against "the elites," although each has made different insinuations about who "the elites" comprise.
I work in biomedical research, we already pay the majority of the developmental costs because grants fund the basic research. No pharmacology company does the basic research needed to start the drug research, that comes from university scientists (or a couple non-profits) which are funded our tax dollars or non-profit grants.
To get to a clinical trial, one needs pre-clinical data aka animal studies, most often done at the university level. Then you have the clinical trials. And given that I work with multiple investigators who are working in both pre-clinical and clinical trials at the university funded in part by grants by the federal government, so you can call BS all you want, it is true. If you want to say it is not, show me a citation.
I work in biomedical research, we already pay the majority of the developmental costs because grants fund the basic research. No pharmacology company does the basic research needed to start the drug research, that comes from university scientists (or a couple non-profits) which are funded our tax dollars or non-profit grants.
Sorry, I am calling BS on this.
The majority of the development costs are in the phase I to phase III clinical trials. Very few if any of these trials are funded from grants or taxpayer money. Most of these expensive trials end in failure, leaving investors (the people actually paying for them) with worthless stock.
The initial chemical compound might come out of some university environment but it is worthless without the extensive, expensive trials our government requires a drug to go through before it can be sold.
Perhaps if we want cheap drugs we should cut out these trials and severely limit the lawsuits for bad drugs. If we cap the price on drugs, no investor worth his salt is going to pour money in the black hole that is biotech, where 19 out of 20 drugs fail.
To get to a clinical trial, one needs pre-clinical data aka animal studies, most often done at the university level. Then you have the clinical trials. And given that I work with multiple investigators who are working in both pre-clinical and clinical trials at the university funded in part by grants by the federal government, so you can call BS all you want, it is true. If you want to say it is not, show me a citation.
Yes, both candidates (all candidates) say things to promote their own election chances. But that's not what I was talking about: I was talking about each candidate's ability to actually develop a coherent policy that might arguably be based in some reasonably intelligent person's reality (regardless of political bent).That's fair, and I'll grant a very important difference: we look at Obama's policies based on what has actually happened, while Trump is still in campaign fantasy land and we look at his "policy proposals*" through the lens of what we fear or hope he would do in reality.
Perhaps Trump and Obama seem equal to you on that score. I honestly disagree. ... So yeah, I think there is a difference.
To get to a clinical trial, one needs pre-clinical data aka animal studies, most often done at the university level. Then you have the clinical trials. And given that I work with multiple investigators who are working in both pre-clinical and clinical trials at the university funded in part by grants by the federal government, so you can call BS all you want, it is true. If you want to say it is not, show me a citation.
I work in biomedical research, we already pay the majority of the developmental costs because grants fund the basic research. No pharmacology company does the basic research needed to start the drug research, that comes from university scientists (or a couple non-profits) which are funded our tax dollars or non-profit grants.
Sorry, I am calling BS on this.
The majority of the development costs are in the phase I to phase III clinical trials. Very few if any of these trials are funded from grants or taxpayer money. Most of these expensive trials end in failure, leaving investors (the people actually paying for them) with worthless stock.
The initial chemical compound might come out of some university environment but it is worthless without the extensive, expensive trials our government requires a drug to go through before it can be sold.
Perhaps if we want cheap drugs we should cut out these trials and severely limit the lawsuits for bad drugs. If we cap the price on drugs, no investor worth his salt is going to pour money in the black hole that is biotech, where 19 out of 20 drugs fail.
edit: And I am not sure the stuff I am quoting below is accounting for survivorship bias. If a drug fails, the $2.6B cost must be tacked on to the next drug when figuring out an overall ability to actually make a profit.
I cannot take any Trump supporter seriously who has not watched this video in its entirety and responded to thr pounts it raises.
edit: And I am not sure the stuff I am quoting below is accounting for survivorship bias. If a drug fails, the $2.6B cost must be tacked on to the next drug when figuring out an overall ability to actually make a profit.
These analyses do take into account failed drugs, which account for about 90% of drugs that enter Phase 1 trials. The actual cost to take a single drug through every phase of the approval process is about one-tenth of that headline number.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
... and just because I constantly feel like I need to explain how things work north of the US border...Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
In Canada, dental and eye care are not public. I use private health care for both, not because private is the best option . . . but because it's the only option. It's quite a bad assumption to believe that this is indicative of personal preference for private health care.
[Canada does not have] the 'unified, single-payer national healthcare system" that most people from the US envision.
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
I honestly love the idea of eliminating withholding income. By forcing people to write a check at the end of the year, it'll engage the average person on a much more personal level to ensure that the government spends our money more efficiently.
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.
So yeah, Trump is a fool, a liar, and a sociopath. Bernie is a fool, a socialist, and a manipulator every bit as bad as Trump.
Bernie's a fringe candidate, his whole campaign revolves around manipulating your fears and weaknesses.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/) and common decency...I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.
Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/) and common decency...I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.
Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/) and common decency...I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.
Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?
...well, it does violate both the forum rules (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/) and common decency...I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.
Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?
...well, it does violate both the forum rules (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/) and common decency...I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.
Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?
Denouncing Trump himself (or Sanders himself) is not the same as insulting people participating in this discussion. You didn't claim Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level; you claimed I did.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/) and common decency...I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.
Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?
Denouncing Trump himself (or Sanders himself) is not the same as insulting people participating in this discussion. You didn't claim Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level; you claimed I did.
This.
Plus, notice the title of this thread. That Trump speaks at a fourth grade level (as actually evidenced by analysis of his speech patterns) IS, in fact, a legitimate criticism of the presidential candidate. That is what this thread is for.
That's true. But in the case of Trump, what he *has* said is ridiculously vague and overblown promises, with no actual policies or concrete details. That, and horribly inflammatorily, racist, sexist, insulting, hyper nationalistic ranting. So, with him, anyone who isn't a right-wing extremist but still would vote for him in certain cases is banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting. Again, I just can't figure out why someone with any sense at all would choose him.
Yaeger - You can't spot the difference here?...well, it does violate both the forum rules (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/) and common decency...I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.
Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?
Denouncing Trump himself (or Sanders himself) is not the same as insulting people participating in this discussion. You didn't claim Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level; you claimed I did.
This.
Plus, notice the title of this thread. That Trump speaks at a fourth grade level (as actually evidenced by analysis of his speech patterns) IS, in fact, a legitimate criticism of the presidential candidate. That is what this thread is for.
Please Kris.QuoteThat's true. But in the case of Trump, what he *has* said is ridiculously vague and overblown promises, with no actual policies or concrete details. That, and horribly inflammatorily, racist, sexist, insulting, hyper nationalistic ranting. So, with him, anyone who isn't a right-wing extremist but still would vote for him in certain cases is banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting. Again, I just can't figure out why someone with any sense at all would choose him.
I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level.
...well, it does violate both the forum rules (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/) and common decency...I think we can all agree that the fringe candidates have ridiculous tax policy proposals. Both Trump and Bernie supporters argue at a 4th grader level and I don't think there's a single person here that would realistically support their positions.
"I think we can all agree" that you need to apologize for accusing me and the other Bernie supporters in this thread of arguing at a fourth-grade level, and then denying that we exist.
Why would I apologize for accusing you and other Bernie supporters of arguing at a fourth-grade level? I'm not going to apologize for saying the same of Trump supporters.
A lot worse has been said of Trump in this thread. Are we really going to try and apply this double standard to our discussion?
Denouncing Trump himself (or Sanders himself) is not the same as insulting people participating in this discussion. You didn't claim Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level; you claimed I did.
This.
Plus, notice the title of this thread. That Trump speaks at a fourth grade level (as actually evidenced by analysis of his speech patterns) IS, in fact, a legitimate criticism of the presidential candidate. That is what this thread is for.
Please, Kris. Though, you guys are right. I apologize to Trump and Sanders supporters in this thread for my offensive generalization.That's true. But in the case of Trump, what he *has* said is ridiculously vague and overblown promises, with no actual policies or concrete details. That, and horribly inflammatorily, racist, sexist, insulting, hyper nationalistic ranting. So, with him, anyone who isn't a right-wing extremist but still would vote for him in certain cases is banking on a complete unknown, policy-wise, and a complete unknown in terms of how, or if, he will modify his extremist ranting. Again, I just can't figure out why someone with any sense at all would choose him.
Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”
I merely said they are banking on a complete unknown, and that I couldn't figure out why anyone with sense would choose him. I legitimately can't. It may be a fine point, but I did not in any way insult them -- you will not that -- I just expressed my confusion why people with sense would choose him.
Thank you, Mitt, thank you! http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/03/03/read-text-mitt-romney-speech/rZu0XlsYF85e7l1rPRkNDM/story.html
As unusual as it is to have him weigh in like this, I think it's an excellent speech -- very well-written, even if you disagree with his policy statements -- and one that the remaining Republican primary voters need to hear and heed. As an aside, I also love the Warren Buffett quote he included:Quote from: Mitt Romney speech, Mar. 3, 2016Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”
Though, you guys are right. I apologize to Trump and Sanders supporters in this thread for my offensive generalization.
Those countries still have private healthcare, which many people use because it's faster, cheaper, and better quality. In Canada, about 28% of healthcare spending is private, and private clinics have experienced an explosive growth since 2006. Even in a system with public healthcare, people go with the best option.
I've recently learned that 10% of Swedes chose private health care over the free-to-them single payer system, and that portion has been on the rise for years.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/sweden-is-evolving-to-private-healthcare/
I found this actually a bit of a surprise, as I was under the impression that Swedes very much liked their system, which was why it was so often held up as an example of single payer working out. Granted, 90% of the population still does not have a private insurance plan; but it's rather telling that 10% of the population regards an employer based private plan as a valid employee benefit.
Yeah, it's telling that only 10% do.
Yes, it is. But it's also telling that 10% of the population regard the public health system, that is already paid for by their taxes, with such low value that they are willing to replace it at their expense. These are employer sponsored plans, like are very common in the US, but businesses won't pay for these benefits if they aren't valued by employees, and that suggests that employees have been requesting these plans for many years; and the funds to pay for them are cut from an employee's potential wages.
Thank you, Mitt, thank you! http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/03/03/read-text-mitt-romney-speech/rZu0XlsYF85e7l1rPRkNDM/story.html
As unusual as it is to have him weigh in like this, I think it's an excellent speech -- very well-written, even if you disagree with his policy statements -- and one that the remaining Republican primary voters need to hear and heed. As an aside, I also love the Warren Buffett quote he included:Quote from: Mitt Romney speech, Mar. 3, 2016Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”
I think Trump is laughing today, and predict a mysterious bump in the polls for Trump over the next couple days, that I'm going to dub now as the "losing former candidate's opinion effect". Americans love a winner, and also tend to discount a loser.
I merely said they are banking on a complete unknown, and that I couldn't figure out why anyone with sense would choose him. I legitimately can't. It may be a fine point, but I did not in any way insult them -- you will not that -- I just expressed my confusion why people with sense would choose him.
Therein lies the rub. Trump doesn't need people with sense to vote for him, he just needs votes. That is part of the reason that he speaks at a 3rd grade level; almost all adults can understand him. There is a very large group of adults that does not decide their vote upon policy distinctions, nor ideology, but upon image. On some level, Americans want a son-of-a-bitch 'Big Daddy' as commander in chief, to deal with foreign affairs with a forceful hand, maybe even a bit crazy (i.e. Reagan); but want a 'mommy' to handle domestic affairs with kid gloves & nuance. Trump is playing the 'Big Daddy' role to a perfection, and it appears that this cycle that is what Americans want. Compassionate conservatism be damned, Americans want a strongman, this time around. This is the core of democracy; the idea that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good & hard.
Trump is only getting like 1/3 of the Republican vote at present.
Are those the number who have private insurances, or who use them?
Trump is only getting like 1/3 of the Republican vote at present.
But once he's the only republican on the ballot? Once they're choosing between him and Hillary?
Trump is only getting like 1/3 of the Republican vote at present.
But once he's the only republican on the ballot? Once they're choosing between him and Hillary?
I think that's where my predictions of the general election differ from arebelspy's.
I tend more people will be scared of Trump than Hillary and vote accordingly (or not vote when they otherwise would).
I ugess we'll find out in 9 months.
I merely said they are banking on a complete unknown, and that I couldn't figure out why anyone with sense would choose him. I legitimately can't. It may be a fine point, but I did not in any way insult them -- you will not that -- I just expressed my confusion why people with sense would choose him.
Therein lies the rub. Trump doesn't need people with sense to vote for him, he just needs votes. That is part of the reason that he speaks at a 3rd grade level; almost all adults can understand him. There is a very large group of adults that does not decide their vote upon policy distinctions, nor ideology, but upon image. On some level, Americans want a son-of-a-bitch 'Big Daddy' as commander in chief, to deal with foreign affairs with a forceful hand, maybe even a bit crazy (i.e. Reagan); but want a 'mommy' to handle domestic affairs with kid gloves & nuance. Trump is playing the 'Big Daddy' role to a perfection, and it appears that this cycle that is what Americans want. Compassionate conservatism be damned, Americans want a strongman, this time around. This is the core of democracy; the idea that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good & hard.
Eh, let's say "some Americans." Trump is only getting like 1/3 of the Republican vote at present. Enough to cause a stir in the primaries ... but there's no indication that he's gonna cut it in a country where the majority of the electorate are not white men ...
so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?
so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?
how many election cycles would that be? I think there was a lot of support for Reagan in '84 and Clinton in '96. Probably others as well...so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?
I think that, with the exception of 2008 and 2012, you've just described every election I can remember.
so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?
So what's this year's motto? "Anyone but any of these!"?so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?
Most elections are like that, unfortunately.
Remember "anyone but bush?" Think anyone was thrilled with kerry in 04? No, they just wanted "not bush."
how many election cycles would that be? I think there was a lot of support for Reagan in '84 and Clinton in '96. Probably others as well...so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?
I think that, with the exception of 2008 and 2012, you've just described every election I can remember.
So what's this year's motto? "Anyone but any of these!"?so - is this election going to be more about being against the other candidate than being for your candidate?
Most elections are like that, unfortunately.
Remember "anyone but bush?" Think anyone was thrilled with kerry in 04? No, they just wanted "not bush."
I don't like Hillary's policies or her hawkishness. But if it comes down to Trump v Hillary, I will do everything in my power to convince every person in my extended network - Hillary haters included - to vote for Hillary.
Thank you, Mitt, thank you! http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/03/03/read-text-mitt-romney-speech/rZu0XlsYF85e7l1rPRkNDM/story.html
As unusual as it is to have him weigh in like this, I think it's an excellent speech -- very well-written, even if you disagree with his policy statements -- and one that the remaining Republican primary voters need to hear and heed. As an aside, I also love the Warren Buffett quote he included:Quote from: Mitt Romney speech, Mar. 3, 2016Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that “the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.”
Ummm...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump
While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.
Should Trump become the Republican nominee, his current low standing among Hispanic voters could jeopardize the party’s hopes of winning the general election in November. In current matchups with Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, Trump scores worse among Hispanics than any of the three other leading Republican candidates — Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
The Post-Univision survey tested those four GOP candidates against Clinton and against Sanders. While all trail badly among Hispanics at this point, Trump does the worst — losing the Hispanic vote to Clinton by 73 to 16 percent. That 57-point gap is little changed from a 54-point deficit recorded last June, but is significantly wider than the 44-point margin by which former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost Hispanics four years ago and bigger than in any presidential exit poll since the 1970s.
Now I'm sad. He appeals to the basest of prejudices and whips the crowd up into a furious mob. And it seems to work - on an alarming number of my countrymen. It's beyond shameful.
Ummm...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump
While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.
Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election. And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2016/02/25/poll-trumps-negatives-among-hispanics-rise-worst-in-gop-field/):
Ummm...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump
While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.
Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election. And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2016/02/25/poll-trumps-negatives-among-hispanics-rise-worst-in-gop-field/):
Again, the far away match-up polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time. He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate. We shall see.
It's mind boggling that so many people seem to be completely and utterly blind to the years of Clinton lies and corruption.
That level of denial is almost matched by Trump's popularity. It really is a race to the bottom.
Ummm...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump
While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.
Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election. And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2016/02/25/poll-trumps-negatives-among-hispanics-rise-worst-in-gop-field/):
Again, the far away match-up polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time. He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate. We shall see.
In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination). But you were responding to a comment about non-white voters. There's no chance that Trump will win the non-white vote.
Ummm...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump
While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.
Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election. And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2016/02/25/poll-trumps-negatives-among-hispanics-rise-worst-in-gop-field/):
Again, the far away match-up polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time. He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate. We shall see.
In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination). But you were responding to a comment about non-white voters. There's no chance that Trump will win the non-white vote.
Oh, no, he won't win minorities, but he doesn't have to, either. He only has to take a large enough of a minority of each group to win. The business about attacking immigrants from Mexico was a play for lower class, Southern Blacks; many of whom, on a base level, feel that illegal immigrants are competing for the same kind of lower skill labor jobs that they are, which is somewhat true. The unemployment rate for young black adults is pretty bad, so that's going to be a big thing for at least some of them. As far as hispanics are concerned, a fair percentage of them are already conservatives, and in particular of Cuban decent in South Florida; and Florida has been a swing state in recent elections. So has Ohio, which already leans to the right a bit, and Kasich really is a popular governor there. It seems to me that Kasich is only still in this race to make himself the ideal running mate, with influence in Ohio. Furthermore, Trump isn't exactly a conservative, and can credibly undermine a lot of Hillary's liberal cred in a general, keeping New York & Illinois questionable. That is the cause for the bit about siding with Planned Parenthood using liberal arguments, while at the same time condemning alleged criminal activities. As I said, Trump is playing a different game than Hillary is. Trump is playing a character, as if this was a huge reality tv show, which it sort of is now, isn't it?
Ummm...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump
While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.
Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election. And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2016/02/25/poll-trumps-negatives-among-hispanics-rise-worst-in-gop-field/):
Again, the far away match-up polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time. He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate. We shall see.
In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination). But you were responding to a comment about non-white voters. There's no chance that Trump will win the non-white vote.
Oh, no, he won't win minorities, but he doesn't have to, either. He only has to take a large enough of a minority of each group to win. The business about attacking immigrants from Mexico was a play for lower class, Southern Blacks; many of whom, on a base level, feel that illegal immigrants are competing for the same kind of lower skill labor jobs that they are, which is somewhat true. The unemployment rate for young black adults is pretty bad, so that's going to be a big thing for at least some of them. As far as hispanics are concerned, a fair percentage of them are already conservatives, and in particular of Cuban decent in South Florida; and Florida has been a swing state in recent elections. So has Ohio, which already leans to the right a bit, and Kasich really is a popular governor there. It seems to me that Kasich is only still in this race to make himself the ideal running mate, with influence in Ohio. Furthermore, Trump isn't exactly a conservative, and can credibly undermine a lot of Hillary's liberal cred in a general, keeping New York & Illinois questionable. That is the cause for the bit about siding with Planned Parenthood using liberal arguments, while at the same time condemning alleged criminal activities. As I said, Trump is playing a different game than Hillary is. Trump is playing a character, as if this was a huge reality tv show, which it sort of is now, isn't it?
Interesting Analysis, and the first time I've seen it. Like a lot of people in this thread, I find both of the candidates repulsive, and would be embarrassed to have either as a president, let alone vote for them. I'm feeling like when I 'throw my vote away' with a third party this November, I'm going to find a crowded garbage bin.
Ummm...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/trump-wins-in-americas-most-hispanic-city/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/donald-trump-hispanic-latino-voters/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271523-tavis-smiley-black-voters-might-get-on-board-with-trump
While it's self-conflicting, there is some indication.
Trump winning votes in a Republican primary in a Hispanic city doesn't mean he'll win there in a general election. And all the other data suggests that he will lose that vote to Clinton in a landslide (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2016/02/25/poll-trumps-negatives-among-hispanics-rise-worst-in-gop-field/):
Again, the far away match-up polls are usually wrong when the game changes, because they are asking the wrong people the wrong questions. Yes, most people prefer Hillary's current image to Trump's current image; but Trump can improve his image a great deal in 6 months and damage Hillary's during that time. He only has to do this to a few percentage points of the electorate. We shall see.
In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination). But you were responding to a comment about non-white voters. There's no chance that Trump will win the non-white vote.
Oh, no, he won't win minorities, but he doesn't have to, either. He only has to take a large enough of a minority of each group to win. The business about attacking immigrants from Mexico was a play for lower class, Southern Blacks; many of whom, on a base level, feel that illegal immigrants are competing for the same kind of lower skill labor jobs that they are, which is somewhat true. The unemployment rate for young black adults is pretty bad, so that's going to be a big thing for at least some of them. As far as hispanics are concerned, a fair percentage of them are already conservatives, and in particular of Cuban decent in South Florida; and Florida has been a swing state in recent elections. So has Ohio, which already leans to the right a bit, and Kasich really is a popular governor there. It seems to me that Kasich is only still in this race to make himself the ideal running mate, with influence in Ohio. Furthermore, Trump isn't exactly a conservative, and can credibly undermine a lot of Hillary's liberal cred in a general, keeping New York & Illinois questionable. That is the cause for the bit about siding with Planned Parenthood using liberal arguments, while at the same time condemning alleged criminal activities. As I said, Trump is playing a different game than Hillary is. Trump is playing a character, as if this was a huge reality tv show, which it sort of is now, isn't it?
Interesting Analysis, and the first time I've seen it. Like a lot of people in this thread, I find both of the candidates repulsive, and would be embarrassed to have either as a president, let alone vote for them. I'm feeling like when I 'throw my vote away' with a third party this November, I'm going to find a crowded garbage bin.
Oh, I vote libertarian every time, so I don't consider it throwing my vote away. There was never the possibility that I'd have voted for them anyway, and voting third party affects ballot access for small parties in most states for the following 4 years. Might as well vote for someone you can actually agree with, results be damned.
In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).
In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).
But if he does win the nomination, I think that fact is irrelevant... even though you'd think it would be (if he's that unpopular among his own party, how could he win the general?), but unless you have data on how popular each person who won was 8 months before they were elected, it's hard to say. I think his popularity will grow and grow over the summer, sadly.
Link with more info? Who are the respondents of that?
Also, he hasn't been going against Hillary for the last 9 months.
Those are general favorability ratings, not republican favorability ratings.In the overall electorate, perhaps (though I doubt it, since no one as unpopular as Trump has ever even won a party's nomination).
But if he does win the nomination, I think that fact is irrelevant... even though you'd think it would be (if he's that unpopular among his own party, how could he win the general?), but unless you have data on how popular each person who won was 8 months before they were elected, it's hard to say. I think his popularity will grow and grow over the summer, sadly.
Yes, I understood that... not sure what I said that indicated I was talking about just Repubs. :)
if he's that unpopular among his own party, how could he win the general?
Huh? I posted that sentence before you even posted the data. :)Huh? What data are you talking about
Would you have voted for Rand Paul if he had stayed in the election, or, by some miracle, become the nominee?
I think it is pretty safe to assume trump will win the nomination and judging by enthusiasm (absolute number of Rep vs Dem primary votes in swing states(look at Virginia)) I think he will win the nomination and the general. Which basically leads me to believe the republican party will not hold together.I don't know, Rubio could still get most delegates, and if he doesn't, but Trump doesn't get half of the delegates and Rubio wins in brokered convention, I don't think it would tear the party apart. Also I don't think turnouts for the nomination equate to turnouts for the general election. A lot more people come out for the general and I think a lot more people HATE Trump than Hillary.
Relevant article and best quote from it,
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gop-rip/
"The Republican Party as we know it is not going to survive this year, and in fact is already dead. If Trump gets the most delegates and is denied the nomination somehow, that’ll tear the party apart. If Trump gets the nomination, it’s going to tear the party apart. If Trump gets the nomination and wins the presidency, it’s going to tear the party apart."
Maybe we discussed this earlier, I've read so much lately, but I cannot remember for sure.
I think the most "interesting" outcome would be if Trump wins the Republican primary and Hillary wins the Democrat party, but then they both get indicted before the general (Trump for his "Trump U" scam and Hillary for the email espionage) prompting "third-party" challenges from both one of the establishment Republicans (Rubio or maybe even Romney) on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, causing a four-way clusterfuck of an election.
I think the most "interesting" outcome would be if Trump wins the Republican primary and Hillary wins the Democrat party, but then they both get indicted before the general (Trump for his "Trump U" scam and Hillary for the email espionage) prompting "third-party" challenges from both one of the establishment Republicans (Rubio or maybe even Romney) on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, causing a four-way clusterfuck of an election.This would be awesome, I would be so happy. Maybe Gary Johnson would even have a chance. Bloomberg would be in it for sure.
I don't know, Rubio could still get most delegates, and if he doesn't, but Trump doesn't get half of the delegates and Rubio wins in brokered convention, I don't think it would tear the party apart. Also I don't think turnouts for the nomination equate to turnouts for the general election. A lot more people come out for the general and I think a lot more people HATE Trump than Hillary.
Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment, in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it. The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.
I don't know, Rubio could still get most delegates, and if he doesn't, but Trump doesn't get half of the delegates and Rubio wins in brokered convention, I don't think it would tear the party apart. Also I don't think turnouts for the nomination equate to turnouts for the general election. A lot more people come out for the general and I think a lot more people HATE Trump than Hillary.
Mathematically, Rubio still has a chance. Practically speaking, the best he (or the party establishment) can hope for is Rubio getting the VP slot at a brokered convention, because they can't trump Trump (ha!) without Cruz doing well also, and he isn't going to take VP to Rubio, and if he doesn't endorse someone else, Cruz's delegates will vote for whomever they please after the 2nd failed vote. Different states lock their delegates to a different number of votes, but generally, the earlier the primary in the season, the fewer the failed votes required. Thus, if early delegates are free to vote before the majority, some of them will vote for Trump & he will still win. This weekend will tell much, because there are 3 closed events, so no cross-party "operation Chaos" type activities will happen, and we will get a better picture of what actual Republicans think about Trump, Cruz & Rubio.
Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment, in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it. The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.
I don't know, Rubio could still get most delegates, and if he doesn't, but Trump doesn't get half of the delegates and Rubio wins in brokered convention, I don't think it would tear the party apart. Also I don't think turnouts for the nomination equate to turnouts for the general election. A lot more people come out for the general and I think a lot more people HATE Trump than Hillary.
Mathematically, Rubio still has a chance. Practically speaking, the best he (or the party establishment) can hope for is Rubio getting the VP slot at a brokered convention, because they can't trump Trump (ha!) without Cruz doing well also, and he isn't going to take VP to Rubio, and if he doesn't endorse someone else, Cruz's delegates will vote for whomever they please after the 2nd failed vote. Different states lock their delegates to a different number of votes, but generally, the earlier the primary in the season, the fewer the failed votes required. Thus, if early delegates are free to vote before the majority, some of them will vote for Trump & he will still win. This weekend will tell much, because there are 3 closed events, so no cross-party "operation Chaos" type activities will happen, and we will get a better picture of what actual Republicans think about Trump, Cruz & Rubio.
Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,
in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.
The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gop-rip/
I would bet a lot of money that Rubio will have waaay more delegates than Cruz at the convention, I doubt Cruz will even be in the race.
Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,
I agree with this.Quotein a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.
But not this. A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results. As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz. Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength. Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement. If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly. At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely. If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio. Advantage Trump.Quote
The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.
He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.
I would bet a lot of money that Rubio will have waaay more delegates than Cruz at the convention, I doubt Cruz will even be in the race.
Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,
I agree with this.Quotein a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.
But not this. A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results. As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz. Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength. Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement. If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly. At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely. If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio. Advantage Trump.Quote
The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.
He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination
according to this Rubio has better odds than Cruz too
Also, someone finally asked a relevant question regarding Trump. Not here of course...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Donald-Trump-like-in-person#ans18009875
Notice, if you will, every first hand account is pretty much the same. That Donald Trump is a shrewd & professional businessman, in person. The public image of a bombastic blowhard is just that, a public image.
Also, someone finally asked a relevant question regarding Trump. Not here of course...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Donald-Trump-like-in-person#ans18009875
Notice, if you will, every first hand account is pretty much the same. That Donald Trump is a shrewd & professional businessman, in person. The public image of a bombastic blowhard is just that, a public image.
That was pretty interesting to read. I would not say that they were all the same though. They ranged from fanboy ohmygodIjustmetdonaldtrumpmylifeiscomplete to "I can't say I've ever met a person who made my skin crawl like Trump did." The picture I see painted in whole is a person who is capable of being charismatic, who does what he needs to to make a deal, and who can be a vindictive asshole if crossed or slighted. Political platforms aside, this is about what we knew about him before. We have seen all of these sides of him during the primaries including: a rather charismatic interview with Colbert; changes on stances as needed ("I'm changing. I'm changing." as of last night) to be expedient; and his removal of protesters from his rallies with the added bonus that their jackets be taken from them before throwing them out into freezing temperatures. I don't think even Ayn Rand would like him.
Also, someone finally asked a relevant question regarding Trump. Not here of course...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Donald-Trump-like-in-person#ans18009875
Notice, if you will, every first hand account is pretty much the same. That Donald Trump is a shrewd & professional businessman, in person. The public image of a bombastic blowhard is just that, a public image.
That was pretty interesting to read. I would not say that they were all the same though. They ranged from fanboy ohmygodIjustmetdonaldtrumpmylifeiscomplete to "I can't say I've ever met a person who made my skin crawl like Trump did." The picture I see painted in whole is a person who is capable of being charismatic, who does what he needs to to make a deal, and who can be a vindictive asshole if crossed or slighted. Political platforms aside, this is about what we knew about him before. We have seen all of these sides of him during the primaries including: a rather charismatic interview with Colbert; changes on stances as needed ("I'm changing. I'm changing." as of last night) to be expedient; and his removal of protesters from his rallies with the added bonus that their jackets be taken from them before throwing them out into freezing temperatures. I don't think even Ayn Rand would like him.
This is my read, as well.
A question from an ignorant Australian.
I did a quick google and it seems there are only four current political parties in the USA (gathered from here http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/ (http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/) )
- Republicans
- Democrats
- Libertarian Party
- Constitution Party
So does this mean that when time comes to vote you will have a choice of four presidential candidates?
Sorry I don't know a lot about the USA's voting presidential system and I never seem to hear anything about other political parties besides the Republicans and Democrats, where as in Australia we have quite a few parties and we hear about quite a few of them
A question from an ignorant Australian.
I did a quick google and it seems there are only four current political parties in the USA (gathered from here http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/ (http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/) )
- Republicans
- Democrats
- Libertarian Party
- Constitution Party
So does this mean that when time comes to vote you will have a choice of four presidential candidates?
Sorry I don't know a lot about the USA's voting presidential system and I never seem to hear anything about other political parties besides the Republicans and Democrats, where as in Australia we have quite a few parties and we hear about quite a few of them
Hi, nnls! Through most of the history of the United States, we have had two dominant political parties at any given time. Since around the 1850s, our two major parties have been the Republicans and the Democrats (though their belief systems have evolved in various ways over those many years). We have many "third parties" of which the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and the Green Party are just a few, but for the most part, the third parties get a very small percentage of votes. There are discrete areas in the country where the third party candidates are more successful in getting a higher percentage of votes, but for the most part nationally, our representatives are either Republicans or Democrats.
Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?
It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.
Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?
It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.
Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response: When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states). Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.
Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November. Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me). So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates. For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates. On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them. In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.
Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?
It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.
Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response: When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states). Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.
Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?
It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.
Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response: When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states). Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.
Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November. Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me). So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates. For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates. On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them. In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.
ok thanks, still confusing but a bit more clear now.
And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?
Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?
It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.
Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response: When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states). Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.
Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November. Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me). So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates. For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates. On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them. In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.
ok thanks, still confusing but a bit more clear now.
And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?
we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than CruzI would bet a lot of money that Rubio will have waaay more delegates than Cruz at the convention, I doubt Cruz will even be in the race.
Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,
I agree with this.Quotein a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.
But not this. A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results. As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz. Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength. Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement. If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly. At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely. If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio. Advantage Trump.Quote
The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.
He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination
according to this Rubio has better odds than Cruz too
This wouldn't be the first wager I've made this season, what would you like to wager?
And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?
we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz
lol never thought of that, I'd be down for 2 weeks or something, a low information diet could be nice for a bit.we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz
You could wager an "X amount of time" forum ban. ;)
I'd rather wager a post card from the loser. Banning one another from the forum (even voluntarily) silences one person's voice and opinions for a while, which seems counterproductive for a forum where we debate things ad nauseumwe could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz
You could wager an "X amount of time" forum ban. ;)
What's your counter prediction? Hillary beats Trump if they're the two nominees? And bet is off if the matchup is anyone except those two exactly?
If that's it, you're on! :D
In November, I should be somewhere in Southeast Asia.
Whoah, whoah, I don't know that I can afford TWO post cards. :D
What's your counter prediction? Hillary beats Trump if they're the two nominees? And bet is off if the matchup is anyone except those two exactly?
If that's it, you're on! :D
In November, I should be somewhere in Southeast Asia.
What's your counter prediction? Hillary beats Trump if they're the two nominees? And bet is off if the matchup is anyone except those two exactly?I think you should get some better odds on this, Hillary is already expected to beat Trump quite handily, I think they should have to send a postcard with a bunch of cool stamps on it
If that's it, you're on! :D
In November, I should be somewhere in Southeast Asia.
a stamp from east asia will be cool enough for me ;-)What's your counter prediction? Hillary beats Trump if they're the two nominees? And bet is off if the matchup is anyone except those two exactly?I think you should get some better odds on this, Hillary is already expected to beat Trump quite handily, I think they should have to send a postcard with a bunch of cool stamps on it
If that's it, you're on! :D
In November, I should be somewhere in Southeast Asia.
Voting Hilary or Trump is like voting for who is the least likely to burry the US into the ground instead who will be the better choice as a president.Agreed, it's like that South Park episode, should you even vote if the choices are a douche and a turd sandwich?
Voting Hilary or Trump is like voting for who is the least likely to burry the US into the ground instead who will be the better choice as a president.
increasing spending, increasing the debt to gdp ratio. I feel the "status quo" has issues that need fixed. She probably won't ruin America, but will probably bring us closer to the brinkVoting Hilary or Trump is like voting for who is the least likely to burry the US into the ground instead who will be the better choice as a president.
See, this logic confuses me.
I can clearly articulate why I think Trump is a bad candidate. He has zero political experience. He has no record on positions, and no specific proposals for how he would govern. He has a long history of personally denigrating people who espouse contrary opinions, rather than attacking those opinions themselves. He's been a failure at business and at marriage. He ran the Miss American pageants, which I find sexist and demeaning. He's openly called for banning religious freedom.
With Clinton, I have a harder time explaining all the hatred. She has decades of political experience, during which she has consistently supported the same ideals . She has a voting record and a long history of public policy position, and those positions look very much like the status quo. She's not going to radically change anything that we currently do. Her husband was kind of slimeball in his sex life, but that's hardly a reflection on her qualifications as a politician. She's not a perfect candidate, but she's at least a competent one, so I don't get this whole "likely to bury the US in the ground" rhetoric at all.
Can some of you Hillary-haters explain what you expect she would do, if elected, to ruin America? What specific policy proposals or changes do you fear a President Clinton would visit upon us?
She probably won't ruin America, but will probably bring us closer to the brink
In order of preference for the 4 mentioned, I'd say I prefer Rubio, with Cruz and Clinton tying for 2nd/3rd, and Trump in last. That being said, I think all of them will bring us closer to the brink.She probably won't ruin America, but will probably bring us closer to the brink
More so than Trump? Or even Cruz/Rubio? If anything, I think Clinton is the slow road to ruin instead of the Donald Trump Expressway.
Can some of you Hillary-haters explain what you expect she would do, if elected, to ruin America? What specific policy proposals or changes do you fear a President Clinton would visit upon us?
Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?
Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?
It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.
Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response: When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states). Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.
Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November. Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me). So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates. For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates. On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them. In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.
ok thanks, still confusing but a bit more clear now.
And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?
we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than CruzI would bet a lot of money that Rubio will have waaay more delegates than Cruz at the convention, I doubt Cruz will even be in the race.
Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,
I agree with this.Quotein a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.
But not this. A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results. As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz. Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength. Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement. If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly. At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely. If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio. Advantage Trump.Quote
The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.
He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination
according to this Rubio has better odds than Cruz too
This wouldn't be the first wager I've made this season, what would you like to wager?
we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz
You could wager an "X amount of time" forum ban. ;)
Sounds good, I'm a little worried after those March 5th results and that last debate, but I still think Rubio will take more delegateswe could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than CruzI would bet a lot of money that Rubio will have waaay more delegates than Cruz at the convention, I doubt Cruz will even be in the race.
Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,
I agree with this.Quotein a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.
But not this. A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results. As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz. Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength. Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement. If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly. At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely. If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio. Advantage Trump.Quote
The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.
He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination
according to this Rubio has better odds than Cruz too
This wouldn't be the first wager I've made this season, what would you like to wager?
Bragging rights, it is then. I'll be happy to take Cruz for the higher delegate count leading into the Republican national convention.
we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz
You could wager an "X amount of time" forum ban. ;)
I should report you to yourself!
In order of preference for the 4 mentioned, I'd say I prefer Rubio, with Cruz and Clinton tying for 2nd/3rd, and Trump in last. That being said, I think all of them will bring us closer to the brink.She probably won't ruin America, but will probably bring us closer to the brink
More so than Trump? Or even Cruz/Rubio? If anything, I think Clinton is the slow road to ruin instead of the Donald Trump Expressway.
In terms of the issues, I see Cruz and Clinton being about as far away from one another as you can be (with the possible exception of substituting Sanders for Clinton). So it strikes me as strange that you'd put them in a tie in terms of voting.
In terms of the issues, I see Cruz and Clinton being about as far away from one another as you can be (with the possible exception of substituting Sanders for Clinton). So it strikes me as strange that you'd put them in a tie in terms of voting.
Why? I don't claim to speak for Jeremy E., but for all we know it could be that they just happen to be equally bad (or good) in opposite ways.
Yep, I think they are equally bad, but not that they have equal policies. There are a lot of things I hate about both of them, some of them being things they have in common, some being things they are opposites on.In terms of the issues, I see Cruz and Clinton being about as far away from one another as you can be (with the possible exception of substituting Sanders for Clinton). So it strikes me as strange that you'd put them in a tie in terms of voting.
Why? I don't claim to speak for Jeremy E., but for all we know it could be that they just happen to be equally bad (or good) in opposite ways.
I suppose that's an interesting way of looking at it - who would be "less bad" (or in this case "equally bad") for the country and vote accordingly.
I try to vote on the issues, so it's hard for me to reconcile the idea of anyone voting for Cruz OR Clinton.
That's all...
I share arebelspy's deep concern over the civil rights record of the last several presidents, and think that Clinton would more-or-less continue the current policies. however, I sharply disagree that this will run our country into the dirt.
I share arebelspy's deep concern over the civil rights record of the last several presidents, and think that Clinton would more-or-less continue the current policies. however, I sharply disagree that this will run our country into the dirt.
This makes it sound like I said they'll drive the country into the dirt, when in fact it was another poster that said that, and I said the opposite: that statement was hyperbole.
we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz
You could wager an "X amount of time" forum ban. ;)
I should report you to yourself!
Oh? Which forum rule did I break with this post?
I share arebelspy's deep concern over the civil rights record of the last several presidents, and think that Clinton would more-or-less continue the current policies.
I haven't seen Joshua Kennon's latest post (http://www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-bernie-sanders-tax-economic-proposal/#disqus_thread) (regarding Sanders, my favorite candidate) mentioned yet in the forum. Kennon dove into the weeds of Bernie's tax and economic proposals and rendered an absolutely scathing verdict (but, as usual with Kennon's posts, it doesn't lend itself to easy summary and is worth reading in its entirety).
Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?
It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.
Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response: When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states). Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.
Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November. Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me). So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates. For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates. On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them. In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.
ok thanks, still confusing but a bit more clear now.
And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?
No, we call this 'instant run-off voting' and it would be a great improvement, but that can't happen with a presidential election without an amendment to the US Constitution. Our senators have nothing to do with the electoral process.
You vote for senators though, every time there is about a third who are up?
You vote for senators though, every time there is about a third who are up?
We do now, we didn't always. Originally, the US Senate was similar to the House of Lords in Britain. Sort-of, anyway. The position of state senator was a political appointment, and the senator represented the state legistlature & the state (as in government) interests; while the House of Representatives has always been directly elected to represent the people. I think we lost some of our republic when we adopted the 17th amendment. A lot of generally bad things occurred in that same year.
Anyway, we only have one candidate from each party on the ballot in this case as well; the real democracy occurs in the primaries. And that is debatable, since the party establishment has an oversized influence upon who actually becomes the nominee, particularly regarding any office other than POTUS.
I haven't seen Joshua Kennon's latest post (http://www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-bernie-sanders-tax-economic-proposal/#disqus_thread) (regarding Sanders, my favorite candidate) mentioned yet in the forum. Kennon dove into the weeds of Bernie's tax and economic proposals and rendered an absolutely scathing verdict (but, as usual with Kennon's posts, it doesn't lend itself to easy summary and is worth reading in its entirety).
You vote for senators though, every time there is about a third who are up?
We do now, we didn't always. Originally, the US Senate was similar to the House of Lords in Britain. Sort-of, anyway. The position of state senator was a political appointment, and the senator represented the state legistlature & the state (as in government) interests; while the House of Representatives has always been directly elected to represent the people. I think we lost some of our republic when we adopted the 17th amendment. A lot of generally bad things occurred in that same year.
Anyway, we only have one candidate from each party on the ballot in this case as well; the real democracy occurs in the primaries. And that is debatable, since the party establishment has an oversized influence upon who actually becomes the nominee, particularly regarding any office other than POTUS.
oh ok, I see. So besides voting for the president you also vote for people who is in the house of representatives. So there would be three ballot papers. Senators, house of reps, President?
I don't see Hillary and Drumpf as equally bad. Drumpf is way worse.
I share arebelspy's deep concern over the civil rights record of the last several presidents, and think that Clinton would more-or-less continue the current policies.
I think that this is pretty much the primary reason to oppose her. While she wouldn't drive us into the dirt, we certainly would continue the current glide path, for which we ultimately have a date with grade level. I couldn't honestly guess as to how Trump would be different, but just the chance alone might have a lot to do with his most loyal supporters' root motivations.
You vote for senators though, every time there is about a third who are up?
We do now, we didn't always. Originally, the US Senate was similar to the House of Lords in Britain. Sort-of, anyway. The position of state senator was a political appointment, and the senator represented the state legistlature & the state (as in government) interests; while the House of Representatives has always been directly elected to represent the people. I think we lost some of our republic when we adopted the 17th amendment. A lot of generally bad things occurred in that same year.
Anyway, we only have one candidate from each party on the ballot in this case as well; the real democracy occurs in the primaries. And that is debatable, since the party establishment has an oversized influence upon who actually becomes the nominee, particularly regarding any office other than POTUS.
oh ok, I see. So besides voting for the president you also vote for people who is in the house of representatives. So there would be three ballot papers. Senators, house of reps, President?
No, it's usually all on one page, front & back. They list the different offices with the most powerful on the top; president, senator, representative; then state offices in like manner; then finally local offices & court judges on the back. If there is paper at all, sometimes it's a touchscreen, which I don't trust a bit.
I haven't seen Joshua Kennon's latest post (http://www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-bernie-sanders-tax-economic-proposal/#disqus_thread) (regarding Sanders, my favorite candidate) mentioned yet in the forum. Kennon dove into the weeds of Bernie's tax and economic proposals and rendered an absolutely scathing verdict (but, as usual with Kennon's posts, it doesn't lend itself to easy summary and is worth reading in its entirety).
Yeah, that was a good post, even if it made me sad. :D
I haven't seen Joshua Kennon's latest post (http://www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-bernie-sanders-tax-economic-proposal/#disqus_thread) (regarding Sanders, my favorite candidate) mentioned yet in the forum. Kennon dove into the weeds of Bernie's tax and economic proposals and rendered an absolutely scathing verdict (but, as usual with Kennon's posts, it doesn't lend itself to easy summary and is worth reading in its entirety).
We have the 10th highest debt to GDP ratio of the 150 or so listed here,
I share arebelspy's deep concern over the civil rights record of the last several presidents, and think that Clinton would more-or-less continue the current policies.
I think that this is pretty much the primary reason to oppose her. While she wouldn't drive us into the dirt, we certainly would continue the current glide path, for which we ultimately have a date with grade level. I couldn't honestly guess as to how Trump would be different, but just the chance alone might have a lot to do with his most loyal supporters' root motivations.
See... that's the core of why I don't fear a Hillary presidency the way I do Trump - I don't believe that our current glide path will "ultimately have a date with grade level" to use your analogy (are you a pilot??).
I think as a country we're flying along ok. We could be doing better, but we aren't destined for a crash either. Most macro-economic indicators look decent, and really good compared to much of the world.
I'm receptive to change, but not one lead by the xenophobic meanderings of Trump.
Trump's unorthodox message and populist appeal, the Democrats warn, could erode their hold on working-class support and jeopardize their chances in a year when voter disenchantment with Washington is being felt nationwide.
“We are seeing something this election cycle I’ve never seen before to this degree,” said board Chairman Mark Munroe, who’s also the county Republican chairman. “Every day I take phone calls or get voice messages from people saying they’ve been Democrats all their life and they’ve had it. They want to vote for Donald Trump. I’m surprised at the volume of inquiries we’re getting. It’s remarkable.”
I haven't seen Joshua Kennon's latest post (http://www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-bernie-sanders-tax-economic-proposal/#disqus_thread) (regarding Sanders, my favorite candidate) mentioned yet in the forum. Kennon dove into the weeds of Bernie's tax and economic proposals and rendered an absolutely scathing verdict (but, as usual with Kennon's posts, it doesn't lend itself to easy summary and is worth reading in its entirety).
Good article, thanks. Kennon's own summary: "When it comes to economic and tax policy, Bernie Sanders is bat shit crazy." And yes, reading the whole thing is worthwhile.
Not personally, as I'm medically ineligible. But this is my Great-Aunt...
I share arebelspy's deep concern over the civil rights record of the last several presidents, and think that Clinton would more-or-less continue the current policies.
I think that this is pretty much the primary reason to oppose her. While she wouldn't drive us into the dirt, we certainly would continue the current glide path, for which we ultimately have a date with grade level. I couldn't honestly guess as to how Trump would be different, but just the chance alone might have a lot to do with his most loyal supporters' root motivations.
See... that's the core of why I don't fear a Hillary presidency the way I do Trump - I don't believe that our current glide path will "ultimately have a date with grade level" to use your analogy (are you a pilot??).
I think as a country we're flying along ok. We could be doing better, but we aren't destined for a crash either. Most macro-economic indicators look decent, and really good compared to much of the world.
I'm receptive to change, but not one lead by the xenophobic meanderings of Trump.
But this is my Great-Aunt...
http://www.wave3.com/story/10255730/87-year-old-pilot-receives-faa-for-64-years-of-flying
She is, literally, a local hero in the flying world. She only gave up her instructor's license a few years ago.
But this is my Great-Aunt...
http://www.wave3.com/story/10255730/87-year-old-pilot-receives-faa-for-64-years-of-flying
She is, literally, a local hero in the flying world. She only gave up her instructor's license a few years ago.
Kudos to Great-Aunt Jane Ralston! That's pretty awesome. I admire my great-aunt tremendously, too.
I haven't seen Joshua Kennon's latest post (http://www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-bernie-sanders-tax-economic-proposal/#disqus_thread) (regarding Sanders, my favorite candidate) mentioned yet in the forum. Kennon dove into the weeds of Bernie's tax and economic proposals and rendered an absolutely scathing verdict (but, as usual with Kennon's posts, it doesn't lend itself to easy summary and is worth reading in its entirety).
Yeah, that was a good post, even if it made me sad. :D
:( . I was aware of many of BS's tax proposals - but some of them were new to me. Yeah, not good. Thanks for the link brooklynguy.
Good article, thanks. Kennon's own summary: "When it comes to economic and tax policy, Bernie Sanders is bat shit crazy." And yes, reading the whole thing is worthwhile.
Voting Hilary or Trump is like voting for who is the least likely to burry the US into the ground instead who will be the better choice as a president.Agreed, it's like that South Park episode, should you even vote if the choices are a douche and a turd sandwich?
I haven't seen Joshua Kennon's latest post (http://www.joshuakennon.com/thoughts-bernie-sanders-tax-economic-proposal/#disqus_thread) (regarding Sanders, my favorite candidate) mentioned yet in the forum. Kennon dove into the weeds of Bernie's tax and economic proposals and rendered an absolutely scathing verdict (but, as usual with Kennon's posts, it doesn't lend itself to easy summary and is worth reading in its entirety).
Yeah, that was a good post, even if it made me sad. :D
:( . I was aware of many of BS's tax proposals - but some of them were new to me. Yeah, not good. Thanks for the link brooklynguy.
Good article, thanks. Kennon's own summary: "When it comes to economic and tax policy, Bernie Sanders is bat shit crazy." And yes, reading the whole thing is worthwhile.
Wow, Joshua Kennon's article was a long, but excellent, read. Somehow I hadn't heard of this guy until recently, when Arebelspy posted a link to Kennon's piece following Scalia's passing. I've really appreciated both of his articles that I've read, so you two -- ARS and brooklynguy -- may have turned me into a new follower of his blog :-)
On the particular issue of exempting farmland from Estate Taxes. We do exactly that with inheritance taxes here in Britain, and it has caused exactly the consequences that Kennon outlines. Farmland and forestry land has become a tax shelter more than a productive asset. A common retirement route for bankers and lawyers is to buy a large farm. Your name is on the title, but all the actual farming is sub-contracted. Agricultural land prices have shot up and real family farmers are selling up to take advantage. Not rocket science to look at what the effect of your proposed policies has been elsewhere.
Joshua has visited this forum a number of times, and I'd be surprised if he hasn't already read this thread. He seems pretty astute about googling his own name and links to his site, so he usually chimes in here when we send enough traffic his way.
Like all bloggers, his image and persona are carefully cultivated (and therefore somewhat suspect.) He responds to attacks both personal and ideological, as any profitable online persona should.
Personally, I find his site a fascinating mixture of carefully thought out positions and huge gaping blind spots.
In this particular case, the article's focus on increased tax rates seems to miss the whole point of Bernie's tax plan, which is to support the exact ideals Joshua lays out at the top of his post, by taxing people who have disproportionately benefited from our economic system in order to provide greater opportunity for people who are currently repressed by it, for example by providing free health care and college education. If Americans didn't have to pay for those things, think of how much free money they would suddenly have to pay increased taxes.
Bernie argues that total costs for most people will go down under his plan, while protecting the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the population. Yes, tax rates would go up, but your family and the nation as a whole would be financially better off as a result. Or so says Bernie Sanders, anyway, and that key perspective seems to be missing from Joshua's analysis. Like all wealthy members of the investor class, he cares most about protecting his own privileged position in the current economic hierarchy.
I read this, and it sounds to me like Britain is already half way back to tenant farming. Large scale agriculture is a professional trade requiring professional knowledge, but this defeats the purpose of property taxes, doesn't it? Isn't the point to discourage the extremely wealthy from accumulating vast amounts of property; thus competing with middle class, independent farmers for the productive land?
but his over-the-top conclusion severely overstates his case. All he's really doing is over exaggerating the importance of certain details in order to convince us that the entire plan is fatally flawed, but really, it's just those details that are the problem.
Turns out to be really hard to frame tax legislation in ways that the really rich can't get round.
Called it!u
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/08/poll-mitt-romney-helped-donald-trump-more-voters-now-more-likely-to-support-the-billionaire/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Called it!u
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/08/poll-mitt-romney-helped-donald-trump-more-voters-now-more-likely-to-support-the-billionaire/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
I would have thought trump's response would have repulsed them. It sure repulsed me.
Turns out to be really hard to frame tax legislation in ways that the really rich can't get round.
This is the core of it. The wealthy are usually rich for a reason, and it's not because they are just stupid & lucky. Usually. This is also the same reason I don't consider plans like Bernie's to be credible.That man isn't even smart enough to make a living outside of government service, and you will never beat the wealthy at money coming at them straight on.
[MOD EDIT: Saying that people are stupid who work in gov't violates Forum Rules. Please attack arguments, not people.]
Turns out to be really hard to frame tax legislation in ways that the really rich can't get round.
This is the core of it. The wealthy are usually rich for a reason, and it's not because they are just stupid & lucky. Usually. This is also the same reason I don't consider plans like Bernie's to be credible.That man isn't even smart enough to make a living outside of government service, and you will never beat the wealthy at money coming at them straight on.
[MOD EDIT: Saying that people are stupid who work in gov't violates Forum Rules. Please attack arguments, not people.]
While I won't go as far to say that he isn't smart enough to make a living outside of government service I do seriously question his money management. I'm sure he will have nice pension benefits as he has worked as an elected official since he became Mayor in 1981. So that would give less incentive save, but what has he done with the rest of the money he earned? Not sure what he made as Mayor but he has been in Congress since 1991 and I know that is a higher paying job. If he has been giving away most of his money to charities or helping individuals in need then I completely understand and can support that, otherwise it makes me question his money management.
Turns out to be really hard to frame tax legislation in ways that the really rich can't get round.
This is the core of it. The wealthy are usually rich for a reason, and it's not because they are just stupid & lucky. Usually. This is also the same reason I don't consider plans like Bernie's to be credible.That man isn't even smart enough to make a living outside of government service, and you will never beat the wealthy at money coming at them straight on.
[MOD EDIT: Saying that people are stupid who work in gov't violates Forum Rules. Please attack arguments, not people.]
While I won't go as far to say that he isn't smart enough to make a living outside of government service I do seriously question his money management. I'm sure he will have nice pension benefits as he has worked as an elected official since he became Mayor in 1981. So that would give less incentive save, but what has he done with the rest of the money he earned? Not sure what he made as Mayor but he has been in Congress since 1991 and I know that is a higher paying job. If he has been giving away most of his money to charities or helping individuals in need then I completely understand and can support that, otherwise it makes me question his money management.
Yeah, even I'm with Moonshadow on this one. Any accounting of Sanders' history shows that he was failing pretty hard at being gainfully employed until he got into politics.
Who couldn't realistically know what it's like to labor for a wage, because he doesn't even have any context, even at 70. My 14 year old has more actual work experience
Who couldn't realistically know what it's like to labor for a wage, because he doesn't even have any context, even at 70. My 14 year old has more actual work experience
Since when is government service not work? I've worked for the federal government for my entire postgraduate career. I also pushed a mop in high school. I assure you the mopping was easier than what I do now.
Who couldn't realistically know what it's like to labor for a wage, because he doesn't even have any context, even at 70. My 14 year old has more actual work experience
Since when is government service not work? I've worked for the federal government for my entire postgraduate career. I also pushed a mop in high school. I assure you the mopping was easier than what I do now.
Being a government employee is work. Being an elected official... perhaps less so. You don't "have" to do anything at all; it mainly depends on your own initiative and how much you care about getting re-elected.
Who couldn't realistically know what it's like to labor for a wage, because he doesn't even have any context, even at 70. My 14 year old has more actual work experience
Since when is government service not work? I've worked for the federal government for my entire postgraduate career. I also pushed a mop in high school. I assure you the mopping was easier than what I do now.
Being a government employee is work. Being an elected official... perhaps less so. You don't "have" to do anything at all; it mainly depends on your own initiative and how much you care about getting re-elected.
Who couldn't realistically know what it's like to labor for a wage, because he doesn't even have any context, even at 70. My 14 year old has more actual work experience
Since when is government service not work? I've worked for the federal government for my entire postgraduate career. I also pushed a mop in high school. I assure you the mopping was easier than what I do now.
Being a government employee is work. Being an elected official... perhaps less so. You don't "have" to do anything at all; it mainly depends on your own initiative and how much you care about getting re-elected.
Whether you agree with their positions or not, elected officials have lots of duties, particularly at the federal level. Could you shank some of those duties? Sure... but so can the hourly employee at Target or the mid-level manager in a large corporation.
Who couldn't realistically know what it's like to labor for a wage, because he doesn't even have any context, even at 70. My 14 year old has more actual work experience
Since when is government service not work? I've worked for the federal government for my entire postgraduate career. I also pushed a mop in high school. I assure you the mopping was easier than what I do now.
Being a government employee is work. Being an elected official... perhaps less so. You don't "have" to do anything at all; it mainly depends on your own initiative and how much you care about getting re-elected.
Whether you agree with their positions or not, elected officials have lots of duties, particularly at the federal level. Could you shank some of those duties? Sure... but so can the hourly employee at Target or the mid-level manager in a large corporation.
Can Bernie Sanders be fired as a Senator, if he doesn't show up for work?
There are several ways that a US Senator can loose their job. The most common is to loose re-election. Though rare, they can also be impeached for criminal charges. Voters can also initiate a recall election. There are parallels with a lot of contract and sub-contract employees here - they are very hard to remove until the contract expires.Who couldn't realistically know what it's like to labor for a wage, because he doesn't even have any context, even at 70. My 14 year old has more actual work experience
Since when is government service not work? I've worked for the federal government for my entire postgraduate career. I also pushed a mop in high school. I assure you the mopping was easier than what I do now.
Being a government employee is work. Being an elected official... perhaps less so. You don't "have" to do anything at all; it mainly depends on your own initiative and how much you care about getting re-elected.
Whether you agree with their positions or not, elected officials have lots of duties, particularly at the federal level. Could you shank some of those duties? Sure... but so can the hourly employee at Target or the mid-level manager in a large corporation.
Can Bernie Sanders be fired as a Senator, if he doesn't show up for work?
Actually, what moonshadow said was that Sanders wasn't SMART ENOUGH to hold down a job other than government service. Very different than not having to do work. I for one hope that our senators are the best and smartest, though I know that isn't usually the case. Though I think Sanders is actually quite intelligent.No he said
Who couldn't realistically know what it's like to labor for a wage, because he doesn't even have any context, even at 70. My 14 year old has more actual work experience
Actually, what moonshadow said was that Sanders wasn't SMART ENOUGH to hold down a job other than government service. Very different than not having to do work. I for one hope that our senators are the best and smartest, though I know that isn't usually the case. Though I think Sanders is actually quite intelligent.No he saidQuoteWho couldn't realistically know what it's like to labor for a wage, because he doesn't even have any context, even at 70. My 14 year old has more actual work experience
This is the core of it. The wealthy are usually rich for a reason, and it's not because they are just stupid & lucky. Usually. This is also the same reason I don't consider plans like Bernie's to be credible.That man isn't even smart enough to make a living outside of government service, and you will never beat the wealthy at money coming at them straight on.
[MOD EDIT: Saying that people are stupid who work in gov't violates Forum Rules. Please attack arguments, not people.]
Moon shadow used "government service" which could mean politician or high school teacher, however by his implication I believe he meant only politician, at least that is what I have taken from rereading the conversations.
Moon shadow used "government service" which could mean politician or high school teacher, however by his implication I believe he meant only politician, at least that is what I have taken from rereading the conversations.
To be clear, I was referring directly to the fact that Bernie Sanders is a lifelong politician, yes.
Sanders became an elected official in 1981. He is 70. There were some years before he was first elected mayor. During this time he worked as a carpenter, psychiatric aide, teacher, and filmmaker. 30 seconds of Googling told me this.Moon shadow used "government service" which could mean politician or high school teacher, however by his implication I believe he meant only politician, at least that is what I have taken from rereading the conversations.
To be clear, I was referring directly to the fact that Bernie Sanders is a lifelong politician, yes.
Sanders became an elected official in 1981. He is 70. There were some years before he was first elected mayor. During this time he worked as a carpenter, psychiatric aide, teacher, and filmmaker. 30 seconds of Googling told me this.Moon shadow used "government service" which could mean politician or high school teacher, however by his implication I believe he meant only politician, at least that is what I have taken from rereading the conversations.
To be clear, I was referring directly to the fact that Bernie Sanders is a lifelong politician, yes.
Sanders became an elected official in 1981. He is 70. There were some years before he was first elected mayor. During this time he worked as a carpenter, psychiatric aide, teacher, and filmmaker. 30 seconds of Googling told me this.Moon shadow used "government service" which could mean politician or high school teacher, however by his implication I believe he meant only politician, at least that is what I have taken from rereading the conversations.
To be clear, I was referring directly to the fact that Bernie Sanders is a lifelong politician, yes.
I stand corrected. Perhaps you shouldn't listen to random people on the internet.
Well, he did dabble in some private sector work before moving into politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Private_careers
Sanders became an elected official in 1981. He is 70. There were some years before he was first elected mayor. During this time he worked as a carpenter, psychiatric aide, teacher, and filmmaker. 30 seconds of Googling told me this.Moon shadow used "government service" which could mean politician or high school teacher, however by his implication I believe he meant only politician, at least that is what I have taken from rereading the conversations.
To be clear, I was referring directly to the fact that Bernie Sanders is a lifelong politician, yes.
I stand corrected. Perhaps you shouldn't listen to random people on the internet.
True! Recently there's been a lot of banter on reddit about how Sanders only sponsored 3 bills during his entire career in Congress. Searching "bernie sanders record in congress" led me to opensecrets.org where I discovered that in 2015-2016 alone, he sponsored 26 bills, and cosponsored 154. FFS.
QuoteI think as a country we're flying along ok. We could be doing better, but we aren't destined for a crash either. Most macro-economic indicators look decent, and really good compared to much of the world.
I'm receptive to change, but not one lead by the xenophobic meanderings of Trump.
I'm betting that you are going to get the chance to find out if your fear of a Trump presidency is justified, and that Mrs. Its-My-Turn isn't going to get her turn to fly the plane.
My dislike of Trump isn't based on what he might do, but the things he has already said and done.
I think as a country we're flying along ok. We could be doing better, but we aren't destined for a crash either. Most macro-economic indicators look decent, and really good compared to much of the world.
I'm receptive to change, but not one lead by the xenophobic meanderings of Trump.
I'm betting that you are going to get the chance to find out if your fear of a Trump presidency is justified, and that Mrs. Its-My-Turn isn't going to get her turn to fly the plane.
My dislike of Trump isn't based on what he might do, but the things he has already said and done.
Well first, it matters for me in deciding whether or not I will vote for someone. But returning to what you had said earlier, you said I may get the change to find out if my "fear of a Trump presidency is justified". To be clear this isn't about the future and what might happen, but in the present and recent past with what has happened.I think as a country we're flying along ok. We could be doing better, but we aren't destined for a crash either. Most macro-economic indicators look decent, and really good compared to much of the world.
I'm receptive to change, but not one lead by the xenophobic meanderings of Trump.
I'm betting that you are going to get the chance to find out if your fear of a Trump presidency is justified, and that Mrs. Its-My-Turn isn't going to get her turn to fly the plane.
My dislike of Trump isn't based on what he might do, but the things he has already said and done.
Like him or not, matters not. I don't like any of them, but Trump's skill at manipulating the media & public opinion is legion.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/13/what-that-trump-security-moment-does-to-a-campaign/That was one of the most idiotic things I have read and he is no journalist. He is a blogger with a huge bias.
The odds of an assassination attempt seem to be on the rise.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/13/what-that-trump-security-moment-does-to-a-campaign/That was one of the most idiotic things I have read and he is no journalist. He is a blogger with a huge bias.
The odds of an assassination attempt seem to be on the rise.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/13/what-that-trump-security-moment-does-to-a-campaign/That was one of the most idiotic things I have read and he is no journalist. He is a blogger with a huge bias.
The odds of an assassination attempt seem to be on the rise.
Wow! You actually read it! Progress.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/13/what-that-trump-security-moment-does-to-a-campaign/That was one of the most idiotic things I have read and he is no journalist. He is a blogger with a huge bias.
The odds of an assassination attempt seem to be on the rise.
Wow! You actually read it! Progress.
The thesis that violence against Trump is becoming more likely is sound. However, blaming it on "the media" instead of Trump's own totalitarian asshattery is utterly absurd.
I can't see that this changes Trumps' ballistic trajectory in any meaningful way. He can still take the presidency if he wants it that badly.
I can't see that this changes Trumps' ballistic trajectory in any meaningful way. He can still take the presidency if he wants it that badly.
What universe do you live in? There is no way Trump is becoming President, and I've said so numerous times on this forum for the past few months. America is better than that.
<snip>
Please explain to me why you keep saying things like "ballistic trajectory" and "his for the taking" because I just don't see it. Americans are stupid, but we're not that stupid.
I can't see that this changes Trumps' ballistic trajectory in any meaningful way. He can still take the presidency if he wants it that badly.
What universe do you live in? There is no way Trump is becoming President, and I've said so numerous times on this forum for the past few months. America is better than that.
What electoral map are you looking at that gives Trump any possible path to the Presidency? Have you read any of the general election polling? If the election were held today, Trump would lose to any Democratic nominee, and it's been that way for months and months, and I suspect it will stay that way for many more months. Donald Trump is a gift to progressives, a guaranteed GOP destroyer. I mourn the death of the Party of Lincoln.
Here's the summation of recent polling:
Trump vs Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html), Clinton wins by 6 (and recently rising).
Trump vs Sanders (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html), Sanders wins by 10 (and recently rising).
Florida currently leans towards Clinton in a hypothetical matchup, after previously leaning Trump. But Clinton is leading comfortably in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, and if she takes both of those she can still lose Florida and everything else that's close and still win. Trump's electoral map is a disaster.
Could things change between now and election day? Of course. Someone could shoot one of them. Both of them could go to jail, setting up my fantasy election of Sanders vs Cruz for an ideological wrestlemania smackdown from opposite extremes. But if things unfold in a predictable manner, Trump will get the nomination and then lose the general election badly.
Please explain to me why you keep saying things like "ballistic trajectory" and "his for the taking" because I just don't see it. Americans are stupid, but we're not that stupid.
edit: I went looking through the polling data to find any hypothetical matchups that the Republicans would currently win in a general election. Out of all possible combinations of current candidates, the only way the Democrats lose the whitehouse today is if Kasich runs against Clinton, and maybe if Cruz runs against Clinton. Sanders beats everyone handily in a nationwide election. Trump loses handily to everyone in a nationwide election.
I can't see that this changes Trumps' ballistic trajectory in any meaningful way. He can still take the presidency if he wants it that badly.
What universe do you live in? There is no way Trump is becoming President, and I've said so numerous times on this forum for the past few months. America is better than that.
<snip>
Please explain to me why you keep saying things like "ballistic trajectory" and "his for the taking" because I just don't see it. Americans are stupid, but we're not that stupid.
Care to make a wager? Because from my perspectives, betting in favor of American stupidity is almost always a wager in my own favor.
Full disclosure, political predictions have long been a personal pastime for me. I do it like other people do sports betting. In the past 25 years & about one hundred wagers, I have lost exactly once on a national race I was willing to put a wager upon. I'm good at this, and used to do it on online prediction markets at a profit (Bush shut them down, bastard); and I also have the particular advantage that I have zero emotional investment in the outcome, because as a libertarian I always vote for the person I most agree with, who has never been whom I thought had any realistic chance of victory.
check out politico, (their interactive map thing is pretty fast and niffty), Ohio, reps get 2 mil primary votes, and dems barely break 1 mil. a much larger spread than even florida(reps get over 2 mil and dems get 1.6 mil) which is considered more of swing state. analysis; republican will win this fall.
reaffirms mine and ars' prediction trump takes nomination and general.
discuss
check out politico, (their interactive map thing is pretty fast and niffty), Ohio, reps get 2 mil primary votes, and dems barely break 1 mil. a much larger spread than even florida(reps get over 2 mil and dems get 1.6 mil) which is considered more of swing state. analysis; republican will win this fall.
reaffirms mine and ars' prediction trump takes nomination and general.
discuss
check out politico, (their interactive map thing is pretty fast and niffty), Ohio, reps get 2 mil primary votes, and dems barely break 1 mil. a much larger spread than even florida(reps get over 2 mil and dems get 1.6 mil) which is considered more of swing state. analysis; republican will win this fall.
reaffirms mine and ars' prediction trump takes nomination and general.
discuss
check out politico, (their interactive map thing is pretty fast and niffty), Ohio, reps get 2 mil primary votes, and dems barely break 1 mil. a much larger spread than even florida(reps get over 2 mil and dems get 1.6 mil) which is considered more of swing state. analysis; republican will win this fall.
reaffirms mine and ars' prediction trump takes nomination and general.
discuss
check out politico, (their interactive map thing is pretty fast and niffty), Ohio, reps get 2 mil primary votes, and dems barely break 1 mil. a much larger spread than even florida(reps get over 2 mil and dems get 1.6 mil) which is considered more of swing state. analysis; republican will win this fall.
reaffirms mine and ars' prediction trump takes nomination and general.
discuss
check out politico, (their interactive map thing is pretty fast and niffty), Ohio, reps get 2 mil primary votes, and dems barely break 1 mil. a much larger spread than even florida(reps get over 2 mil and dems get 1.6 mil) which is considered more of swing state. analysis; republican will win this fall.
reaffirms mine and ars' prediction trump takes nomination and general.
discuss
If you were to look at the actual polling on those states, which reflects general election voter sentiment, instead of primary turnout, which does not, you would quickly see that trump loses those states by a wide margin in a general election matchup even while holding a plurality (but not a majority) among GOP primary voters. I don't think I even have to explain why that is, but feel free to ask if it's not clear to you.
Sanders supporters are probably feeling frustrated that their candidate is getting so few delegates despite absolutely crushing all general election matchups. It looks like America is ready for a slightly more lefty president, but right now it looks like they're probably going to get another hawkish centrist corporatist (Clinton) instead.
But Trump has been playing a whole lot of people like a fiddle for a while now.
I stand by my assertion that trump has destroyed the party. He'll lose in the general, and then 12+ years of Democratic presidents will make room for a GOP revival with a more inclusive candidate sometime in the future. First they have to get their heads out their collective assess, and this cycle is apparently not the time to do it.
You do seem confident, Sol. Are you ready to make this wager official?
I am really hoping that Sol is correct, and that is my take on it as well. Drumpf is filling a leadership void. He is picking up 40ish percent of the Republican vote, and while I can see many of the Republicans reluctantly voting for him (but not all), I don't see independents choosing Trumpf over Hillary. PLus Democrats and possibly independents will be very motivated to vote AGAINST Trump. I am struggling to imagine a scenario where he could frame an argument that appeals to independents.
But. I also thought he would never make it past New Hampshire, and so did a lot of people. And you can never underestimate the drive to win, no matter what the cost. I think one of the biggest drivers of Trumps appeal is humiliation, lack of power, and loss of status of the white electorate. This is really a life or death scenario to these people, and people who feel backed into a corner are very, very dangerous.
“For a campaign frequently depicted as offering a rallying point for the white working class, the people volunteering to help Mr. Trump here are noteworthy for their ethnic diversity,” the report says. “They include a young woman who recently arrived from Peru; an immigrant from the Philippines; a 70-year-old Lakota Indian; a teenage son of Russian immigrants; a Mexican-American.”
I think one of the biggest drivers of Drumpfs appeal is humiliation, lack of power, and loss of status of the white electorate.
Not just the white electorate.Quote from: http://www.trunews.com/nyt-visits-trump-office-amazed-presence-non-whites/“For a campaign frequently depicted as offering a rallying point for the white working class, the people volunteering to help Mr. Trump here are noteworthy for their ethnic diversity,” the report says. “They include a young woman who recently arrived from Peru; an immigrant from the Philippines; a 70-year-old Lakota Indian; a teenage son of Russian immigrants; a Mexican-American.”
I suppose I could risk 500 pushups if I could do them over a month long period. In the same day would likely kill me. Another wager over bragging rights, it is then.You do seem confident, Sol. Are you ready to make this wager official?
Sure thing, but I don't gamble with dollars because I'm not a degenerate. Normally I settle bets with my friends in push-ups, but I'm not sure you're capable of paying off 500 without giving yourself a heart attack. I'll also throw in a public forum apology and admission of error from the loser.
You read to much from Scott Adams and not enough actual polling data.
Trump is a clever media manipulator but a totally unqualified politician.
He is reviled by his own party and the public at large.
He has expressed reprehensible opinions and openly supported illegal policy positions.Reprehensible to you, certainly. That's what gets him media coverage. As to supporting illegal policy positions, illegal from whose perspectives? Yours, surely; mine also. Our opinions of what is legitimate or not is not relevant. Again, you seem to be counting on the political & ethical education of your countrymen. Have you met many of them lately?
Again, this is your opinion. You have no comprehension of what Trump does or does not believe about current issues. No one really does, because he hasn't been talking about his policy positions. He has been talking in soundbites that grant a lot of wiggle room, but also gets the attention of particular groups that they are targeted towards, as I have previously mentioned. Trump doesn't talk policy, because a policy position can be attacked on a reasoned level. Trump is playing an emotional game, and it is a game. A game that he completely changed the rules for.
He's the most unAmerican person in politics right now. He has zero experience or understanding of the issues needed to lead the country.
Imagine the general election campaign if the first female presidential candidate runs against the man who said "it doesn't matter what the media writes as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass." Remember the electorate is 52% "pieces of ass" and they don't generally vote for people who believe things like that.
I think all this talk about Hillary supporters playing the gender card is about to get way more real if Trump gets the nomination. In that scenario, the gender card actually means something.
Not just the white electorate.Quote from: http://www.trunews.com/nyt-visits-trump-office-amazed-presence-non-whites/“For a campaign frequently depicted as offering a rallying point for the white working class, the people volunteering to help Mr. Trump here are noteworthy for their ethnic diversity,” the report says. “They include a young woman who recently arrived from Peru; an immigrant from the Philippines; a 70-year-old Lakota Indian; a teenage son of Russian immigrants; a Mexican-American.”
But why? What could they possibly find appealing about his platform? The article does not say.
But Trump has been playing a whole lot of people like a fiddle for a while now.
Trump has been sucking up the pieces of the republican party because the party is a broken shell of its former self. He's chipping away at better candidates because the party is fractured and disillusioned and despondent, not because people like him or agree with his racism or his sexism or his general level of assholery.
Republicans have to harken back 30 years to find a party standard beater they can actually rally behind, and even that is largely based on nostalgia for a bygone era of racist, classist, homophobic, warmongering white patriotism. The Bush coalition is long since dead, the big tent collapsed and in tatters. The American electorate is more diverse, younger, more female, and more progressive than it has ever been. America is changing, and some angry old white dudes rallying behind another angry old white dude promising to restore the glory days of old white dudes controlling everything, however appealing that may be to them, simply doesn't represent our modern electorate. All the polls say so.
I stand by my assertion that trump has destroyed the party. He'll lose in the general, and then 12+ years of Democratic presidents will make room for a GOP revival with a more inclusive candidate sometime in the future. First they have to get their heads out their collective assess, and this cycle is apparently not the time to do it.
But Trump has been playing a whole lot of people like a fiddle for a while now.
Trump has been sucking up the pieces of the republican party because the party is a broken shell of its former self. He's chipping away at better candidates because the party is fractured and disillusioned and despondent, not because people like him or agree with his racism or his sexism or his general level of assholery.
Republicans have to harken back 30 years to find a party standard beater they can actually rally behind, and even that is largely based on nostalgia for a bygone era of racist, classist, homophobic, warmongering white patriotism. The Bush coalition is long since dead, the big tent collapsed and in tatters. The American electorate is more diverse, younger, more female, and more progressive than it has ever been. America is changing, and some angry old white dudes rallying behind another angry old white dude promising to restore the glory days of old white dudes controlling everything, however appealing that may be to them, simply doesn't represent our modern electorate. All the polls say so.
I stand by my assertion that trump has destroyed the party. He'll lose in the general, and then 12+ years of Democratic presidents will make room for a GOP revival with a more inclusive candidate sometime in the future. First they have to get their heads out their collective assess, and this cycle is apparently not the time to do it.
Yes. But:
He has also been playing the media, left and right, like a fiddle.
And the Hillary hate machine has been going so strong, for so long, that there are a not insubstantial number of people on the left who say they will not vote for Hillary. I think Trump will go after their votes. And with the help of the sLivating media, he may get them, and more.
My gut feeling is that men will abandon Clinton every day from now until November unless Trump murders a baby on live television. Otherwise, I think Trump wins easily with men.
<snip>
Prediction: I predicted on Twitter that Trump would solve his “third act problem” (of being an accused racist) by going to the high ground of love. He already says he loves his supporters, and he loves his family, and wounded veterans, and his country. But that won’t be enough. To solve for being an accused racist he would need to say he loves the groups that hate him. And he would have to say it often.
Why would people believe Trump? Simple. Racists can’t say in public that they love the people they really hate. They can’t sell that kind of lie, so they would avoid the situation entirely. On some level you know that.
So expect some love coming soon. That’s the ultimate high ground. You can’t mock it and you can’t top it.
Right on time, Scott Adams comes out with a post about Trump versus Hillary, with a prediction.Quote from: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141146589216/clinton-versus-trumpMy gut feeling is that men will abandon Clinton every day from now until November unless Trump murders a baby on live television. Otherwise, I think Trump wins easily with men.
<snip>
Prediction: I predicted on Twitter that Trump would solve his “third act problem” (of being an accused racist) by going to the high ground of love. He already says he loves his supporters, and he loves his family, and wounded veterans, and his country. But that won’t be enough. To solve for being an accused racist he would need to say he loves the groups that hate him. And he would have to say it often.
Why would people believe Trump? Simple. Racists can’t say in public that they love the people they really hate. They can’t sell that kind of lie, so they would avoid the situation entirely. On some level you know that.
So expect some love coming soon. That’s the ultimate high ground. You can’t mock it and you can’t top it.
Clinton's desire for a secure "BlackBerry-like" device, like that provided to President Barack Obama, is recounted in a series of February 2009 exchanges between high-level officials at the State Department and NSA. Clinton was sworn in as secretary the prior month, and had become "hooked" on reading and answering emails on a BlackBerry she used during the 2008 presidential race...
Resolving the issue was given such priority as to result in a face-to-face meeting between Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, seven senior State Department staffers with five NSA security experts. According to a summary of the meeting, the request was driven by Clinton's reliance on her BlackBerry for email and keeping track of her calendar.Clinton chose not to use a laptop or desktop computer that could have provided her access to email in her office, according to the summary...
Mills also asked about waivers provided during the Bush administration to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her staff to use BlackBerrys in their secure offices. But the NSA had phased out such waivers due to security concerns.
The department's designated NSA liaison, whose name was redacted from the documents, expressed concerns about security vulnerabilities inherent with using BlackBerry devices for secure communications or in secure areas. However, the specific reasons Clinton's requests were rebuffed are being kept secret by the State Department.
As a younger voter who was a huge Sanders supporter i think it will be interested to see what most millennials do in regards to the general election. All my friends my age are either Sanders or Trump supporters. None that i spoke to like Hillary at all. Personally i despise Hillary for a lot of her past indiscretions esp the wall street money. If it was Trump v Hillary i probably would not vote as i do not like either choice. just my 2 cents. I would like to say these threads are always very informative and interesting so thanks to everyone for participating in it.Can you please elaborate?
As a younger voter who was a huge Sanders supporter i think it will be interested to see what most millennials do in regards to the general election. All my friends my age are either Sanders or Trump supporters. None that i spoke to like Hillary at all. Personally i despise Hillary for a lot of her past indiscretions esp the wall street money. If it was Trump v Hillary i probably would not vote as i do not like either choice. just my 2 cents. I would like to say these threads are always very informative and interesting so thanks to everyone for participating in it.Can you please elaborate?
As a younger voter who was a huge Sanders supporter i think it will be interested to see what most millennials do in regards to the general election. All my friends my age are either Sanders or Trump supporters. None that i spoke to like Hillary at all. Personally i despise Hillary for a lot of her past indiscretions esp the wall street money. If it was Trump v Hillary i probably would not vote as i do not like either choice. just my 2 cents. I would like to say these threads are always very informative and interesting so thanks to everyone for participating in it.Can you please elaborate?
I imagine this is referring for Clinton getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Wall Street banks for speeches Sanders has criticized Hillary over. This type of transaction is fairly common way that politicians have cashed in on their positions in the past. I suppose whether one thinks this should disqualify Clinton is based upon how jaded one is in regards to politicians and politics in general.
Goldman Sachs was Obama's top donor. I admire Sanders not taking money from big banks, but this is essentially adding a new hurdle for Hillary that very few mainstream politicians would be able to clear. Pretending she is some sort of monster for doing what nearly everyone else does isn't enough to get me to loathe her. I am more worried about her tendency towards hawkish foreign policy and some other poor judgement calls she has made in her long career. Honestly, If she wins, I think she will get in there, work hard, be quite competent generally, but she will not be an inspirational politician that has a dramatic effect on the direction of the country. She may even get us into another war somewhere. But at least you know what you are getting with Hillary, and her presence isn't an embarrassment on the world stage.
She's always been a moderate, but compared to the right wing she comes off progressive. I'm from San Francisco Bay Area, if I wanted only candidates as liberal as me, I would never vote. And all that means is you get someone much more conservative. Not voting does not make sense. And frankly, Clinton is closer in opinions to Sanders than she is to ANY GOP candidate.As a younger voter who was a huge Sanders supporter i think it will be interested to see what most millennials do in regards to the general election. All my friends my age are either Sanders or Trump supporters. None that i spoke to like Hillary at all. Personally i despise Hillary for a lot of her past indiscretions esp the wall street money. If it was Trump v Hillary i probably would not vote as i do not like either choice. just my 2 cents. I would like to say these threads are always very informative and interesting so thanks to everyone for participating in it.Can you please elaborate?
I imagine this is referring for Clinton getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Wall Street banks for speeches Sanders has criticized Hillary over. This type of transaction is fairly common way that politicians have cashed in on their positions in the past. I suppose whether one thinks this should disqualify Clinton is based upon how jaded one is in regards to politicians and politics in general.
that is definitely one of my issues with her. I would prefer she release the transcripts of said speeches as well. I think she is a liar in regards to how progressive she would be in the same way Obama has not been progressive for a lot of claims he made. I do not appreciate also how she has taken fracking money as i think that is one of the worst possible things we can do to our environment. Overall i think she wouldn't be an awful president i just do not want to vote for her or Trump. Sorry starting to ramble a bit
She's always been a moderate, but compared to the right wing she comes off progressive. I'm from San Francisco Bay Area, if I wanted only candidates as liberal as me, I would never vote. And all that means is you get someone much more conservative. Not voting does not make sense. And frankly, Clinton is closer in opinions to Sanders than she is to ANY GOP candidate.As a younger voter who was a huge Sanders supporter i think it will be interested to see what most millennials do in regards to the general election. All my friends my age are either Sanders or Trump supporters. None that i spoke to like Hillary at all. Personally i despise Hillary for a lot of her past indiscretions esp the wall street money. If it was Trump v Hillary i probably would not vote as i do not like either choice. just my 2 cents. I would like to say these threads are always very informative and interesting so thanks to everyone for participating in it.Can you please elaborate?
I imagine this is referring for Clinton getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Wall Street banks for speeches Sanders has criticized Hillary over. This type of transaction is fairly common way that politicians have cashed in on their positions in the past. I suppose whether one thinks this should disqualify Clinton is based upon how jaded one is in regards to politicians and politics in general.
that is definitely one of my issues with her. I would prefer she release the transcripts of said speeches as well. I think she is a liar in regards to how progressive she would be in the same way Obama has not been progressive for a lot of claims he made. I do not appreciate also how she has taken fracking money as i think that is one of the worst possible things we can do to our environment. Overall i think she wouldn't be an awful president i just do not want to vote for her or Trump. Sorry starting to ramble a bit
See: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-on-the-issues-2015-9
a lot of young Bernie supporters seem to have bought into a discourse about her that was created by the right wing twenty years ago and has been trumpeted so long and so repeatedly that many people on the left take it as gospel.
Vote, people! America needs you. No matter who you vote for, make yourself heard.
Unless you are voting for Trump, if so please stay home.a lot of young Bernie supporters seem to have bought into a discourse about her that was created by the right wing twenty years ago and has been trumpeted so long and so repeatedly that many people on the left take it as gospel.
I think it's a valid concern for all democrats. There's a real chance that the most liberal Americans will choose to not vote, thus helping to elect a conservative candidate, rather than voting for the more liberal candidate who is not as liberal as they would like.
I'd like to think that once the race narrows, people will vote for the candidate who is closest to their preferred positions. The republican party has had great success recently capitalizing on low voter turnout elections to elect some truly horrible people to public office. Staying home because you're left of Clinton is just as bad as voting for Trump.
Vote, people! America needs you. No matter who you vote for, make yourself heard.
or hillaryUnless you are voting for Trump, if so please stay home.a lot of young Bernie supporters seem to have bought into a discourse about her that was created by the right wing twenty years ago and has been trumpeted so long and so repeatedly that many people on the left take it as gospel.
I think it's a valid concern for all democrats. There's a real chance that the most liberal Americans will choose to not vote, thus helping to elect a conservative candidate, rather than voting for the more liberal candidate who is not as liberal as they would like.
I'd like to think that once the race narrows, people will vote for the candidate who is closest to their preferred positions. The republican party has had great success recently capitalizing on low voter turnout elections to elect some truly horrible people to public office. Staying home because you're left of Clinton is just as bad as voting for Trump.
Vote, people! America needs you. No matter who you vote for, make yourself heard.
You want to compare a normal politician to a man who was the focus of a debate by the British Parliament, on if they should ban him from the country? One of our main allies?or hillaryUnless you are voting for Trump, if so please stay home.a lot of young Bernie supporters seem to have bought into a discourse about her that was created by the right wing twenty years ago and has been trumpeted so long and so repeatedly that many people on the left take it as gospel.
I think it's a valid concern for all democrats. There's a real chance that the most liberal Americans will choose to not vote, thus helping to elect a conservative candidate, rather than voting for the more liberal candidate who is not as liberal as they would like.
I'd like to think that once the race narrows, people will vote for the candidate who is closest to their preferred positions. The republican party has had great success recently capitalizing on low voter turnout elections to elect some truly horrible people to public office. Staying home because you're left of Clinton is just as bad as voting for Trump.
Vote, people! America needs you. No matter who you vote for, make yourself heard.
You want to compare a normal politician to a man who was the focus of a debate by the British Parliament, on if they should ban him from the country? One of our main allies?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/europe/uk-parliament-debates-trump-ban/
Personally I'd rather all the GOP stay home, but Trump is a cut below even them. Voting for a sexist, racist man with no qualifications is just inane.
You want to compare a normal politician to a man who was the focus of a debate by the British Parliament, on if they should ban him from the country? One of our main allies?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/europe/uk-parliament-debates-trump-ban/
Personally I'd rather all the GOP stay home, but Trump is a cut below even them. Voting for a sexist, racist man with no qualifications is just inane.
Speaking of the opinion of the international community:
Trump presidency rated among top 10 global risks: EIU (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35828747)
You want to compare a normal politician to a man who was the focus of a debate by the British Parliament, on if they should ban him from the country? One of our main allies?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/europe/uk-parliament-debates-trump-ban/
Personally I'd rather all the GOP stay home, but Trump is a cut below even them. Voting for a sexist, racist man with no qualifications is just inane.
Speaking of the opinion of the international community:
Trump presidency rated among top 10 global risks: EIU (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35828747)
That is an interesting little propaganda bit, but I wouldn't call it meaningful. And the part about Britain banning Trump from visiting Britain if he wins the presidency is just more political theater. It would be rather unlike Britain to deliberately offend a foreign head of state, and many a much worse POS has been entertained by British royalty in the interests of diplomacy.
This thread has been rather entertaining for me. I consider Hillary versus Trump a bit of a push; so as I watch the (mostly liberal side) thrashing over the possibility that Trump could actually win, I have to laugh at it all. What, for me, would make the general election cycle even better to watch than it already will be, is if both Hillary & Trump go into brokered conventions, Trump gets screwed while Sanders gets enough support to convince him to run 3rd party. In that scenario; with Hillary as the Dem nom, Sanders as the Socialist nom, Kasich as the Repub nom, and Trump as an independent; the upcoming election cycle will be the best reality tv show ever.
Goldman Sachs was Obama's top donor. I admire Sanders not taking money from big banks, but this is essentially adding a new hurdle for Hillary that very few mainstream politicians would be able to clear. Pretending she is some sort of monster for doing what nearly everyone else does isn't enough to get me to loathe her. I am more worried about her tendency towards hawkish foreign policy and some other poor judgement calls she has made in her long career. Honestly, If she wins, I think she will get in there, work hard, be quite competent generally, but she will not be an inspirational politician that has a dramatic effect on the direction of the country. She may even get us into another war somewhere. But at least you know what you are getting with Hillary, and her presence isn't an embarrassment on the world stage.
Goldman Sachs was Obama's top donor. I admire Sanders not taking money from big banks, but this is essentially adding a new hurdle for Hillary that very few mainstream politicians would be able to clear. Pretending she is some sort of monster for doing what nearly everyone else does isn't enough to get me to loathe her. I am more worried about her tendency towards hawkish foreign policy and some other poor judgement calls she has made in her long career. Honestly, If she wins, I think she will get in there, work hard, be quite competent generally, but she will not be an inspirational politician that has a dramatic effect on the direction of the country. She may even get us into another war somewhere. But at least you know what you are getting with Hillary, and her presence isn't an embarrassment on the world stage.
golden1: This is in line with my thinking too.
The Goldman Sachs speeches are a non-issue to me. I can imagine what she said to those rooms full of investment managers: she talked about freedom and capitalism and free trade and de-regulation. Straight up pandering. Maybe shared some insights on nationalism and genocide - but probably not. What are people looking for - an overt cash for political promises discussion? I don't think so.
Question: if HRC gets the Democratic party nomination, as seems to be likely, what happens if she picks Elizabeth Warren as her running mate? Who among the Bernie supporters could possibly resist that ticket? All at once, she has just about every democrat voting for her, and many independents. I don't see Trump or Cruz beating that ticket. What do you guys think?
Goldman Sachs was Obama's top donor. I admire Sanders not taking money from big banks, but this is essentially adding a new hurdle for Hillary that very few mainstream politicians would be able to clear. Pretending she is some sort of monster for doing what nearly everyone else does isn't enough to get me to loathe her. I am more worried about her tendency towards hawkish foreign policy and some other poor judgement calls she has made in her long career. Honestly, If she wins, I think she will get in there, work hard, be quite competent generally, but she will not be an inspirational politician that has a dramatic effect on the direction of the country. She may even get us into another war somewhere. But at least you know what you are getting with Hillary, and her presence isn't an embarrassment on the world stage.
golden1: This is in line with my thinking too.
The Goldman Sachs speeches are a non-issue to me. I can imagine what she said to those rooms full of investment managers: she talked about freedom and capitalism and free trade and de-regulation. Straight up pandering. Maybe shared some insights on nationalism and genocide - but probably not. What are people looking for - an overt cash for political promises discussion? I don't think so.
Question: if HRC gets the Democratic party nomination, as seems to be likely, what happens if she picks Elizabeth Warren as her running mate? Who among the Bernie supporters could possibly resist that ticket? All at once, she has just about every democrat voting for her, and many independents. I don't see Trump or Cruz beating that ticket. What do you guys think?
I want Hillary to pick Bernie.
And I think he would accept.
Quote
I want Hillary to pick Bernie.
And I think he would accept.
That combo should retain the whole dem crowd too me thinks.
Concerning Trumps current 'ballistic trajectory', as far as the nomination goes, this article makes the case that the greatest obstacle to Trump getting 1237 delegates (therefore ending the possibility of a brokered convention outright) is California, not Ted Cruz.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/trump-cruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html?_r=1
I don't know enough about the republican party in Cali to make a prediction here, but as I understand it, there is a large Hispanic membership in Cali. Anyone have details?
Concerning Trumps current 'ballistic trajectory', as far as the nomination goes, this article makes the case that the greatest obstacle to Trump getting 1237 delegates (therefore ending the possibility of a brokered convention outright) is California, not Ted Cruz.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/trump-cruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html?_r=1
I don't know enough about the republican party in Cali to make a prediction here, but as I understand it, there is a large Hispanic membership in Cali. Anyone have details?
RealClearPolitics has Trump ahead of Cruz in California (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_republican_presidential_primary-5322.html). Latest is 38% Trump to 20% Cruz. Another poll a day before was 25 to 20.
Quote
I want Hillary to pick Bernie.
And I think he would accept.
That combo should retain the whole dem crowd too me thinks.
Perhaps, but I don't think Bernie would accept it.
(ACA) has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs, websites that don’t work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices. Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country. As it appears Obamacare is certain to collapse of its own weight,
1. Completely repeal Obamacare.(IIRC, there have been dozens of calls to repeal and all have failed. Unless Republicans take over both houses come Nov, I don't see this as being realistic).
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines.I find this one interesting. As a centrist myself, and one who, in principle, likes the idea of states rights, I've never understood the wisdom in having insurance law vary from state to state. It seems like this should be a nationally regulated industry. Allowing health insurance companies to sell across state lines and seems like an okay thing to me. But if I'm reading this right (granted I'm no expert on insurance law, but when I earned my CFP certificate in 2008 I gained an appreciation of the labyrinth of complexity in laws when crossing state to state), this would be a move to a more Democratic principle. In other words, to achieve what Trump is asking for here, states would have to give up much of their sovereignty in regulating insurance markets. This is inherently anti-Republican. (Republicans being all about states rights)
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system.Seems okay to me - but in reality - this will be a tax break for rich people, as poorer people tend to take the standard deduction. Individual deductions have no effect when you take the std deduction. Unless he made this an exemption, in which case, sure, what the hell? I'm all for higher broad based tax deductions. As long as everyone, not just people itemizing, get to capitalize on them. Sure.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate.Sure. sounds fine ... but wait ...
these accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. Really? The 'death penalty'? Sigh. This sounds like a neat opportunity for tax evasion. (This doesn't have to do with healthcare, but FFS, the estate tax is not a bad thing. Personally, I'd rather pay an estate tax on my deathbed, than pay a higher effective rate on my income every year while I'm living. The whole 'death tax' marketing was a scam to get people who will never be affected by it to rage against it. SMH).
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.Sure, I'd like to be able to see what the dr. charges me, charges various insurers, and charges medicare.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.IDK enough about medicare administration to have an opinion here. Anyone?
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.I dunno, this sounds like code for defunding the FDA. The FDA does good work. They don't get it right 100% of the time (like allowing Pfizer to market oxycodone as non-addictive), but often they do (like keeping thalidomide off the market). They do actual science at the FDA. That's a good thing to fund.
Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually.
Concerning Trumps current 'ballistic trajectory', as far as the nomination goes, this article makes the case that the greatest obstacle to Trump getting 1237 delegates (therefore ending the possibility of a brokered convention outright) is California, not Ted Cruz.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/trump-cruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html?_r=1
I don't know enough about the republican party in Cali to make a prediction here, but as I understand it, there is a large Hispanic membership in Cali. Anyone have details?
RealClearPolitics has Trump ahead of Cruz in California (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_republican_presidential_primary-5322.html). Latest is 38% Trump to 20% Cruz. Another poll a day before was 25 to 20.
California's primary isn't until June, and advance polling has shown to be particularly unreliable this election cycle; so I think it's a bit too early to put much faith in any poll out of California. On the flip side, the nominee is usually already determined well before Cali's primary; so there might be a high turn out. I was actually asking about details concerning the makeup of the republican party in Cali. That is, what percentage are Hispanic?
Honestly, the thing that struck me was what was how much is left out of Trumps supposed platform. 5 items? Really? Even Ted breaks his out into at least 10. It's almost like he doesn't even care about issues.
Returning to the title of this thread, Legit criticisms of candidates.This is because his form of broadcast influence works. I catch it working on me also, but the knowledge that it's a form of influence does help matters.
I'm baffled by the widespread support of Trump. Observing this emotional reaction in myself,
runaway costs - quick google search has me not finding anything to support or refute. Help?
websites that don't work - that was a problem for what, a couple weeks? non issue IMO.It was closer to a full year, IIRC.
And the part about Britain banning Trump from visiting Britain if he wins the presidency is just more political theater. It would be rather unlike Britain to deliberately offend a foreign head of state, and many a much worse POS has been entertained by British royalty in the interests of diplomacy.To be clear, our parliament has to debate any petition that attracts 100 000 online signatures - even if the debate is just for everyone present to agree how ridiculous the petition is. Doesn't mean there's necessarily any prospect of anything happening as a result.
So, I take that last post back. At this point I don't care what the man says, I'll never vote for him, and I'll never take anything he says seriously. Whether it comes from his website or out of his mouth.
Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
So, I take that last post back. At this point I don't care what the man says, I'll never vote for him, and I'll never take anything he says seriously. Whether it comes from his website or out of his mouth.
I'll be honest here: If I had to guess what Trump would actually do once in office, I'd expect him to end up being about as liberal as Clinton. (After all, he'd been supporting a lot of liberal stuff until pretty damn recently.) In other words, I think most of his platform is, more likely than not, a lie (to a much, much greater extent than a normal politician's platform is).
But even if I were certain that guess was correct, I still wouldn't vote for him, for exactly the same reasons as Malaysia41.
Trump and the Clintons are social contemporaries. Given his behavior, I doubt he would have the class not to use private time spent with the Clintons against Hilary. That could be an issue.So, I take that last post back. At this point I don't care what the man says, I'll never vote for him, and I'll never take anything he says seriously. Whether it comes from his website or out of his mouth.
I'll be honest here: If I had to guess what Trump would actually do once in office, I'd expect him to end up being about as liberal as Clinton. (After all, he'd been supporting a lot of liberal stuff until pretty damn recently.) In other words, I think most of his platform is, more likely than not, a lie (to a much, much greater extent than a normal politician's platform is).
But even if I were certain that guess was correct, I still wouldn't vote for him, for exactly the same reasons as Malaysia41.
Even though Trump has been outrageous and said some awful things i would still prefer him go against Hilary compared to Cruz. I think Hilary would win for one and two I do not even want the possibility of a Cruz presidency for a multitude of reasons.
Now the bullet points. This is what he says he'll do starting on his first day in office.Quote1. Completely repeal Obamacare.(IIRC, there have been dozens of calls to repeal and all have failed. Unless Republicans take over both houses come Nov, I don't see this as being realistic).
Well, Republicans CURRENTLY control both houses of Congress...it is Obama's veto standing in the way of a repeal right now. And Republicans are odds on favorites to retain the House indefinitely, almost certainly for the next 8 years (because of gerrymandered districts). They might lose the Senate this year because of the higher turnout of a presidential election, plus more Republican seats up for grabs. However, that is by no means certain. And even if Republicans do lose the Senate 2014, they will likely get it back in 2016 if Clinton wins the presidency (because the sitting president's party typically loses congressional seats in off-year elections and because more Dem seats will be up for re-election). So a Republican president will have a good chance of having a Republican Congress for some or all of his term in office, potentially resulting in a fuckton of legislation to the liking of conservatives. Whereas a Democratic president will almost certainly have a Republican or split Congress, resulting in zero, or almost zero legislation to the liking of liberals.
This is actually why I think supporting Sanders is completely pointless from an 'actionable' standpoint (although I am pleased an actual populist leftist candidate is getting airtime). There is unlikely to be ANY situation in which ANY likely configuration of Congress would work with him to pass ANY legislation remotely resembling what he campaigns on, regardless of merit and regardless of how much he pushes for it. Hell, he's far enough left that he'll lose the support of some of the more conservative Dems in Congress. The best a left-leaning voter can expect in the next 8 years is a stalemate similar to most of Obama's tenure in office, but without that crucial 2-year window of D-controlled Congress that Obama had at the beginning of his term, which allowed him to push some big agenda items.
So, if an R gets into the presidency, there's a good chance of an AFA repeal sometime in the next 8 years. It would be a near-certainty were it not for the fact that AFA repeal would force the R's to advance their own alternate plan. What little Trump has said is more or less boilerplate R talking points on health care reform. However, Rs have never been able to agree on and unite behind an alternative to the AFA, and if they repeal it they have to have a replacement or risk removing health insurance from the newly insured and creating more chaos. There was a lot of insider scuttlebutt during the second Supreme Court challenge that the establishment Rs in Congress were hoping the SC would uphold the law, because they DID NOT want to deal with the headache of coming up with an alternative.
Quote2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines.I find this one interesting. As a centrist myself, and one who, in principle, likes the idea of states rights, I've never understood the wisdom in having insurance law vary from state to state. It seems like this should be a nationally regulated industry. Allowing health insurance companies to sell across state lines and seems like an okay thing to me. But if I'm reading this right (granted I'm no expert on insurance law, but when I earned my CFP certificate in 2008 I gained an appreciation of the labyrinth of complexity in laws when crossing state to state), this would be a move to a more Democratic principle. In other words, to achieve what Trump is asking for here, states would have to give up much of their sovereignty in regulating insurance markets. This is inherently anti-Republican. (Republicans being all about states rights)
I heard an interesting wonky discussion about this particular point, wherein it was pointed out that while there would certainly be SOME increase in competition and possible reduction in prices, that this would be highly market-specific because breaking into new markets in health care is much harder than in other industries. Also, they discussed the potential for 'lowest common denominator' type service that could result as insurers stampeded to incorporate in states with laws most favorable to them as businesses (think Delaware and the credit card companies). Subsequently, people would potentially be buying insurance from a company that is being regulated by a state that the buyer has no vote in. Now, free marketers will argue that a vote with your dollar is still a vote, but I don't view health care as a typical consumer commodity, and I think these kind of potential effects are interesting to consider.
So, if an R gets into the presidency, there's a good chance of an AFA repeal sometime in the next 8 years. It would be a near-certainty were it not for the fact that AFA repeal would force the R's to advance their own alternate plan. What little Trump has said is more or less boilerplate R talking points on health care reform. However, Rs have never been able to agree on and unite behind an alternative to the AFA, and if they repeal it they have to have a replacement or risk removing health insurance from the newly insured and creating more chaos.
So, if an R gets into the presidency, there's a good chance of an AFA repeal sometime in the next 8 years. It would be a near-certainty were it not for the fact that AFA repeal would force the R's to advance their own alternate plan. What little Trump has said is more or less boilerplate R talking points on health care reform. However, Rs have never been able to agree on and unite behind an alternative to the AFA, and if they repeal it they have to have a replacement or risk removing health insurance from the newly insured and creating more chaos.
I think you are presuming too much by assuming that the Repubs give a damn about chaos.
So, if an R gets into the presidency, there's a good chance of an AFA repeal sometime in the next 8 years. It would be a near-certainty were it not for the fact that AFA repeal would force the R's to advance their own alternate plan. What little Trump has said is more or less boilerplate R talking points on health care reform. However, Rs have never been able to agree on and unite behind an alternative to the AFA, and if they repeal it they have to have a replacement or risk removing health insurance from the newly insured and creating more chaos.
I think you are presuming too much by assuming that the Repubs give a damn about chaos.
Oh, I'm not presuming that, trust me! Definitely the activist wing doesn't care about chaos.
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it.
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it.
Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
Does a child have the right to the labor of his parents? Should parents just abandon their children?
Should convicted felons be required to work while in prison or just watch tv all day?
I can think of lots of examples that contradict your hard line stance, which suggests to me you haven't thought it through very carefully yet. Your labor can be bound to other people in all kinds of different ways.
No I don't. The US managed for 100+ years without a national income tax or any form of payroll tax. Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War. There were also some usage taxes. The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc. Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home. So if you deliberately buy the 'tiny house' or the non-luxury condo, even though you could probably afford the McMansion or the penthouse, you are also choosing to reduce your property taxes. Of course, you can also avoid property taxes altogether by living in a tent down by the river. The part that makes income taxes 'theft' is that they are imposed upon the labor wages of the common man; which, up until 1913 or so, was generally considered immoral because it was, in effect, enslaving the common man to whatever percentage that his income taxes imposed. Fortunately, our income tax is very progressive, so almost 50% of US citizens do not actually pay any income taxes, because they are exempt for one reason or another. I'm one of those people, as I have mentioned in the past.No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it.
Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
Does a child have the right to the labor of his parents? Should parents just abandon their children?A child has the right to be cared for, because s/he exists by reason of actions by his parents, thus imposing an obligation upon them. But only them, not society at large. I have an obligation to my children, because I literally signed a contract to that effect when I adopted them. In addition to signing it, the judge that oversaw the adoptions (in every case) made very certain to ask my wife & I, "You do understand that (name) becomes your child in every way under the law, as if s/he was born to you?
Should convicted felons be required to work while in prison or just watch tv all day?Felons should be required to pay restitution to victims (and their families), not to the state. If prison labor resulted in restitution payment to the victims, forced labor can be justified due to the (already proven) actions taken by the felons. If restitution is not paid out of that labor, than forced labor cannot be justified.
I can think of lots of examples that contradict your hard line stance, which suggests to me you haven't thought it through very carefully yet. Your labor can be bound to other people in all kinds of different ways.
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it.
Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
Does a child have the right to the labor of his parents? Should parents just abandon their children?
Should convicted felons be required to work while in prison or just watch tv all day?
I can think of lots of examples that contradict your hard line stance, which suggests to me you haven't thought it through very carefully yet. Your labor can be bound to other people in all kinds of different ways.
What if you make a contract?
Say a baker agrees to trade a loaf of bread for a horseshoe from a blacksmith. After the baker hands over his loaf of bread, does he not have a right to the horseshoe from the blacksmith?
There are absolutely cases where you have the right to the labour of someone else, which easily invalidate the silliness that Moonshandow typed. In the case of choosing to live in a free society, you have implicitly agreed to abide by the rules of that society in order to reap the benefits. Refusing to do that is violating your societal contract.
No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it.
Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
Does a child have the right to the labor of his parents? Should parents just abandon their children?
Should convicted felons be required to work while in prison or just watch tv all day?
I can think of lots of examples that contradict your hard line stance, which suggests to me you haven't thought it through very carefully yet. Your labor can be bound to other people in all kinds of different ways.
What if you make a contract?
Say a baker agrees to trade a loaf of bread for a horseshoe from a blacksmith. After the baker hands over his loaf of bread, does he not have a right to the horseshoe from the blacksmith?
There are absolutely cases where you have the right to the labour of someone else, which easily invalidate the silliness that Moonshandow typed. In the case of choosing to live in a free society, you have implicitly agreed to abide by the rules of that society in order to reap the benefits. Refusing to do that is violating your societal contract.
There is no such thing as a social contract. Both yourself & Sol have a strong bias against this line of thinking, for reasons that I do not understand. But you are, evidently, unable to imagine how a free society actually works. Your example above with the blacksmith & the baker is called an 'implicit contract', wherein both parties to an exchange have agreed to terms, often defined by custom not ink on paper, and those implicit contracts are enforceable. We all engage in these implicit contracts every day. When you enter into Starbucks seeking your morning latte & stand at the counter to tell the barrista what you want, you have just engaged into an implicit contract to pay the amount of currency posted on the menu board for that latte. If you refuse to pay that price, or if the barrista tries to impose an afore-unmentioned additional charge; then one of you has violated that particular implicit contract. Yet there exists no such contract simply by virtue of you being born in this society and choosing to remain here; in every case you have to do something in particular to invoke the obligation of an implicit contract. In this particular case, that would be the act of entering into a Starbucks and asking the barrista for the latte.
I pay property taxes and fire insurance to pay for these things. The first is an example of an implicit contract, the second of an explicit one.
You live in a society where you have little crime, someone to come hose your house down if it starts on fire, reasonable roads and the privilege of driving (or riding your bike) on them
More taxes.
, the right to decide the direction of government by voting for candidates and initiatives and/or running for office yourself.
Libraries.More taxes.
Different taxes.
A safety net in case you're permanently disabled.
Explicit contract, service agreement.
Clean water.
Defense from foreign enemies.More taxes, and I served myself.
None of that is free,
and the particular thing you do to invoke the obligation of the implicit social contract is to continue living in whatever country you're living in, presumably the United States.
Also, very good piece by conservative George Will on the Supreme Court vacancy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-wont-give-the-nominee-a-hearing-explained/2016/03/18/25df8ab2-ec8a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
Also, very good piece by conservative George Will on the Supreme Court vacancy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-wont-give-the-nominee-a-hearing-explained/2016/03/18/25df8ab2-ec8a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
Agree. Good article. One of my senators is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even though it's not going to change his mind, I'm going to write to him to encourage him to give Judge Garland a hearing. If you feel so inclined to follow suit, here is the list of members: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members
Also, very good piece by conservative George Will on the Supreme Court vacancy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-wont-give-the-nominee-a-hearing-explained/2016/03/18/25df8ab2-ec8a-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
Agree. Good article. One of my senators is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even though it's not going to change his mind, I'm going to write to him to encourage him to give Judge Garland a hearing. If you feel so inclined to follow suit, here is the list of members: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members
This may be getting to be a bit of a tangent, but with Republicans looking at 24 open seats in the Senate this time around and the Senate playing a big role in filling that seat, keeping the SCOTUS seat in play into 2017 could be political calculus aimed at keeping those Senate seats red. "If you don't vote for me, the liberals will get a majority in the Senate and can vote in any liberal activist judge they want to act on<insert conservative dog whistle issue>."
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2016
And I think we're all pretty sure that Trump would nominate Johnny Cochrane if given the chance. After all, "He's a winner. He can be very persuasive. Very persuasive."
The U.S. also didn't have nearly as much infrastructure, didn't have social security, medicare, medicaid, ACA, didn't have much for military equipment as far as planes, jets, tanks, destroyers, air craft carriers, etc.No I don't. The US managed for 100+ years without a national income tax or any form of payroll tax. Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War. There were also some usage taxes. The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc. Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home. So if you deliberately buy the 'tiny house' or the non-luxury condo, even though you could probably afford the McMansion or the penthouse, you are also choosing to reduce your property taxes. Of course, you can also avoid property taxes altogether by living in a tent down by the river. The part that makes income taxes 'theft' is that they are imposed upon the labor wages of the common man; which, up until 1913 or so, was generally considered immoral because it was, in effect, enslaving the common man to whatever percentage that his income taxes imposed. Fortunately, our income tax is very progressive, so almost 50% of US citizens do not actually pay any income taxes, because they are exempt for one reason or another. I'm one of those people, as I have mentioned in the past.No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it.
Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
General election polling shows the following
Clinton (47%) vs Trump (41%)
Clinton (45%) vs Cruz (46%)
Clinton (40%) vs Kasich (48%)
Sanders (51%) vs Trump (41%)
Sanders (50%) vs Cruz (40%)
Sanders (43%) vs Kasich (43%)
So if the general election was today and it were Clinton vs Cruz or Sanders vs Kasich, it would be very close.
I don't think it's meaningless, it sort of matches favorability ratings which are also not meaningless. I'm pretty sure if the general election were today, Clinton would beat Trump, Kasich would beat Clinton, and Sanders would beat both Trump and Cruz. I think Trump and Cruz would lose most swing states while Sanders and Kasich would win most swing states.General election polling shows the following
Clinton (47%) vs Trump (41%)
Clinton (45%) vs Cruz (46%)
Clinton (40%) vs Kasich (48%)
Sanders (51%) vs Trump (41%)
Sanders (50%) vs Cruz (40%)
Sanders (43%) vs Kasich (43%)
So if the general election was today and it were Clinton vs Cruz or Sanders vs Kasich, it would be very close.
This is pretty meaningless, though, when it comes down to it. You can't make any predictions about how the general will turn out unless you have state-by-state polling.
The U.S. also didn't have nearly as much infrastructure, didn't have social security, medicare, medicaid, ACA, didn't have much for military equipment as far as planes, jets, tanks, destroyers, air craft carriers, etc.No I don't. The US managed for 100+ years without a national income tax or any form of payroll tax. Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War. There were also some usage taxes. The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc. Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home. So if you deliberately buy the 'tiny house' or the non-luxury condo, even though you could probably afford the McMansion or the penthouse, you are also choosing to reduce your property taxes. Of course, you can also avoid property taxes altogether by living in a tent down by the river. The part that makes income taxes 'theft' is that they are imposed upon the labor wages of the common man; which, up until 1913 or so, was generally considered immoral because it was, in effect, enslaving the common man to whatever percentage that his income taxes imposed. Fortunately, our income tax is very progressive, so almost 50% of US citizens do not actually pay any income taxes, because they are exempt for one reason or another. I'm one of those people, as I have mentioned in the past.No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it.
Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
The U.S. also didn't have nearly as much infrastructure, didn't have social security, medicare, medicaid, ACA, didn't have much for military equipment as far as planes, jets, tanks, destroyers, air craft carriers, etc.No I don't. The US managed for 100+ years without a national income tax or any form of payroll tax. Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War. There were also some usage taxes. The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc. Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home. So if you deliberately buy the 'tiny house' or the non-luxury condo, even though you could probably afford the McMansion or the penthouse, you are also choosing to reduce your property taxes. Of course, you can also avoid property taxes altogether by living in a tent down by the river. The part that makes income taxes 'theft' is that they are imposed upon the labor wages of the common man; which, up until 1913 or so, was generally considered immoral because it was, in effect, enslaving the common man to whatever percentage that his income taxes imposed. Fortunately, our income tax is very progressive, so almost 50% of US citizens do not actually pay any income taxes, because they are exempt for one reason or another. I'm one of those people, as I have mentioned in the past.No one has a right to the labors of another, no matter who is paying for it.
Does the POTUS deserve a salary? He is paid with taxes that represent the labor of another. Do you think all taxes are evil?
The US didn't have nearly the infrastructure, in part, because it didn't have nearly the population required to justify that infrastructure. One of the oldest locks, and the oldest hydroelectric power plant, on the Ohio River (maybe the who nation) is about 25 miles downriver from my current location. It still manages an enormous about of cargo throughput. As for the rest of it; do you think we could afford a social safety net (not SS or Medicare, they both suck) if we did not buy those planes, jets, tanks, destroyers & aircraft carriers? And don't tell me that we need them, either. We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.
Back from my small vacation,to echo Cressida - how does this translate on the electorate map? A candidate can win the popular vote but loose the election. Likewise, the popular vote can be within 2-3% percentage points but the outcome can be a landslide.
It still seems it will still be Clinton vs Trump and Clinton will take general.
Some chance for Cruz and Kasich, very small chance for Sanders.
General election polling shows the following
Clinton (47%) vs Trump (41%)
Clinton (45%) vs Cruz (46%)
Clinton (40%) vs Kasich (48%)
Sanders (51%) vs Trump (41%)
Sanders (50%) vs Cruz (40%)
Sanders (43%) vs Kasich (43%)
So if the general election was today and it were Clinton vs Cruz or Sanders vs Kasich, it would be very close.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.htmlBack from my small vacation,to echo Cressida - how does this translate on the electorate map? A candidate can win the popular vote but loose the election. Likewise, the popular vote can be within 2-3% percentage points but the outcome can be a landslide.
It still seems it will still be Clinton vs Trump and Clinton will take general.
Some chance for Cruz and Kasich, very small chance for Sanders.
General election polling shows the following
Clinton (47%) vs Trump (41%)
Clinton (45%) vs Cruz (46%)
Clinton (40%) vs Kasich (48%)
Sanders (51%) vs Trump (41%)
Sanders (50%) vs Cruz (40%)
Sanders (43%) vs Kasich (43%)
So if the general election was today and it were Clinton vs Cruz or Sanders vs Kasich, it would be very close.
Also - which 'general election polling' are you pulling these data from? (source?)
to echo Cressida - how does this translate on the electorate map?
And I think we're all pretty sure that Trump would nominate Johnny Cochrane if given the chance. After all, "He's a winner. He can be very persuasive. Very persuasive."Given that Cochrane is pushing up daisies, that would make for an interesting Senate Hearing.
And don't tell me that we need them, either. We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.
And I think we're all pretty sure that Trump would nominate Johnny Cochrane if given the chance. After all, "He's a winner. He can be very persuasive. Very persuasive."Given that Cochrane is pushing up daisies, that would make for an interesting Senate Hearing.
Appointing a criminal defense attorney (as opposed to someone who's previously been a judge, which usually implies they started out as a prosecutor) would be a nice change of pace, actually.
to echo Cressida - how does this translate on the electorate map?
To echo other posters in this thread, realclearpolitics presents a compilation of all known polling data including statistical relevance of each poll and including state by state breakdowns, and they are predicting that Trump would lose the popular vote by 6-12% and would lose the electoral college vote by much more. Go check out the provided links, if you haven't already.
And I think we're all pretty sure that Trump would nominate Johnny Cochrane if given the chance. After all, "He's a winner. He can be very persuasive. Very persuasive."Given that Cochrane is pushing up daisies, that would make for an interesting Senate Hearing.
Appointing a criminal defense attorney (as opposed to someone who's previously been a judge, which usually implies they started out as a prosecutor) would be a nice change of pace, actually.
Just to be clear, "pushing up daisies" = Johnny Cochran is dead. He died of a brain tumor in 2004. (Also, prosecutor OR corporate lawyer is the most common category of people nominated for federal judgeship, but it is still not a majority.)
And don't tell me that we need them, either. We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.
You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!
And don't tell me that we need them, either. We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.
You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!
And how would that be me contradicting myself? My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2. In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.
And don't tell me that we need them, either. We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.
You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!
And how would that be me contradicting myself? My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2. In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
And how would that be me contradicting myself? My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2. In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.
This was my dose of sanity for today, another top notch David Wong article.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-things-politicians-hope-you-forget-every-election-year/ (http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-things-politicians-hope-you-forget-every-election-year/)
We had a nice sneak preview of the type of ad that Trump is going to use on Clinton.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/donald-trump-posts-anti-clinton-ad-instagram (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/donald-trump-posts-anti-clinton-ad-instagram)
Just a class act this guy is.
And don't tell me that we need them, either. We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.
You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!
And how would that be me contradicting myself? My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2. In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
No we don't have to keep the income tax, but we are going to.And don't tell me that we need them, either. We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.
You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!
And how would that be me contradicting myself? My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2. In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
No we don't have to keep the income tax, but we are going to.And don't tell me that we need them, either. We had one of the smallest standing armies in the world prior to WW1, and what navy we had in the Pacific was nearly wiped out during Pearl Harbor, pretty much all the military gear we needed for both wars were produced on the fly.
You contradict yourself: the fact that we were able to produce all that stuff on the fly proves that we don't need to waste money building and maintaining it all when we're between wars!
And how would that be me contradicting myself? My entire point was that we really don't need to maintain a standing military capable of fighting on two fronts at the same time, which has been the rule of thumb since WW2. In which case, nor would we need the income tax to generate enough revenue to fund a constitutional government.
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
how is that a criticism? It's a straightforward question. If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
I already listed them. If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
he wants to rely on excise taxes, and bigger taxes on alcohol etc. But I don't see how it's relevant, no major presidential candidate* wants to get rid of income tax so it's not a legitimate criticism of any of the presidential candidateshow is that a criticism? It's a straightforward question. If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
I already listed them. If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
he wants to rely on excise taxes, and bigger taxes on alcohol etc. But I don't see how it's relevant, no major presidential candidate* wants to get rid of income tax so it's not a legitimate criticism of any of the presidential candidateshow is that a criticism? It's a straightforward question. If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
I already listed them. If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
*With the exception of Gary Johnson
Excise & 'sin' taxes did fine right up until the first World War. There were also some usage taxes. The key difference is that, if a particular individual really didn't want to pay those taxes, they could be avoided by not smoking, not drinking alcohol, never buying gasoline (to drive on the public roads) etc. Also, property taxes (on real estate) are somewhat avoidable also, since they are applied proportional to the market value of the home.
how is that a criticism? It's a straightforward question. If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
I already listed them. If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
he wants to rely on excise taxes, and bigger taxes on alcohol etc. But I don't see how it's relevant, no major presidential candidate* wants to get rid of income tax so it's not a legitimate criticism of any of the presidential candidateshow is that a criticism? It's a straightforward question. If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
I already listed them. If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
*With the exception of Gary Johnson
From my perspective, levying an income tax is far more fair than deciding that certain items should be taxed and other should not.
he wants to rely on excise taxes, and bigger taxes on alcohol etc. But I don't see how it's relevant, no major presidential candidate* wants to get rid of income tax so it's not a legitimate criticism of any of the presidential candidateshow is that a criticism? It's a straightforward question. If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
I already listed them. If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
*With the exception of Gary Johnson
since when is this thread a criticism of presidential candidates???
This is exactly my point. We levy both 'sin' taxes (or sales taxes which give preferential treatment to one class of goods over another) and we have an income tax.
From my perspective, levying an income tax is far more fair than deciding that certain items should be taxed and other should not.
But we do that anyway. State sales taxes typically exempt groceries bought at a grocery store, but still tax prepared food served at a restaurant. Why? Because eating out is a luxury, and taxing basic food needs seems wrong to us. Taxing activity that the common man must engaging into in order to live; working for a daily wage, buying groceries to feed his kids, etc.; feels wrong at a basic level. But that is what an income tax does, at least absent the standard deduction, but the standard deduction didn't exist until 1944, and even then maxed out at $1K until 1969; so it's a relatively recent fix to the naturally regressive nature of the 'progressive' income tax. Just another band-aid to a broken idea.
I don't know. Where does it end? What is our primary goal with tax policy? If it's simply paying for the functions of government, where does that end? The reality is that tax policy is not just about government revenue to pay for infrastructure and government services, it's also public policy. So many taxes & subsidies exist in the tax code to favor or suppress one activity or another, from taxing sugar imports while subsidizing corn syrup, to taxing automobile tires that are made from rubber originating in the wrong country. Our tax code, all of it, is enormous and ever growing in details. If it were to ever be fair again, it must also be simple.
I don't feel that it is "wrong" at a basic level, and I'm not sure why you are limiting this to men with children. A quick googling shows at least 15 states that tax groceries at same level, but even here there be dragons. I agree that eating at a fancy restaurant is a luxury while buying basic ingredients is more akin to a need, but if you go down that road where does it end?
Certainly we need clothes, but when does a piece of clothing go from need to fashionable? what about tools at the hardware store?
Should ice cream be tax free, or just broccoli? Refined sugar?As I noted above, sugar is taxed anyway.
Particularly in rural areas a car is basically a necessity, but does this mean city-dwelling me should be able to buy a bmw? What if it were a used Civic? If I need a laptop for my occupation should that be taxed, and how do you judge whether I really need it to work or if I'm just using it to download porn? etc. etc.
Taxing certain goods forces judgement on individuals and how they live their lives.
Income tax simply taxes everything in the same manner and allows the individual to choose what they want to spend their remaining money on.
That's why I'm ok with a progressive sales tax, but less comfortable with a sales tax, particularly when some items are taxed and not others.
just to be clear, those were all rhetorical examples illustrating why I wouldn't favor excise and 'sin' taxes instead of an income tax. They weren't intended to be debated point-on-point.Your intentions are irrelevant. If you offer them as examples of a point, I get to attack the rational of your point. Do you still not understand how a debate actually works?
I will agree with your sentiment of "where does it end". I'd support a government that was overall somewhat smaller, and that our tax policy is a reflection of all the things we have tried to support or oppose for decades on end and this amorphous growth has resulted in something that is both unwieldy and deeply entrenched because of the people who benefit from their particular favorable treatment.
I am completely baffled at your assertion that "...relying upon an income tax as a less complicated method of revenue generation isn't going to work out for you." If anything an income tax is far less complicated than trying to determine whether each and every item purchased can be deducted from a person's taxes.
cascading sales tax on every sale, not just at the consumer level.
I don't know about anyone else, but I saw the results from yesterday's Democrat primaries and thought, "well, I already knew Arizona had a lot of old people, so no surprises there. I guess Idaho and Utah must have a lot of young ones..."
http://gawker.com/word-trump-written-in-chalk-terrifies-harms-emory-st-1766477207
if I had not read a lot of other stories that have a similar theme I wouldn't even believe this.
Rich people save more than poor people, excise taxes would not hurt rich people. The current system favors investing far less than if we got all of our government revenue from excise taxes. Excise taxes discourage people from buying things, which hurts the economy. I think the income tax is better for our country. I think it should probably be a flat tax of 20-50% depending on our current needs, with some deductions, but not nearly as many as we currently have. I think keeping children deductions is good, which would be hard to do with excise taxes. Most other deductions should get thrown out.how is that a criticism? It's a straightforward question. If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
I already listed them. If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
The reason that the 16th amendment was required at all, was because the framers regarded the direct taxation of a citizen's labor wages to be immoral. They used property taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, 'sin' taxes (on alcohol, tobacco & heroin, etc), and locally sales taxes to fund the functions of governments. Some states did have income taxes, but some did not, and still don't. They are acceptable forms of taxes under a libertarian viewpoint because they do not demand a portion of a man's basic subsistence, only a portion of his luxuries, comforts or fortunes (property taxes, sin taxes & inheritance taxes; respectively). Granted, it's easy to make the argument that the modern progressive income tax, with the guaranteed minimum deduction, works out to the same ends; but it only does so today due to decades of modifications, and it still favors those who can afford a well educated tax professional's services. I just think that it would be better to destroy the income tax, and return to a straightforward set of transaction taxes (which is what all those I mentioned really are, taxes upon particular types of transactions) with the open purpose of funding the functions of government from what those transaction taxes can bring in. I don't consider this likely, however, because those transaction taxes have always lain heavier upon the wealthy in the US, and they are very good at protecting that wealth and influencing legislation towards that end, which is how we got the 16th in the first place. Who here could argue against the idea that the current system favors income from investing over wages? Most of us make incredible use of those quirks, myself included. I don't think it's really fair, but I'm still going to take advantage of it so long as it persists. I'm not that interested in changing the tax status quo.
I don't know about anyone else, but I saw the results from yesterday's Democrat primaries and thought, "well, I already knew Arizona had a lot of old people, so no surprises there. I guess Idaho and Utah must have a lot of young ones..."As an Idaho resident, I can tell you that my facebook thing is filled with both Pro Sanders posts and Anti Trump posts, from my friends who are also Idaho residents. No surprise to me that Sanders won democratic delegates here and Trump didn't gain many republican delegates here. I wish people in Idaho knew who John Kasich was though.
While I'm in the "legitimate criticisms" thread, I should mention that The Economist now ranks a possible Trump Presidency as among the greatest near term threats to world economy, right up there with China destabilizing their currency, dissolution of the EU, and a new cold war with Russia.
Read all about it: https://gfs.eiu.com/Archive.aspx?archiveType=globalrisk
While I'm in the "legitimate criticisms" thread, I should mention that The Economist now ranks a possible Trump Presidency as among the greatest near term threats to world economy, right up there with China destabilizing their currency, dissolution of the EU, and a new cold war with Russia.
Read all about it: https://gfs.eiu.com/Archive.aspx?archiveType=globalrisk
Interesting. Cruz wanting to go to the gold standard must alarm them as well (along with many other of his positions). Perhaps they just don't believe it's likely to happen.
Rich people save more than poor people, excise taxes would not hurt rich people. The current system favors investing far less than if we got all of our government revenue from excise taxes.how is that a criticism? It's a straightforward question. If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
I already listed them. If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
The reason that the 16th amendment was required at all, was because the framers regarded the direct taxation of a citizen's labor wages to be immoral. They used property taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, 'sin' taxes (on alcohol, tobacco & heroin, etc), and locally sales taxes to fund the functions of governments. Some states did have income taxes, but some did not, and still don't. They are acceptable forms of taxes under a libertarian viewpoint because they do not demand a portion of a man's basic subsistence, only a portion of his luxuries, comforts or fortunes (property taxes, sin taxes & inheritance taxes; respectively). Granted, it's easy to make the argument that the modern progressive income tax, with the guaranteed minimum deduction, works out to the same ends; but it only does so today due to decades of modifications, and it still favors those who can afford a well educated tax professional's services. I just think that it would be better to destroy the income tax, and return to a straightforward set of transaction taxes (which is what all those I mentioned really are, taxes upon particular types of transactions) with the open purpose of funding the functions of government from what those transaction taxes can bring in. I don't consider this likely, however, because those transaction taxes have always lain heavier upon the wealthy in the US, and they are very good at protecting that wealth and influencing legislation towards that end, which is how we got the 16th in the first place. Who here could argue against the idea that the current system favors income from investing over wages? Most of us make incredible use of those quirks, myself included. I don't think it's really fair, but I'm still going to take advantage of it so long as it persists. I'm not that interested in changing the tax status quo.
Excise taxes discourage people from buying things, which hurts the economy.This is Keyensian bullshit. There is only so much wealth that can be extracted from the economy to support government activities without harming the economy, it matters very little the method by which that wealth is extracted.
Why? Because you feel that percentage based servitude is a morally acceptable method of financing government? Or simply because that is all that you have ever known, and are comfortable with your burdens as they are?
I think the income tax is better for our country.
I think it should probably be a flat tax of 20-50% depending on our current needs, with some deductions, but not nearly as many as we currently have. I think keeping children deductions is good, which would be hard to do with excise taxes. Most other deductions should get thrown out.
Many rich people do have expensive properties, expensive boats, etc. but property taxes and boat taxes are not paid to the federal government, they are paid to local governments. Capital gains and dividends are still taxed, and if you add up each time they are taxed, the total tax rate will be more than the total tax rate of income.Rich people save more than poor people, excise taxes would not hurt rich people. The current system favors investing far less than if we got all of our government revenue from excise taxes.how is that a criticism? It's a straightforward question. If you stated it earlier kindly re-state it because I can't find it.Ok - so what sources of revenue do you think the US federal government should rely upon?
Couldn't we reduce the standing size of the military AND keep the income tax?
The 16th amendment allows congress to levy an income tax - so why bring up "a constitutional government"?
We certainly could, but we don't actually have to keep the income tax in order to fund the functions of government as defined in the Constitution, and that was my point. The 16th amendment did grand congress the power to levy a direct income tax, but not the obligation to do the same, nor did the 16th actually expand the constitutional powers of the federal government. And despite the claims otherwise, the 10th amendment is still in effect.
I already listed them. If you are going to criticize me, at least have the courtesy to read my actual words first.
The reason that the 16th amendment was required at all, was because the framers regarded the direct taxation of a citizen's labor wages to be immoral. They used property taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, 'sin' taxes (on alcohol, tobacco & heroin, etc), and locally sales taxes to fund the functions of governments. Some states did have income taxes, but some did not, and still don't. They are acceptable forms of taxes under a libertarian viewpoint because they do not demand a portion of a man's basic subsistence, only a portion of his luxuries, comforts or fortunes (property taxes, sin taxes & inheritance taxes; respectively). Granted, it's easy to make the argument that the modern progressive income tax, with the guaranteed minimum deduction, works out to the same ends; but it only does so today due to decades of modifications, and it still favors those who can afford a well educated tax professional's services. I just think that it would be better to destroy the income tax, and return to a straightforward set of transaction taxes (which is what all those I mentioned really are, taxes upon particular types of transactions) with the open purpose of funding the functions of government from what those transaction taxes can bring in. I don't consider this likely, however, because those transaction taxes have always lain heavier upon the wealthy in the US, and they are very good at protecting that wealth and influencing legislation towards that end, which is how we got the 16th in the first place. Who here could argue against the idea that the current system favors income from investing over wages? Most of us make incredible use of those quirks, myself included. I don't think it's really fair, but I'm still going to take advantage of it so long as it persists. I'm not that interested in changing the tax status quo.
Says you. A transaction tax would be of a similar nature, and that is what Bernie has proposed already. Rich people do save more than poor people, and that won't change under any tax reform, because that is by definition. Whomever is "rich" in a society are those that manage to save more than everyone else. Red herring.QuoteExcise taxes discourage people from buying things, which hurts the economy.This is Keyensian bullshit. There is only so much wealth that can be extracted from the economy to support government activities without harming the economy, it matters very little the method by which that wealth is extracted.QuoteWhy? Because you feel that percentage based servitude is a morally acceptable method of financing government? Or simply because that is all that you have ever known, and are comfortable with your burdens as they are?
I think the income tax is better for our country.Quote
I think it should probably be a flat tax of 20-50% depending on our current needs, with some deductions, but not nearly as many as we currently have. I think keeping children deductions is good, which would be hard to do with excise taxes. Most other deductions should get thrown out.
Then you are just advocating for increasing the burden upon the lower classes that benefit from those deductions. Again, the truly wealthy don't earn wages; but rents, capital gains and dividends. I should know better than most, since I have not paid any net income taxes in 3+ years. Certainly, the truly wealthy will remain wealthy; but with excise, sin & property taxes; their pursuit of luxury via that same wealth then becomes the vehicle by which they finance government services. So they can avoid those taxes if they desire, but not if they really do want that $12 Million boat or that villa in the Hamptons. Whereas with the current progressive income tax, that wealthy guy can buy that $12 Million boat and take the sales tax as a deduction from his 'income'; while the middle class workman still has to pay 7-14% of his labor wages (after deductions) before he can even buy his sales-tax-exempt groceries to feed his family, because he can't avoid it.
Easily fixed. Excise taxes and import taxes were collected by the feds in the past. An amendment will not be required.
Many rich people do have expensive properties, expensive boats, etc. but property taxes and boat taxes are not paid to the federal government, they are paid to local governments.
Capital gains and dividends are still taxed, and if you add up each time they are taxed, the total tax rate will be more than the total tax rate of income.
You are wrong when you say it doesn't matter what the tax method is, but if you believe this why are you arguing about it?
I think the income tax is better for our country because excise taxes can be avoided by not buying things, and not buying things will hurt the economy. Income taxes can be avoided by not working, but people are still going to work.
You said rich people don't earn income but instead earn rents, capital gains and dividends. All of those are income, the capital gains and dividends may be taxed differently, but are still income.
I think the income tax is better for our country because excise taxes can be avoided by not buying things, and not buying things will hurt the economy. Income taxes can be avoided by not working, but people are still going to work.
Again, this is a Keyesnian falsehood. Consumption does not drive the business cycle.
It's true that people will continue to work, because they have to live. Taxing that necessary activity is what makes it morally unacceptable.
The wealthy will still buy their toys, although perhaps not as many. If excise taxes are unable to provide the necessary revenue, then government is too big.
I think the income tax is better for our country because excise taxes can be avoided by not buying things, and not buying things will hurt the economy. Income taxes can be avoided by not working, but people are still going to work.
Again, this is a Keyesnian falsehood. Consumption does not drive the business cycle.
A good many economists would disagree. What are your credentials that give you any authority whatsoever regarding the economics of the US business cycle.
It's true that people will continue to work, because they have to live. Taxing that necessary activity is what makes it morally unacceptable.
So if a given economic activity is necessary, taxing that activity is immoral? I have to eat. I guess that means a sales tax on food is immoral.
I have to live somewhere, I guess that means that taxing property is immoral.
I have to drive to work. I guess that means taxing gasoline is immoral.
The wealthy will still buy their toys, although perhaps not as many. If excise taxes are unable to provide the necessary revenue, then government is too big.
So the gods have declared that the legitimate role and absolute size of government is solely determined by the amount of revenues that an excise tax can produce. Wow. Just Wow!
"Every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” ~John Locke, English philosopher and political theorist, 1632-1704
Taxation on labor (income tax) was an unimaginable, unheard of kind of tax until the latter half of the nineteenth century. Labor was one’s personal property, the bread of life of natural and common law. To tax labor was considered direct theft, an outright assault against property rights of the individual.
...
Until 1913, for forty-one years, no substantial effort was made towards the reinstatement of the 1862 income tax law. Prosperity in America reigned supreme during that period; the only tax funding the government was a tariff tax on imported goods. However, during that same period, the Supreme Court focused on several tax cases.
Supreme Court Tax Cases
An 1883 Supreme Court decision, Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, cited that one’s labor was, in fact, one’s property. Then, in another case, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co, 1895, the very same Supreme Court that had supported the passage of the Tax Act of 1864, did an about-face and decided against a proposed Income Tax Act of 1894.
The Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.1895 Supreme Court decision against the Tax Act of 1894 determined it to be a direct-tax scheme and therefore unconstitutional. Given that taxation of real estate (personal property) was lawfully a direct tax, so also would be the taxation of any and all personal property, including money earned from one’s labor. Therefore, a tax on labor was exempt from the explicit tax powers of Congress granted in a portion of Article I, Sections 2 and 9 of the U.S. Constitution.
Article I. Sections 2 and 9:
“Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,” and “no capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
I think the income tax is better for our country because excise taxes can be avoided by not buying things, and not buying things will hurt the economy. Income taxes can be avoided by not working, but people are still going to work.
Again, this is a Keyesnian falsehood. Consumption does not drive the business cycle.
A good many economists would disagree. What are your credentials that give you any authority whatsoever regarding the economics of the US business cycle.
My credentials are irrelevant.
I can just as easily point to hundreds of trained economists who disagree with the premise.
There is no such thing as consensus among economists, so you can choose whatever perspective you like.
It still doesn't matter how close you might be, because the practical effects of the method of taxation are in dispute, so they should not be the overriding argument anyway.
It's true that people will continue to work, because they have to live. Taxing that necessary activity is what makes it morally unacceptable.So if a given economic activity is necessary, taxing that activity is immoral? I have to eat. I guess that means a sales tax on food is immoral.
Most jurisdictions do not impose sales taxes upon groceries for this exact reason;
but your income taxes don't care about the necessity of your expenses, you must pay them first
I have to live somewhere, I guess that means that taxing property is immoral.It can be.
I have to drive to work. I guess that means taxing gasoline is immoral.You've never obviously lived in the Kansas City metropolitan area. When you live in southern Johnson County and work in eastern KCMO, you pretty much have to take a private automobile to work. Even when I carpool, I end up paying gas tax for gas I use on my days to drive.You do not have to drive to commute to work.
The wealthy will still buy their toys, although perhaps not as many. If excise taxes are unable to provide the necessary revenue, then government is too big.So the gods have declared that the legitimate role and absolute size of government is solely determined by the amount of revenues that an excise tax can produce. Wow. Just Wow!
Not the gods. The framers of the US Constitution...
Snicker.
A) John Locke, who died in 1704 and decades before 1776, was not a framer of the constitution (note: assumes dates of Locke are correct in your post).
B) See the 16th Amendment regarding the constitutionality of income taxes. Arguments about constitutionality prior to that may be valid in the context of their time, but are not necessarily applicable after 1913.
So you think we should reduce the states/local power over being the only source to tax properties and cars/boats?
Many rich people do have expensive properties, expensive boats, etc. but property taxes and boat taxes are not paid to the federal government, they are paid to local governments.QuoteEasily fixed. Excise taxes and import taxes were collected by the feds in the past. An amendment will not be required.
Capital gains and dividends are still taxed, and if you add up each time they are taxed, the total tax rate will be more than the total tax rate of income.
The methods of legally avoiding capital gains and dividends taxation are legend. I have literally never owed a full, round US dollar on capital gains in a single tax year; and a great many sources of dividends are "qualified" and are therefore only taxable if you are in an upper tax bracket on your income, which (again) the truly wealthy often do not pay anyway.Yes you can avoid long term capital gains and qualified dividends if you make no income, but a large majority of people make income, and an even larger majority of rich people
You are wrong when you say it doesn't matter what the tax method is, but if you believe this why are you arguing about it?
It does not matter for the overall economy how revenue is extracted from the economy, only the relative amount. Whatever the method employed, the economy will change to minimize those taxes. However, from a moral perspective, if the necessary revenue for government services can be acquired without taxing the labor wages of the common man, it should be done that way. Therefore, the method of taxation is only (economically) important to those whom are taxed.it does matter for the overall economy, if you only taxed poor people or only taxed rich people, it would hurt the economy and our GDP would go down.
I think the income tax is better for our country because excise taxes can be avoided by not buying things, and not buying things will hurt the economy. Income taxes can be avoided by not working, but people are still going to work.
Again, this is a Keyesnian falsehood. Consumption does not drive the business cycle. It's true that people will continue to work, because they have to live. Taxing that necessary activity is what makes it morally unacceptable. The wealthy will still buy their toys, although perhaps not as many. If excise taxes are unable to provide the necessary revenue, then government is too big.idk what the fuck that is and I'm not looking it up, but it's not a falsehood. People want to pay less taxes and will find a way, if you attach taxes to income, something that people NEED, then it is more fair, not less fair. Everyone should have to pay taxes because everyone is making use of the government.
You said rich people don't earn income but instead earn rents, capital gains and dividends. All of those are income, the capital gains and dividends may be taxed differently, but are still income.
They are all income, but our "income brackets" are not based upon income from rents, capital gains & dividends; but labor wages. In all three cases; rents, capital gains & dividends; the rules for whether or not these are to be considered "regular income" are complex, and complexity favors those who can justify the employment of a skilled tax professional. Thus, the wealthy. Even when these forms of income cannot be negated or otherwise avoided as "regular income", they form a relatively small tax burden upon individual taxpayers, whether they are wealthy or not. The progressive income tax, as it presently is as well as it has been in the past; is a complex morass of patches and restructuring that has failed to address the core problem. That the direct taxation of labor wages, or any other basic necessity, is a morally wrong method of revenue.[/quote]
So you think we should reduce the states/local power over being the only source to tax properties and cars/boats?
Many rich people do have expensive properties, expensive boats, etc. but property taxes and boat taxes are not paid to the federal government, they are paid to local governments.QuoteEasily fixed. Excise taxes and import taxes were collected by the feds in the past. An amendment will not be required.
Yes you can avoid long term capital gains and qualified dividends if you make no income, but a large majority of people make income, and an even larger majority of rich people
You are wrong when you say it doesn't matter what the tax method is, but if you believe this why are you arguing about it?
it does matter for the overall economy, if you only taxed poor people or only taxed rich people, it would hurt the economy and our GDP would go down.
QuoteAgain, this is a Keyesnian falsehood. Consumption does not drive the business cycle. It's true that people will continue to work, because they have to live. Taxing that necessary activity is what makes it morally unacceptable. The wealthy will still buy their toys, although perhaps not as many. If excise taxes are unable to provide the necessary revenue, then government is too big.idk what the fuck that is and I'm not looking it up, but it's not a falsehood.
Rents are considered normal income other than the fact you can itemize some business expenses if you don't take the standard deduction.
EVERYONE that lives in the United States should have to pay taxes, it is not morally wrong.
Paying taxes is paying for the services that the U.S. government provides. Getting those services for free would be morally wrong.
Congratulations on not paying taxes, you don't have to say it 30 times every time you post. You are in a very small minority of those who don't pay taxes, because the income tax is a good way to tax people. You might not pay taxes on the dividends and capital gains you receive, but the company that issues the stock pays a lot of taxes on em.So you think we should reduce the states/local power over being the only source to tax properties and cars/boats?
Many rich people do have expensive properties, expensive boats, etc. but property taxes and boat taxes are not paid to the federal government, they are paid to local governments.QuoteEasily fixed. Excise taxes and import taxes were collected by the feds in the past. An amendment will not be required.
This doesn't parse. I don't understand what you are asking here.QuoteYes you can avoid long term capital gains and qualified dividends if you make no income, but a large majority of people make income, and an even larger majority of rich people
I make plenty of income, and do not pay long term capital gains taxes, nor do I typically pay anything towards qualified dividends.QuoteYou are wrong when you say it doesn't matter what the tax method is, but if you believe this why are you arguing about it?
It does not matter from a revenue perspective. It matters only from a moral perspective.Quote
it does matter for the overall economy, if you only taxed poor people or only taxed rich people, it would hurt the economy and our GDP would go down.
I seriously doubt that we are going to suddenly stop taxing middle class or poor people. We did plenty of that before the 16th amendment. You seem to think that the 16th amendment was intended to tax the wealthy, when it was sponsored by the wealthy in order to (eventually) shift the burdens of government revenues off of themselves and broadly upon the middle class.QuoteQuoteAgain, this is a Keyesnian falsehood. Consumption does not drive the business cycle. It's true that people will continue to work, because they have to live. Taxing that necessary activity is what makes it morally unacceptable. The wealthy will still buy their toys, although perhaps not as many. If excise taxes are unable to provide the necessary revenue, then government is too big.idk what the fuck that is and I'm not looking it up, but it's not a falsehood.
Good God, you are thick. You don't even know what I'm talking about, but insist that I don't know what I am talking about.QuoteRents are considered normal income other than the fact you can itemize some business expenses if you don't take the standard deduction.
You don't know the system as well as you seem to believe. Again, you are talking to a man that has 'earned' in excess of $100K for about a decade, and also does not pay federal income taxes. You are nitpicking about incomplete details, while I'm talking about the net effects. I owe nothing, every year, completely within the law. If that seems unfair to you, you only have the convoluted tax regulations to blame.QuoteEVERYONE that lives in the United States should have to pay taxes, it is not morally wrong.
That is not what happens. So, now what?QuotePaying taxes is paying for the services that the U.S. government provides. Getting those services for free would be morally wrong.
I get them for free. I will continue to do so. If you don't like it; again, you have only the convoluted tax regulations to blame. Excise taxes, sin taxes, sales taxes are all simple and difficult to avoid for any class; and they are also quite progressive, as the more you consume the more taxes you pay. We don't need an income tax from either a historic nor economic perspective, so the only conclusion that I can gather from that is either our tax system is created by economic illiterates (a distinct possibility) or it exists as it does for it's social effects more so than for revenue generation. The social effect in question was to, over a generation or two, establish in the minds of the public that direct taxation of labor wages was a legitimate method of taxation. Of course, in order to do this over a generation, they had to start with themselves. They did exactly that.
You just don't seem to be catching on that I am an example of what you don't seem to believe exists.
Congratulations on not paying taxes, you don't have to say it 30 times every time you post.
You are in a very small minority of those who don't pay taxes, because the income tax is a good way to tax people.
You might not pay taxes on the dividends and capital gains you receive, but the company that issues the stock pays a lot of taxes on em.No, they don't.
It doesn't matter what a key wtf ever falsehood is because it's fact that not spending money will make the economy do worse, I'm astounded you don't understand this very basic concept.
It's not at all simple, and your oversimplification of a topic for which you understand very little makes your own argument even less valid than it started with. Again, we had a tax system exactly like what I have proposed up until 1913, and the US economy had periods of highs & lows both before and after 1913. The method of revenue does not matter to the economy, because the economy will adapt to whatever conditions it must, so long as the actual wealth extraction isn't too burdensome for the economy to support, which is always a moving target anyway.
You seem to admit that if we only taxed the rich or poor it would hurt the economy but still argue that the tax method only matters from a moral perspective? Just because we probably won't go to a tax system like that it doesn't matter? We won't go to a tax system like that because it will hurt the economy, thus making you VERY wrong. It DOES matter for a revenue perspective, you fuck up the economy and the GDP and you get less revenue, VERY simple.
A large majority of people pay a fair amount of taxes, making it a good system. Our country evolved into being a more socialist nation where the government provides more services and we need more revenue to support it. Just because we used to not have an income tax doesn't make the income tax bad. I think it could be optimized, but an only excise tax would fuck up our GDP and mess up our system, hence why it is hardly ever addressed in congress, and instantly shut down when it is.
The top 1% of earners pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group, around 23%, which is about seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%. The reason so few households pay income taxes is because there are a lot of people that don't make enough money to need to pay income taxes.You just don't seem to be catching on that I am an example of what you don't seem to believe exists.
Congratulations on not paying taxes, you don't have to say it 30 times every time you post.QuoteYou are in a very small minority of those who don't pay taxes, because the income tax is a good way to tax people.
47% of households paid no net income taxes in 2014. Not a terribly small minority.QuoteYou might not pay taxes on the dividends and capital gains you receive, but the company that issues the stock pays a lot of taxes on em.No, they don't.Quote
It doesn't matter what a key wtf ever falsehood is because it's fact that not spending money will make the economy do worse, I'm astounded you don't understand this very basic concept.
That is not a fact, that is the myth of GDP. Of course, if your only metric about whether or not the economy is healthy is GDP growth, then your view will be that consumption drives the economy; but it's not true. GDP significantly under represents business activity in the early portion of the manufacturing chain, and over represents end user retail expenditures; but it's capital investments in commodities & heavy industry that form the industrial base that even permits end user retail to exist. GDP can be 'goosed' with government deficit spending for a time, but in the long run there must be manufacturing base capital investments.QuoteIt's not at all simple, and your oversimplification of a topic for which you understand very little makes your own argument even less valid than it started with. Again, we had a tax system exactly like what I have proposed up until 1913, and the US economy had periods of highs & lows both before and after 1913. The method of revenue does not matter to the economy, because the economy will adapt to whatever conditions it must, so long as the actual wealth extraction isn't too burdensome for the economy to support, which is always a moving target anyway.
You seem to admit that if we only taxed the rich or poor it would hurt the economy but still argue that the tax method only matters from a moral perspective? Just because we probably won't go to a tax system like that it doesn't matter? We won't go to a tax system like that because it will hurt the economy, thus making you VERY wrong. It DOES matter for a revenue perspective, you fuck up the economy and the GDP and you get less revenue, VERY simple.Quote
A large majority of people pay a fair amount of taxes, making it a good system. Our country evolved into being a more socialist nation where the government provides more services and we need more revenue to support it. Just because we used to not have an income tax doesn't make the income tax bad. I think it could be optimized, but an only excise tax would fuck up our GDP and mess up our system, hence why it is hardly ever addressed in congress, and instantly shut down when it is.
This has next to nothing to do with why the income tax continues to exist.
That would be the top 1% of wage income earners, not the truly wealthy. We are talking blockbuster movie actors & professional team sport athletes, not Warren Buffet.
The top 1% of earners pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group, around 23%, which is about seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.
Of course that is a good part of it, but that class of "don't make enough money" includes almost everyone on this forum that has retired too early to collect social security. So we are talking about net worth households in excess of $600K, and often twice that. Not exactly poverty level lifestyles, and not people that fit the mental model of the working poor to need to receive the benefits of a taxpayer while also not paying anything. Almost every one of us takes great advantage to receive tax free long term growth, qualified dividends and tax exempt bond interest; all of which is based upon the notable lack of a wage income high enough to be considered "middle class".
The reason so few households pay income taxes is because there are a lot of people that don't make enough money to need to pay income taxes.
Yes companies pay taxes on dividends. They pay taxes on their earnings every year, dividends come from their excess earnings. This is very basic stuff dude.
Oh, it definitely is good for that; but it's a rather incomplete picture if one's goal is to assess the health of the economy as a whole.
It is a fact, and GDP is a good determinant of potential tax revenue.
I never said a GDP shows the health of an economy, it is a good determinant of the size. But if you reduce the GDP by reducing the sale of goods and services, it will hurt the economy.
(A general reduction in spending, due to causes external to the health of the economy itself, implies an equal rise in savings since those earnings are suddenly no longer being spent in the near term)
Also, GDP isn't a particularly good metric for determining the size of the economy on it's own, either. A better method of doing that is the Hayekian Triangle, for which GDP (actually net consumption, but it's close enough) forms one side of that triangle. The net area inclosed by the Hayekian triangle is a much better metric for determining overall size of a market/economy.
All US companies are required to pay taxes on all of their earnings, even those that go to dividends, dividends in the US are not tax deductible. In Canada they have income trusts that can bypass this, but we aren't talking about Canada.That would be the top 1% of wage income earners, not the truly wealthy. We are talking blockbuster movie actors & professional team sport athletes, not Warren Buffet.
The top 1% of earners pay a higher effective income-tax rate than any other group, around 23%, which is about seven times higher than those in the bottom 50%.QuoteOf course that is a good part of it, but that class of "don't make enough money" includes almost everyone on this forum that has retired too early to collect social security. So we are talking about net worth households in excess of $600K, and often twice that. Not exactly poverty level lifestyles, and not people that fit the mental model of the working poor to need to receive the benefits of a taxpayer while also not paying anything. Almost every one of us takes great advantage to receive tax free long term growth, qualified dividends and tax exempt bond interest; all of which is based upon the notable lack of a wage income high enough to be considered "middle class".
The reason so few households pay income taxes is because there are a lot of people that don't make enough money to need to pay income taxes.Quote
Yes companies pay taxes on dividends. They pay taxes on their earnings every year, dividends come from their excess earnings. This is very basic stuff dude.
Companies pay corporate income taxes on earnings that they do not pay out to other taxable entities. Such entities include employees, contractors and shareholders. Those payouts then become a corporate tax deduction, based upon the idea that 'double taxation' of dividend income would be bad for the economy. So the tax burden is transferred from the company to the shareholder along with the dividend, but it's also not the company's problem if the shareholder is otherwise exempt from including qualified dividends as regular income.
So no, they don't pay taxes on qualified dividends.QuoteOh, it definitely is good for that; but it's a rather incomplete picture if one's goal is to assess the health of the economy as a whole.
It is a fact, and GDP is a good determinant of potential tax revenue.Quote
I never said a GDP shows the health of an economy, it is a good determinant of the size. But if you reduce the GDP by reducing the sale of goods and services, it will hurt the economy.
By 'hurt' you mean what, exactly? Cause deflation? Deflation reduces consumer prices as much as it reduces corporate profits. A reduction in GDP, even if caused by the predictable (and likely temporary) slow down in retail sales due to an excise or sin tax on that product, isn't automatically a net-harm to the economy. Again, we are talking about something that is incredibly complex; so while there would likely be a period of adjustment while the retail portion of the economy adapts to the new conditions, the investment market conditions earlier in the manufacturing cycle stands to benefit from the bump in the saving rate during that same adjustment period. (A general reduction in spending, due to causes external to the health of the economy itself, implies an equal rise in savings since those earnings are suddenly no longer being spent in the near term)
Also, GDP isn't a particularly good metric for determining the size of the economy on it's own, either. A better method of doing that is the Hayekian Triangle, for which GDP (actually net consumption, but it's close enough) forms one side of that triangle. The net area inclosed by the Hayekian triangle is a much better metric for determining overall size of a market/economy.
All US companies are required to pay taxes on all of their earnings, even those that go to dividends, dividends in the US are not tax deductible.
(A general reduction in spending, due to causes external to the health of the economy itself, implies an equal rise in savings since those earnings are suddenly no longer being spent in the near term)
Also, GDP isn't a particularly good metric for determining the size of the economy on it's own, either. A better method of doing that is the Hayekian Triangle, for which GDP (actually net consumption, but it's close enough) forms one side of that triangle. The net area inclosed by the Hayekian triangle is a much better metric for determining overall size of a market/economy.
Step 1. Assume the total value of the GDP is inelastic.
Step 2. assume any shrinkage must therefore result in increased savings (as opposed to shrinking the entire economy).
Step 3. Post reference to something Austrian-Mises-esque that also assumes a fixed monetary supply and disregards almost all of modern economics.
Step 4. Claim other people simply don't get it.
https://www.trumpdollar.us/
Looks like much of Ron Paul's old support is lining up behind Trump. Probably because of the damage he would do to the establishment that put the screws to the Paul delegates in 2012. What comes around, goes around.
https://www.trumpdollar.us/
Looks like much of Ron Paul's old support is lining up behind Trump. Probably because of the damage he would do to the establishment that put the screws to the Paul delegates in 2012. What comes around, goes around.
That link is pretty amazing. That the coin minters actually put "World Peace" on the coin next to Trump's head is comedy gold (pun intended).
I hate Hillary as much as the next guy, but Trump is bat shit crazy and has no experience. He argues with everyone and often does stupid things. In what world does he avoid more wars than Hillary? Are his "best guys that no one has even heard of" going to advise him not to start wars?https://www.trumpdollar.us/
Looks like much of Ron Paul's old support is lining up behind Trump. Probably because of the damage he would do to the establishment that put the screws to the Paul delegates in 2012. What comes around, goes around.
That link is pretty amazing. That the coin minters actually put "World Peace" on the coin next to Trump's head is comedy gold (pun intended).
I don't know whether or not that is intended to be ironic, or just hopeful, but Obama won the Nobel Peace price based upon expectations alone. Still, I can't imagine that a Trump presidency could possibly be worse than a Hillary presidency on that particular front, (pun intended) and there is at least a small chance that Trump will avoid more wars since he isn't beholden to the military-industrial complex in any discernible way.
Both of those things are to his advantage. By now, that should be self-evident.I hate Hillary as much as the next guy, but Trump is bat shit crazy and has no experience.https://www.trumpdollar.us/
Looks like much of Ron Paul's old support is lining up behind Trump. Probably because of the damage he would do to the establishment that put the screws to the Paul delegates in 2012. What comes around, goes around.
That link is pretty amazing. That the coin minters actually put "World Peace" on the coin next to Trump's head is comedy gold (pun intended).
I don't know whether or not that is intended to be ironic, or just hopeful, but Obama won the Nobel Peace price based upon expectations alone. Still, I can't imagine that a Trump presidency could possibly be worse than a Hillary presidency on that particular front, (pun intended) and there is at least a small chance that Trump will avoid more wars since he isn't beholden to the military-industrial complex in any discernible way.
He argues with everyone and often does stupid things. In what world does he avoid more wars than Hillary?
Are his "best guys that no one has even heard of" going to advise him not to start wars?
Yes, throughout his campaign Trump has certainly given many indications that he's a peace bringer, willing to work towards reasonable compromise without resorting to belligerent violence.
I hate Hillary as much as the next guy, but Trump is bat shit crazy and has no experience.Both of those things are to his advantage. By now, that should be self-evident.
Being batshit crazy and having no foreign policy experience won't help him with foreign policy. I agree with Beltim. All the polls say Hillary is most likely our next president, which makes it seem like they prefer the devil we already know. Trump is 70% unfavorable among women........ Enough said. As far as his best guys that nobody knows, I don't think he's said who they are, but if nobody knows them they probably don't have very much experience either.Both of those things are to his advantage. By now, that should be self-evident.I hate Hillary as much as the next guy, but Trump is bat shit crazy and has no experience.https://www.trumpdollar.us/
Looks like much of Ron Paul's old support is lining up behind Trump. Probably because of the damage he would do to the establishment that put the screws to the Paul delegates in 2012. What comes around, goes around.
That link is pretty amazing. That the coin minters actually put "World Peace" on the coin next to Trump's head is comedy gold (pun intended).
I don't know whether or not that is intended to be ironic, or just hopeful, but Obama won the Nobel Peace price based upon expectations alone. Still, I can't imagine that a Trump presidency could possibly be worse than a Hillary presidency on that particular front, (pun intended) and there is at least a small chance that Trump will avoid more wars since he isn't beholden to the military-industrial complex in any discernible way.Quote
He argues with everyone and often does stupid things. In what world does he avoid more wars than Hillary?
In the world that Trump, himself, has repeatedly said getting involved in Syria & Ukraine were stupid, and neither region were our problem to deal with; whereas Hillary has said the opposite. Trump may not be the peace candidate, but Hillary is definitely the New-Cold-War candidate; at least as far as you can trust that either of them are telling the truth about what they believe. Trump is a huge unknown as far as his real ideological leanings, while Hillary is not. There is a huge contingent that has decided that taking a risk with a devil we don't know is preferred to staying with the devil we already do know. Everything is topsy-turvy this political cycle; again, advantage Trump.QuoteAre his "best guys that no one has even heard of" going to advise him not to start wars?
If I have any idea who those "best guys" happen to be, and I think I might, then that is correct. Wars are expensive, we are not talking about the repub establishment, after all.
Being batshit crazy and having no foreign policy experience won't help him with foreign policy.
I agree with Beltim. All the polls say Hillary is most likely our next president, which makes it seem like they prefer the devil we already know.
But I’d argue that many of the critics are getting the problem wrong. It’s not the reliance on data; numbers can be good, and can even be revelatory. But data never tell a story on their own. They need to be viewed through the lens of some kind of model, and it’s very important to do your best to get a good model.
Trump is 70% unfavorable among women........ Enough said.
As far as his best guys that nobody knows, I don't think he's said who they are, but if nobody knows them they probably don't have very much experience either.
Senior Advisor Sarah Huckabee Sanders (hard to judge, assuming similar to her father)
Senior Advisor Barry Bennett (just war advocate)
Policy Advisor Sam Clovis (warmonger)
Senior Advisor Ed Brookover (just war advocate)
Having no foreign policy experience as the most powerful man in the world, the man who deals with foreign policy on a regular basis, having no experience won't hurt him? Wtf are you smoking. Maybe in the general, Hillary's experience will hurt her with some, but it will help her with others that don't want an inexperienced dumb ass as their commander and chief.
Being batshit crazy and having no foreign policy experience won't help him with foreign policy.
It doesn't hurt him either. Hillary's foreign policy experience will hurt her in the general, no matter who she is up against.QuoteI agree with Beltim. All the polls say Hillary is most likely our next president, which makes it seem like they prefer the devil we already know.
Matchup polls prior to the general are barely more predictive than random, which is why we still bother to have these terribly expensive campaigns every 4 years. All the pre-general match-up polls said Reagan would get crushed in 1980, which was (likewise) used as a pretense to try to take the nom away from Reagan during his own contested convention. Polls are particularly bad at advanced predictions when the political environment is in flux. Take a look at Nate Silver's record this cycle. He has been the best analyst over the past decade, with a nearly perfect record. Until this year, and he hasn't accurately predicted a Republican primary result yet this year. Even my least favorate pundit in the world, Paul Krugman, has noticed that Nate Silver's 'model' is broken this cycle.Quote from: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/tarnished-silver/But I’d argue that many of the critics are getting the problem wrong. It’s not the reliance on data; numbers can be good, and can even be revelatory. But data never tell a story on their own. They need to be viewed through the lens of some kind of model, and it’s very important to do your best to get a good model.QuoteTrump is 70% unfavorable among women........ Enough said.
Why is that "enough said"? What evidence that favorablity numbers translate into votes do you possess? Hillary's favorability numbers also play a role, and her's are far from stellar also. A whole lot of people are going to be looking at this cycle as a choice between Evil & Stupid. I'm not even sure which is which, but I will be voting for neither. The percentage of the population that chooses a similar path does matter to the outcome.QuoteAs far as his best guys that nobody knows, I don't think he's said who they are, but if nobody knows them they probably don't have very much experience either.
He has not said who they are, but it's pretty common for high ranking personel in a winning campaign to stay on with the new administration. Of particular interest, with regard to domestic policy, are the following...Quote from: http://www.p2016.org/trump/trumporg.htmlSenior Advisor Sarah Huckabee Sanders (hard to judge, assuming similar to her father)
Senior Advisor Barry Bennett (just war advocate)
Policy Advisor Sam Clovis (warmonger)
Senior Advisor Ed Brookover (just war advocate)
His foreign policy bench seems thin by this list, but he is certainly not limited to it. Such as it is, Trump seems to be listening to more just war advocates than neo-con warmongers, and that is better than what we have been getting so far.
Having no foreign policy experience as the most powerful man in the world, the man who deals with foreign policy on a regular basis, having no experience won't hurt him? Wtf are you smoking.
Maybe in the general, Hillary's experience will hurt her with some, but it will help her with others that don't want an inexperienced dumb ass as their commander and chief.
This free speech-busting goon squad operation is directed by supporters of Hillary Clinton. It is paid for mostly by George Soros and MoveOn.org and pushed by David Brock at Media Matters for America. It’s also funded by reclusive billionaire Jonathan Lewis, who was identified by the Miami New Times as a “mystery man.” He inherited roughly a billion dollars from his father Peter Lewis (founder of Progressive Insurance Company).
...
Hillary understands that Trump would lose the votes of certain establishment Republicans if he were the nominee. On the other hand, it doesn’t matter, because of his crossover outreach. In Michigan, Democrats and independents who have lost their jobs because of disastrous globalist trade deals like NAFTA are lining up to vote for Donald.
No brokered convention in 1980 and Reagan won as predicted.
Trump has very little chance in general. 70% of women is huge. He will lose about every swing state.
You can guess who you think his guys are, but assuming will make an ass out of you and me.
You can go bet at an official betting site and get better odds than I can give you, most of them will give you about 3 to 1 odds if you want to bet on a Trump presidency.
Having no foreign policy experience as the most powerful man in the world, the man who deals with foreign policy on a regular basis, having no experience won't hurt him? Wtf are you smoking.
Sounds like you are up for a wager? I've already got two so far, do you wish to be my third?Quote
Maybe in the general, Hillary's experience will hurt her with some, but it will help her with others that don't want an inexperienced dumb ass as their commander and chief.
It will hurt her a great deal more than it will help her, no matter Trump's real experience. And this is going to hurt her too...Quote from: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/anti-trump-protesters-admit-answering-craigslist-ad-and-getting-paid-to-protest-trump/This free speech-busting goon squad operation is directed by supporters of Hillary Clinton. It is paid for mostly by George Soros and MoveOn.org and pushed by David Brock at Media Matters for America. It’s also funded by reclusive billionaire Jonathan Lewis, who was identified by the Miami New Times as a “mystery man.” He inherited roughly a billion dollars from his father Peter Lewis (founder of Progressive Insurance Company).
...
Hillary understands that Trump would lose the votes of certain establishment Republicans if he were the nominee. On the other hand, it doesn’t matter, because of his crossover outreach. In Michigan, Democrats and independents who have lost their jobs because of disastrous globalist trade deals like NAFTA are lining up to vote for Donald.QuoteNo brokered convention in 1980 and Reagan won as predicted.
Reagan had to accept George Bush, Sr. as his running mate to satisfy the party establishment & pre-empt a brokered convention. The repubs still had their own version of the super-delegates that are currently plaguing Bernie Sanders in 1980, and contrary to popular liberal belief, Reagan was not stupid. He knew he would have to pick an establishment running mate to keep the super-delegates from revolt. Trump will have to do something similar, and I suspect that Kasich is still in this race because he wants to be that establishment 'bone'. Kasich is in a good position for this, since he is a popular former governor of an important swing state. This would quiet most of the establishment objections, since it comes with an implicit threat should Trump wander too far from the establishment reservation.QuoteTrump has very little chance in general. 70% of women is huge. He will lose about every swing state.
70% unfavorability among women is unlikely to translate into 70% of women voting for Hillary, whose net favorability rating is only 24% among women. That's a really good number, taken alone, and under normal conditions it would likely be enough. But these are not normal conditions. Also, Hillary's favorability rating among men is net negative, while Trump's is net positive. Women are only half the electorate. Regardless, the repubs really don't fare much better with anyone else among women, so if it's Mrs "It's My Turn" really takes such a large fraction of the female vote, it matters not at all that Trump is a sexist. This far from the general election, I don't think these polls mean a damn thing. Trump has months to affect his public image, and he has proven to be very good at self-branding; and Hillary's public image has long been set, so her campaign would have a hard time reforming her image if it proves that they needed to. I think that they will need to. The email server scandal & her foreign policy experience (i.e. Bengazi) will be issues that she will have to repeatedly defend in the general.QuoteYou can guess who you think his guys are, but assuming will make an ass out of you and me.
That situation remains in great flux, so I will refrain from committing to any predictions on this front.
No candidate has had their unfavorability as bad as Trump and won the general.
actually it's better than I thought, +440 right now, propbet.com/livelines/livelines.aspx
No candidate has had their unfavorability as bad as Trump and won the general.
Time will tell. I'd like a link to that online betting site you speak of, though.
actually it's better than I thought, +440 right now, propbet.com/livelines/livelines.aspx
No candidate has had their unfavorability as bad as Trump and won the general.
Time will tell. I'd like a link to that online betting site you speak of, though.
-225 for Clinton wins pres
I've never used it myself, but I check the odds on there occasionally. I hear it's pretty hard to get your money out of it though.actually it's better than I thought, +440 right now, propbet.com/livelines/livelines.aspx
No candidate has had their unfavorability as bad as Trump and won the general.
Time will tell. I'd like a link to that online betting site you speak of, though.
-225 for Clinton wins pres
That's what I thought. Blocked as a gambling website. Oh well.
Any third party candidates surfacing?Gary Johnson, Bloomberg maybe?
Any third party candidates surfacing?
Trump is spiraling down,
first his campaign manager gets in trouble,
then he says he won't support repub nom unless it's him,
then he says women should be punished for having abortions, backpedals and says he didn't mean that,
puts an unflattering picture up of Cruz's wife and get's castrated for it,
and to top it all off he has no chance in Wisconsin.
All of this in 1 week. Republican nominee predictions went from thinking Trump had an 80% chance to a 59% chance so far this week.
Any third party candidates surfacing?
Jill Stein is running as the Green nominee again. I imagine she'll siphon off a share of Bernie supporters if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination.
Any third party candidates surfacing?
Jill Stein is running as the Green nominee again. I imagine she'll siphon off a share of Bernie supporters if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination.
... in states where the Green Party is on the ballot (which hasn't normally included mine, as far as I remember).
If you think Trump will be president, you can get 5.5 to 1 odds making that betTrump is spiraling down,
first his campaign manager gets in trouble,
then he says he won't support repub nom unless it's him,
then he says women should be punished for having abortions, backpedals and says he didn't mean that,
puts an unflattering picture up of Cruz's wife and get's castrated for it,
and to top it all off he has no chance in Wisconsin.
All of this in 1 week. Republican nominee predictions went from thinking Trump had an 80% chance to a 59% chance so far this week.
So, are you open to that wager, then?
Reagan had to accept George Bush, Sr. as his running mate to satisfy the party establishment & pre-empt a brokered convention. The repubs still had their own version of the super-delegates that are currently plaguing Bernie Sanders in 1980, and contrary to popular liberal belief, Reagan was not stupid. He knew he would have to pick an establishment running mate to keep the super-delegates from revolt. Trump will have to do something similar, and I suspect that Kasich is still in this race because he wants to be that establishment 'bone'. Kasich is in a good position for this, since he is a popular former governor of an important swing state. This would quiet most of the establishment objections, since it comes with an implicit threat should Trump wander too far from the establishment reservation.Kasich has said he would be the worst VP ever, that if he doesn't get pres, he'll just continue governing Ohio for the rest of his term. When asked if he'll support Trump if he get's the nomination, he neither confirms nor denies, making me think he would probably not support Trump, let alone be his VP
Honestly I am getting Drumpf fatigue. I don't even react emotionally to anything that he posts anymore.They think in this situation, the women is victim of abortion clinics because they are messed up in the head.
As an aside, I don't get why the pro-life candidates who aren't Drumpf are getting their knickers in a twist about Drumpf saying that women should be punished for getting an abortion. I mean, if you are pro-life, wouldn't that be the natural conclusion to banning abortion and giving a fetus personhood? If you make it illegal, and a woman gets an abortion, she is committing homicide by definition. He is just connecting the dots.
...if you are pro-life, wouldn't that be the natural conclusion to banning abortion and giving a fetus personhood?As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman. Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.
Except that is not what happens. Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions. He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying)....if you are pro-life, wouldn't that be the natural conclusion to banning abortion and giving a fetus personhood?As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman. Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.
Except that is not what happens. Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions. He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying)....if you are pro-life, wouldn't that be the natural conclusion to banning abortion and giving a fetus personhood?As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman. Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/
Reagan had to accept George Bush, Sr. as his running mate to satisfy the party establishment & pre-empt a brokered convention. The repubs still had their own version of the super-delegates that are currently plaguing Bernie Sanders in 1980, and contrary to popular liberal belief, Reagan was not stupid. He knew he would have to pick an establishment running mate to keep the super-delegates from revolt. Trump will have to do something similar, and I suspect that Kasich is still in this race because he wants to be that establishment 'bone'. Kasich is in a good position for this, since he is a popular former governor of an important swing state. This would quiet most of the establishment objections, since it comes with an implicit threat should Trump wander too far from the establishment reservation.Kasich has said he would be the worst VP ever, that if he doesn't get pres, he'll just continue governing Ohio for the rest of his term. When asked if he'll support Trump if he get's the nomination, he neither confirms nor denies, making me think he would probably not support Trump, let alone be his VP
I think there is a good chance Paul Ryan will allow himself to be considered during a brokered convention, but very little chance of a VP KasichReagan had to accept George Bush, Sr. as his running mate to satisfy the party establishment & pre-empt a brokered convention. The repubs still had their own version of the super-delegates that are currently plaguing Bernie Sanders in 1980, and contrary to popular liberal belief, Reagan was not stupid. He knew he would have to pick an establishment running mate to keep the super-delegates from revolt. Trump will have to do something similar, and I suspect that Kasich is still in this race because he wants to be that establishment 'bone'. Kasich is in a good position for this, since he is a popular former governor of an important swing state. This would quiet most of the establishment objections, since it comes with an implicit threat should Trump wander too far from the establishment reservation.Kasich has said he would be the worst VP ever, that if he doesn't get pres, he'll just continue governing Ohio for the rest of his term. When asked if he'll support Trump if he get's the nomination, he neither confirms nor denies, making me think he would probably not support Trump, let alone be his VP
I don't put too much faith, or any faith, in what they actually say. Paul Ryan was quoted as saying that he wouldn't accept the Speakership, only two weeks before accepting the speakership. That fact has been brought up recently with his denial that he could present himself as an alternative nominee during a contested convention.
You may be correct, but that article tends to support the "provider of abortion" position. E.g., the article starts "In 2014, Jennifer Whalen, a nursing home aide, was sentenced to between 12 and 18 months in jail. Her crime? Trying to obtain medication abortion pills for her teenage daughter, who was facing an unwanted pregnancy. Whalen, who was charged with “performing an illegal abortion,”...."As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman. Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.Except that is not what happens. Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions. He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying).
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/
I think there is a good chance Paul Ryan will allow himself to be considered during a brokered convention, but very little chance of a VP KasichReagan had to accept George Bush, Sr. as his running mate to satisfy the party establishment & pre-empt a brokered convention. The repubs still had their own version of the super-delegates that are currently plaguing Bernie Sanders in 1980, and contrary to popular liberal belief, Reagan was not stupid. He knew he would have to pick an establishment running mate to keep the super-delegates from revolt. Trump will have to do something similar, and I suspect that Kasich is still in this race because he wants to be that establishment 'bone'. Kasich is in a good position for this, since he is a popular former governor of an important swing state. This would quiet most of the establishment objections, since it comes with an implicit threat should Trump wander too far from the establishment reservation.Kasich has said he would be the worst VP ever, that if he doesn't get pres, he'll just continue governing Ohio for the rest of his term. When asked if he'll support Trump if he get's the nomination, he neither confirms nor denies, making me think he would probably not support Trump, let alone be his VP
I don't put too much faith, or any faith, in what they actually say. Paul Ryan was quoted as saying that he wouldn't accept the Speakership, only two weeks before accepting the speakership. That fact has been brought up recently with his denial that he could present himself as an alternative nominee during a contested convention.
I don't think Kasich would want to be VP for Trump or Cruz. I think Kasich might accept a VP slot with Paul Ryan, and might have accepted a VP slot with more establishment candidates like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney.
Did you finish reading the article because there are multiple examples of just that.You may be correct, but that article tends to support the "provider of abortion" position. E.g., the article starts "In 2014, Jennifer Whalen, a nursing home aide, was sentenced to between 12 and 18 months in jail. Her crime? Trying to obtain medication abortion pills for her teenage daughter, who was facing an unwanted pregnancy. Whalen, who was charged with “performing an illegal abortion,”...."As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman. Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.Except that is not what happens. Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions. He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying).
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/
If the pregnant teen had been sentenced, that would be a different thing.
There is Purvi Patel, who was charged with neglect of a dependent and feticide after having a pregnancy loss that the state deemed was a self-induced abortion. She is currently serving a 41-year sentence while her case is on appeal. In three states—Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota—laws on the books allow for the involuntary civil commitment of pregnant women for “not following doctors’ orders.” Recent cases in which these laws were applied include those of Alicia Beltran and Tamara Loertscher in Wisconsin. As ProPublica has noted in “How States Handle Drug Use During Pregnancy,” hundreds and potentially thousands of women in three states—Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee—have faced criminal prosecution under “chemical endangerment laws” that allow for the criminal prosecution of drug use during pregnancy. The anti-choice movement has pushed for and supported these laws.
There is Bei Bei Shuai, who was charged with murder and attempted feticide for attempting suicide while pregnant. Shuai sat in jail for 435 days until she was released on bail (where she remained under surveillance by an electronic ankle monitor). In August 2013, nearly two and a half years after her prosecution began, she accepted a plea deal to the misdemeanor charge of “criminal recklessness.”
And in Tennessee, Anna Yocca was charged with attempted murder for a failed self-induced abortion attempt with a coat hanger. Prosecutors later dropped the attempted murder charge but said they would still pursue criminal charges against Yocca, likely for aggravated assault.
I don't think Kasich would want to be VP for Trump or Cruz. I think Kasich might accept a VP slot with Paul Ryan, and might have accepted a VP slot with more establishment candidates like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney.
That's a good point, and might be what he is holding out for.
Yes, there are some examples of women being charged with performing self-abortions. Didn't see any examples of a pregnant woman, but not her doctor, being charged when the doctor performed an abortion.Did you finish reading the article because there are multiple examples of just that.Except that is not what happens. Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions. He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying).You may be correct, but that article tends to support the "provider of abortion" position. E.g., the article starts "In 2014, Jennifer Whalen, a nursing home aide, was sentenced to between 12 and 18 months in jail. Her crime? Trying to obtain medication abortion pills for her teenage daughter, who was facing an unwanted pregnancy. Whalen, who was charged with “performing an illegal abortion,”...."
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/
If the pregnant teen had been sentenced, that would be a different thing.
Yes, there are some examples of women being charged with performing self-abortions. Didn't see any examples of a pregnant woman, but not her doctor, being charged when the doctor performed an abortion.Did you finish reading the article because there are multiple examples of just that.Except that is not what happens. Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions. He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying).You may be correct, but that article tends to support the "provider of abortion" position. E.g., the article starts "In 2014, Jennifer Whalen, a nursing home aide, was sentenced to between 12 and 18 months in jail. Her crime? Trying to obtain medication abortion pills for her teenage daughter, who was facing an unwanted pregnancy. Whalen, who was charged with “performing an illegal abortion,”...."
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/
If the pregnant teen had been sentenced, that would be a different thing.
There are no doubt some far-right prosecutors who overreach on their favorite hot-button issues, just as some far-left prosecutors overreach on theirs. In at least one case (Purvi Patel) a conviction by jury occurred. One might infer there is something more than an out of control prosecutor when that happens - although juries are not infallible (e.g., OJ Simpson).
If these are examples of laws when abortion is illegal, one has to wonder what would the laws look like if abortion is ever made illegal?Rather than go off-subject and down the abortion rabbit hole, I'll just repeat the observation that Trump being able to offend, in a single quote, both
If these are examples of laws when abortion is illegal, one has to wonder what would the laws look like if abortion is ever made illegal?Rather than go off-subject and down the abortion rabbit hole, I'll just repeat the observation that Trump being able to offend, in a single quote, both
- the (pro-life/anti-choice) folks who think even rape does not justify abortion, and
- the (pro-choice/anti-life) folks who see no problem with killing a baby in the process of birth,
was quite the political misstep.
All fair points.If these are examples of laws when abortion is illegal, one has to wonder what would the laws look like if abortion is ever made illegal?Rather than go off-subject and down the abortion rabbit hole, I'll just repeat the observation that Trump being able to offend, in a single quote, both
- the (pro-life/anti-choice) folks who think even rape does not justify abortion, and
- the (pro-choice/anti-life) folks who see no problem with killing a baby in the process of birth,
was quite the political misstep.
It certainly seems like Mathews managed to trump Trump (pun intended) but now I've begun to wonder. You are right that this seems to offend both of the ideologically rigid sides of this conversation, but how many people is that really? For how much of the electorate is the pro-choice/pro-life issue a defining concern? I really don't know, but upon some cursory observations of my own around my own extended family, for which this is a divided issue; it seems that what Trump actually said, once that actual video clip is watched, seems to tickle the 'fairness' part of the brain of most of them. Basically, IF abortion were magically rendered illegal again, that there should be some form of punishment for willful participation in a crime. There seems to be a rational kind of "that seems fair, when you really consider it" kind of slow response from most of my family members, excepting those that have an ideological attachment to one side or another. I don't think that this will hurt him in the long run, but for now, it might very well hurt him in the Wisconsin primary; for which he doesn't seem likely to win anyway.
I'd like to think I'm a fairly sane person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I do feel like the only candidate I'd ever want to sit down and share a meal with is Bernie, but his politics are frighteningly dangerous. To the point:
I think Donald Trump is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.
Feel free to poke holes/fun, I've got thick skin.
I'd like to think I'm a fairly sane person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I do feel like the only candidate I'd ever want to sit down and share a meal with is Bernie, but his politics are frighteningly dangerous. To the point:
I think Donald Trump is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.
Feel free to poke holes/fun, I've got thick skin.
I guess that, as of today, the NY Times would say this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/us/politics/donald-trump-general-election.html?ref=politics
I'd like to think I'm a fairly sane person. I'm not a Trump supporter.
I think Donald Drumpf is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.
I don't think most of this will happen,QuoteI think Donald Drumpf is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.
You wouldn't be the first one to wonder if the Trump candidacy is just a giant distraction. I do think whoever the next president is is going to be screwed, either by a major terrorist attack, a financial default similar to 2008.
Where I differ is that when the major catastrophe hits, I want someone at least halfway competent to try to handle it. I don't know if we have anyone of that caliber running, but Trump surely isn't that person.
You wouldn't be the first one to wonder if the Trump candidacy is just a giant distraction. I do think whoever the next president is is going to be screwed, either by a major terrorist attack, a financial default similar to 2008.
Where I differ is that when the major catastrophe hits, I want someone at least halfway competent to try to handle it. I don't know if we have anyone of that caliber running, but Trump surely isn't that person.
I don't think most of this will happen,QuoteI think Donald Drumpf is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.
You wouldn't be the first one to wonder if the Trump candidacy is just a giant distraction. I do think whoever the next president is is going to be screwed, either by a major terrorist attack, a financial default similar to 2008.
Where I differ is that when the major catastrophe hits, I want someone at least halfway competent to try to handle it. I don't know if we have anyone of that caliber running, but Trump surely isn't that person.
I don't think Trump will get presidency (I think it will be Hillary, although I would prefer John Kasich or Paul Ryan)
Trump has been doing very poorly over the last week, and I don't think he'll get enough delegates, it'll be a brokered convention, and Cruz, Kasich, or Paul Ryan will take the cake.
I don't think there will be a major financial crisis in the next 4 years, maybe 8 if things go terrible, I do think we need to come up with a new plan to start lowering our debt to GDP ratio, as currently our national debt is higher than our GDP which is a recipe for disaster.
I have no clue if there will be a major terrorist attack
I'm now thinking Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/I'm now thinking Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention.
If the party establishment is willing & able to deny Trump the nom, they wouldn't let Cruz have it either.
https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/cruz-wins-wisconsin-trump-wins-nomination/I think it's likely trump won't hit the magic 1237 number he needs, and if he doesn't win on the first ballot he's probably done
Don't get you hopes too high that the party wonks will get their way, though. There are no super-delegates remaining in the Republican Party system, and there won't be.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/I'm now thinking Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention.
If the party establishment is willing & able to deny Trump the nom, they wouldn't let Cruz have it either.
It's talking about how the establishment has very few delegates that gets to choose the next GOP Nominee, but instead the delegates from state and local conventions, many of which have chosen to support Cruz already. Cruz is also much more Trumplike than any of the other potential nominees, and it will cause less fuss if someone that was close to beating Trump takes nomination, rather than someone like Kasich who only got a small percentage of votes/delegates, or Paul Ryan who has said he doesn't want to be the republican nominee and didn't even run.http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/I'm now thinking Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention.
If the party establishment is willing & able to deny Trump the nom, they wouldn't let Cruz have it either.
Nate Silver has lost his muse this cycle. Scott Adams, a cartoonist by trade, has had a much better record of predictions this go around.
My mom used it once or twice until I corrected her. I told her I didn't think it meant what she thought it meant. She has a history of using words or phrases that might have a dual meaning without fully understanding the more vulgar meaning. (Think of her as a Puritan, and you'd be pretty close).I think, instead, the act of teabagging is more to express dominance over another person. It's aggressive and invasive and it submits the recipient to an unwanted gesture of a sexual nature.
Interesting take, but in that context wouldn't it be saying that Tea Party members are dominant? Or are you saying that is essentially calling them out as bullies?
I wouldn't tell her what it meant and insisted it was too vulgar to say out loud to my own mother while urging her to look it up. I laughed the entire time, telling her she couldn't use my tablet to search for a term so raunchy! I almost fell out of my chair when she finally found and read it. She's a really good sport, but you have to imagine a cross between church-lady and Mrs. Cleaver and then picture the reaction! I love her!
I'm not really sure how well thought out the epithet was at the time, by whoever invented it. And honestly, I am not sure what percentage of people who have used it as an insult actually know the reference, either.
But you have made me curious enough to try to find the origin of this insult.
MDM, several of those "winner take all" states are only "winner take all" by district. In other words, not winner take all at all.Yes - details are at the bottom of the RCP link.
And those several add up to more than half of the "winner take all" delegates left.
Based on http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html it appears Trump will have enough delegates (3 more than the minimum needed) if he sweeps the winner-take-all primaries. This does not include any of the other remaining state primaries.
Haven't checked to see what the various polls predict for these states.
No matter how it goes down, this one is going to be a squeaker, and for the first time in many decades, the votes of California Republicans will have a real effect upon the election.Yes. Even if he runs the table from now through the end of May, Trump can't get to 1237 until the final primary day, June 7.
I don't expect Cruz to get 1237 on the first ballot, I think there will be multiple ballots and people that were once Trump will switch to Cruz. I don't think Sanders has a chance.MDM, several of those "winner take all" states are only "winner take all" by district. In other words, not winner take all at all.Yes - details are at the bottom of the RCP link.
And those several add up to more than half of the "winner take all" delegates left.
Gut feel says the press is over-hyping the chances of Sanders and Cruz to catch Clinton and Trump, simply to increase viewers and ad revenue.
Wanted to see if Cruz had a mathematical way to reach 1237 with the "winner take all" states alone - he doesn't. If Trump is able to sweep the WTA states (even if he doesn't get 100% of he district delegates), it seems likely that the delegates he adds in the proportional states will be more than enough to reach 1237.
Time will tell....
So... Paul Ryan just declared that "I do not want, nor will I accept the nomination (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/12/paul-ryan-i-do-not-want-nor-will-i-accept-the-nomination.html)" in the case of a contested convention.
Isn't this exactly what happened before he became Speaker?
On the topic of Mr. Ted Cruz, here's what Boehner had to say this week:
“Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/
There seems to be remarkable consistency in opinion among the people who know him.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/
When it came to the Democrat primaries, Boehner asserted his belief that although Bernie Sanders has put up a significant fight, Hillary Clinton will win the nomination over Bernie Sanders. While stating that he disagreed with Sanders on all the issues, the former Speaker also called Sanders a nice guy and the most honest politician in the race.
On Clinton, Boehner’s reviews were more mixed. Early in the talk, the speaker impersonated Clinton, saying “Oh I’m a woman, vote for me,” to a negative crowd reaction. Later, he added that he had known Clinton for 25 years and finds her to be very accomplished and smart.
Boehner also speculated about surprises that could come closer to the Democratic National Convention if Hillary Clinton’s emails became a larger scandal.
“Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen,” Boehner said.
Biden was polling better than Sanders without even running, up until he told everyone there was no chance he would runhttp://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-talks-election-time-in-office/
From the same article:QuoteWhen it came to the Democrat primaries, Boehner asserted his belief that although Bernie Sanders has put up a significant fight, Hillary Clinton will win the nomination over Bernie Sanders. While stating that he disagreed with Sanders on all the issues, the former Speaker also called Sanders a nice guy and the most honest politician in the race.
On Clinton, Boehner’s reviews were more mixed. Early in the talk, the speaker impersonated Clinton, saying “Oh I’m a woman, vote for me,” to a negative crowd reaction. Later, he added that he had known Clinton for 25 years and finds her to be very accomplished and smart.
Boehner also speculated about surprises that could come closer to the Democratic National Convention if Hillary Clinton’s emails became a larger scandal.
“Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen,” Boehner said.
The fact that an insider like Boehner thinks that possibility is reasonably likely is interesting indeed.
It seems to me, though, that (despite how popular Biden allegedly is?) it would backfire by royally pissing off not only the minority of Clinton supporters who actually really like her (as oppose to liking whoever the Democrat establishment candidate is), but also the much larger majority of Sanders supporters (who, at least in part, are driven by their disgust for establishment politics and exactly those sorts of shenanigans).
Biden was polling better than Sanders without even running, up until he told everyone there was no chance he would run
So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.
Based on http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html it appears Trump will have enough delegates (3 more than the minimum needed) if he sweeps the winner-take-all primaries. This does not include any of the other remaining state primaries.
(http://s28.postimg.cc/k0jc4fy8d/screenshot_103.png)
So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.
So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.
So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.
Well - the one thing it does is (presumably) take Fiorina out of contention for being Trump's VP.
The list of well-known, conservative women candidates that Trump can draw from is already pretty small.
Polling indicates most women oppose him. Without Fiorina he's going to have to try another way of drawing more women to him.
Meg Whitman anyone?
Yup, he's a winner. He did great with women, minorities love him - they're begging for him to secure the boarders, he has lovely hands, he's very successful - tremendously successful, he's perfected the art of the deal and he will renegotiate every bad deal (including the ones we don't even have). I know because he keeps telling me so.So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.
Well - the one thing it does is (presumably) take Fiorina out of contention for being Trump's VP.
The list of well-known, conservative women candidates that Trump can draw from is already pretty small.
Polling indicates most women oppose him. Without Fiorina he's going to have to try another way of drawing more women to him.
Meg Whitman anyone?
Trump's already great with women. I heard him say so.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/the-most-creative-descriptions-of-ted-cruz-so-far/"with 'friends' like these, who needs...."
So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.
By chaining herself to the boat anchor that is the Cruz campaign, Carly one again proves herself to be the Queen of the Dumbasses. I guess she was worried that people were starting to forget how fucking incompetently she ran HP, so she had to shore up her stupidity quotient.
So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.
By chaining herself to the boat anchor that is the Cruz campaign, Carly one again proves herself to be the Queen of the Dumbasses. I guess she was worried that people were starting to forget how fucking incompetently she ran HP, so she had to shore up her stupidity quotient.
Well, there is one group that won't forget that, and won't support her candidacy in any sense:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-02-04/hewlett-packard-employees-arent-donating-to-carly-fiorinas-campaign
Trevor Noah made a good quip that joining Cruz's campaign at this point is like landing a job at Blockbuster in 2012.
So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.
Well - the one thing it does is (presumably) take Fiorina out of contention for being Trump's VP.
The list of well-known, conservative women candidates that Trump can draw from is already pretty small.
Polling indicates most women oppose him. Without Fiorina he's going to have to try another way of drawing more women to him.
Meg Whitman anyone?
So...who wants to wade into the issue of Cruz picking Fiorina as his V.P.? Sounds like a real loser team to me.Seems irrelevant, given Trump's delegate count.
Well - the one thing it does is (presumably) take Fiorina out of contention for being Trump's VP.
The list of well-known, conservative women candidates that Trump can draw from is already pretty small.
Polling indicates most women oppose him. Without Fiorina he's going to have to try another way of drawing more women to him.
Meg Whitman anyone?
And exactly why must Trump pick a woman as his running mate? If I recall, beginning with Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, every presidential candidate who chose a woman for a running mate has lost.
Where did I say that Trump must pick a woman? I tend to think he won't. However, by picking Fiorina, Cruz prevents Trump from doing the same.
Trump is smart enough to know he has to improve his standing among women to win the popular vote - one option that might have helped that is now gone.
This "Core demographic" you speak of, is not going to vote for Hillary just because Trump chooses a female running mate. They hate Hillary. Politicians generally start moving towards the center of the political spectrum after they win their respective nominations as it is proven to give them the best chance. People very far right are not going to vote for Hillary regardless, so moving towards the center won't lose their vote, only have the chance to gain the vote of more centrist voters. The same is true for Hillary, she can move towards the center without worry of losing her left voters, as they would never vote for Trump.
Where did I say that Trump must pick a woman? I tend to think he won't. However, by picking Fiorina, Cruz prevents Trump from doing the same.
Trump is smart enough to know he has to improve his standing among women to win the popular vote - one option that might have helped that is now gone.
Trump moving to secure more votes from women might not be in his favor. It would make him seem compromising to his core voters. Picking a female running candidate MAY gain Trump a few votes from women who weren't already planning to vote for him, but it likely would have been offset by a larger loss from his core demographic which prefers a male authority unhampered by compromise.
More likely, the plan from the start with Trump is to pair off with someone just as uncompromising as himself and just as outside the field of the typical political brash. The people who want to vote for Trump want to vote for him because he doesn't bend to the standard political system, so his running mate will need to be someone that signals, "This isn't an anchor on Trump." I'm holding out hope for Vince McMahon so the State of the Union Address can be at Wrestlemania 31.
This "Core demographic" you speak of, is not going to vote for Hillary just because Trump chooses a female running mate. They hate Hillary. Politicians generally start moving towards the center of the political spectrum after they win their respective nominations as it is proven to give them the best chance. People very far right are not going to vote for Hillary regardless, so moving towards the center won't lose their vote, only have the chance to gain the vote of more centrist voters. The same is true for Hillary, she can move towards the center without worry of losing her left voters, as they would never vote for Trump.
If? She already got the nominationThis "Core demographic" you speak of, is not going to vote for Hillary just because Trump chooses a female running mate. They hate Hillary. Politicians generally start moving towards the center of the political spectrum after they win their respective nominations as it is proven to give them the best chance. People very far right are not going to vote for Hillary regardless, so moving towards the center won't lose their vote, only have the chance to gain the vote of more centrist voters. The same is true for Hillary, she can move towards the center without worry of losing her left voters, as they would never vote for Trump.
... so you're predicting HRC is going to move left if she clinches the nomination? ;).
If we're going to play the semantics game, no she doesn't. Neither does DJT. That doesn't happen until July. It doesn't appear that either will loose the delegate count, but there's always a remote chance they could disqualify themselves... commit a felony, that sort of thing.If? She already got the nominationThis "Core demographic" you speak of, is not going to vote for Hillary just because Trump chooses a female running mate. They hate Hillary. Politicians generally start moving towards the center of the political spectrum after they win their respective nominations as it is proven to give them the best chance. People very far right are not going to vote for Hillary regardless, so moving towards the center won't lose their vote, only have the chance to gain the vote of more centrist voters. The same is true for Hillary, she can move towards the center without worry of losing her left voters, as they would never vote for Trump.
... so you're predicting HRC is going to move left if she clinches the nomination? ;).
Well - that's half the ticket for the bet between arebelsply and myself...
Parallel question: Who do you think Ted Cruz dislikes more - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
Well - that's half the ticket for the bet between arebelsply and myself...
Parallel question: Who do you think Ted Cruz dislikes more - Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
It doesn't matter, he wants to run again in 2020 after he sheds his current skin and grows a new improved model. If he ties himself to Trump, he might go down with the ship. I expect him to retreat to the shadows and "focus on the Senate".
If? She already got the nomination
Sure, but the nomination process for Democrats is proportional in most cases, which is why Bernie is so far behind in the delegate count. He's won several states by narrow margins, and a few small states by large margins, but is way behind in the popular vote (12.4MM to 9.3MM). Clinton has won 21 states to Sander's 15.If? She already got the nomination
I feel compelled to point out that Sanders won Indiana. For somebody who's allegedly already won, Hillary Clinton sure does lose a lot!
Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html
Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations. Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military.
But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency. Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.
Sure, but the nomination process for Democrats is proportional in most cases, which is why Bernie is so far behind in the delegate count. He's won several states by narrow margins, and a few small states by large margins, but is way behind in the popular vote (12.4MM to 9.3MM). Clinton has won 21 states to Sander's 15.If? She already got the nomination
I feel compelled to point out that Sanders won Indiana. For somebody who's allegedly already won, Hillary Clinton sure does lose a lot!
Mathematically Sanders certainly isn't out of the delegate count, but Clinton needs just ~180 more delegates out of over 1,100 remaining. Sanders will need 80%+ of the vote in the remaining states. Even if Clinton recieves just 45% of the remaining votes she will receive enough pledged delegates (i.e. excluding all the super-delegates).
Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html
I called it last June. My friends thought I was crazy.
I'm ….
proud?
(Ugh)
Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations. Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military.
But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency. Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.
All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy
Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations. Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military.
But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency. Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.
All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy
He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation. Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no. The Presidency does have a lot of other powers. He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions. As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.
I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations. I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.
Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations. Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military.
But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency. Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.
All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy
He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation. Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no. The Presidency does have a lot of other powers. He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions. As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.
I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations. I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.
Let's also not forget that a President can deploy troops and order the military to drop bombs, conduct drone strikes, etc without the consent of congress for 90 days under the war powers resolution. The president can also unilaterally issue executive orders altering the functioning of all levels of the federal beauorocracy. The President determines which diplomats to send, and if/when to meet with foreign heads of state.
Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations. Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military.
But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency. Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.
All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy
He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation. Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no. The Presidency does have a lot of other powers. He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions. As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.
I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations. I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.
That's a bit of a bizarre distinction - Trump hasn't voted for anything, ever in a governmental capacity. But he has talked about building a wall, rounding up 11MM undocumented immigrants, starting a forced registry of Muslims, closing mosques, bombing the crap out of the Islamic state, initiating a trade war with China, etc. etc.Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations. Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military.
But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency. Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.
All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy
He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation. Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no. The Presidency does have a lot of other powers. He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions. As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.
I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations. I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.
Let's also not forget that a President can deploy troops and order the military to drop bombs, conduct drone strikes, etc without the consent of congress for 90 days under the war powers resolution. The president can also unilaterally issue executive orders altering the functioning of all levels of the federal beauorocracy. The President determines which diplomats to send, and if/when to meet with foreign heads of state.
And this is why Hillary is the poor choice. She has actually voted in favor of wars. Trump hasn't done that yet.
That's a bit of a bizarre distinction - Trump hasn't voted for anything, ever in a governmental capacity. But he has talked about building a wall, rounding up 11MM undocumented immigrants, starting a forced registry of Muslims, closing mosques, bombing the crap out of the Islamic state, initiating a trade war with China, etc. etc.Well, I'm rather floored that the GOP has been able to stoop lower than even my low expectations. Though they set the stage for Trump over the past election cycles, demonizing government in general; making veiled pronouncements against women, minorities, and gays; and talking up an unworkable plan to cut taxes but increase government services and the military.
But let's be clear here -- there's a level of gullibility, if not outright stupidity if you think Trump could actually handle the presidency. Kinda makes me feel that we've reached the tipping point into Idiotacracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
where the ignorant people our out breeding the intelligent ones and, well, here's the result.
All presidential candidates have completely unworkable plans and promises that they cant actually get through the system. It wont be Donald Trump single-handely running the country and making decisions... Honestly not much will probably change at all and then if no one likes him in 4 years then he will just be voted out and become a distant blip in the US history books so I don't really think this is that big of deal... This is not the start of Idiocracy
He could easily inflict significant damage on the country and its reputation. Will he be able to get Muslim registration or even his 100 foot border wall through...no. The Presidency does have a lot of other powers. He can insult his way through the international community, damaging relationships with close allies, bandying threats around that can be taken as serious, raising international tensions. As CinC, he can engage I limited military options that are unwise, and while the military will not obey orders to wantonly kill innocent civilians like he has proposed, there is little they can do to stop other misadventures.
I do not like Hillary for a variety of reasons, but in the grand scheme of things, she is smart, capable, and well versed in international relations. I do not think she will make many gaffes or get us involved in pointless wars.
Let's also not forget that a President can deploy troops and order the military to drop bombs, conduct drone strikes, etc without the consent of congress for 90 days under the war powers resolution. The president can also unilaterally issue executive orders altering the functioning of all levels of the federal beauorocracy. The President determines which diplomats to send, and if/when to meet with foreign heads of state.
And this is why Hillary is the poor choice. She has actually voted in favor of wars. Trump hasn't done that yet.
I really would not your reasoning for that.Sure, but the nomination process for Democrats is proportional in most cases, which is why Bernie is so far behind in the delegate count. He's won several states by narrow margins, and a few small states by large margins, but is way behind in the popular vote (12.4MM to 9.3MM). Clinton has won 21 states to Sander's 15.If? She already got the nomination
I feel compelled to point out that Sanders won Indiana. For somebody who's allegedly already won, Hillary Clinton sure does lose a lot!
Mathematically Sanders certainly isn't out of the delegate count, but Clinton needs just ~180 more delegates out of over 1,100 remaining. Sanders will need 80%+ of the vote in the remaining states. Even if Clinton recieves just 45% of the remaining votes she will receive enough pledged delegates (i.e. excluding all the super-delegates).
Interestingly, based on voting results, Sanders has always had a better shot at the nomination than Cruz or anyone else on the GOP side, yet the media always treated the GOP side as though it was really close. Trump's lead over Cruz was 3 times as large (adjusted for the number of delegates on each side).
It's a long shot for Sanders now. But that 12 million to 9 million votes thing is highly misleading. It counts caucus votes (which always have much lower turnout) as equal to primary votes (which are much easier to get). Delegate counts are the more accurate measure. And Clinton is winning there. But neither candidate will get enough for a majority based on pledged delegates. The superdelegates will decide the nomination, which is a really stupid system for a lot of reasons.
The open question at this point is will Clinton be indicted before the convention? If she were just an average citizen she would definitely be indicted (you don't have a dozen FBI agents investigating you without getting indicted). But maybe she gets out of it because she is powerful. Comey (who is a Republican) could also delay until after the convention for an indictment to really screw the Democrats. I don't have any idea whether she's actually guilty of anything--but it's much easier to get an indictment than to actually get a conviction.Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html
I called it last June. My friends thought I was crazy.
I'm ….
proud?
(Ugh)
I don't remember if I predicted it. But I did say on this forum that he was the best choice on that side. I have mixed feelings about Kasich, but he's the only other option that wouldn't necessarily be a disaster. I think Trump could easily be a disaster, but he could also be not so terrible. You really have no idea what he's going to do.
I think he has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. A really good shot. Sanders would crush him. But Clinton is very vulnerable.
Sanders has won like half the states, half of the lowest population lowest delegate states. He also has lost the nomination.If? She already got the nomination
I feel compelled to point out that Sanders won Indiana. For somebody who's allegedly already won, Hillary Clinton sure does lose a lot!
I think he has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. A really good shot. Sanders would crush him. But Clinton is very vulnerable.I really would not your reasoning for that.
For those of you saying Trump will be president, you are delusional. Clinton is far more likely to be president, so at best you can say Trump has a small chance of being president.
Before getting into Swing States, Clinton already has an advantage because the "democratic states" provide 217 electoral votes whereas the "republican states" provide only 191.
Of the Swing states, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and New Hampshire, Trump is only expected to win North Carolina, and Florida is a toss up. That means Clinton is expected to win 9.5 out of 11 swing states, on top of already being ahead in electoral votes from non-swing states. Trump is very likely to lose.
Drumpf is the underdog. For now. I think it's more likely that he won't be president. But a lot can happen between now and then. Especially if he's facing Clinton. People really hate her and won't change their minds on that. And she has potential scandals that could really tip the election. And Drumpf has been fantastic so far at elevating himself and demoting others. It's far from a sure thing.
QuoteI think he has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. A really good shot. Sanders would crush him. But Clinton is very vulnerable.I really would not your reasoning for that.
Generally Sanders tied against Kasich, although Kasich never had much of a chance of getting Repub nom, sort of like how Sanders doesn't have a chance to get dem nom nowQuoteI think he has a legitimate shot at beating Clinton. A really good shot. Sanders would crush him. But Clinton is very vulnerable.I really would not your reasoning for that.
That's what all poll results have shown in pitting Sanders v. any of the Republicans, he beats them hands down (much easier than Clinton, who also beats them, but it's closer).
Sure lots of people don't like Clinton... But about 10% more people don't like Trump.For those of you saying Trump will be president, you are delusional. Clinton is far more likely to be president, so at best you can say Trump has a small chance of being president.
Before getting into Swing States, Clinton already has an advantage because the "democratic states" provide 217 electoral votes whereas the "republican states" provide only 191.
Of the Swing states, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and New Hampshire, Trump is only expected to win North Carolina, and Florida is a toss up. That means Clinton is expected to win 9.5 out of 11 swing states, on top of already being ahead in electoral votes from non-swing states. Trump is very likely to lose.
Trump is the underdog. For now. I think it's more likely that he won't be president. But a lot can happen between now and then. Especially if he's facing Clinton. People really hate her and won't change their minds on that. And she has potential scandals that could really tip the election. And Trump has been fantastic so far at elevating himself and demoting others. It's far from a sure thing.
Isn't it amazing that a months-long primary process that started with twenty candidates and cost billions of dollars ended up with two nominees: the two most unlikeable ones, with the most unfavorable numbers from the opposite parties. Polarization!
I don't know if Trump will be "crushed", but I don't see him winning. Possible? Of course.
GWB had wide appeal among the Republican party, if I recall. Trump does not. He has a ton of support from angry blue collar men. They're very loud and generate a lot of headlines, but I don't think that translates to a general win. There aren't enough of them in the states needed. The electoral college demographics are not great for Trump.
The electoral map is shaping up. I'm still predicting an easy Clinton victory.
Kanye would point out that Trump is set to have the most votes for any Republican primary candidate OF ALL TIME.a much larger percentage of people will turn out for the general election, and so many of them dislike Trump. I don't think it matters if he had good primary turnout.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelve-thirty-seven/2016/04/donald-trump-popular-vote-record-222510 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelve-thirty-seven/2016/04/donald-trump-popular-vote-record-222510)
(Now, granted, the population is larger now... but the thought is also that we have more apathy now, and lower voter participation, so it's still significant. He got more than Romney or McCain, and they were relatively recent--i.e. larger population as well.)
a much larger percentage of people will turn out for the general election, and so many of them dislike Trump. I don't think it matters if he had good primary turnout.
One thing I will say with conviction: Clinton appears to have lucked out this cycle in terms of GOP opponents. She's disliked, and as establishment as they come. Almost any decent, centrist GOP ticket could have had a fair shot at her. But instead, the nuttiest of the GOP nutballs made it to the finals...and Trump's barely contained misogyny and bigotry will likely play in Clinton's favor.
Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html
If Trump does become the President I might go back and rewatch all the Simpsons episodes and see if I can learn anything else from there...
If Trump does become the President I might go back and rewatch all the Simpsons episodes and see if I can learn anything else from there...
Or, you could also come to Canada :-)
If Trump does become the President I might go back and rewatch all the Simpsons episodes and see if I can learn anything else from there...
Or, you could also come to Canada :-)
Oh yes, because we haven't had our fair share of whack-jobs and ass-hats in high political offices here in Canada over the years....
The electoral map is shaping up. I'm still predicting an easy Clinton victory.
Generally speaking, most states will vote in a predictable red/blue pattern. The Republicans will carry most of the south (191 votes), the Democrats will carry most of the coasts (237 votes). In between are nine battle ground states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Together they total 110 electoral votes.
To reach the required 270 votes for the Presidency, they will fight for those last 110 votes.
Clinton needs to find 33 more votes out of those 110. If she wins Florida's 29 votes, then winning ANY other state on the battleground list clinches the election for her. Basically, Florida is a must-win for Trump.
If Clinton loses Florida but wins Ohio's 18, she can still clinch it with just North Carolina or two of the remaining 7 battleground states, say Colorado and Iowa or Virginia and New Hampshire. Basically, Ohio is also a must-win for Trump.
So what happens if Trump wins both Ohio AND Florida on election day? Suddenly Clinton has a race on her hands. In that case, she has to either win Virginia's 13 votes and get a little lucky elsewhere, or lose FL/OH/VA but take all the rest (Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Nevada, and Wisconsin).
Of the nine battle ground states, only one (North Carolina in 2012) has voted Republican in the past two election cycles.
edit: Clinton is currently leading Trump by 5% in Florida (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html), 3.5% in Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html), and 13% in Virginia (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html). Trump has to turn all three of those around to have any reasonable chance of being President.
If Trump does become the President I might go back and rewatch all the Simpsons episodes and see if I can learn anything else from there...
Or, you could also come to Canada :-)
Oh yes, because we haven't had our fair share of whack-jobs and ass-hats in high political offices here in Canada over the years....
I'm not sure that we've had anything on the scale of unpalatable menu choice currently available in the US. That would be an unfair comparison.
If Trump does become the President I might go back and rewatch all the Simpsons episodes and see if I can learn anything else from there...
Or, you could also come to Canada :-)
Oh yes, because we haven't had our fair share of whack-jobs and ass-hats in high political offices here in Canada over the years....
I'm not sure that we've had anything on the scale of unpalatable menu choice currently available in the US. That would be an unfair comparison.
To each their own, I suppose. I'm guessing from your name you are in Ottawa. I'm in Quebec...
The electoral map is shaping up. I'm still predicting an easy Clinton victory.
I just hope Trump kind of gets bored if he wins and messes around with a new casino build or something and lets his advisors run the country.
Or maybe he will visit the ISS for a few years. That would be huge.
The trip wouldn't be too difficult. He's full of hot air and his head is already in the clouds.
The electoral map is shaping up. I'm still predicting an easy Clinton victory.
I think it's most likely that Clinton will win, and that it won't be close. But I don't think it's 95% likely. People have been overestimating her appeal for years. And underestimating his the whole cycle.
Tally up -- who called Trump as the GOP nominee?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out/index.html
Well, Scott Adams, the comic who created Dilbert called not only Trump as the GOP nominee, but also continues to say that Trump will win the election in a landslide.
Interestingly, he has publicly documented his predictions along the way in detail. In a nutshell, his predictions are based on how well Trump plays in the 3rd dimension as a persuasion artist. Well worth digging through the archives, and keeping up to date with his posts. He believes HRC will be absolutely destroyed. I have to say, I do buy in to what he is saying....
I enjoyed his recent post "Clinton Versus Trump" http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143789982926/clinton-versus-trump-persuasion-scores (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143789982926/clinton-versus-trump-persuasion-scores)
Perhaps it is now lower...according to the bookies who are effectively metadata compilers.
See presidential odds chart: https://electionbettingodds.com/WIN_chart_maxim_lott_john_stossel.html (https://electionbettingodds.com/WIN_chart_maxim_lott_john_stossel.html)
In summary - In the last week Clinton has gone from 74.4% to 70.2% probability of claiming the presidency whereas Trump has gone from 18.4% to 26.5%
The general hasn't really started. This is far from settled. Trump has a really decent chance at being elected.
If Trump does become the President I might go back and rewatch all the Simpsons episodes and see if I can learn anything else from there...
Or, you could also come to Canada :-)
Oh yes, because we haven't had our fair share of whack-jobs and ass-hats in high political offices here in Canada over the years....
I'm not sure that we've had anything on the scale of unpalatable menu choice currently available in the US. That would be an unfair comparison.
To each their own, I suppose. I'm guessing from your name you are in Ottawa. I'm in Quebec...
Well, yes. I'm thinking Federal politics. Obviously there are Ontario/Quebec and big city politics that run rife with examples of dumb-assity.
Secret Service Trainer: Your job is to protect the United States by protecting the President from all possible threats.hahaha, that's funny
Trainee: Wait, which one do you want us to do?
haha - it's not just limited to one former mayor of Toronto. The xenophobic proposed policies that have been floated around Quebec really don't seem much different to me than some of the language from the latest presidential campaign.If Trump does become the President I might go back and rewatch all the Simpsons episodes and see if I can learn anything else from there...
Or, you could also come to Canada :-)
Oh yes, because we haven't had our fair share of whack-jobs and ass-hats in high political offices here in Canada over the years....
I'm not sure that we've had anything on the scale of unpalatable menu choice currently available in the US. That would be an unfair comparison.
To each their own, I suppose. I'm guessing from your name you are in Ottawa. I'm in Quebec...
Well, yes. I'm thinking Federal politics. Obviously there are Ontario/Quebec and big city politics that run rife with examples of dumb-assity.
Dammit! We're sorry OK? Toronto officially apologizes!
The general hasn't really started. This is far from settled. Trump has a really decent chance at being elected.
You can quote me in November - no figgin' way.
As everyone can see, I am Canadian. I have to say, this is a little scary. I think Trump has a real chance of winning.
The other choice is looking like it will be Hillary. That is just about as scary. Good luck down there...
As everyone can see, I am Canadian. I have to say, this is a little scary. I think Trump has a real chance of winning.Why do you find Hillary to be "just about as scary" as Trump?
The other choice is looking like it will be Hillary. That is just about as scary. Good luck down there...
That's where the rubber meets the road--if you think there's very little chance, what odds would you put on it, such that you'd still be willing to place money on it?
Makes it much more likely to have to truly evaluate the chances.
That's an interesting question.
I actually think she's worse on some issues. Or could be (since it's hard to know what Trump is actually for). Like military action. She's overly hawkish and wants to be "more muscular" than Obama has been. But I think Trump will be more isolationist in practice and just talk about being strong. And, if he wanted to, Trump could get actual change made to the election financing system. He's said he wants to change it. No way Clinton does anything meaningful there. She's been pretty explicit about that.As everyone can see, I am Canadian. I have to say, this is a little scary. I think Trump has a real chance of winning.Why do you find Hillary to be "just about as scary" as Trump?
The other choice is looking like it will be Hillary. That is just about as scary. Good luck down there...
She lost to a black guy with a "terrorist sounding" and hard to pronounce name. And she had the biggest political machine powering her. This time she almost lost to a frumpy guy from a tiny state who openly calls himself something that contains the word "socialist" in it who refused to take money from all the places you normally get money. And if his campaign was better organized, I think she would have actually lost to him again. And she has the biggest political machine this time too.I don't think that's a fair assessment. Obama was one of the most charismatic candidates in a generation and a great orator. People who have never set foot on US soil were following the 2008 election because of him.
Obama was one of the most charismatic candidates in a generation and a great orator. People who have never set foot on US soil were following the 2008 election because of him.
She lost to a black guy with a "terrorist sounding" and hard to pronounce name. And she had the biggest political machine powering her. This time she almost lost to a frumpy guy from a tiny state who openly calls himself something that contains the word "socialist" in it who refused to take money from all the places you normally get money. And if his campaign was better organized, I think she would have actually lost to him again. And she has the biggest political machine this time too.I don't think that's a fair assessment. Obama was one of the most charismatic candidates in a generation and a great orator. People who have never set foot on US soil were following the 2008 election because of him.
Sanders is a one-issue candidate in the right place at the right time.
There are both formidable opponents.
I actually think she's worse on some issues. Or could be (since it's hard to know what Trump is actually for). Like military action. She's overly hawkish and wants to be "more muscular" than Obama has been. But I think Trump will be more isolationist in practice and just talk about being strong. And, if he wanted to, Trump could get actual change made to the election financing system. He's said he wants to change it. No way Clinton does anything meaningful there. She's been pretty explicit about that.As everyone can see, I am Canadian. I have to say, this is a little scary. I think Trump has a real chance of winning.Why do you find Hillary to be "just about as scary" as Trump?
The other choice is looking like it will be Hillary. That is just about as scary. Good luck down there...
But who knows.
“I will...quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us.”
I would bomb the s— out of 'em [ISIS}. I would just bomb those suckers. That's right. I'd blow up the pipes. … I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.
I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields [in Iraq]
There's no one bigger or better on the military than me
(speaking in the 3rd person) Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on
(on a forced national registry of Muslims) I would certainly implement that — absolutely... They have to be (registered). They have to be.
(on whether he would use tactical nuclear weapons on ISIS) I’m never going to rule anything out
(on nuclear proliferation) If South Korea and Japan were to acquire their own nuclear deterrents, that would send an incredibly dangerous signal to our allies in the Middle East
That's where the rubber meets the road--if you think there's very little chance, what odds would you put on it, such that you'd still be willing to place money on it?I think Hillary has about an 80% chance and Trump about a 20% chance, but wouldn't take worse than 1 to 3 odds.
Makes it much more likely to have to truly evaluate the chances.
That's an interesting question.
Her campaign message is also wrong. She's saying, essentially, "America is already great, let's keep it pretty much just the way it is". The "America is already great" is actually a quote.
He's saying that we used to be great and we need to be great again. That really resonates with a lot of people.
It's really hard to run on "don't change anything" when so many people are unhappy with the way things are.
Nereo: we Mustachians, with our optimism guns and low information diet know it's great. Many people though think the past was better, times are bad now, the world is scary/dangerous. They don't like the status quo, and think fondly on an idyllic past (that didn't really exist). That was forummm's point, look at how those messages play to that type of person.
Nereo: we Mustachians, with our optimism guns and low information diet know it's great. Many people though think the past was better, times are bad now, the world is scary/dangerous. They don't like the status quo, and think fondly on an idyllic past (that didn't really exist). That was forummm's point, look at how those messages play to that type of person.
How do you explain decreasing life expectancy for white middles class people in this country? If things are undeniably as good/better why does this fact exist? Does job security for the average person affect quality of life? That is undeniably worse now than it was decades ago. Pure nay saying the present is a foolish and incorrect proposition. Doing the opposite is the same.
they concluded that rising annual death rates among this group are being driven not by the big killers like heart disease and diabetes but by an epidemic of suicides and afflictions stemming from substance abuse: alcoholic liver disease and overdoses of heroin and prescription opioids.
Nereo: we Mustachians, with our optimism guns and low information diet know it's great. Many people though think the past was better, times are bad now, the world is scary/dangerous. They don't like the status quo, and think fondly on an idyllic past (that didn't really exist). That was forummm's point, look at how those messages play to that type of person.
How do you explain decreasing life expectancy for white middles class people in this country? If things are undeniably as good/better why does this fact exist? Does job security for the average person affect quality of life? That is undeniably worse now than it was decades ago. Pure nay saying the present is a foolish and incorrect proposition. Doing the opposite is the same.
Economics and Trump -- interesting read: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
I actually think she's worse on some issues. Or could be (since it's hard to know what Trump is actually for). Like military action. She's overly hawkish and wants to be "more muscular" than Obama has been. But I think Trump will be more isolationist in practice and just talk about being strong. And, if he wanted to, Trump could get actual change made to the election financing system. He's said he wants to change it. No way Clinton does anything meaningful there. She's been pretty explicit about that.As everyone can see, I am Canadian. I have to say, this is a little scary. I think Trump has a real chance of winning.Why do you find Hillary to be "just about as scary" as Trump?
The other choice is looking like it will be Hillary. That is just about as scary. Good luck down there...
But who knows.
Well I'll agree with your statement of "But who knows". Otherwise, I see Trump's rhetoric as being more hawkish than Clinton's.
(for example)
What I find worrisome is numerous uber-hawkish Trump statements like this:Quote“I will...quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us.”QuoteI would bomb the s— out of 'em [ISIS}. I would just bomb those suckers. That's right. I'd blow up the pipes. … I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.QuoteI would bomb the hell out of those oil fields [in Iraq]QuoteThere's no one bigger or better on the military than meQuote(speaking in the 3rd person) Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going onQuote(on a forced national registry of Muslims) I would certainly implement that — absolutely... They have to be (registered). They have to be.Quote(on whether he would use tactical nuclear weapons on ISIS) I’m never going to rule anything outQuote(on nuclear proliferation) If South Korea and Japan were to acquire their own nuclear deterrents, that would send an incredibly dangerous signal to our allies in the Middle East
Economics and Trump -- interesting read: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
I sort of have a plan. I am going to buy some December call options on a few big biotech stocks, which are very down right now because it looks like Hillary will win (and she is more feared by bio investors).
Why is Hillary Clinton more feared by bio investors than Donald Trump?Perhaps because Trump hasn't aired any ads similar to http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/hillary-clinton-valeant/ ?
Ah - that might explain it. I had not seen that ad (or most of the attack ads, given my lack of television)Why is Hillary Clinton more feared by bio investors than Donald Trump?Perhaps because Trump hasn't aired any ads similar to http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/hillary-clinton-valeant/ ?
Nereo: we Mustachians, with our optimism guns and low information diet know it's great. Many people though think the past was better, times are bad now, the world is scary/dangerous. They don't like the status quo, and think fondly on an idyllic past (that didn't really exist). That was forummm's point, look at how those messages play to that type of person.
How do you explain decreasing life expectancy for white middles class people in this country? If things are undeniably as good/better why does this fact exist? Does job security for the average person affect quality of life? That is undeniably worse now than it was decades ago. Pure nay saying the present is a foolish and incorrect proposition. Doing the opposite is the same.
GuitarStv beat me to the first point
Regarding the comment about job security - I'm unaware of it being "undeniably worse now" - can you provide a source? I've looked but can't find much hard data that isn't confounded by a worker's choice to seek out a new job (a benefit).
My intention wasn't to say that everything is undeniably better today than it was in the future. That's why I led with those two quotes about stagnant wages vs. highest median earnings.
She had one tweet last year about how drug prices were too high (and no mention of doing anything about it) and the entire sector dropped I want to say 5-10% that day and option prices went way up.Ah - that might explain it. I had not seen that ad (or most of the attack ads, given my lack of television)Why is Hillary Clinton more feared by bio investors than Donald Trump?Perhaps because Trump hasn't aired any ads similar to http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/hillary-clinton-valeant/ ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/donald-trumps-idea-to-cut-national-debt-get-creditors-to-accept-less.html
Now here's where Trump could be really dangerous. It's amazing how dumb he is about some things. Offering to pay back holders of Treasuries at a discount? Doesn't he know the economy is based on the rock solid guarantee that a Treasury is as good as cash? And that we borrow an insane amount that needs to be continually refinanced? A lot of politicians don't seem to understand that higher interest rates are not really a problem for the debt (because we can just keep printing more money like we are now), but it's irritating to hear him repeating that uninformed notion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/politics/-donald-trump-classified-intelligence-briefing.html?_r=0
If Trump havi access to classified information doesn't scare you, nothing will.
Yeah, I think Trump was the least bad option on that side. But you don't know what he's going to be like.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/politics/-donald-trump-classified-intelligence-briefing.html?_r=0
If Trump havi access to classified information doesn't scare you, nothing will.
Does anyone here not think that Trump is a genius at using rhetoric to gain support? Do not most realize that he says what will get him votes? He was a pretty liberal man who in the last few years has turned ultra right with many issues (coincidence?) I'm voting for Hillary but I am not afraid of Trump like I am Cruz. Trump would take over and there would be not many changes. He may build more walls on the border and verbally bully other countries (Might be a breath of fresh air) but I think many would be surprised with the restraint he would show in terms of not using the military anywhere close to as much as W did.
I would of preferred Kasich or Rubio, if you go back far enough I'd definitely prefer Rand Paul most. Heck, I even would of preferred Cruz. Of all candidates (of the 24 or so that went for pres), my least 5 favorites were,Yeah, I think Trump was the least bad option on that side. But you don't know what he's going to be like.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/politics/-donald-trump-classified-intelligence-briefing.html?_r=0
If Trump havi access to classified information doesn't scare you, nothing will.
Does anyone here not think that Trump is a genius at using rhetoric to gain support? Do not most realize that he says what will get him votes? He was a pretty liberal man who in the last few years has turned ultra right with many issues (coincidence?) I'm voting for Hillary but I am not afraid of Trump like I am Cruz. Trump would take over and there would be not many changes. He may build more walls on the border and verbally bully other countries (Might be a breath of fresh air) but I think many would be surprised with the restraint he would show in terms of not using the military anywhere close to as much as W did.
So this to tell trump to shut up?Yeah, I think Trump was the least bad option on that side. But you don't know what he's going to be like.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/politics/-donald-trump-classified-intelligence-briefing.html?_r=0
If Trump havi access to classified information doesn't scare you, nothing will.
Does anyone here not think that Trump is a genius at using rhetoric to gain support? Do not most realize that he says what will get him votes? He was a pretty liberal man who in the last few years has turned ultra right with many issues (coincidence?) I'm voting for Hillary but I am not afraid of Trump like I am Cruz. Trump would take over and there would be not many changes. He may build more walls on the border and verbally bully other countries (Might be a breath of fresh air) but I think many would be surprised with the restraint he would show in terms of not using the military anywhere close to as much as W did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/politics/-donald-trump-classified-intelligence-briefing.html?_r=0
If Trump havi access to classified information doesn't scare you, nothing will.
Does anyone here not think that Trump is a genius at using rhetoric to gain support? Do not most realize that he says what will get him votes? He was a pretty liberal man who in the last few years has turned ultra right with many issues (coincidence?) I'm voting for Hillary but I am not afraid of Trump like I am Cruz. Trump would take over and there would be not many changes. He may build more walls on the border and verbally bully other countries (Might be a breath of fresh air) but I think many would be surprised with the restraint he would show in terms of not using the military anywhere close to as much as W did.
adding to above /\
also Scott Adams is awesome and right. I am hooked on his blog. but then again maybe his blog is just my confirmation bias. But seriously, I could never put my finger on why I think trump will win in november but I think he(adams) nails it.
Yeah, I think Trump was the least bad option on that side. But you don't know what he's going to be like.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/us/politics/-donald-trump-classified-intelligence-briefing.html?_r=0
If Trump havi access to classified information doesn't scare you, nothing will.
Does anyone here not think that Trump is a genius at using rhetoric to gain support? Do not most realize that he says what will get him votes? He was a pretty liberal man who in the last few years has turned ultra right with many issues (coincidence?) I'm voting for Hillary but I am not afraid of Trump like I am Cruz. Trump would take over and there would be not many changes. He may build more walls on the border and verbally bully other countries (Might be a breath of fresh air) but I think many would be surprised with the restraint he would show in terms of not using the military anywhere close to as much as W did.
Actually reading a little deeper into Adam's blog and description of Trump, he is just basically describing in precise detail how sociopaths charm and manipulate people. It's interesting and terrifying all at once. If he is right, Trump has a genius level aptitude for manipulating opinion and behavior, which makes a lot of sense and would be a valuable trait for a high level executive and real estate mogul, but at the same also makes him incredibly dangerous on a level that is hard to contemplate.Didn't Hitler have that same characteristic?
Actually reading a little deeper into Adam's blog and description of Trump, he is just basically describing in precise detail how sociopaths charm and manipulate people. It's interesting and terrifying all at once. If he is right, Trump has a genius level aptitude for manipulating opinion and behavior, which makes a lot of sense and would be a valuable trait for a high level executive and real estate mogul, but at the same also makes him incredibly dangerous on a level that is hard to contemplate.
Actually reading a little deeper into Adam's blog and description of Trump, he is just basically describing in precise detail how sociopaths charm and manipulate people. It's interesting and terrifying all at once. If he is right, Trump has a genius level aptitude for manipulating opinion and behavior, which makes a lot of sense and would be a valuable trait for a high level executive and real estate mogul, but at the same also makes him incredibly dangerous on a level that is hard to contemplate.
And just like that Trump wants to raise taxes on the rich. He's no conservative. He's going to position himself right in the middle to go against Hillary. God I hope Hillary wins because we know where she stands. Going to be a fun few months. If Trump wins it has to be considered the greatest campaigning job of all time. Give him credit. He knows how to play the game.
Hillary almost lost to a Communist.
Yep, Drumpf is moderating all his positions and will continue to do so for the next six months. It's going to be a giant love fest. He could care less about alienating the
On the flip side, Drumpf has already started with "Crooked Hillary". But I do wonder about how effective that tactic will really be, because I think a) this damage has already been inflicted on her. She is already been tarred and feathered this way before and everyone is already generally aware of the scandals related to her. I honestly think she looks her best when being attacked on her reputation. She gained tons of cred during the Benghazi hearings, and I think when people see her standing next to Drumpf during a debate, it is going to play very poorly if he attacks her about that stuff on stage. Now sure, he could just make shit up about her a la "Ted Cruz's father helped kill Lee Harvey Oswald" but that isn't going to give him cred with the independent voter. I actually think he will probably not confront her directly about scandals, but perhaps draw on the chatter about her health to make her look old and weak.
Trump will be 70 this summer, Clinton will be 68 until just before the election. It's a largely meaningless difference but if I were in Clinton's camp I'd put that "70" number into voters' minds every time Trump tries to say Clinton is old and weak. Trump would actually be the oldest president ever elected into office (Clinton would be second behind R. Reagan).
Hopefully Gary Johnson can get enough publicity that he becomes known so that he can have a shot, he will be on the ballot in every state, and is currently polling in double digits against Hillary and Trump, with Hillary at 42%, Trump 34%, Johnson 11%. I think I'd like to see Bloomberg join into this race too, it'd be quite the shit show. Too bad he says he won't, as he fears it'll give the presidency to Trump while not actually having a chance at president himself.
It's not too late to get on the ballot, the Libertarian nominee is already going be on the ballot in every state, and he will be the libertarian nominee.Trump will be 70 this summer, Clinton will be 68 until just before the election. It's a largely meaningless difference but if I were in Clinton's camp I'd put that "70" number into voters' minds every time Trump tries to say Clinton is old and weak. Trump would actually be the oldest president ever elected into office (Clinton would be second behind R. Reagan).
I don't think this is a good idea at all. First, only 2 years difference makes it meaningless so it's really a waste of time. And he looks to be in fine health, so it won't really play. But also, who cares if he dies? I mean seriously--people could feel more comfortable voting for him if they think he might die and then they could get to whoever the VP is. GOPers are much more comfortable with Christie or Kasich or (almost) whoever Trump will select as a running mate. His death would be a feature, not a bug.
It also highlights how old Hillary is, and she's having a ton of trouble getting the youth vote already. Trump doesn't have problems with cross generational appeal.Hopefully Gary Johnson can get enough publicity that he becomes known so that he can have a shot, he will be on the ballot in every state, and is currently polling in double digits against Hillary and Trump, with Hillary at 42%, Trump 34%, Johnson 11%. I think I'd like to see Bloomberg join into this race too, it'd be quite the shit show. Too bad he says he won't, as he fears it'll give the presidency to Trump while not actually having a chance at president himself.
Won't happen, can't happen. Too late to get on the ballot.
It's not too late to get on the ballot, the Libertarian nominee is already going be on the ballot in every state, and he will be the libertarian nominee.
I agree that the two years difference is meaningless - but that's kind of the strategy here. One of Trumps latest lines of attack is that Clinton is "old and weak". If I were in her camp I'd keep pointing out that he is even older... take the wind out of that strategy. At best everyone just starts saying "who cares - you're both about the same damn age, what difference does it make?!"Trump will be 70 this summer, Clinton will be 68 until just before the election. It's a largely meaningless difference but if I were in Clinton's camp I'd put that "70" number into voters' minds every time Trump tries to say Clinton is old and weak. Trump would actually be the oldest president ever elected into office (Clinton would be second behind R. Reagan).
I don't think this is a good idea at all. First, only 2 years difference makes it meaningless so it's really a waste of time. And he looks to be in fine health, so it won't really play. But also, who cares if he dies? I mean seriously--people could feel more comfortable voting for him if they think he might die and then they could get to whoever the VP is. GOPers are much more comfortable with Christie or Kasich or (almost) whoever Trump will select as a running mate. His death would be a feature, not a bug.
It also highlights how old Hillary is, and she's having a ton of trouble getting the youth vote already. Trump doesn't have problems with cross generational appeal.
It will be interesting to see who gets the youth vote that Sanders has currently monopolized. Will more go towards Clinton, to Trump, or will they stay home? To be sure, the under 30 demographic has had the worst voter turnout in every modern election - I see no reason yet why this year will be any different.
It will be interesting to see who gets the youth vote that Sanders has currently monopolized. Will more go towards Clinton, to Trump, or will they stay home? To be sure, the under 30 demographic has had the worst voter turnout in every modern election - I see no reason yet why this year will be any different.
I don't want to pick on you, but I don't know why this is a question. John Kerry won the youth vote 60-40 with higher turnout among the youth vote than Obama in 2012. Clinton will win a higher share than that:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/04/25/young-voters-overwhelmingly-prefer-clinton-over-trump-poll/
And, I would guess more young people will turn out for a Clinton/Trump election than a Kerry/Bush election.
Is there any data to suggest that Clinton won't run away with the youth vote and the turnout will be similar to the past few elections?
It will be interesting to see who gets the youth vote that Sanders has currently monopolized. Will more go towards Clinton, to Trump, or will they stay home? To be sure, the under 30 demographic has had the worst voter turnout in every modern election - I see no reason yet why this year will be any different.
I don't want to pick on you, but I don't know why this is a question. John Kerry won the youth vote 60-40 with higher turnout among the youth vote than Obama in 2012. Clinton will win a higher share than that:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/04/25/young-voters-overwhelmingly-prefer-clinton-over-trump-poll/
And, I would guess more young people will turn out for a Clinton/Trump election than a Kerry/Bush election.
Is there any data to suggest that Clinton won't run away with the youth vote and the turnout will be similar to the past few elections?
I'm not quite sure why you think that might be picking on me... I asked it as an open question. I certainly do not take any offense in having a conversation.
Forummm was the one who talked about Clinton having "a ton of trouble getting the youth vote already." My two counter-points were basically that 1) to date the "youth vote" has largely gone to Sanders, and with his presumed exit it will flow somewhere else, and 2) the 'youth' vote has historically been the least important demographic, simply because they vote at such a lower percentage.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics (http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics)
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."
So, the left's policies are skewing the Republican primary process? Interesting concept, but the right certainly has some culpability through their race to the bottom (anti-intellectual, strongly evangelical) pandering, as well.
I don't think this is a good idea at all. First, only 2 years difference makes it meaningless so it's really a waste of time. And he looks to be in fine health, so it won't really play. But also, who cares if he dies? I mean seriously--people could feel more comfortable voting for him if they think he might die and then they could get to whoever the VP is. GOPers are much more comfortable with Christie or Kasich or (almost) whoever Drumpf will select as a running mate. His death would be a feature, not a bug.
It also highlights how old Hillary is, and she's having a ton of trouble getting the youth vote already. Drumpf doesn't have problems with cross generational appeal.
It doesn't actually explain his popularity though. He isn't saying anything new from the Republican base. He's just capitalizing on already established political party culture trend. It's not a new strategy for Republicans to turn to their base and tell them that the various "not them bogeymen" are out to get them.
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.
An axiom of electoral politics in the US: Democratic_share(all citizens) > Democratic_share(registered voters) > Democratic_share(actual voters). If everyone voted, Democrats would win much more frequently than they do, and almost never lose the presidency. Instead, the actual voters skew older, richer, and much more conservative than the actual country as a whole. This is the reasoning behind the epidemic of voting restriction going on in places with Republican office holders....
It doesn't actually explain his popularity though. He isn't saying anything new from the Republican base. He's just capitalizing on already established political party culture trend. It's not a new strategy for Republicans to turn to their base and tell them that the various "not them bogeymen" are out to get them.
And there we have it again: Joe Sixpack is an idiot, easily led by his betters due to unfounded fears of nonexistent boogeymen who are out to get them. His opinions are not valid, they are based on ignorance and fear and stupidity and privilege.
This is exactly the attitude that Trump is capitalizing on.
Only Republicans do this. Democratic politicians don't motivate their base by capitalizing on their fears of boogeymen like CEOs, corporations, the rich.
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."
So, the left's policies are skewing the Republican primary process? Interesting concept, but the right certainly has some culpability through their race to the bottom (anti-intellectual, strongly evangelical) pandering, as well.
Yep. You have a whole bunch of people who are tired of being told they are worthless anti-intellectual cretins. And Trump is telling them they have value.
It doesn't actually explain his popularity though. He isn't saying anything new from the Republican base. He's just capitalizing on already established political party culture trend. It's not a new strategy for Republicans to turn to their base and tell them that the various "not them bogeymen" are out to get them.
And there we have it again: Joe Sixpack is an idiot, easily led by his betters due to unfounded fears of nonexistent boogeymen who are out to get them. His opinions are not valid, they are based on ignorance and fear and stupidity and privilege.
It will be interesting to see who gets the youth vote that Sanders has currently monopolized. Will more go towards Clinton, to Trump, or will they stay home? To be sure, the under 30 demographic has had the worst voter turnout in every modern election - I see no reason yet why this year will be any different.
I don't want to pick on you, but I don't know why this is a question. John Kerry won the youth vote 60-40 with higher turnout among the youth vote than Obama in 2012. Clinton will win a higher share than that:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/04/25/young-voters-overwhelmingly-prefer-clinton-over-trump-poll/
And, I would guess more young people will turn out for a Clinton/Trump election than a Kerry/Bush election.
Is there any data to suggest that Clinton won't run away with the youth vote and the turnout will be similar to the past few elections?
I'm not quite sure why you think that might be picking on me... I asked it as an open question. I certainly do not take any offense in having a conversation.
Forummm was the one who talked about Clinton having "a ton of trouble getting the youth vote already." My two counter-points were basically that 1) to date the "youth vote" has largely gone to Sanders, and with his presumed exit it will flow somewhere else, and 2) the 'youth' vote has historically been the least important demographic, simply because they vote at such a lower percentage.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics (http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics)
Yep, Drumpf is moderating all his positions and will continue to do so for the next six months. It's going to be a giant love fest. He could care less about alienating the base because, let's be serious, his hard core supporters he won in the primary aren't going anywhere. They have too much of their identity invested in him winning to ever be concerned about his actual policies. They just don't want to be humiliated. He needs to grab a significant number of independent voters. He'll get a few of the Bernie voters who are the pseudo-anarchist types who want to see everything burn, but that is a smaller number than the media portrays.
Hillary basically needs to portray him as the scariest man alive and hammer it in every day for six months. There will be lots of talk of his temperament and "giving him the nuclear codes". She can also attempt to dismantle his reputation as a good business man with some facts.
On the flip side, Drumpf has already started with "Crooked Hillary". But I do wonder about how effective that tactic will really be, because I think a) this damage has already been inflicted on her. She is already been tarred and feathered this way before and everyone is already generally aware of the scandals related to her. I honestly think she looks her best when being attacked on her reputation. She gained tons of cred during the Benghazi hearings, and I think when people see her standing next to Drumpf during a debate, it is going to play very poorly if he attacks her about that stuff on stage. Now sure, he could just make shit up about her a la "Ted Cruz's father helped kill Lee Harvey Oswald" but that isn't going to give him cred with the independent voter. I actually think he will probably not confront her directly about scandals, but perhaps draw on the chatter about her health to make her look old and weak.
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."
So, the left's policies are skewing the Republican primary process? Interesting concept, but the right certainly has some culpability through their race to the bottom (anti-intellectual, strongly evangelical) pandering, as well.
Trump's popularity is the totally predictable backlash to the left's arrogant attitude towards "flyover country."
So, the left's policies are skewing the Republican primary process? Interesting concept, but the right certainly has some culpability through their race to the bottom (anti-intellectual, strongly evangelical) pandering, as well.
Yep. You have a whole bunch of people who are tired of being told they are worthless anti-intellectual cretins. And Trump is telling them they have value.
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.
Sure. But far fewer Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters did 8 years ago, and not only did that not happen, but Obama did pretty well in the 2008 election.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-bad-is-poll-that-says-25-of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.
Sure. But far fewer Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters did 8 years ago, and not only did that not happen, but Obama did pretty well in the 2008 election.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-bad-is-poll-that-says-25-of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/
I was hoping to find actual follow-up data in that link. But since it isn't there, I don't know what percent of those people followed through on their opinions at that time and chose not to vote, or to vote for another candidate. Sure, Obama still won, but that doesn't speak to the behavior of PUMA Clinton supporters. And those that did change may have been shaken into action by the calamitous financial crisis going on then. I don't know what's going to happen in 6 months. I said they might change their minds. I also said they might stay home. I'm sure some of both will happen. But who knows.
If you look at Trump, many of his speech patterns, activities and mannerisms resonate with the working class. Remember his WWF days? Reality TV?
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.
Sure. But far fewer Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters did 8 years ago, and not only did that not happen, but Obama did pretty well in the 2008 election.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-bad-is-poll-that-says-25-of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/
I was hoping to find actual follow-up data in that link. But since it isn't there, I don't know what percent of those people followed through on their opinions at that time and chose not to vote, or to vote for another candidate. Sure, Obama still won, but that doesn't speak to the behavior of PUMA Clinton supporters. And those that did change may have been shaken into action by the calamitous financial crisis going on then. I don't know what's going to happen in 6 months. I said they might change their minds. I also said they might stay home. I'm sure some of both will happen. But who knows.
Sure, that would be interesting to know. But my point is that we don't need to know – despite a full quarter of Democratic primary voters saying they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee is 2008, only 7% of Democrats voted for the Republican candidate, and the turnout was the highest in 40 years.
This year fewer people say they won't vote for the Democratic nominee.
The data show that this just isn't a significant issue.
If you look at Trump, many of his speech patterns, activities and mannerisms resonate with the working class. Remember his WWF days? Reality TV?
We were discussing the primary season at work, and somebody asked "Why is it that everyone derided Mitt for being an out-of-touch rich guy, but Trump is even richer and nobody tries to smear him with that?"
My response is that Trump isn't a corporate executive rich guy like Mitt, he's more like your neighbor who won the Powerball. "I'm gonna buy a giant plane, and I'm gonna put a solid gold toilet in it! That's classy!" He's way, way more relatable than someone like Mitt, who looks like the guy who decided to close down the factory that your family has been working in for three generations.
That may be true of what Mitt seems like, but Trump has always reminded me of the sleazy guy at the dealership who will say whatever he needs to to get you in the shiny new car you don't need and can't afford. "It's a great car. You're gonna love this car. Absolutely love it. All your friends will be so jealous."If you look at Trump, many of his speech patterns, activities and mannerisms resonate with the working class. Remember his WWF days? Reality TV?
We were discussing the primary season at work, and somebody asked "Why is it that everyone derided Mitt for being an out-of-touch rich guy, but Trump is even richer and nobody tries to smear him with that?"
My response is that Trump isn't a corporate executive rich guy like Mitt, he's more like your neighbor who won the Powerball. "I'm gonna buy a giant plane, and I'm gonna put a solid gold toilet in it! That's classy!" He's way, way more relatable than someone like Mitt, who looks like the guy who decided to close down the factory that your family has been working in for three generations.
He does manage to portray himself that way, yes, but Trump did inherit a good chunk.
I think Clinton will win the youth vote, but it's (of course) margin of victory and turnout that matter. She's having trouble in the primaries, and a lot of those people are currently saying that they won't vote for her in the general. They may change their minds. They may stay home. If a lot of young people are turned off by the candidates then they just might stay home in even larger numbers than usual and that will lower Clinton's tally. One of the best things Clinton can do is to motivate turnout, and especially among the people that will be more likely to vote for her.
Sure. But far fewer Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters did 8 years ago, and not only did that not happen, but Obama did pretty well in the 2008 election.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/how-bad-is-poll-that-says-25-of-bernie-sanders-fans-wont-vote-for-hillary/
I was hoping to find actual follow-up data in that link. But since it isn't there, I don't know what percent of those people followed through on their opinions at that time and chose not to vote, or to vote for another candidate. Sure, Obama still won, but that doesn't speak to the behavior of PUMA Clinton supporters. And those that did change may have been shaken into action by the calamitous financial crisis going on then. I don't know what's going to happen in 6 months. I said they might change their minds. I also said they might stay home. I'm sure some of both will happen. But who knows.
Sure, that would be interesting to know. But my point is that we don't need to know – despite a full quarter of Democratic primary voters saying they wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee is 2008, only 7% of Democrats voted for the Republican candidate, and the turnout was the highest in 40 years.
This year fewer people say they won't vote for the Democratic nominee.
The data show that this just isn't a significant issue.
It didn't matter in 2008, you mean.
If you look at Trump, many of his speech patterns, activities and mannerisms resonate with the working class. Remember his WWF days? Reality TV?
We were discussing the primary season at work, and somebody asked "Why is it that everyone derided Mitt for being an out-of-touch rich guy, but Trump is even richer and nobody tries to smear him with that?"
My response is that Trump isn't a corporate executive rich guy like Mitt, he's more like your neighbor who won the Powerball. "I'm gonna buy a giant plane, and I'm gonna put a solid gold toilet in it! That's classy!" He's way, way more relatable than someone like Mitt, who looks like the guy who decided to close down the factory that your family has been working in for three generations.
An axiom of electoral politics in the US: Democratic_share(all citizens) > Democratic_share(registered voters) > Democratic_share(actual voters). If everyone voted, Democrats would win much more frequently than they do, and almost never lose the presidency. Instead, the actual voters skew older, richer, and much more conservative than the actual country as a whole. This is the reasoning behind the epidemic of voting restriction going on in places with Republican office holders. They are trying to make it harder for people to vote because they know that lower turnout means better chances for Republican candidates. Further, they are specifically trying to get lower turnout among college students and minorities, because those demos also skew heavily Democratic. Hence the significant reduction in polling places in those areas, reduction or elimination of early voting, voter ID laws, etc.
An axiom of electoral politics in the US: Democratic_share(all citizens) > Democratic_share(registered voters) > Democratic_share(actual voters). If everyone voted, Democrats would win much more frequently than they do, and almost never lose the presidency. Instead, the actual voters skew older, richer, and much more conservative than the actual country as a whole. This is the reasoning behind the epidemic of voting restriction going on in places with Republican office holders. They are trying to make it harder for people to vote because they know that lower turnout means better chances for Republican candidates. Further, they are specifically trying to get lower turnout among college students and minorities, because those demos also skew heavily Democratic. Hence the significant reduction in polling places in those areas, reduction or elimination of early voting, voter ID laws, etc.
I completely agree with you here Forummm. Republicans are the smaller, older party for the country as a whole. And I think it will continue that way as the attitudes of the Republican establishment seems to be turning the college aged people and minorities away from the GOP.
You didn't state your view on the voter ID laws but I'm curious what you think. How does a simple voter ID law restrict voting? I completely understand how some requirements could be burdensome if the ID requirement was very narrow. I do not think it would be too restrictive to be required to show some form of government issued identification with at a minimum your name on it. This could be anything, your voter registration card, drivers license, id card, passport, birth certificate, etc.
An axiom of electoral politics in the US: Democratic_share(all citizens) > Democratic_share(registered voters) > Democratic_share(actual voters). If everyone voted, Democrats would win much more frequently than they do, and almost never lose the presidency. Instead, the actual voters skew older, richer, and much more conservative than the actual country as a whole. This is the reasoning behind the epidemic of voting restriction going on in places with Republican office holders. They are trying to make it harder for people to vote because they know that lower turnout means better chances for Republican candidates. Further, they are specifically trying to get lower turnout among college students and minorities, because those demos also skew heavily Democratic. Hence the significant reduction in polling places in those areas, reduction or elimination of early voting, voter ID laws, etc.
I completely agree with you here Forummm. Republicans are the smaller, older party for the country as a whole. And I think it will continue that way as the attitudes of the Republican establishment seems to be turning the college aged people and minorities away from the GOP.
You didn't state your view on the voter ID laws but I'm curious what you think. How does a simple voter ID law restrict voting? I completely understand how some requirements could be burdensome if the ID requirement was very narrow. I do not think it would be too restrictive to be required to show some form of government issued identification with at a minimum your name on it. This could be anything, your voter registration card, drivers license, id card, passport, birth certificate, etc.
If there were some epidemic of fraud that a voter ID law would solve, then I would be for it. However, given that there's virtually no in-person, voter impersonation voter fraud, I don't think the laws are necessary, and are counterproductive. It's already a felony and a huge hassle to conduct this type of voter fraud. The risks are just not worth it under the traditional system--which is why it doesn't happen. The intent is clearly to suppress minority and lower income voter turnout. And I think there should be as few impediments to voting as possible because it's such an important part of our democracy. It's inefficient and antidemocratic to setup unnecessary restrictions. It's stupid to make people stand in line for an hour or more to vote. It's worse to discourage them from participating in the first place. Felons should also be allowed to vote. How are they any less citizens than the rest of us? They have done their time and that should be enough.
If there were some epidemic of fraud that a voter ID law would solve, then I would be for it. However, given that there's virtually no in-person, voter impersonation voter fraud, I don't think the laws are necessary, and are counterproductive. It's already a felony and a huge hassle to conduct this type of voter fraud. The risks are just not worth it under the traditional system--which is why it doesn't happen. The intent is clearly to suppress minority and lower income voter turnout. And I think there should be as few impediments to voting as possible because it's such an important part of our democracy. It's inefficient and antidemocratic to setup unnecessary restrictions. It's stupid to make people stand in line for an hour or more to vote. It's worse to discourage them from participating in the first place. Felons should also be allowed to vote. How are they any less citizens than the rest of us? They have done their time and that should be enough.
+1(!)
I have some inlaws that are super-conservative, conspiracy-theorist-style republicans ("Obama has a secret mosque in the basement of the White House, it's true!"). Over Easter two of them were talking about how the very moral fabric of our country depended on us having strict voter laws so that people couldn't "steal" the election by committing voter fraud. I'm just baffled by this line of thinking - millions of ballots are cast in each state, and it's difficult to imagine that many people would go around to multiple polling stations to commit a felony that might nudge an election 0.00005% in one direction or another (seriously, that's what an extra vote out of 2M cast in a state would do). I also don't believe that all but a few crack-jobs would attempt to vote at the same polling station under different assumed names on the exact same day, hoping that no one recognized them subsequent times.
We need to make it as easy as possible for people to vote - the only safeguards necessary are ones to prevent technical vote stealing (e.g. rigging voting machines). I agree with states that allow everyone to vote early/absentee. You can file your taxes early, why not be able to cast you vote a week or two beforehand as your schedule allows?
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.I can understand this point of view. In a perfect world, I might even agree with it. However, some states couple voter ID laws with closing DMV offices in poor areas. For example, Alabama closing DMV offices in 2015 in 8 of 10 predominantly black counties... which were already only open a few hours a week as-is. If obtaining ID is actually difficult or expensive, then it is not just a matter of being bothered to get a valid ID. If preferential barriers are set up against segments of a population it is disenfranchisement.
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
If you're such a die hard conservative, where in the constitution does it say that getting a government ID should be a requirement for citizenship? This is one of those issues, like government meddling in abortion, where I think conservatives willfully abandon their ideology in favor of their positions. They want less government intervention in everything, except these few things that apparently need lots more government intervention and regulation.
Voter ID laws would prevent people from in person voter fraud, which is almost zero, while doing nothing to prevent vote rigging, ballot theft, deliberate miscounts, electronic voter machine hacking, poll taxes, voter intimidation, or Supreme Court decisions that violate the vote total. All of which actually DO happen, while in person voter fraud does not. If these people actually cared about the integrity of our voting process they could address any of those things.
But they don't, because fixing those problems doesn't suppress minority voter turnout and voter ID laws do. The whole thing is a poorly veiled farce of racism and discrimination, and I'm ashamed of my country every time we pass another one of those laws. 33 states and counting!
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
And I won't tell you about how fun it was to try to get my grandma's birth certificate from a rural county in West Virginia, a copy of her social security card when she wasn't able to appear in person at the SS office, and then to drag her out in the snow in a wheelchair to sit for half a day at the DMV. Should my grandma not have been allowed to vote? Should she be accused of potential voter fraud? It's quite a stupid argument.
If you are registering to vote for the first time in West Virginia or your county, and you have not voted in a federal election in this state, you must show a valid ID with your application or the first time you vote. If you mail your application, you may send a copy of a valid ID. We accept the following documents that show your current name and address:
Valid photo identification
Utility bill
Bank statement
Government check
Paycheck
Any other official government document
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go.
And I won't tell you about how fun it was to try to get my grandma's birth certificate from a rural county in West Virginia, a copy of her social security card when she wasn't able to appear in person at the SS office, and then to drag her out in the snow in a wheelchair to sit for half a day at the DMV. Should my grandma not have been allowed to vote? Should she be accused of potential voter fraud? It's quite a stupid argument.
Does grandma still live in WVa?
To be fair, there were pretty strict voter laws when the constitution came into effect, you had to be a white male land owner, they also didn't know what an ID card was.It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
If you're such a die hard conservative, where in the constitution does it say that getting a government ID should be a requirement for citizenship? This is one of those issues, like government meddling in abortion, where I think conservatives willfully abandon their ideology in favor of their positions. They want less government intervention in everything, except these few things that apparently need lots more government intervention and regulation.
Voter ID laws would prevent people from in person voter fraud, which is almost zero, while doing nothing to prevent vote rigging, ballot theft, deliberate miscounts, electronic voter machine hacking, poll taxes, voter intimidation, or Supreme Court decisions that violate the vote total. All of which actually DO happen, while in person voter fraud does not. If these people actually cared about the integrity of our voting process they could address any of those things.
But they don't, because fixing those problems doesn't suppress minority voter turnout and voter ID laws do. The whole thing is a poorly veiled farce of racism and discrimination, and I'm ashamed of my country every time we pass another one of those laws. 33 states and counting!
I'd be interested in seeing an example of that from the Dems. I never have.It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go.
I know lol...
The problem people have with the laws is mainly that it is so clearly an attempt to make voting more difficult (to suppress turnout of certain demographics) under the guise that it is to prevent voter fraud. If there were evidence of rampant voter fraud then obviously the law may be a fine measure. But that evidence is lacking.
The Repubs are not alone in this though. Both parties are not above using cheap tricks and obscure laws to suppress voter turnout for their opponents and increase the odds that their supporters will vote. I guess that's what you get when most politicians are lawyers by trade.
To be fair, there were pretty strict voter laws when the constitution came into effect, you had to be a white male land owner, they also didn't know what an ID card was.It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
If you're such a die hard conservative, where in the constitution does it say that getting a government ID should be a requirement for citizenship? This is one of those issues, like government meddling in abortion, where I think conservatives willfully abandon their ideology in favor of their positions. They want less government intervention in everything, except these few things that apparently need lots more government intervention and regulation.
Voter ID laws would prevent people from in person voter fraud, which is almost zero, while doing nothing to prevent vote rigging, ballot theft, deliberate miscounts, electronic voter machine hacking, poll taxes, voter intimidation, or Supreme Court decisions that violate the vote total. All of which actually DO happen, while in person voter fraud does not. If these people actually cared about the integrity of our voting process they could address any of those things.
But they don't, because fixing those problems doesn't suppress minority voter turnout and voter ID laws do. The whole thing is a poorly veiled farce of racism and discrimination, and I'm ashamed of my country every time we pass another one of those laws. 33 states and counting!
Then we had the 24th amendment abolishing poll taxes. Requiring an ID can easily be considered a poll tax when you consider the expense and time required to obtain it. Not necessarily a significant tax, but a tax nonetheless. Either way it is easily documented that ID requirements depress voter turnout in Blacks, Hispanics, students and the elderly.
I'd be interested in seeing an example of that from the Dems. I never have.It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go.
I know lol...
The problem people have with the laws is mainly that it is so clearly an attempt to make voting more difficult (to suppress turnout of certain demographics) under the guise that it is to prevent voter fraud. If there were evidence of rampant voter fraud then obviously the law may be a fine measure. But that evidence is lacking.
The Repubs are not alone in this though. Both parties are not above using cheap tricks and obscure laws to suppress voter turnout for their opponents and increase the odds that their supporters will vote. I guess that's what you get when most politicians are lawyers by trade.
I've always found it odd that in this country there is a strong contingent of voters who DON'T want an intelligent person for present but would rather have someone they can relate to or have a beer with. Really?
QuoteI've always found it odd that in this country there is a strong contingent of voters who DON'T want an intelligent person for present but would rather have someone they can relate to or have a beer with. Really?
See, I think this is one thing that Britain does right, inadvertently. Our presidential job description has expanded, now that he/she needs to be charismatic for public consumption. part of me thinks we would be better off with some sort of King/Prime Minister duality of leadership. Or perhaps in our system, more of a CEO/CFO type model.
Let's have a master of ceremonies celebrity type figure head that can go on TV and do all the talking and selling while someone else actually does the grunt work and doesn't have to be "relatable", just competent and smart.
Let's have a master of ceremonies celebrity type figure head that can go on TV and do all the talking and selling while someone else actually does the grunt work and doesn't have to be "relatable", just competent and smart.
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.
Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.
Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.
Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?
There actually is an epidemic of voter fraud in the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto
Gets especially good around the 10:30 mark (but watch the whole thing because it's all good).
There actually is an epidemic of voter fraud in the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto
Gets especially good around the 10:30 mark (but watch the whole thing because it's all good).
Very good!
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.
Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?
I want everyone to have easier access to voting, especially those with no ID. This includes poor urban black people who vote democrat on average, as well as poor rural white voters who tend to vote republican.
I believe democracy works best when the highest percentage of individuals can participate. As another poster noted above, removing barriers doesn't always increase voter turnout.
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.
Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?
I want everyone to have easier access to voting, especially those with no ID. This includes poor urban black people who vote democrat on average, as well as poor rural white voters who tend to vote republican.
I believe democracy works best when the highest percentage of individuals can participate. As another poster noted above, removing barriers doesn't always increase voter turnout.
No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.
Democracy works, but people still have to get off their butts and make an effort. No one who truly cares and wants to vote will find the ID requirements onerous. Those who think that certain segments of society are "disadvantaged" have every right to help them meet the very basic and easy requirements.
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.
Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?
That's certainly some part of the motivation for some people. But also the whole thing about civil rights and constitutional protections of what makes the nation a democracy. That one's kind of a big deal too.
It's hilarious how some people's heads explode when you suggest that proof of identity when voting is a good idea. It's not hard to get ID in 2016. If you can't be bothered to make the effort to obtain a valid ID, then that is YOUR PROBLEM, and is not the fault of anyone else.
Oh here we go. Just admit that Republicans want voter ID to win elections.
Why not just admit that the Democrats want people with no ID to vote because those people tend to vote Democrat?
I want everyone to have easier access to voting, especially those with no ID. This includes poor urban black people who vote democrat on average, as well as poor rural white voters who tend to vote republican.
I believe democracy works best when the highest percentage of individuals can participate. As another poster noted above, removing barriers doesn't always increase voter turnout.
No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.
Democracy works, but people still have to get off their butts and make an effort. No one who truly cares and wants to vote will find the ID requirements onerous. Those who think that certain segments of society are "disadvantaged" have every right to help them meet the very basic and easy requirements.
Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable. If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it. Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.
Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable. If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it. Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.
And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.
Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable. If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it. Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.
And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.
Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable. If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it. Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.
And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.
Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable. If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it. Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.
And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.
I think the solution to this is education, not denying the right to vote. Considering the number of Republican candidates this time around who wanted to abolish the department of education, it would seem that the party that wants to restrict voting also proactively wants an uninformed populace.Agreed that education is good. Not so much with the idea that putting money into the "department of education" is better than spending it in the classrooms....
At the risk of being mistaken for a Republican sympathizer, and even though the voter ID laws are a clear election tactic, come the !@#$ on. Sorry, showing a form of ID isn't an outrageous requirement. It's standard practice in most first world countries. Sure the motivation for seeking enforcement now are bad, but it's overall a good development.
Maybe, just maybe, if you cannot be bothered to keep track of the voting requirements in your jurisdiction when they have been widely discussed and anticipated for years by now, maybe you not going to the polls is a good thing.
Why are people wasting time fighting this? Just encourage your voters to register for an ID. North Carolina, which is currently fighting this in court, even provides free voter IDs at the DMV. Or they can apply for a passport card for $30 at US post offices. If all else fails, organize vanpools to drag your comatose constituents around.
Yes, it is standard practice in most developed countries... But most developed countries have a national ID card, which is required and issued to everyone. We do not. For a few different reasons. And trying to get Republicans on board with creating one (not to mention Libertarians) would be a nightmare.Ok, I'll use my experience as a French voter. In order to vote in French elections, I need a national ID card. Yes it's free, but it's not issued to me at birth and automagically sent to me. I have to go wait in a public building that may or may not be close to where I live, and wait a long time until a civil servant, who only works 9-5 M-F, takes my fingerprints, reviews my paperwork proving citizenship, and then I get it by mail.
So you can't compare the US simplistically to those countries and give that as a reason. In the US, it takes effort to get an acceptable ID to vote. And in some places, and for some people, the effort is prohibiting them from voting.
Also, if your party's strategy for winning elections is based on having fewer people vote instead of more, then I think your policies are pretty questionable. If you want to win, then either do things that most of the public actually wants, and make your best case for it. Don't gerrymander and pass laws to restrict voting as much as possible.
And, of course, when a party's strategy is to have as many uniformed voters as possible, one could also say their policies are questionable.
No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.
Ok, I'll use my experience as a French voter. In order to vote in French elections, I need a national ID card. Yes it's free, but it's not issued to me at birth and automagically sent to me. I have to go wait in a public building that may or may not be close to where I live, and wait a long time until a civil servant, who only works 9-5 M-F, takes my fingerprints, reviews my paperwork proving citizenship, and then I get it by mail.
Does this process sound familiar? Right, it's the same as obtaining a driver license or a no-fee voter ID at the DMV.
The process doesn't stop there. Same day registration? You must be joking. You can't vote until you register, and to vote in the May 2017 election, you must register by the end of 2016. That's right, over 4 months before actually casting your ballot. You must provide proof of residency. If you live with your parents, they must sign a document saying you live with them. Yet nobody complains of voter suppression and France boasts a ~80% election participation rate, almost twice that of the US public.
edit: the US presidential election is actually 55%, so not half of France's, but still a huge gap.
No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.
Then we should probably just have the wealthy landowners be the only ones allowed to vote. And probably just the white ones since rich white people are the most well informed people. And just the men because women get all emotional and just aren't as smart and responsible as men.
Straw men aside, we should require SOME effort to vote. What Paul der Krake described in France sounds decent. Without, you end up with situations like we see in inner city America where campaign workers round up potential voters, get them registered, bus them to the polling place and give them a free lunch along with the "suggestion" that they vote for a particular candidate.
No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.
Democracy works, but people still have to get off their butts and make an effort. No one who truly cares and wants to vote will find the ID requirements onerous. Those who think that certain segments of society are "disadvantaged" have every right to help them meet the very basic and easy requirements.
No. Democracy works best when informed people make informed choices. Increased participation has no use, and in fact, can be damaging if people have no idea who or why they are voting. This is simple common sense that shouldn't have to be explained.
Then we should probably just have the wealthy landowners be the only ones allowed to vote. And probably just the white ones since rich white people are the most well informed people. And just the men because women get all emotional and just aren't as smart and responsible as men.
Straw men aside, we should require SOME effort to vote. What Paul der Krake described in France sounds decent. Without, you end up with situations like we see in inner city America where campaign workers round up potential voters, get them registered, bus them to the polling place and give them a free lunch along with the "suggestion" that they vote for a particular candidate.
At the risk of being mistaken for a Republican sympathizer, and even though the voter ID laws are a clear election tactic, come the !@#$ on. Sorry, showing a form of ID isn't an outrageous requirement. It's standard practice in most first world countries. Sure the motivation for seeking enforcement now are bad, but it's overall a good development.
Maybe, just maybe, if you cannot be bothered to keep track of the voting requirements in your jurisdiction when they have been widely discussed and anticipated for years by now, maybe you not going to the polls is a good thing.
Why are people wasting time fighting this? Just encourage your voters to register for an ID. North Carolina, which is currently fighting this in court, even provides free voter IDs at the DMV. Or they can apply for a passport card for $30 at US post offices. If all else fails, organize vanpools to drag your comatose constituents around.
Yes, it is standard practice in most developed countries... But most developed countries have a national ID card, which is required and issued to everyone. We do not. For a few different reasons. And trying to get Republicans on board with creating one (not to mention Libertarians) would be a nightmare.
So you can't compare the US simplistically to those countries and give that as a reason. In the US, it takes effort to get an acceptable ID to vote. And in some places, and for some people, the effort is prohibiting them from voting.
Which, of course, is the point.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-doesnt-everybody-have-a-voter-id/
And for the argument Right-wingers use against it:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/09/alex-nowrasteh-national-id-e-verify-illegal-immigration.html
Yes, it is standard practice in most developed countries... But most developed countries have a national ID card, which is required and issued to everyone. We do not. For a few different reasons. And trying to get Republicans on board with creating one (not to mention Libertarians) would be a nightmare.Ok, I'll use my experience as a French voter. In order to vote in French elections, I need a national ID card. Yes it's free, but it's not issued to me at birth and automagically sent to me. I have to go wait in a public building that may or may not be close to where I live, and wait a long time until a civil servant, who only works 9-5 M-F, takes my fingerprints, reviews my paperwork proving citizenship, and then I get it by mail.
So you can't compare the US simplistically to those countries and give that as a reason. In the US, it takes effort to get an acceptable ID to vote. And in some places, and for some people, the effort is prohibiting them from voting.
Does this process sound familiar? Right, it's the same as obtaining a driver license or a no-fee voter ID at the DMV.
The process doesn't stop there. Same day registration? You must be joking. You can't vote until you register, and to vote in the May 2017 election, you must register by the end of 2016. That's right, over 4 months before actually casting your ballot. You must provide proof of residency. If you live with your parents, they must sign a document saying you live with them. Yet nobody complains of voter suppression and France boasts a ~80% election participation rate, almost twice that of the US public.
edit: the US presidential election is actually 55%, so not half of France's, but still a huge gap.
France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.
France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.
I am not sure why the French require a steep registration deadline. I assume it has something to do with keeping rolls up to date and doing some verifications behind the scenes. But seriously, it's not a big burden. When people move, they unpack their furniture, then turn on the power, then figure out how to register to vote, well before they even know who will be on the ballot at the next election. There are mechanisms in place to vote if you move right before an election too. Part of being an adult citizen requires you to think ahead by more than a couple hours. Getting an ID isn't mandatory there either, but nobody will take you seriously about how much harder your life is because you couldn't be bothered to get one once every 10 years. In fact NOT having an ID is a much higher burden o
n your daily life than requesting one.
Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?
Again, I acknowledge that the latest development stateside is a complete dirty partisan trick. But it speaks volumes about the engagement of the "disenfranchised" if these laws, which have plenty of accomodations, really do have an effect on turnout. Shrug it off by educating your voters, and move on.
Not carrying a government document is not a crime in France. It just makes your life more difficult than it needs to be as they will have to rely on witness testimony and whatever else you choose to use in this ridiculous defiance of authority.France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.
I am not sure why the French require a steep registration deadline. I assume it has something to do with keeping rolls up to date and doing some verifications behind the scenes. But seriously, it's not a big burden. When people move, they unpack their furniture, then turn on the power, then figure out how to register to vote, well before they even know who will be on the ballot at the next election. There are mechanisms in place to vote if you move right before an election too. Part of being an adult citizen requires you to think ahead by more than a couple hours. Getting an ID isn't mandatory there either, but nobody will take you seriously about how much harder your life is because you couldn't be bothered to get one once every 10 years. In fact NOT having an ID is a much higher burden o
n your daily life than requesting one.
Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?
Again, I acknowledge that the latest development stateside is a complete dirty partisan trick. But it speaks volumes about the engagement of the "disenfranchised" if these laws, which have plenty of accomodations, really do have an effect on turnout. Shrug it off by educating your voters, and move on.
You did not read my post correctly. I did not say French people are required to have a passport or national identity card.
Why are people wasting time fighting this? Just encourage your voters to register for an ID. North Carolina, which is currently fighting this in court, even provides free voter IDs at the DMV. Or they can apply for a passport card for $30 at US post offices. If all else fails, organize vanpools to drag your comatose constituents around.
Probably beating a dead horse here, but just to be clear, in many (perhaps most) states, you can only vote by mail if you are not going to be in the state on voting day. Some states (Like Virginia) give exceptions for people who's jobs they consider essential (like doctors, police). Otherwise, legally speaking you have to go to a designated polling station during set hours on one day, regardless of whether you are working that day or not.
Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?
Not carrying a government document is not a crime in France. It just makes your life more difficult than it needs to be as they will have to rely on witness testimony and whatever else you choose to use in this ridiculous defiance of authority.France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.
I am not sure why the French require a steep registration deadline. I assume it has something to do with keeping rolls up to date and doing some verifications behind the scenes. But seriously, it's not a big burden. When people move, they unpack their furniture, then turn on the power, then figure out how to register to vote, well before they even know who will be on the ballot at the next election. There are mechanisms in place to vote if you move right before an election too. Part of being an adult citizen requires you to think ahead by more than a couple hours. Getting an ID isn't mandatory there either, but nobody will take you seriously about how much harder your life is because you couldn't be bothered to get one once every 10 years. In fact NOT having an ID is a much higher burden o
n your daily life than requesting one.
Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?
Again, I acknowledge that the latest development stateside is a complete dirty partisan trick. But it speaks volumes about the engagement of the "disenfranchised" if these laws, which have plenty of accomodations, really do have an effect on turnout. Shrug it off by educating your voters, and move on.
You did not read my post correctly. I did not say French people are required to have a passport or national identity card.
I am done arguing this point. :)
They also eat Foie gras and require speedos as appropriate attire at public pools (if you don't have one there is usually a vending machine). Maybe we should adopt these anomalies as well.
France's crazy bureaucracy aside (and yes, I have lived there and had to do the same thing), all citizens there are required to carry some sort of government-issued identity document. Which means that they all have the documentation to vote. If you are okay with doing the same thing in the US -- making that mandatory -- then fine, I'm cool with that. An added benefit would be that, since everyone would need one, more offices that process them would have to be opened, meaning that people would have better access to getting them.That is not true. You must be able to prove your identity, and there ways to do that without a passport or national ID card. But it will make your life more difficult than it needs to be.
I am not sure why the French require a steep registration deadline. I assume it has something to do with keeping rolls up to date and doing some verifications behind the scenes. But seriously, it's not a big burden. When people move, they unpack their furniture, then turn on the power, then figure out how to register to vote, well before they even know who will be on the ballot at the next election. There are mechanisms in place to vote if you move right before an election too. Part of being an adult citizen requires you to think ahead by more than a couple hours. Getting an ID isn't mandatory there either, but nobody will take you seriously about how much harder your life is because you couldn't be bothered to get one once every 10 years. In fact NOT having an ID is a much higher burden o
n your daily life than requesting one.
Here in the US, photo ID isn't required to vote by mail either (at least in TX & NC). So really this only applies to people for whom getting to the DMV or the post office is a burden yet can take time off work on a Tuesday?
Again, I acknowledge that the latest development stateside is a complete dirty partisan trick. But it speaks volumes about the engagement of the "disenfranchised" if these laws, which have plenty of accomodations, really do have an effect on turnout. Shrug it off by educating your voters, and move on.
You did not read my post correctly. I did not say French people are required to have a passport or national identity card.
As for the rest, I simply disagree. And so do Republicans, apparently. If these laws did not work to disenfranchise people they don't like, then they wouldn't be passing them.
Everyone knows that if ID laws made it more difficult for those who vote right, then the silence from the left would be deafening.
Everyone knows that if ID laws made it more difficult for those who vote right, then the silence from the left would be deafening.
I strongly disagree. The unifying principle behind "the left" is that all people are created equal, and should be granted equal opportunities to participate in all aspects of our society. That includes voting, and marriage, and education, and healthcare, and religion.
"The left" believes that the whole point of our democracy is that everyone should have a chance, and not be excluded because of their ethnicity or sexuality or spiritual beliefs or gender. They want more people to participate in American society, and that includes expanding access to voting because representative democracy is the foundation of that participation.
So don't try to tar your political opposition with the same sins your party has endorsed by saying they would hypothetically do the same thing. They wouldn't, because their whole movement is based on expanding, not restricting, those personal freedoms.
The unifying principle behind "the left" is that all people are created equal, and should be granted equal opportunities to participate in all aspects of our society.I think that is a great unifying principle, and suspect it is a belief held by the vast majority on both "the left" and "the right". Unfortunately, they can't agree on the definition of "equal opportunities"....
I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....
I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights of women, minorities, the handicapped, gays, immigrants, or students.
..............or the ability to cast a ballot for eligible folks.
I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....
What is an "expansive" right?
How about the right to bear arms?I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....
What is an "expansive" right?
Here's an easy one - Gay Marriage. Now let's see this one try to get spun into "religious freedom"
I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....
What is an "expansive" right?
Here's an easy one - Gay Marriage. Now let's see this one try to get spun into "religious freedom"
Of course, the flip side is that because ID laws seem to be overly difficult only for Democrats, then that's why they are against them. Everyone knows that if ID laws made it more difficult for those who vote right, then the silence from the left would be deafening.
Both democrats and republicans redistrict to help them win elections, not the same thing, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway.Of course, the flip side is that because ID laws seem to be overly difficult only for Democrats, then that's why they are against them. Everyone knows that if ID laws made it more difficult for those who vote right, then the silence from the left would be deafening.
The Democrats literally lost the South for the past 50 years because they passed the Voting Rights Act so that everyone could vote. LBJ knew that at the time. So, you couldn't be more wrong.
What is an "expansive" right?
How about the right to bear arms?
In the great state of Idaho, we have recently passed 2 laws,What is an "expansive" right?
How about the right to bear arms?
The right to bear arms is actually a fascinating case, because the Republican Party initially DID lead a push to expand that right to more people. Then they realized all those inner city black men were legally carrying concealed weapons, and they quickly changed their tune. These days, they advocate for a wider variety of weapons to be available to their pre-approved subset of armed citizens, but they no longer push very hard for things like lowering the legal age to buy handguns or restoring gun ownership rights to felons.
I remain optimistic about the future of the world, long term.
I remain a realistic person, as well. I do think there may be some short term pain.
The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world. Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic. Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large. He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it. Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.
Everything's cyclical. Plato says in The Republic that democracy falls to a tyrant. I've thought for about 12 years that this would happen in my lifetime.
Your long-term may be different than mine. I think we'll be fine over the next few centuries and millennia. But there may be short-term pain.
I'd like to see any example the GOP leading the fight for expansive rights....
What is an "expansive" right?
Here's an easy one - Gay Marriage. Now let's see this one try to get spun into "religious freedom"
I remain optimistic about the future of the world, long term.
I remain a realistic person, as well. I do think there may be some short term pain.
The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world. Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic. Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large. He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it. Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.
Everything's cyclical. Plato says in The Republic that democracy falls to a tyrant. I've thought for about 12 years that this would happen in my lifetime.
Your long-term may be different than mine. I think we'll be fine over the next few centuries and millennia. But there may be short-term pain.
Surprised this piece (which has been making waves) hasn't yet been mentioned here: America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html)
The author invokes Plato, earnestly arguing that our democracy currently hangs in the balance.
Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html
Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html
Not sure I understand what you're saying here.
Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html
I love that this hit on the same day he told George Stephanopoulos that he fights to pay as little tax as possible.
any non-felon adult can concealed carry legally without a license now
So at least around where I am, republicans are still pushing for the right to bear arms. The population of African-Americans is very low, if that matters.
Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html
Not sure I understand what you're saying here.
I am saying trump is saying the WaPo is a corrupt machine of jeff bezos. probably should take any article from this paper with a grain of salt, (ignore it).
I don't like Trump at all, but to be fair, he has said he fights to pay as little tax as possible probably 100 times since he started his campaign, including at probably every debate.Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html
I love that this hit on the same day he told George Stephanopoulos that he fights to pay as little tax as possible.
I don't like Trump at all, but to be fair, he has said he fights to pay as little tax as possible probably 100 times since he started his campaign, including at probably every debate.Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html
I love that this hit on the same day he told George Stephanopoulos that he fights to pay as little tax as possible.
I don't like Trump at all, but to be fair, he has said he fights to pay as little tax as possible probably 100 times since he started his campaign, including at probably every debate.Trump called reporters on multiple occasions pretending to be someone else in order to brag about himself. What a psychopath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
they are having problems right now
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html
I love that this hit on the same day he told George Stephanopoulos that he fights to pay as little tax as possible.
And that's fine. He's just a massive hypocrite. Unless he's accusing Bezos/Amazon of actual tax evasion, which he isn't.
There are a lot of polls right now where Trump is incredibly close to Clinton in both the country and in swing states. Like Ohio and Florida. Some where he is ahead, and many within the margin of error. And he hasn't really started to campaign fully against her yet. And he's a great campaigner, and she's pretty bad at it. I think the race still leans towards Clinton, but it's a lot closer to even than people generally think.
And of course Sanders just blows Trump away, and does better than Clinton in every single state (and the country) where I've seen both him and Clinton polled vs Trump.
And Clinton still hasn't been indicted yet, so that potential huge damage hasn't been added in.
The Democrats are crazy if they nominate Clinton.
Is there a universe where a Clinton-Sanders ticket would happen?
If Clinton is not the nominee, I bet they will give it to Biden. They are already starting to do some damage control around that and floating Biden as the alternative nominee if she gets indicted in time to swap her off the ticket.
There are a lot of polls right now where Trump is incredibly close to Clinton in both the country and in swing states. Like Ohio and Florida. Some where he is ahead, and many within the margin of error. And he hasn't really started to campaign fully against her yet. And he's a great campaigner, and she's pretty bad at it. I think the race still leans towards Clinton, but it's a lot closer to even than people generally think.The country already nominated Clinton, and she has a very good chance to beat Trump.
And of course Sanders just blows Trump away, and does better than Clinton in every single state (and the country) where I've seen both him and Clinton polled vs Trump.
And Clinton still hasn't been indicted yet, so that potential huge damage hasn't been added in.
The Democrats are crazy if they nominate Clinton.
The country already nominated Clinton, and she has a very good chance to beat Trump.
And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.
And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.
The superdelegates have never chosen a nominee who wasn't ahead in the primary voting. You could call that "deciding the nominee in the absence of a landslide," but it would be highly misleading.
And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.
The superdelegates have never chosen a nominee who wasn't ahead in the primary voting. You could call that "deciding the nominee in the absence of a landslide," but it would be highly misleading.
No, they still decide the nominee. They just have decided to go with the pledged delegate leader in the past, but are certainly not bound to do so. This system has only been in place for 6 contested primaries, so there's not that much precedent to feel confident about.
And Trump is starting to change his most hideous positions. He's going to be on the left of Clinton on some things.Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate countThe country already nominated Clinton, and she has a very good chance to beat Trump.
No, the delegates haven't voted yet. And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.
And Trump is starting to change his most hideous positions. He's going to be on the left of Clinton on some things.Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate countThe country already nominated Clinton, and she has a very good chance to beat Trump.
No, the delegates haven't voted yet. And the Democrats have a very un-democratic setup where superdelegates decide who the nominee is if the primaries haven't been an overwhelming landslide. So anything could happen.
I didn't say they were bound. Anyway, the number of previously "contested" primaries is irrelevant to the current situation, because all empirical evidence points to the conclusion that a majority of the superdelegates will vote for Clinton in 2016. Anyone who thinks another outcome is possible is either misinformed or delusional.
Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate count
I believe you are correct that Clinton will win California and that she will go to the convention with enough deligates to get the nomination outright (probably without needing any of the 'super-deligates')
I believe you are correct that Clinton will win California and that she will go to the convention with enough deligates to get the nomination outright (probably without needing any of the 'super-deligates')
No, unless Sanders drops out, it's very unlikely she'll have enough pledged delegates to have a majority without any of the superdelegates. She would need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates, and Sanders will probably win at least another couple states (and likely 6 or more of the remaining 11 contests). As I said before, the superdelegates will be deciding the nomination (as they do anytime since 1984 when it's not a landslide).
I believe you are correct that Clinton will win California and that she will go to the convention with enough deligates to get the nomination outright (probably without needing any of the 'super-deligates')
No, unless Sanders drops out, it's very unlikely she'll have enough pledged delegates to have a majority without any of the superdelegates. She would need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates, and Sanders will probably win at least another couple states (and likely 6 or more of the remaining 11 contests). As I said before, the superdelegates will be deciding the nomination (as they do anytime since 1984 when it's not a landslide).
Forumm, I was expressing my opinion on what would happen (see the phrase "I believe"). Can I be wrong? Sure. But your statement reads like my belief is not possible. I'm not discounting the possibility that Sanders will drop out before California in three weeks, or at least pull back somewhat as running a symboic and 'ideas' campaign (which he's actually already started to do somewhat). Also, as a candidate's lead becomes insurmountable the opposition's turnout tends to diminish dramatically. I expect we'll see that as soon as Clinton's total delegate count exceeds the 2383 mark.
Mathematically, Clinton could win the nomination outright without the use of super-delegates by winning California and a few of the remaining states by double-digit margins.
I honestly don't know what to make of Bernie's chances.
So if it's not "possible", then you would be willing to bet me real money then right? ... So you bet $1 million that Clinton will be the nominee all the way through November 2016, and I'll bet $100 that she won't. ARS can hold the money for both of us. Hey, it's free money for your right, since it's not "possible". ...
I didn't say they were bound. Anyway, the number of previously "contested" primaries is irrelevant to the current situation, because all empirical evidence points to the conclusion that a majority of the superdelegates will vote for Clinton in 2016. Anyone who thinks another outcome is possible is either misinformed or delusional.
So if it's not "possible", then you would be willing to bet me real money then right? And give me odds. So you bet $1 million that Clinton will be the nominee all the way through November 2016, and I'll bet $100 that she won't. ARS can hold the money for both of us. Hey, it's free money for your right, since it's not "possible". Or are you "delusional" like me and realize that there's always a chance that something different happens when the convention hasn't happened and the delegates haven't voted yet?
Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate count
I still think it's most likely that Clinton will be the nominee. But that popular vote stat is bunk. It counts caucus votes as the same as primary votes. And they just aren't the same at all. And popular vote doesn't matter--it's delegates, and she is currently winning there.
But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.
California is an open primary state. sTrue.
Bern has upset Clinton too many times to count.Not if you can count... Clinton has won 23 states, and Sanders has won 18.
Momentum is on Bern's side.Possibly - but inertia is certainly on Clinton's side. Even if Sanders wins every remaining state, he can't overtake her delegates unless he wins by double-digit margins in the largest states.
Quite a few polls show single digit leads for Clinton.That's very bad news for Sanders, and good news for Clinton. She doesn't need to win to clinch the nomination - she only needs to not loose by large margins in big states.
.
Polls have been inaccurate up to the very day of primaryQUite possibly, but which polls are you referring to? Which states? How far off? From what I've seen, of the states that have had large polling coverage the polls have generally been within the statistical margin of error. Given the complexity of the primary system many of the small states were not polled very much - including the upcoming Kentucky and Oregon states.
But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.
That is a fantasy.
Even without counting them, Clinton is very far ahead.I didn't say they were bound. Anyway, the number of previously "contested" primaries is irrelevant to the current situation, because all empirical evidence points to the conclusion that a majority of the superdelegates will vote for Clinton in 2016. Anyone who thinks another outcome is possible is either misinformed or delusional.
So if it's not "possible", then you would be willing to bet me real money then right? And give me odds. So you bet $1 million that Clinton will be the nominee all the way through November 2016, and I'll bet $100 that she won't. ARS can hold the money for both of us. Hey, it's free money for your right, since it's not "possible". Or are you "delusional" like me and realize that there's always a chance that something different happens when the convention hasn't happened and the delegates haven't voted yet?Hillary has about 50% of the countries popular vote, whereas Sanders has like 43%. Hillary WILL win California, and increase her popular vote lead. She'll end with a higher popular vote, a higher dedicated delegate count, and a higher superdelegate count
I still think it's most likely that Clinton will be the nominee. But that popular vote stat is bunk. It counts caucus votes as the same as primary votes. And they just aren't the same at all. And popular vote doesn't matter--it's delegates, and she is currently winning there. But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.
Meanwhile, Trump exhibits his diplomatic skills with a real challenger: Britain. Just imagine how amazing these skills would be deployed against someone like Putin.Wrong link....
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/celiac-vs-gluten/482676/
I recognize that, to some extent, this is Trump playing anything at all for media time. But, starting off by telling the leader one of our long-time allies that, "We are not going to have a good relationship." is mind-boggling.
On Clinton-Sanders: it would take a black swan event for Bernie to get the nomination at this point. The math is pretty clear on that. Yes, Bernie has a lot of support, but the math is pretty clear that Clinton does as well. Whether he would do better against Trump or not does not change that math.
Meanwhile, Trump exhibits his diplomatic skills with a real challenger: Britain. Just imagine how amazing these skills would be deployed against someone like Putin.Wrong link....
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/celiac-vs-gluten/482676/
I recognize that, to some extent, this is Trump playing anything at all for media time. But, starting off by telling the leader one of our long-time allies that, "We are not going to have a good relationship." is mind-boggling.
On Clinton-Sanders: it would take a black swan event for Bernie to get the nomination at this point. The math is pretty clear on that. Yes, Bernie has a lot of support, but the math is pretty clear that Clinton does as well. Whether he would do better against Trump or not does not change that math.
But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.
That is a fantasy.
That says much more about the Obama administration's corruption than it does about Hillary's lack of it.
Not far enough ahead to win without the superdelegates. Which was my point. The superdelegates will decide the nomination. They could all decide to not give it to either candidate on the first ballot. Then on the second ballot, it could go to anyone (like Biden).I still think it's most likely that Clinton will be the nominee. But that popular vote stat is bunk. It counts caucus votes as the same as primary votes. And they just aren't the same at all. And popular vote doesn't matter--it's delegates, and she is currently winning there. But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.Even without counting them, Clinton is very far ahead.
But if any random citizen had a dozen FBI agents investigating them for months, they would be indicted. They may not get convicted at trial, but there would have been enough there to indict (which is a very low threshold). Otherwise you don't put a dozen agents on the case.
But if any random citizen had a dozen FBI agents investigating them for months, they would be indicted. They may not get convicted at trial, but there would have been enough there to indict (which is a very low threshold). Otherwise you don't put a dozen agents on the case.
Do you have any evidence at all to support this assertion?
But if any random citizen had a dozen FBI agents investigating them for months, they would be indicted. They may not get convicted at trial, but there would have been enough there to indict (which is a very low threshold). Otherwise you don't put a dozen agents on the case.
Do you have any evidence at all to support this assertion?
Well, if it's up to a grand jury . . . 99.9% of the time they will choose to indict you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/24/the-single-chart-that-shows-that-grand-juries-indict-99-99-percent-of-the-time/)
But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.
That is a fantasy.
That says much more about the Obama administration's corruption than it does about Hillary's lack of it.
I couldn't decide whether Cressida was continuing to be hyperbolic and loose with definitions of words [...]
But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.
That is a fantasy.
That says much more about the Obama administration's corruption than it does about Hillary's lack of it.
I couldn't decide whether Cressida was continuing to be hyperbolic and loose with definitions of words [...]
Fantasy = "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable." I'd say the word is applicable as defined.
But because the superdelegates haven't voted yet, and it's only their opinion at the convention that matters, you can't really count them. They all switched away from Clinton last time. That could easily happen again if she's indicted.
That is a fantasy.
That says much more about the Obama administration's corruption than it does about Hillary's lack of it.
I couldn't decide whether Cressida was continuing to be hyperbolic and loose with definitions of words [...]
Fantasy = "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable." I'd say the word is applicable as defined.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-questions-hillary-clintons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026
If someone is under active investigation by the FBI with about a dozen agents working on the case, it's not "fantasy" to imagine that they could be indicted. That's what investigations often lead to.
Again, I don't know if she actually broke any law (although she was certainly incredibly and shockingly foolish to setup her own server). And I have no personal interest in the indictment happening. And I will even be voting for her if she's the nominee vs Trump. But facts are facts. And an indictment is possible. And an indictment would be a political nightmare if she's the nominee.
VP PICKS
Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.
Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.
Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up. When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush. Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression. I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.VP PICKS
Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.
Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.
Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.
Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up. When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush. Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression. I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.VP PICKS
Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.
Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.
Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.
Let me see if I can figure out how to screen shot and block names from my facebook and I can post ones from my own page from when I was trying decide between Sanders and Clinton. I don't think Sanders is a misogynist, I think many of his supporters are. In fact, didn't Sanders address that? Let me check...Yes here it is:Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up. When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush. Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression. I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.VP PICKS
Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.
Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.
Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.
Can you point to any examples? I've literally never seen any and am interested in seeing what you are talking about.
I have seen claims that Bernie/supporters were "sexist". But when I looked into it, the actual behavior was nothing of the kind. I find it frustrating that Clinton surrogates would cry wolf like that against the most progressive senator in the country when they have a real misogynist running in the general. Their credibility of what's sexist is now decreased somewhat.
Let me see if I can figure out how to screen shot and block names from my facebook and I can post ones from my own page from when I was trying decide between Sanders and Clinton. I don't think Sanders is a misogynist, I think many of his supporters are. In fact, didn't Sanders address that? Let me check...Yes here it is:Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up. When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush. Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression. I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.VP PICKS
Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.
Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.
Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.
Can you point to any examples? I've literally never seen any and am interested in seeing what you are talking about.
I have seen claims that Bernie/supporters were "sexist". But when I looked into it, the actual behavior was nothing of the kind. I find it frustrating that Clinton surrogates would cry wolf like that against the most progressive senator in the country when they have a real misogynist running in the general. Their credibility of what's sexist is now decreased somewhat.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/07/3746988/bernie-sanders-tells-berniebros-to-knock-it-off-we-dont-want-that-crap/
but now he is not standing up which does tell me something about him:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11700510/sanders-harassment-supporters-sexism and http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/bernie-sanders-defiantly-defends-supporters/
That said, he has always been an activist but his activism has focused on poverty which often coincides with women's rights groups' work but not always. He has made a mistake many allies seem to which is that his concerns now are the ONLY valid concerns (or at least he comes off that way). If we only focused on HIS issue then women would be 100% better. No. Yes some women would improvement but there are other parts that he ignores that IMO would be just as helpful and it seems like he finds those issues to be irrelevant which I personally have an issue with.
Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.
I can't find anything online to support the statement that BernieBros" thing was started by Clinton in fact I think it was started by a reporter. And frankly, even if Clinton's campaign used the term to describe a certain group within Sander's supporter their behavior is an issue. And I don't think you can blow out of proportion stalking/doxxing women because you disagree with their political views, or multiple people leaving voice mails like:Let me see if I can figure out how to screen shot and block names from my facebook and I can post ones from my own page from when I was trying decide between Sanders and Clinton. I don't think Sanders is a misogynist, I think many of his supporters are. In fact, didn't Sanders address that? Let me check...Yes here it is:Not all but many of them are and they are the ones speaking up. When you are a part of a group with a majority or even vocal minority of a certain type you don't get to whine that people paint you with the same brush. Tell them to stop acting in that manner, then people will stop using that expression. I'm tired of Bernie bro behavior.VP PICKS
Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.
Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.
Not all Bernie supporters are 'bernie bro groupies.' I'm weary of this stupid, patronizing characterization. Please, just ... stop.
Can you point to any examples? I've literally never seen any and am interested in seeing what you are talking about.
I have seen claims that Bernie/supporters were "sexist". But when I looked into it, the actual behavior was nothing of the kind. I find it frustrating that Clinton surrogates would cry wolf like that against the most progressive senator in the country when they have a real misogynist running in the general. Their credibility of what's sexist is now decreased somewhat.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/07/3746988/bernie-sanders-tells-berniebros-to-knock-it-off-we-dont-want-that-crap/
but now he is not standing up which does tell me something about him:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11700510/sanders-harassment-supporters-sexism and http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/bernie-sanders-defiantly-defends-supporters/
That said, he has always been an activist but his activism has focused on poverty which often coincides with women's rights groups' work but not always. He has made a mistake many allies seem to which is that his concerns now are the ONLY valid concerns (or at least he comes off that way). If we only focused on HIS issue then women would be 100% better. No. Yes some women would improvement but there are other parts that he ignores that IMO would be just as helpful and it seems like he finds those issues to be irrelevant which I personally have an issue with.
The "BernieBros" thing was started by Clinton's campaign and has been helpfully amplified by all the pro-Clinton media (which is most of the non-conservative outlets at this point). I have no idea what portion of his supporters are misogynist (or any other candidate's either). But he literally said he didn't want those people to support him. I'm not sure what more he could do.
Regarding the whole Nevada issue, yes there were a lot of (justifiably) angry people. But show me one video of a chair being thrown. That claim has been reported everywhere, but even though the room was full of Clinton supporters (half the delegates and most party officials), police, and the news media, there strangely isn't video of that. There was one guy who picked up a chair (NOT acceptable) but then other people quickly pulled it back down (as they should). It's been interesting to see how excited the media was to go along with the Democratic Party establishment and blow it out of proportion. Here's Sander's statement on how the violence is not OK:QuoteOur campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.
Maybe not the most eloquent. But seems like he was pretty clear.
VP PICKSFor Trumps VP I'm guessing Joni Ernst, maybe Newt Gingrich
Trump/Sessions. why? it sounds good but more importantly its an old white southern gentleman; the opposite of what people think he will do. it definately will not be a latino or woman because that would be like trump pandering, which he will not do with his pick. Sessions was his first and for a long time his only Senate endorsor. he has said he wanted an experienced politician and sessions seems like he will keep trump between the ditches in case people are worried about that.
Clinton/Castro. why? because he checks the boxes for democrats and clinton does not want an all woman ticket, too much of a woman card vote. he is also young and good looking, to help swing back those bernie bro groupies. but I think will help national democrats build a legacy. young latino who will be the new party favorite and he is a texan and that is their big prize in the coming decades.
To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly. Told them to stop. Told them not to support him. Not sure what more he can do.
To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly. Told them to stop. Told them not to support him. Not sure what more he can do.
Sanders criticized the sexist behavior of his supporters exactly once, on February 7. If you can find another example of him mentioning sexism and his supporters in the same statement, I'll retract the previous sentence.
Things don't become true just because you say them.
To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly.
I don't track his statements so I don't know how many times he's remarked on it.
Democracy ensures that the people get the government they deserve.
To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly.I don't track his statements so I don't know how many times he's remarked on it.
OK then.
Well, the polling is continuing to be alarming for the more likely race.Why are we still talking about Sanders? It's Clinton vs Trump
Last 4 polls for the general, Clinton vs Trump: Clinton +2, Clinton +6, Trump +3, Trump +5
Last 4 polls for the general, Sanders vs Trump: Sanders +16, Sanders +11, Sanders +4, Sanders +13
Swing states
NH TvC C+2
NH TvS S+16
AZ TvC T+4
AZ TvS S+1
OH TvC T+4
OH TvS S+2
PA TvC C+1
PA TvS S+6
Sanders is even up +5 in Georgia! That race would be a landslide.
By "the behavior" I meant negative and undesirable behavior generally (which was the context of the conversation). Not specifically sexism. But I also did show you at least 2 statements where he denounced it.
But you asked me to examples of sexism and of the bernie bro, the behavior is an example. You may be fine with downplaying it, I'm not.
To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly. Told them to stop. Told them not to support him. Not sure what more he can do.
Well, the polling is continuing to be alarming for the more likely race.Why are we still talking about Sanders? It's Clinton vs Trump
Last 4 polls for the general, Clinton vs Trump: Clinton +2, Clinton +6, Trump +3, Trump +5
Last 4 polls for the general, Sanders vs Trump: Sanders +16, Sanders +11, Sanders +4, Sanders +13
Swing states
NH TvC C+2
NH TvS S+16
AZ TvC T+4
AZ TvS S+1
OH TvC T+4
OH TvS S+2
PA TvC C+1
PA TvS S+6
Sanders is even up +5 in Georgia! That race would be a landslide.
Edit:
And speaking of Trump vs Clinton,
In Ohio Clinton is beating Trump,
In Florida Clinton is beating Trump,
In Virginia Clinton is beating Trump,
In Pennsylvania Clinton is beating Trump,
In North Carolina Clinton is beating Trump,
Those are all the biggest most important swing states and Clinton is winning in all of them, a lot can happen between now and the election but nothing currently shows indication of Trump doing well.
Clinton will take CA, WA, OR, MN, IL, MI, NY, DC, MD, DE, NJ, VT, CT, MA, ME with ease as they are generally democrat states, and she will likely take the mentioned states above as well, giving her way more than the 270 needed. It would require Clinton to do something(or to have done something) very stupid to lose her gigantic lead. I think she takes the presidency with ease.
By "the behavior" I meant negative and undesirable behavior generally (which was the context of the conversation). Not specifically sexism. But I also did show you at least 2 statements where he denounced it.
[sigh]
Here's the "context":But you asked me to examples of sexism and of the bernie bro, the behavior is an example. You may be fine with downplaying it, I'm not.To the extent that it's happening, he has denounced the behavior repeatedly. Told them to stop. Told them not to support him. Not sure what more he can do.
You know, you *could* just admit that you said something incorrect.
[edit: clarity]
[blah blah]
According to the polls, she doesn't need his support. Caps lock doesn't make false statements true.Well, the polling is continuing to be alarming for the more likely race.Why are we still talking about Sanders? It's Clinton vs Trump
Last 4 polls for the general, Clinton vs Trump: Clinton +2, Clinton +6, Trump +3, Trump +5
Last 4 polls for the general, Sanders vs Trump: Sanders +16, Sanders +11, Sanders +4, Sanders +13
Swing states
NH TvC C+2
NH TvS S+16
AZ TvC T+4
AZ TvS S+1
OH TvC T+4
OH TvS S+2
PA TvC C+1
PA TvS S+6
Sanders is even up +5 in Georgia! That race would be a landslide.
Edit:
And speaking of Trump vs Clinton,
In Ohio Clinton is beating Trump,
In Florida Clinton is beating Trump,
In Virginia Clinton is beating Trump,
In Pennsylvania Clinton is beating Trump,
In North Carolina Clinton is beating Trump,
Those are all the biggest most important swing states and Clinton is winning in all of them, a lot can happen between now and the election but nothing currently shows indication of Trump doing well.
Clinton will take CA, WA, OR, MN, IL, MI, NY, DC, MD, DE, NJ, VT, CT, MA, ME with ease as they are generally democrat states, and she will likely take the mentioned states above as well, giving her way more than the 270 needed. It would require Clinton to do something(or to have done something) very stupid to lose her gigantic lead. I think she takes the presidency with ease.
CLINTON NEEDS HIS SUPPORT AND AS LONG AS HE REMAINS POPULAR, SHE NEEDS HIS SUPPORT EVEN MORE.
I don't believe for a second Hillary will become more progressive in any meaningful way. Maybe she will drum up some bullshit social liberal program to burn some more money and appease young people, but she will stay loyal to the her legacy, hear donors and party first and foremost, none of whom give a shit about any of Sanders pie in the sky socialist policies.
We should at best be at least luke warm about the narrow margins by which Clinton is polling better than Trump...
Its Donald fucking Trump. Even most of the people saying they will vote for him think he is an ass. This man is such a wildly polarizing figure he should be getting destroyed in the polls. Instead he swept the GOP nom, and Clinton's campaign and the media better get their heads out of their asses and start figuring out why Trump is polling so closely if this is supposed to be an easy win.
Now it's being stated very clearly: Clinton violated the email rules set by the Federal Records Act (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz49g1GRhn0).That is not what the link stated. Rules and LAW are very different.
What should happen to people who violate the law?
Maybe Trump could get indicted for the fraudulent Trump University and Clinton could get indicted for hurting national security and the whole farce would be laid bare.
Now it's being stated very clearly: Clinton violated the email rules set by the Federal Records Act (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz49g1GRhn0).That is not what the link stated. Rules and LAW are very different.
What should happen to people who violate the law?
Maybe Trump could get indicted for the fraudulent Trump University and Clinton could get indicted for hurting national security and the whole farce would be laid bare.
Now it's being stated very clearly: Clinton violated the email rules set by the Federal Records Act (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz49g1GRhn0).
IN keeping with the title of this thread:
Trump's latest twittering:
"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!" (http://"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!")
He's still shamelessly linking Mexicans and immigrants to being criminals.
IN keeping with the title of this thread:
Trump's latest twittering:
"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!" (http://"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!")
He's still shamelessly linking Mexicans and immigrants to being criminals.
What part of that statement isn't true? The protesters outside were flying Mexican flags, and clearly some criminal acts went down. Doesn't make some other things Trump has said right, but holding signs like "Make America Mexico Again" (think I saw that in pictures of the California anti-Trump protests that got a little riot-y) isn't a great look.
That is not what the link stated. Rules and LAW are very different.
Now it's being stated very clearly: Clinton violated the email rules set by the Federal Records Act (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz49g1GRhn0).
To be fair the report has indicated that compliance has been poor across all five of the previous secretary of states, and was particularly critical of Colin Powell (GW Bush). (fair to assume email wasn't that big of a deal back when Reagan was President)
I was also a bit shocked to read that, according to current standards, Clinton "Should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office.." The report continues to mention the need for federal agencies to adapt “decades-old record-keeping practices to the email-dominated modern era.”
Printing? Seriously? ~60,000 email threads over 4 years? No wonder compliance is so poor...
IN keeping with the title of this thread:
Trump's latest twittering:
"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!" (http://"The protesters in New Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag. The rally inside was big and beautiful, but outside, criminals!")
He's still shamelessly linking Mexicans and immigrants to being criminals.
What part of that statement isn't true? The protesters outside were flying Mexican flags, and clearly some criminal acts went down. Doesn't make some other things Trump has said right, but holding signs like "Make America Mexico Again" (think I saw that in pictures of the California anti-Trump protests that got a little riot-y) isn't a great look.
It's the linkage between Mexicans and criminals that I object to. He's calling people waving the Mexican flag "thugs." Saying some protestors turned violent may be fair. Linking those violent protesters with being Mexican is not, unless there is amble evidence. To me it's just a clear shot at stirring up racism. When I watch the video what I see is mostly white people.
From what I have read on CNN there were no arrests made outside the rally, and no indication that Mexicans were disproportionately involved with criminal activity.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/donald-trump-albuquerque-protesters-police/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/donald-trump-albuquerque-protesters-police/)
A Trump supporter: "Trump didn't say 'Mexicans and immigrants' - he said 'thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag.' If you want to read into that statement something that isn't there, that is your problem."
A Trump opponent: "It is clear what he meant. If you don't understand that, you are naive."
Each will think the other is being deliberately obtuse.... Isn't politics fun?
Isn't politics fun? It would be if it weren't so damn serious at the same time.
Isn't politics fun? It would be if it weren't so damn serious at the same time.
This is fun for me regardless. And I am going to remind you all that I warned this thread that Trump was the great influencer, and would win both the nomination & the presidency regardless of what you all think of him. Those of you who would never vote for Trump will simply not vote, out of disgust or whatever; but those of you that are not hard set against him already will end up voting for him, no matter how you would poll today. The man is that good at this; he has simply been testing the waters for the past several cycles till the right moment. This is his moment, as should be obvious by now. The Clintons will count themselves lucky to avoid prison before the end of 2016, and even that is likely to require some significant "fines" taken from the Clinton Foundation coffers & a permanent ban on holding public office, due to what the email scandal has exposed about the foundations funding sources. The debates are going to be a riot! Maybe literally. If Austin Peterson gets the Libertarian nomination, the debates might be better than pay-per-view!
Just because no one was arrested didn't mean they weren't breaking the law. I was watching it on TV last night and they were throwing rocks at the police, jumping on the police car, fighting, and yes acting like criminals... pretty pathetic in my opinion.
If Austin Peterson gets the Libertarian nomination, the debates might be better than pay-per-view!
NO BUT IT DOES SAVE ON PINKY WEAR, AND FORGETTING TO USE IT AGAIN WHEN I AM DONE TYPING ON INTERNET FORUMAccording to the polls, she doesn't need his support. Caps lock doesn't make false statements true.Well, the polling is continuing to be alarming for the more likely race.Why are we still talking about Sanders? It's Clinton vs Trump
Last 4 polls for the general, Clinton vs Trump: Clinton +2, Clinton +6, Trump +3, Trump +5
Last 4 polls for the general, Sanders vs Trump: Sanders +16, Sanders +11, Sanders +4, Sanders +13
Swing states
NH TvC C+2
NH TvS S+16
AZ TvC T+4
AZ TvS S+1
OH TvC T+4
OH TvS S+2
PA TvC C+1
PA TvS S+6
Sanders is even up +5 in Georgia! That race would be a landslide.
Edit:
And speaking of Trump vs Clinton,
In Ohio Clinton is beating Trump,
In Florida Clinton is beating Trump,
In Virginia Clinton is beating Trump,
In Pennsylvania Clinton is beating Trump,
In North Carolina Clinton is beating Trump,
Those are all the biggest most important swing states and Clinton is winning in all of them, a lot can happen between now and the election but nothing currently shows indication of Trump doing well.
Clinton will take CA, WA, OR, MN, IL, MI, NY, DC, MD, DE, NJ, VT, CT, MA, ME with ease as they are generally democrat states, and she will likely take the mentioned states above as well, giving her way more than the 270 needed. It would require Clinton to do something(or to have done something) very stupid to lose her gigantic lead. I think she takes the presidency with ease.
CLINTON NEEDS HIS SUPPORT AND AS LONG AS HE REMAINS POPULAR, SHE NEEDS HIS SUPPORT EVEN MORE.
If Austin Peterson gets the Libertarian nomination, the debates might be better than pay-per-view!
Why would a 3rd party candidate be allowed to debate? The Commission on Presidential Debates is an organization started and run by the Republican and Democratic parties to control how the debates function. They don't let another candidate in unless they agree that it's in their best interests to do so. The League of Women Voters used to run the debates, but the parties wanted much more control and now get to do whatever they want.
I disagree that people who won't vote for trump simply won't vote - by that logic Trump would win all 50 states.
I must admit that Trump has been very adapt at keeping the media narrative focused on him. I also don't see how Clinton would wind up in prison. Censureship and fines perhaps, but I've yet to see anything that rises to 'harm' - one of the legal standards for imprisonment. I'm not sure that they will allow any LIbertarian candidate to participate in nationally televised debates.
Time will tell...
This is another example in which I think citizens are taking a more active role in fixing the world when government isn’t the right tool for the job. There’s something in the air now – maybe because of Trump – that feels intensely American. And by that I mean not waiting around for someone (such as the government) to fix your problem. We’re a nation of problem-solvers. I would argue that problem-solving is the most basic American character trait.
You need something invented? We’re on it.
You need a dictator removed? Can do.
You need economic stability in the world? Working on it!
Don’t like having a king? We can design a better system.
At the moment, citizens see our government as defective and they see Donald Trump as a wrecking ball. Step one: Demolition.
Step two is the scary part. What happens when you break the government? Do we devolve into chaos, anarchy, or dictatorship? Well, that might happen to some countries. In America, when stuff is broken, we fix it. And if it ain’t broken, we’ll break it anyway, just to fix it better. That’s sort of our thing. And we’re good at it.
I predict we’re going to see a wave of citizen involvement that is unprecedented. People everywhere (especially billionaires) are seeing that government can’t do everything. So they are stepping in. Gates is fixing Africa and whatnot. Thiel is planning floating cities to solve some types of immigration issues and more. And Mark Cuban probably has some good work ahead of him.
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does. California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's. These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.
My point was simply that if people who won't vote for trump won't vote, then Trump will win all the votes except a few scattered votes for outside parties. Sorry that wasn't clear.I disagree that people who won't vote for trump simply won't vote - by that logic Trump would win all 50 states.
Yup. Reagan took 49 in 1984, and only lost the last one because it was his opponent's home state, and he didn't want to embarrass him, so he didn't campaign there in earnest. I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does. California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's. These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.
So, are there going to be riots at the Democratic Convention, the Republican Convention, or both?
Those of you who would never vote for Drumpf will simply not vote, out of disgust or whatever; but those of you that are not hard set against him already will end up voting for him, no matter how you would poll today.
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does. California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's. These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.
LOL. Only Moonshadow could look at the fractured state of GOP politics and think it means that California will vote Trump.
QuoteThose of you who would never vote for Drumpf will simply not vote, out of disgust or whatever; but those of you that are not hard set against him already will end up voting for him, no matter how you would poll today.
I never thought I would say this, but I think this is probably true. Unless Clinton pulls a turn around in her image, or something else goes down, I think Trump has a good shot at winning this. Especially since Bernie isn't playing ball. Trump offering to debate Bernie was a master stroke. In one move, it delegitimized her status as presumptive nominee, and it keeps the Democratic rivalry going. I would not put it past Trump to take a fall in that debate to make Bernie look strong and cause further discord among the Democrats.
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does. California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's. These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.
LOL. Only Moonshadow could look at the fractured state of GOP politics and think it means that California will vote Trump.
Only a detached outsider could look at the state of either party, and make a (mostly) unbiased guess on future events. Are you saying that the Dems are not fractured? The 'Never Trump' crowd is extremely unlikely to engage in a riot at the national convention, but the jilted Bernie Sanders supporters have already demonstrated that enough of them are willing to Bern it all down, perhaps using moltov cocktails. One way or another, this is going to be an election cycle that gets more than a paragraph in American History textbooks in 100 years, and you know that is true, because you can feel it. We all can. We know that something is broken, although we certainly disagree about exactly what that is. This is the 4th Turning. The last one resulted in World War 2, and the one before that ended with the US Civil War.
The curious part is that even when we don't like our President, our country still functions.
Hopefully she gets indicted (unlikely) before the convention and the democrats put someone less bad that these 2 up.
Hopefully she gets indicted (unlikely) before the convention and the democrats put someone less bad that these 2 up.
Who would that be? To be really honest, I'd still consider Hillary the best statesman that the left has right now & anyone that the Dems could put up in her place will crumple under Trump unless they find an outsider of their own.
Isn't that just par for the course when you're an establishment candidate? How would the republicans begin to combat that? It would just be kettles calling pots black, and no politician truly wants to actually speak the truth of politics in our country, even if they're not "establishment" like trump or bernie.
Hopefully she gets indicted (unlikely) before the convention and the democrats put someone less bad that these 2 up.
Who would that be? To be really honest, I'd still consider Hillary the best statesman that the left has right now & anyone that the Dems could put up in her place will crumple under Trump unless they find an outsider of their own.
Clinton is corrupt and dishonest. She is bought and Paid for. The ig report on her email server, terry mcaullife investigation, her fbi investigation, Huge speaker fees and donations. If the republicans had their shit together this would be over. She's a terrible candidate.
Biden makes some stupid comments and is wrong on guns, but he's too poor to be massively corrupt. He could sit in the office for 4 years and we could try again.
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does. California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's. These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.
LOL. Only Moonshadow could look at the fractured state of GOP politics and think it means that California will vote Trump.
Only a detached outsider could look at the state of either party, and make a (mostly) unbiased guess on future events. Are you saying that the Dems are not fractured? The 'Never Trump' crowd is extremely unlikely to engage in a riot at the national convention, but the jilted Bernie Sanders supporters have already demonstrated that enough of them are willing to Bern it all down, perhaps using moltov cocktails. One way or another, this is going to be an election cycle that gets more than a paragraph in American History textbooks in 100 years, and you know that is true, because you can feel it. We all can. We know that something is broken, although we certainly disagree about exactly what that is. This is the 4th Turning. The last one resulted in World War 2, and the one before that ended with the US Civil War.
I strongly disagree.
There's a tendency every election cycle to think that "this is the most important election of our lifetimes!" Most of the time it turns out not to be true. Feelings ran high during the highly contested 2000 election, and Carter/Ford in 1976 and Nixon/Kennedy in the 60s. This list goes on...
I have no doubt that our country will keep going on regardless of whether Clinton, Trump or Sanders sits in the oval office a year from now. Regardless of who wins a large segment of the population will think th country is "heading in the wrong direction", but we still still have the separation of powers. We've always been a country that questions our leaders, and a president who is viewed unfavorably by >50% of the population at any given time is the norm, not an outlier. The curious part is that even when we don't like our President, our country still functions. People still work, inventors keep innovating, families keep having babies and our military keeps blowing stuff up. We continue the narrative that "if the other guy was in things would be so much better!" but so far the Vandals aren't encroaching on Washington and the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is far less than from a car crash (which itself is far less than a heart attack).
We've been through periods of extreme anxiety over being attacked... by the Russians, by the Nazis, by the French, by the Mexicans and by the British. We've undergone draconian witch-hunts for communists, gays, Japanese and actual perceived witches. We've had periods of extreme religious intolerance towards catholics and protestants, Jews and Athiests. Now it's Muslims. This goes on for a few years until cooler heads and our laws prevail.
This too shall pass
I'm not willing to predict that such a landslide will occur, but I won't be shocked if it does. California has voted Republican in my lifetime, and was pretty red in the 50's & 60's. These things come in cycles, the pendulum seems to have started back the other way.
LOL. Only Moonshadow could look at the fractured state of GOP politics and think it means that California will vote Trump.
Only a detached outsider could look at the state of either party, and make a (mostly) unbiased guess on future events. Are you saying that the Dems are not fractured? The 'Never Trump' crowd is extremely unlikely to engage in a riot at the national convention, but the jilted Bernie Sanders supporters have already demonstrated that enough of them are willing to Bern it all down, perhaps using moltov cocktails. One way or another, this is going to be an election cycle that gets more than a paragraph in American History textbooks in 100 years, and you know that is true, because you can feel it. We all can. We know that something is broken, although we certainly disagree about exactly what that is. This is the 4th Turning. The last one resulted in World War 2, and the one before that ended with the US Civil War.
I strongly disagree.
There's a tendency every election cycle to think that "this is the most important election of our lifetimes!" Most of the time it turns out not to be true. Feelings ran high during the highly contested 2000 election, and Carter/Ford in 1976 and Nixon/Kennedy in the 60s. This list goes on...
I have no doubt that our country will keep going on regardless of whether Clinton, Trump or Sanders sits in the oval office a year from now. Regardless of who wins a large segment of the population will think th country is "heading in the wrong direction", but we still still have the separation of powers. We've always been a country that questions our leaders, and a president who is viewed unfavorably by >50% of the population at any given time is the norm, not an outlier. The curious part is that even when we don't like our President, our country still functions. People still work, inventors keep innovating, families keep having babies and our military keeps blowing stuff up. We continue the narrative that "if the other guy was in things would be so much better!" but so far the Vandals aren't encroaching on Washington and the likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is far less than from a car crash (which itself is far less than a heart attack).
We've been through periods of extreme anxiety over being attacked... by the Russians, by the Nazis, by the French, by the Mexicans and by the British. We've undergone draconian witch-hunts for communists, gays, Japanese and actual perceived witches. We've had periods of extreme religious intolerance towards catholics and protestants, Jews and Athiests. Now it's Muslims. This goes on for a few years until cooler heads and our laws prevail.
This too shall pass
I never claimed that we would self-destruct as a society. My point is that we are due for a major shift in the social order, and that usually has accompanied some form of internal or external conflict in the past. Never has our society passed through a 4th turning unchanged or unscathed in recorded history. Never. What can't be predicted is how this 4th Turning will affect us, as a society and as a nation. In the past, we have always come out of a 4th better for it, overall. One of them gave us US independence, followed soon by the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. The next ended slavery as a legal institution, both in law and in any moral code. The latest established the US as a world economic, scientific & military power. (Well, good for Americans; not so much the rest of the world, perhaps)
Hey, thanks for the discussion. The Strauss-Howe generational theory is really interesting stuff! It actually gives an interesting template for a lot of the ideas I have had about politics and society in general swimming around in my head.Yeah, we spent several weeks discussing this in my political theory class many moons ago.
...
But there are a lot of dangers to this type of theory. Self-fulfilled prophecy and apocalyptic thinking is at the top of my list. Also, as pattern seeking primates, we may just be finding patterns that don't really exist. Another point is that this cycle doesn't necessarily have to exist in perpetuity, even if it is true historically. Or it could all just be complete pseudoscience bullshit. It's still interesting though.
the methods of campaigning that Trump has used for the past year will change politics in this nation for decades. If only for that reason, this election cycle will be studied in 100 years.
Trump's behavior is already becoming normalized to many people. "He doesn't mean anything he says so don't be worried about him." - this is actually seen as a positive thing about Trump. If you can convince a large group of people that what you say doesn't matter, then anything is possible. More than anything else, this is the most damaging thing he does. I teach my kids that honesty matters, integrity matters, and not to be a bully. Now we have large groups of people saying that behaving like an immature child is perfectly acceptable as long as you "win". In the same way that our culture has become more narcissistic since the 1960's, I think that that Trump's candidacy signals a broader cultural change.
the methods of campaigning that Trump has used for the past year will change politics in this nation for decades. If only for that reason, this election cycle will be studied in 100 years.
I think the history books will record this election cycle as just another major party in the midst of an identity crisis that couldn't get their act together in time, and so fractured their own base and ended up with a minority fringe candidate who was doomed to a crushing defeat from the outset. We've all seen that story before.
Politics hasn't changed in any meaningful way because of Donald Trump. He's just an opportunist who saw a party floundering and took advantage of the chaos to increase his brand recognition. After he loses, I predict he'll start a media network catering to the minority whacko population and go head to head with Glenn Beck and Rupert Murdoch. Mass media is the one business he hasn't yet failed at, so it's a natural progression.
Especially since Bernie isn't playing ball. Trump offering to debate Bernie was a master stroke.
It was actually Bernie offering to debate Trump. Very smart, as you say. And it allows him to focus his attacks on Trump and knock him down the way only he can. Part of the reason he crushes Trump in head-to-head polling is because only he can make certain arguments with credibility, or would even want to make them. If he does a good job, it only makes the case stronger that he would be the best general election candidate (instead of Biden if something keeps Clinton from the nomination).
Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?
Trump's behavior is already becoming normalized to many people. "He doesn't mean anything he says so don't be worried about him." - this is actually seen as a positive thing about Trump. If you can convince a large group of people that what you say doesn't matter, then anything is possible. More than anything else, this is the most damaging thing he does. I teach my kids that honesty matters, integrity matters, and not to be a bully. Now we have large groups of people saying that behaving like an immature child is perfectly acceptable as long as you "win". In the same way that our culture has become more narcissistic since the 1960's, I think that that Trump's candidacy signals a broader cultural change.
Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?
Many of the Sanders supporters do believe it.Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?
Voters have never taken the GOP character assassination pieces against the Clintons very seriously. Why do you think this time will be any different? After 8 years of that nonsense, Bill retired as the most popular president in history.
Ken Starr, who led the charge against them, has been fired from his university job for protecting actual convicted rapists. Newt Gingrich, who seconded the charge on grounds that marital infidelity was politically disqualifying, turned out to be also cheating on his wife. The republican who replaced Newt as speaker of the house? Bob Livingston, who resigned because he was cheating on his wife. The republican who replaced him? Dennis Hastert, currently in jail for being a pedophile.
Basically every republican who was involved in the anti-Clinton PR machine from the 90s is now disgraced, while the Clintons emerged mostly unscathed. So I'm not worried that Trump is trying to join that bandwagon. Go ahead, dude. You may sway some ignorant voters by repeating the lies over and over again, but it's still all lies.
Hillary is too centrist for most of the democratic party. She's too pro-military and she's too pro- wall street. But she's also a competent administrator who will cement the economic and social progress we've made over the past decade, rather than tearing down America to start over again from scratch. She won't deliver all the change that Bernie's supporters want, but she will deliver some of it and she won't roll back the positive changes we've already seen, so she will lay the groundwork for more slow and gradual change. Trump, on the other hand, would set us back decades and make a Sanders-like presidency impossible in my lifetime.
I think Hillary, for all of her too-centrist faults, is a step in the right direction. I hope enough Sanders supports can see that, after they accept that the change he represents seems to be too much, too fast, for most of the country. I think we'll inevitably get there eventually, but it will take decades to do it, not one sweeping election that would just be stymied by an obstructionist republican congress anyway. The time is not yet ripe.
Voters have never taken the GOP character assassination pieces against the Clintons very seriously. Why do you think this time will be any different? After 8 years of that nonsense, Bill retired as the most popular president in history.
Ken Starr, who led the charge against them, has been fired from his university job for protecting actual convicted rapists. Newt Gingrich, who seconded the charge on grounds that marital infidelity was politically disqualifying, turned out to be also cheating on his wife. The republican who replaced Newt as speaker of the house? Bob Livingston, who resigned because he was cheating on his wife. The republican who replaced him? Dennis Hastert, currently in jail for being a pedophile.
Basically every republican who was involved in the anti-Clinton PR machine from the 90s is now disgraced, while the Clintons emerged mostly unscathed. So I'm not worried that Drumpf is trying to join that bandwagon. Go ahead, dude. You may sway some ignorant voters by repeating the lies over and over again, but it's still all lies.
Hillary is too centrist for most of the democratic party. She's too pro-military and she's too pro- wall street. But she's also a competent administrator who will cement the economic and social progress we've made over the past decade, rather than tearing down America to start over again from scratch. She won't deliver all the change that Bernie's supporters want, but she will deliver some of it and she won't roll back the positive changes we've already seen, so she will lay the groundwork for more slow and gradual change. Drumpf, on the other hand, would set us back decades and make a Sanders-like presidency impossible in my lifetime.
I think Hillary, for all of her too-centrist faults, is a step in the right direction. I hope enough Sanders supports can see that, after they accept that the change he represents seems to be too much, too fast, for most of the country. I think we'll inevitably get there eventually, but it will take decades to do it, not one sweeping election that would just be stymied by an obstructionist republican congress anyway. The time is not yet ripe.
Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?
Many of the Sanders supporters do believe it.Do your kids know how corrupt and dishonest Hillary is, or do your "lessons" to them simply follow party lines and turn a blind eye to how corrupt she is?
Voters have never taken the GOP character assassination pieces against the Clintons very seriously. Why do you think this time will be any different? After 8 years of that nonsense, Bill retired as the most popular president in history.
Ken Starr, who led the charge against them, has been fired from his university job for protecting actual convicted rapists. Newt Gingrich, who seconded the charge on grounds that marital infidelity was politically disqualifying, turned out to be also cheating on his wife. The republican who replaced Newt as speaker of the house? Bob Livingston, who resigned because he was cheating on his wife. The republican who replaced him? Dennis Hastert, currently in jail for being a pedophile.
Basically every republican who was involved in the anti-Clinton PR machine from the 90s is now disgraced, while the Clintons emerged mostly unscathed. So I'm not worried that Trump is trying to join that bandwagon. Go ahead, dude. You may sway some ignorant voters by repeating the lies over and over again, but it's still all lies.
Hillary is too centrist for most of the democratic party. She's too pro-military and she's too pro- wall street. But she's also a competent administrator who will cement the economic and social progress we've made over the past decade, rather than tearing down America to start over again from scratch. She won't deliver all the change that Bernie's supporters want, but she will deliver some of it and she won't roll back the positive changes we've already seen, so she will lay the groundwork for more slow and gradual change. Trump, on the other hand, would set us back decades and make a Sanders-like presidency impossible in my lifetime.
I think Hillary, for all of her too-centrist faults, is a step in the right direction. I hope enough Sanders supports can see that, after they accept that the change he represents seems to be too much, too fast, for most of the country. I think we'll inevitably get there eventually, but it will take decades to do it, not one sweeping election that would just be stymied by an obstructionist republican congress anyway. The time is not yet ripe.
Seriously, this all sounds very reasonable and I hope against all odds it plays out that way. I am just becoming more convinced day by day that it won't. Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee? And all the Republicans, except for the ones who were disgraced or lost elections, are lining up to support him.
Trump is another in the long line of GOPers who were born on third base and think they hit a triple.Would it be better if he tried to steal second?
The major thing that could change is that the movement to get big special interest money out of campaigns could take hold. If the movement is successful, that is a revolution with huge potential.
The major thing that could change is that the movement to get big special interest money out of campaigns could take hold. If the movement is successful, that is a revolution with huge potential.
Anyone who lives in a state other than those listed below, I recommend you go to wolf-pac.com (http://www.wolf-pac.com). If you agree with the objective - of having states pass resolutions to add a 28th amendment to the constitution (http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th), negating the effects of such cases as Citizens United - then contact your STATE representatives and ask them to put such a resolution up for a vote. Wolf pac even has the text ready to go for them.
Here are the states that have already PASSED such resolutions: Vermont, California, Illinois, New Jersey
States where a resolution is PENDING: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington
If 32 states pass these resolutions, then Congress will have craft an amendment and put it up for a vote. Any representative who is sick of dialing for dollars for the DNC or RNC could jump at this.
So if you live in say, Virginia, Texas, Maine or Oregon, and you want $ out of elections, I suggest you check out how to push for your state to adopt this resolution. (http://www.wolf-pac.com/states)
The major thing that could change is that the movement to get big special interest money out of campaigns could take hold. If the movement is successful, that is a revolution with huge potential.
Anyone who lives in a state other than those listed below, I recommend you go to wolf-pac.com (http://www.wolf-pac.com). If you agree with the objective - of having states pass resolutions to add a 28th amendment to the constitution (http://www.wolf-pac.com/28th), negating the effects of such cases as Citizens United - then contact your STATE representatives and ask them to put such a resolution up for a vote. Wolf pac even has the text ready to go for them.
Here are the states that have already PASSED such resolutions: Vermont, California, Illinois, New Jersey
States where a resolution is PENDING: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington
If 32 states pass these resolutions, then Congress will have craft an amendment and put it up for a vote. Any representative who is sick of dialing for dollars for the DNC or RNC could jump at this.
So if you live in say, Virginia, Texas, Maine or Oregon, and you want $ out of elections, I suggest you check out how to push for your state to adopt this resolution. (http://www.wolf-pac.com/states)
Why the eagerness to repeal the First Amendment? Look at all the money Jeb Bush spent, and it didn't get him a damn thing. It doesn't matter.
That "amendment" says "Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly." Does this mean that the New York Times isn't allowed to endorse Hillary Clinton?
I recommend you go to wolf-pac.com (http://www.wolf-pac.com).
It would be fascinating if both went after Hillary as well as each other during the debate (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).
Trump, on the other hand, would set us back decades and make a Sanders-like presidency impossible in my lifetime.
Why the eagerness to repeal the First Amendment? Look at all the money Jeb Bush spent, and it didn't get him a damn thing. It doesn't matter.
Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee?
um... congratulations? ... I guess?Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee?
Me. And I said so on several occasions in this very thread.
um... congratulations? ... I guess?Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee?
Me. And I said so on several occasions in this very thread.
Yes, I do remember you saying Trump would win the nomination.
um... congratulations? ... I guess?Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee?
Me. And I said so on several occasions in this very thread.
Yes, I do remember you saying Trump would win the nomination.
The whole thing, in fact.
Also, I seem to not be the only one thinking that Hillary is done, nor that real violence is possible at the conventions...
http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/fat-lady-always-sings-twice/
um... congratulations? ... I guess?Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee?
Me. And I said so on several occasions in this very thread.
Yes, I do remember you saying Trump would win the nomination.
The whole thing, in fact.
Also, I seem to not be the only one thinking that Hillary is done, nor that real violence is possible at the conventions...
http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/fat-lady-always-sings-twice/
The whole thing of what?
Clinton still seems to be leading the democrat primary race... kind of the opposite of "done".
got it.
These things take time, but nothing more needs to be done by Trump's campaign. She will implode in due time. By the whole thing, I mean the presidency.
Opinion != money
Why the eagerness to repeal the First Amendment? Look at all the money Jeb Bush spent, and it didn't get him a damn thing. It doesn't matter.
It's amending, not repealing. We've amended amendments before.
The presidency is the one office where is much easier to win without all the special interest money. You get so much free media time because of all the press coverage of the race. So it's easier to compete without spending cash, or to get enough exposure to get lots of small donors. But even so, you will still likely have 2 candidates this year who spend a billion dollars of mostly big donor money.
The smaller races are much more dependent on big pockets. If you're running in say Montana, it's very easy for a couple special interests to be able to overwhelm donors from Montana and blanket all the local media there. They could write a check for $10 million and dramatically tilt that race.
Opinion != money
But it does. To get your opinion in front of a large audience, you have to spend money. Remember what Citizens United was about: a group made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton, and they released and advertised it at the wrong time. That's what Citizens United, the group, was getting fined for. Do you think movies critical of politicians should be banned?Why the eagerness to repeal the First Amendment? Look at all the money Jeb Bush spent, and it didn't get him a damn thing. It doesn't matter.
It's amending, not repealing. We've amended amendments before.
The presidency is the one office where is much easier to win without all the special interest money. You get so much free media time because of all the press coverage of the race. So it's easier to compete without spending cash, or to get enough exposure to get lots of small donors. But even so, you will still likely have 2 candidates this year who spend a billion dollars of mostly big donor money.
The smaller races are much more dependent on big pockets. If you're running in say Montana, it's very easy for a couple special interests to be able to overwhelm donors from Montana and blanket all the local media there. They could write a check for $10 million and dramatically tilt that race.
I'll ask you the same question: do you think Citizens United should have been prevented from releasing and advertising Hillary: The Movie? If so, what other forms of media would you ban, and under what circumstances?
Citizens United wasn't getting into trouble for releasing a movie critical of Hilary Clinton. They running ads for it and mentioned someone running in a campaign (in this case the democratic primaries). . . against the rules agreed to in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. If they had advertised and released the move 60 days before the general election, or after the general election there would have been no problem at all. If the democrats or one of their supporters had advertised a movie that mentioned Hilary Clinton (or anyone else running) within that time period they too would have been in violation.
Citizens United wasn't getting into trouble for releasing a movie critical of Hilary Clinton. They running ads for it and mentioned someone running in a campaign (in this case the democratic primaries). . . against the rules agreed to in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. If they had advertised and released the move 60 days before the general election, or after the general election there would have been no problem at all. If the democrats or one of their supporters had advertised a movie that mentioned Hilary Clinton (or anyone else running) within that time period they too would have been in violation.
So they can make a movie, they just can't tell anybody it exists? I think that's indistinguishable from not being allowed to publish it - if you can't tell anybody that it exists, it might as well not exist.
What's special about 60 days? Can't important things happen in the 60 days before an election that somebody (or a group) would have an interest in disseminating?
And really, how successful and impactful have Super PACs been? forummm above says that smaller races are more likely to be affected, but think of the millions Sheldon Adelson dropped supporting Newt Gingrich in the 2012 Republican primary, one state at a time. Those were tiny races and Adelson's millions were totally wasted.
What's the point of letting people vote if you're going to restrict what they can hear about?
No, they can make a movie about anything and they can tell anyone that they want that it exists. Unless it's a movie about a political candidate and they're advertising it on television within 60 days of an election.
Do you really think that millions upon millions of dollars would be spent on super PACs if they're not effective?
The whole point of campaign finance rules is to provide a more even playing field. When you are producing something that is purely political advertising, it's supposed to be from a limited fund. This way you can't simply drown out the opposition with advertising because you happen to have more money. Why do you believe that letting someone with more money have a greater voice is reasonable?
Nobody restricted what people could hear about in any appreciable way.
The rules agreed upon by both parties were simply there to reduce hidden spending in political campaigns. And now they're effectively gone.
No, they can make a movie about anything and they can tell anyone that they want that it exists. Unless it's a movie about a political candidate and they're advertising it on television within 60 days of an election.
Your second sentence refutes your first.
QuoteThe whole point of campaign finance rules is to provide a more even playing field. When you are producing something that is purely political advertising, it's supposed to be from a limited fund. This way you can't simply drown out the opposition with advertising because you happen to have more money. Why do you believe that letting someone with more money have a greater voice is reasonable?
I think people should be able to disseminate their opinions without restriction from the government. And it's interesting to see that in many ways the playing field has become more level - establishment candidates now can't simply crush their primary opposition because people can come in and offer support to longer-shot candidates, making their campaigns better able to survive and compete.
QuoteNobody restricted what people could hear about in any appreciable way.
This is just not true. Anything that the campaigns don't want you to hear about won't be said. So, if you wanted to make, for example, Afghanistan an issue in the 2012 campaign, you wouldn't have been able to do that, because neither Obama nor Romney were running on Afghanistan. Same for the 2016 campaign - if you care about human rights of Muslims, well, neither Clinton nor Trump does. The only person I've heard complaining about our supplying Saudi Arabia's hideous destruction of Yemen is Rand Paul.
QuoteThe rules agreed upon by both parties were simply there to reduce hidden spending in political campaigns. And now they're effectively gone.
I don't trust the two major parties to have control over what can be said and what can't be said.
Having sex wherever you want isn't a right enshrined in the Constitution. Speaking about politicians is.No, they can make a movie about anything and they can tell anyone that they want that it exists. Unless it's a movie about a political candidate and they're advertising it on television within 60 days of an election.
Your second sentence refutes your first.
No it really doesn't. You're still free to make movies and tell people about them. You're restricted in a very tiny way when near an election.
This is like having sex. You're free to have sex whenever you want. Unless you and your partner are doing it against the window of a school.
Well, Newt Gingrich didn't end up winning, but he did end up sticking around. You're right that I can't have it both ways. I guess it seems to me that it hasn't made much of a difference - I don't think people really pay attention to politics and tend to vote based on gut feelings that usually don't make sense - but that it certainly hasn't done what you appear to be concerned about, eliminating competition in elections.QuoteThe whole point of campaign finance rules is to provide a more even playing field. When you are producing something that is purely political advertising, it's supposed to be from a limited fund. This way you can't simply drown out the opposition with advertising because you happen to have more money. Why do you believe that letting someone with more money have a greater voice is reasonable?
I think people should be able to disseminate their opinions without restriction from the government. And it's interesting to see that in many ways the playing field has become more level - establishment candidates now can't simply crush their primary opposition because people can come in and offer support to longer-shot candidates, making their campaigns better able to survive and compete.
You did just say that the support offered by super PACs doesn't make any difference and is a waste of money, giving the example of Jeb Bush. How is that wasted support suddenly making campaigns better able to survive and compete? :P
What kind of debt do you think is owed to the financiers of these longer shot candidates?
Certainly there are other reasons these weren't substantial issues of debate, but concluding that the laws struck down weren't restricting free speech because a particular issue didn't get raised makes no sense.QuoteNobody restricted what people could hear about in any appreciable way.
This is just not true. Anything that the campaigns don't want you to hear about won't be said. So, if you wanted to make, for example, Afghanistan an issue in the 2012 campaign, you wouldn't have been able to do that, because neither Obama nor Romney were running on Afghanistan. Same for the 2016 campaign - if you care about human rights of Muslims, well, neither Clinton nor Trump does. The only person I've heard complaining about our supplying Saudi Arabia's hideous destruction of Yemen is Rand Paul.
This is a red herring. Both of those examples you've given are post the Citizen's United decision. Clearly the laws struck down weren't appreciably restricting free speech, there's another problem at play here.
QuoteThe rules agreed upon by both parties were simply there to reduce hidden spending in political campaigns. And now they're effectively gone.
I don't trust the two major parties to have control over what can be said and what can't be said.
Controlling what people say was never really the issue under discussion. As was mentioned previously, this isn't about freedom of speech at all . . . it's about money. The Citizen's United decision opened the gateway to infinite money being spent on political campaigns.
If you're after a world in which politicians don't owe anybody favors I suggest to you a world in which nobody cares what politicians do because they aren't very powerful.
If you're saying "you can't advertise X" you are restricting the speech of the person who wants to advertise X. Maybe you feel that's worthwhile. But, own it: you're in favor of restricting political speech because you believe it will reduce corruption.
Is money being spent on speech a form of speech, or does "free speech" just enshrine ranting on a street corner, and as soon as you spend money to promulgate your views you're subject to any and all restrictions?
I have sympathy for that concern. I feel that if politicians have a lot of power, the rich will find a way to influence them. Running a bunch of stupid advertisements seems like one of the least damaging ways this can be directed. What I would really like is to decrease the power of the government so the most powerful are less powerful.If you're after a world in which politicians don't owe anybody favors I suggest to you a world in which nobody cares what politicians do because they aren't very powerful.
Politics involves dealing by it's nature. My concern is that increasing the stakes and money involved just means that the small people get short shrift and a reduced voice. Democracy works because of it's inherent fairness . . . your vote counts as much as the next person's vote. It strikes me as fundamentally unfair that someone might get a louder voice because he's rich. That's something that it's worth trying to minimize.
If you're saying "you can't advertise X" you are restricting the speech of the person who wants to advertise X. Maybe you feel that's worthwhile. But, own it: you're in favor of restricting political speech because you believe it will reduce corruption.
Is money being spent on speech a form of speech, or does "free speech" just enshrine ranting on a street corner, and as soon as you spend money to promulgate your views you're subject to any and all restrictions?
I've just never found myself saying 'if only there was more money in political campaigning, the world would be a better place'.
That said, I see and understand your viewpoint that money spent on advertising constitutes free speech. It's a valid point, and one that I'll have to think about for a bit to see if I can reconcile the two issues.I appreciate the civil discussion. It's an important issue and clearly well-meaning people can come to different conclusions.
Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee?
Me. And I said so on several occasions in this very thread.
QuoteThat said, I see and understand your viewpoint that money spent on advertising constitutes free speech. It's a valid point, and one that I'll have to think about for a bit to see if I can reconcile the two issues.I appreciate the civil discussion. It's an important issue and clearly well-meaning people can come to different conclusions.
What bothers me about the current arrangement is that I, as an individual, am limited in how much I can give to a candidate, and my donations become public knowledge. However, I could establish a super PAC with three of my friends and basically contribute as much money as I want, without making those donations public.
It doesn't seem right that a person donating to a campaign is limited in their contribution and on public record, but they aren't if it's a super PAC.
QuoteThat said, I see and understand your viewpoint that money spent on advertising constitutes free speech. It's a valid point, and one that I'll have to think about for a bit to see if I can reconcile the two issues.I appreciate the civil discussion. It's an important issue and clearly well-meaning people can come to different conclusions.
What bothers me about the current arrangement is that I, as an individual, am limited in how much I can give to a candidate, and my donations become public knowledge. However, I could establish a super PAC with three of my friends and basically contribute as much money as I want, without making those donations public.
It doesn't seem right that a person donating to a campaign is limited in their contribution and on public record, but they aren't if it's a super PAC.
I think it would be ideal to amplify the voices of the many instead of just having the constantly amplified voices of the few and unusual. Instead of just banning very loud speech, let everyone operate on the same level. If you give greater voice to the many, then it greatly diminishes the value of the few and unusual to speak very loudly.
One idea: Provide each citizen with $100 (or whatever number) of credits per election cycle. Those credits can be allocated to any candidates of their choice. This will provide voice to average people who wouldn't otherwise participate in funding a campaign. Candidates work to solicit large numbers of voters to back them by allocating their credits. Once the candidates hit a certain threshold, they achieve public financing for their campaign of X amount. If they get more citizens signing on, the amount goes up. If some deep pockets fund other candidates, the public financing raises to match the other expenditures. This way everyone's voice can be heard, and not drowned out. And candidates would be responsive to the voters at large and not just the moneybag special interests, because those funds aren't as valuable anymore.
This might even benefit 3rd parties. If you as a citizen can "vote" with your credits well in advance of the election, you could help 3rd party candidates achieve viability and demonstrate widespread support early in the process.
Seriously, who here thought that Drumpf would be the Republican nominee?
Me. And I said so on several occasions in this very thread.
No , I know, but I was referring to the general consensus. Besides, a stopped clock is right twice a day. :P
I think it would be ideal to amplify the voices of the many instead of just having the constantly amplified voices of the few and unusual. Instead of just banning very loud speech, let everyone operate on the same level. If you give greater voice to the many, then it greatly diminishes the value of the few and unusual to speak very loudly.
One idea: Provide each citizen with $100 (or whatever number) of credits per election cycle. Those credits can be allocated to any candidates of their choice. This will provide voice to average people who wouldn't otherwise participate in funding a campaign. Candidates work to solicit large numbers of voters to back them by allocating their credits. Once the candidates hit a certain threshold, they achieve public financing for their campaign of X amount. If they get more citizens signing on, the amount goes up. If some deep pockets fund other candidates, the public financing raises to match the other expenditures. This way everyone's voice can be heard, and not drowned out. And candidates would be responsive to the voters at large and not just the moneybag special interests, because those funds aren't as valuable anymore.
This might even benefit 3rd parties. If you as a citizen can "vote" with your credits well in advance of the election, you could help 3rd party candidates achieve viability and demonstrate widespread support early in the process.
"You can't afford rent because of restrictive zoning policies, but here's $100 to send to whatever rich old person running for office you want!" I think there's better uses of money.
That's the usual kneejerk argument, but it's very myopic. We easily spend trillions of dollars per year that goes to special interests (both in budgetary spending and tax code spending). If we invest a little in a better, more representative democracy, the financial return on that investment could be 100x. The amount doesn't need to be $100 (say $10 or whatever). And not everyone will "spend" theirs. It should cost less than what we spend now. The ability to match big pocket donor funds will shut down those pockets. We currently spend about $4 billion per cycle IIRC. We waste that much in pointless wars each week IIRC.
I'd say we give the people voting weight corresponding to the amount of taxes they pay to support society and the government they're shaping. The 'givers' in society should have a larger voice on what's done with tax payer's money than the 'takers'.
I'd say we give the people voting weight corresponding to the amount of taxes they pay to support society and the government they're shaping. The 'givers' in society should have a larger voice on what's done with tax payer's money than the 'takers'.
I'mnot in favor of taxation based representation, because it's just as bad as what we have, so let's not make such dramatic changes for little possible gains. However, I'm in favor of "No representation without (net) taxation!" as a political ideal. Said another way, if you haven't contributed to the coffers of the government. over and above what direct monetary benefits you have received during the past year, then you should not have any say in who represents taxpayers during the next election. Notablely, this would disenfranchise myself.
I'm not in favor of taxation based representation, because it's just as bad as what we have, so let's not make such dramatic changes for little possible gains. However, I'm in favor of "No representation without (net) taxation!" as a political ideal. Said another way, if you haven't contributed to the coffers of the government. over and above what direct monetary benefits you have received during the past year, then you should not have any say in who represents taxpayers during the next election. Notablely, this would disenfranchise myself.
I'm not in favor of taxation based representation, because it's just as bad as what we have, so let's not make such dramatic changes for little possible gains. However, I'm in favor of "No representation without (net) taxation!" as a political ideal. Said another way, if you haven't contributed to the coffers of the government. over and above what direct monetary benefits you have received during the past year, then you should not have any say in who represents taxpayers during the next election. Notablely, this would disenfranchise myself.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that people who were currently unemployed, marginally employed, students, on disability, receiving substantial care from the public health care marketplaces or retired (among others) should not be permitted to vote in the next election?
Additionally, how do we treat SAHM/SAHD? Should they get a say, or only their employed spouses?
TLDR: If they are dependent upon government, rather than a net supporter, they they should not have the privilege of influencing the leadership that decides what benefits they receive. That is a fundamental conflict of interest, that we would never accept in other contexts.
In other words, you are arguing that voting should be a privilege bestowed upon certain people that pay more in taxes than what they receive, and not a right bestowed upon all law-abiding citizens. Is that correct?
In other words, you are arguing that voting should be a privilege bestowed upon certain people that pay more in taxes than what they receive, and not a right bestowed upon all law-abiding citizens. Is that correct?
It's only a "privilege bestowed upon certain people" if you think that the shouldering the majority of the burden for our society is a 'privilege'.
It is disingenuous to conflate private organizations or political parties with the actual, formal government. To use a narrow net positive taxation as the sole metric of conflict of interest and privilege to vote is, quite frankly, at strong odds with the concept of liberty and justice that this country is founded on. I would consider it trolling pure and simple had I not seen the many other postings clearly stating that you would be happy if the whole government were to be reduced to, as Grover Norquist put it, "shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub". I think it is fair to say that we have a fundamental disagreement on this one, regardless of how nuanced the clarifications on the wording may be. Basing the ability to vote on tax receipts is both untenable and unethical. Calling a person's voice in government a conflict of interest kind of negates the whole concept of democracy, no? What if I want to vote for lower taxes simply to benefit myself? Is that also not a conflict of interest?
I'm not in favor of taxation based representation, because it's just as bad as what we have, so let's not make such dramatic changes for little possible gains. However, I'm in favor of "No representation without (net) taxation!" as a political ideal. Said another way, if you haven't contributed to the coffers of the government. over and above what direct monetary benefits you have received during the past year, then you should not have any say in who represents taxpayers during the next election. Notablely, this would disenfranchise myself.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that people who were currently unemployed, marginally employed, students, on disability, receiving substantial care from the public health care marketplaces or retired (among others) should not be permitted to vote in the next election?
Would you believe that those who have not paid dues to the Democratic National Party should get to vote for their board or party president? Do you believe that those who have not contributed to the Southern Poverty Law Center should still have a right to vote for what kinds of cases they take? Do you think that people who live outside of Detroit (and thus, don't pay city taxes at all) should still have the right to vote for the mayor?
TLDR: If they are dependent upon government, rather than a net supporter, they they should not have the privilege of influencing the leadership that decides what benefits they receive. That is a fundamental conflict of interest, that we would never accept in other contexts.QuoteAdditionally, how do we treat SAHM/SAHD? Should they get a say, or only their employed spouses?
Households (typically) pay taxes & receive benefits as a single unit, so if the adult with the taxable employment can vote under this rule, so should the SAH adult.
You guys do understand that elected representatives do more than vote on social programs and taxation right? Shouldn't I get a say in stuff like drug policy, speed limits, etc regardless if I'm "dependent" on the government?
Plus, implementing a system where only tax payers could vote would require a huge government bureaucracy. Kind of the opposite of what you typically advocate for.
You guys do understand that elected representatives do more than vote on social programs and taxation right? Shouldn't I get a say in stuff like drug policy, speed limits, etc regardless if I'm "dependent" on the government?
Plus, implementing a system where only tax payers could vote would require a huge government bureaucracy. Kind of the opposite of what you typically advocate for.
Nah, you can manage that crap with one database based off of mandatory tax receipts.
You guys do understand that elected representatives do more than vote on social programs and taxation right? Shouldn't I get a say in stuff like drug policy, speed limits, etc regardless if I'm "dependent" on the government?
Plus, implementing a system where only tax payers could vote would require a huge government bureaucracy. Kind of the opposite of what you typically advocate for.
Nah, you can manage that crap with one database based off of mandatory tax receipts.
Really? It's just that easy? How convenient.
Where are these tax receipts coming from? How would we track tax paid on retail purchases and link that in with city, state, and federal taxes? If I pay property taxes but nothing else, do I only get to vote in local elections? How do we quantify (and track) the use of public goods like roads? Voter registration is done at the local level, so does the IRS need to communicate to those offices who's eligible to vote and if so, how would they do that?
Why?
It is disingenuous to conflate private organizations or political parties with the actual, formal government.
To use a narrow net positive taxation as the sole metric of conflict of interest and privilege to vote is, quite frankly, at strong odds with the concept of liberty and justice that this country is founded on.
Plus, implementing a system where only tax payers could vote would require a huge government bureaucracy. Kind of the opposite of what you typically advocate for.
Plus, implementing a system where only tax payers could vote would require a huge government bureaucracy. Kind of the opposite of what you typically advocate for.
Do you mean, like, larger than it is now? I could do it with a few lines of code and access to the IRS database in a day. Please, don't try to make the practical overhead argument here.
Plus, implementing a system where only tax payers could vote would require a huge government bureaucracy. Kind of the opposite of what you typically advocate for.
Do you mean, like, larger than it is now? I could do it with a few lines of code and access to the IRS database in a day. Please, don't try to make the practical overhead argument here.
Well it would be yet another system to develop and maintain. Are we using federal income tax as the only test of who can vote? If we say sales tax counts, how are you going to be able to track when I go to Target and buy a pair of socks? Just a simple government database of every purchase I make?
You clearly understand the difference between government and the SPLC. To say otherwise is incorrect... unless you actually view the government (and by extension the constitution) to be separate from our country. Is that the case?Why?
It is disingenuous to conflate private organizations or political parties with the actual, formal government.QuoteTo use a narrow net positive taxation as the sole metric of conflict of interest and privilege to vote is, quite frankly, at strong odds with the concept of liberty and justice that this country is founded on.
Your understanding of the concept of liberty & justice that this country was founded upon is historically inaccurate, regardless of whether I would agree with it or not. This nation was founded as a republic, not a democracy, and the framers regarded democracy as dangerous. Senators were not directly elected until 1913. Originally, only landowners could vote; thus guaranteeing that they were taxpayers & had a strong stake in the local politic, in addition to probably being white. Massachusetts wouldn't permit lawyers to serve in public office for about 20 years, due to a strict interpretation of the clause that prohibited persons with foreign titles from holding a public office. We still don't directly elect the President of the US. Do you really think that your vote counts? Of course not. And voting was always regarded as a privilege in the framers' minds. After all, they never got to vote, why would they assume that voting was a fundamental liberty to be protected?
You clearly understand the difference between government and the SPLC. To say otherwise is incorrect... unless you actually view the government (and by extension the constitution) to be separate from our country. Is that the case?Why?
It is disingenuous to conflate private organizations or political parties with the actual, formal government.QuoteTo use a narrow net positive taxation as the sole metric of conflict of interest and privilege to vote is, quite frankly, at strong odds with the concept of liberty and justice that this country is founded on.
Your understanding of the concept of liberty & justice that this country was founded upon is historically inaccurate, regardless of whether I would agree with it or not. This nation was founded as a republic, not a democracy, and the framers regarded democracy as dangerous. Senators were not directly elected until 1913. Originally, only landowners could vote; thus guaranteeing that they were taxpayers & had a strong stake in the local politic, in addition to probably being white. Massachusetts wouldn't permit lawyers to serve in public office for about 20 years, due to a strict interpretation of the clause that prohibited persons with foreign titles from holding a public office. We still don't directly elect the President of the US. Do you really think that your vote counts? Of course not. And voting was always regarded as a privilege in the framers' minds. After all, they never got to vote, why would they assume that voting was a fundamental liberty to be protected?
I'll accept a time lag from the framers, but right to vote is enshrined in the constitution in several places. Here's one from an amendment in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." I think that last part (in reference to many who would not have been paying a lot of taxes), is particularly relevant.
What is your preferred mode of voice in society? Vote with your pocketbook through unfettered capitalism? I ask this as an honest question. Over several months I've heard a lot of your opinions on the current gov't and the gov't of other countries, but not what your ideal construct would be.
Why?
It is disingenuous to conflate private organizations or political parties with the actual, formal government.QuoteTo use a narrow net positive taxation as the sole metric of conflict of interest and privilege to vote is, quite frankly, at strong odds with the concept of liberty and justice that this country is founded on.
Your understanding of the concept of liberty & justice that this country was founded upon is historically inaccurate, regardless of whether I would agree with it or not. This nation was founded as a republic, not a democracy, and the framers regarded democracy as dangerous. Senators were not directly elected until 1913. Originally, only landowners could vote; thus guaranteeing that they were taxpayers & had a strong stake in the local politic, in addition to probably being white. Massachusetts wouldn't permit lawyers to serve in public office for about 20 years, due to a strict interpretation of the clause that prohibited persons with foreign titles from holding a public office. We still don't directly elect the President of the US. Do you really think that your vote counts? Of course not. And voting was always regarded as a privilege in the framers' minds. After all, they never got to vote, why would they assume that voting was a fundamental liberty to be protected?
Why?
It is disingenuous to conflate private organizations or political parties with the actual, formal government.QuoteTo use a narrow net positive taxation as the sole metric of conflict of interest and privilege to vote is, quite frankly, at strong odds with the concept of liberty and justice that this country is founded on.
Your understanding of the concept of liberty & justice that this country was founded upon is historically inaccurate, regardless of whether I would agree with it or not. This nation was founded as a republic, not a democracy, and the framers regarded democracy as dangerous. Senators were not directly elected until 1913. Originally, only landowners could vote; thus guaranteeing that they were taxpayers & had a strong stake in the local politic, in addition to probably being white. Massachusetts wouldn't permit lawyers to serve in public office for about 20 years, due to a strict interpretation of the clause that prohibited persons with foreign titles from holding a public office. We still don't directly elect the President of the US. Do you really think that your vote counts? Of course not. And voting was always regarded as a privilege in the framers' minds. After all, they never got to vote, why would they assume that voting was a fundamental liberty to be protected?
You are clinging to a version of history from the foundation of the United States, and deliberately ignoring the constitution which clearly phrases voting as a right, not a privilege, and has been expanded upon and clarified by several amendments throughout the years.
At least be honest and say that you want to amend the constitution to limit voting to a subset of citizens.
Amendment XIV:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article XV:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Ariticle XIX:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex
Amendment XXIV:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Amendment XXVI:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age
Just because people vote for something doesn't make it not authoritarian. Chavez in Venezuela did win an apparently legitimate election, but that doesn't make him not an authoritarian. (Yes, he's dead.)
To have a non-authoritarian government, you need the government, its officials, and its agents to be subject to rules. That's what concerns me about Trump and Clinton - they don't care about the rules, only the power.
Unfortunately the last two presidents have not helped on this front at all - Obama created the precedent that you can go to war without ever getting permission from Congress and then had the audacity to say it wasn't war, it was "kinetic military action." And even with the prospect of Trump having that power, I haven't seen many Democrats considering that perhaps Obama should have been made to follow the rules when he made the USA participate in the destruction of Libya. They'll start remembering checks and balances on Inauguration Day.
I'm not "clinging" to some version of anything. I speak the truth and you know it. Opinions change, yes. As I said, voting has evolved into a "right", by name, in some amendments. Notably, there is no prohibition in denying the "right" to vote based upon taxpayer status. If voting really is a "right", why isn't that already prohibited? What about foreigners? Rights are universal, are they not? Why would we deny the rights of foreign visitors? They have the right to life, liberty and property; and we protect those rights while they are in our country; why would we deny them their right of suffrage based upon where they were born? What about felons? Felons have rights too, why don't they have voting booths in prisons on election day? You should get on all that. Voting is a right!
Just because people vote for something doesn't make it not authoritarian. Chavez in Venezuela did win an apparently legitimate election, but that doesn't make him not an authoritarian. (Yes, he's dead.)Careful, Shoulderthing, you have veered back on topic. Will disagree that Obama was the first to claim that a war wasn't a war, but I agree that military action without regard for rules governing our country's entry into conflicts is moving in an authoritarian direction. I believe that the current partisan environment in the US is responsible for each party sometimes working against the interest of the nation. I do admit that I have trouble justifying this with my own very partisan views.
To have a non-authoritarian government, you need the government, its officials, and its agents to be subject to rules. That's what concerns me about Trump and Clinton - they don't care about the rules, only the power.
Unfortunately the last two presidents have not helped on this front at all - Obama created the precedent that you can go to war without ever getting permission from Congress and then had the audacity to say it wasn't war, it was "kinetic military action." And even with the prospect of Trump having that power, I haven't seen many Democrats considering that perhaps Obama should have been made to follow the rules when he made the USA participate in the destruction of Libya. They'll start remembering checks and balances on Inauguration Day.
You clearly understand the difference between government and the SPLC. To say otherwise is incorrect... unless you actually view the government (and by extension the constitution) to be separate from our country. Is that the case?Why?
It is disingenuous to conflate private organizations or political parties with the actual, formal government.QuoteTo use a narrow net positive taxation as the sole metric of conflict of interest and privilege to vote is, quite frankly, at strong odds with the concept of liberty and justice that this country is founded on.
Your understanding of the concept of liberty & justice that this country was founded upon is historically inaccurate, regardless of whether I would agree with it or not. This nation was founded as a republic, not a democracy, and the framers regarded democracy as dangerous. Senators were not directly elected until 1913. Originally, only landowners could vote; thus guaranteeing that they were taxpayers & had a strong stake in the local politic, in addition to probably being white. Massachusetts wouldn't permit lawyers to serve in public office for about 20 years, due to a strict interpretation of the clause that prohibited persons with foreign titles from holding a public office. We still don't directly elect the President of the US. Do you really think that your vote counts? Of course not. And voting was always regarded as a privilege in the framers' minds. After all, they never got to vote, why would they assume that voting was a fundamental liberty to be protected?
I'll accept a time lag from the framers, but right to vote is enshrined in the constitution in several places. Here's one from an amendment in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." I think that last part (in reference to many who would not have been paying a lot of taxes), is particularly relevant.
Relevant, yes. It also proves the point. This nation was not founded, originally, on the concept that suffrage was a right of the governed. That was a later concept that evolved, whether or not you agree with history or not. Words have meanings that are independent of what you or I might believe they mean, and the meaning of a "right" has a particular set of qualities. In this context, a positive right is not a right at all, but either an entitlement, a duty or a privilege. It can even be all of these things in combination, but it cannot be a "right". If the US actually limited it's own federal & state governments to actions that was within it's own "right" powers, the number of laws that congress could pass would be few and of little consequence upon the common man. I would welcome such a nation, but it wouldn't look much like this one.QuoteWhat is your preferred mode of voice in society? Vote with your pocketbook through unfettered capitalism? I ask this as an honest question. Over several months I've heard a lot of your opinions on the current gov't and the gov't of other countries, but not what your ideal construct would be.
The problem with that is that would only work if the services in question were subject to the natural economic forces of a free market. Nothing that government does is affected by consumer choice. If young Americans were given the choice about whether to stay in SS with the current promises, or opt out and keep their funds, SS would self-destruct in a single generation. This is why the left is so opposed to any effort to offer such a choice. I don't know if there is a better way for a person to have 'voice' regarding their own governance, but I know that voting isn't it either way. If you think your opinion matters because you vote, you don't understand the mathematics.
QuoteAmendment XXIV:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Notably, there is no prohibition in denying the "right" to vote based upon taxpayer status.
The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/
GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7
Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.
The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.The thing that hurts your argument is that Romney lost. A major factor in the 538 story is that the partisan divide has grown and crossover voting has diminished in recent cycles.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/
GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7
Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.
The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/
GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7
Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.
I'm very interested in seeing how this changes - if at all - after the conventions.
The thing that hurts your argument is that Romney lost. A major factor in the 538 story is that the partisan divide has grown and crossover voting has diminished in recent cycles.
That's a hard argument to make. 90's Republicans fought the policy proposals that Hillary was associated with very hard. I agree that they hate her, but for elected Republicans, it is because of the policies that she has worked for. Calling her a 90's Republican ignores what they were trying to do.The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/
GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7
Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.
I'm very interested in seeing how this changes - if at all - after the conventions.
The poll is comparing data at this phase (when the nomination is locked up) and not after the convention. But the closer we get to the election the better the data should be.The thing that hurts your argument is that Romney lost. A major factor in the 538 story is that the partisan divide has grown and crossover voting has diminished in recent cycles.
I'm not saying Trump will win. Just that the narrative of "Never Trump" and of all the GOPers refusing to support him is not exactly playing out. His support is very in line with all the prior nominees. People who have criticized him harshly have now endorsed him publicly. GOP senators are almost all falling in line. The voters clearly have as well. Having Clinton on the other side makes it very easy for them to set aside their differences with Trump. They might hate him. But they really hate her. Which is also stupid because she's basically a 90s moderate Republican in most regards. The whole point of the Clinton DLC/Third Way movement was to be not liberal. I think a Clinton presidency is better for the GOP than a Trump one for many reasons. For example, she will give them things they are largely OK with but can still spend 4 years campaigning against her (and successfully since most of the country hates and distrusts her). Versus Trump being a buffoon every day and doing who knows what and likely handing the presidency back to the Democrats in 4 years.
Just because people vote for something doesn't make it not authoritarian. Chavez in Venezuela did win an apparently legitimate election, but that doesn't make him not an authoritarian. (Yes, he's dead.)Careful, Shoulderthing, you have veered back on topic. Will disagree that Obama was the first to claim that a war wasn't a war, but I agree that military action without regard for rules governing our country's entry into conflicts is moving in an authoritarian direction. I believe that the current partisan environment in the US is responsible for each party sometimes working against the interest of the nation. I do admit that I have trouble justifying this with my own very partisan views.
To have a non-authoritarian government, you need the government, its officials, and its agents to be subject to rules. That's what concerns me about Trump and Clinton - they don't care about the rules, only the power.
Unfortunately the last two presidents have not helped on this front at all - Obama created the precedent that you can go to war without ever getting permission from Congress and then had the audacity to say it wasn't war, it was "kinetic military action." And even with the prospect of Trump having that power, I haven't seen many Democrats considering that perhaps Obama should have been made to follow the rules when he made the USA participate in the destruction of Libya. They'll start remembering checks and balances on Inauguration Day.
Trump and Clinton do appear to have preservation of power in mind (for what appear to be different reasons) and I consider it to be a serious concern.
I'm not saying Trump will win. Just that the narrative of "Never Trump" and of all the GOPers refusing to support him is not exactly playing out. His support is very in line with all the prior nominees. People who have criticized him harshly have now endorsed him publicly. GOP senators are almost all falling in line. The voters clearly have as well. Having Clinton on the other side makes it very easy for them to set aside their differences with Trump. They might hate him. But they really hate her. Which is also stupid because she's basically a 90s moderate Republican in most regards. The whole point of the Clinton DLC/Third Way movement was to be not liberal. I think a Clinton presidency is better for the GOP than a Trump one for many reasons. For example, she will give them things they are largely OK with but can still spend 4 years campaigning against her (and successfully since most of the country hates and distrusts her). Versus Trump being a buffoon every day and doing who knows what and likely handing the presidency back to the Democrats in 4 years.That's a hard argument to make. 90's Republicans fought the policy proposals that Hillary was associated with very hard. I agree that they hate her, but for elected Republicans, it is because of the policies that she has worked for. Calling her a 90's Republican ignores what they were trying to do.
QuoteAmendment XXIV:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Notably, there is no prohibition in denying the "right" to vote based upon taxpayer status.
Doesn't that amendment rather clearly say that you can't deny someone the right to vote based on paying taxes?
The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.
Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.
Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.
The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.
The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.
Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.
Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.
The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.
As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.
The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.
Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.
Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.
The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.
As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.
And it's this kind of stuff that results in difficulty in seeing a practical difference between the two major parties.
The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.
Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.
Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.
The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.
As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.
And it's this kind of stuff that results in difficulty in seeing a practical difference between the two major parties.
Which brings up this philisophical point: Perhaps the overwhelming majority of Americans agree on the majority of political issues in front of us, and we simply have learned to think we passionately disagree with the other side.
So that would be BIRs and RWCDs? and Everyone knows el nińo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...
The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.
Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.
Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.
The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.
As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.
And it's this kind of stuff that results in difficulty in seeing a practical difference between the two major parties.
Which brings up this philisophical point: Perhaps the overwhelming majority of Americans agree on the majority of political issues in front of us, and we simply have learned to think we passionately disagree with the other side.
I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.
Apparently, it is actually hurricanes, not el nińo...So that would be BIRs and RWCDs? and Everyone knows el nińo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...
The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.
Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.
Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.
The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.
As usual, I agree 100% with the nut.
And it's this kind of stuff that results in difficulty in seeing a practical difference between the two major parties.
Which brings up this philisophical point: Perhaps the overwhelming majority of Americans agree on the majority of political issues in front of us, and we simply have learned to think we passionately disagree with the other side.
I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.
Apparently, it is actually hurricanes, not el nińo...So that would be BIRs and RWCDs? and Everyone knows el nińo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...
I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/29/1104901/anti-gay-preacher-blames-hurricane-sandy-on-homosexuality-and-marriage-equality/
*facepalm*
Apparently, it is actually hurricanes, not el nińo...So that would be BIRs and RWCDs? and Everyone knows el nińo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...
I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/29/1104901/anti-gay-preacher-blames-hurricane-sandy-on-homosexuality-and-marriage-equality/
*facepalm*
Well here's your problem - the correlation is backwards - hurricanes didn't create homosexuality, they were a response variable sent by God to deal with all that happy-brotherly (and sisterly) love. But the question remains... how did it start???
note: I can't believe these people exist. I wonder how often they believe their own words.
Apparently, it is actually hurricanes, not el nińo...So that would be BIRs and RWCDs? and Everyone knows el nińo causes homosexuality, not hurricanes...
I think there are some real and fundamental differences among Americans, but this just shows that we don't (if we ever did...) have 2 real parties. We mainly elect Batshit Insane Republicans and Republicans we call Democrats because they don't care who goes to which bathroom or think hurricanes are caused by homosexuality.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/29/1104901/anti-gay-preacher-blames-hurricane-sandy-on-homosexuality-and-marriage-equality/
*facepalm*
Well here's your problem - the correlation is backwards - hurricanes didn't create homosexuality, they were a response variable sent by God to deal with all that happy-brotherly (and sisterly) love. But the question remains... how did it start???
note: I can't believe these people exist. I wonder how often they believe their own words.
Worth reading for the participants in this discussion: I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/)
It's very difficult to get a concept of what the mindset of the country as a whole is. None of us, living lives of an Incredible Volcano of Awesomeness, really has any idea. It's incredibly easy to mock people whose life experience we can't understand.
I'm not saying Trump will win. Just that the narrative of "Never Trump" and of all the GOPers refusing to support him is not exactly playing out. His support is very in line with all the prior nominees. People who have criticized him harshly have now endorsed him publicly. GOP senators are almost all falling in line. The voters clearly have as well. Having Clinton on the other side makes it very easy for them to set aside their differences with Trump. They might hate him. But they really hate her. Which is also stupid because she's basically a 90s moderate Republican in most regards. The whole point of the Clinton DLC/Third Way movement was to be not liberal. I think a Clinton presidency is better for the GOP than a Trump one for many reasons. For example, she will give them things they are largely OK with but can still spend 4 years campaigning against her (and successfully since most of the country hates and distrusts her). Versus Trump being a buffoon every day and doing who knows what and likely handing the presidency back to the Democrats in 4 years.That's a hard argument to make. 90's Republicans fought the policy proposals that Hillary was associated with very hard. I agree that they hate her, but for elected Republicans, it is because of the policies that she has worked for. Calling her a 90's Republican ignores what they were trying to do.
The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.
Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.
Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.
The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.
While I would be hard-pressed to deny that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are allies of Hillary Clinton, their policies are not hers. The ACA was based on the Massachusetts healthcare law, passed in a state which had an insurmountable Democratic legislature and signed by a (then) moderate Republican governor.
Clinton has campaigned on women's health issues, climate change, and gun control. These would be difficult to confuse with Republican positions and are issues where she has campaigned to more than Sanders. In addition, if Clinton is Republican, Sanders runs right along side her, as their voting records match over 90% of the time. Clinton has been more hadwkish on foreign policy (and I disagree with her on this), but she also supported ending Congressional earmarks, against Sanders's opposition.
I believe that Sanders has done great things for the Democratic party and has forced Clinton to be a better candidate. I also believe that if he can make his voice and positions a part of the general election campaign, he may do more good in the long term.
I'm not saying Trump will win. Just that the narrative of "Never Trump" and of all the GOPers refusing to support him is not exactly playing out. His support is very in line with all the prior nominees. People who have criticized him harshly have now endorsed him publicly. GOP senators are almost all falling in line. The voters clearly have as well. Having Clinton on the other side makes it very easy for them to set aside their differences with Trump. They might hate him. But they really hate her. Which is also stupid because she's basically a 90s moderate Republican in most regards. The whole point of the Clinton DLC/Third Way movement was to be not liberal. I think a Clinton presidency is better for the GOP than a Trump one for many reasons. For example, she will give them things they are largely OK with but can still spend 4 years campaigning against her (and successfully since most of the country hates and distrusts her). Versus Trump being a buffoon every day and doing who knows what and likely handing the presidency back to the Democrats in 4 years.That's a hard argument to make. 90's Republicans fought the policy proposals that Hillary was associated with very hard. I agree that they hate her, but for elected Republicans, it is because of the policies that she has worked for. Calling her a 90's Republican ignores what they were trying to do.
The Republicans fought (and continue to fight) because of politics. Not policy (frequently). The ACA is very similar to Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan. It's also very similar to what the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch proposed in the 90s. It's also more conservative than what Nixon was offering in the 70s. Yet Republicans have fought it like crazy because of politics. Obama nominated the guy to SCOTUS that Orrin Hatch said, by name, would be an ideal nominee. And they refuse to even meet with him (except for some people in close races). They impeached Clinton over having an affair while *at the same time* Gingrich, Livingston, and others were actively engaged in their own affairs. They investigated the Clinton's Christmas card list.
Clinton did a ton of conservative wish list items. Like campaigning on "ending welfare as we know it". Did you know that in AZ you are limited to a couple hundred bucks per month in TANF regardless of how many kids you have and that you have a lifetime maximum of 12 months of benefits in total? The longest limit for any state is 5 years. He also balanced the budget. He championed and signed a major crime bill, including "three strikes", that ended up locking up lots of people with sentences far longer than makes any sense--and now we have record imprisonment. He signed the repeal of Glass Steagall, degregulated derivatives (both helping along the 2008 crisis), reappointed Greenspan as Fed chair, signed NAFTA, signed DOMA, escalated the drug war at home and abroad, etc.
Meanwhile, Obama has also generally been a moderate 90s Republican on most issues. And Clinton is now campaigning generally on not doing anything different from Obama, except to be "more muscular" on foreign policy.
The obstruction is mostly about politics, not policy.
I am inserting a comment that I made earlier in response to forum without quoting him. I really disagree that Clinton is simply a 90's Republican and that they opposed her simply to be obstructionist.While I would be hard-pressed to deny that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are allies of Hillary Clinton, their policies are not hers. The ACA was based on the Massachusetts healthcare law, passed in a state which had an insurmountable Democratic legislature and signed by a (then) moderate Republican governor.
Clinton has campaigned on women's health issues, climate change, and gun control. These would be difficult to confuse with Republican positions and are issues where she has campaigned to more than Sanders. In addition, if Clinton is Republican, Sanders runs right along side her, as their voting records match over 90% of the time. Clinton has been more hadwkish on foreign policy (and I disagree with her on this), but she also supported ending Congressional earmarks, against Sanders's opposition.
I believe that Sanders has done great things for the Democratic party and has forced Clinton to be a better candidate. I also believe that if he can make his voice and positions a part of the general election campaign, he may do more good in the long term.
Riden explains that his views today go even further than those of the Continental Congress of 2009—his involvement in which he says he explicitly disclosed to the Trump campaign when he applied to be a delegate. Riden told Mother Jones in an interview that US leaders who violate the Constitution may have to be done away with: "The polite word is 'eliminated,'" he said. "The harsh word is 'killed.'"
I agree that Clinton is not a 90s Republican. She is however right of center, especially on economic and foreign policy issues. 30 years ago, she would be a prime Republican candidate. Most of the issues she is on the left about are positions that have essentially been forced on her (Same sex Marriage for example). It is indicative of how far the republican base has moved to the right, that the best the democrats can come up with (Sanders excluded) are actually right of center on most issues, especially when looking at what they have done/proposed vs rhetoric.
While I would be hard-pressed to deny that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are allies of Hillary Clinton, their policies are not hers. The ACA was based on the Massachusetts healthcare law, passed in a state which had an insurmountable Democratic legislature and signed by a (then) moderate Republican governor.
Clinton has campaigned on women's health issues, climate change, and gun control. These would be difficult to confuse with Republican positions and are issues where she has campaigned to more than Sanders. In addition, if Clinton is Republican, Sanders runs right along side her, as their voting records match over 90% of the time. Clinton has been more hadwkish on foreign policy (and I disagree with her on this), but she also supported ending Congressional earmarks, against Sanders's opposition.
I believe that Sanders has done great things for the Democratic party and has forced Clinton to be a better candidate. I also believe that if he can make his voice and positions a part of the general election campaign, he may do more good in the long term.
It's just the crazy NRA (which is controlled by gun manufacturers and therefore only wants to drive up sales and no longer cares about things like safety because safety means fewer sales).
Forummm, you can't suggest that George W Bush was "publicly" one way and privately another. It's speculation. His actions argue very differently, particularly the nomination of Samuel Alito to the court. Bush also fought for the privatization of Social Security. On social issues, Sanders has not been a voice, but Clinton has pushed women's rights for decades. Referring to her support for Goldwater before she was 18 is simply ridiculous.
Forummm, you can't suggest that George W Bush was "publicly" one way and privately another. It's speculation. His actions argue very differently, particularly the nomination of Samuel Alito to the court. Bush also fought for the privatization of Social Security. On social issues, Sanders has not been a voice, but Clinton has pushed women's rights for decades. Referring to her support for Goldwater before she was 18 is simply ridiculous.
QuoteGeorge HW Bush said that we should let everyone buy into Medicaid (i.e. the public option).QuoteGeorge HW Bush setup a cap and trade system to deal with pollution.QuoteGHWB tore up his NRA card when the NRA started going nuts.QuoteGeorge HW Bush had to publicly be anti-choice, but it's widely believed he was privately in favor of choice.QuoteGHWB also appointed a record number of women to positions.
Wow, I totally misread that! GHWB did have pro-choice leanings in private, but his nomination of Clarence Thomas is his lasting legacy on women's health issues.Forummm, you can't suggest that George W Bush was "publicly" one way and privately another. It's speculation. His actions argue very differently, particularly the nomination of Samuel Alito to the court. Bush also fought for the privatization of Social Security. On social issues, Sanders has not been a voice, but Clinton has pushed women's rights for decades. Referring to her support for Goldwater before she was 18 is simply ridiculous.
Swing and a miss:QuoteGeorge HW Bush said that we should let everyone buy into Medicaid (i.e. the public option).QuoteGeorge HW Bush setup a cap and trade system to deal with pollution.QuoteGHWB tore up his NRA card when the NRA started going nuts.QuoteGeorge HW Bush had to publicly be anti-choice, but it's widely believed he was privately in favor of choice.QuoteGHWB also appointed a record number of women to positions.
Also, 90s Republican, not 2000s Republican
It's just the crazy NRA (which is controlled by gun manufacturers and therefore only wants to drive up sales and no longer cares about things like safety because safety means fewer sales).
Is this what you really believe? The Second Amendment Association is way more hardcore than the NRA. I personally know active, lifetime members of the NRA that complain that they are too willing to compromise.
In the 1930s, when the N.F.A. was debated, the N.R.A. president, Karl Frederick, effectively endorsed registration of all firearms and licensing of gun owners: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he once said. “I think it should be sharply restricted and only under license.”http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/opinion/gun-control-that-actually-works.html
I won't say that Clinton is far from the center. I would prefer a more liberal nominee, but I believe that she will try to bring the country in a dramatically more progressive direction than any Republican would, including Trump.
The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/
GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7
Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.
Now Paul Ryan says he'll vote for Trump. They are all falling in line. Trump could definitely win.
In his letter, Ryan stated that he agrees with Trump most of the time.The table doesn't format well here, but Trump has more support among the GOP than any other GOP nominee since 1980 except Romney at this time in the cycle (in the month after wrapping up the GOP nomination). A caveat (perhaps an important one in this cycle) is that this excludes 3rd party candidates.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-voters-are-rallying-behind-trump-as-if-he-were-any-other-candidate/
GOP SUPPORT FOR …
1980 1988 1996 2000 2008 2012 2016
Republican nominee 74% 81% 79% 83% 84% 87% 85%
Democratic nominee 14 13 18 7 10 6 7
Combine this with a very beatable Clinton, and a Trump presidency looks very possible.
Now Paul Ryan says he'll vote for Trump. They are all falling in line. Trump could definitely win.
It's just the crazy NRA (which is controlled by gun manufacturers and therefore only wants to drive up sales and no longer cares about things like safety because safety means fewer sales).
Is this what you really believe? The Second Amendment Association is way more hardcore than the NRA. I personally know active, lifetime members of the NRA that complain that they are too willing to compromise.
The NRA has shifted dramatically from what it used to be. Interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted too. Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago
and now everyone seems to forget that the NRA used to agree that there isn't a constitutional requirement that anyone can have any weapon they want to at any time and not have anyone else know about it.The NRA still agrees with this position, which is why the 2nd Amendment Association thinks they are too soft.
The NRA used to be about gun safety and sportsmanship and hunting (it's even called the "Rifle" association and not "Machine Guns with 100 bullet Clips" association or "Handguns to Terrorists and Mentally Ill" association). Now it's about fearmongering and driving up weapons sales for the companies on their board.
QuoteIn the 1930s, when the N.F.A. was debated, the N.R.A. president, Karl Frederick, effectively endorsed registration of all firearms and licensing of gun owners: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he once said. “I think it should be sharply restricted and only under license.”http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/opinion/gun-control-that-actually-works.html
It's just the crazy NRA (which is controlled by gun manufacturers and therefore only wants to drive up sales and no longer cares about things like safety because safety means fewer sales).
Is this what you really believe? The Second Amendment Association is way more hardcore than the NRA. I personally know active, lifetime members of the NRA that complain that they are too willing to compromise.
The NRA has shifted dramatically from what it used to be. Interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted too. Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago
Not this again. I have, personally, presented plenty of historical evidence that this is not remotely the case, and that the 2nd was always intended to be interpreted as an individual right to bear arms. Nor am I the only one that has presented you with this evidence, and here you go again.
Interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted too. Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago
Bizarre twitter post from Donald Trump:
I think the first female president of the USA will be @IvankaTrump a beautiful intelligent young genuine successful lady!" (http://I think the first female president of the USA will be @IvankaTrump a beautiful intelligent young genuine successful lady!")
I'm not sure if this is hyperbole or what, but I hope he understands she is not eligible to be POTUS. If so, what does that really say about his earlier (false) assertions that Obama was not eligible (the whole "birther" movement). Or maybe he wants to amend the constutution?
Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...
Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...
The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.
I'm not quite following this line of attack. I think Forummm may have gone too far to claim that Judge Scalia 'invented' the individual right to bear arms, but his legal opinions on the matter have been very influential for the current interpretation of the second amendment.Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...
The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.It directly references a Militia, and the right of the people, but does not specifically mention whether this is a right that can be extended to an individual, particularly one that is not a part of an active militia.
Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...
The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.
Scalia did not invent the individual right to bear arms BUT an analysis of court cases at the state and federal level clearly show that the courts considered the second amendment to only prevent the FEDERAL government from regulating firearm ownership. States were free to restrict or expand ownership as they saw fit in order to maintain the capability for a MILITIA.
Some brief examples:
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), The Supreme court decided that the National Firearms act banning interstate transport of firearms was constitutional. Specifically, the Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
Not until District of Columbia V Heller, (2008) did the supreme court change positions. In a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right. Scalia authored the decision in this.
So in summary, courts for over 200 years ruled that the state governments can limit firearm possession. Not until 2008 was an individual right to arms enshrined on a federal level.
Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...
The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.
Scalia did not invent the individual right to bear arms BUT an analysis of court cases at the state and federal level clearly show that the courts considered the second amendment to only prevent the FEDERAL government from regulating firearm ownership. States were free to restrict or expand ownership as they saw fit in order to maintain the capability for a MILITIA.
Some brief examples:
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), The Supreme court decided that the National Firearms act banning interstate transport of firearms was constitutional. Specifically, the Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
Not until District of Columbia V Heller, (2008) did the supreme court change positions. In a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right. Scalia authored the decision in this.
So in summary, courts for over 200 years ruled that the state governments can limit firearm possession. Not until 2008 was an individual right to arms enshrined on a federal level.
It's called "incorporation" and it's why any parts of the Bill of Rights apply to states. It's a consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment. Heller and McDonald simply placed the Second Amendment on the same footing as the First and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
So does anyone here really believe in an individual right to own arms of any sort, without restrictions?
I mean lots of people say they believe that, until you probe for details. Very few people think private citizens should be allowed to stockpile fissile material, much less actual nuclear bombs, since the whole dirty bomb scares of the 2000s. Can the mentally ill fill their suburban homes with tanks full of nerve gas? How about a drone that sprays ricin over crowds, should you be allowed to carry that into an NFL game?
Most everyone believes that some weapons should be regulated and controlled, in the interest of public safety. If I invented a $5 bomb that anyone could make and that could end all life on earth, the NRA probably wouldn't argue that children should have unrestricted access to such devices.
So most everyone agrees we need some restrictions. Maybe not mental patients or children or convicted felons. Maybe not super powerful bombs that could end humanity. Maybe not in crowded places where innocent people congregate and are vulnerable to airborne pathogens.
Given those facts, isn't everything else just arguing over matters of degree? When is a weapon a super weapon? Who is declared mentally unfit? What age is old enough?
Folks who get all worked up over gun control as some sort of violation of their personal liberty invariably WANT restrictions to those same liberties for other people. It's a necessary precondition for the survival of society.
So maybe get off your constitutional high horse and admit were quibbling over details here? OF COURSE the government has the right to restrict personal ownership of weapons, we just don't all agree over what weapons for what people at what times. But it's not like the 2nd Amendment prohibits gun control.
So does anyone here really believe in an individual right to own arms of any sort, without restrictions?
If I invented a $5 bomb that anyone could make and that could end all life on earth, the NRA probably wouldn't argue that children should have unrestricted access to such devices.
Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?
Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?
The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?
Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?
The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?
Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868
A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns. Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.
Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?
The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?
Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868
A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns. Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.
So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights? So is the ACLU. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/
Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?
The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?
Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868
A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns. Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.
So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights? So is the ACLU. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/
Good point. How come terrorists can buy guns with no problems, but nobody's interested in fixing the no-fly list that bans people from travel for no reason?
Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?
The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?
Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868
A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns. Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.
So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights? So is the ACLU. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/
Good point. How come terrorists can buy guns with no problems, but nobody's interested in fixing the no-fly list that bans people from travel for no reason?
Don't say no one. I don't like secret surveillance of US citizens either.
Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?
The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?
Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868
A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns. Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.
So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights? So is the ACLU. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/
Good point. How come terrorists can buy guns with no problems, but nobody's interested in fixing the no-fly list that bans people from travel for no reason?
Don't say no one. I don't like secret surveillance of US citizens either.
Yeah, but why are people prevented from flying by being on these lists? Because of the risk of terrorism of course. Buy a gun though? No problem, we have to assume that they're not terrorists.
:P
Obviously it's because airplanes are not mentioned in the constitution. /s
Depends. Are you on their board and making lots of money selling them? They advocate for terrorists to be allowed to buy weapons. Why not kids?
The NRA advocates for terrorists being allowed to buy weapons?
Not sure the specific act he was mentioning but it might have been this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868
A law was proposed to prevent people on the terrorist watch/no-fly list from buying guns. Republicans and the NRA killed the bill.
So the NRA is against people on a flawed secret list from exercising rights? So is the ACLU. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/07/3728943/no-fly-terrorist-watch-list-guns/
Good point. How come terrorists can buy guns with no problems, but nobody's interested in fixing the no-fly list that bans people from travel for no reason?
I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
I'm not quite following this line of attack. I think Forummm may have gone too far to claim that Judge Scalia 'invented' the individual right to bear arms, but his legal opinions on the matter have been very influential for the current interpretation of the second amendment.Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...
The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.
The Article II (aka "the second amendment") says in it's entirety:QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.It directly references a Militia, and the right of the people, but does not specifically mention whether this is a right that can be extended to an individual, particularly one that is not a part of an active militia.
Scalia argued convincingly that if we are to be guided by the constitution we must consider the intent and scope at the time it was written. The argument there is that in the 1770s individuals kept rifles and firearms in their personal homes, and it was these individuals who banded together to form the militias (e.g. the "Minute Men").
I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.
Bullshit. Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted. You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?Quote
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.
Do you actually read what I type, or do you just disagree as a knee-jerk reaction and then call me ignorant? You are arguing when I raise the same point.I'm not quite following this line of attack. I think Forummm may have gone too far to claim that Judge Scalia 'invented' the individual right to bear arms, but his legal opinions on the matter have been very influential for the current interpretation of the second amendment.Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...
The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.
The Article II (aka "the second amendment") says in it's entirety:QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.It directly references a Militia, and the right of the people, but does not specifically mention whether this is a right that can be extended to an individual, particularly one that is not a part of an active militia.
Scalia argued convincingly that if we are to be guided by the constitution we must consider the intent and scope at the time it was written. The argument there is that in the 1770s individuals kept rifles and firearms in their personal homes, and it was these individuals who banded together to form the militias (e.g. the "Minute Men").
Yes, it does. And the reference that I provided gives the definitions of what a "well regulated militia" meant in the 1780's. You guys are digging your hole of ignorance.
Appeal to authority, still bullshit.I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.
Bullshit. Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted. You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?Quote
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.
One article I provided is by a guy who literally wrote a book on the history of the 2nd amendment. The other is by a legal analyst.
Your reference was to Wikipedia.
And talked about what some portion of the people involved in the drafting were thinking. It's great that many different proposed languages were available. But those proposed versions were not agreed upon. But again, that was 250 years ago, with totally different motivations and totally different weapons available. It's impossible to know what even those same people would think given today's very different times. Times change and so do interpretations of words--especially words that are ambiguous.
My apologies. Some how I read that part backwards the first time, and interpreted it as a claim that Scalia was erroneous in his arguments.Do you actually read what I type, or do you just disagree as a knee-jerk reaction and then call me ignorant? You are arguing when I raise the same point.I'm not quite following this line of attack. I think Forummm may have gone too far to claim that Judge Scalia 'invented' the individual right to bear arms, but his legal opinions on the matter have been very influential for the current interpretation of the second amendment.Scalia invented the individual right to bear arms a couple decades ago...
The phrase "you can't fix stupid" certainly applies in this case. I honestly didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that clueless.
The Article II (aka "the second amendment") says in it's entirety:QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.It directly references a Militia, and the right of the people, but does not specifically mention whether this is a right that can be extended to an individual, particularly one that is not a part of an active militia.
Scalia argued convincingly that if we are to be guided by the constitution we must consider the intent and scope at the time it was written. The argument there is that in the 1770s individuals kept rifles and firearms in their personal homes, and it was these individuals who banded together to form the militias (e.g. the "Minute Men").
Yes, it does. And the reference that I provided gives the definitions of what a "well regulated militia" meant in the 1780's. You guys are digging your hole of ignorance.
As I stated directly above, while the text of Article II does not specifically reference an individual's right, the understanding of what a "well regulated Militia" meant at the time it was written encompasses the individual. THe people in this sense are a check on a standing army for the states, and the constitution gives the federal government the right to form and fund a standing army.
Appeal to authority, still bullshit.I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.
Bullshit. Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted. You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?Quote
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.
One article I provided is by a guy who literally wrote a book on the history of the 2nd amendment. The other is by a legal analyst.
Your reference was to Wikipedia.Quote
And talked about what some portion of the people involved in the drafting were thinking. It's great that many different proposed languages were available. But those proposed versions were not agreed upon. But again, that was 250 years ago, with totally different motivations and totally different weapons available. It's impossible to know what even those same people would think given today's very different times. Times change and so do interpretations of words--especially words that are ambiguous.
So what? We don't need to know what they would think about it today, we only need to understand how the rule was intended. The Constitution is not a "living document", it's a social contract. Again, a method exists to modify that social contract, if you don't like the terms or believe it's outdated. Until then, those are the terms of the social contract, learn to deal with them.
Also, nice try attempting to pivot from your earlier claim that the individual interpretation was a recent development.
Wasn't this thread about the Presidential election at some point?
First off, "people" didn't draft the bill of rights, James Madison did. When he says, "the people" he is clearly speaking of the people of the United States.Appeal to authority, still bullshit.I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.
Bullshit. Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted. You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?Quote
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.
One article I provided is by a guy who literally wrote a book on the history of the 2nd amendment. The other is by a legal analyst.
Your reference was to Wikipedia.Quote
And talked about what some portion of the people involved in the drafting were thinking. It's great that many different proposed languages were available. But those proposed versions were not agreed upon. But again, that was 250 years ago, with totally different motivations and totally different weapons available. It's impossible to know what even those same people would think given today's very different times. Times change and so do interpretations of words--especially words that are ambiguous.
So what? We don't need to know what they would think about it today, we only need to understand how the rule was intended. The Constitution is not a "living document", it's a social contract. Again, a method exists to modify that social contract, if you don't like the terms or believe it's outdated. Until then, those are the terms of the social contract, learn to deal with them.
Also, nice try attempting to pivot from your earlier claim that the individual interpretation was a recent development.
Re #1, Irony is lost on you.
Re #2, No, still saying that words that people decided not to use aren't that useful. Other people clearly decided they didn't want those words. Some people may have thought one thing ("everyone gets as many guns as they want") and others disagreed ("well regulated state militia members get guns because we don't have a federal army and we need someone to defend the country").
Madison wrote a number of drafts of the 2nd Amendment. His initial draft gave more power to the Federal government, but southern interests pushed for more individual and states' rights.First off, "people" didn't draft the bill of rights, James Madison did. When he says, "the people" he is clearly speaking of the people of the United States.Appeal to authority, still bullshit.I was too brief and flip with the quick line about Scalia. It was a more concerted effort by many people, and led by the NRA. But it's still the case that interpretation of the 2nd amendment has shifted dramatically in recent decades. I know people get all up in arms (pun intended) about anything related to guns. And people like to present their interpretation (or some activist group's position that they want to believe) of complicated legal and historical issues as being The Way Things Have Always Been (or even if it wasn't it's The Way It Should Have Been). But the truth is that the law shifts based on the people who administer it and the times in which they live. And the 2nd amendment, which is anything but clear if you read it with an unbiased eye, is part of that shift. Other examples include interpretations of racial issues, sexual issues, and the balance of powers. Originally the 2nd amendment was about letting states have militias (as they did at the time) for various purposes. One common purpose was to have militias that enforced slavery laws and rounded up runaway slaves. There was also fear in those early days that the federal government could become tyrannical and that defense against it would be necessary. And since there was no giant standing federal army to provide for defense of the states, the state militias could serve that purpose. We've moved a long way from that in the last 250 years. And so has the gun technology.
Bullshit. Just because some people don't know their history and try to move the overton window a bit, doesn't mean that the correct interpretation of the 2nd has shifted. You didn't even bother to read my reference, did you?Quote
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
Politico & the New Yorker are not credible references.
One article I provided is by a guy who literally wrote a book on the history of the 2nd amendment. The other is by a legal analyst.
Your reference was to Wikipedia.Quote
And talked about what some portion of the people involved in the drafting were thinking. It's great that many different proposed languages were available. But those proposed versions were not agreed upon. But again, that was 250 years ago, with totally different motivations and totally different weapons available. It's impossible to know what even those same people would think given today's very different times. Times change and so do interpretations of words--especially words that are ambiguous.
So what? We don't need to know what they would think about it today, we only need to understand how the rule was intended. The Constitution is not a "living document", it's a social contract. Again, a method exists to modify that social contract, if you don't like the terms or believe it's outdated. Until then, those are the terms of the social contract, learn to deal with them.
Also, nice try attempting to pivot from your earlier claim that the individual interpretation was a recent development.
Re #1, Irony is lost on you.
Re #2, No, still saying that words that people decided not to use aren't that useful. Other people clearly decided they didn't want those words. Some people may have thought one thing ("everyone gets as many guns as they want") and others disagreed ("well regulated state militia members get guns because we don't have a federal army and we need someone to defend the country").
Wasn't this thread about the Presidential election at some point?
Yep. This is not a targeted criticism of one particular candidate (though few are spared), but I found it a fascinating read and worth the time to get through it. It is a long essay discussing political philosophy back to Plato and doing an excellent job of tying it in to more recent political developments in the US. I think that one of the key themes is the consequence of the removal of common sources of "facts" to discuss. I think there are plenty of instances in the previous 38 (!) pages of this thread alone to highlight that point. It also shines a pretty clear light on the appeal of Trump and his supporters.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html
One line of argument for Trump has been that the current system is so broken that we just need to change it. This has even prompted some Bernie supporters to say they would vote Trump if Sanders is not an option. To me this is absolute fucking lunacy because it disregards the question of what the current system would be replaced with. Trump is not the solution supposed progressives should be looking to. If they want to make a statement as an alternate to Clinton, they should look to a write-in or Green Party candidate (presumably Stein, again).
This is also succinctly stated in the attached cartoon.
Wasn't this thread about the Presidential election at some point?
Yep. This is not a targeted criticism of one particular candidate (though few are spared), but I found it a fascinating read and worth the time to get through it. It is a long essay discussing political philosophy back to Plato and doing an excellent job of tying it in to more recent political developments in the US. I think that one of the key themes is the consequence of the removal of common sources of "facts" to discuss. I think there are plenty of instances in the previous 38 (!) pages of this thread alone to highlight that point. It also shines a pretty clear light on the appeal of Trump and his supporters.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html
One line of argument for Trump has been that the current system is so broken that we just need to change it. This has even prompted some Bernie supporters to say they would vote Trump if Sanders is not an option. To me this is absolute fucking lunacy because it disregards the question of what the current system would be replaced with. Trump is not the solution supposed progressives should be looking to. If they want to make a statement as an alternate to Clinton, they should look to a write-in or Green Party candidate (presumably Stein, again).
This is also succinctly stated in the attached cartoon.
Maybe some of those Sanders supporters legitimately think Trump is the lesser of two evils at this point. It's unlikely that a Green Party candidate will win. Regardless of how bad you think Trump is, he's not be investigated by the FBI. The dem's should dump Clinton and let Sanders win.
Maybe some of those Sanders supporters legitimately think Trump is the lesser of two evils at this point. It's unlikely that a Green Party candidate will win.
Regardless of how bad you think Trump is, he's not be investigated by the FBI. The dem's should dump Clinton and let Sanders win.
You can't get stuck with hostile work environment, racism, or harassment even if they deserve to get canned-- can you-- nope
You can't get stuck with hostile work environment, racism, or harassment even if they deserve to get canned-- can you-- nope
Have you ever worked in government? Discrimination and harassment can absolutely get you canned with a quickness.
It's the incompetent people we have a harder time getting rid of, because there are so many second chances to right your ship. But discrimination, harassment, violence, and fraud are all instantly fireable offenses.
You can't get stuck with hostile work environment, racism, or harassment even if they deserve to get canned-- can you-- nope
Have you ever worked in government? Discrimination and harassment can absolutely get you canned with a quickness.
It's the incompetent people we have a harder time getting rid of, because there are so many second chances to right your ship. But discrimination, harassment, violence, and fraud are all instantly fireable offenses.
I work in a government job and the allegation of one of those things from a total bag of _______ will often keep that total bag of _______ from getting fired.
Wasn't this thread about the Presidential election at some point?
Yep. This is not a targeted criticism of one particular candidate (though few are spared), but I found it a fascinating read and worth the time to get through it. It is a long essay discussing political philosophy back to Plato and doing an excellent job of tying it in to more recent political developments in the US. I think that one of the key themes is the consequence of the removal of common sources of "facts" to discuss. I think there are plenty of instances in the previous 38 (!) pages of this thread alone to highlight that point. It also shines a pretty clear light on the appeal of Trump and his supporters.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html
One line of argument for Trump has been that the current system is so broken that we just need to change it. This has even prompted some Bernie supporters to say they would vote Trump if Sanders is not an option. To me this is absolute fucking lunacy because it disregards the question of what the current system would be replaced with. Trump is not the solution supposed progressives should be looking to. If they want to make a statement as an alternate to Clinton, they should look to a write-in or Green Party candidate (presumably Stein, again).
This is also succinctly stated in the attached cartoon.
People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.
People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.
It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts. Not sure why it should be any different this time around.
People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.
It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts. Not sure why it should be any different this time around.
People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.
It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts. Not sure why it should be any different this time around.
Until the Bush administration answers for the blatant lies and war crimes that resulted in the death and maiming of thousands of people, and until the leaders of the financial industry are brought to justice for the greed and manipulation that resulted in the economic decimation of millions of people,
I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.
It is inappropriate for the media to call Clinton the nominee, but "presumptive nominee" is a term that describes her accurately and takes the possible uncertainty into account. It's an official term.People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.
It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts. Not sure why it should be any different this time around.
Facts matter. It's absolute BS to call her the "nominee" (as I have seen several times this morning) or say she has "clinched" the nomination (the NYT headline). No, the convention hasn't happened yet, and superdelegates could still change their mind (and did en masse last time). It's highly unlikely they will change this time and it's appropriate for news organizations to make this point. News organizations do need to let people know what's likely to happen given the best information we have now. Reporting on the updated superdelegate endorsements and saying "likely nominee" or "presumptive nominee" would be accurate and convey all the necessary and useful information. But that's not what the media is doing. The fact that the Democratic Party has anti-democratic nominating processes is the real source of this confusion and uncertainty. They could have a system without superdelegates but still have some kind of a "pull in case of emergency" provision to change the nominee if there's a major problem (like indictment or health problem or whatever).
Yes, likely or presumptive nominee are fine.It is inappropriate for the media to call Clinton the nominee, but "presumptive nominee" is a term that describes her accurately and takes the possible uncertainty into account. It's an official term.People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.
It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts. Not sure why it should be any different this time around.
Facts matter. It's absolute BS to call her the "nominee" (as I have seen several times this morning) or say she has "clinched" the nomination (the NYT headline). No, the convention hasn't happened yet, and superdelegates could still change their mind (and did en masse last time). It's highly unlikely they will change this time and it's appropriate for news organizations to make this point. News organizations do need to let people know what's likely to happen given the best information we have now. Reporting on the updated superdelegate endorsements and saying "likely nominee" or "presumptive nominee" would be accurate and convey all the necessary and useful information. But that's not what the media is doing. The fact that the Democratic Party has anti-democratic nominating processes is the real source of this confusion and uncertainty. They could have a system without superdelegates but still have some kind of a "pull in case of emergency" provision to change the nominee if there's a major problem (like indictment or health problem or whatever).
I think that it is a good time for the Democratic party to consider reviewing it's primary process. Jesse Jackson used his position after the 1988 primaries (he won 13) to get the party to eliminate winner take all primaries. Now may be the time to eliminate closed primaries and caucuses.
People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.Speaking reality, that at the current rate he can't win the amount of people he'd need to win should not anger people. If speaking reality does, that is on them.
Yes, superdelegates were supposed to be my first line item!Yes, likely or presumptive nominee are fine.It is inappropriate for the media to call Clinton the nominee, but "presumptive nominee" is a term that describes her accurately and takes the possible uncertainty into account. It's an official term.People are irritated by the timing. Most people knew that Clinton would be declared the presumptive nominee after today's primaries. AP clearly wanted to be the first with the"scoop", so they called as many superdelegates as they could. The result is the same, but the timing is problematic.People wonder why young Sanders supporters are not happy with Hilary or the establishment. Last night the AP declared Clinton the nominee because of the Super delegate count before CA and NJ primary. I know Sanders can not win the nod but i move like this i think continues to undermine and anger people.
It is standard procedure to declare nominees based on super delegate counts. Not sure why it should be any different this time around.
Facts matter. It's absolute BS to call her the "nominee" (as I have seen several times this morning) or say she has "clinched" the nomination (the NYT headline). No, the convention hasn't happened yet, and superdelegates could still change their mind (and did en masse last time). It's highly unlikely they will change this time and it's appropriate for news organizations to make this point. News organizations do need to let people know what's likely to happen given the best information we have now. Reporting on the updated superdelegate endorsements and saying "likely nominee" or "presumptive nominee" would be accurate and convey all the necessary and useful information. But that's not what the media is doing. The fact that the Democratic Party has anti-democratic nominating processes is the real source of this confusion and uncertainty. They could have a system without superdelegates but still have some kind of a "pull in case of emergency" provision to change the nominee if there's a major problem (like indictment or health problem or whatever).
I think that it is a good time for the Democratic party to consider reviewing it's primary process. Jesse Jackson used his position after the 1988 primaries (he won 13) to get the party to eliminate winner take all primaries. Now may be the time to eliminate closed primaries and caucuses.
And do away with superdelegates (except the "pull in case of emergency" option). And maybe do something to prevent the party from rigging the debate schedule too.
I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.
Don't cry wolf. Save it for actual cases of sexism. This is pure politics. Playing the sexism card like this just makes people dismiss legitimately sexist actions.
If you don't think underlying sexist attitudes are partially responsible, you are deluding yourself just as much as those who don't think the Obama birther business was racist.What criticism of Clinton would you consider non-sexist, and what of Obama would you consider non-racist?
I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.
Don't cry wolf. Save it for actual cases of sexism. This is pure politics. Playing the sexism card like this just makes people dismiss legitimately sexist actions.
Definitely not crying wolf here (and it's a little condescending for you to presume that I am).
Sexism isn't just stuff like blond jokes and "that woman is not pretty" just like racism isn't just "I hate that black guy." It's much more insidious and pervasive than that. Why do people shit on Hillary for doing exactly the same stuff that make politicians do all the freakin time? If you don't think underlying sexist attitudes are partially responsible, you are deluding yourself just as much as those who don't think the Obama birther business was racist.
Can we get a reasonable third candidate?
I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.Can we get a reasonable third candidate?
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA
no
I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.Can we get a reasonable third candidate?
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA
no
Sure, but you also have to consider what a president can actually do. He can't repeal bills, and executive orders aren't going to allow him to repeal our social programs. He can at best not veto legislation that repeals them, or veto legislation that would add more. For executive orders, the only one he said he currently has planned is preventing the satellites that the NSA is using to illegally spy on it's own citizens and instead aim them at the enemy. He will probably nominate fiscally conservative supreme court justices as well, but generally social programs are not brought up in courts, so I don't understand what you are worried about.I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.Can we get a reasonable third candidate?
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA
no
I like some of his positions, but even though I am personally fiscally conservative, I think it is naďve to say business and "the market" will solve all the problems that he wants the government to get out of. I think we have seen time and time again that when given the chance, "the market" prefers short term profits over long term viability.
I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.Can we get a reasonable third candidate?
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA
no
I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.
Don't cry wolf. Save it for actual cases of sexism. This is pure politics. Playing the sexism card like this just makes people dismiss legitimately sexist actions.
Definitely not crying wolf here (and it's a little condescending for you to presume that I am).
Sexism isn't just stuff like blond jokes and "that woman is not pretty" just like racism isn't just "I hate that black guy." It's much more insidious and pervasive than that. Why do people shit on Hillary for doing exactly the same stuff that make politicians do all the freakin time? If you don't think underlying sexist attitudes are partially responsible, you are deluding yourself just as much as those who don't think the Obama birther business was racist.
I disagree, I just watched an interview he had 1 or 2 days ago with thehill, and he was very professional, the only thing I think that would put some people off is that he said Instantly veto any bill that increased spending, and would be okay with getting rid of any federal departments. I like the fact that he's also climbed the highest peaks on each of the 7 continents, including Mt. Everest, and has run over 100 marathons with one as early as last year and has even run a 100 mile ultramarathon. I think he will captivate a great many people.I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.Can we get a reasonable third candidate?
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA
no
Setting aside agreement/disagreement on his policy stance, Gary Johnson will never get traction with a broad audience because his personality will hinder him. He quite frankly lacks the air of professionalism and gravitas to hold the position.
Dear lord, the Bernie and Hillary supporters on my Facebook feed are getting so goddamned obnoxious I want to go back in time and vote for O'Malley.
The state department certainly wasn't playing politics and I don't believe the FBI is either. The fact is she made a poor decision that may or may not be criminal. Obviously Secretary Clinton does not like the facts, but pointing out the facts is in no way sexist nor was the IG report or the ongoing FBI investigation.
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.I will continue to see the persecution of Hillary for frickin TRIVIAL EMAIL STUFF as pure partisan shenanigans with a large side of misogyny.
Don't cry wolf. Save it for actual cases of sexism. This is pure politics. Playing the sexism card like this just makes people dismiss legitimately sexist actions.
Definitely not crying wolf here (and it's a little condescending for you to presume that I am).
Sexism isn't just stuff like blond jokes and "that woman is not pretty" just like racism isn't just "I hate that black guy." It's much more insidious and pervasive than that. Why do people shit on Hillary for doing exactly the same stuff that make politicians do all the freakin time? If you don't think underlying sexist attitudes are partially responsible, you are deluding yourself just as much as those who don't think the Obama birther business was racist.
The Obama birther stuff (and Muslim stuff) was entirely predicated on the idea of him being an "other". Clearly racist from start to finish. Very different. Hillary's email stuff is has no sexism undertones to it. It's entirely about "let's get the person who's likely to be the opposing nominee for president". Same with Benghazi. They harassed Bill the same way. Was that sexist? They investigated his Christmas card list. And his cat. He was impeached for having an affair (while the top GOPers were also having affairs). They accused him of murdering his friend Vince Foster, doctoring fundraising tapes, and selling burial plots in Arlington National Cemetary. Sexist? No, BS politics.
Now if the committee chair were talking about how she used a private email server because as a woman she was too stupid to understand and follow the rules, that would be different.
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Hmm. I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se. However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit. If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
I like Gary Johnson... But people who are fiscally liberal, socially conservative or warmongers will not, as almost any bill relating to increasing spending would get instantly vetoed by him, he is also very socially liberal so will allow no inequality, and he would make our "national defense" actually defense instead of offense.Can we get a reasonable third candidate?
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA
no
Setting aside agreement/disagreement on his policy stance, Gary Johnson will never get traction with a broad audience because his personality will hinder him. He quite frankly lacks the air of professionalism and gravitas to hold the position.
Clinton won 4 states last night, including California. Bernie is not dropping out of the race, but is there any good reason for him staying in it at this point?
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Trump has rather handily proven that neither professionalism nor gravitas are important to do well while running for president.
I believe you are correct that Clinton will win California and that she will go to the convention with enough deligates to get the nomination outright (probably without needing any of the 'super-deligates')
No, unless Sanders drops out, it's very unlikely she'll have enough pledged delegates to have a majority without any of the superdelegates. She would need about 2/3 of the remaining delegates, and Sanders will probably win at least another couple states (and likely 6 or more of the remaining 11 contests). As I said before, the superdelegates will be deciding the nomination (as they do anytime since 1984 when it's not a landslide).
Forumm, I was expressing my opinion on what would happen (see the phrase "I believe"). Can I be wrong? Sure. But your statement reads like my belief is not possible. I'm not discounting the possibility that Sanders will drop out before California in three weeks, or at least pull back somewhat as running a symboic and 'ideas' campaign (which he's actually already started to do somewhat). Also, as a candidate's lead becomes insurmountable the opposition's turnout tends to diminish dramatically. I expect we'll see that as soon as Clinton's total delegate count exceeds the 2383 mark.
Mathematically, Clinton could win the nomination outright without the use of super-delegates by winning California and a few of the remaining states by double-digit margins.
I see. I saw "probably" to mean that it was more likely than not. Which I (and the polling) disagreed with. You could be right.
Clinton won 4 states last night, including California. Bernie is not dropping out of the race, but is there any good reason for him staying in it at this point?No, at this point Clinton had stepped down and conceded to Obama because there is no point. All he is doing now is harming the Democratic party as a whole and decreasing Clinton's chances on the national stage.
Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Clinton won 4 states last night, including California. Bernie is not dropping out of the race, but is there any good reason for him staying in it at this point?No, at this point Clinton had stepped down and conceded to Obama because there is no point. All he is doing now is harming the Democratic party as a whole and decreasing Clinton's chances on the national stage.
Clinton won 4 states last night, including California. Bernie is not dropping out of the race, but is there any good reason for him staying in it at this point?No, at this point Clinton had stepped down and conceded to Obama because there is no point. All he is doing now is harming the Democratic party as a whole and decreasing Clinton's chances on the national stage.
This is my take, too. I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.
I believe that it's normal for strong candidates to find a new role within the party. Sanders is now a Democrat and has more leadership opportunities, whether he remains in the Senate or pursues an administration role. He clearly has values that are strong within the party's electorate. He has a responsibility to ensure that the Democratic party embraces those values.This is my take, too. I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.
I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.
"Brother investigations" was a typo. I meant other investigations. The issue that I see is that when applied to Hillary is that her association with men is frequently used to diminish the independence of her actions. A good example from yesterday is that Trump announced that he is going to give "a major speech" on the Clintons. In this case, he acts like HRC isn't an individual. It is a dog whistle attached to the attack.
This is my take, too. I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.
I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.
This is my take, too. I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.
I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.
Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.
This is my take, too. I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.
I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.
Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.
This is my take, too. I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.
I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.
Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.
I don't think it would be selling out to take an administration job where he can actually enact some of the policy changes he has been promoting. Department of labor maybe, or council of economic advisors. Cabinet level positions directly work with the president and oversee thousands of federal employees, they wield more power than a senator does. Off he really cares about making changes, going back to the Senate is not the way to do it.
Is that a joke?This is my take, too. I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.
I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.
Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.
I don't think it would be selling out to take an administration job where he can actually enact some of the policy changes he has been promoting. Department of labor maybe, or council of economic advisors. Cabinet level positions directly work with the president and oversee thousands of federal employees, they wield more power than a senator does. Off he really cares about making changes, going back to the Senate is not the way to do it.
I don't think he would accept (or be offered) an administration job. He wants the party to change and make platform changes. I think he's interested in too many issues for a single cabinet position to be a broad enough portfolio. And he would also be kept in check by his boss--who is not really interested in his kind of change. I think he can have a much greater impact staying in the Senate. Not just by voting on things, but by continuing to develop and drive the message of the party and cultivating the movement he has tapped into and developed. He could use his following to help promote and elect candidates who share his vision and policy preferences. He could be quite influential in ways that would be prohibited if he took an administration role. Plus, he could stay in the Senate for maybe 20 more years, instead of just a few years in the administration.
Sanders mathIs that a joke?This is my take, too. I'll be curious to see if he concedes after his meeting with Obama Thursday.
I read somewhere that he's meeting with Reid as well. Bernie may have reached the "what will you give me to drop out?" phase of the campaign.
Bernie is not a "sell out" like the rest of the DNC.
I don't think it would be selling out to take an administration job where he can actually enact some of the policy changes he has been promoting. Department of labor maybe, or council of economic advisors. Cabinet level positions directly work with the president and oversee thousands of federal employees, they wield more power than a senator does. Off he really cares about making changes, going back to the Senate is not the way to do it.
I don't think he would accept (or be offered) an administration job. He wants the party to change and make platform changes. I think he's interested in too many issues for a single cabinet position to be a broad enough portfolio. And he would also be kept in check by his boss--who is not really interested in his kind of change. I think he can have a much greater impact staying in the Senate. Not just by voting on things, but by continuing to develop and drive the message of the party and cultivating the movement he has tapped into and developed. He could use his following to help promote and elect candidates who share his vision and policy preferences. He could be quite influential in ways that would be prohibited if he took an administration role. Plus, he could stay in the Senate for maybe 20 more years, instead of just a few years in the administration.
The man is already 74. Committing to even 4 years of executive level policy changes would be a capstone accomplishment for a long and distinguished career, a chance to not only spread the message but actually make changes.Sanders may be more motivated to campaign if the goal is taking back the Senate with a leadership position for him as a platform. If that's what he wants, it may work well. I don't know if it would motivate his most die-hard supporters to vote for Clinton, but he might be a lot of help down ballot.
One thing about executive positions, I think most of them need confirmed by the senate.... and I'm guessing Republicans hate Sanders, and most other democrats would prefer an "establishment" democrat. Clinton would also have to nominate him for these positions where she would probably also choose a more "establishment" democrat.
Right now they are using the lame duck excuse or whatever right? They would have to come up with some other excuse when a fresh president was just elected by the people. I think they would consider a moderate democrat like Clinton over an extreme democrat like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc.One thing about executive positions, I think most of them need confirmed by the senate.... and I'm guessing Republicans hate Sanders, and most other democrats would prefer an "establishment" democrat. Clinton would also have to nominate him for these positions where she would probably also choose a more "establishment" democrat.
Sanders is also popular with a large segment of your democrats right now. He is good branding for the future of the party, so keeping him in a visible position can have benefits. As to Republicans hating Sanders, it is more likely that we will see continued appointment obstruction because of Clinton as a continuation of their demonstrated behavior to Obama. It will likely be newsworthy if there *isn't* obstruction to any Clinton appointment, rather than the other way around.
Right now they are using the lame duck excuse or whatever right? They would have to come up with some other excuse when a fresh president was just elected by the people. I think they would consider a moderate democrat like Clinton over an extreme democrat like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc.One thing about executive positions, I think most of them need confirmed by the senate.... and I'm guessing Republicans hate Sanders, and most other democrats would prefer an "establishment" democrat. Clinton would also have to nominate him for these positions where she would probably also choose a more "establishment" democrat.
Sanders is also popular with a large segment of your democrats right now. He is good branding for the future of the party, so keeping him in a visible position can have benefits. As to Republicans hating Sanders, it is more likely that we will see continued appointment obstruction because of Clinton as a continuation of their demonstrated behavior to Obama. It will likely be newsworthy if there *isn't* obstruction to any Clinton appointment, rather than the other way around.
Obama is going to withdrawl his Supreme Court Nominee right before the election.
Sanders mathPlus, he could stay in the Senate for maybe 20 more years, instead of just a few years in the administration.Is that a joke?
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Hmm. I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se. However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit. If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Hmm. I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se. However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit. If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
I am describing a campaign that influences the voter base by manipulating sexist dispositions. That does not make the campaign manager sexist.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Hmm. I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se. However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit. If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
I am describing a campaign that influences the voter base by manipulating sexist dispositions. That does not make the campaign manager sexist.
Nope, that's exactly describing an example of a sexist act.
Just like manipulating racist voters to vote for you by saying things intended to tell them you're "on their side" or to remind them to vote against the black guy is a racist act. By definition.
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Hmm. I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se. However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit. If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
I am describing a campaign that influences the voter base by manipulating sexist dispositions. That does not make the campaign manager sexist.
Nope, that's exactly describing an example of a sexist act.
Just like manipulating racist voters to vote for you by saying things intended to tell them you're "on their side" or to remind them to vote against the black guy is a racist act. By definition.
Uh, no. That's an opinion.
Full Definition of sexism
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
That is exactly what sexism is. You are describing making a decision because a candidate is a woman, not based on her qualifications.Congressmen weren't the ones doing the brother investigations, either. They were (usually) tacitly endorsing them, but not initiating them. My main point is that a lot more ground work has been laid in sexist attacks on Clinton, including blaming her for decisions that men around her made, claiming the hasn't accomplished anything, and obvious ones, like calling her shrill or saying "she doesn't look presidential".
Well conservative commentators do laugh about her using the server for yoga. That's a pretty clear dog whistle.
That could very well be true. But some right wing commentators saying something is a bit different than Congressmen or senior officials at the FBI and State Department--i.e. the people who decided to do the investigations.
Hmm. I'm not sure about your perspective that these criticisms are sexist, per se. However, voters can discriminate for whatever reason that they see fit. If the Trump campaign can successfully associate Hillary with an ex-wife or girlfriend in the minds of male voters, he stands a very good chance of winning more male votes than he loses in female votes.
I am describing a campaign that influences the voter base by manipulating sexist dispositions. That does not make the campaign manager sexist.
Nope, that's exactly describing an example of a sexist act.
Just like manipulating racist voters to vote for you by saying things intended to tell them you're "on their side" or to remind them to vote against the black guy is a racist act. By definition.
Uh, no. That's an opinion.QuoteFull Definition of sexism
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Feel free to explain how making sexist statements to get sexist people to vote a specific way isn't engaging in prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex, and also doesn't foster stereotypes.
Still, it doesn't matter if I concede. It's still a valid campaign strategy. And it seems to be working.
Still, it doesn't matter if I concede. It's still a valid campaign strategy. And it seems to be working.
You are disgusting.
Just like trump, you have forsaken all accountability. Your argument is essentially "sexism isn't bad if it's effective" and I don't know how either of you keep a straight face while saying that.
Still, it doesn't matter if I concede. It's still a valid campaign strategy. And it seems to be working.
You are disgusting.
Just like trump, you have forsaken all accountability. Your argument is essentially "sexism isn't bad if it's effective" and I don't know how either of you keep a straight face while saying that.
I have made no value judgements. I simply said it was a valid strategy, and it is. You are letting your desires cloud your judgements, as you usually do, Sol. That is your greatest fault.
Still, it doesn't matter if I concede. It's still a valid campaign strategy. And it seems to be working.
You are disgusting.
Just like trump, you have forsaken all accountability. Your argument is essentially "sexism isn't bad if it's effective" and I don't know how either of you keep a straight face while saying that.
I have made no value judgements. I simply said it was a valid strategy, and it is. You are letting your desires cloud your judgements, as you usually do, Sol. That is your greatest fault.
Saying it is effective would be a value-neutral assessment. Saying it is valid implies that you think it is reasonable. Word choice matters.
Sol. That is your greatest fault.
I don't know if your sexist, I think it but I don't know. I do know however that you're delusional, thinking Trump has a 100% chance of being next POTUSStill, it doesn't matter if I concede. It's still a valid campaign strategy. And it seems to be working.
You are disgusting.
Just like trump, you have forsaken all accountability. Your argument is essentially "sexism isn't bad if it's effective" and I don't know how either of you keep a straight face while saying that.
I have made no value judgements. I simply said it was a valid strategy, and it is. You are letting your desires cloud your judgements, as you usually do, Sol. That is your greatest fault.
Saying it is effective would be a value-neutral assessment. Saying it is valid implies that you think it is reasonable. Word choice matters.
It's both effective and legitimate within our political system. So valid was the best word I could come up with. I think you are reaching with this one.
You are disgusting.
You are letting your desires cloud your judgements
You are disgusting.You are letting your desires cloud your judgements
One could debate which is the greater personal attack...but see rule #2: Attack an argument, not a person.
Some opinions and some people are less deserving than others.I'll agree with that.
Sol. That is your greatest fault.
I see you have been taking lessons from your master. Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.
Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.
Sol. That is your greatest fault.
I see you have been taking lessons from your master. Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.
Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.
I should expect better from you, Sol; but I've long ago learned that your are not as analytical as the image that you present. I'm not the one that called you disgusting.
And for the record, thank you Sol, for saying this. Men like you make me feel safer. And I'd agree bigots are disgusting be they racist, sexist or what have you. You want to act a certain why, some decent people will call you on it.Sol. That is your greatest fault.
I see you have been taking lessons from your master. Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.
Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.
I should expect better from you, Sol; but I've long ago learned that your are not as analytical as the image that you present. I'm not the one that called you disgusting.
You're the one spewing vile hatred. I'm the one calling you out for it.
Feel free to address the actual criticism, if you think there can be any defense. Until then, I stand by my assertion that you are disgusting. Sexism is not okay.
Sol. That is your greatest fault.
I see you have been taking lessons from your master. Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.
Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.
I should expect better from you, Sol; but I've long ago learned that your are not as analytical as the image that you present. I'm not the one that called you disgusting.
You're the one spewing vile hatred. I'm the one calling you out for it.
Feel free to address the actual criticism, if you think there can be any defense. Until then, I stand by my assertion that you are disgusting. Sexism is not okay.
And for the record, thank you Sol, for saying this. Men like you make me feel safer. And I'd agree bigots are disgusting be they racist, sexist or what have you. You want to act a certain why, some decent people will call you on it.Sol. That is your greatest fault.
I see you have been taking lessons from your master. Totally ignore all substantive critique, instantly resort to personal attacks on a person's character instead.
Real nice. I expected nothing less from you.
I should expect better from you, Sol; but I've long ago learned that your are not as analytical as the image that you present. I'm not the one that called you disgusting.
You're the one spewing vile hatred. I'm the one calling you out for it.
Feel free to address the actual criticism, if you think there can be any defense. Until then, I stand by my assertion that you are disgusting. Sexism is not okay.
I don't know if your sexist, I think it but I don't know. I do know however that you're delusional, thinking Trump has a 100% chance of being next POTUS
Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"
We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.
Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"
Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?
We all know he is a sexist anyway
I'm not a Trump supporter, I never have been, and I have repeatedly said as much.
I'm not a Trump supporter, I never have been, and I have repeatedly said as much.
You are more than a Trump supporter, you are a Trump promoter. You've spent months and months telling everyone on the forum how great he is, how smart he is, how savvy he is, what a great leader he is. You've openly denigrated his competition. You've parroted his talking points. You've commended his ideas, his tactics, even his blunders.
Claiming that you're not a supporter is a bit rich, after all that. Go back and reread your last 500 posts and tell me you don't sound like a supporter.
Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.
We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.
Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?
I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016
Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.
We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.
Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?
I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016
The internet is terrible at tone. I had no way to know that you were being disingenuous. Regarding determining whether others are sexist, I have made a couple of points demonstrating Trump's use of sexism. They are overt and after some (believe it or not) civil discussion, Moonshadow agreed. I don't have to meet Trump to look critically at what he says in public.Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.
We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.
Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?
I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016
Simple.
I want moral surperioty over others. I want the ability to tell strangers that they are sexist without ever having to meet them.
Discriminating against someone because they are different gender/race/nationality and you truly believe that makes them worse or inferior than you is racism/sexism etc.... It is ignorant, stupid and counterproductive but at least understandable on some level.
Trump and his ilk aren't racist. They are worse. They know that people of different genders/races/nationality are not inferior. They know that racists believe that they are and have no problem exploiting racists and sexists for their own gain. That isn't racism/sexism as it currently is defined. We need a new word for that.
We also need a word for people who sit outside that type of behavior and view it dispassionately. I honestly can't imagine how it must feel to lack empathy at that level. I guess it must not feel like much of anything, but it is actually psychically painful for me to know that people out there are salivating at the misery of othersEnablers. Or appeasement/appeasers.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke
Sociopath. The word you are looking for is Sociopath.Discriminating against someone because they are different gender/race/nationality and you truly believe that makes them worse or inferior than you is racism/sexism etc.... It is ignorant, stupid and counterproductive but at least understandable on some level.
Trump and his ilk aren't racist. They are worse. They know that people of different genders/races/nationality are not inferior. They know that racists believe that they are and have no problem exploiting racists and sexists for their own gain. That isn't racism/sexism as it currently is defined. We need a new word for that.
Not sure what a better term might be... racial/gender insecurity?QuoteWe also need a word for people who sit outside that type of behavior and view it dispassionately. I honestly can't imagine how it must feel to lack empathy at that level. I guess it must not feel like much of anything, but it is actually psychically painful for me to know that people out there are salivating at the misery of othersEnablers. Or appeasement/appeasers.QuoteAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke
Interestingly, some GOPers are now denouncing Trump's racist comments about the judge. But most are still endorsing him. Some admitted that the comments are racist. Some wouldn't use that word and just said they disagreed with them.
Even more interesting is that Trump has told his surrogates to say that it's the people questioning whether his comments were racist that are the ones getting all racial and playing the race card. Oh, I see. It's OK if I steal your wallet. But if you point out that I stole your wallet, then you are the thief. Genius.
Interestingly, some GOPers are now denouncing Trump's racist comments about the judge. But most are still endorsing him. Some admitted that the comments are racist. Some wouldn't use that word and just said they disagreed with them.
Even more interesting is that Trump has told his surrogates to say that it's the people questioning whether his comments were racist that are the ones getting all racial and playing the race card. Oh, I see. It's OK if I steal your wallet. But if you point out that I stole your wallet, then you are the thief. Genius.
He's a racist, dumb as a stump, but he's our guy. Lindsey Graham is not one of my favorites but he is calling a spade a spade.
Interestingly, some GOPers are now denouncing Trump's racist comments about the judge. But most are still endorsing him. Some admitted that the comments are racist. Some wouldn't use that word and just said they disagreed with them.
Even more interesting is that Trump has told his surrogates to say that it's the people questioning whether his comments were racist that are the ones getting all racial and playing the race card. Oh, I see. It's OK if I steal your wallet. But if you point out that I stole your wallet, then you are the thief. Genius.
He's a racist, dumb as a stump, but he's our guy. Lindsey Graham is not one of my favorites but he is calling a spade a spade.
Interestingly, some GOPers are now denouncing Trump's racist comments about the judge. But most are still endorsing him. Some admitted that the comments are racist. Some wouldn't use that word and just said they disagreed with them.
Even more interesting is that Trump has told his surrogates to say that it's the people questioning whether his comments were racist that are the ones getting all racial and playing the race card. Oh, I see. It's OK if I steal your wallet. But if you point out that I stole your wallet, then you are the thief. Genius.
He's a racist, dumb as a stump, but he's our guy. Lindsey Graham is not one of my favorites but he is calling a spade a spade.
That's probably because Trump criticized his boyfriend's POW experience.
Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.Yes - as the first comments in that article note:
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade)
Sociopath. The word you are looking for is Sociopath.
Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.Yes - as the first comments in that article note:
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade)
"News to me, I never realized this phrase had any racial overtones."
"I'm not convinced that it does, except for a very few. When one thinks about it, most words could carry a secret slur - to someone. To avoid offense, perhaps one should not speak at all."
Claiming "golf" was a racist attack (http://poorrichardsnews.com/new-secret-racist-code-words-from-msnbc-golf/) is another example of "crying wolf" or "jumping the shark" or whatever analogy one prefers.
Inventing reasons to be offended does a disservice to those who are truly victims of unethical/illegal behavior.
...using the phrase while calling someone else racist elicited a chuckle from me. :PIndeed!
Sociopath....I won't ever call someone a sociopath on the internet for obvious reasons, but I will say that Drumpf displays a disregard for social norms to an extent that I rarely see in a public figure and have never seen in a politician.
The internet is terrible at tone. I had no way to know that you were being disingenuous. Regarding determining whether others are sexist, I have made a couple of points demonstrating Trump's use of sexism. They are overt and after some (believe it or not) civil discussion, Moonshadow agreed. I don't have to meet Trump to look critically at what he says in public.Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.
We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.
Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?
I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016
Simple.
I want moral surperioty over others. I want the ability to tell strangers that they are sexist without ever having to meet them.
A sociopath doesn't display a disregard for social norms, typically they are masters of them while at the same time believe themselves "above" such norms.
We also need a word for people who sit outside that type of behavior and view it dispassionately. I honestly can't imagine how it must feel to lack empathy at that level. I guess it must not feel like much of anything, but it is actually psychically painful for me to know that people out there are salivating at the misery of others.
A sociopath doesn't display a disregard for social norms, typically they are masters of them while at the same time believe themselves "above" such norms.
You contradict yourself inside this sentence. Do they master them? Or do they disregard them because they don't believe they apply to them?
He was definitely talking about you, but I made an argument demonstrating that his basic premise was faulty using a public figure. I still don't agree that sexism is a valid campaign strategy, just like I believe that disenfranchising populations is valid. Both have proven effective, but neither is valid.The internet is terrible at tone. I had no way to know that you were being disingenuous. Regarding determining whether others are sexist, I have made a couple of points demonstrating Trump's use of sexism. They are overt and after some (believe it or not) civil discussion, Moonshadow agreed. I don't have to meet Trump to look critically at what he says in public.Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.
We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.
Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?
I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016
Simple.
I want moral surperioty over others. I want the ability to tell strangers that they are sexist without ever having to meet them.
I'm pretty certain he was referring to myself.
He was definitely talking about you, but I made an argument demonstrating that his basic premise was faulty using a public figure. I still don't agree that sexism is a valid campaign strategy, just like I believe that disenfranchising populations is valid. Both have proven effective, but neither is valid.The internet is terrible at tone. I had no way to know that you were being disingenuous. Regarding determining whether others are sexist, I have made a couple of points demonstrating Trump's use of sexism. They are overt and after some (believe it or not) civil discussion, Moonshadow agreed. I don't have to meet Trump to look critically at what he says in public.Hey this thread is about "Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential candidates" not "Legitimate criticisms of forum members named Moonshadow"I am curious what got you to support Clinton. I have been pro-Clinton for the duration, but you have been pretty outspoken in your criticism of her. I just wanted to know what swayed you.
We all know he is a sexist anyway. All trump supporters are.
Anyway let's get this back on track shall we?
I'm with her baby! Are YOU? Come on... time to get on board! Hillary 2016
Simple.
I want moral surperioty over others. I want the ability to tell strangers that they are sexist without ever having to meet them.
I'm pretty certain he was referring to myself.
Odd, I am an INTP/J (depending on the test) but I find Trump revolting. But I don't put too much faith in Myers Briggs in any case. I can't analytically or dispassionately view sociopathic behavior entirely, probably because I have a vested interest in the future of a stable society (my kids).
Don't blame your kids for your failure of imagination.
Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade)
Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade)
Should we just change it to "calling a shovel a shovel," so there can't be any misinterpretation?
Interestingly enough, the expression 'calling a spade a spade' can itself be interpreted as racist.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade (http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade)
Should we just change it to "calling a shovel a shovel," so there can't be any misinterpretation?
Whatever floats your boat . . .
QuoteDon't blame your kids for your failure of imagination.
Okay, that made me laugh. You really do come across as a very ridiculous person.
Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?
Also, Brion pointed out that Trump's bombastic attitude & tendency to insult his opposition is not novel, but a return to Pre-Civil-War politics. Even insulting the wives of competitors is not new. Andrew Jackson's wife, Rachel, was divorced before marrying Andrew, and divorce wasn't a well recognized legal procedure just yet. So more than one political opponent was known to have called her either a "bigomist" or an "adulterer" in public. Of course, we are talking about Andrew Jackson, the hero of the War of 1812. He killed both those men, btw. Personally & publicly. Trump isn't likely to have his political opposition "erased", and he sure as hell wouldn't do the deed personally, so there's that. That's progress, right?
Also, Brion pointed out that Trump's bombastic attitude & tendency to insult his opposition is not novel, but a return to Pre-Civil-War politics. Even insulting the wives of competitors is not new. Andrew Jackson's wife, Rachel, was divorced before marrying Andrew, and divorce wasn't a well recognized legal procedure just yet. So more than one political opponent was known to have called her either a "bigomist" or an "adulterer" in public. Of course, we are talking about Andrew Jackson, the hero of the War of 1812. He killed both those men, btw. Personally & publicly. Trump isn't likely to have his political opposition "erased", and he sure as hell wouldn't do the deed personally, so there's that. That's progress, right?
Maybe Trump will next suggest slavery to help the GDP.
Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?
I don't understand what you need explained. Warren is famous for claiming minority status while attending graduate school, due to a fractional family background being Native American. Pocahontas was a semi-famous historical figure. She was a chieftain's daughter who married John Wolfe in 1614 & took the Christian name Rebecca. Trump is mocking her history, because she's as white as a snowflake.
Is that what you were looking for?
Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?
I don't understand what you need explained. Warren is famous for claiming minority status while attending graduate school, due to a fractional family background being Native American. Pocahontas was a semi-famous historical figure. She was a chieftain's daughter who married John Wolfe in 1614 & took the Christian name Rebecca. Trump is mocking her history, because she's as white as a snowflake.
Is that what you were looking for?
I still don't quite understand your response. I know who Pocahontas was. Does Warren actually have a fractional family background of Native American, or not? You seem to say yes but then say she's 'white as a snowflake' suggesting no...
Is Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?
Trump has found a new thing to spout his mouth off about and garner headlines for another news cycle. In other words, it is nothing. This is his MO and no longer surprising. It makes me sad that it is a new normal.Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?
I don't understand what you need explained. Warren is famous for claiming minority status while attending graduate school, due to a fractional family background being Native American. Pocahontas was a semi-famous historical figure. She was a chieftain's daughter who married John Wolfe in 1614 & took the Christian name Rebecca. Trump is mocking her history, because she's as white as a snowflake.
Is that what you were looking for?
I still don't quite understand your response. I know who Pocahontas was. Does Warren actually have a fractional family background of Native American, or not? You seem to say yes but then say she's 'white as a snowflake' suggesting no...
Honestly, I don't know; but my understanding is that the legal claim to be a minority because of a Native American background ceases at one-eighth, even if it can be proven.QuoteIs Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?
I think that he is mocking her claiming & getting subsidies intended for minorities as a result of a visually undetectable NA contribution to her genome. I probably have more than she does, and I have never claimed that for monetary gain. I have had employers claim it for their own reasons, though. I can (and generally do) pass for a typical white guy with a slight sunburn, and I don't mention to people that I don't know well. (I have had exactly 2 people guess by looking at me in my lifetime) If I have any 'white privilege', so does Elizabeth Warren. If he is mocking her NA heritage, I wouldn't be offended anyway; but I wouldn't count my opinion on this matter either, since I've spent exactly the same amount of time exposed to tribal culture as Elizabeth Warren, which is to say, none.
Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?
I don't understand what you need explained. Warren is famous for claiming minority status while attending graduate school, due to a fractional family background being Native American. Pocahontas was a semi-famous historical figure. She was a chieftain's daughter who married John Wolfe in 1614 & took the Christian name Rebecca. Trump is mocking her history, because she's as white as a snowflake.
Is that what you were looking for?
I still don't quite understand your response. I know who Pocahontas was. Does Warren actually have a fractional family background of Native American, or not? You seem to say yes but then say she's 'white as a snowflake' suggesting no...
Is Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?
I still don't quite understand your response. I know who Pocahontas was. Does Warren actually have a fractional family background of Native American, or not? You seem to say yes but then say she's 'white as a snowflake' suggesting no...
Is Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?
How dare you conservatives question the honorable Ms. Warren.
There is nothing shady about someone who is 1/32nd claiming to be Native American so that she can receive $400,000 to teach one class at Harvard.
This is just more misogyny from the Trump crowd. You cannot comprehend that a powerful women has achieved more than you can imagine in your lifetime. Especially one that is a minority because basically you are all fascist and Hitler (combined).
How dare you conservatives question the honorable Ms. Warren.
There is nothing shady about someone who is 1/32nd claiming to be Native American so that she can receive $400,000 to teach one class at Harvard.
This is just more misogyny from the Trump crowd. You cannot comprehend that a powerful women has achieved more than you can imagine in your lifetime. Especially one that is a minority because basically you are all fascist and Hitler (combined).
This was laid to rest years ago. In the current iteration, it is brought up as a convenient dog whistle for Trump. If we are lucky, we can look forward to more birther bullshit when Obama starts stumping for Clinton. Whatever will be kibble for his base and get more ink in the next news cycle. It may be effective, but it is disgusting.
That doesn't have anything to do with liking conservative ideas or not. To the point, how dare conservatives not stand up for their ideals and say no to Trump? Or do his supporters actually believe what he is saying (this week)?
How dare you conservatives question the honorable Ms. Warren.Yep, Elizabeth Warren is a horrible person and Trump is a god, you've convinced me, I'm making a Trump Shrine as I type.
There is nothing shady about someone who is 1/32nd claiming to be Native American so that she can receive $400,000 to teach one class at Harvard.
This is just more misogyny from the Trump crowd. You cannot comprehend that a powerful women has achieved more than you can imagine in your lifetime. Especially one that is a minority because basically you are all fascist and Hitler (combined).
That doesn't have anything to do with liking conservative ideas or not. To the point, how dare conservatives not stand up for their ideals and say no to Trump? Or do his supporters actually believe what he is saying (this week)?
Does groping and pepper spring a 15 year old girl count as violence?How dare you conservatives question the honorable Ms. Warren.
There is nothing shady about someone who is 1/32nd claiming to be Native American so that she can receive $400,000 to teach one class at Harvard.
This is just more misogyny from the Trump crowd. You cannot comprehend that a powerful women has achieved more than you can imagine in your lifetime. Especially one that is a minority because basically you are all fascist and Hitler (combined).
This was laid to rest years ago. In the current iteration, it is brought up as a convenient dog whistle for Trump. If we are lucky, we can look forward to more birther bullshit when Obama starts stumping for Clinton. Whatever will be kibble for his base and get more ink in the next news cycle. It may be effective, but it is disgusting.
That doesn't have anything to do with liking conservative ideas or not. To the point, how dare conservatives not stand up for their ideals and say no to Trump? Or do his supporters actually believe what he is saying (this week)?
I don't believe anything a Presidential candidate says on the campaign trail. However, I do see the incredible amount of violence by outside of Trump rallies directed against his supporters that draws little attention. You don't see Trump supporters destroying personal property, engaging Hillary supporters with violence and threats, and clashing with police. You don't see violent protests at liberal gatherings at universities around the country, only against conservative speakers. If a bunch of Trump supporters cornered a woman as she was leaving a Hillary rally and pelted her with objects, shouted obscenities, and harassed her it'd be front page news. It has happened over and over to Trump supporters and no one cares.
In the end, to a lot of people, I think Trump represents the same thing Obama represented to the left in 2008. An outsider that promises change and hope towards a political system that to many is seen as hopelessly dysfunctional and no one championing conservative/Republican principles. There's a large segment of 'Republicans' that are socially liberal, but primarily vote based on economic freedoms and smaller government platforms and with a Republican majority in the House and Senate we still continue to expand government spending and increase the deficit. Trump isn't my candidate, I'm hopeful for a solid Libertarian ticket, but I'll vote Trump over Hillary and at the most pessimistic I hope a disastrous presidency forces change towards a smaller government.
You don't see Trump supporters destroying personal property, engaging Hillary supporters with violence and threats, and clashing with police. You don't see violent protests at liberal gatherings at universities around the country, only against conservative speakers. If a bunch of Trump supporters cornered a woman as she was leaving a Hillary rally and pelted her with objects, shouted obscenities, and harassed her it'd be front page news. It has happened over and over to Trump supporters and no one cares.
I find it interesting that all the talk is of Trump promoting violence, but the only violence we've seen to date is by the anti-Trump protesters....
Then you're not paying attention.
Trump has advocated violence against reporters (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/10/donald-trump-versus-the-media/81602878/), and Trump's campaign manager was charged with misdmeanor battery of a reporter: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/trump-campaign-manager-charged-with-simple-battery/
Trump advocates violence against protestors: "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you that" (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/11/trump-argues-for-more-of-his-supporters-to-assault-violent-protesters-thats-what-we-need-a-little-bit-more-of/) and offers to pay for the legal defense of his supporters who assault protestors. (http://offers to pay for the legal defense of his supporters who assault protestors.) Then his supporters commit assault in
Louisville, Kentucky (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/10/elderly-veteran-caught-on-tape-pushing-black-trump-protester-pens-apology-i-am-not-a-racist/)
Tuscon, Arizona (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supporter-tony-pettway-arrested-assault-active-duty-air-force/) (at least two arrested)
Fayetteville, North Carolina (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/10/trump-supporter-who-punched-protester-shocks-with-comments-next-time-we-might-have-to-kill-him/)
and many more.
Trump has advocated violence against reporters (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/10/donald-trump-versus-the-media/81602878/), and Trump's campaign manager was charged with misdmeanor battery of a reporter: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/trump-campaign-manager-charged-with-simple-battery/Eh, those two seem overhyped.
I was wondering why the GOP was OK with Trump saying such crazy and racist and sexist and stupid stuff all the time and didn't make too much of a big deal about it. And most all of the officials have endorsed him. But then all the sudden they started speaking out about his comments about the "Mexican" judge. It was such an about face that it was odd. Here's an interesting theory as to why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KImBARCiCxM
However, I don't think anyone cares anymore to be honest. We've been beating the racism drum to such an extreme amount over the last 4-5 years that people are just sick and tired of groups like Black Lives Matter and leftist politicians saying racist things like "When you're white ... you don't know what it's like to be poor." The race card is played out, people don't care, and they are tired of it.
I was wondering why the GOP was OK with Trump saying such crazy and racist and sexist and stupid stuff all the time and didn't make too much of a big deal about it. And most all of the officials have endorsed him. But then all the sudden they started speaking out about his comments about the "Mexican" judge. It was such an about face that it was odd. Here's an interesting theory as to why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KImBARCiCxM
It's because if you actually watch his speeches and listen to the conversations they're not blatantly racist, sexist, or overly crazy. However, if you watch the leftist media sources predominately you're not likely to actually watch his speeches and more likely to quote him out of context or intentionally smear him. The GOP got on him about this because his recent statement was so blatantly racist. I don't like Trump, but I prefer his honesty over the Democrat's subtle racism by pandering to black voters and never delivering meaningful change. Heck, it's arguable that Republicans have done more good for the minority groups than Democrats ever have.
However, I don't think anyone cares anymore to be honest. We've been beating the racism drum to such an extreme amount over the last 4-5 years that people are just sick and tired of groups like Black Lives Matter and leftist politicians saying racist things like "When you're white ... you don't know what it's like to be poor." The race card is played out, people don't care, and they are tired of it.
QuoteIs Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?
I think that he is mocking her claiming & getting subsidies intended for minorities as a result of a visually undetectable NA contribution to her genome. I probably have more than she does, and I have never claimed that for monetary gain. I have had employers claim it for their own reasons, though. I can (and generally do) pass for a typical white guy with a slight sunburn, and I don't mention to people that I don't know well. (I have had exactly 2 people guess by looking at me in my lifetime) If I have any 'white privilege', so does Elizabeth Warren. If he is mocking her NA heritage, I wouldn't be offended anyway; but I wouldn't count my opinion on this matter either, since I've spent exactly the same amount of time exposed to tribal culture as Elizabeth Warren, which is to say, none.
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.
Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.
jesus. What a bunch of liars you people are.
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11684776/elizabeth-warren-pocahontas
jesus. What a bunch of liars you people are.
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11684776/elizabeth-warren-pocahontas
They talked about this stuff waaaay back in 2012. This isn't new and she's never been able to substantiate her claim. To link something by Vox (uhhh.. okay) that insists it's new and just based on some inherent racism/sexism/otherism is just false. He very well could be racist/sexist/whatever but this comment isn't.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html)
Trump is referring to a controversy Warren faced over her ancestry during her 2012 Senate campaign.
They talked about this stuff waaaay back in 2012. This isn't new and she's never been able to substantiate her claim. To link something by Vox (uhhh.. okay) that insists it's new and just based on some inherent racism/sexism/otherism is just false. He very well could be racist/sexist/whatever but this comment isn't.
Maybe if you took more than two seconds to consider your responses, they'd be more coherent.
Now you're just going to move the goalposts and complain about something else, but I'm not interested. The controversy over Warren's heritage is a giant nothing. I think either link demonstrates this.
Maybe if you took more than two seconds to consider your responses, they'd be more coherent.
Now you're just going to move the goalposts and complain about something else, but I'm not interested. The controversy over Warren's heritage is a giant nothing. I think either link demonstrates this.
It shows that this U.S. Senator is a liar that misrepresented herself to gain minority status advantages as a rich white woman. It's never been resolved from 2012 and it's a continual stain on her credibility. That's a big deal to some of us. I mean, you'd be pissed if Trump claimed to be a minority to gain an advantage even though he's clearly not. None of us should let these sleazy politicians get away with it.
But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her...
Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job.
your source doesn't exactly make this seem like a clear-cut case of Warren lying, nor does it appear that she was employed because of an ethic claim.
From the article you linked;
Haven't read the threads here and don't plan on it ...
your source doesn't exactly make this seem like a clear-cut case of Warren lying, nor does it appear that she was employed because of an ethic claim.
From the article you linked;
It doesn't have to. The burden of proof is on Senator Warren to provide the statements about her motives and evidence that it didn't provide her any benefit. I think most people suspect that it did since she only did it when moving into highly competitive environments. I fully expect the accusations will continue until she comes clean and I hope that even liberal-leaning people push this issue.
jesus. What a bunch of liars you people are.
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11684776/elizabeth-warren-pocahontas
It's true, Franke-Ruta learned, that Warren wouldn't meet the criteria to officially qualify as Cherokee. She only claimed to be 1/32 Cherokee, which is too little to qualify for citizenship in two of the three major Cherokee tribes. She also doesn't have a known direct ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls, which is a strict requirement for membership in the Cherokee Nation, or on the Baker Rolls, a requirement of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
your source doesn't exactly make this seem like a clear-cut case of Warren lying, nor does it appear that she was employed because of an ethic claim.
From the article you linked;
It doesn't have to. The burden of proof is on Senator Warren to provide the statements about her motives and evidence that it didn't provide her any benefit. I think most people suspect that it did since she only did it when moving into highly competitive environments. I fully expect the accusations will continue until she comes clean and I hope that even liberal-leaning people push this issue.
Your argument contradicts itself. You link and article and say that it shows how Senator Warren is a proven liar. Then I provide an excerpt from the same article you linked detailing how the authors can't conclude whether or not Warren has lied. The references you are providing aren't supporting your assertions.
To me this seems a very hazy issue.
No, there's real evidence that she did check forms claiming to be of Native American descent when applying to Harvard Law School and U of Penn Law School. The burden of proof rests on her as to the reason why she has claimed to be a part of that minority group for those two jobs and no others, and to provide the proof in support of that claim. She's a lawyer, she was an educated lawyer at the time, there's no reason she shouldn't be able to validate her actions. She can't feign ignorance. Until she does, feel free to call her a liar and 'Pocahontas" to your heart's content.
your source doesn't exactly make this seem like a clear-cut case of Warren lying, nor does it appear that she was employed because of an ethic claim.
From the article you linked;
It doesn't have to. The burden of proof is on Senator Warren to provide the statements about her motives and evidence that it didn't provide her any benefit. I think most people suspect that it did since she only did it when moving into highly competitive environments. I fully expect the accusations will continue until she comes clean and I hope that even liberal-leaning people push this issue.
Your argument contradicts itself. You link and article and say that it shows how Senator Warren is a proven liar. Then I provide an excerpt from the same article you linked detailing how the authors can't conclude whether or not Warren has lied. The references you are providing aren't supporting your assertions.
To me this seems a very hazy issue.
No, there's real evidence that she did check forms claiming to be of Native American descent when applying to Harvard Law School and U of Penn Law School. The burden of proof rests on her as to the reason why she has claimed to be a part of that minority group for those two jobs and no others, and to provide the proof in support of that claim. She's a lawyer, she was an educated lawyer at the time, there's no reason she shouldn't be able to validate her actions. She can't feign ignorance. Until she does, feel free to call her a liar and 'Pocahontas" to your heart's content.
No, there's real evidence that she did check forms claiming to be of Native American descent when applying to Harvard Law School and U of Penn Law School. The burden of proof rests on her as to the reason why she has claimed to be a part of that minority group for those two jobs and no others, and to provide the proof in support of that claim. She's a lawyer, she was an educated lawyer at the time, there's no reason she shouldn't be able to validate her actions. She can't feign ignorance. Until she does, feel free to call her a liar and 'Pocahontas" to your heart's content.
Actually, she probably can, because I'm pretty sure she wasn't a lawyer yet. And that alone would explain why she stopped checking the box. I think she should be given a bit of slack for what she did in her 20's, and just how much confirm-able evidence she may have had access to at the time. I sure as hell don't want to be held to the stupid crap I did in my 20's. On the flip side, if the left can call Rand Paul's self-described religious affiliations into question over a college prank (remember the whole Aqua-Budda thing?) then it's fair game for Trump. Politics is a messy business. If you have thin skin, you don't belong in the ring.
I'm not comfortable calling anyone 'Pocahontas' - particularly to attack someone else. From what you and others have said, the label is designed to call someone dishonest while linking them to a historical figure of another minority.
It shows that this U.S. Senator is a liar that misrepresented herself to gain minority status advantages as a rich white woman. It's never been resolved from 2012 and it's a continual stain on her credibility. That's a big deal to some of us. I mean, you'd be pissed if Trump claimed to be a minority to gain an advantage even though he's clearly not. None of us should let these sleazy politicians get away with it.
Warren was born on June 22, 1949,[13][14] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring.[15][16][17] She was their fourth child, with three older brothers.[18] When Warren was 12, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack—which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work.[19] Eventually, this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan payments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog order department at Sears.[20] When she was 13, Warren started waiting tables at her aunt's restaurant.[18][21]
Also, the Vox article left out several key points I pointed out in my source and is a clear attack on Trump, even though I feel he's justified in his comments about Warren. If you're going to link an article, make sure it's from a decent source. Vox isn't known for professional, unbiased journalism and isn't a credible source. Honestly, even right-wing news sources like Breitbart do a better job at providing evidence.
Haven't read the threads here and don't plan on it ...
...then what's the point of participating?
I was wondering why the GOP was OK with Drumpf saying such crazy and racist and sexist and stupid stuff all the time and didn't make too much of a big deal about it. And most all of the officials have endorsed him. But then all the sudden they started speaking out about his comments about the "Mexican" judge. It was such an about face that it was odd. Here's an interesting theory as to why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KImBARCiCxM
Actually, she probably can, because I'm pretty sure she wasn't a lawyer yet. And that alone would explain why she stopped checking the box. I think she should be given a bit of slack for what she did in her 20's, and just how much confirm-able evidence she may have had access to at the time. I sure as hell don't want to be held to the stupid crap I did in my 20's. On the flip side, if the left can call Rand Paul's self-described religious affiliations into question over a college prank (remember the whole Aqua-Budda thing?) then it's fair game for Trump. Politics is a messy business. If you have thin skin, you don't belong in the ring.
It shows that this U.S. Senator is a liar that misrepresented herself to gain minority status advantages as a rich white woman. It's never been resolved from 2012 and it's a continual stain on her credibility. That's a big deal to some of us. I mean, you'd be pissed if Trump claimed to be a minority to gain an advantage even though he's clearly not. None of us should let these sleazy politicians get away with it.
From Wikipedia:QuoteWarren was born on June 22, 1949,[13][14] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring.[15][16][17] She was their fourth child, with three older brothers.[18] When Warren was 12, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack—which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work.[19] Eventually, this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan payments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog order department at Sears.[20] When she was 13, Warren started waiting tables at her aunt's restaurant.[18][21]
In other words: Come on, dude. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass.
You gave an opinion, but no legitimate criticism. Tell us what you don't like ( there is plenty not to like) and what you think should be done.Haven't read the threads here and don't plan on it ...
...then what's the point of participating?
To give an opinion. I didn't know that one had to read every post before participating. The reason I said "...so for those of you that are offended by that, too bad..." because I knew that someone (like you) would jump in with some inane comment (like yours). I guess you read past that part of my comment.
Haven't read the threads here and don't plan on it ...
...then what's the point of participating?
To give an opinion. I didn't know that one had to read every post before participating. The reason I said "...so for those of you that are offended by that, too bad..." because I knew that someone (like you) would jump in with some inane comment (like yours). I guess you read past that part of my comment.
I was wondering why the GOP was OK with Trump saying such crazy and racist and sexist and stupid stuff all the time and didn't make too much of a big deal about it. And most all of the officials have endorsed him. But then all the sudden they started speaking out about his comments about the "Mexican" judge. It was such an about face that it was odd. Here's an interesting theory as to why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KImBARCiCxM
It's because if you actually watch his speeches and listen to the conversations they're not blatantly racist, sexist, or overly crazy. However, if you watch the leftist media sources predominately you're not likely to actually watch his speeches and more likely to quote him out of context or intentionally smear him. The GOP got on him about this because his recent statement was so blatantly racist. I don't like Trump, but I prefer his honesty over the Democrat's subtle racism by pandering to black voters and never delivering meaningful change. Heck, it's arguable that Republicans have done more good for the minority groups than Democrats ever have.
However, I don't think anyone cares anymore to be honest. We've been beating the racism drum to such an extreme amount over the last 4-5 years that people are just sick and tired of groups like Black Lives Matter and leftist politicians saying racist things like "When you're white ... you don't know what it's like to be poor." The race card is played out, people don't care, and they are tired of it.
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.
Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.
You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.
Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.
You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?
And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.
Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.
You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?
And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.
Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.
You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?
And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.
She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.
But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.
She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.
DUDE. From the *very article* you cited:QuoteBut there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.
STOP LYING.
She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.
DUDE. From the *very article* you cited:QuoteBut there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.
STOP LYING.
The article was older and she did admit to it. Why are you defending her so vehemently? I feel like I'm attacking your faith or something based on your reactions and it's puzzling.
http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/ (http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/)
It shows that this U.S. Senator is a liar that misrepresented herself to gain minority status advantages as a rich white woman.However, the article you cited doesn't support this. Put another way, your evidence and conclusions don't match.
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.
Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.
You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?
And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.
Trump has said so some stupid things, but claiming the majority/core base of tRepublicans are racist is. Inaccurate to put it tpolitely. I'm only considering him because Clinton may be worse.
I think they're just better at hiding it and I think it's incredibly naive to suggest that the Democrats aren't racist, even unintentionally.
Also, if old Democrats are the new Republicans, does that mean that Republicans can claim credit for all the 'great' progressive programs brought about by the old Democrat party in the last century? FDR, JFK, Johnson were really Republican, I knew it!
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.
Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.
You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?
And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.
Trump has said so some stupid things, but claiming the majority/core base of tRepublicans are racist is. Inaccurate to put it tpolitely. I'm only considering him because Clinton may be worse.
I meant the southern Democrats, which was the context. Where the Jim Crow stuff was that the Democrats put an end to, so the officials (and many people) in the south changed parties or were replaced by Republicans. The south is the Republican base.I think they're just better at hiding it and I think it's incredibly naive to suggest that the Democrats aren't racist, even unintentionally.
Where did I saw the Democrats aren't racist? I think everyone is racist to some degree. We all prejudge people based on our experiences or the information fed to us. The difference among people is how we educate ourselves to overcome bad programming. What I said was that the Democrats decided to put an end to the racist activities of Jim Crow and the like, where government was enforcing racist policies.Also, if old Democrats are the new Republicans, does that mean that Republicans can claim credit for all the 'great' progressive programs brought about by the old Democrat party in the last century? FDR, JFK, Johnson were really Republican, I knew it!
Northern Democrats are not the same as old school southern Democrats. And of course not everyone in a group is the same as everyone else in that group.
I have a hard time putting much stock into what parties "used to be" several decades ago, especially when we are talking about time-frames that exceed all or virtually all of our currently elected congress representatives (Orrin Hatch is the president pro tempre, first elected in 1976; only 4 of the 435 house members predate the Reagan administration). Many of the people currently in congress weren't even alive during the time periods you guys are discussing. Furthermore, many of the democrats and republicans that were in office during Jim Crow times were born in homes without electricity and likely grew up without televisions. Some of them fought in the first world war. It's a vastly different world today.
The truth is that all of our political parties have changed and evolved their positions over time. I'm more interested in what a party's current platform is, and what bills and laws it has supported over hte last 2-3 election cycles.
I have a hard time putting much stock into what parties "used to be" several decades ago, especially when we are talking about time-frames that exceed all or virtually all of our currently elected congress representatives (Orrin Hatch is the president pro tempre, first elected in 1976; only 4 of the 435 house members predate the Reagan administration). Many of the people currently in congress weren't even alive during the time periods you guys are discussing. Furthermore, many of the democrats and republicans that were in office during Jim Crow times were born in homes without electricity and likely grew up without televisions. Some of them fought in the first world war. It's a vastly different world today.
The truth is that all of our political parties have changed and evolved their positions over time. I'm more interested in what a party's current platform is, and what bills and laws it has supported over hte last 2-3 election cycles.
Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.
She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.
DUDE. From the *very article* you cited:QuoteBut there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.
STOP LYING.
The article was older and she did admit to it. Why are you defending her so vehemently? I feel like I'm attacking your faith or something based on your reactions and it's puzzling.
http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/ (http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/)
You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.
Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.
You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?
And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.
Trump has said so some stupid things, but claiming the majority/core base of tRepublicans are racist is. Inaccurate to put it tpolitely. I'm only considering him because Clinton may be worse.
I meant the southern Democrats, which was the context, changed parties and became the new base. The south is where the Jim Crow stuff was that the Democrats put an end to, so the officials (and many people) in the south changed parties or were replaced by Republicans. The south is the Republican base. I didn't say everyone was racist. Just that those people changed parties.
Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.
Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.
Oh, you mean like you did a few posts back when you accused all the racists of joining the Republican party back in the day while the Democrats magically rose above it? Your head is so far up your ass that you are blind to your hypocrisy.
Today's Democrats practice a different form of racism...the soft racism of low expectations. Special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities by Democrats based on their belief that they can't compete with white people and, therefore, need help. Black crime and race riots are excused because it's white man's fault that the poor black man can't make it in today's world.
Pull your head out of your ass and clean the shit out of your eyes.
Let's keep this debate civil and not violate the forum rules (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/), ok?
thank you.
She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.
DUDE. From the *very article* you cited:QuoteBut there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.
STOP LYING.
The article was older and she did admit to it. Why are you defending her so vehemently? I feel like I'm attacking your faith or something based on your reactions and it's puzzling.
http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/ (http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/)
My goal isn't so much defending her as calling out your bullshit.
That link says the universities knew of her heritage at some point. It doesn't say that she told them in order to get a job, Which Is What You Were Claiming.
I'm finished with you. Congratulations - you've made my list of MMM forumers that I will not engage with because you don't argue in good faith. Have a nice life.
Today's Democrats practice a different form of racism...the soft racism of low expectations. Special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities by Democrats based on their belief that they can't compete with white people and, therefore, need help. Black crime and race riots are excused because it's white man's fault that the poor black man can't make it in today's world.
Today's Democrats practice a different form of racism...the soft racism of low expectations. Special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities by Democrats based on their belief that they can't compete with white people and, therefore, need help. Black crime and race riots are excused because it's white man's fault that the poor black man can't make it in today's world.
Hmm. OK, you don't like affirmative action policies.
There is clear evidence of systemic racism going on today. Something as simple as having a black sounding name on a resume makes you much less likely to be hired for work (http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873)), you are more likely to be pulled over by police if you're black than white (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/)), you are more likely to have a teacher give up on you and send you to remedial classes if you're black - (https://newrepublic.com/article/117775/brown-v-board-60-years-later-racial-divide-students-teachers (https://newrepublic.com/article/117775/brown-v-board-60-years-later-racial-divide-students-teachers)).
Given that minorities are on unequal footing, how do you propose that equality and fairness are better promoted?
Take it further and say you a raising a large group of children.
One group is told to work hard and study. We will make no special considerations for this group and they must achieve by their merit. How would this group view life and how much information / skill will they gain?
The other group is is told the system is "rigged." The majority of the ruling class is predisposed to discriminate and hate them. Also you will not make it on your own merit and special considerations will be given to you. How would this group view life and how much information / skill will they gain?
[snip]
Q: What happens to people who are told that the system is "rigged" against you?
A: Most people believe it, never question it and fail to achieve independence.
[snip]
Q: What happens to people who are told that the system is "rigged" against you?
A: Most people believe it, never question it and fail to achieve independence.
I'm about to wade into AA policies here, but as I biked into work this morning it occurred to me that this kind of thinking could go a long way in explaining why so many see our economy and our country itself as 'headed in the wrong direction'.
to illustrate:
Q: what happens when you constantly mention the 'struggling middle class' and 'stagnant wages' and a 'failed economy'
A: we feel poor, even though quantitatively speaking the middle class has about as much as they did 10 years ago when we felt 'rich'.
Q (alt 1): what happens when we constantly talk about this 'war on terror'...
Q (alt 2): what happens when we keep saying that our country "keeps loosing"?
Q (alt 3): ...etc etc.
Given the economy is doing better than most of the world and we've made steady upward progress since the Bush economy meltdown, the GOP mantra that "the economy sucks" is silly. They are appealing to the loser base of angry old white guys -- Trump's rhetoric will continue and it will not be prettyi.
Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.Oh, you mean like you did a few posts back when you accused all the racists of joining the Republican party back in the day while the Democrats magically rose above it? Your head is so far up your ass that you are blind to your hypocrisy.
Today's Democrats practice a different form of racism...the soft racism of low expectations. Special privileges and exceptions are made for minorities by Democrats based on their belief that they can't compete with white people and, therefore, need help. Black crime and race riots are excused because it's white man's fault that the poor black man can't make it in today's world.
I have a hard time putting much stock into what parties "used to be" several decades ago, especially when we are talking about time-frames that exceed all or virtually all of our currently elected congress representatives (Orrin Hatch is the president pro tempre, first elected in 1976; only 4 of the 435 house members predate the Reagan administration). Many of the people currently in congress weren't even alive during the time periods you guys are discussing. Furthermore, many of the democrats and republicans that were in office during Jim Crow times were born in homes without electricity and likely grew up without televisions. Some of them fought in the first world war. It's a vastly different world today.
The truth is that all of our political parties have changed and evolved their positions over time. I'm more interested in what a party's current platform is, and what bills and laws it has supported over hte last 2-3 election cycles.
Totally agreed. I always find it odd that people think they are super clever to make partisan points about stuff that a political party did decades ago, when that party has totally changed. I know that the pundits on TV say things they know are not true to try to mislead people. I wonder if the people spouting nonsense here are just doing the same thing. Or if they somehow believe it.
I often find myself wondering whether to what degree the 'talking-head' types or press-secretaries really believe what they are saying, especially when it's heavily spun for/against a given party. The monthly economic data is a perfect example. Almost every economist will tell agree that last month's employment data is highly uncertain (indeed, the initial number will be revised a total of 7 times over 2 years and has a margin of error of ~+/- 40,000!), and what matters is year+ long trends. Yet every single month, regardless of who's in the whitehouse we are treated to a blurb about how "this month's employment data is evidence that our policies are working/failing!"
I have a hard time believing that they really believe that. Or maybe they are so deep into 'the game' that they've bought into it. Who knows.
Unfortunately, it's "required" behavior for any public official now. Part of that is the news media sucking so badly. If they could provide objectivity (instead of neutrality) it might go a long way towards injecting some honesty into things. Now, they just let Side A say whatever, and then Side B gets to say whatever, and they argue, and the listener has no idea what's true. They want to play everything like it's 50/50. If they did this with sports, they would say, "Well, the Patriots claim they won. And the Steelers claim they one." Now, there is a pretty clear answer to this question, but the media certainly won't tell you about it. That's why it was very surprising to me that they have started to call out Trump and say he "lies". Normally the media kiss the politician's ass and hope they'll give them the quotes they need and come back on their show. They will occasionally do some measured amount of "hard" questions. But not too much. They need access more than anything. The news has become a profit center business. It's all about ratings and selling ads. For a long time it was easier to get ratings if you had a fight on the air between the pundits. And to keep the segments short to match attention spans. So now it's just name calling and lying but without enough time for people actually learn any useful information. And you can rarely criticize a corporation that buys ads on your show. It's only really safe to do that if everyone else will have similar criticism. Why else would ADM, which sells no products directly to consumers, advertise on political talk shows? There are other problems too, but the media is a big one.
As criticisms of candidates go... For Trump we can add to the rather long list that he revokes press passes for organizations that do not print what he likes. Today's addition is the Washington Post apparently in response to their reporting on Trump's response to the mass shooting in Orlando.Trump is still a private citizen. If, for example, Breitbart had put up a headline "Hillary Clinton suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting" I wouldn't blame her for revoking Breitbart's credentials to get close access to her either.
As criticisms of candidates go... For Trump we can add to the rather long list that he revokes press passes for organizations that do not print what he likes. Today's addition is the Washington Post apparently in response to their reporting on Trump's response to the mass shooting in Orlando.Trump is still a private citizen. If, for example, Breitbart had put up a headline "Hillary Clinton suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting" I wouldn't blame her for revoking Breitbart's credentials to get close access to her either.
If Trump should ever become President, then he should have to put up with the same First Amendment freedom of the press issues as all previous presidents. E.g., see http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/07/can-the-white-house-revoke-a-reporters-credentials/ and http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97771/ (although the latter would seem to give Trump more leeway than I'd like to see).
"Look, we're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind," Trump said in a lengthy interview on Fox News early Monday morning. "And the something else in mind — you know, people can't believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on."
In that same interview, Trump was asked to explain why he called for Obama to resign in light of the shooting and he answered, in part: "He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it's one or the other, and either one is unacceptable."
But Trump did suggest that Obama was involved or at least sympathetic.
You know when you get a Hallmark card from your Aunt Betty, you open it up, and feign to read the blathering prose of platitudes contained within? You kind of skim it, but it's so lame, you just can't bring yourself to give it serious attention. So you bide your time and wait a few beats before looking up to thank her. It's not the same thing, but similar to how I feel when I read quotes from Trump - I think he's so ignorant and disingenuous on policy, that when he expresses his vapid opinions, all I see is lame prose. No meaning. And so I just glaze over it and think, so what? Now there's an answer to 'so what?' And that answer is he just might trick people into putting him into the presidency.Adaptation and desensitization are trump's friends at this point.
Even my dad, the other day, emailed me something to the effect of why I should vote for Trump. His argument boiled down to Trump bringing in outsiders. (my answer to him: sure, some might be good, others might be CEOs from the oil industry and climate change deniers). Three months ago, my dad hated Trump. (Yes my Drumpfinator is on.)
My head hurts.
You know when you get a Hallmark card from your Aunt Betty, you open it up, and feign to read the blathering prose of platitudes contained within? You kind of skim it, but it's so lame, you just can't bring yourself to give it serious attention. So you bide your time and wait a few beats before looking up to thank her. It's not the same thing, but similar to how I feel when I read quotes from Trump - I think he's so ignorant and disingenuous on policy, that when he expresses his vapid opinions, all I see is lame prose. No meaning. And so I just glaze over it and think, so what? Now there's an answer to 'so what?' And that answer is he just might trick people into putting him into the presidency.
Even my dad, the other day, emailed me something to the effect of why I should vote for Trump. His argument boiled down to Trump bringing in outsiders. (my answer to him: sure, some might be good, others might be CEOs from the oil industry and climate change deniers). Three months ago, my dad hated Trump. (Yes my Drumpfinator is on.)
My head hurts.
As criticisms of candidates go... For Trump we can add to the rather long list that he revokes press passes for organizations that do not print what he likes. Today's addition is the Washington Post apparently in response to their reporting on Trump's response to the mass shooting in Orlando.Trump is still a private citizen. If, for example, Breitbart had put up a headline "Hillary Clinton suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting" I wouldn't blame her for revoking Breitbart's credentials to get close access to her either.
If Trump should ever become President, then he should have to put up with the same First Amendment freedom of the press issues as all previous presidents. E.g., see http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/06/07/can-the-white-house-revoke-a-reporters-credentials/ and http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97771/ (although the latter would seem to give Trump more leeway than I'd like to see).
Perhaps most interesting was FIL's continual defense that Trump "will put some really talented people in high-level positions, people who aren't just career politicians. Those are the people who will really get stuff done."
I think that once you declare yourself to be running for president--let alone become the presumptive nominee--you are not really a private citizen anymore. You are a public figure. Libel laws would agree with me. I understand that you are saying he's not held to the same standard as a sitting president. But I disagree with that as well--he *should* be. He's auditioning to be president. The media plays an important role in vetting candidates and providing information for voters to decide upon. Whether it's illegal or not for him to do it isn't that important to me. It speaks to his personality and the kind of behavior he would exhibit as president.
That said, all administrations play games with media access. Trump is doing it very unsavvily (from one perspective--perhaps it's actually very savvy among certain voters he's trying to cultivate).
I think that once you declare yourself to be running for president--let alone become the presumptive nominee--you are not really a private citizen anymore. You are a public figure. Libel laws would agree with me. I understand that you are saying he's not held to the same standard as a sitting president. But I disagree with that as well--he *should* be. He's auditioning to be president. The media plays an important role in vetting candidates and providing information for voters to decide upon. Whether it's illegal or not for him to do it isn't that important to me. It speaks to his personality and the kind of behavior he would exhibit as president.
That said, all administrations play games with media access. Trump is doing it very unsavvily (from one perspective--perhaps it's actually very savvy among certain voters he's trying to cultivate).
That brings to mind a sereis of questions I'd really like to hear Trump answer:
Qs: what would be the role of the media inside a Trump administration? How would you control which media outlets had access to you and the White House (i.e. press clearance, daily media briefings, direct Q/A sessions)?
Would your administration be more or less transparent than the Obama administration?
while on the subject: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html)
Just so everyone is clear, Jeff Bozo owns the Washington Post, he is the owner Amazon, and he bought the Washington Post specifically so he can have an outlet to voice his political agenda. His agenda is H1B visas which allow these tech companies to bring in immigrants and be paid trash over Americans.
Maybe these people just need better advisors or something, because in CURRENT YEAR you cannot just buy a newspaper and expect people won't think you will use it to pump out your own propaganda. He's living 30 years ago.
Don't forget, we have never even heard of them, but they will be better than the best guys we have heard ofPerhaps most interesting was FIL's continual defense that Trump "will put some really talented people in high-level positions, people who aren't just career politicians. Those are the people who will really get stuff done."
Did they say he's going to appoint some "top people" who are going to be "fantastic" and do a "tremendous" job and make "really great deals" so we can be "winning"?
He has a legitimate shot at winning.
Bezos. Jeff Bezos.
I think that once you declare yourself to be running for president--let alone become the presumptive nominee--you are not really a private citizen anymore. You are a public figure. Libel laws would agree with me. I understand that you are saying he's not held to the same standard as a sitting president. But I disagree with that as well--he *should* be. He's auditioning to be president. The media plays an important role in vetting candidates and providing information for voters to decide upon. Whether it's illegal or not for him to do it isn't that important to me. It speaks to his personality and the kind of behavior he would exhibit as president.I generally agree with most of that, except the part about being held to the same standard as a sitting president. Currently neither Trump nor Clinton controls any part of "the government" - when one of them does, then that person should be held to a standard different than either is now.
That said, all administrations play games with media access. Trump is doing it very unsavvily (from one perspective--perhaps it's actually very savvy among certain voters he's trying to cultivate).
Renewed efforts to expand gun control and issues of domestic security usually shift undecided voters towards the right...
Likewise, Trump chose border security as his signature issue in part because there was a 100% chance voters would see another terror attack somewhere during the election cycle. Any attack would serve as a trigger to activate the persuasion. Unfortunately, ISIS has provided three triggers already in the past year, with Belgium being the latest.
If you’re paying attention to the news, you know that Trump just doubled-down on waterboarding (and maybe worse) because of the Belgium attack. And the world just shrugged it off this time. Every time something blows up, Trump starts looking less crazy. That’s sleeper persuasion with a trigger.
4. Force people to see the world in terms of strength and weakness because people are drawn to strength in times of uncertainty.
Given that this latest news fits Trump’s strategy and pattern, I conclude that it was an intentional move under the Master Persuader filter.
But will it work?
It appears that Trump is playing the odds, and smartly, whether you like it or not. ISIS, or its supporters, will certainly strike again. And each time that happens you will try to imagine what can be done about it. And you will only know of one option – the Trump option of shutting down all Muslim immigration for now.
You can hate that option or you can love it. But you probably don’t know of any other plan. Your option for doing something (as opposed to nothing) comes down to Trump’s plan. It is the only plan you know, flawed as it is. And when a monster attacks, you escape through the door that exists, not the one you wish existed. Advantage, Trump.
My mother often quoted an old-timey saying: “You can get used to hanging if you do it long enough.”
That’s good homespun psychology. Humans will see nearly anything as normal if they are exposed to it long enough. I’m sure ISIS fighters feel they are acting in a normal way after committing several atrocities in a row. We humans can get used to anything.
Consider Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigration until we figure out what is going on. Remember how radical that sounded months ago? Remember how – even if you liked the idea – it sounded outrageously racist, even though Islam is open to all races? To most American ears, Trump’s proposed immigration ban sounded inappropriate and far-fetched EVEN IF YOU LIKED IT.
Time passes.
Innocent people die.
And as humans do, we get used to whatever is in our environment, no matter how outrageous it once seemed. And we’ve all been living for months with the idea of Trump’s temporary Muslim immigration ban. We’re getting used to it.
Would your administration be more or less transparent than the Obama administration?
So the current raw average on RCP has Clinton up by 5.5 percentage points, which is also about the average of all polls taken since the beginning of the year (5.8% using an unweighted average). My guess is that this corrected for the bump that occurred after Trump essentially secured the nomination.
Interestingly, if we use the 2014 Cook Partisan Voter Index and simply assume each state will vote for Clinton at 5.5 percentage points more, then Clinton would win 368 electoral votes to Trump's 170. I think the next state in line would be Georgia, which has a PVI of R+6, then Arizona and Montana at R+7.
I think the only way Hillary Clinton doesn't win is if the President allows an indictment to go through against her and she's replaced by somebody like Biden at the convention. Or John Kerry, for that matter. I don't like Biden or Kerry, but I think they care about America in a way Clinton doesn't.I think she's most likely to win. But she could certainly lose without anything like the above happening. She is so widely hated, and Trump is such a wild card, that anything could happen. Clinton is a terrible candidate and Trump has been very surprisingly good at running for office. Major news events could tip the race. And turnout may be very low (which favors Republicans).
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War) I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War) I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
I know one is a warmonger and the other I have no information on. You probably missed the part about rhetoric and words vs. actions because you were doing your best to come up with a passive-aggressive retort. Here is a web site you may enjoy, it may help with your reading and comprehension https://www.hookedonphonics.com/.You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War) I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/I know one is a warmonger and the other I have no information on. You probably missed the part about rhetoric and words vs. actions because you were doing your best to come up with a passive-aggressive retort. Here is a web site you may enjoy, it may help with your reading and comprehension https://www.hookedonphonics.com/.You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War) I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War) I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War) I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
I dont think either of our views of the other candidate is going to change. I can insert Hillary in each example and the results are the same minus Atlantic City because she has not been in business. Hillary changes her positions routinely, left people out to dry etc. Oh well.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War) I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
I dont think either of our views of the other candidate is going to change. I can insert Hillary in each example and the results are the same minus Atlantic City because she has not been in business. Hillary changes her positions routinely, left people out to dry etc. Oh well.
Leaving Clinton v Trump aside for a moment, what is your take on Trump's business record and treatment of investors? Honestly curious.
Trump has given you tons of information, he has his policies laid out clearly. Here is a summary of his plan,I know one is a warmonger and the other I have no information on. You probably missed the part about rhetoric and words vs. actions because you were doing your best to come up with a passive-aggressive retort. Here is a web site you may enjoy, it may help with your reading and comprehension https://www.hookedonphonics.com/.You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War) I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.
It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office. That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do. What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?
True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War) I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
I dont think either of our views of the other candidate is going to change. I can insert Hillary in each example and the results are the same minus Atlantic City because she has not been in business. Hillary changes her positions routinely, left people out to dry etc. Oh well.
Leaving Clinton v Trump aside for a moment, what is your take on Trump's business record and treatment of investors? Honestly curious.
He has made some people rich and others poor. I personally think he is probably a real jerk, to cite the Atlantic City info from earlier, i recall he had the city use eminent domain on some old woman that I believe 20/20 did a story on back in the early 90's. I think he is a scoundrel and uses the law to his own ends. And yet he is still the lesser of two evils.
That's not how it happened, and Trump devoted an entire chapter to that debacle in his book, The Art of the Deal. Granted, it's a one sided presentation of the events, but the facts are still facts. Trump did not initiate that use of eminent domain, and actually did try to accommodate that woman, within his constraints as a CEO whose primary legal responsibility is to make his investors profit. Incidentally, that book is a good read in order to better understand what Trump is doing in his campaign, as he has not changed a bit. A lot of the over-the-top statements he makes in public (such as the southern border wall) are 'anchors' not intended to be taken as an ultimatum, but as the start of a negotiation. When he eventually softens his position, the public will view that as more reasonable, which makes Trump look more reasonable even if he still ends up at the same place that he could have started at and refused to budge. He recently already started to soften his 'ban on Muslim immigration' stance from all Muslims to "from certain places, you know the ones". We will continue to get these softer, more nuanced positions as the campaign rolls on.
That's not how it happened, and Trump devoted an entire chapter to that debacle in his book, The Art of the Deal. Granted, it's a one sided presentation of the events, but the facts are still facts. Trump did not initiate that use of eminent domain, and actually did try to accommodate that woman, within his constraints as a CEO whose primary legal responsibility is to make his investors profit. Incidentally, that book is a good read in order to better understand what Trump is doing in his campaign, as he has not changed a bit. A lot of the over-the-top statements he makes in public (such as the southern border wall) are 'anchors' not intended to be taken as an ultimatum, but as the start of a negotiation. When he eventually softens his position, the public will view that as more reasonable, which makes Trump look more reasonable even if he still ends up at the same place that he could have started at and refused to budge. He recently already started to soften his 'ban on Muslim immigration' stance from all Muslims to "from certain places, you know the ones". We will continue to get these softer, more nuanced positions as the campaign rolls on.
This is likely correct, and it makes me sad that people are falling for his tricks (and even worse that people are supporting the awful, awful things that he is saying).
He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line.
He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line.
Does he though? I think he owns a golf course in Scotland. And I say "think" because it's hard to know what he actually owns vs just charges big bucks to have his name on. I wouldn't really put that in the same category as doing business with China where the relationship is complicated. Trump doesn't actually make things anymore. He just licences his name to be on stuff. He's actually an incredibly awful businessman. He's just a very good marketer. His whole image is invented BS. He sucks at actually developing properties or managing things. Those projects he owns and runs tend to take on too much debt, spend too much money, don't turn a profit, etc. He enriches himself by taking cash out of them and putting it in his pocket while letting vendors, small businesses, stockholders, and bond owners take big losses.
I don't actually think he does business with a lot of countries. Some products that have his name on them (like his clothing line which he had for awhile) may be made in other countries, but he doesn't have anything to do with that operation--just his name on it.
He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line.
Does he though? I think he owns a golf course in Scotland. And I say "think" because it's hard to know what he actually owns vs just charges big bucks to have his name on. I wouldn't really put that in the same category as doing business with China where the relationship is complicated. Trump doesn't actually make things anymore. He just licences his name to be on stuff. He's actually an incredibly awful businessman. He's just a very good marketer. His whole image is invented BS. He sucks at actually developing properties or managing things. Those projects he owns and runs tend to take on too much debt, spend too much money, don't turn a profit, etc. He enriches himself by taking cash out of them and putting it in his pocket while letting vendors, small businesses, stockholders, and bond owners take big losses.
I don't actually think he does business with a lot of countries. Some products that have his name on them (like his clothing line which he had for awhile) may be made in other countries, but he doesn't have anything to do with that operation--just his name on it.
I suspect he hasn't been nearly as successful as a businessman as he claims. Seeing his tax returns would go a long way towards making a more informed decision about how much he has earned and lost over the years. I'm doubtful he'll ever release them.
He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line.
Does he though? I think he owns a golf course in Scotland. And I say "think" because it's hard to know what he actually owns vs just charges big bucks to have his name on. I wouldn't really put that in the same category as doing business with China where the relationship is complicated. Trump doesn't actually make things anymore. He just licences his name to be on stuff. He's actually an incredibly awful businessman. He's just a very good marketer. His whole image is invented BS. He sucks at actually developing properties or managing things. Those projects he owns and runs tend to take on too much debt, spend too much money, don't turn a profit, etc. He enriches himself by taking cash out of them and putting it in his pocket while letting vendors, small businesses, stockholders, and bond owners take big losses.
I don't actually think he does business with a lot of countries. Some products that have his name on them (like his clothing line which he had for awhile) may be made in other countries, but he doesn't have anything to do with that operation--just his name on it.
I suspect he hasn't been nearly as successful as a businessman as he claims. Seeing his tax returns would go a long way towards making a more informed decision about how much he has earned and lost over the years. I'm doubtful he'll ever release them.
I'm pretty sure he won't release them. It would likely ruin him. His entire brand is that he's rich and a successful businessman. It's entirely possible that he's not a billionaire. He still claims a tax break available only to people making <$500k per year. Either he's cheating on his taxes, playing some kind of money hiding shenanigans, or just not as rich as he claims.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/06/07/donald-trump-still-receiving-tax-break-meant-for-homeowners-making-under-500000-a-year/#15ac0192ac17
[/quote
Income does not equate to net worth, but that would imply that either his investments on billions of dollars suck, or he has some serious income tax deductions.
He still claims a tax break available only to people making <$500k per year.
Income does not equate to net worth, but that would imply that either his investments on billions of dollars suck, or he has some serious income tax deductions.
He still claims a tax break available only to people making <$500k per year.
Rather than "he...claims" it seems "the city credited him with" is more accurate, based on the actual property tax bill shown in the original article (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160308/BLOGS02/160309865/trump-qualified-for-a-tax-break-for-new-yorkers-making-500k-or-less).
Should I ever be so afflicted with a $200,000 property tax bill, I can imagine not checking the qualifications for the $300 credit the city put on my bill.
This type of story runs the risk that the general public will think "crying wolf again" whenever someone criticizes Trump.
Rare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.
In order to defend yourself from these tricks, first you must be able to see the trick, and even that isn't entirely effective at dissipating the effect. The truth is, none of us are good at choosing a "good president", we don't really even know what that would mean. There is too much that is hidden from the public about the nature of the job for the public to actually make a rational decision; and we would still want a different kind of president if we knew in advance if our major challenges over the next 4 years would be domestic or foreign. So we do what we can, and rationalize the uncertainty away. In the end, the vast majority of us make decisions on an emotional level, and then decide later why.
Breaking news, Trump just fired his campaign manager.
Breaking news, Trump just fired his campaign manager.
wow (!)
Normally moves like this are made when a campaign is in serious trouble (for example, when they have lost a number of primary states in a row) and the end is near. There are 140+ days before the general election...
I wonder who Trump will get to replace him.
Presumably Paul Manafort. He and Lewandowski have been openly fighting for control of the campaign for months.
Breaking news, Trump just fired his campaign manager.
wow (!)
Normally moves like this are made when a campaign is in serious trouble (for example, when they have lost a number of primary states in a row) and the end is near. There are 140+ days before the general election...
I wonder who Trump will get to replace him.
He still claims a tax break available only to people making <$500k per year.
Rather than "he...claims" it seems "the city credited him with" is more accurate, based on the actual property tax bill shown in the original article (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160308/BLOGS02/160309865/trump-qualified-for-a-tax-break-for-new-yorkers-making-500k-or-less).
Should I ever be so afflicted with a $200,000 property tax bill, I can imagine not checking the qualifications for the $300 credit the city put on my bill.
This type of story runs the risk that the general public will think "crying wolf again" whenever someone criticizes Trump.
The city's Finance Department said it checks with New York state tax authorities every year to make sure applicants for the STAR benefit have income under $500,000. A spokesman for the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance said STAR recipients had to provide a social security number in 2013 as part of statewide registration program.
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.
Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.
Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/
They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now. His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.
Assuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his estimated 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, and is also able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.
Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/
They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now. His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.
Would his personal taxes show all of the financials from each of his companies? I have a feeling it wouldn't but I don't know much about corporate taxes... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.
Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/
They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now. His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.
see...??! This is exactly why I'd like to see a decade or so of his tax returns. It would help separate the intangible value of his 'brand' with how much money he's earned every year from a variety of sources. There are so many things that have "Trump" stamped onto them it's been extremely hard for financial sleuths to distinguish what Trump actually owns (liabilities) and what he's just sold his name to in exchange for a share of the profits (assets) or a simple licensing fee.
I'm certain that he can shelter a lot of his gains by claiming depreciation. I'm skeptical that many of his 'investments' are earning returns at all, and may actually be loosing boatloads of cash each month.
As a parallel - there's a phenomenon in the restaurant industry of celebrity-chefs owning high-end restaurants to further their 'brand'. Ironically, these restaurants very often wind up loosing money because the overhead is so high. This forces the chef to open up satellite restaurants that are cannibalized to keep the flagship open and solvent. Eventually the entire operation can collapse under too much debt.
I suspect Trump may have a lot of similar properties where he's actively loosing money but needs to keep them open and shiny in order to prevent damage to his overall image/brand. Of course this is all speculation based on the ramblings of some stranger on the internet, but the NY Time's story on Trump's casino expansion (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html) in the 1990s is worth a read.
Assuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.
Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/
They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now. His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.estimatedclaimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, andis alsoclaims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.
Would his personal taxes show all of the financials from each of his companies? I have a feeling it wouldn't but I don't know much about corporate taxes
Assuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.
Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/
They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now. His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.estimatedclaimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, andis alsoclaims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.
Unless you have citations for those claims, it's probably better this way.
Just wait until the election/his presidency is over and he starts his new media outlet - "Trump Media". Then he will be worth 10B or more.What makes you think starting a new media outlet will be so lucrative for Trump? how much of an increase will that be from his current net worth? so many questions....
QuoteRare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.
This is true of almost anyone, including HRC.
Was the latter Trump?QuoteRare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.
This is true of almost anyone, including HRC.
While I have never met HRC, I have met a great many politicians in my life, due mostly to political activity. I can say with certainty that this is not my experience. There are some that great people, and some that give me the creeps. I can't really explain it, but those that have given me the creeps have all turned out to be real pieces of work in the long run. One was sent to prison for corruption. Another turned out to be cheating on his wife.
Was the latter Trump?QuoteRare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.
This is true of almost anyone, including HRC.
While I have never met HRC, I have met a great many politicians in my life, due mostly to political activity. I can say with certainty that this is not my experience. There are some that great people, and some that give me the creeps. I can't really explain it, but those that have given me the creeps have all turned out to be real pieces of work in the long run. One was sent to prison for corruption. Another turned out to be cheating on his wife.
He claims to be at like 10 billion, I'm speaking of estimations by Forbes, estimating his net worth at 4 billion, and Bloomberg, estimating his net worth at 2.9 billionAssuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.
Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/
They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now. His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.estimatedclaimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, andis alsoclaims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.
Unless you have citations for those claims, it's probably better this way.
I suspect that there is a whole spectrum of how likeable/honest politicians are. I have to admit that Obama cast pretty huge shade on Clinton in 2008 when he said that she was "likeable enough". Talk about damning with faint praise!Was the latter Trump?QuoteRare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.
This is true of almost anyone, including HRC.
While I have never met HRC, I have met a great many politicians in my life, due mostly to political activity. I can say with certainty that this is not my experience. There are some that great people, and some that give me the creeps. I can't really explain it, but those that have given me the creeps have all turned out to be real pieces of work in the long run. One was sent to prison for corruption. Another turned out to be cheating on his wife.
No, they were all politicians in Kentucky.
What makes you think starting a new media outlet will be so lucrative for Drumpf? how much of an increase will that be from his current net worth? so many questions....
Clinton seems like type of person that keeps a legal team ready to silence anyone that has an opportunity to voice an unfavorable opinion about her. She probably makes everyone she comes in contact with sign a Non-disclosure Agreement before she lets her walls down.Given Trump's habit of threatening lawsuits against people who say things about him that he doesn't like ( coupled with his desire to loosen libel laws) it sounds like they line up pretty evenly on that score (although Trump rarely follows through with his threats).
He claims to be at like 10 billion, I'm speaking of estimations by Forbes, estimating his net worth at 4 billion, and Bloomberg, estimating his net worth at 2.9 billionAssuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.
Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/
They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now. His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.estimatedclaimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, andis alsoclaims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.
Unless you have citations for those claims, it's probably better this way.
Clinton seems like type of person that keeps a legal team ready to silence anyone that has an opportunity to voice an unfavorable opinion about her. She probably makes everyone she comes in contact with sign a Non-disclosure Agreement before she lets her walls down.
I'm not sure what $100MM is, $100 million million? that would be $1 trillion, I don't think that's possible, maybe $100MM means $1 Billion or $100 Million? Which would make more sense.He claims to be at like 10 billion, I'm speaking of estimations by Forbes, estimating his net worth at 4 billion, and Bloomberg, estimating his net worth at 2.9 billionAssuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.
Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/
They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now. His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.estimatedclaimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, andis alsoclaims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.
Unless you have citations for those claims, it's probably better this way.
Here's the conundrum - if you read the actual Forbes article it details how difficult has been to get solid numbers. Most of what they use is based on data that Trump and his aids gave Forbes directly (often with lofty valuations that Forbes then reduced based on their own formulas). What Forbes and others have a very hard time verifying with personal wealth and privately held companies are liabilities. In the most recent assessment Trump even showed Forbes the revenue from Trump Tower but folded over the bottom so they couldn't see the net gain/loss. The article details how proactive Trump is at trying to 'goose' his numbers (often increasing them by 3-4x what Forbes thinks they are actually worth).
There's so much guesswork at play that I honestly think his true NW could be anywhere between $100MM and $10B.
I'm not sure what $100MM is, $100 million million? that would be $1 trillion, I don't think that's possible, maybe $100MM means $1 Billion or $100 Million? Which would make more sense.
I'd guess, that if you put some value to his "brand", his net worth is probably around $3 Billion
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?Or, in a pivot to the general, this may be a calculated stance to help him seem moderate. It will also be cast as a way to seem tough on supposed terrorists (despite the problems with due process on a specifically constitutionally protected right; this use of the no-fly list would be highly problematic and would require significantly more transparency than currently allowed or it would be destroyed in the courts).
As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?I don't think it impacts either of them. Because the Senate is hashing this out, both candidates are insulated from it some. Voters on either side of the issue are already pretty firm in their positions.
As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?Or, in a pivot to the general, this may be a calculated stance to help him seem moderate. It will also be cast as a way to seem tough on supposed terrorists (despite the problems with due process on a specifically constitutionally protected right; this use of the no-fly list would be highly problematic and would require significantly more transparency than currently allowed or it would be destroyed in the courts).
As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.
I know a lot of people dont agree but consider the plan language of the ACA, "established by a state", that is very plain language but the courtsignored it because it is popular and would be too controversial to overturn.read the rest of the bill and realized it was a typo because the rest of the bill clearly and consistently displays the overall intent of the legislation to provide tax credits for plans purchased on any exchange.
a typo is when a word is misspelled, not a phrase that changes the entire enforcement of a law. fwiw, they thought all states would adopt it, not "put a gun to their heads" (the words of CJ Roberts). the Supreme Court made that decision for convenience not jurisprudence, just like the no fly list thing will go.I know a lot of people dont agree but consider the plan language of the ACA, "established by a state", that is very plain language but the courtsignored it because it is popular and would be too controversial to overturn.read the rest of the bill and realized it was a typo because the rest of the bill clearly and consistently displays the overall intent of the legislation to provide tax credits for plans purchased on any exchange.
FTFY
Crooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess
a typo is when a word is misspelled, not a phrase that changes the entire enforcement of a law. fwiw, they thought all states would adopt it, not "put a gun to their heads" (the words of CJ Roberts). the Supreme Court made that decision for convenience not jurisprudence, just like the no fly list thing will go.I know a lot of people dont agree but consider the plan language of the ACA, "established by a state", that is very plain language but the courtsignored it because it is popular and would be too controversial to overturn.read the rest of the bill and realized it was a typo because the rest of the bill clearly and consistently displays the overall intent of the legislation to provide tax credits for plans purchased on any exchange.
FTFY
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.
as an example:QuoteCrooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess
Everyone has a temperament. What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"? As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess. Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton. Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess. If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?
As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?
As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.
Helps him out a lot. It could be seen as a "common sense" solution to the problem. I have a feeling his base doesn't really care about rights to suspected terrorists, and probably have a very hard time imagining themselves or any "real American" on the list.
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?
As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.
Helps him out a lot. It could be seen as a "common sense" solution to the problem. I have a feeling his base doesn't really care about rights to suspected terrorists, and probably have a very hard time imagining themselves or any "real American" on the list.
This. Diehard Trump supporters care about one right. The right to due process (for anyone with dark skin or foreign born or suspected of "something") is not one of them. America loving Americans, would neverrrrr be on such a list, therefore no rights are being violated.
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.
as an example:QuoteCrooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess
Everyone has a temperament. What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"? As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess. Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton. Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess. If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.
I suppose, but having a "temperament that is a mess" is enigmatic at best. Temperament is defined as "a person's nature, particularly as it relates to their behavior." If I described myself as having a messy temperament, does that mean I am disorganized? scatterbrained? unstable? I honestly have no idea what this means (other than just to be a generic insult as forummm suggested).A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.
as an example:QuoteCrooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess
Everyone has a temperament. What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"? As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess. Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton. Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess. If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.
Not a fan of trump, but in this case, can't we just say that "according to new book" is just the modifier for her temperament? For example, couldn't I say: Cats are trainable and their paws, according to recent scientific papers, do have sharp claws. I'm not saying that the papers have sharp claws.
He is missing a "the" or "a" but I'd do the same if I used twitter. My understanding of twitter is that you can pretty much cut down punctuation in the same way you would when taking notes.
For these reasons we are confident that a widespread and creative billboard advertising game plan could go a long way toward making the Rick Tyler For Congress candidacy both viable and a force to be reckoned with. Clearly we are in uncharted waters, in that there has never been a candidacy like this in modern political history. Of great significance, as well, is the reality of the Trump phenomenon and the manner in which he has loosened up the overall spectrum of political discourse.
I suppose, but having a "temperament that is a mess" is enigmatic at best. Temperament is defined as "a person's nature, particularly as it relates to their behavior." If I described myself as having a messy temperament, does that mean I am disorganized? scatterbrained? unstable? I honestly have no idea what this means (other than just to be a generic insult as forummm suggested).A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.
as an example:QuoteCrooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess
Everyone has a temperament. What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"? As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess. Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton. Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess. If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.
Not a fan of trump, but in this case, can't we just say that "according to new book" is just the modifier for her temperament? For example, couldn't I say: Cats are trainable and their paws, according to recent scientific papers, do have sharp claws. I'm not saying that the papers have sharp claws.
He is missing a "the" or "a" but I'd do the same if I used twitter. My understanding of twitter is that you can pretty much cut down punctuation in the same way you would when taking notes.
In a sense my criticism of many of Trump's tweets are that they are too vague. I wouldn;t be surprised if he intends them to be so (Trump seems to love make such broadly vague statements in general).
It's also annoying that he says "new book" but he doesn't say what book or who published it. If someone quotes a book or a study I like to read what that book/study actually said; often their findings are taken out of context if not completely misquoted. This is the equivalent of arguing with someone who says "everybody knows that" or "it's true, look it up, there have been studies." Once again there's no way to know what he's actually referring to, but it gives the suggestion of being bad for Clinton.
As for punctiation on twitter - I understand omitting punctuation to save characters/time, but Trump often seems to over-punctuate, but still manages to leave out the most critical marks. Admittedly this is a small annoyance.
I suppose, but having a "temperament that is a mess" is enigmatic at best. Temperament is defined as "a person's nature, particularly as it relates to their behavior." If I described myself as having a messy temperament, does that mean I am disorganized? scatterbrained? unstable? I honestly have no idea what this means (other than just to be a generic insult as forummm suggested).A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.
as an example:QuoteCrooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess
Everyone has a temperament. What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"? As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess. Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton. Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess. If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.
Not a fan of trump, but in this case, can't we just say that "according to new book" is just the modifier for her temperament? For example, couldn't I say: Cats are trainable and their paws, according to recent scientific papers, do have sharp claws. I'm not saying that the papers have sharp claws.
He is missing a "the" or "a" but I'd do the same if I used twitter. My understanding of twitter is that you can pretty much cut down punctuation in the same way you would when taking notes.
In a sense my criticism of many of Trump's tweets are that they are too vague. I wouldn;t be surprised if he intends them to be so (Trump seems to love make such broadly vague statements in general).
It's also annoying that he says "new book" but he doesn't say what book or who published it. If someone quotes a book or a study I like to read what that book/study actually said; often their findings are taken out of context if not completely misquoted. This is the equivalent of arguing with someone who says "everybody knows that" or "it's true, look it up, there have been studies." Once again there's no way to know what he's actually referring to, but it gives the suggestion of being bad for Clinton.
As for punctiation on twitter - I understand omitting punctuation to save characters/time, but Trump often seems to over-punctuate, but still manages to leave out the most critical marks. Admittedly this is a small annoyance.
The new book is a supposed tell all from a Secret Service Agent stationed in the white house during the Clinton years. He talks about how bad Hillary was and all the affairs he "walked in" on involving Bill. Will sell like hotcakes amongst a certain crowd inclined to believe everything written against the Clintons. It is telling though that the Retired Secret Service Agents Association which almost never comments on anything issued a comment calling the book mostly false. Pretty much the only thing that was true is the author was an agent....but he was a uniformed agent, not on the presidential detail and likely was never within 20 feet of the president at any time and never had access to the areas he supposedly "walked in on".
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.
as an example:QuoteCrooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess
Everyone has a temperament. What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"? As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess. Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton. Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess. If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.
"A mess" is one of his crutch phrases. Things are "a mess", "huge", "tremendous" "fantastic", "top", "beautiful", "big", etc.
I am actually starting to think there might be a legit move by the GOP to dump Donald at the convention. I scoffed at this idea a month ago, but I'm not so sure now.Yeah, I'm kind of amazed that it seems to be gaining traction.
Short term I think no good can come from this for the Republican party, but longer-term this may be the best/only way of preserving party values whether it works or not, particularly if Trump continues to suggest things like racial profiling, a ban on Muslims entering the country, deportation of millions etc. etc.
Short term I think no good can come from this for the Republican party, but longer-term this may be the best/only way of preserving party values whether it works or not, particularly if Trump continues to suggest things like racial profiling, a ban on Muslims entering the country, deportation of millions etc. etc.
I'm curious. What are you referencing here? When did Trump talk about racial profiling, and in what context?
“I think profiling is something that we’re going to have to start thinking about as a country. Other countries do it, you look at Israel and you look at others, they do it and they do it successfully. And I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense and we have to use our heads.”(source) (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-after-orlando-racial-profiling-not-the-worst-thing-to-do/)
This is what he said on CBC's Face the Nation on Sunday:Quote“I think profiling is something that we’re going to have to start thinking about as a country. Other countries do it, you look at Israel and you look at others, they do it and they do it successfully. And I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense and we have to use our heads.”(source) (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-after-orlando-racial-profiling-not-the-worst-thing-to-do/)
I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.
I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.
I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.
But how can we know what Trump's views are when he contradicts his own views so frequently?
I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.
But how can we know what Trump's views are when he contradicts his own views so frequently?
Honestly, when was the last time you can think of that a president actually followed through with a campaign promise, and were you surprised? I would say that all campaign promises are close to random as to whether or not they will be honored. Certainly, we have a pretty good idea what Clinton would do as president; but is that what she has said she will do, or simply what you expect her to do? Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future; in finance, politics, everything. Trumps great advantage is that he is able to credibly hold either a neutral position, or conflicting positions, on many issues; and that he can still appear as a competent leader. If he can paint Clinton as being either incompetent, or otherwise corrupt/corruptible, while maintaining the public image as a competent negotiator, he will win. Period. And Clinton is weak in this regard, because she is corrupt, as most in her chosen career field are; but her issues are on display right now. We literally can't know how good a president Trump will be unless we try it, just as we literally can't know how Clinton would handle a domestic or international crisis unless it happens. We have to make the best guess we can with whatever, quite limited, information we may possess. So the fact that Trump is a wild card, is to his favor this cycle, and he is very good at appearing to be the good risk.
Okay, Trump is not typical. I'll give you that. And I was a Green, then a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Libertarian, registered again as a Republican so that I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and now I am a Libertarian again. I didn't quite fit into either of the major parties, and could waffle back and forth simply because I didn't know what a libertarian was yet, there are many people that can find common ground with both sides, that's just not common for a candidate running for POTUS. Ironically, I was a delegate to the Ky state convention for both the major parties. They both suck, but the Democrats are not democratic at all.
I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.
But how can we know what Trump's views are when he contradicts his own views so frequently?
Honestly, when was the last time you can think of that a president actually followed through with a campaign promise, and were you surprised? I would say that all campaign promises are close to random as to whether or not they will be honored. Certainly, we have a pretty good idea what Clinton would do as president; but is that what she has said she will do, or simply what you expect her to do? Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future; in finance, politics, everything. Trumps great advantage is that he is able to credibly hold either a neutral position, or conflicting positions, on many issues; and that he can still appear as a competent leader. If he can paint Clinton as being either incompetent, or otherwise corrupt/corruptible, while maintaining the public image as a competent negotiator, he will win. Period. And Clinton is weak in this regard, because she is corrupt, as most in her chosen career field are; but her issues are on display right now. We literally can't know how good a president Trump will be unless we try it, just as we literally can't know how Clinton would handle a domestic or international crisis unless it happens. We have to make the best guess we can with whatever, quite limited, information we may possess. So the fact that Trump is a wild card, is to his favor this cycle, and he is very good at appearing to be the good risk.
I am not talking about political promises here, but about his stated views and beliefs. With Trump those change drastically from year to year, and sometimes from day to day. Declaring yourself strongly pro-life after spending a decade plus saying you are pro-choice is a major shift in personal values. While people will sometimes change their political affiliation as they age, its very rare for someone to go from being a democrat to a republican, back to a democrat before becoming an independent and then switching to being a republican again.
This isn't typical.
I disagree that "we literally can't know" how most candidates would try to govern. No one would expect Clinton to nominate a deeply conservative pro-life judge to the Supreme Court. Sanders wouldn't propose tax breaks for the rich or privatize health care. Kasich would be a fiscal budget hawk and Graham would likely veto any bill that called for reducing the size or strength of our military. That's just a sample, but I don't see any of them shifting their opinions. Trump on the other seems to have shifted his stance on every major position over the last two decades (and many of them over the last two months).
Okay, Trump is not typical. I'll give you that. And I was a Green, then a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Libertarian, registered again as a Republican so that I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and now I am a Libertarian again. I didn't quite fit into either of the major parties, and could waffle back and forth simply because I didn't know what a libertarian was yet, there are many people that can find common ground with both sides, that's just not common for a candidate running for POTUS. Ironically, I was a delegate to the Ky state convention for both the major parties. They both suck, but the Democrats are not democratic at all.
I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.
But how can we know what Trump's views are when he contradicts his own views so frequently?
Honestly, when was the last time you can think of that a president actually followed through with a campaign promise, and were you surprised? I would say that all campaign promises are close to random as to whether or not they will be honored. Certainly, we have a pretty good idea what Clinton would do as president; but is that what she has said she will do, or simply what you expect her to do? Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future; in finance, politics, everything. Trumps great advantage is that he is able to credibly hold either a neutral position, or conflicting positions, on many issues; and that he can still appear as a competent leader. If he can paint Clinton as being either incompetent, or otherwise corrupt/corruptible, while maintaining the public image as a competent negotiator, he will win. Period. And Clinton is weak in this regard, because she is corrupt, as most in her chosen career field are; but her issues are on display right now. We literally can't know how good a president Trump will be unless we try it, just as we literally can't know how Clinton would handle a domestic or international crisis unless it happens. We have to make the best guess we can with whatever, quite limited, information we may possess. So the fact that Trump is a wild card, is to his favor this cycle, and he is very good at appearing to be the good risk.
I am not talking about political promises here, but about his stated views and beliefs. With Trump those change drastically from year to year, and sometimes from day to day. Declaring yourself strongly pro-life after spending a decade plus saying you are pro-choice is a major shift in personal values. While people will sometimes change their political affiliation as they age, its very rare for someone to go from being a democrat to a republican, back to a democrat before becoming an independent and then switching to being a republican again.
This isn't typical.QuoteI disagree that "we literally can't know" how most candidates would try to govern. No one would expect Clinton to nominate a deeply conservative pro-life judge to the Supreme Court. Sanders wouldn't propose tax breaks for the rich or privatize health care. Kasich would be a fiscal budget hawk and Graham would likely veto any bill that called for reducing the size or strength of our military. That's just a sample, but I don't see any of them shifting their opinions. Trump on the other seems to have shifted his stance on every major position over the last two decades (and many of them over the last two months).
Let me clarify. You are correct that we can predict certain things about a particular person, because of their history & personality. What we cannot predict is what kind of crisises they will encounter during their presidency, so we can't predict which one would be the ideal choice for the next 4 years. Graham might be a better choice over Kasich, if international geo-politcs continue to deteriorate. (BTW, the past couple of years has started to ring similar to the decade leading into World War 1, as far as retoric is concerned, so I'm starting to agree with his position, even as a lib) Sanders might be a better choice if the next 4-8 years were about to be a 90's like economic boom, but Kasich might be the better choice if we have a Japanese style "lost decade" without military threats. I cannot think of any future that Clinton would be the ideal POTUS, but there might be one.
In which future is Trump the ideal president?
In which future is Trump the ideal president?
Sorry. I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one. Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?
Again, we don't know what the future holds. We will all vote based upon insufficient information.
Yes, exactly. And if Trump has any business skill at all that translates well to the office of POTUS, it is the ability to choose employees based upon their merits, and without any political debts to repay. Clinton has already demonstrated that a donor can get appointed to a high level government position without merit. However, it is the Executive Branch that negotiates, so if Trump wanted to be involved, he could be involved. We have had president negotiate directly in the past, that is one of the qualifications of a good president, as an ambassador in chief. That is literally one of the major qualities that Trump is depending upon. He is definitely not a policy wonk.
In which future is Trump the ideal president?
Sorry. I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one. Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?
First of all, presidents don't get that involved in negotiation of treaties and trade pacts. That's a terrible use of their time. And the issues involved are so complex that you have to have people who do it full time to have any hope of a good outcome. Think lots of lawyers and wonks from many different countries going back and forth in rooms for months on end debating the tariff structure for each of the hundreds of different categories of clothing.
And if Trump did get very involved, he would be a disaster at this. He has no idea about any of the complexities of these policies. He's a very surface-level, simple-minded guy in a lot of ways. There are so many ways to get screwed on trade deals, and he would blunder into many of them.
Yes, exactly. And if Trump has any business skill at all that translates well to the office of POTUS, it is the ability to choose employees based upon their merits, and without any political debts to repay. Clinton has already demonstrated that a donor can get appointed to a high level government position without merit. However, it is the Executive Branch that negotiates, so if Trump wanted to be involved, he could be involved. We have had president negotiate directly in the past, that is one of the qualifications of a good president, as an ambassador in chief. That is literally one of the major qualities that Trump is depending upon. He is definitely not a policy wonk.
In which future is Trump the ideal president?
Sorry. I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one. Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?
First of all, presidents don't get that involved in negotiation of treaties and trade pacts. That's a terrible use of their time. And the issues involved are so complex that you have to have people who do it full time to have any hope of a good outcome. Think lots of lawyers and wonks from many different countries going back and forth in rooms for months on end debating the tariff structure for each of the hundreds of different categories of clothing.Quote
And if Trump did get very involved, he would be a disaster at this. He has no idea about any of the complexities of these policies. He's a very surface-level, simple-minded guy in a lot of ways. There are so many ways to get screwed on trade deals, and he would blunder into many of them.
I think you underestimate Trump, and overestimate the skills of our past negotiators. The man has roughly 500 buildings around the world, either owned or with his name on it. He has dealt with foreign governments before. He also is the master of debt; he really has made a fortune out of managing debt, or discharging it. He likely knows better than most anyone else in government the risks of too much debt.
We can (and I believe that we should) choose our next president based on a combination of how they will address each of those likely scenarios, as well as their ability to adapt to completely unanticipated events.
Yes, exactly. And if Trump has any business skill at all that translates well to the office of POTUS, it is the ability to choose employees based upon their merits, and without any political debts to repay. Clinton has already demonstrated that a donor can get appointed to a high level government position without merit. However, it is the Executive Branch that negotiates, so if Trump wanted to be involved, he could be involved. We have had president negotiate directly in the past, that is one of the qualifications of a good president, as an ambassador in chief. That is literally one of the major qualities that Trump is depending upon. He is definitely not a policy wonk.
In which future is Trump the ideal president?
Sorry. I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one. Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?
First of all, presidents don't get that involved in negotiation of treaties and trade pacts. That's a terrible use of their time. And the issues involved are so complex that you have to have people who do it full time to have any hope of a good outcome. Think lots of lawyers and wonks from many different countries going back and forth in rooms for months on end debating the tariff structure for each of the hundreds of different categories of clothing.Quote
And if Trump did get very involved, he would be a disaster at this. He has no idea about any of the complexities of these policies. He's a very surface-level, simple-minded guy in a lot of ways. There are so many ways to get screwed on trade deals, and he would blunder into many of them.
I think you underestimate Trump, and overestimate the skills of our past negotiators. The man has roughly 500 buildings around the world, either owned or with his name on it. He has dealt with foreign governments before. He also is the master of debt; he really has made a fortune out of managing debt, or discharging it. He likely knows better than most anyone else in government the risks of too much debt.
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.
I don't know if it's reasonable to describe each time he lends his name out as a successful venture. It's also a safe bet that he has had some buildings not work out for him. You can't tell his before market failure ratio.Yes, exactly. And if Trump has any business skill at all that translates well to the office of POTUS, it is the ability to choose employees based upon their merits, and without any political debts to repay. Clinton has already demonstrated that a donor can get appointed to a high level government position without merit. However, it is the Executive Branch that negotiates, so if Trump wanted to be involved, he could be involved. We have had president negotiate directly in the past, that is one of the qualifications of a good president, as an ambassador in chief. That is literally one of the major qualities that Trump is depending upon. He is definitely not a policy wonk.
In which future is Trump the ideal president?
Sorry. I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one. Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?
First of all, presidents don't get that involved in negotiation of treaties and trade pacts. That's a terrible use of their time. And the issues involved are so complex that you have to have people who do it full time to have any hope of a good outcome. Think lots of lawyers and wonks from many different countries going back and forth in rooms for months on end debating the tariff structure for each of the hundreds of different categories of clothing.Quote
And if Trump did get very involved, he would be a disaster at this. He has no idea about any of the complexities of these policies. He's a very surface-level, simple-minded guy in a lot of ways. There are so many ways to get screwed on trade deals, and he would blunder into many of them.
I think you underestimate Trump, and overestimate the skills of our past negotiators. The man has roughly 500 buildings around the world, either owned or with his name on it. He has dealt with foreign governments before. He also is the master of debt; he really has made a fortune out of managing debt, or discharging it. He likely knows better than most anyone else in government the risks of too much debt.
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.
I'm going to stop you right here. I believe that the exact number of failures was 5. As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500. That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity. Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period. If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning. Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.
I'm going to stop you right here. I believe that the exact number of failures was 5. As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500. That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity. Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period. If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning. Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.
Wow.
Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state? Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.
I'm going to stop you right here. I believe that the exact number of failures was 5. As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500. That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity. Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period. If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning. Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.
He does not own 500 properties. He licenses his name to other developers and they put his name on the project and pay him $20 million (or whatever) in cash but he has no role or ownership in the project. Show me your source that he *owns* 500 properties.
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.
I'm going to stop you right here. I believe that the exact number of failures was 5. As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500. That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity. Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period. If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning. Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.
He does not own 500 properties. He licenses his name to other developers and they put his name on the project and pay him $20 million (or whatever) in cash but he has no role or ownership in the project. Show me your source that he *owns* 500 properties.
Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.
Wow.
Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state? Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?
If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis. And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon. If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS. Try not to fall into that thought pattern. You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset. This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.
Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was. I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis. Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others. He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.
Wow.
Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state? Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?
If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis. And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon. If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS. Try not to fall into that thought pattern. You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset. This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.
Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was. I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis. Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others. He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.
Wow.
Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state? Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?
If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis. And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon. If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS. Try not to fall into that thought pattern. You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset. This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.
Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was. I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis. Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others. He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others. He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
Clinton was one of four people who were documented to have input into the decision to go forward with the raid. Of them, the joint chiefs were split, Biden pushed for more time, and Clinton was in favor. If she had been opposed, and if the raid hadn't happened, that would be a disaster.The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.
Wow.
Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state? Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?
If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis. And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon. If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS. Try not to fall into that thought pattern. You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset. This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.
Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was. I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis. Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others. He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
That was not a crisis, but a well planned military mission. Clinton did little regarding that event. Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi. If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?". I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.
Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others. He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
No, he most certainly isn't. But I would say rather that it's much worse than not being dependent on the advice of others. So far, based on how he's run his campaign, it looks as though he REFUSES to take the advice of others because he thinks he knows everything already. This is a serious character flaw.
Clinton was one of four people who were documented to have input into the decision to go forward with the raid. Of them, the joint chiefs were split, Biden pushed for more time, and Clinton was in favor. If she had been opposed, and if the raid hadn't happened, that would be a disaster.The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.
Wow.
Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state? Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?
If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis. And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon. If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS. Try not to fall into that thought pattern. You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset. This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.
Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was. I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis. Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others. He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
That was not a crisis, but a well planned military mission. Clinton did little regarding that event. Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi. If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?". I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.
Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi. If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?". I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.
A committee of 4. Do you think she was the only person pushing for the Libya intervention?Clinton was one of four people who were documented to have input into the decision to go forward with the raid. Of them, the joint chiefs were split, Biden pushed for more time, and Clinton was in favor. If she had been opposed, and if the raid hadn't happened, that would be a disaster.The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.
Wow.
Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state? Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?
If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis. And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon. If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS. Try not to fall into that thought pattern. You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset. This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.
Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was. I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis. Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others. He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
That was not a crisis, but a well planned military mission. Clinton did little regarding that event. Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi. If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?". I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.
You literally just described a decision by committee.
A committee of 4. Do you think she was the only person pushing for the Libya intervention?Clinton was one of four people who were documented to have input into the decision to go forward with the raid. Of them, the joint chiefs were split, Biden pushed for more time, and Clinton was in favor. If she had been opposed, and if the raid hadn't happened, that would be a disaster.The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.
Wow.
Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state? Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?
If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis. And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon. If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS. Try not to fall into that thought pattern. You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset. This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.
Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was. I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis. Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others. He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
That was not a crisis, but a well planned military mission. Clinton did little regarding that event. Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi. If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?". I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.
You literally just described a decision by committee.
No, of course not. But she was the one person most directly in command over ambassadors & embassies. Again, Bengazi is the defining crisis, not the decisions debated at length before choosing war over peace. You can spin all you like, but it is true.
No, of course not. But she was the one person most directly in command over ambassadors & embassies. Again, Bengazi is the defining crisis, not the decisions debated at length before choosing war over peace. You can spin all you like, but it is true.
Why do you think Benghazi is so defining for Clinton?
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.
I'm going to stop you right here. I believe that the exact number of failures was 5. As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500. That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity. Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period. If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning. Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.
He does not own 500 properties. He licenses his name to other developers and they put his name on the project and pay him $20 million (or whatever) in cash but he has no role or ownership in the project. Show me your source that he *owns* 500 properties.
Fine. He has business interests in roughly 500 properties. Does that legal distinction alter my argument?
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.
I'm going to stop you right here. I believe that the exact number of failures was 5. As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500. That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity. Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period. If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning. Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.
He does not own 500 properties. He licenses his name to other developers and they put his name on the project and pay him $20 million (or whatever) in cash but he has no role or ownership in the project. Show me your source that he *owns* 500 properties.
Fine. He has business interests in roughly 500 properties. Does that legal distinction alter my argument?
It totally does. If he's not managing the project, and he's just a compensated endorser, that doesn't say anything positive about his skills as a manager.
Alesci (pictured, right) and Frankel (left) rate the claim as “false” and allege “there’s no hard evidence of a quid pro quo.” The CNN Money “reporters” also conceded that “CNN several times has asked the Clinton Foundation to confirm whether the nine investors who benefited from the deal also contributed to the foundation, but the foundation has yet to respond.”
<snip>
Since Alesci and Frankel appear unable to perform basic journalistic research, here are the names and amounts they are still waiting on the Clinton Foundation to get back to them on:
Frank Giustra, Canadian mining magnate who created a company that later merged with UraniumOne, gave $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million to the Clinton Foundation
Frank Holmes, a shareholder in the deal who donated between $250,000 and $500,000 (the Clinton Foundation doesn’t report exact amounts, only in ranges) and is a Clinton Foundation adviser
Neil Woodyer, Frank Giustra’s colleague who founded Endeavor Financial and pledged $500,000 as well as promises of “ongoing financial support”
Robert Disbrow, a Haywood Securities broker, the firm that provided “$58 million in capital to float shares of UrAsia’s private placement,” gave the Clinton’s family foundation between $1 and $5 million, according to Clinton Cash
Paul Reynolds, a Canaccord Capital Inc., executive who donated between $1 million and $5 million. “The UrAsia deal was the largest in Canaccord’s history,” reports Schweizer
Robert Cross, a major shareholder who serves as UrAsia Energy Director who pledged portions of his future income to the Clinton Foundation
Egizio Blanchini, “the Capital Markets vice chair and Global cohead of BMO’s Global Metals and Mining group, had also been an underwriter on the mining deals. BMO paid $600,000 for two tables at the CGS-GI’s March 2008 benefit”
Sergei Kurzin, the Russian rainmaker involved in the Kazakhstan uranium deal and a shareholder in UrAsia Energy, also pledged $1 million to the Foundation
Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer committed $2.35 million
Alesci and Frankel claim there’s “no hard evidence of a quid pro quo.” Naturally, they fail to note that the legal standard for conflicts of interest and corruption do not require a quid pro quo. Nor do they note that Hillary Clinton deleted and destroyed over 30,000 emails housed on her secret server—the obvious location of any so-called “smoking guns"
Actually we do know why. There was no funding for additional security. And we know why.
No, of course not. But she was the one person most directly in command over ambassadors & embassies. Again, Bengazi is the defining crisis, not the decisions debated at length before choosing war over peace. You can spin all you like, but it is true.
Why do you think Benghazi is so defining for Clinton?
Primarily due to four facts that we now know are true.
1) Ambassador Stevens had previously requested additional security, on several occasions, for whatever real operations they had going on at the embassy annex. His pleas were ignored. We don't know why, but Hillary has stated that she doesn't read every requisition request personally. I believe that, but the idea that she didn't read them from the ambassador in the greatest hotspot during her career is either bullshit or incompetence, I don't care which.
2) During the ongoing siege of the annex, for which the regional defense command structure was aware of, the special forces that were on standby were told to "stand down" and wait for orders. Those orders, if they ever arrived, were too late to matter.
3) Hillary Clinton was asleep during the siege. (I presume because her assistants had standing orders not to disturb Secretary Clinton) So we know that if orders ever arrived, they didn't come from her. I could better accept it all if she had actually decided that the life of 4 Americans in the foreign service was not worth risking the lives of a platoon of special forces, because whether I agreed with the decision, it would still be a command perspective I could respect. Of course, if this is what actually happened, I'd still expect her to own the results.
4) Clinton was a major proponent of the "it was the video" theory, which we now know was bullshit, and that they knew it was bullshit when they promoted it.
I think this all speaks a great deal to how Hillary Clinton would act during a crisis, and I don't like what it is saying. If you don't think that it's a big deal, just wait till after the Democratic nomination, and see what the new ads have to say about it.
Perhaps not. It would be difficult for me to separate his directly managed deals with those that are managed by others in his name. I don't agree that it alters my point materially, though. He gets those deals because of his "brand", and his brand is that he is good at what he does, however you wish to frame what that is. You can say that is all marketing, but I'd say that there is a lot more too it, and even if not, marketing is how a campaign is won. This sub-thread started because you made the point that he isn't as good at business as he appears, because he has had failures. I disagree that his failure rate is particularly notable, or otherwise poor. I think that whatever Trump actually does for these other companies, he is good at whatever that actually is.
And why would it make any sense for the Secretary of State to read all the requisitions that come through the Department? That would be an insanely terrible waste of their time. As a leader of a huge organization you need to focus on the big picture--not all the requests for staplers and SUVs.
The discussion was whether his amazing management and deal making would be an asset in trade negotiations. Since he doesn't have amazing management skills, the answer is no. Marketing yourself as great doesn't mean you are great. Marketing skills aren't great deal making skills. He may be very good at getting elected. But governing effectively is an entirely different skill set. It's helpful if the president is a good communicator. But I don't think he's that effective at that either. His only message is that he's super awesome, and that other people suck, and certain groups (like Muslims and Mexicans) are terrible. There are a lot of complex policy issues that he doesn't begin to understand, let alone have a good position on, let alone articulate that position effectively.
I guess that part of the reason that I don't see Benghazi as the defining crisis of Clinton's tenure as SoS is that there's still too much popular misinformation about it. For example, you mentioned that she was asleep when it occurred. The event happened at 9:30 pm Libya time. That was 3:30 in the afternoon on the East coast. Clinton made a statement about it, that evening.And why would it make any sense for the Secretary of State to read all the requisitions that come through the Department? That would be an insanely terrible waste of their time. As a leader of a huge organization you need to focus on the big picture--not all the requests for staplers and SUVs.
I do believe the question was why MoonShadow thought that Beng(h)azi was the defining crisis for Hillary Clinton. Not why Forummm doesn't understand. Forummm's opinion doesn't matter to MoonShadow's response, or for that matter, to MoonShadow. If Forummm doesn't understand the concept that a leader is responsible for how her organization anticipates, prepares for, or responds to crisis; then it's doubtful that there is anything more that MoonShadow could say about the topic to help Forummm understand. Perhaps MoonShadow has come to believe that such concepts are actually beyond Forummm, and not worth discussing with Forummm at all.
I guess that part of the reason that I don't see Benghazi as the defining crisis of Clinton's tenure as SoS is that there's still too much popular misinformation about it. For example, you mentioned that she was asleep when it occurred. The event happened at 9:30 pm Libya time. That was 3:30 in the afternoon on the East coast. Clinton made a statement about it, that evening.And why would it make any sense for the Secretary of State to read all the requisitions that come through the Department? That would be an insanely terrible waste of their time. As a leader of a huge organization you need to focus on the big picture--not all the requests for staplers and SUVs.
I do believe the question was why MoonShadow thought that Beng(h)azi was the defining crisis for Hillary Clinton. Not why Forummm doesn't understand. Forummm's opinion doesn't matter to MoonShadow's response, or for that matter, to MoonShadow. If Forummm doesn't understand the concept that a leader is responsible for how her organization anticipates, prepares for, or responds to crisis; then it's doubtful that there is anything more that MoonShadow could say about the topic to help Forummm understand. Perhaps MoonShadow has come to believe that such concepts are actually beyond Forummm, and not worth discussing with Forummm at all.
Have you checked your other points?I guess that part of the reason that I don't see Benghazi as the defining crisis of Clinton's tenure as SoS is that there's still too much popular misinformation about it. For example, you mentioned that she was asleep when it occurred. The event happened at 9:30 pm Libya time. That was 3:30 in the afternoon on the East coast. Clinton made a statement about it, that evening.And why would it make any sense for the Secretary of State to read all the requisitions that come through the Department? That would be an insanely terrible waste of their time. As a leader of a huge organization you need to focus on the big picture--not all the requests for staplers and SUVs.
I do believe the question was why MoonShadow thought that Beng(h)azi was the defining crisis for Hillary Clinton. Not why Forummm doesn't understand. Forummm's opinion doesn't matter to MoonShadow's response, or for that matter, to MoonShadow. If Forummm doesn't understand the concept that a leader is responsible for how her organization anticipates, prepares for, or responds to crisis; then it's doubtful that there is anything more that MoonShadow could say about the topic to help Forummm understand. Perhaps MoonShadow has come to believe that such concepts are actually beyond Forummm, and not worth discussing with Forummm at all.
Is that so? Well, I can be wrong occasionally. On the smaller points.
Have you checked your other points?
Republicans were the ones who denied security funding for embassies,. Regarding the "stand down" order, 6 investigations have shown it to be fiction (even though Michael Bay put it in a movie).
The only argument that you made that has merit is the video one.
After you pointed out my error on #3, I did in fact check the others. I was incorrect on #3, only because I stated she was already asleep. The actual accusation is that she went home and went to sleep. She denies it, and that is a rational denial without further evidence. But I stand by the other points. Fact check.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/trump-on-clintons-3-a-m-call/) says that Clinton states that Obama ordered
Have you checked your other points?
do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya” and to mobilize “all possible resources,”That seems credible as well, because it's what I would expect of a president whose ambassador was in jeopardy of life. Regardless, those resources didn't arrive, on time or at all. That was still Clinton's agency, even though she didn't make the decision herself at all. The Repubs will hang that one right around her neck come the general campaign, and I don't blame them.
Republicans were the ones who denied security funding for embassies,This is a red herring. I haven't even looked at this bill, but I personally know it's bullshit. Maybe it was funding for a security system or civilian security guards, but the real security for all our foreign embassies are provided by the United States Marine Corps, and Secretary Clinton could have had just as much of that as she had damn well saw fit. I did not serve in the Embassy guard myself, but I had my encounters with them, and they were not some traditional show of pomp & circumstance like the palace guards in front of Buckingham Palace, (yes, I know that is not all show either) these boys could bring down the hurt while wearing full dress blues. In fact, the very fact that the actual ambassador was in the annex with only two marines (IIRC) tells me right away that they were up to something "off book" that we will never learn about.
. Regarding the "stand down" order, 6 investigations have shown it to be fiction (even though Michael Bay put it in a movie).
The only argument that you made that has merit is the video one.
No, of course not. But she was the one person most directly in command over ambassadors & embassies. Again, Bengazi is the defining crisis, not the decisions debated at length before choosing war over peace. You can spin all you like, but it is true.
Why do you think Benghazi is so defining for Clinton?
Primarily due to four facts that we now know are true.
1) Ambassador Stevens had previously requested additional security, on several occasions, for whatever real operations they had going on at the embassy annex. His pleas were ignored. We don't know why, but Hillary has stated that she doesn't read every requisition request personally. I believe that, but the idea that she didn't read them from the ambassador in the greatest hotspot during her career is either bullshit or incompetence, I don't care which.
2) During the ongoing siege of the annex, for which the regional defense command structure was aware of, the special forces that were on standby were told to "stand down" and wait for orders. Those orders, if they ever arrived, were too late to matter.
3) Hillary Clinton was asleep during the siege. (I presume because her assistants had standing orders not to disturb Secretary Clinton) So we know that if orders ever arrived, they didn't come from her. I could better accept it all if she had actually decided that the life of 4 Americans in the foreign service was not worth risking the lives of a platoon of special forces, because whether I agreed with the decision, it would still be a command perspective I could respect. Of course, if this is what actually happened, I'd still expect her to own the results.
4) Clinton was a major proponent of the "it was the video" theory, which we now know was bullshit, and that they knew it was bullshit when they promoted it.
I think this all speaks a great deal to how Hillary Clinton would act during a crisis, and I don't like what it is saying. If you don't think that it's a big deal, just wait till after the Democratic nomination, and see what the new ads have to say about it.
Can you say LANDSLIDE
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/
Can you say LANDSLIDEYou should look at Silver's data a little more. He isn't saying it's likely to be a landslide (he puts that at 16.8%). He's projecting probability of a Clinton win.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/
Can you say LANDSLIDE
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/
I'll take a $10k bet on Clinton - any takers?
I'll take that as a No -- I'm not confident of the guy with orange hair. Let's circle back to this on November 5th.Personally, I'm predicting that Clinton will win in November, and I think she will get at least 291 electorial votes.
One case in point was the promise, made in the promotion of “The Art of the Deal,” that Trump would give royalties “to the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis.” From 1987 to 1991, Trump gave away $1.9 million of his money through the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
He gave $101,000 to veterans, according to a Post analysis of tax records from that time.
He gave $26,000 to the homeless.
He gave $12,450 to AIDS charities.
He gave $4,250 to multiple-sclerosis research.
The amount for those categories was $143,700, or nearly 8 percent of the total.
Much of the rest went to charities tied to Trump’s life: society galas, his high school, his college, a foundation for indigent real estate brokers. The School of American Ballet, where Ivanka Trump studied from 1989 to 1991, got $16,750.
A private school that educated Trump’s son Eric got $40,000 — more than the homeless and AIDS contributions combined.
Here's something I've found particularly troubling about Trump and his promises to charity:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html)QuoteOne case in point was the promise, made in the promotion of “The Art of the Deal,” that Trump would give royalties “to the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis.” From 1987 to 1991, Trump gave away $1.9 million of his money through the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
He gave $101,000 to veterans, according to a Post analysis of tax records from that time.
He gave $26,000 to the homeless.
He gave $12,450 to AIDS charities.
He gave $4,250 to multiple-sclerosis research.
The amount for those categories was $143,700, or nearly 8 percent of the total.
Much of the rest went to charities tied to Trump’s life: society galas, his high school, his college, a foundation for indigent real estate brokers. The School of American Ballet, where Ivanka Trump studied from 1989 to 1991, got $16,750.
A private school that educated Trump’s son Eric got $40,000 — more than the homeless and AIDS contributions combined.
When asked, the Trump campaign maintains that Trump gives large amounts to charity but that those are given in private and kept secret.
In other words.... just trust him, and asking for proof of his claims is very unfair to him.
I wouldn't say it's ironic at all, but an indication that both candidates want the press to simply trust what they are saying at face value.
Trumps a buffoon, but criticizing him for the "just trust me" line is kind of ironic given his opponent.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillary-trust-me-guys-i-got-this/387418/
My hope republican revolt followed by Clinton indictment gets rid of both of these candidates (probably completely unrealistic, but I can dream).
Can you say LANDSLIDE
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/
After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.
Can you say LANDSLIDE
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/
Moving from land to sea, the tide has turned: White House Watch - Rasmussen Reports™ (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch). At least for this poll this week...:QuoteAfter trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.
This is the best the GOP could put forward?A good question, unfortunately apt for the Democrats also.
Trump has already changed the rules of this campaign, and when he wins he will have made those new rules & methods the standard for the next 30 years.
Wasn't Rasmussen the polling company that predicted a significant win for Governor Romney last time around?
I hope we get another Karl-Rove-stomping-around-in-disbelief moment this year. That was tied with Joe Biden's effortless beatdown of Paul Ryan in the VP debate for my favorite political moments of 2012.
Trump has already changed the rules of this campaign, and when he wins he will have made those new rules & methods the standard for the next 30 years.
So if you're this confident Trump is going to win, I presume you have money at stake on his victory? A lot of money to be made since he is currently the overwhelming underdog.
Clinton is going to win this in a landslide.
Oh, he never had a chance unless the Dems somehow nominated Michael Dukakis again. Given the post-mortem done on the Romney nosedive one would think that the GOP would try and steer the Titanic. Instead, we not only get rearrangement of the deck chairs, there isn't even a course correction after the iceberg is sighted. What a glorious implosion.
And what will the GOP do once Clinton is president? What they have been doing the past 7 years - obstruction and about 63 separate votes for appealing O-care. You can't make this stuff up.
As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The fix was in and Clinton has now been cleared by the FBI. No one is surprised...the US political system is a steaming mass of corruption led by the Clintons. A few days ago FBI's Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton privately, which is a huge conflict of interest. Today Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Is anyone really surprised? They are so arrogant that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore.
As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The fix was in and Clinton has now been cleared by the FBI. No one is surprised...the US political system is a steaming mass of corruption led by the Clintons. A few days ago FBI's Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton privately, which is a huge conflict of interest. Today Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Is anyone really surprised? They are so arrogant that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore.
As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The fix was in and Clinton has now been cleared by the FBI. No one is surprised...the US political system is a steaming mass of corruption led by the Clintons. A few days ago FBI's Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton privately, which is a huge conflict of interest. Today Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Is anyone really surprised? They are so arrogant that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore.
As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The longer I watch Trumps campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his. By saying things like "a lot of people are saying this" or "there's a lot going on we don't know about" he's able to appease segments of the population that want to believe these things (which is in itself the worst kind of confirmation bias - believing in easily disproven 'facts' because they support your opinion and beliefs. Then Trump gets to walk this line saying "well I'm not saying this, but a lot of people are, a LOT of people are." People who make a habit of fact-checking statements made by politicians see it as crap. But for those people who believe these things, well, an easy way to win the support of someone is to appear to validate their beliefs and opinions. It works even better when that person is someone who feels like they have been mistreated, ridiculed or ignored by society at large.
To an extent all successful politicians try to connect this way, but Trump has taken it to a level typically only seen in groups catering to extremists.
The fix was in and Clinton has now been cleared by the FBI. No one is surprised...the US political system is a steaming mass of corruption led by the Clintons. A few days ago FBI's Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton privately, which is a huge conflict of interest. Today Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Is anyone really surprised? They are so arrogant that they don't even try to hide the corruption anymore.
What result (if any) would have convinced you that Clinton should not have been recommended for prosecution?
As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The longer I watch Trumps campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his. By saying things like "a lot of people are saying this" or "there's a lot going on we don't know about" he's able to appease segments of the population that want to believe these things (which is in itself the worst kind of confirmation bias - believing in easily disproven 'facts' because they support your opinion and beliefs. Then Trump gets to walk this line saying "well I'm not saying this, but a lot of people are, a LOT of people are." People who make a habit of fact-checking statements made by politicians see it as crap. But for those people who believe these things, well, an easy way to win the support of someone is to appear to validate their beliefs and opinions. It works even better when that person is someone who feels like they have been mistreated, ridiculed or ignored by society at large.
To an extent all successful politicians try to connect this way, but Trump has taken it to a level typically only seen in groups catering to extremists.
Oh dear. This may say more about the general population than it does about Trump.
...
I haven't read much about the email thing so I don't have a fully informed opinion, but I did read she asked for email on her Blackberry and the NSA said no and wouldn't provide a more secure phone. Then she set up the private email server. I don't know if that was the main reason, but it seems plausible.
This is called "shadow IT". Employees in a company set up their own tech stuff that hasn't been approved by IT or management. Usually they do this because whatever tool they're using helps them do their job and they feel like the in house IT takes too long or never comes through. They don't realize the security or other negative consequences.
For some reason he came to mind, I could of easily named the Roosevelt's (Teddy and/or Franklin) and countless other presidents. Somehow Eisenhower came to mind, maybe because I watched a WW2 documentary not too long ago and I saw him in it. I don't recall hearing anything bad about him, but then again I wasn't alive in his era.As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The longer I watch Drumpfs campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his. By saying things like "a lot of people are saying this" or "there's a lot going on we don't know about" he's able to appease segments of the population that want to believe these things (which is in itself the worst kind of confirmation bias - believing in easily disproven 'facts' because they support your opinion and beliefs. Then Drumpf gets to walk this line saying "well I'm not saying this, but a lot of people are, a LOT of people are." People who make a habit of fact-checking statements made by politicians see it as crap. But for those people who believe these things, well, an easy way to win the support of someone is to appear to validate their beliefs and opinions. It works even better when that person is someone who feels like they have been mistreated, ridiculed or ignored by society at large.
To an extent all successful politicians try to connect this way, but Drumpf has taken it to a level typically only seen in groups catering to extremists.
also: interesting that you chose Eisenhower along with Washington and Lincoln. It's not often he makes the top 3 of 'greatest presidents'.
...
I haven't read much about the email thing so I don't have a fully informed opinion, but I did read she asked for email on her Blackberry and the NSA said no and wouldn't provide a more secure phone. Then she set up the private email server. I don't know if that was the main reason, but it seems plausible.
This is called "shadow IT". Employees in a company set up their own tech stuff that hasn't been approved by IT or management. Usually they do this because whatever tool they're using helps them do their job and they feel like the in house IT takes too long or never comes through. They don't realize the security or other negative consequences.
This is just my opinion based on a reading of what we know and what's been said, but my take is that Clinton basically did exactly this.
She complained about the existing server and then decided to have another set up so she and her department could communicate the way they wanted to.
It was arrogant and it circumvented both the rules and the security the rules were set up to protect, but I don't think it was done to secretly aid rebels or bribe officials or smuggle baby pandas for family dinners or any of the other conspiracy theories floating around. Apparently the FBI concluded something similar.
Clinton set up a "shadow IT" server because she didn't want to deal with the bureaucratic tangle inherent with the government server. stupid and arrogant.
As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The longer I watch Trumps campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his.
Can you say LANDSLIDE
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/
As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The longer I watch Trumps campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his.
I pointed this out on this forum months ago. Trump is selling himself, and he is breaking all the existing rules of political debate & discourse as he is doing so. Surprisingly, however, the Clinton Campaign has caught onto the new game, and has done a wonderful job recently to paint Trump as "racist", then Trump himself stumbled right into weeks of confirmation bias to help her. Unless Trump gets his act together, I'll have to say I stand a good chance of losing my prior bets. However, I think he is holding back his best work for after the Democratic nomination, because the last thing that he wants is for Sanders to sweep in and take the nom after he has already destroyed Clinton.
You must not have read his analysis. He puts it in terms of probability. In football terms, he describes Trump as being down 7-10 at halftime. 80% of the time, that team loses, but you still see the other result, pretty regularly. If you read the articles accompanying the data, it is less incongruous.Can you say LANDSLIDE
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/
I think it's interesting that literally a few weeks ago Silver was saying to ignore the polls that Clinton would lose (and that Sanders would win) against Trump. Because polling this far out was totally unreliable, etc. Suddenly now that the polls have shifted he has changed his tune. I used to really like his analysis because it was nearly entirely numbers based. But he has really gotten sucked into the DC bubble mindset and has become more of a conventional wisdom pundit. He still is much more data informed than the typical talking head bloviator. But he's changed for the worse.
...
I haven't read much about the email thing so I don't have a fully informed opinion, but I did read she asked for email on her Blackberry and the NSA said no and wouldn't provide a more secure phone. Then she set up the private email server. I don't know if that was the main reason, but it seems plausible.
This is called "shadow IT". Employees in a company set up their own tech stuff that hasn't been approved by IT or management. Usually they do this because whatever tool they're using helps them do their job and they feel like the in house IT takes too long or never comes through. They don't realize the security or other negative consequences.
This is just my opinion based on a reading of what we know and what's been said, but my take is that Clinton basically did exactly this.
She complained about the existing server and then decided to have another set up so she and her department could communicate the way they wanted to.
It was arrogant and it circumvented both the rules and the security the rules were set up to protect, but I don't think it was done to secretly aid rebels or bribe officials or smuggle baby pandas for family dinners or any of the other conspiracy theories floating around. Apparently the FBI concluded something similar.
Clinton set up a "shadow IT" server because she didn't want to deal with the bureaucratic tangle inherent with the government server. stupid and arrogant.
More importantly, it's an obvious violation of both the Secrecy Act as well as at least one of the government records acts. As expected however, there will be no legal consequences.
As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The longer I watch Trumps campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his. By saying things like "a lot of people are saying this" or "there's a lot going on we don't know about" he's able to appease segments of the population that want to believe these things (which is in itself the worst kind of confirmation bias - believing in easily disproven 'facts' because they support your opinion and beliefs. Then Trump gets to walk this line saying "well I'm not saying this, but a lot of people are, a LOT of people are." People who make a habit of fact-checking statements made by politicians see it as crap. But for those people who believe these things, well, an easy way to win the support of someone is to appear to validate their beliefs and opinions. It works even better when that person is someone who feels like they have been mistreated, ridiculed or ignored by society at large.
To an extent all successful politicians try to connect this way, but Trump has taken it to a level typically only seen in groups catering to extremists.
Oh dear. This may say more about the general population than it does about Trump.
...more than that, it's basic psychology. It's why "good-cop/bad-cop" is such an effective interrogation tool; when people feel like one person is being disrespectful or even hostile towards them they'll naturally respond to the person who says nice things to them.
People want to be told they're right, even when they aren't. Most people seek certain facts to back up their arguments (confirmation bias), instead of examining all the data to test whether their own argument still holds water.
As much as I dislike Hilary, I find Drumpf worse...I mean we all know what to expect with Hilary whether its good or bad, but with Drumpf,one day he says one thing and the next day he says the complete opposite. What is worse is that he creates these so called facts based off what he heard someone tell him or what he read on the internet....I mean c'mon, you are running for president and you base facts on stuff "you heard". It is is sad for the American people that the country that produced presidents like Washington,Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc... has now these two candidates to represent the country.
The longer I watch Trumps campaign the more convinced I am that this is a very deliberate strategy of his.
I pointed this out on this forum months ago. Trump is selling himself, and he is breaking all the existing rules of political debate & discourse as he is doing so. Surprisingly, however, the Clinton Campaign has caught onto the new game, and has done a wonderful job recently to paint Trump as "racist", then Trump himself stumbled right into weeks of confirmation bias to help her. Unless Trump gets his act together, I'll have to say I stand a good chance of losing my prior bets. However, I think he is holding back his best work for after the Democratic nomination, because the last thing that he wants is for Sanders to sweep in and take the nom after he has already destroyed Clinton.
Yes, you certainly have said that Trump is selling himself for many months, as well as maintained that Sanders would beat Trump while Clinton would loose. However, that's not what I was talking about here - I'm not talking about Trump's ability to sell himself/his brand/the "idea" of being rich. I'm talking about Trump's ability to let other people (particularly people who already feel disenfranchised) feel as if he is agreeing with them.
The primary duty of the President is to act as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Congress declares war, the Commander in Chief directs.
A close second is to execute the laws of the land. This is easily forgotten.
Clinton has shown to be incompetent in commanding any sort of armed forces (as Secretary of State) and unapologetic about it.
She was also just given a free pass on 3? 5? 6? violations of the 'laws of the land' and has frequently demeaned/downplayed the violation.
She has shown herself to be a great administrator, fundraiser and power broker. But I think she's proven herself unapologetically dismissive of the 2 most important duties of the President, the very office for which she is running!
Now if she had gracefully and humble acknowledged the gravity of the mistakes, asked for forgiveness and promised to respect the law, she'd at least have my respect. But to be dismissive and arrogant about it! wow!
The primary duty of the President is to act as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Congress declares war, the Commander in Chief directs.
A close second is to execute the laws of the land. This is easily forgotten.
The primary duty of the President is to act as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Congress declares war, the Commander in Chief directs.
A close second is to execute the laws of the land. This is easily forgotten.
Clinton has shown to be incompetent in commanding any sort of armed forces (as Secretary of State) and unapologetic about it.
She was also just given a free pass on 3? 5? 6? violations of the 'laws of the land' and has frequently demeaned/downplayed the violation.
She has shown herself to be a great administrator, fundraiser and power broker. But I think she's proven herself unapologetically dismissive of the 2 most important duties of the President, the very office for which she is running!
Now if she had gracefully and humble acknowledged the gravity of the mistakes, asked for forgiveness and promised to respect the law, she'd at least have my respect. But to be dismissive and arrogant about it! wow!
You might want to bone up on the law a little bit. Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist of a misdemeanor by the AG who changed the recommendation of his staff lawyers to charge him with a felony count. Petraeus also got caught lying to the federal prosecutors about his knowledge and intent - giving his lover, a non-federal employee, information he knew was classified.
You can say Clinton was too-clever by half in trying to set up a system that was easier for her to deal with personal emails -- purposely done so to avoid any personal email records drifting into the State Department server - but the charges being investigated were for willfully and knowingly mishandling classified information. There was no evidence of such.
And given that Holder only gave Petraeus a misdemeanor charge for his more-felony like actions, it would be very hard to apply a similar misdemeanor charge for what amounted to not adhering to administrative guidelines. Delve into any senator on the Armed Services Committee and you'll find similar issues.
Now---- time to bring out the WHAMBULENCE and discuss how Loretta Lynch was bribed.
You must not have read his analysis. He puts it in terms of probability. In football terms, he describes Trump as being down 7-10 at halftime. 80% of the time, that team loses, but you still see the other result, pretty regularly. If you read the articles accompanying the data, it is less incongruous.Can you say LANDSLIDE
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/
I think it's interesting that literally a few weeks ago Silver was saying to ignore the polls that Clinton would lose (and that Sanders would win) against Trump. Because polling this far out was totally unreliable, etc. Suddenly now that the polls have shifted he has changed his tune. I used to really like his analysis because it was nearly entirely numbers based. But he has really gotten sucked into the DC bubble mindset and has become more of a conventional wisdom pundit. He still is much more data informed than the typical talking head bloviator. But he's changed for the worse.
Not sure what your point is, nothing you say changes what I said. The laws were clearly broken. FBI acknowledged the lawbreaking but stated it was investigating intent. ie, free pass! She literally got off with a 'sorry, my bad'.The primary duty of the President is to act as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Congress declares war, the Commander in Chief directs.
A close second is to execute the laws of the land. This is easily forgotten.
Clinton has shown to be incompetent in commanding any sort of armed forces (as Secretary of State) and unapologetic about it.
She was also just given a free pass on 3? 5? 6? violations of the 'laws of the land' and has frequently demeaned/downplayed the violation.
She has shown herself to be a great administrator, fundraiser and power broker. But I think she's proven herself unapologetically dismissive of the 2 most important duties of the President, the very office for which she is running!
Now if she had gracefully and humble acknowledged the gravity of the mistakes, asked for forgiveness and promised to respect the law, she'd at least have my respect. But to be dismissive and arrogant about it! wow!
You might want to bone up on the law a little bit. Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist of a misdemeanor by the AG who changed the recommendation of his staff lawyers to charge him with a felony count. Petraeus also got caught lying to the federal prosecutors about his knowledge and intent - giving his lover, a non-federal employee, information he knew was classified.
You can say Clinton was too-clever by half in trying to set up a system that was easier for her to deal with personal emails -- purposely done so to avoid any personal email records drifting into the State Department server - but the charges being investigated were for willfully and knowingly mishandling classified information. There was no evidence of such.
And given that Holder only gave Petraeus a misdemeanor charge for his more-felony like actions, it would be very hard to apply a similar misdemeanor charge for what amounted to not adhering to administrative guidelines. Delve into any senator on the Armed Services Committee and you'll find similar issues.
Now---- time to bring out the WHAMBULENCE and discuss how Loretta Lynch was bribed.
GH Bush - was the director of CIA for the illegal Bay of Pigs operation
The primary duty of the President is to act as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Congress declares war, the Commander in Chief directs.
A close second is to execute the laws of the land. This is easily forgotten.
Yeah, I call bullshit on that.
B Obama - is a terrorist executing illegal drone strikes without regard for civilian safety in countries around the world
GW Bush - has been convicted of war crimes, implemented illegal policy of kidnapping and detention without hope of a trial
B Clinton - statutory rape, lying under oath
GH Bush - was the director of CIA for the illegal Bay of Pigs operation
R Regan - illegally armed the Taliban, funnelled money to supporters via the Grant Rigging scandal, misused taxpayer money (through the EPA) to fix elections, illegally sold arms to Iran, illegally armed rebels in Nicaragua, etc.
So, off the top of my head I can easily show that the last forty years of presidents were prone to breaking the law.
Not sure what your point is, nothing you say changes what I said. The laws were clearly broken. FBI acknowledged the lawbreaking but stated it was investigating intent. ie, free pass! She literally got off with a 'sorry, my bad'.
Petraeus: from the NYT article on the FBI:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article
"In fact, F.B.I. officials have long said that what Mr. Petraeus did — knowingly handing a diary with classified information to his biographer and lover, then lying about it to investigators — was worse than what Mrs. Clinton did. In the Petraeus case, the F.B.I. recommended a felony indictment, but the Justice Department allowed him to plead to a misdemeanor. The deal that Mr. Petraeus received shadowed Mrs. Clinton’s case from the start because it appeared to set a higher bar for bringing charges against her."
Petraeus was not running for President. Mrs Clinton is and should hold to a much higher standard.
I do not know who Loretta Lynch is and am seldom accused of being on the WHAMBULENCE :)
I do not know who Loretta Lynch is.......
He didn't have the model finished yet. They reported that regularly. Further, they include older polling (weighted, to be sure), but mostly said to discount polling before the primaries had ended. Your argument is that he should have been a pundit when his data analysis was incomplete, not that he is being one, now.You must not have read his analysis. He puts it in terms of probability. In football terms, he describes Trump as being down 7-10 at halftime. 80% of the time, that team loses, but you still see the other result, pretty regularly. If you read the articles accompanying the data, it is less incongruous.Can you say LANDSLIDE
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of-becoming-president/
I think it's interesting that literally a few weeks ago Silver was saying to ignore the polls that Clinton would lose (and that Sanders would win) against Trump. Because polling this far out was totally unreliable, etc. Suddenly now that the polls have shifted he has changed his tune. I used to really like his analysis because it was nearly entirely numbers based. But he has really gotten sucked into the DC bubble mindset and has become more of a conventional wisdom pundit. He still is much more data informed than the typical talking head bloviator. But he's changed for the worse.
I understand the probability--20% of the time the 80% favorite loses. That doesn't change my point. Literally a few weeks ago he was totally dismissing the polls as being too early--because he didn't believe the result. Now that the polls flipped he suddenly starts to believe them at least somewhat--to the point he's done a full analysis of them, indicating that they are at least useful for doing a huge analysis. He dismissed them when it was a result he didn't believe and now is more embracing when it's a result he believes. He's being more pundit than he used to be.
Not sure what your point is, nothing you say changes what I said. The laws were clearly broken. FBI acknowledged the lawbreaking but stated it was investigating intent. ie, free pass! She literally got off with a 'sorry, my bad'.The primary duty of the President is to act as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Congress declares war, the Commander in Chief directs.
A close second is to execute the laws of the land. This is easily forgotten.
Clinton has shown to be incompetent in commanding any sort of armed forces (as Secretary of State) and unapologetic about it.
She was also just given a free pass on 3? 5? 6? violations of the 'laws of the land' and has frequently demeaned/downplayed the violation.
She has shown herself to be a great administrator, fundraiser and power broker. But I think she's proven herself unapologetically dismissive of the 2 most important duties of the President, the very office for which she is running!
Now if she had gracefully and humble acknowledged the gravity of the mistakes, asked for forgiveness and promised to respect the law, she'd at least have my respect. But to be dismissive and arrogant about it! wow!
You might want to bone up on the law a little bit. Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist of a misdemeanor by the AG who changed the recommendation of his staff lawyers to charge him with a felony count. Petraeus also got caught lying to the federal prosecutors about his knowledge and intent - giving his lover, a non-federal employee, information he knew was classified.
You can say Clinton was too-clever by half in trying to set up a system that was easier for her to deal with personal emails -- purposely done so to avoid any personal email records drifting into the State Department server - but the charges being investigated were for willfully and knowingly mishandling classified information. There was no evidence of such.
And given that Holder only gave Petraeus a misdemeanor charge for his more-felony like actions, it would be very hard to apply a similar misdemeanor charge for what amounted to not adhering to administrative guidelines. Delve into any senator on the Armed Services Committee and you'll find similar issues.
Now---- time to bring out the WHAMBULENCE and discuss how Loretta Lynch was bribed.
Petraeus: from the NYT article on the FBI:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article
"In fact, F.B.I. officials have long said that what Mr. Petraeus did — knowingly handing a diary with classified information to his biographer and lover, then lying about it to investigators — was worse than what Mrs. Clinton did. In the Petraeus case, the F.B.I. recommended a felony indictment, but the Justice Department allowed him to plead to a misdemeanor. The deal that Mr. Petraeus received shadowed Mrs. Clinton’s case from the start because it appeared to set a higher bar for bringing charges against her."
Petraeus was not running for President. Mrs Clinton is and should hold to a much higher standard.
I do not know who Loretta Lynch is and am seldom accused of being on the WHAMBULENCE :)
GH Bush - was the director of CIA for the illegal Bay of Pigs operation
No, he wasn't.
I guess that Bush Sr. might be clean based on info off the top of my head?One can probably find debatable actions by any president, but yeah, Bush Sr. might be the "cleanest" of the recent bunch.
I guess that Bush Sr. might be clean based on info off the top of my head?One can probably find debatable actions by any president, but yeah, Bush Sr. might be the "cleanest" of the recent bunch.
To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
I am rather shocked the FBI does not prosecute violation of the law unless they can prove intent. Their stance appears to be that violation of the law is not a crime unless you 'really meant it'. This is illogical and invalidates the law; the law was still broken. Are we ruled by law or are we not?
I wish this was applied to speed limits. And taxes and.....
To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
I am rather shocked the FBI does not prosecute violation of the law unless they can prove intent. Their stance appears to be that violation of the law is not a crime unless you 'really meant it'. This is illogical and invalidates the law; the law was still broken. Are we ruled by law or are we not?
I wish this was applied to speed limits. And taxes and.....
To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
I am rather shocked the FBI does not prosecute violation of the law unless they can prove intent. Their stance appears to be that violation of the law is not a crime unless you 'really meant it'. This is illogical and invalidates the law; the law was still broken. Are we ruled by law or are we not?
I wish this was applied to speed limits. And taxes and.....
There are intent laws, where the intent of the person determines culpability and non-intent laws. Murder or DUI are non intent laws. It doesn't matter if you intended to break the law, you did. Other laws, including all of the classified material ones are intent laws. The prosecutor has to show that someone INTENDED to divulge classified material or showed such gross negligence that massive amounts was divulged. The FBI clearly indicated that there was no intent from Clinton or aides to violate classified material statutes and the amount of classified material did not rise to the level of gross negligence. Stupidity...yes. Every single other prosecution for classified material violations showed provable intent, where the person knew they were illegally distributing classified information and did it anyway and/or lied to investigators in order to hamper investigations. The FBI said that (regardless what some media have said), Clinton only told them the truth and did not interfere with their investigation.
Speed limits are non intent, it doesn't matter if you meant to speed, you are guilty (that's civil anyway, not criminal). Same with taxes, although if you make an honest mistake and don't try to skirt the IRS, they will play nice and waive penalties for messing up.
To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
I am rather shocked the FBI does not prosecute violation of the law unless they can prove intent. Their stance appears to be that violation of the law is not a crime unless you 'really meant it'. This is illogical and invalidates the law; the law was still broken. Are we ruled by law or are we not?
I wish this was applied to speed limits. And taxes and.....
There are intent laws, where the intent of the person determines culpability and non-intent laws. Murder or DUI are non intent laws. It doesn't matter if you intended to break the law, you did. Other laws, including all of the classified material ones are intent laws. The prosecutor has to show that someone INTENDED to divulge classified material or showed such gross negligence that massive amounts was divulged. The FBI clearly indicated that there was no intent from Clinton or aides to violate classified material statutes and the amount of classified material did not rise to the level of gross negligence.
...
I haven't read much about the email thing so I don't have a fully informed opinion, but I did read she asked for email on her Blackberry and the NSA said no and wouldn't provide a more secure phone. Then she set up the private email server. I don't know if that was the main reason, but it seems plausible.
This is called "shadow IT". Employees in a company set up their own tech stuff that hasn't been approved by IT or management. Usually they do this because whatever tool they're using helps them do their job and they feel like the in house IT takes too long or never comes through. They don't realize the security or other negative consequences.
This is just my opinion based on a reading of what we know and what's been said, but my take is that Clinton basically did exactly this.
She complained about the existing server and then decided to have another set up so she and her department could communicate the way they wanted to.
It was arrogant and it circumvented both the rules and the security the rules were set up to protect, but I don't think it was done to secretly aid rebels or bribe officials or smuggle baby pandas for family dinners or any of the other conspiracy theories floating around. Apparently the FBI concluded something similar.
Clinton set up a "shadow IT" server because she didn't want to deal with the bureaucratic tangle inherent with the government server. stupid and arrogant.
To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
I am rather shocked the FBI does not prosecute violation of the law unless they can prove intent. Their stance appears to be that violation of the law is not a crime unless you 'really meant it'. This is illogical and invalidates the law; the law was still broken. Are we ruled by law or are we not?
I wish this was applied to speed limits. And taxes and.....
There are intent laws, where the intent of the person determines culpability and non-intent laws. Murder or DUI are non intent laws. It doesn't matter if you intended to break the law, you did. Other laws, including all of the classified material ones are intent laws. The prosecutor has to show that someone INTENDED to divulge classified material or showed such gross negligence that massive amounts was divulged. The FBI clearly indicated that there was no intent from Clinton or aides to violate classified material statutes and the amount of classified material did not rise to the level of gross negligence. Stupidity...yes. Every single other prosecution for classified material violations showed provable intent, where the person knew they were illegally distributing classified information and did it anyway and/or lied to investigators in order to hamper investigations. The FBI said that (regardless what some media have said), Clinton only told them the truth and did not interfere with their investigation.
Speed limits are non intent, it doesn't matter if you meant to speed, you are guilty (that's civil anyway, not criminal). Same with taxes, although if you make an honest mistake and don't try to skirt the IRS, they will play nice and waive penalties for messing up.
Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.
exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
I am rather shocked the FBI does not prosecute violation of the law unless they can prove intent. Their stance appears to be that violation of the law is not a crime unless you 'really meant it'. This is illogical and invalidates the law; the law was still broken. Are we ruled by law or are we not?
I wish this was applied to speed limits. And taxes and.....
There are intent laws, where the intent of the person determines culpability and non-intent laws. Murder or DUI are non intent laws. It doesn't matter if you intended to break the law, you did. Other laws, including all of the classified material ones are intent laws. The prosecutor has to show that someone INTENDED to divulge classified material or showed such gross negligence that massive amounts was divulged. The FBI clearly indicated that there was no intent from Clinton or aides to violate classified material statutes and the amount of classified material did not rise to the level of gross negligence. Stupidity...yes. Every single other prosecution for classified material violations showed provable intent, where the person knew they were illegally distributing classified information and did it anyway and/or lied to investigators in order to hamper investigations. The FBI said that (regardless what some media have said), Clinton only told them the truth and did not interfere with their investigation.
Speed limits are non intent, it doesn't matter if you meant to speed, you are guilty (that's civil anyway, not criminal). Same with taxes, although if you make an honest mistake and don't try to skirt the IRS, they will play nice and waive penalties for messing up.
Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.
exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
I am rather shocked the FBI does not prosecute violation of the law unless they can prove intent. Their stance appears to be that violation of the law is not a crime unless you 'really meant it'. This is illogical and invalidates the law; the law was still broken. Are we ruled by law or are we not?
I wish this was applied to speed limits. And taxes and.....
There are intent laws, where the intent of the person determines culpability and non-intent laws. Murder or DUI are non intent laws. It doesn't matter if you intended to break the law, you did. Other laws, including all of the classified material ones are intent laws. The prosecutor has to show that someone INTENDED to divulge classified material or showed such gross negligence that massive amounts was divulged. The FBI clearly indicated that there was no intent from Clinton or aides to violate classified material statutes and the amount of classified material did not rise to the level of gross negligence. Stupidity...yes. Every single other prosecution for classified material violations showed provable intent, where the person knew they were illegally distributing classified information and did it anyway and/or lied to investigators in order to hamper investigations. The FBI said that (regardless what some media have said), Clinton only told them the truth and did not interfere with their investigation.
Speed limits are non intent, it doesn't matter if you meant to speed, you are guilty (that's civil anyway, not criminal). Same with taxes, although if you make an honest mistake and don't try to skirt the IRS, they will play nice and waive penalties for messing up.
Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.
How much mental wrangling does one have to do to convince themselves that there was no intent to bypass the government email laws? She didn't accidentally bypass the law, she deliberately did this, and then lied when caught.
exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
I am rather shocked the FBI does not prosecute violation of the law unless they can prove intent. Their stance appears to be that violation of the law is not a crime unless you 'really meant it'. This is illogical and invalidates the law; the law was still broken. Are we ruled by law or are we not?
I wish this was applied to speed limits. And taxes and.....
There are intent laws, where the intent of the person determines culpability and non-intent laws. Murder or DUI are non intent laws. It doesn't matter if you intended to break the law, you did. Other laws, including all of the classified material ones are intent laws. The prosecutor has to show that someone INTENDED to divulge classified material or showed such gross negligence that massive amounts was divulged. The FBI clearly indicated that there was no intent from Clinton or aides to violate classified material statutes and the amount of classified material did not rise to the level of gross negligence. Stupidity...yes. Every single other prosecution for classified material violations showed provable intent, where the person knew they were illegally distributing classified information and did it anyway and/or lied to investigators in order to hamper investigations. The FBI said that (regardless what some media have said), Clinton only told them the truth and did not interfere with their investigation.
Speed limits are non intent, it doesn't matter if you meant to speed, you are guilty (that's civil anyway, not criminal). Same with taxes, although if you make an honest mistake and don't try to skirt the IRS, they will play nice and waive penalties for messing up.
Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.
How much mental wrangling does one have to do to convince themselves that there was no intent to bypass the government email laws? She didn't accidentally bypass the law, she deliberately did this, and then lied when caught.
The lengths people will go to to explain away her behavior is truly mind boggling. Even with her lies caught on camera people continue to defend her.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here
exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.To be honest, if you do not know who Loretta Lynch is you are way too uninformed to contribute to the discussion.My moderate-information diet may not meet your standards. I thought this was about legit criticisms of the presidential candidates... and I know who they are.
I am rather shocked the FBI does not prosecute violation of the law unless they can prove intent. Their stance appears to be that violation of the law is not a crime unless you 'really meant it'. This is illogical and invalidates the law; the law was still broken. Are we ruled by law or are we not?
I wish this was applied to speed limits. And taxes and.....
There are intent laws, where the intent of the person determines culpability and non-intent laws. Murder or DUI are non intent laws. It doesn't matter if you intended to break the law, you did. Other laws, including all of the classified material ones are intent laws. The prosecutor has to show that someone INTENDED to divulge classified material or showed such gross negligence that massive amounts was divulged. The FBI clearly indicated that there was no intent from Clinton or aides to violate classified material statutes and the amount of classified material did not rise to the level of gross negligence. Stupidity...yes. Every single other prosecution for classified material violations showed provable intent, where the person knew they were illegally distributing classified information and did it anyway and/or lied to investigators in order to hamper investigations. The FBI said that (regardless what some media have said), Clinton only told them the truth and did not interfere with their investigation.
Speed limits are non intent, it doesn't matter if you meant to speed, you are guilty (that's civil anyway, not criminal). Same with taxes, although if you make an honest mistake and don't try to skirt the IRS, they will play nice and waive penalties for messing up.
Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.
How much mental wrangling does one have to do to convince themselves that there was no intent to bypass the government email laws? She didn't accidentally bypass the law, she deliberately did this, and then lied when caught.
The lengths people will go to to explain away her behavior is truly mind boggling. Even with her lies caught on camera people continue to defend her.
I consider myself schooled in this matter.Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.
I consider myself schooled in this matter.Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.
Apparently she clearly violated 'regulatory law' but not 'criminal law' which requires proof of intent. I was assuming violation of laws concerning national security (Secretary of Sate, c'mon that's pretty important) was criminal, intent or no intent, and in this I was incorrect.
My larger criticism remains: Mrs Clinton's incompetence/arrogance (best/worst case) with which she 1) performed these actions 2) defended/lied/attempted to dismiss them (choose your preference). She has proven herself incompetent at executing a rather important set of laws, not a good behavior for a Chief Executive.
As mentioned before, I could respect her if she acknowledged the faults and fessed up. Instead her actions show disregard for regulatory compliance and a cavalier attitude towards the duties of state.
I consider myself schooled in this matter.Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.
Apparently she clearly violated 'regulatory law' but not 'criminal law' which requires proof of intent. I was assuming violation of laws concerning national security (Secretary of Sate, c'mon that's pretty important) was criminal, intent or no intent, and in this I was incorrect.
My larger criticism remains: Mrs Clinton's incompetence/arrogance (best/worst case) with which she 1) performed these actions 2) defended/lied/attempted to dismiss them (choose your preference). She has proven herself incompetent at executing a rather important set of laws, not a good behavior for a Chief Executive.
As mentioned before, I could respect her if she acknowledged the faults and fessed up. Instead her actions show disregard for regulatory compliance and a cavalier attitude towards the duties of state.
Yeah, she's not the best candidate America could provide. You voting for Trump? He's one of the few people who is more arrogant, more cavalier, more incompetent, and more ready to lie.
I consider myself schooled in this matter.Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.
Apparently she clearly violated 'regulatory law' but not 'criminal law' which requires proof of intent. I was assuming violation of laws concerning national security (Secretary of Sate, c'mon that's pretty important) was criminal, intent or no intent, and in this I was incorrect.
My larger criticism remains: Mrs Clinton's incompetence/arrogance (best/worst case) with which she 1) performed these actions 2) defended/lied/attempted to dismiss them (choose your preference). She has proven herself incompetent at executing a rather important set of laws, not a good behavior for a Chief Executive.
As mentioned before, I could respect her if she acknowledged the faults and fessed up. Instead her actions show disregard for regulatory compliance and a cavalier attitude towards the duties of state.
Yeah, she's not the best candidate America could provide. You voting for Trump? He's one of the few people who is more arrogant, more cavalier, more incompetent, and more ready to lie.
Yeah, she's not the best candidate America could provide. You voting for Trump? He's one of the few people who is more arrogant, more cavalier, more incompetent, and more ready to lie.The Libertarian candidate is looking good.
Right, because every male politician that has come before her has ALWAYS come hat in hand to the American public, admitting wrongdoing and asking for forgiveness.
Can you say "double standard"?
Where have I defended previous candidates? nowhere, this is an assumption you make. This is a critique of the existing candidates.I consider myself schooled in this matter.Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.
Apparently she clearly violated 'regulatory law' but not 'criminal law' which requires proof of intent. I was assuming violation of laws concerning national security (Secretary of Sate, c'mon that's pretty important) was criminal, intent or no intent, and in this I was incorrect.
My larger criticism remains: Mrs Clinton's incompetence/arrogance (best/worst case) with which she 1) performed these actions 2) defended/lied/attempted to dismiss them (choose your preference). She has proven herself incompetent at executing a rather important set of laws, not a good behavior for a Chief Executive.
As mentioned before, I could respect her if she acknowledged the faults and fessed up. Instead her actions show disregard for regulatory compliance and a cavalier attitude towards the duties of state.
Right, because every male politician that has come before her has ALWAYS come hat in hand to the American public, admitting wrongdoing and asking for forgiveness.
Can you say "double standard"?
The kicker is that he seems to be a true patriot. No one owns him.
And if he does get the hot seat, both sides of the aisle will be very dedicated to keeping him in control. I suspect he'd be one of the most contained, constrained, criticized, minutely-examined President ever.
And if he does get the hot seat, both sides of the aisle will be very dedicated to keeping him in control. I suspect he'd be one of the most contained, constrained, criticized, minutely-examined President ever.
That is an interesting scenario. It would make for a very ineffective presidency if both sides of Congress refuse to work with him. But I suspect in the end Republicans would fall in line.
And if he does get the hot seat, both sides of the aisle will be very dedicated to keeping him in control. I suspect he'd be one of the most contained, constrained, criticized, minutely-examined President ever.
That is an interesting scenario. It would make for a very ineffective presidency if both sides of Congress refuse to work with him. But I suspect in the end Republicans would fall in line.
Well there's an interesting paradox; would Republicans fall in line behind Trump the President if it meant voting maintain and expand Social Security, Medicare and Medicade as Trump has proposed, as well as voting for trade tarrifs and other things so anathema to Republicans?
The email thing disqualifies Hillary Clinton from being a serious presidential candidate in any rational world. Unfortunately, the system has failed to provide a better option
While interesting - that bucket has lots of holes in it. Really? Compared to say -- a trillion dollar boondoggle for made up WMDs in Iraq, or doing and end-around the constitution to sell arms to the Contras. If that's all ya got on Ms Hillary you are bringing birdshot to a water buff hunt.
And if he does get the hot seat, both sides of the aisle will be very dedicated to keeping him in control. I suspect he'd be one of the most contained, constrained, criticized, minutely-examined President ever.
That is an interesting scenario. It would make for a very ineffective presidency if both sides of Congress refuse to work with him. But I suspect in the end Republicans would fall in line.
Where have I defended previous candidates? nowhere, this is an assumption you make. This is a critique of the existing candidates.I consider myself schooled in this matter.Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.
Apparently she clearly violated 'regulatory law' but not 'criminal law' which requires proof of intent. I was assuming violation of laws concerning national security (Secretary of Sate, c'mon that's pretty important) was criminal, intent or no intent, and in this I was incorrect.
My larger criticism remains: Mrs Clinton's incompetence/arrogance (best/worst case) with which she 1) performed these actions 2) defended/lied/attempted to dismiss them (choose your preference). She has proven herself incompetent at executing a rather important set of laws, not a good behavior for a Chief Executive.
As mentioned before, I could respect her if she acknowledged the faults and fessed up. Instead her actions show disregard for regulatory compliance and a cavalier attitude towards the duties of state.
Right, because every male politician that has come before her has ALWAYS come hat in hand to the American public, admitting wrongdoing and asking for forgiveness.
Can you say "double standard"?
So quick to label me sexist. Do you see only peen or lack of peen? I am curious, especially in this new age of alternate gender identity.
Reading comprehension, dude.Yes, W should apologize for Iraq, and I wouldn't vote for Powell or Rice for a whole bunch of reasons.
I did not "label you sexist." I did not ascribe any words to you that you did not say. I only pointed out that, unless you or anyone else has had similar levels of criticism for other (male) candidates in the past who did similar-to-exact-same shit as HRC, then they/you are applying a double standard, namely asking her to be more deferential and seek more apologies than male candidates.
Did you speak out that George W should come clean and admit Iraq was a mistake/lie and ask for forgiveness? How about Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice and their private email servers?
Granted that is the black mark she carries and was a contributing factor as to why she wasn't elected last time.
But let's put this in perspective. Even if she didn't vote for it the stupid invasion would have went thru. The whole fucking hair-brained adventure was hatched by Cheney and company and Bushie was too dumb to push back. The planted stories, the outright lies, Powell's presentation that included a grad students graphics - the whole executive branch was forcing the issue - pushing the agenda to a compliant Congress and press corps and an ignorant public. Sorry bub, but this one lies squarely on the Bush doorstep and serves as the foreign policy blunder of the last century.
ISIS says thanks for the chaos Bushie. These clowns thought that if we just topple Saddam Jeffersonian Democracy will sprout up and the surrounding dictatorships will magically follow. Jesus - did these guys ever crack a history book? The nation lines drawn at random over a tribal society with religious overtones -- yea, that's going to work out just swell.
We'll be paying this in more blood and treasure for decades to come.
The higher standard you hold a presidential candidate to is that you get to take the information with you to the ballot box. The idea that an old lady would face jail time for not understanding how email security works is pretty stupid. It is grounds for not voting for her, that is all.
The higher standard you hold a presidential candidate to is that you get to take the information with you to the ballot box. The idea that an old lady would face jail time for not understanding how email security works is pretty stupid. It is grounds for not voting for her, that is all.
You can't really be that gullible. It's impossible. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing, and even had a private server set up for her. Then, when the FOI information request was made, those emails were deleted, which is also illegal.
As I stated earlier...the lengths that people will go to to defend her is mind boggling.
Granted that is the black mark she carries and was a contributing factor as to why she wasn't elected last time.
But let's put this in perspective. Even if she didn't vote for it the stupid invasion would have went thru. The whole fucking hair-brained adventure was hatched by Cheney and company and Bushie was too dumb to push back. The planted stories, the outright lies, Powell's presentation that included a grad students graphics - the whole executive branch was forcing the issue - pushing the agenda to a compliant Congress and press corps and an ignorant public. Sorry bub, but this one lies squarely on the Bush doorstep and serves as the foreign policy blunder of the last century.
ISIS says thanks for the chaos Bushie. These clowns thought that if we just topple Saddam Jeffersonian Democracy will sprout up and the surrounding dictatorships will magically follow. Jesus - did these guys ever crack a history book? The nation lines drawn at random over a tribal society with religious overtones -- yea, that's going to work out just swell.
We'll be paying this in more blood and treasure for decades to come.
Look, I could forgive her Iraq war vote if she hadn't gone and made the same mistake with Libya.
Granted that is the black mark she carries and was a contributing factor as to why she wasn't elected last time.
But let's put this in perspective. Even if she didn't vote for it the stupid invasion would have went thru. The whole fucking hair-brained adventure was hatched by Cheney and company and Bushie was too dumb to push back. The planted stories, the outright lies, Powell's presentation that included a grad students graphics - the whole executive branch was forcing the issue - pushing the agenda to a compliant Congress and press corps and an ignorant public. Sorry bub, but this one lies squarely on the Bush doorstep and serves as the foreign policy blunder of the last century.
ISIS says thanks for the chaos Bushie. These clowns thought that if we just topple Saddam Jeffersonian Democracy will sprout up and the surrounding dictatorships will magically follow. Jesus - did these guys ever crack a history book? The nation lines drawn at random over a tribal society with religious overtones -- yea, that's going to work out just swell.
We'll be paying this in more blood and treasure for decades to come.
Look, I could forgive her Iraq war vote if she hadn't gone and made the same mistake with Libya.
Ummm, and what mistake was that? Please, don't say Benghazi and lose all credibility.
Granted that is the black mark she carries and was a contributing factor as to why she wasn't elected last time.
But let's put this in perspective. Even if she didn't vote for it the stupid invasion would have went thru. The whole fucking hair-brained adventure was hatched by Cheney and company and Bushie was too dumb to push back. The planted stories, the outright lies, Powell's presentation that included a grad students graphics - the whole executive branch was forcing the issue - pushing the agenda to a compliant Congress and press corps and an ignorant public. Sorry bub, but this one lies squarely on the Bush doorstep and serves as the foreign policy blunder of the last century.
ISIS says thanks for the chaos Bushie. These clowns thought that if we just topple Saddam Jeffersonian Democracy will sprout up and the surrounding dictatorships will magically follow. Jesus - did these guys ever crack a history book? The nation lines drawn at random over a tribal society with religious overtones -- yea, that's going to work out just swell.
We'll be paying this in more blood and treasure for decades to come.
Look, I could forgive her Iraq war vote if she hadn't gone and made the same mistake with Libya.
Ummm, and what mistake was that? Please, don't say Benghazi and lose all credibility.
Bombing it in the first place. We never should have gotten involved and nobody who signed on to the illegal and pointless destruction of Libya can be trusted with power.
So quick to label me a male as well. Well, that part is correct! congratulations.Where have I defended previous candidates? nowhere, this is an assumption you make. This is a critique of the existing candidates.I consider myself schooled in this matter.Murder is all about intent. If you didn't intend to do it, it's manslaughter.exactly. Our system of law always takes into consideration both the intent and what there is evidence to support.
Apparently she clearly violated 'regulatory law' but not 'criminal law' which requires proof of intent. I was assuming violation of laws concerning national security (Secretary of Sate, c'mon that's pretty important) was criminal, intent or no intent, and in this I was incorrect.
My larger criticism remains: Mrs Clinton's incompetence/arrogance (best/worst case) with which she 1) performed these actions 2) defended/lied/attempted to dismiss them (choose your preference). She has proven herself incompetent at executing a rather important set of laws, not a good behavior for a Chief Executive.
As mentioned before, I could respect her if she acknowledged the faults and fessed up. Instead her actions show disregard for regulatory compliance and a cavalier attitude towards the duties of state.
Right, because every male politician that has come before her has ALWAYS come hat in hand to the American public, admitting wrongdoing and asking for forgiveness.
Can you say "double standard"?
So quick to label me sexist. Do you see only peen or lack of peen? I am curious, especially in this new age of alternate gender identity.
Reading comprehension, dude.
I did not "label you sexist." I did not ascribe any words to you that you did not say. I only pointed out that, unless you or anyone else has had similar levels of criticism for other (male) candidates in the past who did similar-to-exact-same shit as HRC, then they/you are applying a double standard, namely asking her to be more deferential and seek more apologies than male candidates.
Did you speak out that George W should come clean and admit Iraq was a mistake/lie and ask for forgiveness? How about Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice and their private email servers?
That doesn't make *you* sexist. It only makes you like basically every single other person in this society, who unconsciously applies different standards to men and women. And if you don't see that, then, yes, it is probably a function of peen vs no peen.
None of us are immune to behaving out of cultural bias. Denying that we have any only serves to perpetuate it.
Granted that is the black mark she carries and was a contributing factor as to why she wasn't elected last time.
But let's put this in perspective. Even if she didn't vote for it the stupid invasion would have went thru. The whole fucking hair-brained adventure was hatched by Cheney and company and Bushie was too dumb to push back. The planted stories, the outright lies, Powell's presentation that included a grad students graphics - the whole executive branch was forcing the issue - pushing the agenda to a compliant Congress and press corps and an ignorant public. Sorry bub, but this one lies squarely on the Bush doorstep and serves as the foreign policy blunder of the last century.
ISIS says thanks for the chaos Bushie. These clowns thought that if we just topple Saddam Jeffersonian Democracy will sprout up and the surrounding dictatorships will magically follow. Jesus - did these guys ever crack a history book? The nation lines drawn at random over a tribal society with religious overtones -- yea, that's going to work out just swell.
We'll be paying this in more blood and treasure for decades to come.
Look, I could forgive her Iraq war vote if she hadn't gone and made the same mistake with Libya.
Ummm, and what mistake was that? Please, don't say Benghazi and lose all credibility.
Bombing it in the first place. We never should have gotten involved and nobody who signed on to the illegal and pointless destruction of Libya can be trusted with power.
Whether or not it was pointless is debatable. Whether it was illegal, is less so. From what I can see, the NATO led intervention was justified legally by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 passed on March 17, 2011 which among other things imposed a no-fly zone and authorized everything short of an actual military occupation to protect civilians and civilian-occupied areas.
Granted that is the black mark she carries and was a contributing factor as to why she wasn't elected last time.
But let's put this in perspective. Even if she didn't vote for it the stupid invasion would have went thru. The whole fucking hair-brained adventure was hatched by Cheney and company and Bushie was too dumb to push back. The planted stories, the outright lies, Powell's presentation that included a grad students graphics - the whole executive branch was forcing the issue - pushing the agenda to a compliant Congress and press corps and an ignorant public. Sorry bub, but this one lies squarely on the Bush doorstep and serves as the foreign policy blunder of the last century.
ISIS says thanks for the chaos Bushie. These clowns thought that if we just topple Saddam Jeffersonian Democracy will sprout up and the surrounding dictatorships will magically follow. Jesus - did these guys ever crack a history book? The nation lines drawn at random over a tribal society with religious overtones -- yea, that's going to work out just swell.
We'll be paying this in more blood and treasure for decades to come.
Look, I could forgive her Iraq war vote if she hadn't gone and made the same mistake with Libya.
Ummm, and what mistake was that? Please, don't say Benghazi and lose all credibility.
Bombing it in the first place. We never should have gotten involved and nobody who signed on to the illegal and pointless destruction of Libya can be trusted with power.
Whether or not it was pointless is debatable. Whether it was illegal, is less so. From what I can see, the NATO led intervention was justified legally by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 passed on March 17, 2011 which among other things imposed a no-fly zone and authorized everything short of an actual military occupation to protect civilians and civilian-occupied areas.
Obama never got any Congressional authorization. Treaties don't override the Constitution or the War Powers Act.
Granted that is the black mark she carries and was a contributing factor as to why she wasn't elected last time.
But let's put this in perspective. Even if she didn't vote for it the stupid invasion would have went thru. The whole fucking hair-brained adventure was hatched by Cheney and company and Bushie was too dumb to push back. The planted stories, the outright lies, Powell's presentation that included a grad students graphics - the whole executive branch was forcing the issue - pushing the agenda to a compliant Congress and press corps and an ignorant public. Sorry bub, but this one lies squarely on the Bush doorstep and serves as the foreign policy blunder of the last century.
ISIS says thanks for the chaos Bushie. These clowns thought that if we just topple Saddam Jeffersonian Democracy will sprout up and the surrounding dictatorships will magically follow. Jesus - did these guys ever crack a history book? The nation lines drawn at random over a tribal society with religious overtones -- yea, that's going to work out just swell.
We'll be paying this in more blood and treasure for decades to come.
Look, I could forgive her Iraq war vote if she hadn't gone and made the same mistake with Libya.
Ummm, and what mistake was that? Please, don't say Benghazi and lose all credibility.
Bombing it in the first place. We never should have gotten involved and nobody who signed on to the illegal and pointless destruction of Libya can be trusted with power.
Whether or not it was pointless is debatable. Whether it was illegal, is less so. From what I can see, the NATO led intervention was justified legally by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 passed on March 17, 2011 which among other things imposed a no-fly zone and authorized everything short of an actual military occupation to protect civilians and civilian-occupied areas.
Obama never got any Congressional authorization. Treaties don't override the Constitution or the War Powers Act.
Congressional authorization isn't a prerequisite for the US to go to war. The US has gone to war 125 times without it (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2001/09/31/op-olc-v025-p0188_0.pdf (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2001/09/31/op-olc-v025-p0188_0.pdf)).
Granted that is the black mark she carries and was a contributing factor as to why she wasn't elected last time.
But let's put this in perspective. Even if she didn't vote for it the stupid invasion would have went thru. The whole fucking hair-brained adventure was hatched by Cheney and company and Bushie was too dumb to push back. The planted stories, the outright lies, Powell's presentation that included a grad students graphics - the whole executive branch was forcing the issue - pushing the agenda to a compliant Congress and press corps and an ignorant public. Sorry bub, but this one lies squarely on the Bush doorstep and serves as the foreign policy blunder of the last century.
ISIS says thanks for the chaos Bushie. These clowns thought that if we just topple Saddam Jeffersonian Democracy will sprout up and the surrounding dictatorships will magically follow. Jesus - did these guys ever crack a history book? The nation lines drawn at random over a tribal society with religious overtones -- yea, that's going to work out just swell.
We'll be paying this in more blood and treasure for decades to come.
Look, I could forgive her Iraq war vote if she hadn't gone and made the same mistake with Libya.
Ummm, and what mistake was that? Please, don't say Benghazi and lose all credibility.
Bombing it in the first place. We never should have gotten involved and nobody who signed on to the illegal and pointless destruction of Libya can be trusted with power.
Granted that is the black mark she carries and was a contributing factor as to why she wasn't elected last time.
But let's put this in perspective. Even if she didn't vote for it the stupid invasion would have went thru. The whole fucking hair-brained adventure was hatched by Cheney and company and Bushie was too dumb to push back. The planted stories, the outright lies, Powell's presentation that included a grad students graphics - the whole executive branch was forcing the issue - pushing the agenda to a compliant Congress and press corps and an ignorant public. Sorry bub, but this one lies squarely on the Bush doorstep and serves as the foreign policy blunder of the last century.
ISIS says thanks for the chaos Bushie. These clowns thought that if we just topple Saddam Jeffersonian Democracy will sprout up and the surrounding dictatorships will magically follow. Jesus - did these guys ever crack a history book? The nation lines drawn at random over a tribal society with religious overtones -- yea, that's going to work out just swell.
We'll be paying this in more blood and treasure for decades to come.
Look, I could forgive her Iraq war vote if she hadn't gone and made the same mistake with Libya.
Ummm, and what mistake was that? Please, don't say Benghazi and lose all credibility.
Bombing it in the first place. We never should have gotten involved and nobody who signed on to the illegal and pointless destruction of Libya can be trusted with power.
Yea, as Secretary of State Clinton would have full authority to order that. Roll eyes.
I know, let's have another House Subcommittee look into this for 18 months, spend 10 million dollars, come up with nothing (again) and waste more time and not do their job!!
For that matter, Clinton should apologize for voting to invade Iraq, and I won't vote for her either.
QuoteFor that matter, Clinton should apologize for voting to invade Iraq, and I won't vote for her either.
I think she did apologize for her Iraq vote, yes? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109 (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109)
She also apologized for the email thing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/hillary-clinton-apologizes-for-e-mail-system-i-take-responsibility/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/hillary-clinton-apologizes-for-e-mail-system-i-take-responsibility/)
You either accept the apologies or you don't.
I personally don't think this was an "old lady not knowing the internet thing". Hillary likely ain't that dumb or behind the times. This was by many accounts "the state dept IT sucks and I can't do my job properly thing". She rode the narrow edge of what she thought she could get away with, and that could be seen as a virtue or a vice. It really depends on what lenses you have on. I tend to think her intent was not to give away state secrets, so I don't think jail time makes any sense.
On the email thing I keep going back and forth. Yes, Clinton ain't dumb, but I question the limit of her technological expertise. She obviously knew how to use a blackberry and other similar type personal devices to conduct email - I assume these were always set up for her in advance. From the accounts I read, she rebelled completely against the idea of having to use an actual PC to handle state department email. That makes me wonder whether she has really ever had to deal that much with computers in general or has been insulated from them by more friendlier devices as well as her staff members. Consideration her age and her position (she was already First Lady of Arkansas during most of the 80's when computers took off), it is not reasonable to think that she never had been forced to become comfortable with a PC.
If anything, I tend to blame Clinton's staff and state department personnel for letting her get away with this and Clinton for apparently fostering an environment that apparently values loyalty over good judgement. So yeah, no criminal intent or jail time, but certainly legitimate concerns regarding her leadership and the judgment of those who surround her.
If anything, I tend to blame Clinton's staff and state department personnel for letting her get away with this and Clinton for apparently fostering an environment that apparently values loyalty over good judgement. So yeah, no criminal intent or jail time, but certainly legitimate concerns regarding her leadership and the judgment of those who surround her.
In all fairness by all accounts I've read, Clinton was on the more hawkish side in terms of intervention. Biden, on the other hand, was more cautious. That being said, the decision of HOW to intervene - whether to get congressional approval or not - does ultimately rest with Obama.
Thus I think it is legitimate to question Clinton's judgement in terms of military intervention in Libya general, but any supposed illegality of the intervention is not something that can be laid at Clinton's feet.
You either accept the apologies or you don't.
Oh dear lord. If you are resorting to hyperbole like that, please leave the "reasonable discussion thread" to the reasonable ones.
If anything, I tend to blame Clinton's staff and state department personnel for letting her get away with this and Clinton for apparently fostering an environment that apparently values loyalty over good judgement. So yeah, no criminal intent or jail time, but certainly legitimate concerns regarding her leadership and the judgment of those who surround her.
If she can't manage an IT staff/state department with compromising national security, doesn't say much for her Presidential credentials. The buck stops at the top.
In all fairness by all accounts I've read, Clinton was on the more hawkish side in terms of intervention. Biden, on the other hand, was more cautious. That being said, the decision of HOW to intervene - whether to get congressional approval or not - does ultimately rest with Obama.
Thus I think it is legitimate to question Clinton's judgement in terms of military intervention in Libya general, but any supposed illegality of the intervention is not something that can be laid at Clinton's feet.
True, the final responsibility does lie with the President, and the day I heard "kinetic military action" I lost a lot of respect for him. Certainly it wasn't Clinton's responsibility to get Congressional authorization.
Nevertheless, we're supposed to think Clinton is qualified because of her experience as SoS, right? So it's fair to judge her qualifications by the administration's foreign policy successes and failures during her term. She is widely recorded has having encouraged intervention in Libya, and to me that means she never learned the lesson of Iraq. As I tell my two-year-old, apologies are good but they don't substitute for doing the right thing. I'm glad she's apologized for Iraq but she hasn't shown that her judgement has improved.
Clinton's support for intervention in Libya in no way invalidates her repudiation of the Iraq War. Your foreign policy position seems to be that if someone is in favor of ANY foreign intervention, that it is the same as the WORST kind of foreign intervention and that doesn't leave much flexibility in terms of foreign policy.
If anything, I tend to blame Clinton's staff and state department personnel for letting her get away with this and Clinton for apparently fostering an environment that apparently values loyalty over good judgement. So yeah, no criminal intent or jail time, but certainly legitimate concerns regarding her leadership and the judgment of those who surround her.
If she can't manage an IT staff/state department with compromising national security, doesn't say much for her Presidential credentials. The buck stops at the top.
Well, there is a certain amount of inherent trust one must always place in one's staff. In regards to national security, there is still some ambiguity regarding just how much national security WAS compromised and how obvious it was at the time that any of the email content was classified. From what I gather, there were only three emails that had any content with markings that identified they contained classified material and even those didn't follow the normal identification standard, such that it is not unreasonable to think that they were not recognized as classified. That doesn't excuse the whole arrangement, but I think the national security charge is being overblown for partisan purposes.
Still, I can understand why someone might feel that way.
I question how much this one issue is the sole deal breaker for those persons who think Clinton shouldn't be President SOLELY for this reason.
There is enough ambiguity regarding the situation, that one can reasonably take a different tack. Me, it's not a deal breaker. I think she's the most qualified and most stable candidate from the two major parties. On this issue, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she's learned from this mistake and that the security bubble surrounding the POTUS by default will push back against this kind of thing in the future.
If anything, I tend to blame Clinton's staff and state department personnel for letting her get away with this and Clinton for apparently fostering an environment that apparently values loyalty over good judgement. So yeah, no criminal intent or jail time, but certainly legitimate concerns regarding her leadership and the judgment of those who surround her.
If she can't manage an IT staff/state department with compromising national security, doesn't say much for her Presidential credentials. The buck stops at the top.
Well, there is a certain amount of inherent trust one must always place in one's staff. In regards to national security, there is still some ambiguity regarding just how much national security WAS compromised and how obvious it was at the time that any of the email content was classified. From what I gather, there were only three emails that had any content with markings that identified they contained classified material and even those didn't follow the normal identification standard, such that it is not unreasonable to think that they were not recognized as classified. That doesn't excuse the whole arrangement, but I think the national security charge is being overblown for partisan purposes.
Still, I can understand why someone might feel that way.
I question how much this one issue is the sole deal breaker for those persons who think Clinton shouldn't be President SOLELY for this reason.
There is enough ambiguity regarding the situation, that one can reasonably take a different tack. Me, it's not a deal breaker. I think she's the most qualified and most stable candidate from the two major parties. On this issue, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she's learned from this mistake and that the security bubble surrounding the POTUS by default will push back against this kind of thing in the future.
If you can't manage at the SOS level, why should we trust you at the POTUS level?
Seriously, she's a disaster.
BTW, that's not the only reason I think she's unfit to lead (Clinton foundation bribes?).
I did not "label you sexist." I did not ascribe any words to you that you did not say. I only pointed out that, unless you or anyone else has had similar levels of criticism for other (male) candidates in the past who did similar-to-exact-same shit as HRC, then they/you are applying a double standard, namely asking her to be more deferential and seek more apologies than male candidates.
Did you speak out that George W should come clean and admit Iraq was a mistake/lie and ask for forgiveness? How about Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice and their private email servers?
That doesn't make *you* sexist. It only makes you like basically every single other person in this society, who unconsciously applies different standards to men and women. And if you don't see that, then, yes, it is probably a function of peen vs no peen.
None of us are immune to behaving out of cultural bias. Denying that we have any only serves to perpetuate it.
http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality
Do you think this [further] undermines the public's perception of the Supreme Court's impartiality and further supports the idea that Justices (both left and right) are just politicians wearing fancy robes?
Do you think this [further] undermines the public's perception of the Supreme Court's impartiality and further supports the idea that Justices (both left and right) are just politicians wearing fancy robes?
Yes.
Do you think this [further] undermines the public's perception of the Supreme Court's impartiality and further supports the idea that Justices (both left and right) are just politicians wearing fancy robes?
Yes.
Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people). O'Connor said it was a disaster that GWB lost (and then she voted in one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever to make him president). Scalia routinely accepted favors from people with business before the court (he even died in the middle of enjoying one such favor). Thomas' wife was employed to lobby for a bunch of stuff, including against the ACA. With most issues you can tell how people are going to vote just based on the topic. The entire court is very pro-corporate (like the people who appointed and confirmed them).
you think this undermines the public's perception of the Supreme Court's impartiality?I definitely think it will for some. However, the public opinion of the SCOTUS is pretty miserable right now anyhow.
Do you think this ... further supports the idea that Justices (both left and right) are just politicians wearing fancy robes?Personally - no. What this demonstrates to me is that the 9 supreme court justices are individuals who each have their own thoughts and opinions. I agree that RBG should probably have avoided making such public remarks, but I don't think this makes her more of a politician. If anything it demonstrates that, once appointed a justice can pretty much say and rule any damn way he or she pleases. It's the opposite of being political. For examples, few could have predicted that Chief justice Robert's opinions would so frequently be as progressive as they have been, nor Thomas's as conservative. I don't interpret this as RBG being political; I interpret it as her being an individual expressing her thoughts and fears. Inappropriate? Probably. Political - no, because expressing her opinion wouldn't change professional standing one way or another.
Nobody that I know. Figured that's what "further" implied....Who thought they were totally impartial?Do you think this [further] undermines the public's perception of the Supreme Court's impartiality and further supports the idea that Justices (both left and right) are just politicians wearing fancy robes?Yes.
GWB and GHWB and Romney and McCain and the governor of Ohio are refusing to go to the GOP convention in Ohio--along with a huge number of others.
Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people).
Sort of funny the outrage it caused. Her job is literally to give opinions. Legal ones, but still. I don't think it should undermine the public's perception, but I'm sure it will.
Why do you post this scathing drivel? I might not agree with Trump or Hillary supporters, with the character of their candidates, or their proposed policies, but I'm not going to insult any Mustachians out-of-the-blue that support them by dismissing their reasoning and implying that they're not sane.
Rule number 1 and 2 kinda go out the window on the forum a lot of the time.
Sort of funny the outrage it caused. Her job is literally to give opinions. Legal ones, but still. I don't think it should undermine the public's perception, but I'm sure it will.
Her job is to literally impartially interpret the law and provide reasoning for her interpretation. Objectivity, reason, impartiality, incorruptibility - that whole Justice being blind thing.
Rule number 1 and 2 kinda go out the window on the forum a lot of the time.
[MOD NOTE: They shouldn't. They only do when mods don't notice the abuse, because we can't read every thread, and those participating decide not to report it. If you see it happening, please click the "report to moderator" button on the post. Cheers!]
Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people).
Why do you post this scathing drivel? I might not agree with Trump or Hillary supporters, with the character of their candidates, or their proposed policies, but I'm not going to insult any Mustachians out-of-the-blue that support them by dismissing their reasoning and implying that they're not sane.
Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people).
Why do you post this scathing drivel? I might not agree with Trump or Hillary supporters, with the character of their candidates, or their proposed policies, but I'm not going to insult any Mustachians out-of-the-blue that support them by dismissing their reasoning and implying that they're not sane.
Don't conflate "support" with "thinking Trump is NOT a disaster". Plenty of people who realize he's a disaster are going to vote for him anyway because they believe that to be their best choice given their preferences. Lots of GOPers are openly saying Trump is bad (or hinting at it strongly) but also endorsing him. He had a really short list of VP candidates to pick from.
Again, "support" is not the same as "think NOT a disaster".Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people).
Why do you post this scathing drivel? I might not agree with Trump or Hillary supporters, with the character of their candidates, or their proposed policies, but I'm not going to insult any Mustachians out-of-the-blue that support them by dismissing their reasoning and implying that they're not sane.
Don't conflate "support" with "thinking Trump is NOT a disaster". Plenty of people who realize he's a disaster are going to vote for him anyway because they believe that to be their best choice given their preferences. Lots of GOPers are openly saying Trump is bad (or hinting at it strongly) but also endorsing him. He had a really short list of VP candidates to pick from.
I'll grant you that many people will vote for Trump not because they support him but because they see him as the best alternative (whether that's to avoid Clinton, continued democratic control of the WH or whathaveyou).
However, I get what Yeager is saying - it's beyond the pale to imply that no sane person could support Trump.
I personally think his positions are horrible but there are rational, sane people who do actually support him.
Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people).
Why do you post this scathing drivel? I might not agree with Trump or Hillary supporters, with the character of their candidates, or their proposed policies, but I'm not going to insult any Mustachians out-of-the-blue that support them by dismissing their reasoning and implying that they're not sane.
Don't conflate "support" with "thinking Trump is NOT a disaster". Plenty of people who realize he's a disaster are going to vote for him anyway because they believe that to be their best choice given their preferences. Lots of GOPers are openly saying Trump is bad (or hinting at it strongly) but also endorsing him. He had a really short list of VP candidates to pick from.
I bet Roberts also thinks he's a disaster--he just doesn't say so publicly.
Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people).
Why do you post this scathing drivel? I might not agree with Trump or Hillary supporters, with the character of their candidates, or their proposed policies, but I'm not going to insult any Mustachians out-of-the-blue that support them by dismissing their reasoning and implying that they're not sane.
In line with what most pundits say, he is a reliable member of the "establishment" and should help bridge the gap between Trump and the republican establishment that hates him, but some of his positions may make women ever less likely to embrace a Trump ticket.
Pence brings a lot of credibility to the socially conservative and anti-science wings of the party. He pushed through the first or one of the first "Religious Freedom" laws AKA anti LGBT laws, significantly reduced abortion options (similar to texas), hostile to teaching evolution, thinks smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Don't conflate "support" with "thinking Trump is NOT a disaster". Plenty of people who realize he's a disaster are going to vote for him anyway because they believe that to be their best choice given their preferences. Lots of GOPers are openly saying Trump is bad (or hinting at it strongly) but also endorsing him. He had a really short list of VP candidates to pick from.
I bet Roberts also thinks he's a disaster--he just doesn't say so publicly.
Looks like Trump has already picked his running mate. Interesting speech he gave to introduce him - very Trumpy.
I don't have nearly enough info on Pence to form an opinion of him, or to pontificate on how he may help/hurt the ticket. Anyone got a solid feel of him?
Mike Pence's national image was made by Indiana's religious freedom law, about a year ago, which would allow businesses to decline services based on their religious beliefs. This was ostensibly to allow purveyors of wedding supplies not to serve gay couples, but would also allow discrimination based on race or religion. Major businesses in the state made objections, and Pence walked the law back with an amendment designed to protect LGBT rights, which managed to anger the people who had lobbied for the law.Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people).
Why do you post this scathing drivel? I might not agree with Trump or Hillary supporters, with the character of their candidates, or their proposed policies, but I'm not going to insult any Mustachians out-of-the-blue that support them by dismissing their reasoning and implying that they're not sane.
Don't conflate "support" with "thinking Trump is NOT a disaster". Plenty of people who realize he's a disaster are going to vote for him anyway because they believe that to be their best choice given their preferences. Lots of GOPers are openly saying Trump is bad (or hinting at it strongly) but also endorsing him. He had a really short list of VP candidates to pick from.
I bet Roberts also thinks he's a disaster--he just doesn't say so publicly.
Looks like Trump has already picked his running mate. Interesting speech he gave to introduce him - very Trumpy.
I don't have nearly enough info on Pence to form an opinion of him, or to pontificate on how he may help/hurt the ticket. Anyone got a solid feel of him?
Mike Pence's national image was made by Indiana's religious freedom law, about a year ago, which would allow businesses to decline services based on their religious beliefs. This was ostensibly to allow purveyors of wedding supplies not to serve gay couples, but would also allow discrimination based on race or religion. Major businesses in the state made objections, and Pence walked the law back with an amendment designed to protect LGBT rights, which managed to anger the people who had lobbied for the law.Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people).
Why do you post this scathing drivel? I might not agree with Trump or Hillary supporters, with the character of their candidates, or their proposed policies, but I'm not going to insult any Mustachians out-of-the-blue that support them by dismissing their reasoning and implying that they're not sane.
Don't conflate "support" with "thinking Trump is NOT a disaster". Plenty of people who realize he's a disaster are going to vote for him anyway because they believe that to be their best choice given their preferences. Lots of GOPers are openly saying Trump is bad (or hinting at it strongly) but also endorsing him. He had a really short list of VP candidates to pick from.
I bet Roberts also thinks he's a disaster--he just doesn't say so publicly.
Looks like Trump has already picked his running mate. Interesting speech he gave to introduce him - very Trumpy.
I don't have nearly enough info on Pence to form an opinion of him, or to pontificate on how he may help/hurt the ticket. Anyone got a solid feel of him?
Looks like Trump has already picked his running mate. Interesting speech he gave to introduce him - very Trumpy.
I don't have nearly enough info on Pence to form an opinion of him, or to pontificate on how he may help/hurt the ticket. Anyone got a solid feel of him?
In my office, there are several people who are voting Trump. When pressed though the only theme running through their decision making process is that he is NOT Hillary. Their dislike for her is more important than any single other factor. I think a significant amount of Trump supporters also feel this way.
VP nominees usually only make a difference if they are doing harm. I think that going with a less known option wasn't a terrible idea. However, if Trump can't talk about Pence, Clinton will. He shouldn't let his opponent define his running mate, but, I don't know if Trump can focus on Pence to define him.
Looks like Trump has already picked his running mate. Interesting speech he gave to introduce him - very Trumpy.
I don't have nearly enough info on Pence to form an opinion of him, or to pontificate on how he may help/hurt the ticket. Anyone got a solid feel of him?
I watched the speech where he introduced Pence as his running mate - for long periods of time I couldn't even tell that he was there to (in theory) introduce his running mate. When he finally got around to introducing Pence (after 28 minutes of talking about an assortment of things, most of which had nothing to do with Pence), Trump's actual introduction lasted about 10 seconds.
I wonder how this will play out over the next 4 months. Will Trump continue to make things all about him as much as possible (I suspect so), and will Pence ever get fed up this level of support?
Here's the whole video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZsjSQ4c62A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZsjSQ4c62A)
Then there was periods for Pence based off him signing a completely unconstitutional law regarding fetuses and women's rights:Mike Pence's national image was made by Indiana's religious freedom law, about a year ago, which would allow businesses to decline services based on their religious beliefs. This was ostensibly to allow purveyors of wedding supplies not to serve gay couples, but would also allow discrimination based on race or religion. Major businesses in the state made objections, and Pence walked the law back with an amendment designed to protect LGBT rights, which managed to anger the people who had lobbied for the law.Who thought they were totally impartial? RBG thinks Trump is a disaster (to be fair, so do all sane people).
Why do you post this scathing drivel? I might not agree with Trump or Hillary supporters, with the character of their candidates, or their proposed policies, but I'm not going to insult any Mustachians out-of-the-blue that support them by dismissing their reasoning and implying that they're not sane.
Don't conflate "support" with "thinking Trump is NOT a disaster". Plenty of people who realize he's a disaster are going to vote for him anyway because they believe that to be their best choice given their preferences. Lots of GOPers are openly saying Trump is bad (or hinting at it strongly) but also endorsing him. He had a really short list of VP candidates to pick from.
I bet Roberts also thinks he's a disaster--he just doesn't say so publicly.
Looks like Trump has already picked his running mate. Interesting speech he gave to introduce him - very Trumpy.
I don't have nearly enough info on Pence to form an opinion of him, or to pontificate on how he may help/hurt the ticket. Anyone got a solid feel of him?
Trump, facing a crowd that had gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue, laid out his qualifications, saying, “We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ” If that was so, Schwartz thought, then he, not Trump, should be running. Schwartz dashed off a tweet: “Many thanks Donald Trump for suggesting I run for President, based on the fact that I wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ”
Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir, earning a joint byline on the cover, half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance, and half of the royalties.
Edward Kosner, the former editor and publisher of New York, where Schwartz worked as a writer at the time, says, “Tony created Trump. He’s Dr. Frankenstein.”
If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”
Trump says his comeback began when he recognized a downturn in the real estate market and quickly asked banks to renegotiate his loans. "That decision was perhaps the smartest thing I did," he wrote.
The six bankers and lawyers involved in the talks say the bailout wasn't based on any overture Trump initiated with the banks - and the terms of the deal were dictated by what was best for the banks, not Trump.
Three of the participants say Trump didn't acknowledge he had a problem until his lenders reviewed his books, realized he was on the brink of collapse, and summoned him for debt restructuring talks.
One of the bankers involved in those negotiations, Ben Berzin, said Trump seemed unaware of the depths of his financial troubles even after the banks had stepped in.
“There was a period during these negotiations when he was still spending money like a drunken sailor,” Berzin said, recalling the uproar among the bankers when, in a TV interview in the summer of 1991, Trump displayed a large diamond engagement ring he had given Maples. Media reports said the ring cost $250,000, and Pomerantz said the bankers complained about it to Trump in their next meeting.
I'm not a Clinton fan. But I don't get why people are so overly opposed to her as a person that they'll vote for someone even worse. They bought the propaganda.
I'm not a Clinton fan. But I don't get why people are so overly opposed to her as a person that they'll vote for someone even worse. They bought the propaganda.
One would think that anyone who supports Clinton has bought the propaganda. Just how corrupt does she have to get before some people will even acknowledge that fact? Or, do you just bury your head in the sand and repeat the Democrat slogan "It's all a right wing conspiracy" every time the actions of one of yours is questioned?
In my office, there are several people who are voting Trump. When pressed though the only theme running through their decision making process is that he is NOT Hillary. Their dislike for her is more important than any single other factor. I think a significant amount of Trump supporters also feel this way.
Exactly. Their hatred of Clinton is intense. They are voting against her instead of for Trump. That's the motivator for many people. The other big motivator is "Team Republican". When you've decided to vote Republican for the last XY years, it can be hard to change that mindset. The Team Republican mindset is what's driving the GOPers in Congress to endorse him. I wonder how many of them will actually vote for him in the privacy of the voting booth. Certainly some have bought into the right wing radio style hype about how she's a vampire and bites the heads off cats to drink their blood while having lesbian sex and burning a flag on top of the Constitution. But I think many of them realize that she's not actually all that different from what they want. Not as conservative for sure. But she'll be close and will give. She'll perpetuate the wars. She'll be friendly to corporations. She's not interested in getting money out of politics. She could even do some serious corporate tax cut--or "reform". She's really not that liberal. She has some socially liberal positions that are safe because the majority of people support them. But nothing that out there.
I'm not a Clinton fan. But I don't get why people are so overly opposed to her as a person that they'll vote for someone even worse. They bought the propaganda.
I'm not a Clinton fan. But I don't get why people are so overly opposed to her as a person that they'll vote for someone even worse. They bought the propaganda.
One would think that anyone who supports Clinton has bought the propaganda. Just how corrupt does she have to get before some people will even acknowledge that fact? Or, do you just bury your head in the sand and repeat the Democrat slogan "It's all a right wing conspiracy" every time the actions of one of yours is questioned?
As I've said before, I still don't see this corruption you speak of, particularly if compared to other high level federal politicians, including Trump. Corruption is the willingness to do immoral or dishonest things for personal gain. How is she more corrupt than the average presidential candidate?
I'm not a Clinton fan. But I don't get why people are so overly opposed to her as a person that they'll vote for someone even worse. They bought the propaganda.
One would think that anyone who supports Clinton has bought the propaganda. Just how corrupt does she have to get before some people will even acknowledge that fact? Or, do you just bury your head in the sand and repeat the Democrat slogan "It's all a right wing conspiracy" every time the actions of one of yours is questioned?
As I've said before, I still don't see this corruption you speak of, particularly if compared to other high level federal politicians, including Trump. Corruption is the willingness to do immoral or dishonest things for personal gain. How is she more corrupt than the average presidential candidate?
The real question is how anyone who complains about a politician being corrupt turns around and votes for a corrupt real estate tycoon. That's like sticking your head in a latrine because someone passed gas.
I'm not a Clinton fan. But I don't get why people are so overly opposed to her as a person that they'll vote for someone even worse. They bought the propaganda.
Hillary is an Eisenhower Republican. Conservative on economics and foreign policy, somewhat progressive on social issues. She is the Republican party 50 years ago. That's how far to the right the GOP has drifted when she is defined as the libbiest lib that ever libbed.
The real question is how anyone who complains about a politician being corrupt turns around and votes for a corrupt real estate tycoon. That's like sticking your head in a latrine because someone passed gas.
I'm not a Clinton fan. But I don't get why people are so overly opposed to her as a person that they'll vote for someone even worse. They bought the propaganda.
Hillary is an Eisenhower Republican. Conservative on economics and foreign policy, somewhat progressive on social issues. She is the Republican party 50 years ago. That's how far to the right the GOP has drifted when she is defined as the libbiest lib that ever libbed.
Being an Eisenhower Republican is not the problem. Channeling J. Edgar Hoover (to use an analogy from the same era) is the problem. I'm talking about the civil rights abuses, corruption and blackmail, not the sexuality, by the way.The real question is how anyone who complains about a politician being corrupt turns around and votes for a corrupt real estate tycoon. That's like sticking your head in a latrine because someone passed gas.
Everyone who cares about corruption should have switched his support from Sanders to either Johnson or Stein (not Trump) by now.
Hillary is an Eisenhower Republican. Conservative on economics and foreign policy, somewhat progressive on social issues. She is the Republican party 50 years ago. That's how far to the right the GOP has drifted when she is defined as the libbiest lib that ever libbed.
Hillary is an Eisenhower Republican. Conservative on economics and foreign policy, somewhat progressive on social issues. She is the Republican party 50 years ago. That's how far to the right the GOP has drifted when she is defined as the libbiest lib that ever libbed.
Hillary is an Eisenhower Republican, conservative on economics? If she took the Republican stance of cutting entitlements and social programs, smaller government, her support would disappear overnight.
During Eisenhower's day Defense spending was the majority of federal spending and cutting the Pentagon's budget. Defense was 62% of the budget, today it's around 16%. If Hillary was to enact cuts on the same level as Eisenhower did in the 1950's, it wouldn't come from Defense, and any cuts to Defense wouldn't solve our problems without seriously looking curtailing other programs. If she's elected I sure do hope that she becomes an Eisenhower Republican and starts cutting the largest federal programs we have.
Well, here's a new criticism that I wasn't expecting. According to Ben Carson in last night's GOP convention, Hillary Clinton has ties to Lucifer. Damn! Playing the Satan card.
I just can't help picture Ben Carson in drag going, "Hillary and her little college report on Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky liked radicals. You know one radical that Saul Alinsky liked? I wonder who it could be? Hmmm, I don't know, maybe..... SATAN!"
At one point, Ben Carson was a front runner. Just think about that for a minute.
Well, here's a new criticism that I wasn't expecting. According to Ben Carson in last night's GOP convention, Hillary Clinton has ties to Lucifer. Damn! Playing the Satan card.
I just can't help picture Ben Carson in drag going, "Hillary and her little college report on Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky liked radicals. You know one radical that Saul Alinsky liked? I wonder who it could be? Hmmm, I don't know, maybe..... SATAN!"
At one point, Ben Carson was a front runner. Just think about that for a minute.
Well, here's a new criticism that I wasn't expecting. According to Ben Carson in last night's GOP convention, Hillary Clinton has ties to Lucifer. Damn! Playing the Satan card.
At one point, Ben Carson was a front runner. Just think about that for a minute.At various times so were George Wallace (a racist) and Hermain Cain (the pizza-chain guy and "9-9-9").
Wow. Some mornings I wake up and think this can't possibly be happening - this has to be some sort of elaborate joke.
I don't feel like Trump's wife plagiarizing a speech is really an issue. It's bad but it's not rare in politics, feels more manufactured than real news, and in fact Obama himself plagiarized speeches. Here's a video with the comparison and the White House Press Secretary explaining it. There's another video with more comparisons, but I can't find it now. He never credited sources during the speeches, instead the White House labeled the sources as 'inspiration' afterwards:The issue is that she lied about it. One more example of the Trump's campaign lying.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-19/obama-administration-explains-its-own-plagiarism-was-merely-inspiration (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-19/obama-administration-explains-its-own-plagiarism-was-merely-inspiration)
The issue is that she lied about it.Fair point.
I don't feel like Trump's wife plagiarizing a speech is really an issue. It's bad but it's not rare in politics, feels more manufactured than real news, and in fact Obama himself plagiarized speeches. Here's a video with the comparison and the White House Press Secretary explaining it. There's another video with more comparisons, but I can't find it now. He never credited sources during the speeches, instead the White House labeled the sources as 'inspiration' afterwards:The issue is that she lied about it. One more example of the Trump's campaign lying.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-19/obama-administration-explains-its-own-plagiarism-was-merely-inspiration (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-19/obama-administration-explains-its-own-plagiarism-was-merely-inspiration)
I don't feel like Trump's wife plagiarizing a speech is really an issue. ...To clarify, here's why I thought this was all territory of bizzaro-world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs)
Well, there you have it. Hillary is terrific! She is a really good person!
I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....
I don't feel like Trump's wife plagiarizing a speech is really an issue. It's bad but it's not rare in politics, feels more manufactured than real news, and in fact Obama himself plagiarized speeches. Here's a video with the comparison and the White House Press Secretary explaining it. There's another video with more comparisons, but I can't find it now. He never credited sources during the speeches, instead the White House labeled the sources as 'inspiration' afterwards:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-19/obama-administration-explains-its-own-plagiarism-was-merely-inspiration (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-19/obama-administration-explains-its-own-plagiarism-was-merely-inspiration)
I don't feel like Trump's wife plagiarizing a speech is really an issue.
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office. Now that would be political chaos!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs)
Well, there you have it. Hillary is terrific! She is a really good person!
I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....
Do you know the date of that video clip?
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office. Now that would be political chaos!
...
To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office. Now that would be political chaos!
would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.
I wouldn't even rule out him going AWOL in a crisis or resigning because the job got hard enough that it wasn't feeding his ego enough anymore. Electing Trump would be like electing 4Chan's /b/ section.I'm hearing echoes of Sarah Palin's foreshortened governorship.
I wouldn't even rule out him going AWOL in a crisis or resigning because the job got hard enough that it wasn't feeding his ego enough anymore. Electing Trump would be like electing 4Chan's /b/ section.I'm hearing echoes of Sarah Palin's foreshortened governorship.
Also, this is somewhat consistent with (very much unverifiable) rumors that Trump was telling potential VP picks that they would be in charge of running foreign and domestic affairs.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-most-powerful-vice-president
I wouldn't even rule out him going AWOL in a crisis or resigning because the job got hard enough that it wasn't feeding his ego enough anymore. Electing Trump would be like electing 4Chan's /b/ section.I'm hearing echoes of Sarah Palin's foreshortened governorship.
Also, this is somewhat consistent with (very much unverifiable) rumors that Trump was telling potential VP picks that they would be in charge of running foreign and domestic affairs.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-most-powerful-vice-president
Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs)
Well, there you have it. Hillary is terrific! She is a really good person!
I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....
Do you know the date of that video clip?
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office. Now that would be political chaos!
would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.
An interesting addition to the typical reasons for supporting the VP;
1) can he lead should the President die or be impeached?
2) will he cast the tiebreaking vote in the way we want?
3) will the VP run the country well should the President just decide to leave?
Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs)
Well, there you have it. Hillary is terrific! She is a really good person!
I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....
Do you know the date of that video clip?
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office. Now that would be political chaos!
would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.
Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.
“For the wealthy, I think, frankly, [tax rates] it’s going to go up. And you know what? It really should go up.”before proposing the very same week that the top tax rate be cut from 39% to 25%, the standard deduction go up to $25k/person and the elimination of the estate tax and alt min. tax (the former of which overwhelmingly favors the rich).
He has said a lot of things then said something different, but judging by the general tone of what he is about i expect rich to pay more in taxes in a trump presidency than in a clinton presidency
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-election-trump-hedgefunds-idUSKCN0QS0P120150823
I'm curious what Trump's speech will be like this evening.
Specifically, will it be a rehearsed speech read off the teleprompters and designed to show those outside the convention center that he can talk about complex issues, or will he try to 'play-to-the-crowd' and give a performance more in line to what he's been doing at his rallies?
I keep going back and forth on this question. Certainly seasoned political aids what him to show that he can appeal to a broader audience of independants and republicans previously wary of supporting him. But the desire to whip thousands of already die-hard supporters into a frenzy by saying all sorts of inflammatory things be a bigger appeal to him.
Comments?
When it comes to Trump you cannot read a white paper, forest for the trees and all that.So, you're guessing, based on no information? Except your made up number? Trump shouldn't be expected to do anything against his own self interest. It would run counter to every action that he has taken in public. It's therefore unreasonable to expect him to raise taxes on the wealthy. As for the Constitution, I agree that he would treat it as toilet paper.
In general I think Trump would push for higher tax burden on the wealthy; Hillary, OTOH, would push for a "moderate" 3% increase or whatever satisfies wall street and her supporters. Trump will do whatever he can("everything is negotiable") to accomplish his goals; he is a pragmatist. He might say something that sounds conservative and yes he is on the Republican ticket but that really does not matter; see #NeverTrump. He does not hold the Constitution in high regard or any rules really. The only rule is "will the people support him." I could keep explaining but hopefully that makes sense.
When it comes to Trump you cannot read a white paper, forest for the trees and all that.So, you're guessing, based on no information? Except your made up number? Trump shouldn't be expected to do anything against his own self interest. It would run counter to every action that he has taken in public. It's therefore unreasonable to expect him to raise taxes on the wealthy. As for the Constitution, I agree that he would treat it as toilet paper.
In general I think Trump would push for higher tax burden on the wealthy; Hillary, OTOH, would push for a "moderate" 3% increase or whatever satisfies wall street and her supporters. Trump will do whatever he can("everything is negotiable") to accomplish his goals; he is a pragmatist. He might say something that sounds conservative and yes he is on the Republican ticket but that really does not matter; see #NeverTrump. He does not hold the Constitution in high regard or any rules really. The only rule is "will the people support him." I could keep explaining but hopefully that makes sense.
He won't do that. I can tell, because he has done nothing to suggest that he would, but has surrounded himself with people who are interested in removing entitlement programs. He doesn't care about policy (never discusses it in any depth), but frequently talks about how he will delegate everything (his son has said that this includes forming positions). The people around him would have to care about making the programs viable and they don't.When it comes to Trump you cannot read a white paper, forest for the trees and all that.So, you're guessing, based on no information? Except your made up number? Trump shouldn't be expected to do anything against his own self interest. It would run counter to every action that he has taken in public. It's therefore unreasonable to expect him to raise taxes on the wealthy. As for the Constitution, I agree that he would treat it as toilet paper.
In general I think Trump would push for higher tax burden on the wealthy; Hillary, OTOH, would push for a "moderate" 3% increase or whatever satisfies wall street and her supporters. Trump will do whatever he can("everything is negotiable") to accomplish his goals; he is a pragmatist. He might say something that sounds conservative and yes he is on the Republican ticket but that really does not matter; see #NeverTrump. He does not hold the Constitution in high regard or any rules really. The only rule is "will the people support him." I could keep explaining but hopefully that makes sense.
Guarantee you he will make SS and Medicare viable. How will he do that?
EDIT; *seem viable.
Are we talking about making SS and medicare viable or solvent? While connected, they aren't the same thing.I realized where that is where it was going and did not want to into that. Lets just add the phrase "short term" and leave it at that.
So, you don't expect any changes?Are we talking about making SS and medicare viable or solvent? While connected, they aren't the same thing.I realized where that is where it was going and did not want to into that. Lets just add the phrase "short term" and leave it at that.
So, you don't expect any changes?Are we talking about making SS and medicare viable or solvent? While connected, they aren't the same thing.I realized where that is where it was going and did not want to into that. Lets just add the phrase "short term" and leave it at that.
To me it looks like Trump has recently been moving many of his major positions to be as close to Clinton's as he can. What's the end game here? "Don't vote for her because my policies are the same but I'm not her?"
True, but the percentage of people who "strongly dislike" Trump is even higher. That's what leaves me shaking my head.To me it looks like Trump has recently been moving many of his major positions to be as close to Clinton's as he can. What's the end game here? "Don't vote for her because my policies are the same but I'm not her?"
Not the worst plan. A lot of people really don't like her. Not her policies, but her. Trump has already endorsed the double standard. Pence can be mistaken about Iraq, Hillary can't be.
True, but the percentage of people who "strongly dislike" Trump is even higher. That's what leaves me shaking my head.To me it looks like Trump has recently been moving many of his major positions to be as close to Clinton's as he can. What's the end game here? "Don't vote for her because my policies are the same but I'm not her?"
Not the worst plan. A lot of people really don't like her. Not her policies, but her. Trump has already endorsed the double standard. Pence can be mistaken about Iraq, Hillary can't be.
I could understand this move if it were from a typical politician who had decent likeability numbers. For Trump it just seems like he's doing more nad more to piss off his base (hoping they still show up to vote) while not gaining much in exchange.
... but maybe it will work. who knows?
So, you don't expect any changes?Are we talking about making SS and medicare viable or solvent? While connected, they aren't the same thing.I realized where that is where it was going and did not want to into that. Lets just add the phrase "short term" and leave it at that.
Here's what I'd do:
I'd campaign on the promise of strengthening social security and medicare with vague assurances and recommendations. I'd offer more generous expansions than Hillary to undercut her voting bloc and take her votes. Once I'm in office I'd 'strengthen' SS and Medicare by cutting back on the automatic growth of the programs, restructure our mandatory spending programs to fall into discretionary so we can weigh rising healthcare and retirement costs every year against other priorities (infrastructure, defense, education, etc), reduce benefits, or raise retirement age/age of eligibility.
I think the consensus is that Americans don't care about things like the budget, long-term impacts, or sustainability. We've become a very selfish society and as the government spends more and more of the nation's GDP even Republican voters have gotten to the point where they just want their own piece of the pie.
Precisely. this is why trump will be president. if you want to understand why he has risen now, read on.
Everyone agrees that we have a representativve democracy, where 536 people(meh, supreme court don't count they are appointed by the others, sorry states gov's but you've been losing power since 1789) tell 320+mil how to live their lives, essentailly an oligarchy, and this is ok. It is ok because the people who are chosen as leaders are the successful business owners, those who have climbed the corporate ladder, and others who have proven themselves. It is ok because the oligarchy is fluid not like previous civilizations where it was hereditary and an aristocracy, anyone can do it, and now more than ever. This handful of people have been by and large trusted since things have generally gotten better for everyone, even if there was a little corruption on the side. However in the most recent generations the federal government's power has grown to where its decisions affect people much more than in the past. Combine this with the fact that the oligarchs have used their power to increase their own without regard to those they serve and viola! When it becomes clear that the rules are being used against the people, even the most diehard constitutionalist (myself included) no longer care about policy only pie. (a little zing phrase i came up with) The Constitution was supposed to be followed not used by our leaders.
Im sure someone will say why this is BS bc "x,y,z" I am only trying to explain what is going on in the minds of many conservative/republicans.
You didn't connect this line of thinking to why you think Trump will be president.
So.... why does the system you describe mean Trump will become president?
You didn't connect this line of thinking to why you think Trump will be president.
So.... why does the system you describe mean Trump will become president?
I think you misread. Yeager explained how Trump will win enough votes to become president. h2r35 postulated why Trump can do such things.
Watching his speech... this is the first time I realized Trump is going to be the president of the Unitd States of America.what about the speech brought on your epiphany?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs)
Well, there you have it. Hillary is terrific! She is a really good person!
I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....
Do you know the date of that video clip?
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office. Now that would be political chaos!
Hillary's changed positions pretty substantially as well; she was against gay marriage in 2008 and sent out mailers criticizing Obama for not being pro-gun enough. Not to mention the 1990s crime bill. Frankly I don't think she holds, or has held, any of those positions any more sincerely than Trump does his, but she's much more articulate with them...and the longer timeline makes it more plausible.
Watching his speech... this is the first time I realized Trump is going to be the president of the Unitd States of America. He is not getting my vote, but it's happening.Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based. I've been lightly involved in some of the gun threads on here and have seen arguments about the AR-15 that demonstrate that it may be demonized disproportionately to its illegal use (particularly compared to handguns). Trump spent the speech bouncing between similar disproportionate chastisement, using the example of one murder to paint undocumented immigrants with a broad (and largely false) brush, and making claims that current immigration in the US is related to terrorist attacks (which hasn't been the case). He made the case that crime was up in 2015, but ignored that in 2014, it was at new lows.
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?
She's a dishonest warmongering piece of crap but she's not Donald Trump.
For the record - and if you've been following the thread you know I loathe Hillary Clinton - I think I will vote for her if it appears Trump might win Pennsylvania. I truly think Johnson would be the best President of the three of them but if it's Trump or Hillary it HAS to be her.I had become aware that you dislike Clinton, so i'm impressed to hear you say that you might vote for her.
Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?
Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?
Um, yes. Have you seen our mass media today? Fear sells. People are scared, and they're willing to give up all their civil liberties to feel a little safer.. you don't think they'll vote for the politician promising to protect them?
I know that people respond to fear, but I don't know that they respond to doom and gloom. Trump's speech was about a US that sounds like an alternate reality, to me. Even Reagan campaigned on optimism.Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?
Um, yes. Have you seen our mass media today? Fear sells. People are scared, and they're willing to give up all their civil liberties to feel a little safer.. you don't think they'll vote for the politician promising to protect them?
I know that people respond to fear, but I don't know that they respond to doom and gloom. Trump's speech was about a US that sounds like an alternate reality, to me. Even Reagan campaigned on optimism.Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?
Um, yes. Have you seen our mass media today? Fear sells. People are scared, and they're willing to give up all their civil liberties to feel a little safer.. you don't think they'll vote for the politician promising to protect them?
Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.
Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.
Pretty sure the voters, primary ones, don't like who they have chosen either, but at least the nominee is not a "republican." they want to burn down the government and the republican party and trump is the best one to do that.Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.
Yeah, that's another amazing thing in this election cycle.. ignoring the fact that it's TRUMP, the issue of the main core of the party (the people running it) being so out of touch with their voters/base. They hate who their voters have chosen, and that's pretty telling. Very interesting times, in terms of party shifts.
Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.
Paul Ryan was there. He was Romney's pick for VP in the last election.
(I imagine he would have rather not been there, but I'm not a Republican and might be reading him incorrectly.)
I can't tell you where this fits in here, but my mother had an 85 year old neighbor ask if she was required to vote her party's ticket. Wow.
Since everyone loves Hillary is corrupt conspiracy theories
Since everyone loves Hillary is corrupt conspiracy theories, here is a Trump one. Real or not...you Decide
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
Just FYI, conspiracies stop being called "theories" when they're proven true.As a scientist I agree - the general public uses the word 'theory' to describe both something that's is overwhelmingly substantiated by data and experiments (e.g. Quantum Theory, Theory of Natural Selection, etc) and things that are just educated guesses with little supporting evidence (e.g. Theory of vaccines causing autism, Obama's a Muslim theory, Fluoridation theory, etc).
Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs)
Well, there you have it. Hillary is terrific! She is a really good person!
I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....
Do you know the date of that video clip?
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office. Now that would be political chaos!
would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.
Well, that week was a week where initially, he said that he would lower all taxes, then said he wouldn't lower them for the rich, then said he would lower them for the rich, just not as much.Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs)
Well, there you have it. Hillary is terrific! She is a really good person!
I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....
Do you know the date of that video clip?
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office. Now that would be political chaos!
would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.
And Trump said he WOULD raise taxes on the rich.
Which is it?
http://fortune.com/2016/05/08/trump-raise-taxes-wealthy/
I know that people respond to fear, but I don't know that they respond to doom and gloom. Trump's speech was about a US that sounds like an alternate reality, to me. Even Reagan campaigned on optimism.Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?
Um, yes. Have you seen our mass media today? Fear sells. People are scared, and they're willing to give up all their civil liberties to feel a little safer.. you don't think they'll vote for the politician promising to protect them?
They do. The speech wasn't for you or me or most MMM readers. His speech was to a suspicious white segment that already thinks we're in the end times. That has been the sentiment for the past 7 years. No matter what Obama does, he is a scary foreigner set to ruin America. ISIS and immigrants are out to kill you. That's the narrative and it's been wildly successful.
Our economy and culture have changed. The people he was speaking to have not. Change can feel an awful lot like an attack when you aren't a part of it.
Rode with a coworker the other day who was in a talkative moode. He went on to explain that the recent violent events in the USA and Europe were operations run by Barack Obama so he could declare martial law and stay in office. And then tied that theory into all the bullet buying/unavailability over the past few years...
Yeah... What does one say to that?
He wasn't proposing anything violent. Just worried.
Rode with a coworker the other day who was in a talkative moode. He went on to explain that the recent violent events in the USA and Europe were operations run by Barack Obama so he could declare martial law and stay in office. And then tied that theory into all the bullet buying/unavailability over the past few years...
Yeah... What does one say to that?
He wasn't proposing anything violent. Just worried.
Once people go down that rabbit-hole there's seldom any logic that can draw them out. I've got at least one in-law that believes similar crack-pot ideas.
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.
Paul Ryan was there. He was Romney's pick for VP in the last election.
(I imagine he would have rather not been there, but I'm not a Republican and might be reading him incorrectly.)
Oh yes, I forgot about him.
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
Rode with a coworker the other day who was in a talkative moode. He went on to explain that the recent violent events in the USA and Europe were operations run by Barack Obama so he could declare martial law and stay in office. And then tied that theory into all the bullet buying/unavailability over the past few years...
Yeah... What does one say to that?
He wasn't proposing anything violent. Just worried.
Rode with a coworker the other day who was in a talkative moode. He went on to explain that the recent violent events in the USA and Europe were operations run by Barack Obama so he could declare martial law and stay in office. And then tied that theory into all the bullet buying/unavailability over the past few years...
Yeah... What does one say to that?
He wasn't proposing anything violent. Just worried.
My dad showed me this video of Obama saying Americans were small minded. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ldqUw2dj4c)
Well, now there's this...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html
Not that it's any better than the previous state of affairs. I just like it because the theory shared by MoonShadow, which I thought was well-reasoned, is still holding.
The only thing that encourages me at this point is the number of Gary Johnson things I see being shared around Facebook (though there's a sad lack of Jill Stein). Also, "feel the Johnson." ಠ_ಠ
Well, now there's this...What you are seeing is called a convention bump. This appears to be a medium to large bump, but was sort of expected, due to the unpopularity of both candidates. It comes from a week of free coverage that is controlled by the campaigns. 538 has a pretty good analysis of this from yesterday. Historically, it appears that polls 30 days after the conventions start is when you should start taking polls seriously.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html
Not that it's any better than the previous state of affairs. I just like it because the theory shared by MoonShadow, which I thought was well-reasoned, is still holding.
The only thing that encourages me at this point is the number of Gary Johnson things I see being shared around Facebook (though there's a sad lack of Jill Stein). Also, "feel the Johnson." ಠ_ಠ
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
This is exactly the kind of response my in-law gives me anytime I bother to try to poke holes in crack-pot conspiracy ideas.
Pop quiz (becuase I Just looked it up): What is the current pension amount given to past US presidents?
Answer: (scroll over to view);Spoiler: show
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
Maybe they can save a bit of money by stealing furniture from the White House like the Clinton's did... :)
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
Maybe they can save a bit of money by stealing furniture from the White House like the Clinton's did... :)
Will this never die? The Clinton's did not steal any furniture. This has been debunked so many times and even Bush debunked it after he took residence in the white house. Sitting Presidents get a lot of gifts, some for them, some for the white house. After the Clinton's left they found that some gifts intended for the white house were given to the Clintons, and some intended for the Clintons were given tot he white house. It can be quite difficult to determine the intended recipient of some gifts unless it is explicitly spelled out, which doesn't always happen.
There are lots of things to criticize the Clinton's about, but this isn't it.
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...
I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
Right, but he didn't write The Art of the Deal. Who knows if he's even read it.If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...
I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
He's listed as the lead author, although I tend to agree that it's likely he did little of hte actual writing.Right, but he didn't write The Art of the Deal. Who knows if he's even read it.If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...
I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
He's listed as the lead author, although I tend to agree that it's likely he did little of hte actual writing.Right, but he didn't write The Art of the Deal. Who knows if he's even read it.If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...
I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
Regardless, my point stands. You can't be critical of someone for leveraging their position to make huge sums of money when you are actively encouraging people to leverage their positions to make huge sums of money.
According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.
That's only true to a point. It really doesn't do anything to suggest that he has read it.
According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.
I get that. But his name is still on the cover and my point still stands. If you sign off on something as "yours" you own it. He's certainly promoted it enough this election cycle.
That's only true to a point. It really doesn't do anything to suggest that he has read it.
According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.
I get that. But his name is still on the cover and my point still stands. If you sign off on something as "yours" you own it. He's certainly promoted it enough this election cycle.
That's only true to a point. It really doesn't do anything to suggest that he has read it.
According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.
I get that. But his name is still on the cover and my point still stands. If you sign off on something as "yours" you own it. He's certainly promoted it enough this election cycle.
Again - what difference does that make to the point I was making?
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...
I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...
I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
There is a big difference between making money legitimately, and getting paid $500,000 to make a "speech" to a foreign interests while your wife is Secretary of State. You only bring up Trump in an attempt to deflect.
Well, as he didn't write the book, and it's basically a fictional version of him that exists to make him look good, any agreement between the book's thesis and his actual behavior are little more than coincidence. There's no reason to think that he would approve of the content (particularly if it's a day where he decides to randomly reverse his opinions).That's only true to a point. It really doesn't do anything to suggest that he has read it.
According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.
I get that. But his name is still on the cover and my point still stands. If you sign off on something as "yours" you own it. He's certainly promoted it enough this election cycle.
Again - what difference does that make to the point I was making?
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...
I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
There is a big difference between making money legitimately, and getting paid $500,000 to make a "speech" to a foreign interests while your wife is Secretary of State. You only bring up Trump in an attempt to deflect.
How is this deflecting, and how is this not a legitimate way of making money? Where is the illegitimacy when a group willingly pays another individual a large and agreed upon sum of money to give a speech?
How is it 'deflecting' to bring Trump in on this, given the thread's topic and how Trump has a harsh critic of the speaking fees while simultaneously promoting the idea that a person should use a position of strength to leverage the amount of money they can get from a situation.
I honestly don't follow here.
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school. Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?
So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.
They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.
I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.
Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...
I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
There is a big difference between making money legitimately, and getting paid $500,000 to make a "speech" to a foreign interests while your wife is Secretary of State. You only bring up Trump in an attempt to deflect.
How is this deflecting, and how is this not a legitimate way of making money? Where is the illegitimacy when a group willingly pays another individual a large and agreed upon sum of money to give a speech?
How is it 'deflecting' to bring Trump in on this, given the thread's topic and how Trump has a harsh critic of the speaking fees while simultaneously promoting the idea that a person should use a position of strength to leverage the amount of money they can get from a situation.
I honestly don't follow here.
How can you not understand a simple conflict of interest situation where the spouse of the Secretary of State receives very large sums of money from foreign interests? I find it hard to believe that someone can truly be that naďve.
So our discussion is "Trump does it maybe a little worse than Hillary, so it's ok if she does it?" (or vice versa?)No. Currently the question at hand is "is it inappropriate for a former US president to be paid to give speeches?"
So our discussion is "Trump does it maybe a little worse than Hillary, so it's ok if she does it?" (or vice versa?)No. Currently the question at hand is "is it inappropriate for a former US president to be paid to give speeches?"
The Trump aspect is questioning why Trump is claiming to be so upset by this given his own advice
Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming dumb people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?
What is Hillary Clinton's plan for Afghanistan? The Taliban holds the most territory since 2001, and we've had troops there a majority of my lifetime. It's seeming more like a failed colony than anything else now. All I see on her website are speeches that are thin on details, and her national security section seems focused on ISIS, even in Afghanistan, where it's far from the biggest problem. I would really like to know if she's released some sort of plan on this, because it's important.
In 2008 Obama at least wanted to end the war there.
So our discussion is "Trump does it maybe a little worse than Hillary, so it's ok if she does it?" (or vice versa?)No. Currently the question at hand is "is it inappropriate for a former US president to be paid to give speeches?"
The Trump aspect is questioning why Trump is claiming to be so upset by this given his own advice
Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming poor people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?
What is Hillary Clinton's plan for Afghanistan? The Taliban holds the most territory since 2001, and we've had troops there a majority of my lifetime. It's seeming more like a failed colony than anything else now. All I see on her website are speeches that are thin on details, and her national security section seems focused on ISIS, even in Afghanistan, where it's far from the biggest problem. I would really like to know if she's released some sort of plan on this, because it's important.
In 2008 Obama at least wanted to end the war there.
I'm not advocating for any party here, or trying to defend Mrs. Clinton, but I'm curious what you propose.
Isn't it fairly generally agreed that the power vacuum from when we left Iraq is what gave rise to ISIS? Won't it just strengthen ISIS for us to leave Afghanistan, too?
I genuinely don't know, but that was the first thing that popped into my head upon reading your post. Ending the Afghanistan deployment seems counterproductive to a goal of stopping ISIS, no?
So our discussion is "Trump does it maybe a little worse than Hillary, so it's ok if she does it?" (or vice versa?)No. Currently the question at hand is "is it inappropriate for a former US president to be paid to give speeches?"
The Trump aspect is questioning why Trump is claiming to be so upset by this given his own advice
Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming poor people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?
He was not only the ex-president, he was the husband of the existing Secretary of State and he received large sums of money from foreign interests while his wife held a position of power.
The denial factor of Hillary supporters is impressive...
Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming dumb people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?
Fixed it. There's a difference.
Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming dumb people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?
Fixed it. There's a difference.
Exactly what is the difference? Are you arguing that if people are dumb enough to fall for a scam it is okay to do it?
Nereo, here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0)an example of a concerning ethical situation involving speaking fees and her SoS term. (It's from the New York Times.) Now, there's obviously no proof of pay-to-play Philadelphia-style, but it's not minty fresh clean feeling either.Thank you Shoulder. I agree it doesn't exactly leave you with that minty-fresh-clean feeling. Unfortunately I feel this way about the way campaign financing works too. So much money flows toward both parties from so many sources that there will always been questions about whether a position or a vote has shifted based on a monetary contribution. That feeling can certainly be extended over speaking arrangements, but I think that argument gets a bit more tenuous - instead of money flowing directly to an individual's campaign, here it's flowing from an industry to a trade group to a candidate's spouse (who's also a former president), and the insinuation is that he will lobby her to alter her positions.
Another gentle reminder to check out http://www.wolf-pac.com/ (http://www.wolf-pac.com/).
We don't have to settle for the current system where $ influences politics so pervasively. It can be better. A constitutional amendment that clearly calls for public-funded elections, and provides for strict limits on campaign contributions, would overturn the toxic effects of such rulings as Citizens United.
Another gentle reminder to check out http://www.wolf-pac.com/ (http://www.wolf-pac.com/).
We don't have to settle for the current system where $ influences politics so pervasively. It can be better. A constitutional amendment that clearly calls for public-funded elections, and provides for strict limits on campaign contributions, would overturn the toxic effects of such rulings as Citizens United.
This constitutional amendment is in no way a ban on free speech, nor in any way compromises the 1st amendment.
The intention is to provide for public elections, and to limit the influence of money in elections.
You can still go stand on a soapbox and yell anything you wish (as long as you don't incite a riot, of course - be safe out there).
What is Hillary Clinton's plan for Afghanistan? The Taliban holds the most territory since 2001, and we've had troops there a majority of my lifetime. It's seeming more like a failed colony than anything else now. All I see on her website are speeches that are thin on details, and her national security section seems focused on ISIS, even in Afghanistan, where it's far from the biggest problem. I would really like to know if she's released some sort of plan on this, because it's important.
In 2008 Obama at least wanted to end the war there.
I'm not advocating for any party here, or trying to defend Mrs. Clinton, but I'm curious what you propose.
Isn't it fairly generally agreed that the power vacuum from when we left Iraq is what gave rise to ISIS? Won't it just strengthen ISIS for us to leave Afghanistan, too?
I genuinely don't know, but that was the first thing that popped into my head upon reading your post. Ending the Afghanistan deployment seems counterproductive to a goal of stopping ISIS, no?
I'm not gonna claim I know how to fix Afghanistan, but I want the President to have a plausible plan to do so if they're going to continue risking American lives and money there. I think it's fair to want candidates for President running on their foreign policy background to have a plan here.
The thing is, what we're doing now isn't working at all. The good guys have been losing ground every year.
I read that most Afghans have never heard of 9/11. They have no idea why Americans are there blowing people up, sometimes innocent people. I don't think we're doing anything to reduce the grasp of Islamists by having troops in Afghanistan. I might be wrong, but I'd like to see a reasonable plan to actually improve conditions in Afghanistan if the answer isn't "give up."
Also - is ISIS really worse than North Vietnam? Given what the North did to the South after we left, the massacres, the re-education camps, the political prisons, should we not have left Vietnam if we shouldn't leave Afghanistan? ISIS has a sex slave system, which is obviously unspeakably horrific, but let's not pretend there wasn't a lot of rape at the end of the Vietnam War.
Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press... If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.
...quoting the whole post will just annoy readers, scroll up...
To answer your last point first, I'm guessing that people were much less worried about international attacks by Vietnam than they are about ISIS. Having said that, I pretty much agree with what you said.
I see similar themes of unrealistically hoping to have the best of both worlds when people talk about cutting military spending. To me, reduced military costs are either the natural result of a carefully considered policy change, or political theater with quite bad outcomes. You want to cut West Pacific deployments and let China handle counter-piracy and freedom of navigation over there? Cool. I'm not sure I'd agree with that being a good plan, but at least there's something to discuss. But increasing submariners' work weeks from 90 to 105 hours because you want to do the missions of sixty submarines but only pay for fifty? That's just wanting something for nothing, and hopefully most people can recognize a whole host of ways for that to backfire.
There's two things I'm criticizing here. First, Trump appears to be soliciting a foreign government (and one that is not on the best terms with the US) to hack into his political rival's digital files Second, as we saw from the FBI investigation over Clinton's other emails, there were some messages that were classified on that server (some of which where classified retroactively, and some contained classified material at the time of they were sent). Ergo, Trump is encouraging Russia to go after something which very probably could contain classified information.
The former is worrying to me because it could further damage how we elect our leaders. The latter is even more worrying to me because it suggests that Trump will call on hostile nations to aid his own advancement.
The emails are a problem for Clinton, and she has been widely rebuked for them and (arguably) has suffered tremendously in her "trustworthy" numbers by the general public. Many pages ago we debated whether Clinton was 'let off the hook' - but that's not the issue here. Encouraging a foreign entity to illegally record and release emails from what was supposed to legally be a secure server is not suddenly ok because the server in question was set up as a workaround to begin with.There's two things I'm criticizing here. First, Trump appears to be soliciting a foreign government (and one that is not on the best terms with the US) to hack into his political rival's digital files Second, as we saw from the FBI investigation over Clinton's other emails, there were some messages that were classified on that server (some of which where classified retroactively, and some contained classified material at the time of they were sent). Ergo, Trump is encouraging Russia to go after something which very probably could contain classified information.
Well, wait a minute. If the deleted emails were a problem, then Hillary shouldn't have deleted them. The excuse we heard from her camp was that they were "personal" emails - yoga appointments and the like. We can't say "Hillary didn't commit a crime, the deleted emails were not important" and then say "How dare Trump suggest Russia release these dangerous emails! What a danger to national security he is!" If they're dangerous to national security, the person who comes out looking the worst is Clinton.
Yeah, this is the only time I've thought maybe Trump is playing 3-D chess. (I think it's more of a blind squirrel finding a nut, personally.) You can't say his suggestion is dangerous without admitting Clinton set up an extremely dangerous situation. He's not at all advocating Russia get into a government system...because Clinton refused to put them in a government system. He's only referring to the deleted emails, which would indicate serious lying on the part of Clinton if they actually were relevant to national security, much, much worse than what we know she did.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage. The thing about the emails just highlights what an irresponsible liar Hillary Clinton is.
Yeah, this is the only time I've thought maybe Trump is playing 3-D chess. (I think it's more of a blind squirrel finding a nut, personally.) You can't say his suggestion is dangerous without admitting Clinton set up an extremely dangerous situation. He's not at all advocating Russia get into a government system...because Clinton refused to put them in a government system. He's only referring to the deleted emails, which would indicate serious lying on the part of Clinton if they actually were relevant to national security, much, much worse than what we know she did.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage. The thing about the emails just highlights what an irresponsible liar Hillary Clinton is.
Regardless of whether there ARE any emails worth releasing, Trump is encouraging a foreign power to meddle in a US election, and that is a something the US has traditionally been quite hostile to (despite America's own willingness to meddle in other country's elections.)
I agree with you on this point. Full stop.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage.
Also, Trump thought Tim Kaine was from New Jersey, which is just downright hilarious.He just got a little mixed up, because he's so used to beating up on Chris Christie.
Also, Trump thought Tim Kaine was from New Jersey, which is just downright hilarious.
Also, Trump thought Tim Kaine was from New Jersey, which is just downright hilarious.
really? when was this?
Yeah, this is the only time I've thought maybe Trump is playing 3-D chess. (I think it's more of a blind squirrel finding a nut, personally.) You can't say his suggestion is dangerous without admitting Clinton set up an extremely dangerous situation. He's not at all advocating Russia get into a government system...because Clinton refused to put them in a government system. He's only referring to the deleted emails, which would indicate serious lying on the part of Clinton if they actually were relevant to national security, much, much worse than what we know she did.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage. The thing about the emails just highlights what an irresponsible liar Hillary Clinton is.
Regardless of whether there ARE any emails worth releasing, Trump is encouraging a foreign power to meddle in a US election, and that is a something the US has traditionally been quite hostile to (despite America's own willingness to meddle in other country's elections.)
How is that "nowhere near as bad"??Yeah, this is the only time I've thought maybe Trump is playing 3-D chess. (I think it's more of a blind squirrel finding a nut, personally.) You can't say his suggestion is dangerous without admitting Clinton set up an extremely dangerous situation. He's not at all advocating Russia get into a government system...because Clinton refused to put them in a government system. He's only referring to the deleted emails, which would indicate serious lying on the part of Clinton if they actually were relevant to national security, much, much worse than what we know she did.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage. The thing about the emails just highlights what an irresponsible liar Hillary Clinton is.
Regardless of whether there ARE any emails worth releasing, Trump is encouraging a foreign power to meddle in a US election, and that is a something the US has traditionally been quite hostile to (despite America's own willingness to meddle in other country's elections.)
Trump asked them to release the emails if they had them...big deal. That's nowhere near as bad as Ted Kennedy actually asking the Soviets to help defeat Reagan.
How is that "nowhere near as bad"??Yeah, this is the only time I've thought maybe Trump is playing 3-D chess. (I think it's more of a blind squirrel finding a nut, personally.) You can't say his suggestion is dangerous without admitting Clinton set up an extremely dangerous situation. He's not at all advocating Russia get into a government system...because Clinton refused to put them in a government system. He's only referring to the deleted emails, which would indicate serious lying on the part of Clinton if they actually were relevant to national security, much, much worse than what we know she did.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage. The thing about the emails just highlights what an irresponsible liar Hillary Clinton is.
Regardless of whether there ARE any emails worth releasing, Trump is encouraging a foreign power to meddle in a US election, and that is a something the US has traditionally been quite hostile to (despite America's own willingness to meddle in other country's elections.)
Trump asked them to release the emails if they had them...big deal. That's nowhere near as bad as Ted Kennedy actually asking the Soviets to help defeat Reagan.
verified where he asked for support during the next election, should he decide to run.
How is that "nowhere near as bad"??Yeah, this is the only time I've thought maybe Trump is playing 3-D chess. (I think it's more of a blind squirrel finding a nut, personally.) You can't say his suggestion is dangerous without admitting Clinton set up an extremely dangerous situation. He's not at all advocating Russia get into a government system...because Clinton refused to put them in a government system. He's only referring to the deleted emails, which would indicate serious lying on the part of Clinton if they actually were relevant to national security, much, much worse than what we know she did.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage. The thing about the emails just highlights what an irresponsible liar Hillary Clinton is.
Regardless of whether there ARE any emails worth releasing, Trump is encouraging a foreign power to meddle in a US election, and that is a something the US has traditionally been quite hostile to (despite America's own willingness to meddle in other country's elections.)
Trump asked them to release the emails if they had them...big deal. That's nowhere near as bad as Ted Kennedy actually asking the Soviets to help defeat Reagan.
verified where he asked for support during the next election, should he decide to run.
Are you really serious?
You honestly can't tell the difference between Russia releasing Hillary's own emails THAT SHE CREATED compared to a US senator trying to make a deal with Russia to try to alter an election?
How is that "nowhere near as bad"??Yeah, this is the only time I've thought maybe Trump is playing 3-D chess. (I think it's more of a blind squirrel finding a nut, personally.) You can't say his suggestion is dangerous without admitting Clinton set up an extremely dangerous situation. He's not at all advocating Russia get into a government system...because Clinton refused to put them in a government system. He's only referring to the deleted emails, which would indicate serious lying on the part of Clinton if they actually were relevant to national security, much, much worse than what we know she did.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage. The thing about the emails just highlights what an irresponsible liar Hillary Clinton is.
Regardless of whether there ARE any emails worth releasing, Trump is encouraging a foreign power to meddle in a US election, and that is a something the US has traditionally been quite hostile to (despite America's own willingness to meddle in other country's elections.)
Trump asked them to release the emails if they had them...big deal. That's nowhere near as bad as Ted Kennedy actually asking the Soviets to help defeat Reagan.
verified where he asked for support during the next election, should he decide to run.
Are you really serious?
You honestly can't tell the difference between Russia releasing Hillary's own emails THAT SHE CREATED compared to a US senator trying to make a deal with Russia to try to alter an election?
How is that "nowhere near as bad"??Yeah, this is the only time I've thought maybe Drumpf is playing 3-D chess. (I think it's more of a blind squirrel finding a nut, personally.) You can't say his suggestion is dangerous without admitting Clinton set up an extremely dangerous situation. He's not at all advocating Russia get into a government system...because Clinton refused to put them in a government system. He's only referring to the deleted emails, which would indicate serious lying on the part of Clinton if they actually were relevant to national security, much, much worse than what we know she did.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage. The thing about the emails just highlights what an irresponsible liar Hillary Clinton is.
Regardless of whether there ARE any emails worth releasing, Drumpf is encouraging a foreign power to meddle in a US election, and that is a something the US has traditionally been quite hostile to (despite America's own willingness to meddle in other country's elections.)
Drumpf asked them to release the emails if they had them...big deal. That's nowhere near as bad as Ted Kennedy actually asking the Soviets to help defeat Reagan.
verified where he asked for support during the next election, should he decide to run.
Are you really serious?
You honestly can't tell the difference between Russia releasing Hillary's own emails THAT SHE CREATED compared to a US senator trying to make a deal with Russia to try to alter an election?
Well, if we're going down this path, we might as well add the 1980 Reagan-Carter-Iran-Hostage theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
Another gentle reminder to check out http://www.wolf-pac.com/ (http://www.wolf-pac.com/).
We don't have to settle for the current system where $ influences politics so pervasively. It can be better. A constitutional amendment that clearly calls for public-funded elections, and provides for strict limits on campaign contributions, would overturn the toxic effects of such rulings as Citizens United and I distrust anything like the Wolf Pac because legislating 'fairness'
How is that "nowhere near as bad"??Yeah, this is the only time I've thought maybe Trump is playing 3-D chess. (I think it's more of a blind squirrel finding a nut, personally.) You can't say his suggestion is dangerous without admitting Clinton set up an extremely dangerous situation. He's not at all advocating Russia get into a government system...because Clinton refused to put them in a government system. He's only referring to the deleted emails, which would indicate serious lying on the part of Clinton if they actually were relevant to national security, much, much worse than what we know she did.
Today he said he'd recognize Russian control of Crimea, and THAT to me is an outrage. The thing about the emails just highlights what an irresponsible liar Hillary Clinton is.
Regardless of whether there ARE any emails worth releasing, Trump is encouraging a foreign power to meddle in a US election, and that is a something the US has traditionally been quite hostile to (despite America's own willingness to meddle in other country's elections.)
Trump asked them to release the emails if they had them...big deal. That's nowhere near as bad as Ted Kennedy actually asking the Soviets to help defeat Reagan.
verified where he asked for support during the next election, should he decide to run.
Are you really serious?
You honestly can't tell the difference between Russia releasing Hillary's own emails THAT SHE CREATED compared to a US senator trying to make a deal with Russia to try to alter an election?
Yes I'm serious. We're not talking about Clinton here, we are comparing Trump and Kennedy. Trump is asking for Russia to violate international treaties and help sink his opponent. Kennedy (allegedly) asked Russia for support defeating the republican nominee if he decided to run.
Was anyone else confused why an illegal alien
Or the mothers of the violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and others)?
Was anyone else confused why an illegal alien
I'm sure you could get a good chunk of money from a media outlet if you have any proof of this.
Reality: http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/27/dnc-breaks-federal-laws/ (http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/27/dnc-breaks-federal-laws/)
Or the mothers of the violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and others)?
I've only noticed your posts recently, as I was off the forums a good chunk of the time since you registered your account, and I tend to avoid a lot of the political threads you seem to post in, and now I'm wondering... are you just a straight up troll?
Or the mothers of the violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and others)?
I've only noticed your posts recently, as I was off the forums a good chunk of the time since you registered your account, and I tend to avoid a lot of the political threads you seem to post in, and now I'm wondering... are you just a straight up troll?
I'd hardly consider myself a troll, I'm usually one of the few people that supports their assertions with evidence (if somewhat amateurishly). I tend to spend more time in the political threads because I work for the federal government and part of my masters was in public policy and government budgeting so I tend to be more interested in those topics.
I wasn't attacking the mothers, I was questioning the DNC for bringing mothers of the men that assaulted and threatened the lives of innocent people, people cleared by thorough investigations at the local and federal level. Their sons (…Trayvon Martin) weren't shot as victims, they were shot while attempting to commit homicide, verified by unanimous actual, factual evidence. Trotting their parents on stage to talk about their tragic loss is a mockery of the real victims in these events.
Was anyone else confused why an illegal alien
I'm sure you could get a good chunk of money from a media outlet if you have any proof of this.
Reality: http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/27/dnc-breaks-federal-laws/ (http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/27/dnc-breaks-federal-laws/)
This is a direct quote: "I came to America illegally with my mother when I was 4-years old. We crossed the river [Rio Grande] on a raft.”
Aiding, abetting, harboring, and encouraging illegal immigration is a felony under 8 U.S. Code 1324 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324) and 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325)
This is not the general understanding of the factual evidence of the Trayvon Martin case. Most people find it risible that you can claim self defense when you follow someone for several minutes on car and on foot, and then shoot them 70 yards from their home. When you say that Trayvon Martin was attempting to commit homicide, you invite accusations of being a troll.
Did they, along with the children of the other moms up there need to be murdered? Without being tried and found guilty of anything?
Tell me why all of those people deserved death, without due process.
So apparently you didn't even bother to read the Snopes link that addresses that, which you quoted.
I just wish the government was so forgiving about violating other laws, like tax evasion, an even more victim-less crime.
mothers of people who the government killed for no reason at all, like Eric Garner or Tamir Rice.
Saying the mothers up there were all of people who were "violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully" seems like trolling, yes.mothers of people who the government killed for no reason at all, like Eric Garner or Tamir Rice.
This exactly.
And Yaeger trying to group them together to cast shade on those murdered by the police so he can call them all "violent men violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and others)" by naming two of the egregious different ones and then grouping the rest under "and others" does seem like trolling, yes.
The Kennedy argument is just pure smokescreen. The argument seems to be that it is okay to publicly solicit a foreign government to sabotage your opponent because a democrat who wasn't actually a candidate MIGHT have done something similar over 30 years ago. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Saying the mothers up there were all of people who were "violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully" seems like trolling, yes.mothers of people who the government killed for no reason at all, like Eric Garner or Tamir Rice.
This exactly.
And Yaeger trying to group them together to cast shade on those murdered by the police so he can call them all "violent men violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and others)" by naming two of the egregious different ones and then grouping the rest under "and others" does seem like trolling, yes.
OK, that makes sense.
It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged (https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged)
(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)
It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged (https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged)
(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)
How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.
The main things a president actually does are as follows, I also believe people should vote based on how they believe the candidates will do these things.
1. Commander of the military.
I believe both Trump and Clinton will use the military more than necessary, and in a way that creates more enemies rather than defeating or making treaties with enemies. Also continuing the trend of spending more on the military than the next 3 biggest militaries combined. I believe Gary Johnson would do more defense than offense, and that he will stop increasing military spending.
2. Making appointments and nominations.
I believe this one will be fairly straightforward with Hillary choosing progressives, Trump picking conservatives and Johnson picking socially liberal fiscally conservative people.
3. Executive Orders
I liked Obama's executive orders for the most part, and if Hillary does similar, I'd be okay with that. But I like Johnson's strategy more, he says he will get rid of the NSA with an executive order, and leave the rest of the law making up to Congress the way it should be. I'm scared of Trump executive orders, I'd expect things like not allowing certain people into the country, more surveillance of muslim religious people/buildings etc.
4. Vetoing/passing bills
I believe Clinton would increase spending and decrease freedoms by passing bills, I believe Trump would increase spending and decrease freedoms by passing bills, and lastly, I believe Johnson would veto bills.
5. Submitting initial budget, approving or vetoing final budget
I believe Trump and Clinton would be okay with increasing spending, they'd both submit budgets with large spending increases and approve budgets with large spending increases. While Johnson would submit a balanced budget and veto the crap out of spending increases.
6. Dealing with other countries and representing ours
I think Trump would be the worst president ever when it comes to this, he will get into arguments with other foreign leaders and drag our countries name through the mud some more. Clinton and Johnson would probably both be mediocre.
The main things a president actually does are as follows.Why not turn to the source when defining what a President does? In this case, the US Constitution, Article II (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii)
1. Commander of the military.
2. Making appointments and nominations.
3. Executive Orders
4. Vetoing/passing bills
5. Submitting initial budget, approving or vetoing final budget
countries and representing ours
It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged (https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged)
(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)
How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.
Fun fact: The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month". Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes. Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.
It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged (https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged)
(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)
How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.
Fun fact: The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month". Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes. Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.
Pile up all the shells in a field and detonate them at that 11 / 11 / 11 moment.
It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged (https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged)
(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)
How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.
Fun fact: The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month". Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes. Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.
Pile up all the shells in a field and detonate them at that 11 / 11 / 11 moment.
You laugh, but here's an amusing family story.
My Grandfather was stationed in Italy circa 1948-49 as part of the post-war security and cleanup efforts. His particular job was disposing of all the ordinance that was now outdated, expired and not needed. His instructions were pretty simple; they used a small tractor to dig a 3ft deep hole, dropped in a shell and a small explosive detonator, covered it with dirt before exploding the whole thing, sending a spray of sand high into the air. Repeat. There were tens of thousands of these shells.
Well, after a few days of digging small holes and exploding the shells one by one, he and his team thought of a much better plan; "Let's dig a really big pit and explode a whole bunch of shells at all once!" So they spent the morning digging with the tractor but only got about 8-9 feet down before they hit a rocky/clay layer that was hard as cement. "No matter," they thought, "that should be deep enough!" So they piled several truckloads of unexploded shells into the pit, put in a few dozen detonators wired together and covered the whole thing back up with sand. They patted themselves on the back about how clever they were, before running some extra-long wires to the detonation charges and taking cover.
But then a funny thing happened; waves (including explosive shock waves) travel extraordinarily well along substances with a constant density. IN this case, the hard bedrock... all the way to the small Italian village a couple miles away. As my grandfather tells it, they blew up a few weeks worth of shells that day but then spent the next few months replacing every window that blew out in that Italian village, and the whole thing made relations with the locals very uncomfortable.
Saying the mothers up there were all of people who were "violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully" seems like trolling, yes.mothers of people who the government killed for no reason at all, like Eric Garner or Tamir Rice.
This exactly.
And Yaeger trying to group them together to cast shade on those murdered by the police so he can call them all "violent men violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and others)" by naming two of the egregious different ones and then grouping the rest under "and others" does seem like trolling, yes.
The geologist in me loves a good story about earth materials acting as a wave guide.It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged (https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged)
(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)
How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.
Fun fact: The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month". Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes. Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.
Pile up all the shells in a field and detonate them at that 11 / 11 / 11 moment.
You laugh, but here's an amusing family story.
My Grandfather was stationed in Italy circa 1948-49 as part of the post-war security and cleanup efforts. His particular job was disposing of all the ordinance that was now outdated, expired and not needed. His instructions were pretty simple; they used a small tractor to dig a 3ft deep hole, dropped in a shell and a small explosive detonator, covered it with dirt before exploding the whole thing, sending a spray of sand high into the air. Repeat. There were tens of thousands of these shells.
Well, after a few days of digging small holes and exploding the shells one by one, he and his team thought of a much better plan; "Let's dig a really big pit and explode a whole bunch of shells at all once!" So they spent the morning digging with the tractor but only got about 8-9 feet down before they hit a rocky/clay layer that was hard as cement. "No matter," they thought, "that should be deep enough!" So they piled several truckloads of unexploded shells into the pit, put in a few dozen detonators wired together and covered the whole thing back up with sand. They patted themselves on the back about how clever they were, before running some extra-long wires to the detonation charges and taking cover.
But then a funny thing happened; waves (including explosive shock waves) travel extraordinarily well along substances with a constant density. IN this case, the hard bedrock... all the way to the small Italian village a couple miles away. As my grandfather tells it, they blew up a few weeks worth of shells that day but then spent the next few months replacing every window that blew out in that Italian village, and the whole thing made relations with the locals very uncomfortable.
It's always a "conspiracy theory" until it's actually confirmed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged (https://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+vietnam+prolonged)
(Google link, choose whichever sources you think are reliable.)
How would you like to be the guy (maybe a draftee) that gets killed in a war that ought to be over already but is being extended for some political contest.
Fun fact: The surrender of Germany in WWI was arranged days earlier and agreed upon on November 10th, but the brass thought it would by symbolic if the war ended "on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month". Some field commanders insisted on carrying out assaults right up to the final minutes. Partly because grunts didn't want to shlep heavy artillery shells back home (and the Germans didn't want their foes to get them) there were massive barrages of fire on both sides the morning of Nov 11th, often aimed at no one in particular, but nonetheless resulting in hundreds of casualties, even though everyone agreed that the war was imminently over.
Pile up all the shells in a field and detonate them at that 11 / 11 / 11 moment.
You laugh, but here's an amusing family story.
My Grandfather was stationed in Italy circa 1948-49 as part of the post-war security and cleanup efforts. His particular job was disposing of all the ordinance that was now outdated, expired and not needed. His instructions were pretty simple; they used a small tractor to dig a 3ft deep hole, dropped in a shell and a small explosive detonator, covered it with dirt before exploding the whole thing, sending a spray of sand high into the air. Repeat. There were tens of thousands of these shells.
Well, after a few days of digging small holes and exploding the shells one by one, he and his team thought of a much better plan; "Let's dig a really big pit and explode a whole bunch of shells at all once!" So they spent the morning digging with the tractor but only got about 8-9 feet down before they hit a rocky/clay layer that was hard as cement. "No matter," they thought, "that should be deep enough!" So they piled several truckloads of unexploded shells into the pit, put in a few dozen detonators wired together and covered the whole thing back up with sand. They patted themselves on the back about how clever they were, before running some extra-long wires to the detonation charges and taking cover.
But then a funny thing happened; waves (including explosive shock waves) travel extraordinarily well along substances with a constant density. IN this case, the hard bedrock... all the way to the small Italian village a couple miles away. As my grandfather tells it, they blew up a few weeks worth of shells that day but then spent the next few months replacing every window that blew out in that Italian village, and the whole thing made relations with the locals very uncomfortable.
LOL and Physics was learned that day. Just like when the dead whale washed up on the beach and it was too hard to bury or tow out to sea, so lets just blow it up and be done with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmnq5dBF7Y
Saying the mothers up there were all of people who were "violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully" seems like trolling, yes.mothers of people who the government killed for no reason at all, like Eric Garner or Tamir Rice.
This exactly.
And Yaeger trying to group them together to cast shade on those murdered by the police so he can call them all "violent men violent men killed attempting to hurt others unlawfully (Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and others)" by naming two of the egregious different ones and then grouping the rest under "and others" does seem like trolling, yes.
Really? I didn't group them, the DNC did when they put them up on a stage together on equal footing. The mother of a violent, adult attempted killer standing next to the mother of a child killed in a tragic misunderstanding by police in an attempt to paint them all as victims and solicit that emotional response, which I believe was to counter the emotional speech given at the RNC by Patricia Smith.
In my opinion, the fact that the mothers of Trayvon and Mike are even on that stage, that they were among the mothers cheered by thousands, says a lot about the willingness of the DNC to push a narrative to pander to minority voters.
So... This guy I know was ramming Trump down everyones throat and I was finding the whole thing like a geography lecture with a side of offensive. Anyways, the most unbelievable thing happened during the encounter. Without thinking I blurted out: "I am voting for Hillary". I didn't see that coming.(https://www.volacci.com/files/imce-uploads/whoa.jpg)
So... This guy I know was ramming Trump down everyones throat and I was finding the whole thing like a geography lecture with a side of offensive. Anyways, the most unbelievable thing happened during the encounter. Without thinking I blurted out: "I am voting for Hillary". I didn't see that coming.Was it just his "lecture" or are there other things that influenced you?
Okay, this is not a criticism; exactly the opposite...
Ignored the DNC most of the week but did sit down and watch/listen to Clinton's speech. Up until this time, I've been pro-Clinton based merely on the progressive issues she supports, her vast experience and that she seemed to be the best, most electable candidate against the GOP. The fact that the GOP nominated Trump made that last point even more important. I thought Clinton made a good speech and came away feeling even more confident in my choice. The particular points that stood out to me:
1. Clinton dedicated her life to helping those less fortunate, from right out of law school working to make sure that special needs kids would be guaranteed an education. She promoted women's rights as First Lady and as Senator worked hard to make sure that the 9/11 first responders were properly cared for. This is a core of who she is. This is a big deal to me. I want a President whose inner compass is pointed towards helping others.
2. Clinton is a wonk who cares about the details of public policy. I want a President who is willing to dive into the minutiae and won't simply off load the heavy thinking to somebody else.
3. Clinton has shown the ability to take the long road, working behind the scenes, building coalitions to address issues bit by bit.
4. Clinton is stable, no-nonsense, person. One pundit described her as coming across in the speech as a stern teacher. I'm perfectly down with that. That remark kind of reminded me of a certain no-nonsense history teacher I had who worked hard to make sure that even the least capable of her students got the attention they needed.
I don't pretend to think that Clinton is perfect. She's made mistakes and years in the political arena have tainted her, no doubt. Politics is a dirty business and there is no way you can operate in that world without getting some of that stink on you. I would love it if I had another choice, someone with all her good qualities and none of her bad, but that candidate doesn't exist.
I know that Hillary has a trust problem. No doubt. But here's the deal, if I have to choose WHO I'm going to trust with the future of America - my daughters' future as well as my own - I would rather place that trust with Hillary Clinton KNOWING the kind of woman she is (warts and all) over Donald Trump KNOWING the kind of man he is (God help us all).
Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence saysIt's clearly your issue with Trump, too. Then again, listening to how he talks about women, you probably didn't need another issue with Trump.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
There go my rights to bodily autonomy, the rights of my daughter, the rights my grandmother and great-grandmother fought for. This is my issue with the Pence.
Okay, this is not a criticism; exactly the opposite...
Ignored the DNC most of the week but did sit down and watch/listen to Clinton's speech. Up until this time, I've been pro-Clinton based merely on the progressive issues she supports, her vast experience and that she seemed to be the best, most electable candidate against the GOP. The fact that the GOP nominated Trump made that last point even more important. I thought Clinton made a good speech and came away feeling even more confident in my choice. The particular points that stood out to me:
1. Clinton dedicated her life to helping those less fortunate, from right out of law school working to make sure that special needs kids would be guaranteed an education. She promoted women's rights as First Lady and as Senator worked hard to make sure that the 9/11 first responders were properly cared for. This is a core of who she is. This is a big deal to me. I want a President whose inner compass is pointed towards helping others.
2. Clinton is a wonk who cares about the details of public policy. I want a President who is willing to dive into the minutiae and won't simply off load the heavy thinking to somebody else.
3. Clinton has shown the ability to take the long road, working behind the scenes, building coalitions to address issues bit by bit.
4. Clinton is stable, no-nonsense, person. One pundit described her as coming across in the speech as a stern teacher. I'm perfectly down with that. That remark kind of reminded me of a certain no-nonsense history teacher I had who worked hard to make sure that even the least capable of her students got the attention they needed.
I don't pretend to think that Clinton is perfect. She's made mistakes and years in the political arena have tainted her, no doubt. Politics is a dirty business and there is no way you can operate in that world without getting some of that stink on you. I would love it if I had another choice, someone with all her good qualities and none of her bad, but that candidate doesn't exist.
I know that Hillary has a trust problem. No doubt. But here's the deal, if I have to choose WHO I'm going to trust with the future of America - my daughters' future as well as my own - I would rather place that trust with Hillary Clinton KNOWING the kind of woman she is (warts and all) over Donald Trump KNOWING the kind of man he is (God help us all).
QFT
I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.
I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.
Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service? Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office. I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?
Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone." They aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.
IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.
I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.
Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service? Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office. I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?
Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone." They aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.
IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.
I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.
Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service? Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office. I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?
I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.
Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service? Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office. I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?
Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone." They aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.
IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.
If they said a lifetime in politics I would have no beef with that. Public service should mean service to the public without personal enrichment (I don't mean uncompensated service, but rather building huge wealth through the office both during and after.
Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone." They aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.
IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.
Possible, but IMO very unlikely. The well-paying "connections" tend to be such precisely because they're compensating for things that "public servants" would not otherwise be inclined to do, such as clandestinely fuck over their constituents.
I thought the Dems did a really good job hammering home a positive message and highlighting Hillary's lifetime of service throughout the convention.
Take this from the mind of someone who despises Hiilary, but how does getting rich through their connections equate to a lifetime of service? Hillary and Bill have become enormously powerful and wealthy due to holding public office. I could make that argument for Biden or Sanders, but the Clintons?
Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone." They aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.
IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.
If they said a lifetime in politics I would have no beef with that. Public service should mean service to the public without personal enrichment (I don't mean uncompensated service, but rather building huge wealth through the office both during and after.
Okay, if your definition of public service includes no wealth gained, then obviously you're excluding her by definition, and there's no way to argue it, other than saying I don't think that definition is universal.
(I also think it's problematic... your examples of Biden and Sanders were politicians, and didn't get rich and thus "served the public"... but if they had been Mustachian and saved 50% of their income for decades and now were multimillionaires, they now, by your definition WOULDN'T have "served the public"? Even though they'd have done the exact same thing service-wise? That's a broken definition, IMO.)
I do agree with Jack that it's unlikely (and don't necessarily think it's even true, for Hillary), I'm just pointing out that they're not mutually exclusive.
As I was just telling my daughter, it is one thing to objectively grade a candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, but in an election, the is NO objective grading. The grading scale is on a curve. So, I'll take the politician who has spent her whole life working to help people and got rich in the process over the guy who started out rich, devoted his life to getting richer and decided that the best way to do it was by not honoring his agreements and scamming poor people with broken promises.
Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone." They aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.
IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.
Possible, but IMO very unlikely. The well-paying "connections" tend to be such precisely because they're compensating for things that "public servants" would not otherwise be inclined to do, such as clandestinely fuck over their constituents.
Yes, because a politician can't be considered a public servant unless they are a saint who took a vow of poverty?
As I was just telling my daughter, it is one thing to objectively grade a candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, but in an election, the is NO objective grading. The grading scale is on a curve. So, I'll take the politician who has spent her whole life working to help people and got rich in the process over the guy who started out rich, devoted his life to getting richer and decided that the best way to do it was by not honoring his agreements and scamming poor people with broken promises.
Not specific to Hillary either way (I'm not a fan, personally), but this logic doesn't follow. There's no test that says "You made money? You must not have helped anyone." They aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, Hillary could have gotten rich from connections and holding public office AND helped people.
IDK that she did, but the argument that because she got rich means she wasn't doing public service doesn't hold water, IMO, they could (conceivably) both happen.
Possible, but IMO very unlikely. The well-paying "connections" tend to be such precisely because they're compensating for things that "public servants" would not otherwise be inclined to do, such as clandestinely fuck over their constituents.
Yes, because a politician can't be considered a public servant unless they are a saint who took a vow of poverty?
As I was just telling my daughter, it is one thing to objectively grade a candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, but in an election, the is NO objective grading. The grading scale is on a curve. So, I'll take the politician who has spent her whole life working to help people and got rich in the process over the guy who started out rich, devoted his life to getting richer and decided that the best way to do it was by not honoring his agreements and scamming poor people with broken promises.
Clinton didn't get rich helping the poor. She got rich selling influence or the appearance of accessability.
Saying Trump is worse, doesn't make Clinton a public servant. I'm not defending Trump. We have 2 bad choices.
Let's take this a step further, if Obama wants to get rich giving speeches after he's out of office I'm fine with that. I do however have a problem with fees and donations that seem that create a conflict of interest while Mrs. Obama is in office.
Let's take this a step further, if Obama wants to get rich giving speeches after he's out of office I'm fine with that. I do however have a problem with fees and donations that seem that create a conflict of interest while Mrs. Obama is in office.
Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence says
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
There go my rights to bodily autonomy, the rights of my daughter, the rights my grandmother and great-grandmother fought for. This is my issue with the Pence.
Eighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate.
Let's take this a step further, if Obama wants to get rich giving speeches after he's out of office I'm fine with that. I do however have a problem with fees and donations that seem that create a conflict of interest while Mrs. Obama is in office.
I share some of your concerns, I honestly do, but I think it's a very difficult and unrealistic standard that you are setting up here.
Literally every single person a past president meets could be considered part of a group of constituents or a 'foreign entity'. So if we accept that the spouse, son or daughter of a president can also run to be president, any contact the former president has with any group for any reason can be viewed as politically suspicious and a conflict of interest. The fact that Bill Clinton received $MM for speaking to an extremely broad array of groups is a reason to take a very close look, but unless the money is exchanged for favorable treatment how is it fundamentally different from that same group donating an equal amount to her campaign or holding a fundraiser?
To put this in more concrete terms, is receiving $875k for several paid speeches given to Goldman Sachs in 2013 a bigger conflict of interest for Clinton than the corporate donation of $1.1MM that Goldman Sachs gave to its PAC to support Mitt Romney in 2012?
Yaeger you seem to not understand the concept of bodily autonomy. I'm not going to derail the thread the explain it to you again. But that is the difference between the mother and you.Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence says
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
There go my rights to bodily autonomy, the rights of my daughter, the rights my grandmother and great-grandmother fought for. This is my issue with the Pence.
I'll support a candidate that wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I think it's worth doing. Hypothetically if I give a pregnant woman an abortion pill without her realizing it, I can be charged with murder. Yet the mother has the right to kill a human being during the pregnancy at any point during the first 28 weeks. Again, just like the father, the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.
I've always thought of abortion as murder, a blatant disregarding of the human rights of the unborn child. I'm even more appalled that we defend providing public funding to an organization that violates basic human rights and kills the unborn. The abortion debate isn't about women's rights and it never has been, the rights of the mother are only part of the equation, and not the whole. It's about at what point do you recognize the unborn as a human being and at what point do we need to respect those basic human rights. That's why people will never, ever, give up the fight to stop abortions.
The right to abortion isn't a a super-right. When you compare the deaths due to abortion (1,058,490 in 2014) vs. the number killed by guns (33,599) it's clear that abortion kills far more people every year than guns, yet it's a protected right more than any other Constitutional right. It boggles the mind. Here's a statement from the dissenting opinion in the latest Supreme Court abortion case:QuoteEighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate.
the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.
Yaeger you seem to not understand the concept of bodily autonomy. I'm not going to derail the thread the explain it to you again. But that is the difference between the mother and you.
the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.
What in the..?
How is your whole post not just a troll?
When you compare the deaths due to abortion (1,058,490 in 2014) ...
the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.
What in the..?
How is your whole post not just a troll?
Odd, as a man and possible father, I thought it'd be apparent that that's the reasoning behind why fathers are forced to provide support for their child under the law. They accepted that potential responsibility when they engaged in the sexual act. That statement was applying that same standard to mothers.
the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.
What in the..?
How is your whole post not just a troll?
Odd, as a man and possible father, I thought it'd be apparent that that's the reasoning behind why fathers are forced to provide support for their child under the law. They accepted that potential responsibility when they engaged in the sexual act. That statement was applying that same standard to mothers.
(Potential) fathers don't get pregnant. Their body doesn't have to do anything post-conception.
They have a legal obligation to support the child.
When you compare the deaths due to abortion (1,058,490 in 2014) ...
You are factually incorrect. The number of deaths due to abortion was precisely zero* in 2014, the same as it has been every other year.
(* not including deaths of the pregnant women themselves)
the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.
What in the..?
How is your whole post not just a troll?
Odd, as a man and possible father, I thought it'd be apparent that that's the reasoning behind why fathers are forced to provide support for their child under the law. They accepted that potential responsibility when they engaged in the sexual act. That statement was applying that same standard to mothers.
(Potential) fathers don't get pregnant. Their body doesn't have to do anything post-conception.
Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Donald Trump wins, Mike Pence says
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
There go my rights to bodily autonomy, the rights of my daughter, the rights my grandmother and great-grandmother fought for. This is my issue with the Pence.
I'll support a candidate that wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I think it's worth doing. Hypothetically if I give a pregnant woman an abortion pill without her realizing it, I can be charged with murder. Yet the mother has the right to kill a human being during the pregnancy at any point during the first 28 weeks.
the mother made the choice to become a mother when she decided to have intercourse with an expectation that having that intercourse could result in her becoming pregnant.
What in the..?
How is your whole post not just a troll?
Odd, as a man and possible father, I thought it'd be apparent that that's the reasoning behind why fathers are forced to provide support for their child under the law. They accepted that potential responsibility when they engaged in the sexual act. That statement was applying that same standard to mothers.
(Potential) fathers don't get pregnant. Their body doesn't have to do anything post-conception.
Gotcha, moral standards are different for your role in the creation of a human life.
Nope, I think women should be responsible for supporting the child too, if it is born. Same standard.
Nope, I think women should be responsible for supporting the child too, if it is born. Same standard.
But no moral imperative towards supporting the separate, thinking, feeling human life inside of them, that they made a conscious decision to create?
Just a side note, the fetus is not separate, thinking or feeling. At times when you can abort the CNS is not developed enough to do any of those. The neuronal system needs to finish connecting enough to process the stimuli required to think or feel. Also, the reason why bodily autonomy is important here is that the fetus is not separate, it requires the mother/host to survive. If people really cared about the fetus, there would be funding for autonomous wombs, there is not. If the fetus is separate and therefore can be removed from me and live, sure let's do that. Except at that point women can't legally have the fetus removed.Nope, I think women should be responsible for supporting the child too, if it is born. Same standard.
But no moral imperative towards supporting the separate, thinking, feeling human life inside of them, that they made a conscious decision to create?
Nope! :)
Just a side note, the fetus is not separate, thinking or feeling. At times when you can abort the CNS is not developed enough to do any of those. The neuronal system needs to finish connecting enough to process the stimuli required to think or feel. Also, the reason why bodily autonomy is important here is that the fetus is not separate, it requires the mother/host to survive. If people really cared about the fetus, there would be funding for autonomous wombs, there is not. If the fetus is separate and therefore can be removed from me and live, sure let's do that. Except at that point women can't legally have the fetus removed.
I don't think you have any more right to abort a life in the womb anymore than s right to abandon your child after birth.
An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.
None of your statements are true. Brainwaves require the CNS to be formed. Neuronal activity on the cellular level is different than brainwaves. I can put a neuronal or stem cell into a dish, give it certain nutrients and then get electrical activity, the cell is not thinking.Just a side note, the fetus is not separate, thinking or feeling. At times when you can abort the CNS is not developed enough to do any of those. The neuronal system needs to finish connecting enough to process the stimuli required to think or feel. Also, the reason why bodily autonomy is important here is that the fetus is not separate, it requires the mother/host to survive. If people really cared about the fetus, there would be funding for autonomous wombs, there is not. If the fetus is separate and therefore can be removed from me and live, sure let's do that. Except at that point women can't legally have the fetus removed.
An unborn child's heartbeat can be detected, separate the mothers, starting at 18 days after conception and 21 days pumping blood through his/her circulatory system. An unborn child's brainwaves can be detected starting at 6 weeks after conception. An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.
Yet we commonly abort long after these processes have started. You've made the decision to have a child when you made the decision to create the child, and I don't think you have any more right to abort a life in the womb anymore than s right to abandon your child after birth.
Let's take this a step further, if Obama wants to get rich giving speeches after he's out of office I'm fine with that. I do however have a problem with fees and donations that seem that create a conflict of interest while Mrs. Obama is in office.
I share some of your concerns, I honestly do, but I think it's a very difficult and unrealistic standard that you are setting up here.
Literally every single person a past president meets could be considered part of a group of constituents or a 'foreign entity'. So if we accept that the spouse, son or daughter of a president can also run to be president, any contact the former president has with any group for any reason can be viewed as politically suspicious and a conflict of interest. The fact that Bill Clinton received $MM for speaking to an extremely broad array of groups is a reason to take a very close look, but unless the money is exchanged for favorable treatment how is it fundamentally different from that same group donating an equal amount to her campaign or holding a fundraiser?
To put this in more concrete terms, is receiving $875k for several paid speeches given to Goldman Sachs in 2013 a bigger conflict of interest for Clinton than the corporate donation of $1.1MM that Goldman Sachs gave to its PAC to support Mitt Romney in 2012?
Actually I do. That donation to support a PAC doesn't go to Mitt Romney personally (Mitt didn't need the money, but the point stands). His control over that PAC is limited at best.
The donations to the Clintons and their foundation on the other hand, do enrich them personally. Personal enrichment is a much bigger motivator than a political contribution and the Clintons have been enriched to an incredible degree.
An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.
Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/
An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.
Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/)
When it comes to pain specifically, scientific evidence is very clear that pain can be experienced by 20 weeks of pregnancy. But Condic said unborn children have a capacity to feel pain much earlier.
The neural structures necessary to detect noxious stimuli are in place by 8-10 weeks of human development,” the researcher continued. “There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced ; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience a newborn or an adult would have. While every individual’s experience of pain is personal, a number of scientific observations address what brain structures are necessary for a mental or psychological experience of pain.”An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.
Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/)
The neural structures necessary to detect noxious stimuli are in place by 8-10 weeks of human development,” the researcher continued. “There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced ; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience a newborn or an adult would have. While every individual’s experience of pain is personal, a number of scientific observations address what brain structures are necessary for a mental or psychological experience of pain.”An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.
Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/)
As a neuroscientist I can tell you that the universal agreement is that the CNS is not formed enough to pass pain.
One reason the JAMA review finds early pain perception unlikely is that the connections between the thalamus, a sort of relay center in the brain, and the cortex have not yet formed. This happens between 23 and 30 weeks gestational age, and the authors argue these connections are a precursor for pain perception. They also cite studies using electroencephalography that have shown the capacity for functional pain in preterm newborns “probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.”
The only part of her testimony that was correct was the the last bolded line, we do and those are not developed enough at 20 weeks process pain.
And side note, none of her research is within this subfield.
The neural structures necessary to detect noxious stimuli are in place by 8-10 weeks of human development,” the researcher continued. “There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced ; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience a newborn or an adult would have. While every individual’s experience of pain is personal, a number of scientific observations address what brain structures are necessary for a mental or psychological experience of pain.”An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.
Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/)
As a neuroscientist I can tell you that the universal agreement is that the CNS is not formed enough to pass pain.
One reason the JAMA review finds early pain perception unlikely is that the connections between the thalamus, a sort of relay center in the brain, and the cortex have not yet formed. This happens between 23 and 30 weeks gestational age, and the authors argue these connections are a precursor for pain perception. They also cite studies using electroencephalography that have shown the capacity for functional pain in preterm newborns “probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.”
The only part of her testimony that was correct was the the last bolded line, we do and those are not developed enough at 20 weeks process pain.
And side note, none of her research is within this subfield.
Well congressional testimony can never wrong. Why look at all those experts from the Tobacco Institute that testified for so many years that smoking doesn't cause cancer....
What a minute!
This seems like a good place to transition this subthread to:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/please-take-your-abortion-talk-here-you're-ruining-a-perfectly-good-thread/ (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/please-take-your-abortion-talk-here-you're-ruining-a-perfectly-good-thread/)
What do you guys think of this?
http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/27/clinton-cash
Specifically, I mean this part:
The Swedish company Ericsson was in trouble with the State Department because it sold telecom equipment to repressive regimes. Says Schweizer, "WikiLeaks cables show the State Department sort of busting up the Swedish foreign minister, saying you need to get Ericsson into line. Ericsson decides that this would be a great time to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton. They had never done so before. They decided to go big, $750,000 for a 20-minute speech. Bill gives the speech and literally seven days later, the State Department comes out with a statement saying we're not going to take further action against Ericsson. We're going to ask them to police themselves."
Sure looks like she was into bribes. I noticed that the Clinton Foundation was not mentioned during the convention.
Hm, I doubt it. If as you say it can be done easily, can you do it for Obama? Or for John Kerry?
Here is an independent verification of the relevant payments:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/
This seems like a different level to me, but what do I know. Having an "open for business" sort of situation in which you can directly tie huge payments to State Dept policy seems pretty different from Obama getting a good deal on a house once for which he seems never to have done anything in return. But maybe I'm missing something.
Also, doesn't it seem like there is a pretty big difference between campaign contributions and direct bribes? Seems different to me.
So Ericsson, who had never paid anything to Bill or Hillary, decides to pay Bill 750k for a 20 min speech. Then, the State department, which had been coming after Ericsson, decides to leave Ericsson alone after that. All of this seems to be verified by multiple sources. But there's no evidence of quid pro quo? I mean, it isn't proof, I guess. But, if you agree that the payment was made, and that the State dept changed its approach to Ericsson subsequently, it seems pretty silly to me to deny that this was a bribe. And of course this is just the most egregious example, but there are others.
Schweizer tried to link Swedish telecommunications company Ericsson's payment to former President Bill Clinton for a speech in November 2011 with the exemption of the telecommunications industry from sanctions against Iran... The author's speculation is baseless, as the Iran sanctions in question actually took the form of executive actions from President Obama, and not State Department initiatives... Yahoo News further noted that a Clinton aide pointed out that telecommunications manufacturers like Ericsson have not been added to the sanctions since Clinton left the State Department, casting doubt on the suggestion of a connection between the 2011 Bill Clinton speech and U.S. sanctions policy. .
Here’s what Fortune found:
Ericsson did pay Bill Clinton $750,000 while Hillary was Secretary of State, but the assertion that the company faced sanctions isn’t entirely true. Yes, the SEC did send Ericsson a letter in 2010 asking it to explain the nature of its operations in Iran, but Ericsson’s response makes it clear that the business it did in Iran was for commercial rather than for military purposes.
The book is unable to show any evidence that the State Department wanted to quash the business Ericsson was doing in Iran prior to Bill Clinton’s speech. In fact, there is evidence that the Clinton State Department and the rest of the Obama Administration wanted to spread the use of communications technology—like that which Ericsson provides—in Iran, in order to help dissidents combat oppressive governments.
Here is an independent verification of the relevant payments:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/
I already said it wasn't proof. Proof is almost impossible in these sorts of cases. I said it stinks so bad that it's silly to think that it isn't a bribe (or, I'll now add, at least an attempted bribe). I stand by that.
If we agree that the payment was made after State started to cause trouble for Ericsson, and that State subsequently caused no trouble for them, I'm happy to leave it at that and agree to disagree.
I don't get off of what? All I've claimed is that the payment was made after State started to cause trouble for Ericsson, and that State subsequently caused no trouble for them. You're not denying that, are you? Many of us think that stinks. Go ahead and say it doesn't stink. There's nothing else I'm going to say to convince you.
I don't get off of what? All I've claimed is that the payment was made after State started to cause trouble for Ericsson, and that State subsequently caused no trouble for them. You're not denying that, are you? Many of us think that stinks. Go ahead and say it doesn't stink. There's nothing else I'm going to say to convince you.
Maybe you all are fine with a company giving absurd sums of money to a sitting secretary of state who is involved in deciding whether to sanction them. I'm not. Even if I grant the point that the administration had legitimate reasons for not sanctioning Ericsson, or that the state dept didn't have total control over the decision, that doesn't touch the point I'm making.
I found this little gem, it's a video as an attack on Hillary from Obama in 2008. Not much has changed about the common gripes about Hillary in the last 8 years: "Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing." Not much has changed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be)
Maybe you all are fine with a company giving absurd sums of money to a sitting secretary of state who is involved in deciding whether to sanction them. I'm not. Even if I grant the point that the administration had legitimate reasons for not sanctioning Ericsson, or that the state dept didn't have total control over the decision, that doesn't touch the point I'm making.
I found this little gem, it's a video as an attack on Hillary from Obama in 2008. Not much has changed about the common gripes about Hillary in the last 8 years: "Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing." Not much has changed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be)
Well to be fair, there was Benghazi and the email server, but those never panned out the way her critics had hoped they would.
I found this little gem, it's a video as an attack on Hillary from Obama in 2008. Not much has changed about the common gripes about Hillary in the last 8 years: "Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing." Not much has changed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be)
Well to be fair, there was Benghazi and the email server, but those never panned out the way her critics had hoped they would.
Really, it brought her down to the point where a blowhard like Trump presents a threat. It has undermined her candidacy from the start which polls continue to show that Americans regard her as a liar and untrustworthy. I'd say it's worked so far, but we'll see come November.
Maybe you all are fine with a company giving absurd sums of money to a sitting secretary of state who is involved in deciding whether to sanction them. I'm not. Even if I grant the point that the administration had legitimate reasons for not sanctioning Ericsson, or that the state dept didn't have total control over the decision, that doesn't touch the point I'm making.
I'm usually one of the few people that supports their assertions with evidence
My point is not that it feels icky, and I haven't changed my point. My point is that it was very plausibly a quid pro quo, and, even if you decline to believe that, it's still true that she took a large sum of money from a company who was being scrutuized by the administration, and that's already wrongdoing. I'm just really repeating myself. And, in response to dramaman, it's wrongdoing irrespective of who else did similar things (though I doubt that this sort of thing goes on as often as you suggest). And I'm not a Trump supporter; he's horrible too. Finally, I never said that Clinton was paid more than other celebrity speakers.
1. Her speaking fees, and Bill Clinton's are in the market price range for speakers of their caliber. Jerry Seinfeld gets about $200k a pop, Charlie Rose gets $50k a pop, Condoleeza Rice gets $150k a pop. Donald Trump has received up to $1.5 million for a talk (which was a real estate conference, so may have also been a skim as he is prone to do). Most of the individual speeches fell in the $150 to $200K range.
...
Substantial difference between a private party (Jerry Seinfeld) charging a fee for a speech and a representative of the government charging a fee. The government representative is a servant of the people, is earning a salary to serve the people, and shouldn't be profiting from their position when he/she is employed by the government. That's the problem people have, it's not that she made money and gave it to charity, it's that she did by leveraging her government position and public trust.
I know that it happens all over the government and I protest that more than I do Hillary, because she's just a small representation of cronyism within government.
Cute. I see that I haven't been very clear, and I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean to be frustrating. I do think that it was a quid pro quo: money for influence. And I think she probably did end up favorably disposed to that company when she gave her input into the administration's decision. I can't prove that, though I still think it's pretty obvious that it is what happened. But I see that you all aren't going for that. So, in response, I make another claim: it's bad enough that she took the money while having the kind of influence that she had. You all seem to think that's not that bad if I can't prove quid pro quo. We just disagree about that. So hopefully we all at least understand where we disagree at this point.
I am curious - do you think the ongoing business deals of Trump (which he describes frquently as earning him "Billions") are also an area of concern? Should Trump win, is it ethically permissible for him to keep earning money from his businesses while making decisions that might enrich himself and (potentially) detract from competitors?
I am curious - do you think the ongoing business deals of Trump (which he describes frquently as earning him "Billions") are also an area of concern? Should Trump win, is it ethically permissible for him to keep earning money from his businesses while making decisions that might enrich himself and (potentially) detract from competitors?
Yes, I'd accept Trump assuming a passive role in his businesses and profiting from a purely passive interaction. However, while elected as President it would be a conflict of interest to become actively involved, promote, or legislate/regulate in the interest of his businesses. I wouldn't hesitate at recommending impeachment for a President that uses his/her position to enrich themselves at the expense of the public.
The problem that I have even with him taking a "passive" role in his business (for example, letting Eric run the company) is that he will still be responsible for signing legislation and (to his own platform) pushing for new trade deals. So while he might not be actively running his companies, he is shaping the laws in a way that could benefit him and his family.
1. Her speaking fees, and Bill Clinton's are in the market price range for speakers of their caliber. Jerry Seinfeld gets about $200k a pop, Charlie Rose gets $50k a pop, Condoleeza Rice gets $150k a pop. Donald Trump has received up to $1.5 million for a talk (which was a real estate conference, so may have also been a skim as he is prone to do). Most of the individual speeches fell in the $150 to $200K range.
I think there's a substantial difference between a private party (Jerry Seinfeld) charging a fee for a speech and a representative of the government charging a fee. The government representative is a servant of the people, is earning a salary to serve the people, and shouldn't be profiting from their position when he/she is employed by the government. That's the problem people have, it's not that she made money and gave it to charity, it's that she did by leveraging her government position and public trust.
I know that it happens all over the government and I protest that more than I do Hillary, because she's just a small representation of cronyism within government.
I'm sure you are at least as outraged about Scalia getting lots of free luxury vacations from people who had cases before SCOTUS. And Thomas' wife being employed to work on issues that also came before SCOTUS. She was making around a million bucks for just her ACA opposition.
I'm sure you are at least as outraged about Scalia getting lots of free luxury vacations from people who had cases before SCOTUS. And Thomas' wife being employed to work on issues that also came before SCOTUS. She was making around a million bucks for just her ACA opposition.
Surely you can't be saying that because other people do it, it's okay?
And to answer your question, yes, I don't care for those behaviors either, and if those individuals were up for election (especially to the highest elected position in the land), it would be a big negative for me.
I'm sure you are at least as outraged about Scalia getting lots of free luxury vacations from people who had cases before SCOTUS. And Thomas' wife being employed to work on issues that also came before SCOTUS. She was making around a million bucks for just her ACA opposition.
Surely you can't be saying that because other people do it, it's okay?
And to answer your question, yes, I don't care for those behaviors either, and if those individuals were up for election (especially to the highest elected position in the land), it would be a big negative for me.
Surely you can't be saying that because other people...
"We have a fire marshal that said we can't allow more people... The reason they can't let them in is because they don't know what they're doing. [Fire Marshal Brett Lacy is] probably a Democrat, probably a guy that doesn't get it... This is the kind of thing we have in federal government also, by the way, and then you wonder why we’re going to hell. That’s why we’re going to hell."
Trump has taken to calling himself the "Law and Order candidate." That in and of itself is not a criticism.
Whoa.... barely recognized you 'rebs! New photo, eh?
Trump has taken to calling himself the "Law and Order candidate." That in and of itself is not a criticism.Fin addition, who pulled Trump and eight other people out of the top hatch of a stuck elevator the same day? Colorado Springs FD. Trump has gone after a number of fire marshal.
However, he's begun to publicaly spar with fire marshals for enforcing the fire codes by not allowing more people into his rallies than the building permits.
The latest:Quote from: Trump"We have a fire marshal that said we can't allow more people... The reason they can't let them in is because they don't know what they're doing. [Fire Marshal Brett Lacy is] probably a Democrat, probably a guy that doesn't get it... This is the kind of thing we have in federal government also, by the way, and then you wonder why we’re going to hell. That’s why we’re going to hell."
First Marshal Lacy was recently awarded the "Civilian of the Year" award in Colorado for his role in a pair of mass shootings.
I guess his message is that he's the law and order candidate unless the laws are inconvenient to him.
There is something funny in there somewhere about a fire marshal not letting people into a building illegally and Trump not wanting to let people into the country illegally. It isn't of course nearly the same but it does somewhat rhyme. There probably is a good reason for the laws regarding occupancy of a building and probably a good reason for the legal immigration process.
Trump has taken to calling himself the "Law and Order candidate." That in and of itself is not a criticism.Fin addition, who pulled Trump and eight other people out of the top hatch of a stuck elevator the same day? Colorado Springs FD. Trump has gone after a number of fire marshal.
However, he's begun to publicaly spar with fire marshals for enforcing the fire codes by not allowing more people into his rallies than the building permits.
The latest:Quote from: Trump"We have a fire marshal that said we can't allow more people... The reason they can't let them in is because they don't know what they're doing. [Fire Marshal Brett Lacy is] probably a Democrat, probably a guy that doesn't get it... This is the kind of thing we have in federal government also, by the way, and then you wonder why we’re going to hell. That’s why we’re going to hell."
First Marshal Lacy was recently awarded the "Civilian of the Year" award in Colorado for his role in a pair of mass shootings.
I guess his message is that he's the law and order candidate unless the laws are inconvenient to him.
(no text necessary)
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/281848/story_image/Trump_KFC.png?1470106597)
That reminds me of eating at Naval OCS. When you start you are not allowed to use any utensils except a spoon, and you cannot look at your food while eating. Do you know how hard it is to eat fried chicken (because that's all they served one day) with a spoon and not looking at it?
That reminds me of eating at Naval OCS. When you start you are not allowed to use any utensils except a spoon, and you cannot look at your food while eating. Do you know how hard it is to eat fried chicken (because that's all they served one day) with a spoon and not looking at it?
I've heard about that, but I don't understand it. Why do they make you eat with only a spoon at first and prevent you from looking at your food? What's the point/idea/message?
That reminds me of eating at Naval OCS. When you start you are not allowed to use any utensils except a spoon, and you cannot look at your food while eating. Do you know how hard it is to eat fried chicken (because that's all they served one day) with a spoon and not looking at it?
Honestly, the main takeaway from these two weeks is that, incredibly, we may be on the brink of electing such a damaged, sociopathic narcissist, that the simple presidential duty of comforting the families of fallen soldiers may actually be beyond his capabilities, and I genuinely did not think that was a part of the job that someone could be bad at.
That reminds me of eating at Naval OCS. When you start you are not allowed to use any utensils except a spoon, and you cannot look at your food while eating. Do you know how hard it is to eat fried chicken (because that's all they served one day) with a spoon and not looking at it?
I've heard about that, but I don't understand it. Why do they make you eat with only a spoon at first and prevent you from looking at your food? What's the point/idea/message?
In college, I lived onsite at the Air Force Academy attending a week-long conference held there. Freshman there had to endure the same kind of harassment. One of the coping strategies that a Freshman I met shared with me was that he would let his weight fall below such a level that the nurses had him placed at a special table free from that kind of nonsense to help fatten him back up. From there it was simply a matter of making sure he never gained too much weight to lose his place at the table.
shared misery and learning to follow complex rules/regulations consistently. We had like a 4 or 5 page book on proper way to enter the mess, order food, sit and eat. Violation of any rule resulted in immediate punishment. It is part of the training to break someone down and then over the course of a few months build them back up. After a few weeks we got fork and knife privileges but still not allowed to look until you are the senior class.
There's a new bombing campaign in Libya.Hillary?
Thanks, Hillary!
There's a new bombing campaign in Libya.Hillary?
Thanks, Hillary!
There's a new bombing campaign in Libya.Hillary?
Thanks, Hillary!
There's a new bombing campaign in Libya.Hillary?
Thanks, Hillary!
Yes. She was one of the major drivers in the USA's participation in Libya's self-destruction.
Ah - so you are connecting today's bombing campaign with her actions as SoS (which ended in 2013).There's a new bombing campaign in Libya.Hillary?
Thanks, Hillary!
Yes. She was one of the major drivers in the USA's participation in Libya's destruction.
...is your criticism that we got involved too much in Libya or not enough?
...is your criticism that we got involved too much in Libya or not enough?
No reason it can't be both. Either butting out completely or total war and occupation would have worked; the half-assed "destabilize the country but fail to finish the job" plan we've been doing all over the world since Vietnam is what's doomed to failure.
(Note: this post isn't about Clinton specifically, even though that's what promoted the discussion.)
...is your criticism that we got involved too much in Libya or not enough?
No reason it can't be both. Either butting out completely or total war and occupation would have worked; the half-assed "destabilize the country but fail to finish the job" plan we've been doing all over the world since Vietnam is what's doomed to failure.
(Note: this post isn't about Clinton specifically, even though that's what promoted the discussion.)
There's a new bombing campaign in Libya.Hillary?
Thanks, Hillary!
Yes. She was one of the major drivers in the USA's participation in Libya's self-destruction.
Corrected that for you...
Ah - so you are connecting today's bombing campaign with her actions as SoS (which ended in 2013).There's a new bombing campaign in Libya.Hillary?
Thanks, Hillary!
Yes. She was one of the major drivers in the USA's participation in Libya's destruction.
As the US was largely responsible for the no-fly zone and air-refueling and little else in ousting Muammar el-Qaddafi, is your criticism that we got involved too much in Libya or not enough?
So to be clear your conclusion is that Libya would be better off today if we had done either less OR more...
...and ISIS/ISIL wouldn't be there now?
I think you are being a bit too simplistic if you think 'destabilize the country but fail to finish the job' sums up US military policy [only] from Vietnam onward. To be able to interpret every conflict through that lens, someone could make a similar argument for almost ANY U.S. war and military engagement.
We participated in lethal activities that served no purpose and did not accomplish anything good. We killed for no reason. We shouldn't have invaded at all, but as Jack points out the colonialist approach we took with Afghanistan and Iraq at least recognized some accountability for the nations whose institutions (bad as they were) we destroyed - in Libya we just signed off with a "FTFY!"
We participated in lethal activities that served no purpose and did not accomplish anything good. We killed for no reason. We shouldn't have invaded at all, but as Jack points out the colonialist approach we took with Afghanistan and Iraq at least recognized some accountability for the nations whose institutions (bad as they were) we destroyed - in Libya we just signed off with a "FTFY!"
I think you might be misreading my comment. Afghanistan and Iraq are clusterfucks at least on par with Libya. On the spectrum of interventionism, I think it probably gets worse as you intervene more, until you reach "enough" -- and in Afghanistan and Iraq we intervened more, but clearly did not reach "enough."
There's a new bombing campaign in Libya.Hillary?
Thanks, Hillary!
Yes. She was one of the major drivers in the USA's participation in Libya's self-destruction.
Corrected that for you...
What's your point?
Just wanted to correct your oversight in failing to recognize that Libya was already well on its way to destruction before the US ever got involved.
Even without US participation, Ghaddaffi could still have fallen and even if he had held on to power, Libya might simply have turned into another Syria in which case you would perhaps be making sarcastic comments blaming Hillary Clinton for THAT outcome. The idea that Libya would be a stable country if not for the intervention of Hillary Clinton is a naive one.
That's a fair and respectable position to have. I was just asking for clarification on your stance, because there are many that blame our leaders for having any involvement with Libya, and others that blame us for taking a rather passive role (as military interventions go), letting the French and British take the lead and failing to support the militias fighting Ghadaffi.Just wanted to correct your oversight in failing to recognize that Libya was already well on its way to destruction before the US ever got involved.
Even without US participation, Ghaddaffi could still have fallen and even if he had held on to power, Libya might simply have turned into another Syria in which case you would perhaps be making sarcastic comments blaming Hillary Clinton for THAT outcome. The idea that Libya would be a stable country if not for the intervention of Hillary Clinton is a naive one.
Have I ever said that Libya would be puppies and rainbows if Clinton hadn't encouraged bombing it? I really doubt that I have. Libya is a basket case, and it was when Ghaddaffi was in charge too. I opposed bombing it then, and I oppose further intervention.
Personally I'm undecided about whether our involvement was a net positive or negative, and I don't think we'll really be able to evaluate it until 5-10 years have passed (i.e. not before 2018).
Certainly the cost to the US was tiny, both in terms of blood and treasure.This is not the right way to evaluate the morality of a war! Libyan lives are not less morally valuable than American ones. Living, breathing human beings died in real life, killed by our government. It is a serious thing.
We killed people which I am always against, but the counter argument is that the no-fly zone and active destruction (by NATO) of heavy artillery might have prevented bloodshed orders of magnitude worse. A strong case can be made that it's never our place to interfere in civil wars, but the UN only intervened after literally thousands of civilians had been killed and many feared the government might kill tens of thousands more to regain control.Around 15,000 appear to have died so far in the civil war. (The misery of living in a failed state is harder to quantify.) The population of Libya in 2011 seems to have been around 6 million. "Orders of magnitude worse" would have been some medieval shit.
Just wanted to correct your oversight in failing to recognize that Libya was already well on its way to destruction before the US ever got involved.
Even without US participation, Ghaddaffi could still have fallen and even if he had held on to power, Libya might simply have turned into another Syria in which case you would perhaps be making sarcastic comments blaming Hillary Clinton for THAT outcome. The idea that Libya would be a stable country if not for the intervention of Hillary Clinton is a naive one.
Have I ever said that Libya would be puppies and rainbows if Clinton hadn't encouraged bombing it? I really doubt that I have. Libya is a basket case, and it was when Ghaddaffi was in charge too. I opposed bombing it then, and I oppose further intervention.
I am upset that the United States government killed people in Libya to no end. We intervened and the worst-case-scenario - total national collapse - happened anyways. Our violence served no purpose, and if you're surprised, you weren't paying attention at the time. The administration should have known better. Clinton should have known better.
Just wanted to correct your oversight in failing to recognize that Libya was already well on its way to destruction before the US ever got involved.
Even without US participation, Ghaddaffi could still have fallen and even if he had held on to power, Libya might simply have turned into another Syria in which case you would perhaps be making sarcastic comments blaming Hillary Clinton for THAT outcome. The idea that Libya would be a stable country if not for the intervention of Hillary Clinton is a naive one.
Have I ever said that Libya would be puppies and rainbows if Clinton hadn't encouraged bombing it? I really doubt that I have. Libya is a basket case, and it was when Ghaddaffi was in charge too. I opposed bombing it then, and I oppose further intervention.
Funny that you didn't feel fit to provide that kind of context in your original comment. Something like:
"There's a new bombing campaign in Libya. Hillary was part of the decision apparatus that decided to intervene that arguably resulted in the overthrow of Ghaddafi, who was already fighting to hold on to power in a civil war. The end result was an unstable country that left inroads for ISIS. Maybe that would have happened anyway, but we'll never know. Thanks Hillary."
But then that wouldn't be nearly as pithy as "There's a new bombing campaign in Libya. Thanks Hillary."
I am upset that the United States government killed people in Libya to no end. We intervened and the worst-case-scenario - total national collapse - happened anyways. Our violence served no purpose, and if you're surprised, you weren't paying attention at the time. The administration should have known better. Clinton should have known better.
Did the US intervention serve no purpose? My original understanding is that we intervened to save lives. Are you arguing that no lives were saved? Or are you arguing that saving lives is meaningless?
I think we agree, though I don't think there's an "enough" that doesn't involve serious war crimes.
Just wanted to correct your oversight in failing to recognize that Libya was already well on its way to destruction before the US ever got involved.
Even without US participation, Ghaddaffi could still have fallen and even if he had held on to power, Libya might simply have turned into another Syria in which case you would perhaps be making sarcastic comments blaming Hillary Clinton for THAT outcome. The idea that Libya would be a stable country if not for the intervention of Hillary Clinton is a naive one.
Have I ever said that Libya would be puppies and rainbows if Clinton hadn't encouraged bombing it? I really doubt that I have. Libya is a basket case, and it was when Ghaddaffi was in charge too. I opposed bombing it then, and I oppose further intervention.
Funny that you didn't feel fit to provide that kind of context in your original comment. Something like:
"There's a new bombing campaign in Libya. Hillary was part of the decision apparatus that decided to intervene that arguably resulted in the overthrow of Ghaddafi, who was already fighting to hold on to power in a civil war. The end result was an unstable country that left inroads for ISIS. Maybe that would have happened anyway, but we'll never know. Thanks Hillary."
But then that wouldn't be nearly as pithy as "There's a new bombing campaign in Libya. Thanks Hillary."
Don't put words in my mouth. It didn't "arguably result in the overthrow of Ghaddafi" - it totally changed the direction the war was heading. I have written a lot about Libya in this thread.
QuoteI am upset that the United States government killed people in Libya to no end. We intervened and the worst-case-scenario - total national collapse - happened anyways. Our violence served no purpose, and if you're surprised, you weren't paying attention at the time. The administration should have known better. Clinton should have known better.
Did the US intervention serve no purpose? My original understanding is that we intervened to save lives. Are you arguing that no lives were saved? Or are you arguing that saving lives is meaningless?
There's no reason to believe we saved any net lives. We definitely ended some, though; that part is inescapable.
By all means, whatever choice of words you want to explain the situation. The fact remains, however, that your original choice of words in the most recent comments on Libya contained no context whatsoever.
QuoteI am upset that the United States government killed people in Libya to no end. We intervened and the worst-case-scenario - total national collapse - happened anyways. Our violence served no purpose, and if you're surprised, you weren't paying attention at the time. The administration should have known better. Clinton should have known better.
Did the US intervention serve no purpose? My original understanding is that we intervened to save lives. Are you arguing that no lives were saved? Or are you arguing that saving lives is meaningless?
There's no reason to believe we saved any net lives. We definitely ended some, though; that part is inescapable.
In other words, you really don't know. You simply are more comfortable assuming that because it fits the narrative that you have embraced.
As we contemplate if Trump or Clinton would be a better commander in chief, this seems relevant.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.htm
Not understanding why we cannot use nukes is beyond terrifying. We may be beyond the cold war, but nuclear proliferation is a very, very serious issue. Not even understanding the political ramifications is stunning. And if we are worried about civilian deaths (as mentioned in the Libya discussion above), this seems pretty clear cut.
As bad as that sounds, Hillary is possibly more likely to get into a conflict with Russia. Trump would be more isolationist and let Russia expand into the Baltics. It is looking similar to 1930s Germany in Russia.This depends critically on how we interact with NATO and honor our treaty obligations. The USA does not operate in a vacuum. This also applies to the retroactive assessment of Libya, where our allies were also involved in the decision (particularly France).
As bad as that sounds, Hillary is possibly more likely to get into a conflict with Russia. Trump would be more isolationist and let Russia expand into the Baltics. It is looking similar to 1930s Germany in Russia.
As bad as that sounds, Hillary is possibly more likely to get into a conflict with Russia. Trump would be more isolationist and let Russia expand into the Baltics. It is looking similar to 1930s Germany in Russia.
Interesting hypothesis. Had the US and League of Nations prevented Germany's rearmament around 1934 and/or intervened when Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938 they almost certainly wouldn't have been powerful enough to wage the bloodiest war ever a few years later.
What would happen if Trump dropped out before November?The dead rising from the grave!
Is there a procedure for this?
What would happen if Trump dropped out before November?
Is there a procedure for this?
As a purely logistical issue, how many other potential GOP candidates have the paperwork in to be on the ballot come November?What would happen if Trump dropped out before November?
Is there a procedure for this?
Hillary would lose.
As a purely logistical issue, how many other potential GOP candidates have the paperwork in to be on the ballot come November?What would happen if Trump dropped out before November?
Is there a procedure for this?
Hillary would lose.
As a purely logistical issue, how many other potential GOP candidates have the paperwork in to be on the ballot come November?What would happen if Trump dropped out before November?
Is there a procedure for this?
Hillary would lose.
If the party picks a candidate do they have to? If Romney, Ryan or maybe Kasich were eligible I think Hillary might well lose. Alas, I don't see Trump dropping out.
As a purely logistical issue, how many other potential GOP candidates have the paperwork in to be on the ballot come November?What would happen if Trump dropped out before November?
Is there a procedure for this?
Hillary would lose.
If the party picks a candidate do they have to? If Romney, Ryan or maybe Kasich were eligible I think Hillary might well lose. Alas, I don't see Trump dropping out.
As a purely logistical issue, how many other potential GOP candidates have the paperwork in to be on the ballot come November?What would happen if Trump dropped out before November?
Is there a procedure for this?
Hillary would lose.
If the party picks a candidate do they have to? If Romney, Ryan or maybe Kasich were eligible I think Hillary might well lose. Alas, I don't see Trump dropping out.
I looked it up.
https://ballotpedia.org/Filing_deadlines_and_signature_requirements_for_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016
It would appear that if a candidate was not already eligible to be on the ballot, filing deadlines have passed in enough key states (FL, for example), that there would be no clear path to victory. Most filing deadlines are done by mid-August, with a few trickling into early September. Therefore, the timing of a hypothetical Trump dump would be potentially decisive.
What would happen if Trump dropped out before November?
Is there a procedure for this?
Hillary would lose.
As a purely logistical issue, how many other potential GOP candidates have the paperwork in to be on the ballot come November?What would happen if Trump dropped out before November?
Is there a procedure for this?
Hillary would lose.
If the party picks a candidate do they have to? If Romney, Ryan or maybe Kasich were eligible I think Hillary might well lose. Alas, I don't see Trump dropping out.
I'm not sure she would. Had Romney, Ryan, Kasich or someone else been granted the nomination at the RNC, I'd say "sure, they can beat Hillary". But to replace Trump now means pissing off over 1/3 of the Republican base that's avidly supporting Trump. So much so that I doubt many of them would vote for his usurper, and without their votes the GOP could not win.
I think you have this backwards. If someone else had gotten the nomination at a brokered convention, that would piss off all the Trump fans, who'd claim he stole it from them. If he voluntarily quit, and someone new was chosen, they'd have no reason to be mad at who was chosen (just Trump, for quitting), since they didn't "steal" it. And then they could vote straight party ticket.
Now, they might be mad that Trump did that, and just stay home. Or, if his name was still on the ballots, they may vote him anyways over his red replacement. But I think it's much more likely they'd have been mad if it was stolen from him at the convention than if he himself quits.
I think you have this backwards. If someone else had gotten the nomination at a brokered convention, that would piss off all the Trump fans, who'd claim he stole it from them. If he voluntarily quit, and someone new was chosen, they'd have no reason to be mad at who was chosen (just Trump, for quitting), since they didn't "steal" it. And then they could vote straight party ticket.
Now, they might be mad that Trump did that, and just stay home. Or, if his name was still on the ballots, they may vote him anyways over his red replacement. But I think it's much more likely they'd have been mad if it was stolen from him at the convention than if he himself quits.
Ah - perhaps I should have been more clear with my assumptions. In this alternate realities scenarios, I was comparing the chances of another candidate who won the nomination outright (not a brokered convention) vs. what would happen if Trump dropped out and they were appointed as the nominee by a committee of 100-some party members.
Trump has already been seeding the idea that the system is 'rigged', and I'm certain his departure would be anything but amicable. He'd rally up his loving base, talking about rigged elections and he'd send twitter-storms against both the appointee and any high-profile person who rushed to support him (or her).
The Trump supporters would get to play the "if only" game, and I think a large chunk of them would stay home. In fact, it would be hard for anyone who voted in the Republican primary to think that their participation mattered at all. Cruz would be the logical replacement choice if the GOP wanted to even pretend that the votes mattered, yet he'd prove to be almost as polarizing as Trump, only with clear positions that would be even less favorable to Democrats and most independents.
...like I said, an alternate set of realities, but that's how I think it would play out.
That's for independent candidates. Should Trump be replaced by the GOP*, wouldn't his replacement be the (new) republican nominee?
I'm not so sure Hillary would lose if they put in someone else for Trump. Hillary's favorables are rising. Obama has the highest approval rating he has had in a long while. And Trump motivates the white working class which might not even bother to show up at the polls if Trump drops out. His supporters are invested in him, not the Republican party. Sure, some independents and purple Republicans might switch from Hillary to Kasich/Ryan whoever, but many might just be disgusted by the absolute shitshow that the Republican party is right now. Honestly, they just appear grossly incompetent and weak. I am not talking ideology here, but just overall as an organization. They let Trump come in and piss all over them.
I'm not so sure Hillary would lose if they put in someone else for Trump. Hillary's favorables are rising. Obama has the highest approval rating he has had in a long while. And Trump motivates the white working class which might not even bother to show up at the polls if Trump drops out. His supporters are invested in him, not the Republican party. Sure, some independents and purple Republicans might switch from Hillary to Kasich/Ryan whoever, but many might just be disgusted by the absolute shitshow that the Republican party is right now. Honestly, they just appear grossly incompetent and weak. I am not talking ideology here, but just overall as an organization. They let Trump come in and piss all over them.
Within the last 2 weeks the democrats have fired their party leader and multiple staff. This week it comes out that the US (lead by President Obama) paid Iran a whole bunch of money in other currencies and suddenly hostages were released. If Trump would shut up, those things would be the headlines and not his problems.
Both parties have major problems at this point.
That's for independent candidates. Should Trump be replaced by the GOP*, wouldn't his replacement be the (new) republican nominee?
No. You have to be on the ballot. It's getting pretty late to set that up, as Glenstache noted.
(ETA: never mind about the Glenstache part :), you're right that his link is about independent candidates. But the rest is still true.)
(ETA again: and this only applies if Trump himself decides to drop out. If he doesn't, the GOP cannot force him to.)
Oh boy. Wouldn't that just be a hoot.Possibly. In a sardonic way.
As bad as that sounds, Hillary is possibly more likely to get into a conflict with Russia. Trump would be more isolationist and let Russia expand into the Baltics. It is looking similar to 1930s Germany in Russia.
Actually it has to do with neither. This is where uninformed people run wild. It started with the Embassy takeover. Iran had ordered a bunch of US planes and other military items. They paid for them and the US of course refused to deliver after the takeover. Since then it has been in and out of the court at the Hague regarding capital and interest payments. It did get accelerated a bit by Kerry during the overall nuke talks -- but has its origins way-way back.
But of course Trump - Mr. Uninformed himself - will try and tell folks otherwise.
Actually it has to do with neither. This is where uninformed people run wild. It started with the Embassy takeover. Iran had ordered a bunch of US planes and other military items. They paid for them and the US of course refused to deliver after the takeover. Since then it has been in and out of the court at the Hague regarding capital and interest payments. It did get accelerated a bit by Kerry during the overall nuke talks -- but has its origins way-way back.
But of course Trump - Mr. Uninformed himself - will try and tell folks otherwise.
Northwestie. Money was paid and hostages were released. Those facts are not in dispute. If those 2 things happening so close together aren't related, that's a heck of a coincidence. Trump managed to kept his own errors in the headlines (including the video he keeps missing) instead of letting the democrats get hammered.
Actually it has to do with neither. This is where uninformed people run wild. It started with the Embassy takeover. Iran had ordered a bunch of US planes and other military items. They paid for them and the US of course refused to deliver after the takeover. Since then it has been in and out of the court at the Hague regarding capital and interest payments. It did get accelerated a bit by Kerry during the overall nuke talks -- but has its origins way-way back.
But of course Trump - Mr. Uninformed himself - will try and tell folks otherwise.
Northwestie. Money was paid and hostages were released. Those facts are not in dispute. If those 2 things happening so close together aren't related, that's a heck of a coincidence. Trump managed to kept his own errors in the headlines (including the video he keeps missing) instead of letting the democrats get hammered.
So, Northwestie gives details on why this really is just a coincidence and your response is "but they happened close together!" Riiight.
Not disagreeing with your second point though. Trump definitely missed an opportunity. Many do see every coincidence as a smoking gun, especially when it's in the hands of the party they would rather not vote for.
Actually it has to do with neither. This is where uninformed people run wild. It started with the Embassy takeover. Iran had ordered a bunch of US planes and other military items. They paid for them and the US of course refused to deliver after the takeover. Since then it has been in and out of the court at the Hague regarding capital and interest payments. It did get accelerated a bit by Kerry during the overall nuke talks -- but has its origins way-way back.
But of course Trump - Mr. Uninformed himself - will try and tell folks otherwise.
Northwestie. Money was paid and hostages were released. Those facts are not in dispute. If those 2 things happening so close together aren't related, that's a heck of a coincidence. Trump managed to kept his own errors in the headlines (including the video he keeps missing) instead of letting the democrats get hammered.
So, Northwestie gives details on why this really is just a coincidence and your response is "but they happened close together!" Riiight.
Not disagreeing with your second point though. Trump definitely missed an opportunity. Many do see every coincidence as a smoking gun, especially when it's in the hands of the party they would rather not vote for.
I read NW's post to read only uninformed people could believe the 2 events were related. Many people, including democrats, believe the events were related despite having knowledge that there is more to the story. NW is welcome to believe the complications change the situation, but it's a heck of a coincidence if the 2 weren't related. If they were related, it looks a lot like ransom.
Actually it has to do with neither. This is where uninformed people run wild. It started with the Embassy takeover. Iran had ordered a bunch of US planes and other military items. They paid for them and the US of course refused to deliver after the takeover. Since then it has been in and out of the court at the Hague regarding capital and interest payments. It did get accelerated a bit by Kerry during the overall nuke talks -- but has its origins way-way back.
But of course Trump - Mr. Uninformed himself - will try and tell folks otherwise.
Northwestie. Money was paid and hostages were released. Those facts are not in dispute. If those 2 things happening so close together aren't related, that's a heck of a coincidence. Trump managed to kept his own errors in the headlines (including the video he keeps missing) instead of letting the democrats get hammered.
So, Northwestie gives details on why this really is just a coincidence and your response is "but they happened close together!" Riiight.
Not disagreeing with your second point though. Trump definitely missed an opportunity. Many do see every coincidence as a smoking gun, especially when it's in the hands of the party they would rather not vote for.
I read NW's post to read only uninformed people could believe the 2 events were related. Many people, including democrats, believe the events were related despite having knowledge that there is more to the story. NW is welcome to believe the complications change the situation, but it's a heck of a coincidence if the 2 weren't related. If they were related, it looks a lot like ransom.
All I'm saying is your reasoning sounds very similar to the birthers, or those who believe in the Clinton hit lists, etc. I prefer to criticize political figures over their easily proven actions (re: drones) vs. conspiracy theories. I actually do believe some of the conspiracies are probably true, but fortunately for us cynics, we don't need to rely on them to find reasons to dislike those in the halls of power (on both sides of the aisle).
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Not Trump! Trump had very credible evidence from excellent sources that Obama is not an American.
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Not Trump! Trump had very credible evidence from excellent sources that Obama is not an American.
I try to call BS equally although who knows how successful I am in that regard. Yes, Trump should have dropped the birther thing a long time before he did.
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Not Trump! Trump had very credible evidence from excellent sources that Obama is not an American.
I try to call BS equally although who knows how successful I am in that regard. Yes, Trump should have dropped the birther thing a long time before he did.
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Not Trump! Trump had very credible evidence from excellent sources that Obama is not an American.
I try to call BS equally although who knows how successful I am in that regard. Yes, Trump should have dropped the birther thing a long time before he did.
Did Trump actually drop it? I thought it just transferred into "Obama's a secret Muslim despite having attended Christian churches for his whole life".
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Not Trump! Trump had very credible evidence from excellent sources that Obama is not an American.
I try to call BS equally although who knows how successful I am in that regard. Yes, Trump should have dropped the birther thing a long time before he did.
I would argue that Trump never should have started the birther thing in the first place. It was a no-go from the get-go.
Is it legitimate to ask questions? Yes.
Is it legitimate to ask questions? Yes.
No, not always. It depends on the question and the context.
For example, if I asked you when you stopped beating your wife that's only barely a legitimate question.
If you responded that you had never beaten your wife, but then I kept asking you for police reports of the beating, and claiming that I had plenty of good sources telling me that you were a wife beater . . . it stops being a question and is now more a statement solely used to smear you.
Is it legitimate to ask questions? Yes.
No, not always. It depends on the question and the context.
For example, if I asked you when you stopped beating your wife that's only barely a legitimate question.
If you responded that you had never beaten your wife, but then I kept asking you for police reports of the beating, and claiming that I had plenty of good sources telling me that you were a wife beater . . . it stops being a question and is now more a statement solely used to smear you.
Fair enough. I think the questions on the Iranian payment are legitimate. I honestly don't remember all the details on the birther thing because it seemed unlikely it was going anywhere.
I was referencing questions. Not accusations veiled as questions.
Didn't the birther thing morph from releasing the birth certificate to releasing college transcripts? I believe that Trump's former campaign manager still was asking why Obama's transcripts weren't released just the other day.
If its simply a matter of timing. What difference does it really make if the money was already in the plans to be made and it would have happened regardless of anything to do with hostages? The Iranians were gong to get the money anyway. It really just comes down to whether that point is true or false. Anything else is just looking for an excuse to complain.
If its simply a matter of timing. What difference does it really make if the money was already in the plans to be made and it would have happened regardless of anything to do with hostages? The Iranians were gong to get the money anyway. It really just comes down to whether that point is true or false. Anything else is just looking for an excuse to complain.
Despite the spin, the administration has made it pretty clear it was not a coincidence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/19/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-1192016
Q Okay, but as I understand it, the Department of State announced this payment of $1.7 billion to the government of Iran just before the plane carrying the freed Americans landed in Geneva. You're really telling me that this is an absolute coincidence that this payment just happened to coincide with the precise moment when the American prisoners were flying to freedom?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, I think we’ve made pretty clear that this is not a coincidence. The fact is, these kinds of diplomatic opportunities --
Given our relative position in the world and Iran's, I find it difficult to believe that we would have paid the money had we not cut what the administration thought was an acceptable deal. I suspect this deal included money, hostage release and some other things.
If its simply a matter of timing. What difference does it really make if the money was already in the plans to be made and it would have happened regardless of anything to do with hostages? The Iranians were gong to get the money anyway. It really just comes down to whether that point is true or false. Anything else is just looking for an excuse to complain.
Despite the spin, the administration has made it pretty clear it was not a coincidence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/19/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-1192016
Q Okay, but as I understand it, the Department of State announced this payment of $1.7 billion to the government of Iran just before the plane carrying the freed Americans landed in Geneva. You're really telling me that this is an absolute coincidence that this payment just happened to coincide with the precise moment when the American prisoners were flying to freedom?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, I think we’ve made pretty clear that this is not a coincidence. The fact is, these kinds of diplomatic opportunities --
Given our relative position in the world and Iran's, I find it difficult to believe that we would have paid the money had we not cut what the administration thought was an acceptable deal. I suspect this deal included money, hostage release and some other things.
What I’m suggesting is that the successful resolution of our concerns about Iran’s nuclear program created a series of diplomatic opportunities for the United States that we’ve capitalized on. And we used that opening and we used that deeper diplomatic engagement to secure the release of five American citizens who are being unjustly held inside of Iran. And we used that diplomatic opening to resolve a longstanding financial claim that the Iranians had against the United States in a way that ultimately saves U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, potentially up to $6 billion or $7 billion. So this is exhibit A in the administration pursuing tough, principled diplomacy in a way that actually ends up making the American people safer and advancing the interests of the United States more effectively than military actions.
If its simply a matter of timing. What difference does it really make if the money was already in the plans to be made and it would have happened regardless of anything to do with hostages? The Iranians were gong to get the money anyway. It really just comes down to whether that point is true or false. Anything else is just looking for an excuse to complain.
Despite the spin, the administration has made it pretty clear it was not a coincidence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/19/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-1192016
Q Okay, but as I understand it, the Department of State announced this payment of $1.7 billion to the government of Iran just before the plane carrying the freed Americans landed in Geneva. You're really telling me that this is an absolute coincidence that this payment just happened to coincide with the precise moment when the American prisoners were flying to freedom?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, I think we’ve made pretty clear that this is not a coincidence. The fact is, these kinds of diplomatic opportunities --
Given our relative position in the world and Iran's, I find it difficult to believe that we would have paid the money had we not cut what the administration thought was an acceptable deal. I suspect this deal included money, hostage release and some other things.
This was part of a larger sum of money that we've known about for months. It was part of the nuclear deal. This was ALREADY IRAN'S MONEY THAT THE US HAD FROZEN AND WAS NOW RETURNING. This was known months ago. Republicans criticized the Obama Administration for this months ago.
The funny thing is the Republicans ALSO criticized the Obama Administration for not including release of prisoners as part of the deal.
Now when the Obama Administrations actually pays some of the money on the same day that prisoners gets released, the Obama administration is being criticized for paying a ransom?
Obama critic want it both ways. They complain when the Obama administration doesn't tie release of prisoners into the deal, saying we're rewarding Iran when they didn't even agree to release prisoners. Now they are complaining when money is being paid AND prisoners are being released because apparently THAT is a ransom.
If its simply a matter of timing. What difference does it really make if the money was already in the plans to be made and it would have happened regardless of anything to do with hostages? The Iranians were gong to get the money anyway. It really just comes down to whether that point is true or false. Anything else is just looking for an excuse to complain.
Despite the spin, the administration has made it pretty clear it was not a coincidence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/19/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-1192016
Q Okay, but as I understand it, the Department of State announced this payment of $1.7 billion to the government of Iran just before the plane carrying the freed Americans landed in Geneva. You're really telling me that this is an absolute coincidence that this payment just happened to coincide with the precise moment when the American prisoners were flying to freedom?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, I think we’ve made pretty clear that this is not a coincidence. The fact is, these kinds of diplomatic opportunities --
Given our relative position in the world and Iran's, I find it difficult to believe that we would have paid the money had we not cut what the administration thought was an acceptable deal. I suspect this deal included money, hostage release and some other things.
This was part of a larger sum of money that we've known about for months. It was part of the nuclear deal. This was ALREADY IRAN'S MONEY THAT THE US HAD FROZEN AND WAS NOW RETURNING. This was known months ago. Republicans criticized the Obama Administration for this months ago.
The funny thing is the Republicans ALSO criticized the Obama Administration for not including release of prisoners as part of the deal.
Now when the Obama Administrations actually pays some of the money on the same day that prisoners gets released, the Obama administration is being criticized for paying a ransom?
Obama critic want it both ways. They complain when the Obama administration doesn't tie release of prisoners into the deal, saying we're rewarding Iran when they didn't even agree to release prisoners. Now they are complaining when money is being paid AND prisoners are being released because apparently THAT is a ransom.
Exactly. Even if we agree with you that it's not a coincidence per se, it is quite obvious that the money was in no way shape or form intended to be part of hostage negotiations, which is the conspiracy claim here (ZOMG Obama is negotiating with terrorists!). At best, the "smoking gun" is that they took advantage of the timing of the payment (which was already going to happen) to request the release of the hostages. It would seem incompetent for them not to do this, so even if I buy what you're selling, it's still a non-scandal.
Actually it has to do with neither. This is where uninformed people run wild. It started with the Embassy takeover. Iran had ordered a bunch of US planes and other military items. They paid for them and the US of course refused to deliver after the takeover. Since then it has been in and out of the court at the Hague regarding capital and interest payments. It did get accelerated a bit by Kerry during the overall nuke talks -- but has its origins way-way back.
But of course Trump - Mr. Uninformed himself - will try and tell folks otherwise.
Northwestie. Money was paid and hostages were released. Those facts are not in dispute. If those 2 things happening so close together aren't related, that's a heck of a coincidence. Trump managed to kept his own errors in the headlines (including the video he keeps missing) instead of letting the democrats get hammered.
Actually it has to do with neither. This is where uninformed people run wild. It started with the Embassy takeover. Iran had ordered a bunch of US planes and other military items. They paid for them and the US of course refused to deliver after the takeover. Since then it has been in and out of the court at the Hague regarding capital and interest payments. It did get accelerated a bit by Kerry during the overall nuke talks -- but has its origins way-way back.
But of course Trump - Mr. Uninformed himself - will try and tell folks otherwise.
Northwestie. Money was paid and hostages were released. Those facts are not in dispute. If those 2 things happening so close together aren't related, that's a heck of a coincidence. Trump managed to kept his own errors in the headlines (including the video he keeps missing) instead of letting the democrats get hammered.
Oh Jesus. I can't spoon feed this. My suggestion is to read some legitimate news sources and get educated on the facts.
Actually it has to do with neither. This is where uninformed people run wild. It started with the Embassy takeover. Iran had ordered a bunch of US planes and other military items. They paid for them and the US of course refused to deliver after the takeover. Since then it has been in and out of the court at the Hague regarding capital and interest payments. It did get accelerated a bit by Kerry during the overall nuke talks -- but has its origins way-way back.
But of course Trump - Mr. Uninformed himself - will try and tell folks otherwise.
Northwestie. Money was paid and hostages were released. Those facts are not in dispute. If those 2 things happening so close together aren't related, that's a heck of a coincidence. Trump managed to kept his own errors in the headlines (including the video he keeps missing) instead of letting the democrats get hammered.
Oh Jesus. I can't spoon feed this. My suggestion is to read some legitimate news sources and get educated on the facts.
NW - Rather than insulting me, why don't you point out where I'm wrong. It's not a coincidence.
PS - Trump is still an idiot for (among many other things), getting in the way of this story (whether you agree with the assertions or not).
If its simply a matter of timing. What difference does it really make if the money was already in the plans to be made and it would have happened regardless of anything to do with hostages? The Iranians were gong to get the money anyway. It really just comes down to whether that point is true or false. Anything else is just looking for an excuse to complain.
Despite the spin, the administration has made it pretty clear it was not a coincidence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/19/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-1192016
Q Okay, but as I understand it, the Department of State announced this payment of $1.7 billion to the government of Iran just before the plane carrying the freed Americans landed in Geneva. You're really telling me that this is an absolute coincidence that this payment just happened to coincide with the precise moment when the American prisoners were flying to freedom?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, I think we’ve made pretty clear that this is not a coincidence. The fact is, these kinds of diplomatic opportunities --
Given our relative position in the world and Iran's, I find it difficult to believe that we would have paid the money had we not cut what the administration thought was an acceptable deal. I suspect this deal included money, hostage release and some other things.
This was part of a larger sum of money that we've known about for months. It was part of the nuclear deal. This was ALREADY IRAN'S MONEY THAT THE US HAD FROZEN AND WAS NOW RETURNING. This was known months ago. Republicans criticized the Obama Administration for this months ago.
The funny thing is the Republicans ALSO criticized the Obama Administration for not including release of prisoners as part of the deal.
Now when the Obama Administrations actually pays some of the money on the same day that prisoners gets released, the Obama administration is being criticized for paying a ransom?
Obama critic want it both ways. They complain when the Obama administration doesn't tie release of prisoners into the deal, saying we're rewarding Iran when they didn't even agree to release prisoners. Now they are complaining when money is being paid AND prisoners are being released because apparently THAT is a ransom.
Exactly. Even if we agree with you that it's not a coincidence per se, it is quite obvious that the money was in no way shape or form intended to be part of hostage negotiations, which is the conspiracy claim here (ZOMG Obama is negotiating with terrorists!). At best, the "smoking gun" is that they took advantage of the timing of the payment (which was already going to happen) to request the release of the hostages. It would seem incompetent for them not to do this, so even if I buy what you're selling, it's still a non-scandal.
We froze this money during Reagan's term and repaid in 2016. We paid money that had been held for 30 years and hostages were released basically at the same time. If we were going to repay the money anyway, why didn't we do it 5, 10 15 years ago? The answer, to me, is we wanted some concessions (including the hostages) as part of the deal.
If your clunky narrative is supposed to imply that Obama traded cash for captives - that's wrong. The cash was part of a settlement that has been vetted in the Hague for almost 3 decades. If your point is that John Kerry, in the nuke talks accelerated what was already settled- then yes! THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN MULTIPLE NEWS OUTLETS.
You're implying that Obama and Hillary some how conspired on some dirty deal. This is the type of weak thinking than makes lemmings, and not very smart ones, to give the GOP nomination to an unqualified dirtbag like Trump.
If your clunky narrative is supposed to imply that Obama traded cash for captives - that's wrong. The cash was part of a settlement that has been vetted in the Hague for almost 3 decades. If your point is that John Kerry, in the nuke talks accelerated what was already settled- then yes! THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN MULTIPLE NEWS OUTLETS.
You're implying that Obama and Hillary some how conspired on some dirty deal. This is the type of weak thinking than makes lemmings, and not very smart ones, to give the GOP nomination to an unqualified dirtbag like Trump.
READ THE FRIGGIN" NEWSPAPER ALREADY.
If you want a piece of evidence that not everything that is lawful is also right, look no further than the Obama administration’s January shipment of $400 million in euros and Swiss francs to Iran—in cash in an unmarked cargo plane.
READ THE FRIGGIN" NEWSPAPER ALREADY.
Good point. See this recent article (https://www.google.com/search?q=The+%24400+Million%3A+Legal+but+Not+Right&oq=The+%24400+Million%3A+Legal+but+Not+Right&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.143j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8):QuoteIf you want a piece of evidence that not everything that is lawful is also right, look no further than the Obama administration’s January shipment of $400 million in euros and Swiss francs to Iran—in cash in an unmarked cargo plane.
READ THE FRIGGIN" NEWSPAPER ALREADY.
Good point. See this recent article (https://www.google.com/search?q=The+%24400+Million%3A+Legal+but+Not+Right&oq=The+%24400+Million%3A+Legal+but+Not+Right&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.143j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8):QuoteIf you want a piece of evidence that not everything that is lawful is also right, look no further than the Obama administration’s January shipment of $400 million in euros and Swiss francs to Iran—in cash in an unmarked cargo plane.
I don't think NW meant the WSJ
If your clunky narrative is supposed to imply that Obama traded cash for captives - that's wrong. The cash was part of a settlement that has been vetted in the Hague for almost 3 decades. If your point is that John Kerry, in the nuke talks accelerated what was already settled- then yes! THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN MULTIPLE NEWS OUTLETS.
You're implying that Obama and Hillary some how conspired on some dirty deal. This is the type of weak thinking than makes lemmings, and not very smart ones, to give the GOP nomination to an unqualified dirtbag like Trump.
Vetted at the Hague for 3 decades and paid at the same time the hostages were released. Total coincidence. Who's the lemming?
I've read several newspapers, the white house briefing and actually used my brain. The two items were clearly related as the white house has admitted. Does that make it ransom? I don't know. The Iranians think it does and some news outlets think it does. Certainly wasn't a good story for the Democrats which was the whole point of the original post.
Since Hillary wasn't even in office during this deal, I'm not aware how she would have participated. Rather than defending your candidate when she's not even being attacked, maybe you could read what was written as well as the cites including a white house briefing.
If its simply a matter of timing. What difference does it really make if the money was already in the plans to be made and it would have happened regardless of anything to do with hostages? The Iranians were gong to get the money anyway. It really just comes down to whether that point is true or false. Anything else is just looking for an excuse to complain.
Despite the spin, the administration has made it pretty clear it was not a coincidence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/19/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-1192016
Q Okay, but as I understand it, the Department of State announced this payment of $1.7 billion to the government of Iran just before the plane carrying the freed Americans landed in Geneva. You're really telling me that this is an absolute coincidence that this payment just happened to coincide with the precise moment when the American prisoners were flying to freedom?
MR. EARNEST: Jon, I think we’ve made pretty clear that this is not a coincidence. The fact is, these kinds of diplomatic opportunities --
Given our relative position in the world and Iran's, I find it difficult to believe that we would have paid the money had we not cut what the administration thought was an acceptable deal. I suspect this deal included money, hostage release and some other things.
This was part of a larger sum of money that we've known about for months. It was part of the nuclear deal. This was ALREADY IRAN'S MONEY THAT THE US HAD FROZEN AND WAS NOW RETURNING. This was known months ago. Republicans criticized the Obama Administration for this months ago.
The funny thing is the Republicans ALSO criticized the Obama Administration for not including release of prisoners as part of the deal.
Now when the Obama Administrations actually pays some of the money on the same day that prisoners gets released, the Obama administration is being criticized for paying a ransom?
Obama critic want it both ways. They complain when the Obama administration doesn't tie release of prisoners into the deal, saying we're rewarding Iran when they didn't even agree to release prisoners. Now they are complaining when money is being paid AND prisoners are being released because apparently THAT is a ransom.
Exactly. Even if we agree with you that it's not a coincidence per se, it is quite obvious that the money was in no way shape or form intended to be part of hostage negotiations, which is the conspiracy claim here (ZOMG Obama is negotiating with terrorists!). At best, the "smoking gun" is that they took advantage of the timing of the payment (which was already going to happen) to request the release of the hostages. It would seem incompetent for them not to do this, so even if I buy what you're selling, it's still a non-scandal.
We froze this money during Reagan's term and repaid in 2016. We paid money that had been held for 30 years and hostages were released basically at the same time. If we were going to repay the money anyway, why didn't we do it 5, 10 15 years ago? The answer, to me, is we wanted some concessions (including the hostages) as part of the deal.
The answer, from what little I've gathered is that the issue of the money has been in front of an international court in the Hague for years and the proceedings looked likely of late that the US was going to lose big time. Rather than risk being ordered to repay the money plus excessive interest and fines, the US decided to settle out of court. So yeah, maybe there is SOME kind of tenuous connection in regards to the timing and other negations, but everyone pretty much knew that barring the US flouting an international court that it had agreed to abide with, Iran was almost certainly going to get the money. At worst, like Lagom mention's it was savvy negotiating on the part of the US to get what the US wants by paying what Iran was already going to get.
It was certainly NOT a ransom.
If your clunky narrative is supposed to imply that Obama traded cash for captives - that's wrong. The cash was part of a settlement that has been vetted in the Hague for almost 3 decades. If your point is that John Kerry, in the nuke talks accelerated what was already settled- then yes! THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN MULTIPLE NEWS OUTLETS.
You're implying that Obama and Hillary some how conspired on some dirty deal. This is the type of weak thinking than makes lemmings, and not very smart ones, to give the GOP nomination to an unqualified dirtbag like Trump.
Vetted at the Hague for 3 decades and paid at the same time the hostages were released. Total coincidence. Who's the lemming?
I've read several newspapers, the white house briefing and actually used my brain. The two items were clearly related as the white house has admitted. Does that make it ransom? I don't know. The Iranians think it does and some news outlets think it does. Certainly wasn't a good story for the Democrats which was the whole point of the original post.
Since Hillary wasn't even in office during this deal, I'm not aware how she would have participated. Rather than defending your candidate when she's not even being attacked, maybe you could read what was written as well as the cites including a white house briefing.
Wanna try for a triple post? Just saying it over and over like Trump doesn't make it true.
Duh! That's because your argument has no FACTS. You state an opinion that based on the timing of two events they are inexorably tied together. We could get into fundamentals here and the difference between correlation and causation - but given the previous weak narrative you provided I don't think that will be productive.
So here's the facts.
1) the US owed money to Iran that they paid for armaments we did not deliver after the ouster of the Shah.
2) the dispute has been hammered out over 3 decades in the World Court in the Hague regarding capital interest owed.
3) This was near settlement and got accelerated by John Kerry during the nuke talks
4) The settlement was announced back in JANUARY 2016 - it was very transparent.
5) The US had to deliver the payment in cash because current US law does not allow banking transactions with Iran
Contrasting these items - you have arm waved about some conspiracy. Now - if you have any facts you can point to -- have at it. Supposition doesn't count champ.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts" Senator DPM.
My suggestion is to align any argument with a logic thread. It really helps.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding you?? If your point is that John Kerry accelerated the settlement that had already been agreed to in the Hague - I would agree.
If you are stating that some decades-long settlement really was started up as tit-for-tat payment -- than no. It was in the works a long time.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding you?? If your point is that John Kerry accelerated the settlement that had already been agreed to in the Hague - I would agree.
If you are stating that some decades-long settlement really was started up as tit-for-tat payment -- than no. It was in the works a long time.
Northwestie - I believe we settled a number of things including the hostages and the hague payment in a larger agreement (formal and informal). The white house briefing supports that.
It clearly wasn't as simple as we are sending you the money we owe you from 30 years ago, just as it wasn't as simple as we are sending you $400M release our hostages.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding you?? If your point is that John Kerry accelerated the settlement that had already been agreed to in the Hague - I would agree.
If you are stating that some decades-long settlement really was started up as tit-for-tat payment -- than no. It was in the works a long time.
Northwestie - I believe we settled a number of things including the hostages and the hague payment in a larger agreement (formal and informal). The white house briefing supports that.
It clearly wasn't as simple as we are sending you the money we owe you from 30 years ago, just as it wasn't as simple as we are sending you $400M release our hostages.
Maybe it will clear up if we look at the fundamental fear behind negotiating with people who take hostages . . . which is that more people will take hostages if it looks like it's paying out to do so.
As you said, in this case the US had a long existing debt to Iran that was illegally being held back. It was paid back partly as an incentive to release hostages.
Are you concerned that the US is welshing on other debts, and this will result in an uptick in foreign nations taking US citizens hostage?
Yea, it's a great world leadership decision to ignore the Hague decision. Using the threshold of the example of China is a pretty low bar, we don't need to go there.
Meanwhile the Donald continues self-inflect admitting he just made up shite about seeing the money transfer film. You can't make this stuff up.
Yea, it's a great world leadership decision to ignore the Hague decision. Using the threshold of the example of China is a pretty low bar, we don't need to go there.
Meanwhile the Donald continues self-inflect admitting he just made up shite about seeing the money transfer film. You can't make this stuff up.
While I agree ignoring the Hague is not optimal (neither is paying money to Iran btw), my point was that we delayed for 30 years and we had options This wasn't a mortgage where they would repossess your house if you didn't pay. This was more like a debt from a loan shark to the toughest gang in the neighborhood and to throw in some intrigue the loan shark decides to kidnap the tough guys daughter.
Yea, it's a great world leadership decision to ignore the Hague decision. Using the threshold of the example of China is a pretty low bar, we don't need to go there.
Meanwhile the Donald continues self-inflect admitting he just made up shite about seeing the money transfer film. You can't make this stuff up.
While I agree ignoring the Hague is not optimal (neither is paying money to Iran btw), my point was that we delayed for 30 years and we had options This wasn't a mortgage where they would repossess your house if you didn't pay. This was more like a debt from a loan shark to the toughest gang in the neighborhood and to throw in some intrigue the loan shark decides to kidnap the tough guys daughter.
Paying the money back. You seem to keep forgetting that it was money the US took as part of a deal and then failed to hold up their end.
Yea, it's a great world leadership decision to ignore the Hague decision. Using the threshold of the example of China is a pretty low bar, we don't need to go there.
Meanwhile the Donald continues self-inflect admitting he just made up shite about seeing the money transfer film. You can't make this stuff up.
While I agree ignoring the Hague is not optimal (neither is paying money to Iran btw), my point was that we delayed for 30 years and we had options This wasn't a mortgage where they would repossess your house if you didn't pay. This was more like a debt from a loan shark to the toughest gang in the neighborhood and to throw in some intrigue the loan shark decides to kidnap the tough guys daughter.
Paying the money back. You seem to keep forgetting that it was money the US took as part of a deal and then failed to hold up their end.
I'm not forgetting. Just don't care if Iran (a hostage taking, terrorist supporting nation) gets the money back. This is the same nation who took a number of US hostages about the same time period.
Yea, it's a great world leadership decision to ignore the Hague decision. Using the threshold of the example of China is a pretty low bar, we don't need to go there.
Meanwhile the Donald continues self-inflect admitting he just made up shite about seeing the money transfer film. You can't make this stuff up.
While I agree ignoring the Hague is not optimal (neither is paying money to Iran btw), my point was that we delayed for 30 years and we had options This wasn't a mortgage where they would repossess your house if you didn't pay. This was more like a debt from a loan shark to the toughest gang in the neighborhood and to throw in some intrigue the loan shark decides to kidnap the tough guys daughter.
Paying the money back. You seem to keep forgetting that it was money the US took as part of a deal and then failed to hold up their end.
I'm not forgetting. Just don't care if Iran (a hostage taking, terrorist supporting nation) gets the money back. This is the same nation who took a number of US hostages about the same time period.
Yea, it's a great world leadership decision to ignore the Hague decision. Using the threshold of the example of China is a pretty low bar, we don't need to go there.
Meanwhile the Donald continues self-inflect admitting he just made up shite about seeing the money transfer film. You can't make this stuff up.
While I agree ignoring the Hague is not optimal (neither is paying money to Iran btw), my point was that we delayed for 30 years and we had options This wasn't a mortgage where they would repossess your house if you didn't pay. This was more like a debt from a loan shark to the toughest gang in the neighborhood and to throw in some intrigue the loan shark decides to kidnap the tough guys daughter.
Paying the money back. You seem to keep forgetting that it was money the US took as part of a deal and then failed to hold up their end.
I'm not forgetting. Just don't care if Iran (a hostage taking, terrorist supporting nation) gets the money back. This is the same nation who took a number of US hostages about the same time period.
Cool logic.
The United States currently has a bunch of hostages taken and held in Guantanamo Bay. The United States is currently performing terrorist drone strikes which kill many civilians throughout northern Pakistan and Afghanistan.
I guess you don't think that anybody needs to pay US debts back?
Guantanamo Bay holds what are effectively POW's in the war on terror.
Guantanamo Bay holds what are effectively POW's in the war on terror.
Claiming something that is demonstrably a lie doesn't support your point well.
According to the Pentagon, at least 150 of the people held in the Guantanamo torture facility were innocent and had nothing to do with the war. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13184845 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13184845)).
Yea, it's a great world leadership decision to ignore the Hague decision. Using the threshold of the example of China is a pretty low bar, we don't need to go there.
Meanwhile the Donald continues self-inflect admitting he just made up shite about seeing the money transfer film. You can't make this stuff up.
While I agree ignoring the Hague is not optimal (neither is paying money to Iran btw), my point was that we delayed for 30 years and we had options This wasn't a mortgage where they would repossess your house if you didn't pay. This was more like a debt from a loan shark to the toughest gang in the neighborhood and to throw in some intrigue the loan shark decides to kidnap the tough guys daughter.
Paying the money back. You seem to keep forgetting that it was money the US took as part of a deal and then failed to hold up their end.
I'm not forgetting. Just don't care if Iran (a hostage taking, terrorist supporting nation) gets the money back. This is the same nation who took a number of US hostages about the same time period.
Yea, it's a great world leadership decision to ignore the Hague decision. Using the threshold of the example of China is a pretty low bar, we don't need to go there.
Meanwhile the Donald continues self-inflect admitting he just made up shite about seeing the money transfer film. You can't make this stuff up.
While I agree ignoring the Hague is not optimal (neither is paying money to Iran btw), my point was that we delayed for 30 years and we had options This wasn't a mortgage where they would repossess your house if you didn't pay. This was more like a debt from a loan shark to the toughest gang in the neighborhood and to throw in some intrigue the loan shark decides to kidnap the tough guys daughter.
Donald talking about the non-existent film is idiotic and another example of why he should shut up let his opponents hurt themselves.
Guantanamo Bay holds what are effectively POW's in the war on terror.
Claiming something that is demonstrably a lie doesn't support your point well.
According to the Pentagon, at least 150 of the people held in the Guantanamo torture facility were innocent and had nothing to do with the war. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13184845 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13184845)).
I'll take the time to look at that link. I was trusting my govt to tell me the truth about why we are holding these people. If I'm incorrect (based on assertions by my own govt), then my opinion would differ.
Guantanamo Bay holds what are effectively POW's in the war on terror.
Claiming something that is demonstrably a lie doesn't support your point well.
According to the Pentagon, at least 150 of the people held in the Guantanamo torture facility were innocent and had nothing to do with the war. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13184845 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13184845)).
I'll take the time to look at that link. I was trusting my govt to tell me the truth about why we are holding these people. If I'm incorrect (based on assertions by my own govt), then my opinion would differ.
Not to mention that if they were classified as POWs then holding them there would violate the Geneva Convention.
(I mean, it does anyway, but Bush at least tried to claim otherwise by making some bullshit semantic argument that they were somehow not POWs. In reality, 'enemy combatants' is a fictional, nonexistent concept. There are only two choices: civilian criminals or POWs. If they're POWs, they must be handled according to the Geneva Convention. If they're civilian criminals, they must be handled according to the Bill of Rights. The fact that they're being afforded neither set of rights is a crime against humanity.)
Jack - I was quickly responding to a complete tangent from the original issue (ie the Iran payment). When Steve pointed out I be in error regarding Guantanamo, my response was quick and that I would take the time to look at his source and learn.
Jack - I was quickly responding to a complete tangent from the original issue (ie the Iran payment). When Steve pointed out I be in error regarding Guantanamo, my response was quick and that I would take the time to look at his source and learn.
Sure. I wasn't objecting to your response; I was just giving more detail to consider.
Yea, it's a great world leadership decision to ignore the Hague decision. Using the threshold of the example of China is a pretty low bar, we don't need to go there.
Meanwhile the Donald continues self-inflect admitting he just made up shite about seeing the money transfer film. You can't make this stuff up.
While I agree ignoring the Hague is not optimal (neither is paying money to Iran btw), my point was that we delayed for 30 years and we had options This wasn't a mortgage where they would repossess your house if you didn't pay. This was more like a debt from a loan shark to the toughest gang in the neighborhood and to throw in some intrigue the loan shark decides to kidnap the tough guys daughter.
Donald talking about the non-existent film is idiotic and another example of why he should shut up let his opponents hurt themselves.
We, you're wrong again. The US didn't hold back payment for 30 years - it was being arbitrated over that time and incrementally moving closer to an agreement. We were going to pay it soon, it was decided and announced in September. In the deal with the nukes we also got back prisoners. All around a win for us.
Sure, we could have retrenched and gone back on our word and the Hauge - to what end? Cut off our nose to spite our face? Brilliant strategy.
Oh. I see. Now your flip-flopping from your original assertion that this was outside the context of the 30-year arbitration effort going on the Hague to it being a somewhat dubious transaction for what exactly?? Messaging? Political ethics? Keeping track of your narrative is getting as difficult as managing a dinner table on the Titanic.
Within the last 2 weeks the democrats have fired their party leader and multiple staff. This week it comes out that the US (lead by President Obama) paid Iran a whole bunch of money in other currencies and suddenly hostages were released. If Trump would shut up, those things would be the headlines and not his problems.
The US takes hostages (and tortures them) and supports terrorists (and even acts like a terrorist). The difference is that we define our actions to be not those things because we're powerful enough to make a lot of people believe our definitions when they apply to us.
We execute people in other countries without a trial. We kill innocent people. We destroy lots of innocent people's lives (through economic means as well as militarily). We support the Saudis who are spreading the fundamentalist ideology that spawns the terrorists we are fighting--as well as funding them too. We attempt to provide justification for doing all of this. I'm sure Iran has justification for why they took hostages and support groups that engage in terror. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
The US takes hostages (and tortures them) and supports terrorists (and even acts like a terrorist). The difference is that we define our actions to be not those things because we're powerful enough to make a lot of people believe our definitions when they apply to us.
We execute people in other countries without a trial. We kill innocent people. We destroy lots of innocent people's lives (through economic means as well as militarily). We support the Saudis who are spreading the fundamentalist ideology that spawns the terrorists we are fighting--as well as funding them too. We attempt to provide justification for doing all of this. I'm sure Iran has justification for why they took hostages and support groups that engage in terror. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I don't get how you can know these things and support Clinton, who doesn't propose to change any of them.
The US takes hostages (and tortures them) and supports terrorists (and even acts like a terrorist). The difference is that we define our actions to be not those things because we're powerful enough to make a lot of people believe our definitions when they apply to us.
We execute people in other countries without a trial. We kill innocent people. We destroy lots of innocent people's lives (through economic means as well as militarily). We support the Saudis who are spreading the fundamentalist ideology that spawns the terrorists we are fighting--as well as funding them too. We attempt to provide justification for doing all of this. I'm sure Iran has justification for why they took hostages and support groups that engage in terror. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I don't get how you can know these things and support Clinton, who doesn't propose to change any of them.
I don't support Clinton--but that's just arguing about definition. But I have trouble believing that Johnson will reverse over 100 years of consistent US imperialist action by administrations of all stripes. I roughly agree with Clinton and Johnson on a number of issues (not entirely overlapping of course). I am not as thoroughly familiar with all of Johnson's downsides. It could be that he eschews the positions that make many libertarians too crazy to consider. But if he starts to beat Trump in the polls (like if Trump drops out), I would look more closely.
It's also worth mentioning that her main opponent actively campaigns on increasing theses actions. I realize that this is not an endorsement of Clinton, but asking if we want our country to go further down that road is an important thing to consider.The US takes hostages (and tortures them) and supports terrorists (and even acts like a terrorist). The difference is that we define our actions to be not those things because we're powerful enough to make a lot of people believe our definitions when they apply to us.
We execute people in other countries without a trial. We kill innocent people. We destroy lots of innocent people's lives (through economic means as well as militarily). We support the Saudis who are spreading the fundamentalist ideology that spawns the terrorists we are fighting--as well as funding them too. We attempt to provide justification for doing all of this. I'm sure Iran has justification for why they took hostages and support groups that engage in terror. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I don't get how you can know these things and support Clinton, who doesn't propose to change any of them.
The US takes hostages (and tortures them) and supports terrorists (and even acts like a terrorist). The difference is that we define our actions to be not those things because we're powerful enough to make a lot of people believe our definitions when they apply to us.
We execute people in other countries without a trial. We kill innocent people. We destroy lots of innocent people's lives (through economic means as well as militarily). We support the Saudis who are spreading the fundamentalist ideology that spawns the terrorists we are fighting--as well as funding them too. We attempt to provide justification for doing all of this. I'm sure Iran has justification for why they took hostages and support groups that engage in terror. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I don't get how you can know these things and support Clinton, who doesn't propose to change any of them.
I don't support Clinton--but that's just arguing about definition. But I have trouble believing that Johnson will reverse over 100 years of consistent US imperialist action by administrations of all stripes. I roughly agree with Clinton and Johnson on a number of issues (not entirely overlapping of course). I am not as thoroughly familiar with all of Johnson's downsides. It could be that he eschews the positions that make many libertarians too crazy to consider. But if he starts to beat Trump in the polls (like if Trump drops out), I would look more closely.
The US takes hostages (and tortures them) and supports terrorists (and even acts like a terrorist). The difference is that we define our actions to be not those things because we're powerful enough to make a lot of people believe our definitions when they apply to us.
We execute people in other countries without a trial. We kill innocent people. We destroy lots of innocent people's lives (through economic means as well as militarily). We support the Saudis who are spreading the fundamentalist ideology that spawns the terrorists we are fighting--as well as funding them too. We attempt to provide justification for doing all of this. I'm sure Iran has justification for why they took hostages and support groups that engage in terror. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I don't get how you can know these things and support Clinton, who doesn't propose to change any of them.
I don't support Clinton--but that's just arguing about definition. But I have trouble believing that Johnson will reverse over 100 years of consistent US imperialist action by administrations of all stripes. I roughly agree with Clinton and Johnson on a number of issues (not entirely overlapping of course). I am not as thoroughly familiar with all of Johnson's downsides. It could be that he eschews the positions that make many libertarians too crazy to consider. But if he starts to beat Trump in the polls (like if Trump drops out), I would look more closely.
Regarding Johnson, he absolutely does abandon a bunch of libertarian positions. He has a lot of people pissed off right now for stuff he's been saying recently, like that the government should fight discrimination (which is a big no-no in libertarians' minds because of how antithetical it is to property rights.)
The US takes hostages (and tortures them) and supports terrorists (and even acts like a terrorist). The difference is that we define our actions to be not those things because we're powerful enough to make a lot of people believe our definitions when they apply to us.
We execute people in other countries without a trial. We kill innocent people. We destroy lots of innocent people's lives (through economic means as well as militarily). We support the Saudis who are spreading the fundamentalist ideology that spawns the terrorists we are fighting--as well as funding them too. We attempt to provide justification for doing all of this. I'm sure Iran has justification for why they took hostages and support groups that engage in terror. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I don't get how you can know these things and support Clinton, who doesn't propose to change any of them.
I don't support Clinton--but that's just arguing about definition. But I have trouble believing that Johnson will reverse over 100 years of consistent US imperialist action by administrations of all stripes. I roughly agree with Clinton and Johnson on a number of issues (not entirely overlapping of course). I am not as thoroughly familiar with all of Johnson's downsides. It could be that he eschews the positions that make many libertarians too crazy to consider. But if he starts to beat Trump in the polls (like if Trump drops out), I would look more closely.
Regarding Johnson, he absolutely does abandon a bunch of libertarian positions. He has a lot of people pissed off right now for stuff he's been saying recently, like that the government should fight discrimination (which is a big no-no in libertarians' minds because of how antithetical it is to property rights.)
Good for him. The standard libertarian BS of "the magic markets will correct for discrimination" would be laughable if it weren't so sad. We had 100 years of universal discrimination against blacks in the south and somehow the markets didn't fix that. It took multiple federal actions to even just let blacks vote or use bathrooms or eat at restaurants. I would say that the markets were actually rewarding discrimination--not ending it.
Having segregated businesses as the norm for 100 years doesn't signal to you that the market was rewarding it?The US takes hostages (and tortures them) and supports terrorists (and even acts like a terrorist). The difference is that we define our actions to be not those things because we're powerful enough to make a lot of people believe our definitions when they apply to us.
We execute people in other countries without a trial. We kill innocent people. We destroy lots of innocent people's lives (through economic means as well as militarily). We support the Saudis who are spreading the fundamentalist ideology that spawns the terrorists we are fighting--as well as funding them too. We attempt to provide justification for doing all of this. I'm sure Iran has justification for why they took hostages and support groups that engage in terror. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I don't get how you can know these things and support Clinton, who doesn't propose to change any of them.
I don't support Clinton--but that's just arguing about definition. But I have trouble believing that Johnson will reverse over 100 years of consistent US imperialist action by administrations of all stripes. I roughly agree with Clinton and Johnson on a number of issues (not entirely overlapping of course). I am not as thoroughly familiar with all of Johnson's downsides. It could be that he eschews the positions that make many libertarians too crazy to consider. But if he starts to beat Trump in the polls (like if Trump drops out), I would look more closely.
Regarding Johnson, he absolutely does abandon a bunch of libertarian positions. He has a lot of people pissed off right now for stuff he's been saying recently, like that the government should fight discrimination (which is a big no-no in libertarians' minds because of how antithetical it is to property rights.)
Good for him. The standard libertarian BS of "the magic markets will correct for discrimination" would be laughable if it weren't so sad. We had 100 years of universal discrimination against blacks in the south and somehow the markets didn't fix that. It took multiple federal actions to even just let blacks vote or use bathrooms or eat at restaurants. I would say that the markets were actually rewarding discrimination--not ending it.
I'm very skeptical of your last claim; do you have anything to back it up? Commonly the government lags the social movement, stepping in to make universal changes once things have already reached critical mass with public support. I'm not saying that's bad: any faster and it's despotic. But then these things tend to have long tails of unintended consequences that erode other fundamental rights, just so some politician can get his name slapped on the change.
Having segregated businesses as the norm for 100 years doesn't signal to you that the market was rewarding it?The US takes hostages (and tortures them) and supports terrorists (and even acts like a terrorist). The difference is that we define our actions to be not those things because we're powerful enough to make a lot of people believe our definitions when they apply to us.
We execute people in other countries without a trial. We kill innocent people. We destroy lots of innocent people's lives (through economic means as well as militarily). We support the Saudis who are spreading the fundamentalist ideology that spawns the terrorists we are fighting--as well as funding them too. We attempt to provide justification for doing all of this. I'm sure Iran has justification for why they took hostages and support groups that engage in terror. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I don't get how you can know these things and support Clinton, who doesn't propose to change any of them.
I don't support Clinton--but that's just arguing about definition. But I have trouble believing that Johnson will reverse over 100 years of consistent US imperialist action by administrations of all stripes. I roughly agree with Clinton and Johnson on a number of issues (not entirely overlapping of course). I am not as thoroughly familiar with all of Johnson's downsides. It could be that he eschews the positions that make many libertarians too crazy to consider. But if he starts to beat Trump in the polls (like if Trump drops out), I would look more closely.
Regarding Johnson, he absolutely does abandon a bunch of libertarian positions. He has a lot of people pissed off right now for stuff he's been saying recently, like that the government should fight discrimination (which is a big no-no in libertarians' minds because of how antithetical it is to property rights.)
Good for him. The standard libertarian BS of "the magic markets will correct for discrimination" would be laughable if it weren't so sad. We had 100 years of universal discrimination against blacks in the south and somehow the markets didn't fix that. It took multiple federal actions to even just let blacks vote or use bathrooms or eat at restaurants. I would say that the markets were actually rewarding discrimination--not ending it.
I'm very skeptical of your last claim; do you have anything to back it up? Commonly the government lags the social movement, stepping in to make universal changes once things have already reached critical mass with public support. I'm not saying that's bad: any faster and it's despotic. But then these things tend to have long tails of unintended consequences that erode other fundamental rights, just so some politician can get his name slapped on the change.
I should also previously have mentioned that the prevention of black citizens from voting supports my point, in that there were already laws ensuring that right, but still little was achieved. It wasn't until a decade of huge public support for civil rights that we came to actually stand behind the laws we already had.
I should also previously have mentioned that the prevention of black citizens from voting supports my point, in that there were already laws ensuring that right, but still little was achieved. It wasn't until a decade of huge public support for civil rights that we came to actually stand behind the laws we already had.
It was not illegal to prevent blacks from voting. That's why they had to pass the constitutional amendments and the Voting Rights Act in the 60s to make it illegal.
I should also previously have mentioned that the prevention of black citizens from voting supports my point, in that there were already laws ensuring that right, but still little was achieved. It wasn't until a decade of huge public support for civil rights that we came to actually stand behind the laws we already had.
It was not illegal to prevent blacks from voting. That's why they had to pass the constitutional amendments and the Voting Rights Act in the 60s to make it illegal.
15th Amendment, ratified 03 February 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
There's no doubt in my mind that black would-be voters were denied their rights. And given the failure to enforce the 15th amendment, it was smart to enact the 24th to back it up. My point is that the social movements were direct catalysts for change, and not, as I think some people imagine, calls to action for Congress. The movements also had that effect, but it was the movements, not Congressional action, that led to the vast majority of the change.
There's no doubt in my mind that black would-be voters were denied their rights. And given the failure to enforce the 15th amendment, it was smart to enact the 24th to back it up. My point is that the social movements were direct catalysts for change, and not, as I think some people imagine, calls to action for Congress. The movements also had that effect, but it was the movements, not Congressional action, that led to the vast majority of the change.
Without federal government involvement, the schools/businesses would not have been integrated, black people wouldn't have been allowed to vote, districts would still have been drawn to prevent black representatives from being elected, etc. Maybe those changes would have happened without federal action many years later. But that's not at all certain. It was federal action including federal courts, federal law enforcement, and federal legislation that brought the changes. Yes, those federal actions were prompted by the social movements asking for changes. But you're dead wrong that the social movements were not also calling for Congress to act. They explicitly were, including the March on Washington. MLK was repeatedly asking for help from JFK and LBJ.
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Not Trump! Trump had very credible evidence from excellent sources that Obama is not an American.
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Not Trump! Trump had very credible evidence from excellent sources that Obama is not an American.
I hope those investigators he sent to Hawaii have been sitting on the beach and drinking mai-tais on their expense accounts for the last three years.
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Not Trump! Trump had very credible evidence from excellent sources that Obama is not an American.
I hope those investigators he sent to Hawaii have been sitting on the beach and drinking mai-tais on their expense accounts for the last three years.
It was curious to me at the time that this got any traction, especially since there's already a verification process for elected officials. I suppose it was a harbinger of the manufactured political conspiracies to come in this election.
I also find it ironic that Trump talks about wanting to 'open up the libel laws' to prevent the media from saying bad things about him, yet he's excelled at ridiculing his opponents and getting them to waste time defending themselves when the facts are already on their side.
Evidently some folks have studied Trump's conspiracy-smear methodology and turned it back on him.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/08/nambla-becomes-donald-trump-s-birther-moment.html
Did Trump donate money to NAMBLA? Some folks (actually bots) are wondering. I don't know, but it sure seems suspicious that he won't disprove it by releasing his tax returns.
Evidently some folks have studied Trump's conspiracy-smear methodology and turned it back on him.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/08/nambla-becomes-donald-trump-s-birther-moment.html
Did Trump donate money to NAMBLA? Some folks (actually bots) are wondering. I don't know, but it sure seems suspicious that he won't disprove it by releasing his tax returns.
Ugh. While funny, I wish they wouldn't. This 'race to the bottom of common decency' ultimately hurts our faith and trust in our government even more.
Evidently some folks have studied Trump's conspiracy-smear methodology and turned it back on him.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/08/nambla-becomes-donald-trump-s-birther-moment.html
Did Trump donate money to NAMBLA? Some folks (actually bots) are wondering. I don't know, but it sure seems suspicious that he won't disprove it by releasing his tax returns.
Ugh. While funny, I wish they wouldn't. This 'race to the bottom of common decency' ultimately hurts our faith and trust in our government even more.
I'm not sure how independent programmers creating a bot to spread a viral hoax that everyone KNOWS is a hoax is hurting our faith and trust in government. If anything it highlights the stupidity of these viral conspiracy theories which DO hurt our faith and trust in government.
The goal... is to repeat the phrase so much that it starts saturating the media until people don’t know it was based on no real information whatsoever.
Evidently some folks have studied Trump's conspiracy-smear methodology and turned it back on him.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/08/nambla-becomes-donald-trump-s-birther-moment.html
Did Trump donate money to NAMBLA? Some folks (actually bots) are wondering. I don't know, but it sure seems suspicious that he won't disprove it by releasing his tax returns.
Ugh. While funny, I wish they wouldn't. This 'race to the bottom of common decency' ultimately hurts our faith and trust in our government even more.
I'm not sure how independent programmers creating a bot to spread a viral hoax that everyone KNOWS is a hoax is hurting our faith and trust in government. If anything it highlights the stupidity of these viral conspiracy theories which DO hurt our faith and trust in government.
Well, based on the article you linked, an explicit hope of creating these bots is to drive up google search terms on an admittedly false issue to the point where people don't realize that it's completely bogus.QuoteThe goal... is to repeat the phrase so much that it starts saturating the media until people don’t know it was based on no real information whatsoever.
Evidently some folks have studied Trump's conspiracy-smear methodology and turned it back on him.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/08/nambla-becomes-donald-trump-s-birther-moment.html
Did Trump donate money to NAMBLA? Some folks (actually bots) are wondering. I don't know, but it sure seems suspicious that he won't disprove it by releasing his tax returns.
Ugh. While funny, I wish they wouldn't. This 'race to the bottom of common decency' ultimately hurts our faith and trust in our government even more.
I'm not sure how independent programmers creating a bot to spread a viral hoax that everyone KNOWS is a hoax is hurting our faith and trust in government. If anything it highlights the stupidity of these viral conspiracy theories which DO hurt our faith and trust in government.
Well, based on the article you linked, an explicit hope of creating these bots is to drive up google search terms on an admittedly false issue to the point where people don't realize that it's completely bogus.
Because it's intended to get people to believe false things about our leaders and party nominees. The birther movement, and the media it attracted, convinced some that our president isn't actually a naturally born American. By extension, if you accept this false narrative his leadership is illegitimate. This strategy is designed to get people to believe false things about Trump, which in turn reflects on the republican's choice of nominee.
Why would the actions of private individuals done for private purposes hurt our faith and trust in government?
Because it's intended to get people to believe false things about our leaders and party nominees. The birther movement, and the media it attracted, convinced some that our president isn't actually a naturally born American. By extension, if you accept this false narrative his leadership is illegitimate. This strategy is designed to get people to believe false things about Trump, which in turn reflects on the republican's choice of nominee.
Why would the actions of private individuals done for private purposes hurt our faith and trust in government?
Because it's intended to get people to believe false things about our leaders and party nominees. The birther movement, and the media it attracted, convinced some that our president isn't actually a naturally born American. By extension, if you accept this false narrative his leadership is illegitimate. This strategy is designed to get people to believe false things about Trump, which in turn reflects on the republican's choice of nominee.
Why would the actions of private individuals done for private purposes hurt our faith and trust in government?
Once again, I would argue that the main purpose of this anti-Trump bot is NOT to get people to believe false things, but rather intended first and foremost to publicize how EASILY false information gets disseminated into the mainstream. It is publicizing a flaw in our system by exploiting it.
It is merely aimed at Trump because Trump himself is notorious for exploiting this flaw to spread his own anti-information conspiracy smears.
Birthers had a fringe theory with little facts.
Not Trump! Trump had very credible evidence from excellent sources that Obama is not an American.
I hope those investigators he sent to Hawaii have been sitting on the beach and drinking mai-tais on their expense accounts for the last three years.
Four days filled with quite a bit to be critical of on the campaign trail... Trump's economic 'policy' speech, Clinton's economic 'policy' speech, Trump's "2nd Amendment people" quip, his "founder of ISIS" quip...
Have we just run out of things to be critical of?
Four days filled with quite a bit to be critical of on the campaign trail... Trump's economic 'policy' speech, Clinton's economic 'policy' speech, Trump's "2nd Amendment people" quip, his "founder of ISIS" quip...
Have we just run out of things to be critical of?
Remember when mocking a POW was the worst thing Trump had done and we didn't think he could sink any lower?
So we have a 70 year old man proposing some substantial changes to our tax code that will help him and his family a lot, and help his populist supporters not at all.
Four days filled with quite a bit to be critical of on the campaign trail... Trump's economic 'policy' speech, Clinton's economic 'policy' speech, Trump's "2nd Amendment people" quip, his "founder of ISIS" quip...
Have we just run out of things to be critical of?
Remember when mocking a POW was the worst thing Trump had done and we didn't think he could sink any lower?
yeah... I keep thinking "surely this is the last and the worst insane thing he'll say". I keep being proven wrong.
Also, I continue to be shocked at Trump's "populist appeal" when he keeps recommending things that seem so incredibly self serving. The latest example was his call to completely eliminate the estate tax, which currently has an exemption of $5.45MM. By some estimates this will only affect 0.3% of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are very, very wealthy.
Among those it will help...? Trump's children!
So we have a 70 year old man proposing some substantial changes to our tax code that will help him and his family a lot, and help his populist supporters not at all.
his "founder of ISIS" quip...
Four days filled with quite a bit to be critical of on the campaign trail... Trump's economic 'policy' speech, Clinton's economic 'policy' speech, Trump's "2nd Amendment people" quip, his "founder of ISIS" quip...
Have we just run out of things to be critical of?
Remember when mocking a POW was the worst thing Trump had done and we didn't think he could sink any lower?
yeah... I keep thinking "surely this is the last and the worst insane thing he'll say". I keep being proven wrong.
Also, I continue to be shocked at Trump's "populist appeal" when he keeps recommending things that seem so incredibly self serving. The latest example was his call to completely eliminate the estate tax, which currently has an exemption of $5.45MM. By some estimates this will only affect 0.3% of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are very, very wealthy.
Among those it will help...? Trump's children!
So we have a 70 year old man proposing some substantial changes to our tax code that will help him and his family a lot, and help his populist supporters not at all.
I particularly love his sop to the working people with tax deductible child care expenses.....when the majority of the working and middle class don't itemize. On the other hand, people seem so stupid about their own taxes that I think some of them THINK they are getting a mortgage deduction or whatever, even though they are taking the standard deduction.
his "founder of ISIS" quip...
To be fair, his point, that our interventions fostered the creation of ISIS, is quite valid. But I don't understand his compulsion to say things in the most controversial way possible.
his "founder of ISIS" quip...
To be fair, his point, that our interventions fostered the creation of ISIS, is quite valid. But I don't understand his compulsion to say things in the most controversial way possible.
Yeah, and one of the interviewers (Hugh Hewitt) actually tried to steer him in that direction, saying:
I understand what you mean, "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."
But Trump insisted on saying "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
Had he followed the path Hewitt layed out for him I think a lot of moderate people would have nodded along and though "well he has a coherent point here; the US created a power vacuum there and then ISIS stepped in". But Trump wouldn't. He has to take the most inflammatory path.
I thought the ISIS thing was a bit of the tempest in a teapot. The 2nd amendment comment was a WTF.
I thought the ISIS thing was a bit of the tempest in a teapot. The 2nd amendment comment was a WTF.
Really...? I'm not sure which one was worse.
When declaring Obama to be the "founder of ISIS" he has been unequivocal about it. No ISIS did not spring up because of a power vacuum, he was the founder.
The 2nd amendment quip is equally troubling... only people who support the right to bare arms can do anything about a future president Clinton's judicial appointments. Here at least the Trump campaign said he was talking about voting, not violence.
While we're on this tangent, one line from the RNC said in support of Trump keeps troubling me. It was when Melania said that "when you attack him he will punch back 10 times harder."
WTF?? how is that the kind of justice we want in our world? If I hurt him a little he'll hurt me a lot? This is comic-book-style mafia justice.
When declaring Obama to be the "founder of ISIS" he has been unequivocal about it. No ISIS did not spring up because of a power vacuum, he was the founder.
I thought the ISIS thing was a bit of the tempest in a teapot. The 2nd amendment comment was a WTF.
Really...? I'm not sure which one was worse.
When declaring Obama to be the "founder of ISIS" he has been unequivocal about it. No ISIS did not spring up because of a power vacuum, he was the founder.
The 2nd amendment quip is equally troubling... only people who support the right to bare arms can do anything about a future president Clinton's judicial appointments. Here at least the Trump campaign said he was talking about voting, not violence.
While we're on this tangent, one line from the RNC said in support of Trump keeps troubling me. It was when Melania said that "when you attack him he will punch back 10 times harder."
WTF?? how is that the kind of justice we want in our world? If I hurt him a little he'll hurt me a lot? This is comic-book-style mafia justice.
Nereo - The WTF was in reference to Trump's 2nd amendment comment, not the criticisms of it. It was a stupid comment by him. He may have been talking about voting, but it could easily be interpreted in another context.
With regard to the ISIS comment, I inferred he meant the power vacuum as would most reasonable people whether they agree or not. I'm not aware of a comment where he claimed Obama and Clinton in a real sense (not hyperbole) created ISIS.
FWIW, here's an article (https://www.google.ca/#q=Hugh+Hewitt+interview+isis+founder&gws_rd=cr) where Trump expounds upon his phrasing of "the founder of ISIS". Even a day later he insists he meant it literally, and that it wasn't just the result of a power vacuum.
There have been some many stupid things said in last 2 weeks it's hard to keep up. Clinton's continuing narrative about Comey supporting her truthfulfullness has been lost in Trump's stupidity.
Maybe it was meant in the same way Al Gore created the internet. Al Gore did say he created the internet, but he didn't really mean he invented it or came up with the concept. In the same way, I could see someone thinking Obama's actions or in-actions helped set the foundations that were needed for ISIS to form. Trump is still a moron though.
Maybe it was meant in the same way Al Gore created the internet. Al Gore did say he created the internet, but he didn't really mean he invented it or came up with the concept. In the same way, I could see someone thinking Obama's actions or in-actions helped set the foundations that were needed for ISIS to form. Trump is still a moron though.
Trump specifically objected to your interpretation and said it was not what he meant.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/)
Maybe it was meant in the same way Al Gore created the internet. Al Gore did say he created the internet, but he didn't really mean he invented it or came up with the concept. In the same way, I could see someone thinking Obama's actions or in-actions helped set the foundations that were needed for ISIS to form. Trump is still a moron though.
Trump specifically objected to your interpretation and said it was not what he meant.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/)
Trump refers to the Iraq withdrawal in the link you gave. Isn't that exactly what the above poster referred to? From your link.
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."
Hewitt pushed back again, saying that Obama is "not sympathetic" to ISIS and "hates" and is "trying to kill them."
"I don't care," Trump said, according to a show transcript. "He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?"
Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."
Trump objected. "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS,"
Trump specifically objected to your interpretation and said it was not what he meant.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/)
Four days filled with quite a bit to be critical of on the campaign trail... Trump's economic 'policy' speech, Clinton's economic 'policy' speech, Trump's "2nd Amendment people" quip, his "founder of ISIS" quip...
Have we just run out of things to be critical of?
Remember when mocking a POW was the worst thing Trump had done and we didn't think he could sink any lower?
yeah... I keep thinking "surely this is the last and the worst insane thing he'll say". I keep being proven wrong.
Also, I continue to be shocked at Trump's "populist appeal" when he keeps recommending things that seem so incredibly self serving. The latest example was his call to completely eliminate the estate tax, which currently has an exemption of $5.45MM. By some estimates this will only affect 0.3% of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are very, very wealthy.
Among those it will help...? Trump's children!
So we have a 70 year old man proposing some substantial changes to our tax code that will help him and his family a lot, and help his populist supporters not at all.
I particularly love his sop to the working people with tax deductible child care expenses.....when the majority of the working and middle class don't itemize. On the other hand, people seem so stupid about their own taxes that I think some of them THINK they are getting a mortgage deduction or whatever, even though they are taking the standard deduction.
Four days filled with quite a bit to be critical of on the campaign trail... Trump's economic 'policy' speech, Clinton's economic 'policy' speech, Trump's "2nd Amendment people" quip, his "founder of ISIS" quip...
Have we just run out of things to be critical of?
Remember when mocking a POW was the worst thing Trump had done and we didn't think he could sink any lower?
yeah... I keep thinking "surely this is the last and the worst insane thing he'll say". I keep being proven wrong.
Also, I continue to be shocked at Trump's "populist appeal" when he keeps recommending things that seem so incredibly self serving. The latest example was his call to completely eliminate the estate tax, which currently has an exemption of $5.45MM. By some estimates this will only affect 0.3% of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are very, very wealthy.
Among those it will help...? Trump's children!
So we have a 70 year old man proposing some substantial changes to our tax code that will help him and his family a lot, and help his populist supporters not at all.
I particularly love his sop to the working people with tax deductible child care expenses.....when the majority of the working and middle class don't itemize. On the other hand, people seem so stupid about their own taxes that I think some of them THINK they are getting a mortgage deduction or whatever, even though they are taking the standard deduction.
Dependent care is already deductible in addition to the standard deduction, either through flexible-spending accounts or an end-of-year line item.
Huh. So Trump is offering something that already exists?
"My plan will also reduce the cost of child care by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of child care spending from their taxes," Trump said.
That single sentence was all Trump had to say, other than to promise more details in the coming weeks as he works on his proposal with his daughter.
...
But like Trump, Clinton has offered few details on how she would pay for her plan.
his "founder of ISIS" quip...
To be fair, his point, that our interventions fostered the creation of ISIS, is quite valid. But I don't understand his compulsion to say things in the most controversial way possible.
Yeah, and one of the interviewers (Hugh Hewitt) actually tried to steer him in that direction, saying:
I understand what you mean, "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."
But Trump insisted on saying "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
Had he followed the path Hewitt layed out for him I think a lot of moderate people would have nodded along and though "well he has a coherent point here; the US created a power vacuum there and then ISIS stepped in". But Trump wouldn't. He has to take the most inflammatory path.
Four days filled with quite a bit to be critical of on the campaign trail... Trump's economic 'policy' speech, Clinton's economic 'policy' speech, Trump's "2nd Amendment people" quip, his "founder of ISIS" quip...
Have we just run out of things to be critical of?
Remember when mocking a POW was the worst thing Trump had done and we didn't think he could sink any lower?
yeah... I keep thinking "surely this is the last and the worst insane thing he'll say". I keep being proven wrong.
Also, I continue to be shocked at Trump's "populist appeal" when he keeps recommending things that seem so incredibly self serving. The latest example was his call to completely eliminate the estate tax, which currently has an exemption of $5.45MM. By some estimates this will only affect 0.3% of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are very, very wealthy.
Among those it will help...? Trump's children!
So we have a 70 year old man proposing some substantial changes to our tax code that will help him and his family a lot, and help his populist supporters not at all.
I particularly love his sop to the working people with tax deductible child care expenses.....when the majority of the working and middle class don't itemize. On the other hand, people seem so stupid about their own taxes that I think some of them THINK they are getting a mortgage deduction or whatever, even though they are taking the standard deduction.
Dependent care is already deductible in addition to the standard deduction, either through flexible-spending accounts or an end-of-year line item.
Huh. So Trump is offering something that already exists?
And the person in the US most responsible for creating the situation that lead to ISIS was Bush.
And the person in the US most responsible for creating the situation that lead to ISIS was Bush.
Not really. The person in the US most responsible for creating the situation that lead to ISIS was Harry S. Truman.
Just a footnote on Trump's plan: he said he wanted to make the"average" cost of child-care deductible.Four days filled with quite a bit to be critical of on the campaign trail... Trump's economic 'policy' speech, Clinton's economic 'policy' speech, Trump's "2nd Amendment people" quip, his "founder of ISIS" quip...
Have we just run out of things to be critical of?
Remember when mocking a POW was the worst thing Trump had done and we didn't think he could sink any lower?
yeah... I keep thinking "surely this is the last and the worst insane thing he'll say". I keep being proven wrong.
Also, I continue to be shocked at Trump's "populist appeal" when he keeps recommending things that seem so incredibly self serving. The latest example was his call to completely eliminate the estate tax, which currently has an exemption of $5.45MM. By some estimates this will only affect 0.3% of Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom are very, very wealthy.
Among those it will help...? Trump's children!
So we have a 70 year old man proposing some substantial changes to our tax code that will help him and his family a lot, and help his populist supporters not at all.
I particularly love his sop to the working people with tax deductible child care expenses.....when the majority of the working and middle class don't itemize. On the other hand, people seem so stupid about their own taxes that I think some of them THINK they are getting a mortgage deduction or whatever, even though they are taking the standard deduction.
Dependent care is already deductible in addition to the standard deduction, either through flexible-spending accounts or an end-of-year line item.
Huh. So Trump is offering something that already exists?
I don't think you can deduct the entire amount of daycare. I think it's limited to $5k through flex-spend account (if your employer offers it) and a max of $6k (if you have 2 kids and a lower income) through the dependent care deduction. And you can only take one of these--not add them together.
If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear otherwise.
Just a footnote on Trump's plan: he said he wanted to make the"average" cost of child-care deductible.
Just a footnote on Trump's plan: he said he wanted to make the"average" cost of child-care deductible.
A fair point.
Counterpoint: Most low and lower-middle income families dont' earn enough to make deducting child-care any better than getting the automatic standard deduction. Ergo, on average it can only help those much higher up ont he income scale.
Just a footnote on Trump's plan: he said he wanted to make the"average" cost of child-care deductible.
A fair point.
Counterpoint: Most low and lower-middle income families dont' earn enough to make deducting child-care any better than getting the automatic standard deduction. Ergo, on average it can only help those much higher up ont he income scale.
Who says it couldn't be an above-the-line deduction, or an [expanded] line 49 credit?
Just a footnote on Trump's plan: he said he wanted to make the"average" cost of child-care deductible.
A fair point.
Counterpoint: Most low and lower-middle income families dont' earn enough to make deducting child-care any better than getting the automatic standard deduction. Ergo, on average it can only help those much higher up ont he income scale.
Who says it couldn't be an above-the-line deduction, or an [expanded] line 49 credit?
It certainly could be, but if that was Trump's intention, why wouldn't he say so? Even if it were changed to be an above-the-line deduction we'd still wind up in a situatin where the lowest income families (who already don't pay the federal income tax due to deductions) would receive no further benefit. A family (two parents) would still have to pay >$12,600 in federal income taxes to receive any additional benefit from a new tax deduction.
As is, with rare exceptions when tax deductions are mentioned in the US they are almost always itemized deductions.
Just a footnote on Trump's plan: he said he wanted to make the"average" cost of child-care deductible.
A fair point.
Counterpoint: Most low and lower-middle income families dont' earn enough to make deducting child-care any better than getting the automatic standard deduction. Ergo, on average it can only help those much higher up ont he income scale.
Just a footnote on Trump's plan: he said he wanted to make the"average" cost of child-care deductible.
A fair point.
Counterpoint: Most low and lower-middle income families dont' earn enough to make deducting child-care any better than getting the automatic standard deduction. Ergo, on average it can only help those much higher up ont he income scale.
No, it's already an above-the-line deduction with a cap ($5k FSA or $6k out of pocket). It doesn't require itemizing to receive the benefit.
If he's talking about removing the cap, then great, but that's a pretty minor change.
"My plan will also help reduce the cost of child care by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes,"
From Trump's 'economic policy' speech in Detriot:Quote from: Trump"My plan will also help reduce the cost of child care by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes,"
What he's proposing appears to be exactly that, an increase in the cap. Which basically confirms that it will do nothing for lower income families, and instead may benefit high-earning (and hence high-taxpaying) households that spend >>$6k/year on childcare.
From Trump's 'economic policy' speech in Detriot:Quote from: Trump"My plan will also help reduce the cost of child care by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes,"
What he's proposing appears to be exactly that, an increase in the cap. Which basically confirms that it will do nothing for lower income families, and instead may benefit high-earning (and hence high-taxpaying) households that spend >>$6k/year on childcare.
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
From Trump's 'economic policy' speech in Detriot:Quote from: Trump"My plan will also help reduce the cost of child care by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes,"
What he's proposing appears to be exactly that, an increase in the cap. Which basically confirms that it will do nothing for lower income families, and instead may benefit high-earning (and hence high-taxpaying) households that spend >>$6k/year on childcare.
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
How would this help low income folks - they don't pay taxes so would have not benefit. Meanwhile, the upper crust could deduct their au pair - that doesn't seem fair, nor would it help the folks that need it.
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an income deduction. It cannot help families who already pay not federal income taxes (typically because they have a combination of low income and large deductions). By some estimates ~45% of households owe no federal income tax. It doesn't matter if child-care cost is $10k/year... increasing the deduction still cannot help those families.
The households where this could be benefitial are those that are still paying large amounts in federal income taxes after all the other deductions are taken into account (like the $12,600 standard deduction + child care costs currently at $6k).
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an income deduction. It cannot help families who already pay not federal income taxes (typically because they have a combination of low income and large deductions). By some estimates ~45% of households owe no federal income tax. It doesn't matter if child-care cost is $10k/year... increasing the deduction still cannot help those families.
The households where this could be benefitial are those that are still paying large amounts in federal income taxes after all the other deductions are taken into account (like the $12,600 standard deduction + child care costs currently at $6k).
I think we're closer to agreeing than it seems.
My point is there are a lot of people in the $50-100k range where increasing the dependent care cap would soak up a lot of their tax liability. There are by no means "high income" families.
Holy crap. Did any of you read the NYT piece about Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?_r=1
Dude be shady!
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an income deduction. It cannot help families who already pay not federal income taxes (typically because they have a combination of low income and large deductions). By some estimates ~45% of households owe no federal income tax. It doesn't matter if child-care cost is $10k/year... increasing the deduction still cannot help those families.
The households where this could be benefitial are those that are still paying large amounts in federal income taxes after all the other deductions are taken into account (like the $12,600 standard deduction + child care costs currently at $6k).
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an income deduction. It cannot help families who already pay not federal income taxes (typically because they have a combination of low income and large deductions). By some estimates ~45% of households owe no federal income tax. It doesn't matter if child-care cost is $10k/year... increasing the deduction still cannot help those families.
The households where this could be benefitial are those that are still paying large amounts in federal income taxes after all the other deductions are taken into account (like the $12,600 standard deduction + child care costs currently at $6k).
Exactly. That was why I originally raised this proposal of Trump's. It sounds good, but it really doesn't help most of the people it supposedly would, ASSUMING that he really meant making it a deduction. However, when I google, it appears that currently childcare costs are a tax credit rather than deduction, which is capped at 1,000$/kid. Posters on this thread have noted that childcare costs are deductible 'above the line' as an adjustment. So it appears we aren't even clear about what form the current incentives even take...
Given that, I'm confused, and it's possible Trump might be a little confused himself. Wealthy people in high tax bracket love deductions and use them all the time because they get a notable percent rate of return on them, so it might not even occur to some of them that regular itemized deductions are pretty useless to most taxpayers.
I think (tax experts correct me if wrong) that the main way to actually make childcare affordable for middle and lower income people is to have a childcare-credit, and raise the amount it covers.
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an income deduction. It cannot help families who already pay not federal income taxes (typically because they have a combination of low income and large deductions). By some estimates ~45% of households owe no federal income tax. It doesn't matter if child-care cost is $10k/year... increasing the deduction still cannot help those families.
The households where this could be benefitial are those that are still paying large amounts in federal income taxes after all the other deductions are taken into account (like the $12,600 standard deduction + child care costs currently at $6k).
Exactly. That was why I originally raised this proposal of Trump's. It sounds good, but it really doesn't help most of the people it supposedly would, ASSUMING that he really meant making it a deduction. However, when I google, it appears that currently childcare costs are a tax credit rather than deduction, which is capped at 1,000$/kid. Posters on this thread have noted that childcare costs are deductible 'above the line' as an adjustment. So it appears we aren't even clear about what form the current incentives even take...
Given that, I'm confused, and it's possible Trump might be a little confused himself. Wealthy people in high tax bracket love deductions and use them all the time because they get a notable percent rate of return on them, so it might not even occur to some of them that regular itemized deductions are pretty useless to most taxpayers.
I think (tax experts correct me if wrong) that the main way to actually make childcare affordable for middle and lower income people is to have a childcare-credit, and raise the amount it covers.
We already have a child care credit that weighted towards lower income tax families. See attached. Note the percentage of the credit increases with lower incomes. Raising the amount it covers would, however, help. No idea exactly what Trump is proposing.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2441.pdf
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an income deduction. It cannot help families who already pay not federal income taxes (typically because they have a combination of low income and large deductions). By some estimates ~45% of households owe no federal income tax. It doesn't matter if child-care cost is $10k/year... increasing the deduction still cannot help those families.
The households where this could be benefitial are those that are still paying large amounts in federal income taxes after all the other deductions are taken into account (like the $12,600 standard deduction + child care costs currently at $6k).
Exactly. That was why I originally raised this proposal of Trump's. It sounds good, but it really doesn't help most of the people it supposedly would, ASSUMING that he really meant making it a deduction. However, when I google, it appears that currently childcare costs are a tax credit rather than deduction, which is capped at 1,000$/kid. Posters on this thread have noted that childcare costs are deductible 'above the line' as an adjustment. So it appears we aren't even clear about what form the current incentives even take...
Given that, I'm confused, and it's possible Trump might be a little confused himself. Wealthy people in high tax bracket love deductions and use them all the time because they get a notable percent rate of return on them, so it might not even occur to some of them that regular itemized deductions are pretty useless to most taxpayers.
I think (tax experts correct me if wrong) that the main way to actually make childcare affordable for middle and lower income people is to have a childcare-credit, and raise the amount it covers.
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an income deduction. It cannot help families who already pay not federal income taxes (typically because they have a combination of low income and large deductions). By some estimates ~45% of households owe no federal income tax. It doesn't matter if child-care cost is $10k/year... increasing the deduction still cannot help those families.
The households where this could be benefitial are those that are still paying large amounts in federal income taxes after all the other deductions are taken into account (like the $12,600 standard deduction + child care costs currently at $6k).
Exactly. That was why I originally raised this proposal of Trump's. It sounds good, but it really doesn't help most of the people it supposedly would, ASSUMING that he really meant making it a deduction. However, when I google, it appears that currently childcare costs are a tax credit rather than deduction, which is capped at 1,000$/kid. Posters on this thread have noted that childcare costs are deductible 'above the line' as an adjustment. So it appears we aren't even clear about what form the current incentives even take...
Given that, I'm confused, and it's possible Trump might be a little confused himself. Wealthy people in high tax bracket love deductions and use them all the time because they get a notable percent rate of return on them, so it might not even occur to some of them that regular itemized deductions are pretty useless to most taxpayers.
I think (tax experts correct me if wrong) that the main way to actually make childcare affordable for middle and lower income people is to have a childcare-credit, and raise the amount it covers.
We already have a child care credit that weighted towards lower income tax families. See attached. Note the percentage of the credit increases with lower incomes. Raising the amount it covers would, however, help. No idea exactly what Trump is proposing.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2441.pdf
If he's talking about the credit that's one thing, but he clearly said "deduct".
For clarification,the IRS already allows a "Child and Dependent Care Credit" scalable to income. More information on that can be found here (https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/child-and-dependent-care-credit).
Nereo - Trump did say deduct. Another poster then indicated that a credit would help low income taxpayers much more. I thought it was relevant to point out that we already have such a credit.Whether it's a negative or a positive all depends on your viewpoints. Absent more clear guidelines from the Trump campaign itself, this child care tax deduction would not help families (which I'm defining here as MFJ) earning roughly at or below the $52k median household income. It would help those earning more, and the more they make the more it would help. As I said before, it would be a regressive tax policy.
On the topic of a deduction that helps middle income taxpayers versus low income taxpayers, I'm not sure why that is a negative. Low income taxpayers often pay no tax or negative (when the EIC is considered) income tax. Middle income taxpayers are struggling as well.
With regard to the 45% figure being quoted for people not paying taxes. I suspect the % of retirees paying no income tax is higher than the working population. It would be interesting to know how many families pay no income tax.
Holy crap. Did any of you read the NYT piece about Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?_r=1
Dude be shady!
Trump/Putin conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this . . .
Holy crap. Did any of you read the NYT piece about Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?_r=1
Dude be shady!
Trump/Putin conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this . . .
When records indicate your campaign manager received over $12 million in cash from a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, and that he was involved in an effort to purchase Ukrainian media assets on behalf of a Putin crony, I'm not sure the conspiracy is a "theory" anymore. At minimum, his campaign is being run by someone heavily compromised. If Manafort isn't fired immediately, then I don't know what conclusion you can draw about Trump other than at a minimum he is very friendly to Putin's influences.
In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils...we should have kept the oil. I was saying this constantly and consistently to whoever would listen. I said: Keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil.
From Trump's speech yesterday in Ohio regarding our invasion of Iraq:Quote from: Trump in Ohio, August 16th 2016In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils...we should have kept the oil. I was saying this constantly and consistently to whoever would listen. I said: Keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil.
I just about fell out of my seat when I heard this. In Donald Trumps mind we should have raided the country of its riches, in direct contradiction to the Geneva conventions. Instead of "regime change" and "nation building" (two terms he now rails against) Trump advocates that the US should have taken on the even-more-extreme role of imperialist conquerors .
True. I guess what's surprising now is that I keep being surprised at the things he will say. He's gone from "torture enemy combatants" to "kill their families" to rape and pillage the whole damn country. Ok, well not the rape part (at least not yet), but the pillage.From Trump's speech yesterday in Ohio regarding our invasion of Iraq:Quote from: Trump in Ohio, August 16th 2016In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils...we should have kept the oil. I was saying this constantly and consistently to whoever would listen. I said: Keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil.
I just about fell out of my seat when I heard this. In Donald Trumps mind we should have raided the country of its riches, in direct contradiction to the Geneva conventions. Instead of "regime change" and "nation building" (two terms he now rails against) Trump advocates that the US should have taken on the even-more-extreme role of imperialist conquerors .
Trump has advocated for increased torture and the bombing of civilians. At this point it would be more shocking if he indicated there was a part of the Geneva conventions that he would agree with.
True. I guess what's surprising now is that I keep being surprised at the things he will say. He's gone from "torture enemy combatants" to "kill their families" to rape and pillage the whole damn country. Ok, well not the rape part (at least not yet), but the pillage.From Trump's speech yesterday in Ohio regarding our invasion of Iraq:Quote from: Trump in Ohio, August 16th 2016In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils...we should have kept the oil. I was saying this constantly and consistently to whoever would listen. I said: Keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil.
I just about fell out of my seat when I heard this. In Donald Trumps mind we should have raided the country of its riches, in direct contradiction to the Geneva conventions. Instead of "regime change" and "nation building" (two terms he now rails against) Trump advocates that the US should have taken on the even-more-extreme role of imperialist conquerors .
Trump has advocated for increased torture and the bombing of civilians. At this point it would be more shocking if he indicated there was a part of the Geneva conventions that he would agree with.
He's also trying to make a point of us giving back Iran's own money after they finally cooperated with sanctions, and someone inflates the amount at least 3x. Apparently he thinks we should have kept that money too?
Who's kidding who? The election is essentially over. The only suspense will be how early the networks call it for Clinton. AND how much Trump will squeal like school girl about the election being stolen.
Who's kidding who? The election is essentially over. The only suspense will be how early the networks call it for Clinton. AND how much Trump will squeal like school girl about the election being stolen.
Unless Clinton starts eating puppies at her campaign events she is a slam dunk winner over Trump. He is going to get chewed up in the debates. He is losing in all the must-win states. Christmas - even Georgia is in play.
The only question now is how much of a landslide it will be.
Is he going to show up for the debates?
Unless Clinton starts eating puppies at her campaign events she is a slam dunk winner over Trump. He is going to get chewed up in the debates. He is losing in all the must-win states. Christmas - even Georgia is in play.
The only question now is how much of a landslide it will be.
I do not want Trump to win. I also don't share your optimism that this is a "slam dunk" win for Clinton at this point.
Looking back through modern history...
**Nixon had a lead over Kennedy before the first debate, and he lost.
**Dukakis had a 20 point lead over Bush Sr. around this time, and about an 8% lead during the last 3 months and he lost (because of a mixture of attack ads and, again, a debate performance).
**Carter was at a huge disadvantage behind non-elected incumbent Ford, but Ford tripped (literally and figuratively) in the debates and (figuratively) in the final 60 days of the campaign.
**Carter then had a HUGE lead in the polls during the 1980 election, but the Iranian hostage crisis dragged on and he lost. Most polls had him leading in October.
**Gore held a solid 8% lead over Bush in September and benefited from having been VP during one of the prosperous times in our nation with a historically high approval rating for the executive branch. Clinton currently leads by 7%.
Unless Clinton starts eating puppies at her campaign events she is a slam dunk winner over Trump. He is going to get chewed up in the debates. He is losing in all the must-win states. Christmas - even Georgia is in play.
The only question now is how much of a landslide it will be.
I do not want Trump to win. I also don't share your optimism that this is a "slam dunk" win for Clinton at this point.
Looking back through modern history...
**Nixon had a lead over Kennedy before the first debate, and he lost.
**Dukakis had a 20 point lead over Bush Sr. around this time, and about an 8% lead during the last 3 months and he lost (because of a mixture of attack ads and, again, a debate performance).
**Carter was at a huge disadvantage behind non-elected incumbent Ford, but Ford tripped (literally and figuratively) in the debates and (figuratively) in the final 60 days of the campaign.
**Carter then had a HUGE lead in the polls during the 1980 election, but the Iranian hostage crisis dragged on and he lost. Most polls had him leading in October.
**Gore held a solid 8% lead over Bush in September and benefited from having been VP during one of the prosperous times in our nation with a historically high approval rating for the executive branch. Clinton currently leads by 7%.
I'll be sure to bring up this thread on election day. It's over. Trump's numbers keep creeping down. His only chance was to run the board on a handful of states, all of which are virtually lost now. He doesn't have the money, the ground game, or any strategy. He's a buffoon and will lose badly, then screech about it.
Can't wait for it.
Unless Clinton starts eating puppies at her campaign events she is a slam dunk winner over Trump. He is going to get chewed up in the debates. He is losing in all the must-win states. Christmas - even Georgia is in play.
The only question now is how much of a landslide it will be.
.....................and she is pulling resources out of some states, such as VA, that used to be up for grabs. She is thinking "oh thank you, thank you for such a dolt of an opponent"
Interesting that after Romney got crushed the GOP was going to reorganize and outreach more to women and minorities - they can do the math. Instead they are leading with an old, angry version of Carrottop.
.....................and she is pulling resources out of some states, such as VA, that used to be up for grabs. She is thinking "oh thank you, thank you for such a dolt of an opponent"
Interesting that after Romney got crushed the GOP was going to reorganize and outreach more to women and minorities - they can do the math. Instead they are leading with an old, angry version of Carrottop.
I don't think that many Republican party strategists really wanted Donald Trump, or thought he was a great idea. He's who the voting people in the party wanted.
.....................and she is pulling resources out of some states, such as VA, that used to be up for grabs. She is thinking "oh thank you, thank you for such a dolt of an opponent"
Interesting that after Romney got crushed the GOP was going to reorganize and outreach more to women and minorities - they can do the math. Instead they are leading with an old, angry version of Carrottop.
I don't think that many Republican party strategists really wanted Donald Trump, or thought he was a great idea. He's who the voting people in the party wanted.
Interesting that after Romney got crushed the GOP was going to reorganize and outreach more to women and minorities - they can do the math. Instead they are leading with an old, angry version of Carrottop.
.....................and she is pulling resources out of some states, such as VA, that used to be up for grabs. She is thinking "oh thank you, thank you for such a dolt of an opponent"
Interesting that after Romney got crushed the GOP was going to reorganize and outreach more to women and minorities - they can do the math. Instead they are leading with an old, angry version of Carrottop.
I don't think that many Republican party strategists really wanted Donald Trump, or thought he was a great idea. He's who the voting people in the party wanted.
Well that says loads about them, doesn't it?
Unless Clinton starts eating puppies at her campaign events she is a slam dunk winner over Trump. He is going to get chewed up in the debates. He is losing in all the must-win states. Christmas - even Georgia is in play.
The only question now is how much of a landslide it will be.
I do not want Trump to win. I also don't share your optimism that this is a "slam dunk" win for Clinton at this point.
Looking back through modern history...
**Nixon had a lead over Kennedy before the first debate, and he lost.
**Dukakis had a 20 point lead over Bush Sr. around this time, and about an 8% lead during the last 3 months and he lost (because of a mixture of attack ads and, again, a debate performance).
**Carter was at a huge disadvantage behind non-elected incumbent Ford, but Ford tripped (literally and figuratively) in the debates and (figuratively) in the final 60 days of the campaign.
**Carter then had a HUGE lead in the polls during the 1980 election, but the Iranian hostage crisis dragged on and he lost. Most polls had him leading in October.
**Gore held a solid 8% lead over Bush in September and benefited from having been VP during one of the prosperous times in our nation with a historically high approval rating for the executive branch. Clinton currently leads by 7%.
The current state of affairs show Trump in a much, much deeper hole on a state-by-state analysis. I'd be interested in the alternate viewpoint of how Trump would pull of the Electoral College points by pushing the trend in the must win states. Really - he had little chance to begin with and has absolutely none now.
I like to believe in Susquach too, but Trump has lost it.
This was a strong and cogent argument, so I must quibble. Georgia is not an important state. Of Clinton pulls Georgia out, it will only be in a landslide. Regarding polling, in the modern polling era (1952 on), polling averages 30 days after the conventions have been predictive. I'm not saying that they are this time, but you have cited a number of cases where polling seemed not to reflect reality.
The current state of affairs show Trump in a much, much deeper hole on a state-by-state analysis. I'd be interested in the alternate viewpoint of how Trump would pull of the Electoral College points by pushing the trend in the must win states. Really - he had little chance to begin with and has absolutely none now.
I like to believe in Susquach too, but Trump has lost it.
I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing, but here goes. Clinton unquestionably has the lead with the electoral map right now, and it's her race to loose. However, her biggest weakness right now is that so much of her support is tepid at best. A shockingly high 55% of people disapprove of her and until recently only 38% actually approved. Her lead is in large part because Trump's disapproval numbers are worse (but perhaps not as extreme a difference as people might think; ~58% disapproval to ~35% approval)
So - alternative viewpoint of how Trump would pull of the Electoral College points:
Broadly speaking:
a) Clinton makes a huge gaff that causes her large ranks of tepid supporters to abandon her.
b) Clinton suffers from any sort of physical ailment. Her age is an issue (I don't understand why) already and if she has another episode of 'exhaustion' like she did in 2011 I think she'll suffer greatly in the polls.
c) Trump proves everyone, myself included, wrong and suddenly starts acting like a polished politician. His best bet may be to roll out a list of cabinet members that GOPers of all stripes can rally behind, instead of that list of anti-academic, pro multi-millionare economic team.
d) the next 3 jobs report turn out to be dismal. This is the wild card. If the country seems like it's tipping back into recession I believe Clinton will loose support in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
At the electoral college level:
Clinton absolutely has a huge advantage. BUut since you asked, the most important states now seem to be Ohio, N. Carolina, Georgia and Florida. In all of those states Trump is polling within 4%. He needs to run the table there, and still win the traditionally republican states like Nevada, Arizona, Iowa and Missouri. It would be a Herculian task, and he'll need to gain 1-2% in each of those four states while knocking Clinton down 1-2% for it to happen. See above for how I think that might happen.
Do I think it will happen? No. Do I think it's over? No. Why? Because so many times people have assumed an election was in the bag... until it wasn't.
Looking at the state by state polls, Trump's lack of resources, the GOP racing for the opportunity to jump ship, and this guy's ability to keep astounding us with his ignorance.
Yea- it is over. Oh, a lot of folks are going to happy to see this Ahole trounced.
The current state of affairs show Trump in a much, much deeper hole on a state-by-state analysis. I'd be interested in the alternate viewpoint of how Trump would pull of the Electoral College points by pushing the trend in the must win states. Really - he had little chance to begin with and has absolutely none now.
I like to believe in Susquach too, but Trump has lost it.
I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing, but here goes. Clinton unquestionably has the lead with the electoral map right now, and it's her race to loose. However, her biggest weakness right now is that so much of her support is tepid at best. A shockingly high 55% of people disapprove of her and until recently only 38% actually approved. Her lead is in large part because Trump's disapproval numbers are worse (but perhaps not as extreme a difference as people might think; ~58% disapproval to ~35% approval)
So - alternative viewpoint of how Trump would pull of the Electoral College points:
Broadly speaking:
a) Clinton makes a huge gaff that causes her large ranks of tepid supporters to abandon her.
b) Clinton suffers from any sort of physical ailment. Her age is an issue (I don't understand why) already and if she has another episode of 'exhaustion' like she did in 2011 I think she'll suffer greatly in the polls.
c) Trump proves everyone, myself included, wrong and suddenly starts acting like a polished politician. His best bet may be to roll out a list of cabinet members that GOPers of all stripes can rally behind, instead of that list of anti-academic, pro multi-millionare economic team.
d) the next 3 jobs report turn out to be dismal. This is the wild card. If the country seems like it's tipping back into recession I believe Clinton will loose support in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
At the electoral college level:
Clinton absolutely has a huge advantage. BUut since you asked, the most important states now seem to be Ohio, N. Carolina, Georgia and Florida. In all of those states Trump is polling within 4%. He needs to run the table there, and still win the traditionally republican states like Nevada, Arizona, Iowa and Missouri. It would be a Herculian task, and he'll need to gain 1-2% in each of those four states while knocking Clinton down 1-2% for it to happen. See above for how I think that might happen.
Do I think it will happen? No. Do I think it's over? No. Why? Because so many times people have assumed an election was in the bag... until it wasn't.
Median household income in the US is right at $50k, above that to double that is definitely not low income families
As much as it pains me to side with Trump here, it would still help low income families.
Cheap childcare at a day care facility is still well over $10k full year/full time for infants. It goes down as the child gets older, but even part-time preschool is still over 5k for the year.
The point I'm trying to make here is that this is an income deduction. It cannot help families who already pay not federal income taxes (typically because they have a combination of low income and large deductions). By some estimates ~45% of households owe no federal income tax. It doesn't matter if child-care cost is $10k/year... increasing the deduction still cannot help those families.
The households where this could be benefitial are those that are still paying large amounts in federal income taxes after all the other deductions are taken into account (like the $12,600 standard deduction + child care costs currently at $6k).
I think we're closer to agreeing than it seems.
My point is there are a lot of people in the $50-100k range where increasing the dependent care cap would soak up a lot of their tax liability. There are by no means "high income" families.
Oh - so what your are saying is that if a rare event occurs, similar to the house falling on the wicked witch of the east, Trump will win. Well, there's no arguing with that logic.
Median household income in the US is right at $50k, above that to double that is definitely not low income families
I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or lessMedian household income in the US is right at $50k, above that to double that is definitely not low income families
So? Being in that range with children is painful, even with low spending.
I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or less
Oh - so what your are saying is that if a rare event occurs, similar to the house falling on the wicked witch of the east, Trump will win. Well, there's no arguing with that logic.
Seriously? You're equating the likelihood of such things like a 69 year old woman having a sudden medical condition, a recession or a big screw up in front of a live microphone to the house falling on the wicked witch of the east? I'll of the things I mentioned happen frequently enough that no one would consider it a 'very rare' event. It's not even a complete list - there are always black swans.
Now you're just trolling...
.....................and she is pulling resources out of some states, such as VA, that used to be up for grabs. She is thinking "oh thank you, thank you for such a dolt of an opponent"
Interesting that after Romney got crushed the GOP was going to reorganize and outreach more to women and minorities - they can do the math. Instead they are leading with an old, angry version of Carrottop.
I don't think that many Republican party strategists really wanted Donald Trump, or thought he was a great idea. He's who the voting people in the party wanted.
Well that says loads about them, doesn't it?
Most republican voters didn't vote for Trump. He won just 44% of the total ballots cast (out of 31.2MM). It's worth noting that there are roughly 90MM voters who are either registered republican or identify as being republican.
In nine states (WV, NE, OR, WA, CA, MO, NJ, NM, SD) he was running without anyone apposing him (though some were still on the ballot).
Trump got 3.25MM votes from those nine "uncontested" states. Stripping these from the analysis, Trump got around 38% of the total GOP votes cast (10.78MM of around 28MM cast). A plurality, but not a majority.
Median household income in the US is right at $50k, above that to double that is definitely not low income families
So? Being in that range with children is painful, even with low spending.
Hillary is attacking Gilead again. I am not going to be able to vote for her. She gets $153 million in speaking fees yet when a drug maker lowers the cost of treating someone with Hep C from $400,000 to $40,000, she goes on the warpath.
She claims the drug companies benefit from a taxpayer funded FDA while in reality the FDA is almost entirely funded from the fees charged to drug companies. There are no refunds if your drug fails either.
Gilead just paid $500 million for a FDA voucher, which is a sort of priority review to get a promising drug to market faster. The entire budget of the FDA is only $5B a year, so that one voucher represents 10% of their budget.
How can I vote for someone who lies like that?
"Your tax dollars helped support the research that is used to create those drugs in the first place," Clinton told a crowd in Cleveland. "Your tax dollars support the Food and Drug Administration that tests those drugs to determine whether or not they are safe and effective to be able to go to market. "
Where did $35,000 come from? I'm 24 and wasn't yet born in 1990.I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or less
How old are you?
$35,000 in 1990 is just a hair under $67,000 today.
So according to that report, that section was about $1.2B in user fees, yet Gilead paid in just this one year $500 million for the voucher, which goes directly to the FDA.
So Gilead has paid almost HALF the user fees of the entire pharma industry? Either that or this money is not being reported in that link.
These vouchers are not uncommon and other companies buy them too.
But at any rate, Gilead also pays billions in taxes on the revenue (even counting the revenue they hide overseas like Apple, Microsoft and a lot of other big companies). This more than covers the FDA budget thus generating a tax surplus. I am not sure we would want the pharma to directly pay more than 25% of the FDA budget considering they need to be objective. I still would like more clarification on how one company could be paying $500m plus per year toward FDA and the whole industry only pays $1.2B per year. There are plenty of other big pharma than Gilead. Celgene, Amgen, Biogen, Merck, ...
national defense to protect the company's assets to a court system to enforce their property rights
Where did $35,000 come from? I'm 24 and wasn't yet born in 1990.I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or less
How old are you?
$35,000 in 1990 is just a hair under $67,000 today.
Where did $35,000 come from? I'm 24 and wasn't yet born in 1990.I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or less
How old are you?
$35,000 in 1990 is just a hair under $67,000 today.
I believe NoStacheOhio was using the CPI to adjust the value of $35,000 in 1990 to what it would be worth in 2016. This calculator (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)shows it to be $64.4k
In other words, growing up in the 1990s with a household income of $25-30k (as you did) is the equivalent of growing up right at the median household income today of $51k.
I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or less
Where did $35,000 come from? I'm 24 and wasn't yet born in 1990.I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or less
How old are you?
$35,000 in 1990 is just a hair under $67,000 today.
I believe NoStacheOhio was using the CPI to adjust the value of $35,000 in 1990 to what it would be worth in 2016. This calculator (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)shows it to be $64.4k
In other words, growing up in the 1990s with a household income of $25-30k (as you did) is the equivalent of growing up right at the median household income today of $51k.
But again, Jeremy wasn't born in 1990, and also... where did the 35k come from that you're inflating?
Since Jeremy is 24, I'd assume "growing up" is around age 5-10 or so.. let's say 8. That's 16 years ago then (or the year 2000). And he said his HHI was 25-30k (not sure where NSO got 35k, or why you copied it), we'll pick the middle of that, 27.5k. Using your calculator, 27.5k in 2000 is the same as 38.4k in 2016.
Definitely higher than the 25-30k range, but not in the 67k range NSO postulated (with a year before he was born, and a HHI higher than the top of the range mentioned). Lower than the current median HHI, which is Jeremy's point, I think--he grew up in a family with 4 kids (himself and 3 sisters) in a household with less than the median income. This, basically:I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or less
Except it might, speaking as someone with lower income when I had my first child. If you have access to a daycare FSA the money is pre-tax but it is also pre-FICA which is a 7.65% saving right there. Then because it lowers your taxable income, you are more likely to be eligible for EITC (or an increase of it). That said, increasing the CREDIT, given it is not refundable would not help. But expanding the FSA (or turning it into a HSA where you can access it outside of your employer) would help both low income and middle income parents. And given that the middle class is shrinking, partly because of the cost of childcare, maybe we should care about them.Where did $35,000 come from? I'm 24 and wasn't yet born in 1990.I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or less
How old are you?
$35,000 in 1990 is just a hair under $67,000 today.
I believe NoStacheOhio was using the CPI to adjust the value of $35,000 in 1990 to what it would be worth in 2016. This calculator (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)shows it to be $64.4k
In other words, growing up in the 1990s with a household income of $25-30k (as you did) is the equivalent of growing up right at the median household income today of $51k.
But again, Jeremy wasn't born in 1990, and also... where did the 35k come from that you're inflating?
Since Jeremy is 24, I'd assume "growing up" is around age 5-10 or so.. let's say 8. That's 16 years ago then (or the year 2000). And he said his HHI was 25-30k (not sure where NSO got 35k, or why you copied it), we'll pick the middle of that, 27.5k. Using your calculator, 27.5k in 2000 is the same as 38.4k in 2016.
Definitely higher than the 25-30k range, but not in the 67k range NSO postulated (with a year before he was born, and a HHI higher than the top of the range mentioned). Lower than the current median HHI, which is Jeremy's point, I think--he grew up in a family with 4 kids (himself and 3 sisters) in a household with less than the median income. This, basically:I grew up with 3 sisters in a $25-$30k household and we had everything we needed, even a small emergency fund. Low cost of living area with resourceful parents made it easy. I'm not worried about $50-100k households, I'm worried about households that make $40k or less
yup. I see the same errors as you - was just trying to offer some clarification on the matter, though perhaps i just muddied the waters even more.
I probably shouldn't have said "as you did" to for the reasons you listed (the average time frame was several years later) but I did that just to link it back into the discussion.
Like Jeremy, I too am most worried about households that make $40k or less, and as noted in the discussion further deductions for child care will not help these families.
Except it might, speaking as someone with lower income when I had my first child. If you have access to a daycare FSA the money is pre-tax but it is also pre-FICA which is a 7.65% saving right there. Then because it lowers your taxable income, you are more likely to be eligible for EITC (or an increase of it). That said, increasing the CREDIT, given it is not refundable would not help. But expanding the FSA (or turning it into a HSA where you can access it outside of your employer) would help both low income and middle income parents. And given that the middle class is shrinking, partly because of the cost of childcare, maybe we should care about them.
While it may not be a majority, it was the highest number of votes ever received by a Republican in the primaries. It would be silly to pretend that the people who make up the Republican party didn't want him.
While it may not be a majority, it was the highest number of votes ever received by a Republican in the primaries. It would be silly to pretend that the people who make up the Republican party didn't want him.
The numbers just keep getting worse for Trump. His backers say it's a paper cut but more and more it resembles that Saturday Night Live skit panning The French Chef. Oh - just keep pressure on the wound! http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-french-chef/n8667Well, the national numbers have closed up a bit, but states seem to be maintaining solid Clinton leads.
Good article on that point: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-the-race-tightening-but-state-polls-dont/Just the article I was referencing. I was too lazy to link to it.
It's only a flesh wound!!
We have a few months yet.I know. I can't wait for it to be over. That's what you meant, right? ;)
We have a few months yet.I know. I can't wait for it to be over. That's what you meant, right? ;)
I find these types of side by side comparisons useful (there are a number of these, and I'm sure if we really tried we could have a whole subthread on the inherent biases of how each point is worded).
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Donald-Trump-vs-Hillary-Clinton
One comparison that I think is particularly important, and which has not been getting attention is their stances on global climate change. Trump has said varying things, ranging up through calling it a "Chinese Hoax." Quite frankly, I think this is one of the most important issues in the election cycle and that his position on it reveals a lot about him as a candidate- and nothing good. It reveals that he is not making decisions or positions on the basis of science or facts, and that is really, really worrisome. Every president since climate change first was recognized as a big issue has both acknowledged the science and the gravity of the issue. This has included: 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Over time, the continued research has shown, with very high confidence, that humans are a major contributing factor. The uncertainty on that point (yes, there is some) is very small.
Do you really want a president who doesn't make decisions based on the best available information, or who will roll the dice simply because it is inconvenient to act?
We have a few months yet.I know. I can't wait for it to be over. That's what you meant, right? ;)
:) :) If I could wave the magic wand I'd install UK type election restrictions - campaigning for 3 months and that's it.
We have a few months yet.I know. I can't wait for it to be over. That's what you meant, right? ;)
:) :) If I could wave the magic wand I'd install UK type election restrictions - campaigning for 3 months and that's it.
Imagine how funny I found it when I moved to Canada a few years ago and listened to countless people complain about the "gruelingly long 11 week" federal campaign schedule of the 2015. This election decided the next Prime Minister of Canada and was the longest Canadian election campaign in history. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-confirms-start-of-11-week-federal-campaign-1.3175136)
Just think... if this were true in the US the campaigns would have begun just two days ago!
We have a few months yet.I know. I can't wait for it to be over. That's what you meant, right? ;)
:) :) If I could wave the magic wand I'd install UK type election restrictions - campaigning for 3 months and that's it.
Imagine how funny I found it when I moved to Canada a few years ago and listened to countless people complain about the "gruelingly long 11 week" federal campaign schedule of the 2015. This election decided the next Prime Minister of Canada and was the longest Canadian election campaign in history. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-confirms-start-of-11-week-federal-campaign-1.3175136)
Just think... if this were true in the US the campaigns would have begun just two days ago!
To be fair, that was a horrifically long election.
We have a few months yet.I know. I can't wait for it to be over. That's what you meant, right? ;)
:) :) If I could wave the magic wand I'd install UK type election restrictions - campaigning for 3 months and that's it.
Imagine how funny I found it when I moved to Canada a few years ago and listened to countless people complain about the "gruelingly long 11 week" federal campaign schedule of the 2015. This election decided the next Prime Minister of Canada and was the longest Canadian election campaign in history. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-confirms-start-of-11-week-federal-campaign-1.3175136)
Just think... if this were true in the US the campaigns would have begun just two days ago!
To be fair, that was a horrifically long election.
I was there during part of the campaign. Some of those ads were funny.
I think I remember one attacking their opponent for being against marijuana. Something you don't often see south of that border.
I find these types of side by side comparisons useful (there are a number of these, and I'm sure if we really tried we could have a whole subthread on the inherent biases of how each point is worded).
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Donald-Trump-vs-Hillary-Clinton
One comparison that I think is particularly important, and which has not been getting attention is their stances on global climate change. Trump has said varying things, ranging up through calling it a "Chinese Hoax." Quite frankly, I think this is one of the most important issues in the election cycle and that his position on it reveals a lot about him as a candidate- and nothing good. It reveals that he is not making decisions or positions on the basis of science or facts, and that is really, really worrisome. Every president since climate change first was recognized as a big issue has both acknowledged the science and the gravity of the issue. This has included: 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Over time, the continued research has shown, with very high confidence, that humans are a major contributing factor. The uncertainty on that point (yes, there is some) is very small.
Do you really want a president who doesn't make decisions based on the best available information, or who will roll the dice simply because it is inconvenient to act?
I think this is an important issue, too - climate change specifically, and the attitude toward science in general. What's interesting, though, is that of all the republican candidates for this election cycle, only Kasich acknowledges that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing to it. So it's not just a Trump problem on this one, although his stance is more extreme than some of the others, such as Rubio, who acknowledge that global warming is happening but don't think there's much we can do about it/that humans aren't contributing to the problem.
Yes, the general GOP stance on this issue is/was pretty flabbergasting. Kasich deserves credit for not toeing the apparent party line on this. That said, the recognition of climate change is really a pretty low bar and it is shameful that the issue has become so politicized. The effects of climate change like drought, fire, flooding don't really care who you voted for.
Yes, the general GOP stance on this issue is/was pretty flabbergasting. Kasich deserves credit for not toeing the apparent party line on this. That said, the recognition of climate change is really a pretty low bar and it is shameful that the issue has become so politicized. The effects of climate change like drought, fire, flooding don't really care who you voted for.
Yeah, I try hard not to be a one-issue voter, but I find it very hard to support anyone who's denies climate change. I suppose in that regard Trump was a non-starter for me from the beginning (well, that and I had a pretty unfavorable view of him to begin with since half my family are from nyc).
Yes, the general GOP stance on this issue is/was pretty flabbergasting. Kasich deserves credit for not toeing the apparent party line on this. That said, the recognition of climate change is really a pretty low bar and it is shameful that the issue has become so politicized. The effects of climate change like drought, fire, flooding don't really care who you voted for.
Yeah, I try hard not to be a one-issue voter, but I find it very hard to support anyone who's denies climate change. I suppose in that regard Trump was a non-starter for me from the beginning (well, that and I had a pretty unfavorable view of him to begin with since half my family are from nyc).
The thing with climate change, however, is that one's stance on it is a very strong predictor for a whole host of other fact-based or fact-free decision making tendencies. So, personally, I don't see this as much as a single issue than a litmus test. And there is a subtle but important difference there.
Yes, the general GOP stance on this issue is/was pretty flabbergasting. Kasich deserves credit for not toeing the apparent party line on this. That said, the recognition of climate change is really a pretty low bar and it is shameful that the issue has become so politicized. The effects of climate change like drought, fire, flooding don't really care who you voted for.
Yeah, I try hard not to be a one-issue voter, but I find it very hard to support anyone who's denies climate change. I suppose in that regard Trump was a non-starter for me from the beginning (well, that and I had a pretty unfavorable view of him to begin with since half my family are from nyc).
The thing with climate change, however, is that one's stance on it is a very strong predictor for a whole host of other fact-based or fact-free decision making tendencies. So, personally, I don't see this as much as a single issue than a litmus test. And there is a subtle but important difference there.
I agree, but couldn't the same be said of any highly partisan issue? We've reached such a state of polarization that the correlation between any number of unrelated issues (gun control, abortion, gay rights, climate change, etc.) forms an almost impenetrable divide between the right and the left, at least as far as national politics are concerned. I do believe that state and local politicians have somewhat more leeway to break the party lines.
Yes, the general GOP stance on this issue is/was pretty flabbergasting. Kasich deserves credit for not toeing the apparent party line on this. That said, the recognition of climate change is really a pretty low bar and it is shameful that the issue has become so politicized. The effects of climate change like drought, fire, flooding don't really care who you voted for.
Yeah, I try hard not to be a one-issue voter, but I find it very hard to support anyone who's denies climate change. I suppose in that regard Trump was a non-starter for me from the beginning (well, that and I had a pretty unfavorable view of him to begin with since half my family are from nyc).
The thing with climate change, however, is that one's stance on it is a very strong predictor for a whole host of other fact-based or fact-free decision making tendencies. So, personally, I don't see this as much as a single issue than a litmus test. And there is a subtle but important difference there.
I agree, but couldn't the same be said of any highly partisan issue? We've reached such a state of polarization that the correlation between any number of unrelated issues (gun control, abortion, gay rights, climate change, etc.) forms an almost impenetrable divide between the right and the left, at least as far as national politics are concerned. I do believe that state and local politicians have somewhat more leeway to break the party lines.
Climate change denial, on the other hand, is completely divorced from reality. And denying it implies an extreme calcification of brain function that makes it seem completely impossible to expect a denier to engage in reasonable discussion or debate on anything fact- or science-related.
Rather than be honest and just say "Hey - we think the costs of addressing climate change will harm business and we think we can just deal with it" the GOP attacks the science with BS.
If you have a more free-market model for dealing with climate change, then let's hear it. But to just deny reality is not a strategy. Well, I guess it is a political one - but to a dying breed.
Rather than be honest and just say "Hey - we think the costs of addressing climate change will harm business and we think we can just deal with it" the GOP attacks the science with BS.
Yes, the general GOP stance on this issue is/was pretty flabbergasting. Kasich deserves credit for not toeing the apparent party line on this. That said, the recognition of climate change is really a pretty low bar and it is shameful that the issue has become so politicized. The effects of climate change like drought, fire, flooding don't really care who you voted for.
Yeah, I try hard not to be a one-issue voter, but I find it very hard to support anyone who's denies climate change. I suppose in that regard Trump was a non-starter for me from the beginning (well, that and I had a pretty unfavorable view of him to begin with since half my family are from nyc).
The thing with climate change, however, is that one's stance on it is a very strong predictor for a whole host of other fact-based or fact-free decision making tendencies. So, personally, I don't see this as much as a single issue than a litmus test. And there is a subtle but important difference there.
I agree, but couldn't the same be said of any highly partisan issue? We've reached such a state of polarization that the correlation between any number of unrelated issues (gun control, abortion, gay rights, climate change, etc.) forms an almost impenetrable divide between the right and the left, at least as far as national politics are concerned. I do believe that state and local politicians have somewhat more leeway to break the party lines.
Government should not play favorites among energy producers. The taxpayers will not soon forget the current Administration’s subsidies to companies that went bankrupt without producing a kilowatt of energy. The same Administration now requires the Department of Defense, operating with slashed budgets during a time of expanding conflict, to use its scarce resources to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2025. Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it.https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/
{snip out a bunch of other things related to speeding up the permitting process for resource extraction and transferring public lands out of federal control; see link if you want to read it}
Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.
We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund.
We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.
For the record, here is the GOP platform on climate change:QuoteGovernment should not play favorites among energy producers. The taxpayers will not soon forget the current Administration’s subsidies to companies that went bankrupt without producing a kilowatt of energy. The same Administration now requires the Department of Defense, operating with slashed budgets during a time of expanding conflict, to use its scarce resources to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2025. Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it.https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/
{snip out a bunch of other things related to speeding up the permitting process for resource extraction and transferring public lands out of federal control; see link if you want to read it}
Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.
We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund.
We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.
The central fact of any sensible environmental policy is that, year by year, the environment is improving. Our air and waterways are much healthier than they were a few decades ago. As a nation, we have drastically reduced pollution, mainstreamed recycling, educated the public, and avoided ecological degradation. Even if no additional controls are added, air pollution will continue to decline for the next several decades due to technological turnover of aging equipment.
For the record, here is the GOP platform on climate change:QuoteGovernment should not play favorites among energy producers. The taxpayers will not soon forget the current Administration’s subsidies to companies that went bankrupt without producing a kilowatt of energy. The same Administration now requires the Department of Defense, operating with slashed budgets during a time of expanding conflict, to use its scarce resources to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2025. Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it.https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/
{snip out a bunch of other things related to speeding up the permitting process for resource extraction and transferring public lands out of federal control; see link if you want to read it}
Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.
We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund.
We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.
Some of the stuff you snipped out:QuoteThe central fact of any sensible environmental policy is that, year by year, the environment is improving. Our air and waterways are much healthier than they were a few decades ago. As a nation, we have drastically reduced pollution, mainstreamed recycling, educated the public, and avoided ecological degradation. Even if no additional controls are added, air pollution will continue to decline for the next several decades due to technological turnover of aging equipment.
Since the environment just takes care of itself, global warming really is no problem.
Some of the stuff you snipped out:QuoteThe central fact of any sensible environmental policy is that, year by year, the environment is improving. Our air and waterways are much healthier than they were a few decades ago. As a nation, we have drastically reduced pollution, mainstreamed recycling, educated the public, and avoided ecological degradation. Even if no additional controls are added, air pollution will continue to decline for the next several decades due to technological turnover of aging equipment.
Since the environment just takes care of itself, global warming really is no problem.
Good catch. I think my mind blocked it out (and I was searching for parts that specifically addressed climate as opposed to broader environmental issues. The blindspot that most of those improvements (excluding recycling) are a result of "top-down regulations" is a bit befuddling.
We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.
QuoteWe firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.
Except that their actual votes continue to provide huge subsidies for highly profitable existing industries while generally not supporting development of new technologies and industries. A cap and trade or carbon tax (which could be budget neutral) would provide "incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies". Yet they oppose that tooth and nail.
I have a real hard time understanding these two positions int eh GOP platform:
1) Government should not play favorites among energy producers. The taxpayers will not soon forget the current Administration’s subsidies to companies that went bankrupt without producing a kilowatt of energy.
2) We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies
so - according to its own platform, should the GOP support government-funded R&D for better solar and wind technologies? Or would that be playing favorites among energy producers and providing subsidies with taxpayer money?
Ha! Excellent point. It's bad enough when policy statements change from day to day, but one would hope for internal consistency within the same document....
All of the above, plus the inherent cynicism of it.Ha! Excellent point. It's bad enough when policy statements change from day to day, but one would hope for internal consistency within the same document....
It also completely ignores the astronomically large and ongoing subsidies we give to the oil and gas industries, which dwarf all subsidies to renewable energies, and which Republicans generally favor. Apparently you're not allowed to play favorites, unless you favor established carbon extraction companies?
I'm still trying to decide if that document offends me because it is so self-righteous, or because it is so deliberately confused.
It also completely ignores the astronomically large and ongoing subsidies we give to the oil and gas industries, which dwarf all subsidies to renewable energies, and which Republicans generally favor. Apparently you're not allowed to play favorites, unless you favor established carbon extraction companies?
I'm still trying to decide if that document offends me because it is so self-righteous, or because it is so deliberately confused.
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money. The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do. The document says that.
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money. The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do. The document says that.
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money. The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do. The document says that.
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money. The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do. The document says that.
If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground? (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money. The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do. The document says that.
If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground? (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)
OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open). Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.
... yet God allows people to be murder other people, wars to rage on, and famine to destroy both civilizations and ecosystems.Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money. The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do. The document says that.
If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground? (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)
OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open). Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.
My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end." In other words, God will either 1) magically prevent the atmosphere from warming so much that it causes a global catastrophe no matter how much CO2 we pump into it, or 2) allow the world to slip into catastrophe, thus paving the way for the Apocalypse foretold in the Book of Revelation. Either way, He's got this, so there's nothing to worry about. And this is a well-educated woman who graduated in the top of her class (B.S. in Hydrology, so it's not like she's a liberal arts major, either). It's incredibly disturbing, given the consequences of being wrong. But faith ultimately requires that one spend as little time as possible pondering the possibility that one may be wrong.
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money. The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do. The document says that.
If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground? (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)
OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open). Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.
My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end." In other words, God will either 1) magically prevent the atmosphere from warming so much that it causes a global catastrophe no matter how much CO2 we pump into it, or 2) allow the world to slip into catastrophe, thus paving the way for the Apocalypse foretold in the Book of Revelation. Either way, He's got this, so there's nothing to worry about. And this is a well-educated woman who graduated in the top of her class (B.S. in Hydrology, so it's not like she's a liberal arts major, either). It's incredibly disturbing, given the consequences of being wrong. But faith ultimately requires that one spend as little time as possible pondering the possibility that one may be wrong.
My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end."
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money. The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do. The document says that.
If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground? (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)
OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open). Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.
My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end." In other words, God will either 1) magically prevent the atmosphere from warming so much that it causes a global catastrophe no matter how much CO2 we pump into it, or 2) allow the world to slip into catastrophe, thus paving the way for the Apocalypse foretold in the Book of Revelation. Either way, He's got this, so there's nothing to worry about. And this is a well-educated woman who graduated in the top of her class (B.S. in Hydrology, so it's not like she's a liberal arts major, either). It's incredibly disturbing, given the consequences of being wrong. But faith ultimately requires that one spend as little time as possible pondering the possibility that one may be wrong.
I've heard this too. It's interesting how this "logic" is applied selectively. We shouldn't be concerned about climate change that we are causing because God is in control and it's part of his will. But we should totally be concerned with gay marriage because then God punishes us with hurricanes as a result. We shouldn't be concerned with all the poverty. But we should totally be freaked out about Sharia Law being implemented in the US (nevermind that the country is around Muslim so that has no chance of happening even if it weren't unconstitutional).
Another disturbing place this pops up is in our policy towards the Middle East. A lot of Christians are in support of Israel's existence not because of any concern about there being a Jewish state. No, it's because Israel needs to exist (they think) in order for the end times and Armageddon to occur according to the prophecies in Revelation. They are in support of Israel and causing huge and widespread death in the Middle East as a result of that--in order for Israel and others in the region to be subjected to the bloodbaths in the prophecy. They want them to exist to be slaughtered so Jesus can come back again. With friends like that...
Briefly stated, Christian Zionism is a movement within Protestant fundamentalism that sees the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial and religious support. Christian Zionists work closely with the Israeli government, religious and secular Jewish Zionist organizations, and are particularly empowered during periods when the more conservative Likud Party is in control of the Knesset. Both the secular and religious media place Christian Zionism in the Protestant evangelical movement, which claims upward of 100-125 million members in the US. However, one would more accurately categorize it as part of the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity, since the evangelical movement is far larger and more diverse in its theology and historical development.
Christian Zionism grew out of a particular theological system called “premillennial dispensationalism,” which emerged during the early 19th century in England, when there was an outpouring of millennial doctrines. The preaching and writings of a renegade Irish clergyman, John Nelson Darby, and a Scotsman, Edward Irving, emphasized the literal and future fulfillment of such Biblical teachings as “the rapture,” the rise of the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon and the central role that a revived nation-state of Israel would play during the latter days.
Premillennialism is a type of Christian theology as old as Christianity itself. It has its roots in Jewish apocalyptic thought and generally holds that Jesus will return to earth before he establishes, literally, a millennial kingdom under his sovereignty. Darby added the distinctive elements of the rapture (or removal to heaven) of true, born-again Christians prior to Jesus’ return, and interpreted all major prophetic texts as having predictive value. He also marked world history according to certain periods called “dispensations,” that served to guide believers in how they should conduct themselves. The fulfillment of prophetic signs became the central task of Christian interpretation.
Darby’s ideas became a central feature in the teachings of many of the great preachers of the 1880-1900 period, including evangelists Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday, the major Presbyterian preacher James Brooks, Philadelphia radio preacher Harry B. Ironsides, and Cyrus I. Scofield. When Scofield applied Darby’s eschatology to the Bible, the result was a superimposed outline of premillennial dispensationalist notations on the Biblical text, known as the Scofield Bible. Gradually, the Scofield Bible became the only version used by most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for the next 95 years
My sister genuinely believes that global warming is a complete non-issue, because "God won't let the world end a moment before He intends for it to end."
Politics, global warming, and religion, all within the space of a single sentence? You've just unwittingly introduced the ultimate survival test for this heretofore-unlocked 60-page thread...
Guys, it doesn't matter where they spend money. The environment is going to keep getting better no matter what we do. The document says that.
If God didn't want us to drill all that oil, then why did he put it under the ground? (I actually heard a congressman say this, but I can't find the quote)
OMG - this is exactly what a conservative and religious relative said to me the last time we visited.
... I didn't have a response at the time (other than my jaw just hanging open). Now I think I would say "to test our ability and commitment to care for his earthly creation"... or something like that.
... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.
Damn, right you are. Well what's left, then?... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.
Hitler made his first appearance on page 1 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg876433/#msg876433), only 24 posts into this thread.
Briefly stated, Christian Zionism is a movement within Protestant fundamentalism that sees the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial and religious support. Christian Zionists work closely with the Israeli government, religious and secular Jewish Zionist organizations, and are particularly empowered during periods when the more conservative Likud Party is in control of the Knesset. Both the secular and religious media place Christian Zionism in the Protestant evangelical movement, which claims upward of 100-125 million members in the US. However, one would more accurately categorize it as part of the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity, since the evangelical movement is far larger and more diverse in its theology and historical development.
Christian Zionism grew out of a particular theological system called “premillennial dispensationalism,” which emerged during the early 19th century in England, when there was an outpouring of millennial doctrines. The preaching and writings of a renegade Irish clergyman, John Nelson Darby, and a Scotsman, Edward Irving, emphasized the literal and future fulfillment of such Biblical teachings as “the rapture,” the rise of the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon and the central role that a revived nation-state of Israel would play during the latter days.
Premillennialism is a type of Christian theology as old as Christianity itself. It has its roots in Jewish apocalyptic thought and generally holds that Jesus will return to earth before he establishes, literally, a millennial kingdom under his sovereignty. Darby added the distinctive elements of the rapture (or removal to heaven) of true, born-again Christians prior to Jesus’ return, and interpreted all major prophetic texts as having predictive value. He also marked world history according to certain periods called “dispensations,” that served to guide believers in how they should conduct themselves. The fulfillment of prophetic signs became the central task of Christian interpretation.
Darby’s ideas became a central feature in the teachings of many of the great preachers of the 1880-1900 period, including evangelists Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday, the major Presbyterian preacher James Brooks, Philadelphia radio preacher Harry B. Ironsides, and Cyrus I. Scofield. When Scofield applied Darby’s eschatology to the Bible, the result was a superimposed outline of premillennial dispensationalist notations on the Biblical text, known as the Scofield Bible. Gradually, the Scofield Bible became the only version used by most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for the next 95 years
It's a big jump from that to support Israel so they can get slaughtered.
Damn, right you are. Well what's left, then?... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.
Hitler made his first appearance on page 1 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg876433/#msg876433), only 24 posts into this thread.
Moderator? ...Moderator??
Damn, right you are. Well what's left, then?... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.
Hitler made his first appearance on page 1 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg876433/#msg876433), only 24 posts into this thread.
Moderator? ...Moderator??
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.
If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump
Damn, right you are. Well what's left, then?... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.
Hitler made his first appearance on page 1 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg876433/#msg876433), only 24 posts into this thread.
Moderator? ...Moderator??
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.
If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.
If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump
See, Trump was right. There are people trying to steal the election through voter fraud!
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.
If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump
Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.
If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump
Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.
NO!!
Toxic law breaking! I know that some are inclined to joke about the ironic side of this, but the reality is that Trump's campaign is using language that creates a false equivalency between the imaginary voter fraud that he brings up and his own campaign's shenanigans.
He's trying to do the same thing by calling Clinton racist. News outlets are reporting that the candidates are calling each other out, but not delving into the details of the accusations.
In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.
If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump
Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.
NO!!
Toxic law breaking! I know that some are inclined to joke about the ironic side of this, but the reality is that Trump's campaign is using language that creates a false equivalency between the imaginary voter fraud that he brings up and his own campaign's shenanigans.
He's trying to do the same thing by calling Clinton racist. News outlets are reporting that the candidates are calling each other out, but not delving into the details of the accusations.
Sorry, I spent all of my outrage months ago. Next time I'll be sure to save some for the general elections.
So basically Trump's advisor thinks that the American people are too stupid to understand his tax returns....Well, he fired Manafort about a week ago ( it was his summer job). However, your argument stands, because Eric Trump said the same thing!
“I will be surprised if he puts them out. I wouldn’t necessarily advise him to. It’s not really an issue for the people we are appealing to. His tax returns are incredibly complicated. I wouldn’t understand them, so how are the American people going to? The financial disclosure he put out gives the salient points,” Manafort said.
“The only people who want the tax returns are the people who want to defeat him.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-paul-manafort-general-election_us_574619eee4b0dacf7ad3e201
In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.
In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.
The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that. With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.
We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months. Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.
In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.
The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that. With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.
We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months. Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.
In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.
The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that. With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.
We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months. Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.
How much of the electorate do you believe was in play to begin with? 20% is a big number.
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.
If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump
Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.
NO!!
Toxic law breaking! I know that some are inclined to joke about the ironic side of this, but the reality is that Trump's campaign is using language that creates a false equivalency between the imaginary voter fraud that he brings up and his own campaign's shenanigans.
He's trying to do the same thing by calling Clinton racist. News outlets are reporting that the candidates are calling each other out, but not delving into the details of the accusations.
Sorry, I spent all of my outrage months ago. Next time I'll be sure to save some for the general elections.
So, this thread has been off topic for a long time and I am loathe to bring it back, but there appears to be evidence that Trump's campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, is registered to vote in Florida, but resides in California.
If true, this is a class 3 felony in Florida and may constitute voter fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump
Ah, delicious irony. How lovely.
NO!!
Toxic law breaking! I know that some are inclined to joke about the ironic side of this, but the reality is that Trump's campaign is using language that creates a false equivalency between the imaginary voter fraud that he brings up and his own campaign's shenanigans.
He's trying to do the same thing by calling Clinton racist. News outlets are reporting that the candidates are calling each other out, but not delving into the details of the accusations.
Sorry, I spent all of my outrage months ago. Next time I'll be sure to save some for the general elections.
Now THAT's irony...on a frugality and savings-focused forum, no less.
In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.
The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that. With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.
We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months. Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.
Might not affect the opinions of the electorate, but could it affect turnout? Honestly, unless something dramatic changes, I expect Clinton to win handily, but there's little doubt who has the more rabid supporters. I had always read/heard that people were more likely to turn out to vote if they strongly supported their preferred candidate, rather than strongly opposing their preferred candidate's opponent. However, I've heard conflicting reports about that this year, and I'm not sure which side, if either, is actually rooted in evidence. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-02/voters-who-oppose-politicians-are-the-most-active
In all seriousness, campaign fatigue is real, but it could be the difference in this election. Energy to fight new outrages is in short supply.
The flip side of that coin is that a large number of voters have already solidified their opinions on both candidates, and virtually nothing will change that. With every passing week it's going to be harder for Trump to pick up the votes he needs.
We've been saturated by news of Trump and Clinton for months. Probably only ~20% of the electorate is even in play anymore.
How much of the electorate do you believe was in play to begin with? 20% is a big number.
an interesting point. Well, according to a Gallup poll, about 38% of eligible voters identify as "independent". (31% are D, 29% R, and it should be noted that more independents 'lean' R than D. If you include all 'leaners' into the party it becomes 43%D, 39%R and 18%I).
So very broad strokes here... I'd say that only 20% of self-identified R or Ds can realistically be enticed to support someone else, plus of course that independents. That means in theory there's ~40-50% of the electorate that might vote one way or the other.
Of course, many won't vote at all, and neither candidate here has seen individuals from across the isle flock to them... but rather they seem to be running away from the candidate from the party they normally affiliate with.
Then of course there's a big difference between people who support and people who vote. Hard core supporters (from both parties) are more likely to vote than those that are more likely to bounce back and forth.
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week. I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy. The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week. I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy. The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.
I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week. I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy. The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.
I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.
Fair enough. Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump. I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent. Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.
I haven't seen polls showing Johnson at that level of support, yet, except in a couple of Western states. Even at 7% (which I see a lot), he is polling above any third party candidate in 20 years.To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week. I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy. The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.
I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.
Fair enough. Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump. I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent. Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.
To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week. I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy. The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.
I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.
Fair enough. Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump. I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent. Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.
Could you clarify the bolded part for me? I'm guessing what you mean is that Democrats are less critical of Clinton than Republicans are of Trump, though it could be spun many different ways.
I haven't seen polls showing Johnson at that level of support, yet, except in a couple of Western states. Even at 7% (which I see a lot), he is polling above any third party candidate in 20 years.To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week. I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy. The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.
I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.
Fair enough. Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump. I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent. Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.
I haven't seen polls showing Johnson at that level of support, yet, except in a couple of Western states. Even at 7% (which I see a lot), he is polling above any third party candidate in 20 years.To add - I've been polled 2x in the last week. I told them Clinton and Trump should both quit and Johnson was my guy. The only thing I can say for certain at this point, is that I'm not voting for Clinton.
I'm voting for Clinton, but if I were polled I would say that Johnson was my choice, because I'd like to see him make it into the debates.
Fair enough. Democrats seem less critical of Clinton than Republicans of Trump. I suspect that is impacting the polls at least to some extent. Johnson's polling at 13-15%, I am curious how many of those will actually vote for him and the split between repub/dem especially in swing states.
These are a month old, are close to my numbers - http://heatst.com/politics/gary-johnsons-polling-numbers-reach-all-time-high
My point was he's polling really well. Will people vote that way in the end especially in swing states.
Clinton and Trump were neck and neck 3 weeks ago until Trump imploded.
Clinton and Trump were neck and neck 3 weeks ago until Trump imploded.
I do not believe this is accurate. I saw this just this morning:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/its-end-august-hillary-clinton-lead-clear-steady
Every tracker shows a significant lead for Clinton three weeks ago.
Clinton and Trump were neck and neck 3 weeks ago until Trump imploded.
I do not believe this is accurate. I saw this just this morning:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/its-end-august-hillary-clinton-lead-clear-steady
Every tracker shows a significant lead for Clinton three weeks ago.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
538 had the odds roughly even after the repub convention. Trend was moving his direction until he made some stupid remarks. I think 538 at least attempts to be fair despite personal feelings.
She's improved significantly since then.
And Clinton's successful convention stood pretty starkly against Trump's. Not totally a misstep by him, but a product of inexperience and lack of party unity.Clinton and Trump were neck and neck 3 weeks ago until Trump imploded.
I do not believe this is accurate. I saw this just this morning:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/its-end-august-hillary-clinton-lead-clear-steady
Every tracker shows a significant lead for Clinton three weeks ago.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
538 had the odds roughly even after the repub convention. Trend was moving his direction until he made some stupid remarks. I think 538 at least attempts to be fair despite personal feelings.
She's improved significantly since then.
Yes, they did. But that was five weeks ago, not three.
Damn, right you are. Well what's left, then?... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.
Hitler made his first appearance on page 1 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg876433/#msg876433), only 24 posts into this thread.
Moderator? ...Moderator??
I do not believe porn has been mentioned even obliquely. According to Internet law, all threads must eventually include explicit examples or references to Nazis, religion, politics, and sex.
Damn, right you are. Well what's left, then?... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.
Hitler made his first appearance on page 1 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg876433/#msg876433), only 24 posts into this thread.
Moderator? ...Moderator??
I do not believe porn has been mentioned even obliquely. According to Internet law, all threads must eventually include explicit examples or references to Nazis, religion, politics, and sex.
Godwin's law requires reference to the Nazi's, Hitler being reference by name is a corollary. The law only requires Nazi.Damn, right you are. Well what's left, then?... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.
Hitler made his first appearance on page 1 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg876433/#msg876433), only 24 posts into this thread.
Moderator? ...Moderator??
I do not believe porn has been mentioned even obliquely. According to Internet law, all threads must eventually include explicit examples or references to Nazis, religion, politics, and sex.
I believe you're thinking of Hitler.
(https://i.imgur.com/SjQclIQ.jpg)
Godwin's law requires reference to the Nazi's, Hitler being reference by name is a corollary. The law only requires Nazi.Damn, right you are. Well what's left, then?... we haven't gotten to Nazis yet.
Hitler made his first appearance on page 1 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/legitimate-criticisms-of-each-2016-presidential-candidate/msg876433/#msg876433), only 24 posts into this thread.
Moderator? ...Moderator??
I do not believe porn has been mentioned even obliquely. According to Internet law, all threads must eventually include explicit examples or references to Nazis, religion, politics, and sex.
I believe you're thinking of Hitler.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
So, did Trump violate the Logan Act by meeting with the president of Mexico and discussing trade and immigration policy?
“What is Aleppo?” Mr. Johnson said when asked on MSNBC how, as president, he would address the refugee crisis in the war-torn Syrian city.
When pressed as to whether he was serious, Mr. Johnson indicated that he really was not aware of the city, which has been widely covered during the years that Syria has been engulfed in civil war. After Mike Barnicle, an MSNBC commentator who is often part of the “Morning Joe” program panel, explained that Aleppo was the center of Syria’s refugee crisis, Mr. Johnson struggled to recover.
Well, we can add this gem as a reason that Gary Johnson is not a credible candidate: Apparently he is unaware of the situation in Aleppo, which isn't exactly an obscure reference.Quote“What is Aleppo?” Mr. Johnson said when asked on MSNBC how, as president, he would address the refugee crisis in the war-torn Syrian city.
When pressed as to whether he was serious, Mr. Johnson indicated that he really was not aware of the city, which has been widely covered during the years that Syria has been engulfed in civil war. After Mike Barnicle, an MSNBC commentator who is often part of the “Morning Joe” program panel, explained that Aleppo was the center of Syria’s refugee crisis, Mr. Johnson struggled to recover.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0
I much prefer a candidate that asks questions when he doesn't know something, rather than be like Trump and act like you know what you're talking about when you don't know sh*t, there's been probably 20 times where Trump was asked a question and he gave a nonsense answer that guarantees he has no clue what he's talking about, and just guesses instead of asking.Well, we can add this gem as a reason that Gary Johnson is not a credible candidate: Apparently he is unaware of the situation in Aleppo, which isn't exactly an obscure reference.Quote“What is Aleppo?” Mr. Johnson said when asked on MSNBC how, as president, he would address the refugee crisis in the war-torn Syrian city.
When pressed as to whether he was serious, Mr. Johnson indicated that he really was not aware of the city, which has been widely covered during the years that Syria has been engulfed in civil war. After Mike Barnicle, an MSNBC commentator who is often part of the “Morning Joe” program panel, explained that Aleppo was the center of Syria’s refugee crisis, Mr. Johnson struggled to recover.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0
Actually, as a libertarian you should probably give him a pass on that. The libertarian approach to foreign affairs is often just to completely ignore them. He's being consistent.
I much prefer a candidate that asks questions when he doesn't know something, rather than be like Trump and act like you know what you're talking about when you don't know sh*t, there's been probably 20 times where Trump was asked a question and he gave a nonsense answer that guarantees he has no clue what he's talking about, and just guesses instead of asking.Well, we can add this gem as a reason that Gary Johnson is not a credible candidate: Apparently he is unaware of the situation in Aleppo, which isn't exactly an obscure reference.Quote“What is Aleppo?” Mr. Johnson said when asked on MSNBC how, as president, he would address the refugee crisis in the war-torn Syrian city.
When pressed as to whether he was serious, Mr. Johnson indicated that he really was not aware of the city, which has been widely covered during the years that Syria has been engulfed in civil war. After Mike Barnicle, an MSNBC commentator who is often part of the “Morning Joe” program panel, explained that Aleppo was the center of Syria’s refugee crisis, Mr. Johnson struggled to recover.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0
Actually, as a libertarian you should probably give him a pass on that. The libertarian approach to foreign affairs is often just to completely ignore them. He's being consistent.
I much prefer a candidate that asks questions when he doesn't know something, rather than be like Trump and act like you know what you're talking about when you don't know sh*t, there's been probably 20 times where Trump was asked a question and he gave a nonsense answer that guarantees he has no clue what he's talking about, and just guesses instead of asking.Well, we can add this gem as a reason that Gary Johnson is not a credible candidate: Apparently he is unaware of the situation in Aleppo, which isn't exactly an obscure reference.Quote“What is Aleppo?” Mr. Johnson said when asked on MSNBC how, as president, he would address the refugee crisis in the war-torn Syrian city.
When pressed as to whether he was serious, Mr. Johnson indicated that he really was not aware of the city, which has been widely covered during the years that Syria has been engulfed in civil war. After Mike Barnicle, an MSNBC commentator who is often part of the “Morning Joe” program panel, explained that Aleppo was the center of Syria’s refugee crisis, Mr. Johnson struggled to recover.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0
Actually, as a libertarian you should probably give him a pass on that. The libertarian approach to foreign affairs is often just to completely ignore them. He's being consistent.
I much prefer a candidate that asks questions when he doesn't know something, rather than be like Trump and act like you know what you're talking about when you don't know sh*t, there's been probably 20 times where Trump was asked a question and he gave a nonsense answer that guarantees he has no clue what he's talking about, and just guesses instead of asking.Well, we can add this gem as a reason that Gary Johnson is not a credible candidate: Apparently he is unaware of the situation in Aleppo, which isn't exactly an obscure reference.Quote“What is Aleppo?” Mr. Johnson said when asked on MSNBC how, as president, he would address the refugee crisis in the war-torn Syrian city.
When pressed as to whether he was serious, Mr. Johnson indicated that he really was not aware of the city, which has been widely covered during the years that Syria has been engulfed in civil war. After Mike Barnicle, an MSNBC commentator who is often part of the “Morning Joe” program panel, explained that Aleppo was the center of Syria’s refugee crisis, Mr. Johnson struggled to recover.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0
Actually, as a libertarian you should probably give him a pass on that. The libertarian approach to foreign affairs is often just to completely ignore them. He's being consistent.
I'd agree with that. Trump is a mind-blowingly terrible candidate for president.
However, this seemed like a pretty obvious thing for Johnson to know. I'd buy it if he said he'd been campaigning, was a bit tired and took a second to get on that track. But, to not know after follow ups is a bit disappointing.
I expect most people who have been going about their business and not living under a rock to know where/what Aleppo is, so it does surprise me that Gary Johnson appeared not to know.
I expect most people who have been going about their business and not living under a rock to know where/what Aleppo is, so it does surprise me that Gary Johnson appeared not to know.
You would be very wrong.
I expect most people who have been going about their business and not living under a rock to know where/what Aleppo is, so it does surprise me that Gary Johnson appeared not to know.
You would be very wrong.
Yeah, I do a poor job of following the "low information diet," and even I learned about it from this thread.
I mean, maybe...but it seems like you'd have to be actively avoiding the news or have gone on vacation for a while. There was the picture of that kid from Aleppo just a couple of weeks back that was on every news network. But I've also been reading a book recently about the role Aleppo played in the Turks' genocide of the Armenians in the early 1900s, so maybe that's partly it.I expect most people who have been going about their business and not living under a rock to know where/what Aleppo is, so it does surprise me that Gary Johnson appeared not to know.
You would be very wrong.
I mean, maybe...but it seems like you'd have to be actively avoiding the news or have gone on vacation for a while. There was the picture of that kid from Aleppo just a couple of weeks back that was on every news network. But I've also been reading a book recently about the role Aleppo played in the Turks' genocide of the Armenians in the early 1900s, so maybe that's partly it.I expect most people who have been going about their business and not living under a rock to know where/what Aleppo is, so it does surprise me that Gary Johnson appeared not to know.
You would be very wrong.
I mean, maybe...but it seems like you'd have to be actively avoiding the news or have gone on vacation for a while. There was the picture of that kid from Aleppo just a couple of weeks back that was on every news network. But I've also been reading a book recently about the role Aleppo played in the Turks' genocide of the Armenians in the early 1900s, so maybe that's partly it.I expect most people who have been going about their business and not living under a rock to know where/what Aleppo is, so it does surprise me that Gary Johnson appeared not to know.
You would be very wrong.
Many, many Americans are shockingly ignorant about what is going on in the world. Or in their own backyards, for that matter.
Hence, Trump.
I mean, maybe...but it seems like you'd have to be actively avoiding the news or have gone on vacation for a while. There was the picture of that kid from Aleppo just a couple of weeks back that was on every news network. But I've also been reading a book recently about the role Aleppo played in the Turks' genocide of the Armenians in the early 1900s, so maybe that's partly it.I expect most people who have been going about their business and not living under a rock to know where/what Aleppo is, so it does surprise me that Gary Johnson appeared not to know.
You would be very wrong.
Many, many Americans are shockingly ignorant about what is going on in the world. Or in their own backyards, for that matter.
Hence, Trump.
I'm more informed than your average American on international issues, but that's not really saying a whole lot. I haven't watched "the news" in several years. I don't get cable at all, actually. The internet news sites that I frequent lean heavily towards domestic issues. Point being, when I first saw the stuff about Johnson not knowing what Aleppo was, my first thought was, "What's Aleppo?" Then I read that it was a Syrian city, and suddenly I remembered that it was a Syrian city. Given the nature of the question ("What would you do about Aleppo?", rather than "What would you do about Syria?") I'm not at all surprised by Johnson's response. It's been ridiculously overblown. It's pretty obvious the media has been waiting for something like this to pounce on.
Disagree. I read a paper and have no cable. You would have had to been asleep or dead to not know what was Aleppo. Especially if you are running for federal office.
Seriously, nobody - nobody - who is voting for Johnson gives a rat's ass about his response to that question. A vote for Johnson is either:
Seriously, nobody - nobody - who is voting for Johnson gives a rat's ass about his response to that question. A vote for Johnson is either:
Yup. And therein lies the problem with Johnson and his voters.
The same way that no one who is voting for Trump gives a rat's ass that he has no idea what he's doing.
Seriously, nobody - nobody - who is voting for Johnson gives a rat's ass about his response to that question. A vote for Johnson is either:
Yup. And therein lies the problem with Johnson and his voters.
The same way that no one who is voting for Trump gives a rat's ass that he has no idea what he's doing.
A sad state of affairs, but true.
Seriously, nobody - nobody - who is voting for Johnson gives a rat's ass about his response to that question. A vote for Johnson is either:
Yup. And therein lies the problem with Johnson and his voters.
The same way that no one who is voting for Trump gives a rat's ass that he has no idea what he's doing.
A sad state of affairs, but true.
or, C) both A and B above.
As someone who will be voting for the Johnson/Weld ticket, I'll chime in here briefly.
Yes, if a candidate truly did not know about Aleppo or have any awareness of what is going on there or Syria at-large, that would be very concerning to me. I learned a lot about him from his handling of the fallout afterwards though - he stepped up and took responsibility, explained what happened, and expressed regret and humility. He acted as I would hope a leader would and didn't run from it, or pull a Trump and say "I never said that". I don't think for one second that Gary Johnson doesn't know about Aleppo or generally what's going on in Syria, I think he's human and had a brain fart, albeit a very public one. It is disgraceful that he is being roundly taken to task in the media for this, while Trump and Clinton skirt by despite real ethical and/or judgment issues that should disqualify both of them. I'm pretty surprised that the first person to be arrested this election cycle is Jill Stein, considering the legal drama that has followed both of the frontrunners.
Speaking of which, how the hell has Trump avoided repercussions for pretty obviously bribing state AG's?
JediSith mind trick. (The same way he avoided people calling him on his lies about not supporting the Iraq war.)
One slip up isn't going to keep me from voting for Johnson, even with this slip up, he's the one presidential candidate who's values have matched mine more than any other presidential candidate in my lifetime.
He's the only candidate who wants to stop the NSA from invading our privacy,
the only candidate who would reduce military spending,
the only candidate that will reduce spending in general,
the only candidate who will get congresses approval before starting a war,
the only candidate that would focus on defense rather than offense,
the only candidate who has held political office and did what he said he would do,
and the only candidate who will walk between party lines and not base a large part of his decisions based on what the major political parties are doing.
Disagree. I read a paper and have no cable. You would have had to been asleep or dead to not know what was Aleppo. Especially if you are running for federal office.
Is 85 degrees THAT hot up there?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/politics/hillary-clinton-health/index.html
Is 85 degrees THAT hot up there?
When it's hot, you're in a suit, standing in the sun, becoming overheated and dehydrated happens, sure. Getting pneumonia from that seems weird to me, but I don't know enough about how one gets that to say anything one way or the other.
Doesn't look good though after Trump's been hammering the health issue, even if it really is nothing.
When it's hot, you're in a suit, standing in the sun, becoming overheated and dehydrated happens, sure. Getting pneumonia from that seems weird to me, but I don't know enough about how one gets that to say anything one way or the other.
Doesn't look good though after Trump's been hammering the health issue, even if it really is nothing.
It's a little odd for a normal person when it isn't respiratory season, but pneumonia is basically what happens when you get a respiratory infection and don't take care of yourself. It happened to my healthy, late 20s wife two winters ago.
You know where Trump is going with this for lack of any substantial issues.
I'm a little concerned as to how Trump's approach towards free trade (in particular with China) would affect the world economy.
If he puts large tariffs on Chinese-made goods, it might not just be China that feels the repercussions.
Then again, it might revitalise US manufacturing. Who knows, really.
I'm a little concerned as to how Trump's approach towards free trade (in particular with China) would affect the world economy.
If he puts large tariffs on Chinese-made goods, it might not just be China that feels the repercussions.
Then again, it might revitalise US manufacturing. Who knows, really.
I don't think those are the kinds of jobs we want to base our economy on in teh first place. Most of the manufacturing jobs that we're talking about are actually low-wage, low skill, high volume factories. It works in China because there's a huge population of unskilled workers who can be paid a fraction of what would be given in the US. To make it work in the US machines would replace the workers, and you'd be left with what most of US manufactoring already is; a few dozen highly-skilled technicians overseeing a largely mechanized factory that in previous decades would have employed a few thousand unskilled laborers.
Does anyone really think that even if we totally embargoed Chinese manufacturing we would suddenly open all of these factories in the US? The Chinese primarily manufacture low skilled parts in mass quantities. The US still does a lot of manufacturing but it is high end, difficult parts and final combination.
First it would take a while to build up and retool US factories for the low level stuff china makes, second it would mostly be automated, so no new jobs.
I don't think those are the kinds of jobs we want to base our economy on in teh first place. Most of the manufacturing jobs that we're talking about are actually low-wage, low skill, high volume factories. It works in China because there's a huge population of unskilled workers who can be paid a fraction of what would be given in the US. To make it work in the US machines would replace the workers, and you'd be left with what most of US manufactoring already is; a few dozen highly-skilled technicians overseeing a largely mechanized factory that in previous decades would have employed a few thousand unskilled laborers.
I don't think those are the kinds of jobs we want to base our economy on in teh first place. Most of the manufacturing jobs that we're talking about are actually low-wage, low skill, high volume factories. It works in China because there's a huge population of unskilled workers who can be paid a fraction of what would be given in the US. To make it work in the US machines would replace the workers, and you'd be left with what most of US manufactoring already is; a few dozen highly-skilled technicians overseeing a largely mechanized factory that in previous decades would have employed a few thousand unskilled laborers.
I previously worked for a manufacturing company with factories all over the world. Our plant in the UK was totally automated and required only a few people to run, because labor is expensive in Europe. Our plant in China was very simple and used dozens of workers at a time, because labor was cheaper than automation.
The dream of returning to the days of every worker on an American assembly line making a middle-class income and retiring at 55 is just that, a dream. It was a historical aberration in the 1950s-70s, and it's never coming back unless another World War destroys every other manufacturing economy on the planet like the last one did.
The dream of returning to the days of every worker on an American assembly line making a middle-class income and retiring at 55 is just that, a dream. It was a historical aberration in the 1950s-70s, and it's never coming back unless another World War destroys every other manufacturing economy on the planet like the last one did.
The dream of returning to the days of every worker on an American assembly line making a middle-class income and retiring at 55 is just that, a dream. It was a historical aberration in the 1950s-70s, and it's never coming back unless another World War destroys every other manufacturing economy on the planet like the last one did.
I think it's a valid point, and one that can't be made often enough to people who lament the apparent "decline" of the US manufacturing economy. That period of their childhoods that they remember so fondly, of raising an entire family on a single factory job income, was the result of a horrendous market distortion bought with the blood of our allies and enemies alike. The current global diversification of the manufacturing base is just everything slowly returning to the way it used to be, and probably should be. The US hasn't lost anything it wasn't supposed to have in the first place.
The dream of returning to the days of every worker on an American assembly line making a middle-class income and retiring at 55 is just that, a dream. It was a historical aberration in the 1950s-70s, and it's never coming back unless another World War destroys every other manufacturing economy on the planet like the last one did.
I think it's a valid point, and one that can't be made often enough to people who lament the apparent "decline" of the US manufacturing economy. That period of their childhoods that they remember so fondly, of raising an entire family on a single factory job income, was the result of a horrendous market distortion bought with the blood of our allies and enemies alike. The current global diversification of the manufacturing base is just everything slowly returning to the way it used to be, and probably should be. The US hasn't lost anything it wasn't supposed to have in the first place.
I think WWII (and the global destruction of factories outside North America) allowed the US to hold onto its domestic factory jobs far longer than we otherwise would have. Prior to WWII manufacturing was far more regional as air-freight didn't exist, interstates didn't exist, powered ocean-liners were relatively new and trans-atlantic/pacific communication was difficult at best. Regional factories thrived up until the world wars because they weren't competing with other regions.
We've got a global economy now, and that genie won't go back into his bottle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-clue-to-the-whereabouts-of-the-6-foot-tall-portrait-of-donald-trump/2016/09/14/ae65db82-7a8f-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.htmlThe Trump Foundation has become a big negative for me. Not only is Trump not using his own money for charitable donations he's promised, but he uses the charity to settle legal disputes (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b), buy a portrait of himself (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-clue-to-the-whereabouts-of-the-6-foot-tall-portrait-of-donald-trump/2016/09/14/ae65db82-7a8f-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?tid=a_inl)and purchase sports memorabilia.
“You want to debate foundations and charities?” Obama said. “One candidate’s family foundation has saved countless lives around the world. The other candidate’s foundation took money other people gave to his charity and then bought a six-foot-tall painting of himself.”
Relevant article, probably was already brought uplol, quoting myself
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/this-professor-has-predicted-every-presidential-election-since-1984-hes-still-trying-to-figure-out-2016/
I came up with lots of false answers. 7/8 depending
Relevant article, probably was already brought uplol, quoting myself
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/this-professor-has-predicted-every-presidential-election-since-1984-hes-still-trying-to-figure-out-2016/
I came up with lots of false answers. 7/8 depending
as you see I posted this article i found two days ago when I was searching around then this is published today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/
Sounds great except it leaves out stay at home Dads like my brother
I read today one of Hillary's plans to modify SS is to expand benefits to women, supposedly because they have fewer earning years due to child care.Can you post a link to this? It's unlikely to be gender specific, as that's not legal, but may be aimed at stay-at-home parents (most of whom may be women).
Sounds great except it leaves out stay at home Dads like my brother and also does not make any mention that women statistically live longer than men. Really what you should do is have full retirement age for women be 68 and 66 or 67 for men. That probably would not earn her the vote that this ploy will.
More true now than ever...
I read today one of Hillary's plans to modify SS is to expand benefits to women, supposedly because they have fewer earning years due to child care.And that would be illegal, just FYI.
Sounds great except it leaves out stay at home Dads like my brother and also does not make any mention that women statistically live longer than men. Really what you should do is have full retirement age for women be 68 and 66 or 67 for men. That probably would not earn her the vote that this ploy will.
What would it take from the new Wikileaks e-mails which are supposidely today going to be released for for Hillary supporters on here to switch to a 3rd party?
What would it take from the new Wikileaks e-mails which are supposidely today going to be released for for Hillary supporters on here to switch to a 3rd party?
What would it take from the new Wikileaks e-mails which are supposidely today going to be released for for Hillary supporters on here to switch to a 3rd party?
Now is that wasn't the most obvious click-bait ever... wikileaks failed to deliver anything at all. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/04/trump-backers-feel-played-as-wikileaks-fails-to-come-through-on-october-surprise/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wikileaks-750a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory) Maybe that's because there isn't anything to se...
The negatives surrounding Clinton have been known for months and sometimes years. Trump keeps adding more to his negative column every week.
I thought Trump took great pride in cutting his own hair - is that not the case?What would it take from the new Wikileaks e-mails which are supposidely today going to be released for for Hillary supporters on here to switch to a 3rd party?
Now is that wasn't the most obvious click-bait ever... wikileaks failed to deliver anything at all. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/04/trump-backers-feel-played-as-wikileaks-fails-to-come-through-on-october-surprise/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wikileaks-750a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory) Maybe that's because there isn't anything to se...
The negatives surrounding Clinton have been known for months and sometimes years. Trump keeps adding more to his negative column every week.
I think he is bringing in his stylist today to state, unequivocally, that his hair is its natural color.
I'm a little concerned as to how Trump's approach towards free trade (in particular with China) would affect the world economy.
If he puts large tariffs on Chinese-made goods, it might not just be China that feels the repercussions.
Then again, it might revitalise US manufacturing. Who knows, really.
I agree that Trumps policies would hurt our economy, but let's leave white trash people out of it, some of us white trash people are voting for Johnson, and also don't like being called white trash.I'm a little concerned as to how Trump's approach towards free trade (in particular with China) would affect the world economy.
If he puts large tariffs on Chinese-made goods, it might not just be China that feels the repercussions.
Then again, it might revitalise US manufacturing. Who knows, really.
I'd like to see what Trumps white-trash voters think after his tariffs quadruple prices at the local walmart. They want more "made in USA?" I saw some jeans made in US. They cost $200+..
I'm a little concerned as to how Trump's approach towards free trade (in particular with China) would affect the world economy.
If he puts large tariffs on Chinese-made goods, it might not just be China that feels the repercussions.
Then again, it might revitalise US manufacturing. Who knows, really.
I'd like to see what Trumps white-trash voters think after his tariffs quadruple prices at the local walmart. They want more "made in USA?" I saw some jeans made in US. They cost $200+..
I agree that Trumps policies would hurt our economy, but let's leave white trash people out of it, some of us white trash people are voting for Johnson, and also don't like being called white trash.
IMHO, voting for Johnson is like betting on purple instead of red or black, because, dangit, you like purple.
I live in a trailer in a 300 person town and shop at the wal mart in the next town, er go, white trash.
Ah, but if you bet on green, you actually have a chance of winning. Not so with Johnson.IMHO, voting for Johnson is like betting on purple instead of red or black, because, dangit, you like purple.
No, it's like betting on green.
White trash is a derogatory racial slur that generally refers to poor white people, people living in a trailer are generally thought of as poor.IMHO, voting for Johnson is like betting on purple instead of red or black, because, dangit, you like purple.
No, it's like betting on green.I live in a trailer in a 300 person town and shop at the wal mart in the next town, er go, white trash.
What does any of that have to do with being "white trash?" What you described is nothing more than generically rural.
White trash isn't indicated by living in a trailer; it's indicated by (for example) sitting on an old couch in the front yard next to a pile of beer cans, yelling expletives at minorities passers-by while waiting for the mailman to bring the welfare check. It's a measure of behavior, not circumstance.
I'm a little concerned as to how Trump's approach towards free trade (in particular with China) would affect the world economy.
If he puts large tariffs on Chinese-made goods, it might not just be China that feels the repercussions.
Then again, it might revitalise US manufacturing. Who knows, really.
I'd like to see what Trumps white-trash voters think after his tariffs quadruple prices at the local walmart. They want more "made in USA?" I saw some jeans made in US. They cost $200+..
Ah, but if you bet on green, you actually have a chance of winning. Not so with Johnson.IMHO, voting for Johnson is like betting on purple instead of red or black, because, dangit, you like purple.
No, it's like betting on green.
Ah, but if you bet on green, you actually have a chance of winning. Not so with Johnson.IMHO, voting for Johnson is like betting on purple instead of red or black, because, dangit, you like purple.
No, it's like betting on green.
The equivalent to "betting on green" in this election may actually be to vote for Evan McMullin.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/polls-may-be-underestimating-evan-mcmullins-chances-in-utah/
I'm aware there is a theory on how McMullins could become president winning only Utah (probably with only a plurality). It would be an absolute tempest if this were to happen, and not at all how our government was supposed to work.
I found this an amusing comparison of the candidates:Ah, Slate... the Fox News of the left!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/clinton_vs_trump_whose_crimes_are_worse.html
True that. Amusing red meat for those inclined to vote in the same direction.I found this an amusing comparison of the candidates:Ah, Slate... the Fox News of the left!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/clinton_vs_trump_whose_crimes_are_worse.html
I found this an amusing comparison of the candidates:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/clinton_vs_trump_whose_crimes_are_worse.html
True that. Amusing red meat for those inclined to vote in the same direction.I found this an amusing comparison of the candidates:Ah, Slate... the Fox News of the left!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/clinton_vs_trump_whose_crimes_are_worse.html
Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
Oh, and let me double down: despite what is routinely agreed upon as a disastrous first term, Trump gets reelected in 2020.
On March 1, over 8 months ago, I wrote:Does this mean that the world as we know it won't have come to a disastrous end by 2020?Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
At the time, Trump was considered a long shot (to Cruz or Rubio, mostly, though there were a few others) to even win his primary. Hillary (despite a surprisingly rousing contest from Bernie) was very likely to win hers, though.
Here we are.
Can't say I didn't warn you.
Oh, and let's not forget that I added, in the very next post:Oh, and let me double down: despite what is routinely agreed upon as a disastrous first term, Trump gets reelected in 2020.
Again... can't say I didn't warn you.
Nope, the world will not end in the next four years.
Nope, the world will not end in the next four years.
What do you think will happen, ARS?
I'd be less worried if Dems had the Senate.Nope, the world will not end in the next four years.
What do you think will happen, ARS?
People overestimate the power of the President.
The role is a figure head. Common people want a leader who appears STRONG and CONFIDENT.
This is why actors make such good politicians...Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump (reality tv star), etc.
I'm not worried, legislation must be approved by The House and Senate before being passed into law.
Nope, the world will not end in the next four years.
What do you think will happen, ARS?
Oh, and let me double down: despite what is routinely agreed upon as a disastrous first term, Trump gets reelected in 2020.
I agree with both, and the sentiment. the only thing I see stopping him from being reelected is the Tea Party realizes he is not one of them combined with a vindictive establishment. or another transitional candidate like trump, i.e.; the anti-trump.
Can't say I didn't warn you.
The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world. Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic. Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large. He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it. Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.
Can't say I didn't warn you.
Over eight months ago, one day after your warning, I wrote this:The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world. Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic. Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large. He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it. Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.
And I just spent the last eleven hours still feeling that way, in a state of near-total despair at our civilization apparently crumbling around us. Then I read this (WBW: It's Going to Be Okay) (http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/11/its-going-to-be-okay.html), and now I feel much better.
Yea, no. I will be looking at other countries for opportunities. My degree does mean something abroad. I can't have my daughter raise in a country where people would rather vote for a rapist instead of a woman.Can't say I didn't warn you.
Over eight months ago, one day after your warning, I wrote this:The success of Trump's candidacy is seriously, honestly causing me to lose hope about the long-term future of the world. Again, the parallels being drawn between the content of Trump's rhetoric and modern society's greatest atrocities are not hyperbolic. Yet in spite of that, or because of that, his campaign is finding wild success among the population at large. He's tapping into an ugliness of human society that is always there--when not openly on display on the surface then hiding latent just below it--and making me doubt our ability to ever truly rise above it. Civilization is hideously fragile, and once again we're starting to witness the removal of the varnish separating us from the horrors underneath.
And I just spent the last eleven hours still feeling that way, in a state of near-total despair at our civilization apparently crumbling around us. Then I read this (WBW: It's Going to Be Okay) (http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/11/its-going-to-be-okay.html), and now I feel much better.
Thanks for the link. It helped.
Thanks for the link. It helped.
I failed to find anything reassuring in there.
As it turns out, America is a big diverse country full of secret bigots who lied to pollsters about their darkest innermost thoughts. I am only disappointed in us.
Regardless of the policy implications of an unchecked conservative movement controlling every branch of government, which are disturbing but a separate issue, I'm just disheartened that we turned out to be so ugly. I thought we were better than this. I thought we had learned to value diversity and equality and inclusiveness, but instead the people rose up in support of white nationalism, trickle down economics, and blatantly unconstitutional discrimination. The modern electorate apparently favors destroying everything America once stood for.
So be it. If this is what America has become, then democracy dictates that this is what America shall be. Warts and all.
So yeah, we’re gonna have to look at Trump’s face a lot for a bunch of years, and that’s a shame. And he might do some really shitty things. And it’s fair to be really upset about having a guy like Trump representing you in the world and worried about how the country will fare under his administration. But if we want to make the best of this, we need to ask a question: Why did those 50 million people vote for Trump?
Trying to get to the bottom of that question will help us learn from the past and get better.
At this point I am just hopping that he does a poor enough job that in 4 years we have a shot to beat him... It is hard as heel to dethrone the sitting president and it will take more than an establishment democrat to do it.
On March 1, over 8 months ago, I wrote:Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
At the time, Trump was considered a long shot (to Cruz or Rubio, mostly, though there were a few others) to even win his primary. Hillary (despite a surprisingly rousing contest from Bernie) was very likely to win hers, though.
Here we are.
Can't say I didn't warn you.
Quote from: pbkmaine on November 09, 2016, 09:00:06 AM
Thanks for the link. It helped.
I failed to find anything reassuring in there.
As it turns out, America is a big diverse country full of secret bigots who lied to pollsters about their darkest innermost thoughts. I am only disappointed in us.
Regardless of the policy implications of an unchecked conservative movement controlling every branch of government, which are disturbing but a separate issue, I'm just disheartened that we turned out to be so ugly. I thought we were better than this. I thought we had learned to value diversity and equality and inclusiveness, but instead the people rose up in support of white nationalism, trickle down economics, and blatantly unconstitutional discrimination. The modern electorate apparently favors destroying everything America once stood for.
So be it. If this is what America has become, then democracy dictates that this is what America shall be. Warts and all.
really wish that these liberals would stop throwing temper tantrums and get behind and support Trump for better or worse. He has not even taken office or done a single thing yet to denounce him. Give him a chance. Trump is not going to step down because a bunch liberals who live in a bubble are protesting and aren't happy.I don't give him a chance. I know enough about him to resist him at every turn.
really wish that these liberals would stop throwing temper tantrums and get behind and support Trump for better or worse. He has not even taken office or done a single thing yet to denounce him. Give him a chance. Trump is not going to step down because a bunch liberals who live in a bubble are protesting and aren't happy.I don't give him a chance. I know enough about him to resist him at every turn.
really wish that these liberals would stop throwing temper tantrums and get behind and support Trump
really wish that these liberals would stop throwing temper tantrums and get behind and support Trump
You mean the same way conservatives got behind Obama in 2008? When they publicly vowed to oppose him at every turn, to devote their lives to making him a one term president, instead of governing? Republicans literally shut down the federal government in protest.
I cannot fathom how those same people are now expecting Democrats to forgive and forget and just fall in line.
Even if you disagree with Obama's policy positions, he was at least a decent human being. I'm not looking forward to the first state of the union address where Trump says Angela Merkel is fat.
On March 1, over 8 months ago, I wrote:Well, with Super Tuesday mere hours away, time to put my prediction down:
This November, Trump defeats Hillary.
(Please note that a prediction is different than a wish.)
At the time, Trump was considered a long shot (to Cruz or Rubio, mostly, though there were a few others) to even win his primary. Hillary (despite a surprisingly rousing contest from Bernie) was very likely to win hers, though.
Here we are.
Can't say I didn't warn you.
jesus bleeding motherfucking christ, arebelspy, nobody gives a fuck.
really wish that these liberals would stop throwing temper tantrums and get behind and support Trump
You mean the same way conservatives got behind Obama in 2008? When they publicly vowed to oppose him at every turn, to devote their lives to making him a one term president, instead of governing? Republicans literally shut down the federal government in protest.
I realize there were many conservatives who followed the path that you describe, sol, but I'll point out that many others did accept the election results and quickly adopted an attitude of hoping for Obama to serve well.
I realize there were many conservatives who followed the path that you describe, sol, but I'll point out that many others did accept the election results and quickly adopted an attitude of hoping for Obama to serve well.
. . . I see what you're trying to say, not all conservative voters in America were balls-out obstructionists after Obama's sweeping electoral victory. But their elected representatives absolutely were. 100% obstructionist 100% of the time, so you'll understand why I'm not terribly sympathetic to claims that Republicans wanted Obama to govern well. If they wanted to govern, they could have passed some damn laws instead of being the least productive Congress in American history.
Is your avatar a photo of you?
I hope the hypocrisy here is not lost on anyone.Nope, at least not in a sound-bitey way
Does this thread apply to presidents-elect? How about to vice presidents-elect?
Because today Mike Pence is seeking to keep secret his emails from his time as governor. Apparently he hired a lawyer to delete and redact emails he wrote relating to Indiana's efforts to block Obama's executive orders on immigration.
I hope the hypocrisy here is not lost on anyone. Didn't you hear, Mike? The American people demand full email transparency!
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/11/14/whats-mike-pence-hiding-his-emails/92839560/
Nope, at least not in a sound-bitey way
Pence hired a lawyer to specifically redact from his emails all evidence of government fraud, waste, and abuse.That may be true - don't know enough details to opine - but that's not in the linked article...?
If we're going to ask for full transparency from our elected officials, let's at least be consistent in how we apply that standard.Consistency is good. Don't want "full" transparency (e.g., I'm fine with keeping the nuclear launch codes secret). Defining where to draw the "keep secret"/"disclose" line is difficult.
I think it's sort of a given at this point that he will be the least transparent President since Nixon.Speaking of Nixon...I guess we'll see. For good or bad, it seems there is little about Trump that we can take as given....
really wish that these liberals would stop throwing temper tantrums and get behind and support Trump for better or worse. He has not even taken office or done a single thing yet to denounce him. Give him a chance. Trump is not going to step down because a bunch liberals who live in a bubble are protesting and aren't happy.
really wish that these liberals would stop throwing temper tantrums and get behind and support Trump for better or worse. He has not even taken office or done a single thing yet to denounce him. Give him a chance. Trump is not going to step down because a bunch liberals who live in a bubble are protesting and aren't happy.
Germans surely said the same thing in 1934.
Policy that's "bad" or "stupid" or "unfeasible" or whatever is one thing. But Trump's threats against civil liberties, support for torture, etc. is entirely another. It is literally an existential threat to freedom and justice, and I would rather see a civil war than support that totalitarian asshat!
"The administration is fighting to conceal the contents of an email sent to Gov. Mike Pence by a political ally. That email is being sought by a prominent Democratic labor lawyer who says he wants to expose waste in the Republican administration." andPence hired a lawyer to specifically redact from his emails all evidence of government fraud, waste, and abuse.That may be true - don't know enough details to opine - but that's not in the linked article...?QuoteIf we're going to ask for full transparency from our elected officials, let's at least be consistent in how we apply that standard.Consistency is good. Don't want "full" transparency (e.g., I'm fine with keeping the nuclear launch codes secret). Defining where to draw the "keep secret"/"disclose" line is difficult.
I think Clinton fell victim to the same thing that brought down Nixon: it wasn't so much the original act as the attempted coverup.QuoteI think it's sort of a given at this point that he will be the least transparent President since Nixon.Speaking of Nixon...I guess we'll see. For good or bad, it seems there is little about Trump that we can take as given....
Pence hired a lawyer to specifically redact from his emails all evidence of government fraud, waste, and abuse.That may be true - don't know enough details to opine - but that's not in the linked article...?
"...lawyer who says he wants to expose waste in the Republican administration." and
"I think...that...was a waste of taxpayer dollars...,” Groth said.
Pence produced the documents in the request “but those documents included substantial redaction,” according to court documents."