Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Nice one
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:From what I understand a substantial chunk, possibly a majority of the newly elected senators and representatives are bat-shit insane, and are planning to spend the next 2 years trying to repeal the AHA and impeach President Obama. This is likely to mean no governing goes on for the next 2 years anyway.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why can't the newly elected and re-elected Senators, representatives, governors etc get down to doing something like governing the country, like presumably the people elected them to do? Can't they get their seats warm before they start bounding around the country campaigning for another election?
quote:Plus he was the first Biden in a thousand generations of Bidens to go to university!
Biden is very, very smart but he's a loose cannon, he doesn't stick to the script. But he's more of a politician than Obama is and I think he knows DC well enough to get stuff done. I'd vote for him or Hilary no problem.
quote:There is a downside--her claim that she is part Cherokee. She seems to have used this claim to advance her career.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen an article on Elizabeth Warren that argues she should run because there's no real downside for her.
quote:With the bunch who were just elected or re-elected, I'm quite happy to have them bounding around the country campaigning -- they'll do less harm that way than if they were causing trouble in Washington.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why can't the newly elected and re-elected Senators, representatives, governors etc get down to doing something like governing the country, like presumably the people elected them to do? Can't they get their seats warm before they start bounding around the country campaigning for another election?
quote:That's still a matter of debate.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...
quote:The results in the Senate races aren't all that telling. It's amazing the Democrats still held Senate seats in South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, and Louisiana in the first place. I know why they still held seats in Louisiana and West Virginia. I've got an inkling about South Dakota. Montana? I got nothing. In any event, the Republicans were supposed to win those Senate seats. The Republican performance in the Southeast might be a cause for alarm but not much. Only one Senate race should give the GOP hope for 2016 and that's Iowa. More on that below.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I appreciate the differences between the Presidential race, and the Senate and House races. Electoral College structures and current demographics do favour the Democrats in the Presidential race. The House is indeed gerrymandered. And the two-Senators per State structure works differently to the Electoral College in dealing with overall votes and popularity.
The real question is, will that built in advantage be enough? Can the Democrats recover/maintain sufficient support to have a good chance of winning in 2016? I don't think they can this time; unless the GOP helps them out e.g. by mobilising the ethnic minorities against themselves. (That can't be ruled out, of course.) Turn out looks likely to be a key factor.
I'll be keeping my eyes open for the next 538 blog on the topic.
quote:Normally, the disadvantage democrats have in terms of low turnout during the Midterms also diminishes with the Presidental elections.
Barnabas62: Electoral College structures and current demographics do favour the Democrats in the Presidential race.
quote:I'm considering registering as a Democrat just so I can vote for her in the primary.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.
quote:Where I live, I see political TV ads for 2 states. All the Republicans ran anti-Obama campaigns by tying their opponents' voting records to support for Obama -- and his poll numbers are in the mid-40s. As I see it, the Republicans have successfully trashed Obama's image in the public mind, and that, coupled with a little -- OK, a lot -- of latent racism has made him a target for the loathing borne of economic misery that the poor and middle class continue to experience in this 'recovery' which boosts the fortunes of the wealthy.
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a foreigner and one who does not really understand how US politics work, four things strike me as really surprising.
. . .
2. How much so many people seem to be driven by hatred towards Barak Obama. I know the rules don't allow him to stand again. So this shouldn't really be relevant anyway. From abroad, perhaps he's not that scintillating but it doesn't look as though he's been doing too bad a job. He's a lot better than his predecessor, and he at least tried to do something about the absence of a proper health service. Why this acrimony? To a foreigner he actually looks quite a good president.
quote:The poor and middle class start Christmas shopping in June or earlier. It's the only way most of us can scrape a modest Christmas together, by buying one gift at a time over many months.
Originally posted by Enoch:
3. How early this speculation is starting. This election is two years away. It's as though one starts thinking about Christmas in June.
quote:If that's what it takes to get progressives through the night...
originally posted by Porridge:
Obama's image in the public mind, and that, coupled with a little -- OK, a lot -- of latent racism has made him a target for the loathing borne of economic misery that the poor and middle class continue to experience in this 'recovery' which boosts the fortunes of the wealthy.
quote:Who are these people voting Republican that would have voted for Obama if he were white? Only the politically blinkered believe they exist. A bigot might also believe they exist because the bigot thinks every last American in flyover country is secretly a member of the KKK even though the bigot has met precious few if any of the people the bigot judges so harshly.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, there's no racism involved. No, no, we're nice people, who just happen to think Obama's too uppity. Nothing to do with his skin colour.
And who said all those poor people with no health coverage deserved government meddling anyway? It doesn't read like that in my Bible.
(Sarcasm alert, for the politically blinkered)
quote:If she runs, I will have a devil of a time choosing between Warren & Clinton. Warren just might win the day for me. In many ways she seems much like Obama did in '08-- a breath of fresh air, someone who reminds us of why we became Dems in the first place. Someone who has the guts and the tenacity to enact real change that matters.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:I'm considering registering as a Democrat just so I can vote for her in the primary.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You left out the one Dem. who has the potential to give Hilary a run for her money: Elizabeth Warren.
quote:(shrugs). Well, I'm not Cherokee so ymmv. But as the parent of a Mormon convert, I'm not in a position to judge anyone relying on "family lore" to cling to flimsy claims of native American roots. There are so many many worse things you could say about most anyone on the playing field right now, it's just a giant yawn. It'll give the late-night crowd something to laugh about in the "I can see Russia from my back door" vein, but at the end of the day, I can't see it mattering a whole lot.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:There is a downside--her claim that she is part Cherokee. She seems to have used this claim to advance her career.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've seen an article on Elizabeth Warren that argues she should run because there's no real downside for her.
Apparently the Cherokees are quite angry about it. Her claim was based mostly on family lore; when this was questioned, instead of examining the question and then saying 'Oops!, she dug in her heels.
quote:I doubt I can answer your questions with any pronouncements that cover all that landscape. I will, however, point out that a Tea Party loony who ran against my US Rep was heavily backed by the Koch brothers. The loony, Marilinda Garcia, served in the state legislature with me. She's quite pretty and her surname could possibly be expected to appeal to a growing demographic in our state. Apparently the Koch brothers believe that looks, a Hispanic surname, and the ability to smile widely, coupled with a gift for yakking interminably without ever actually saying anything would easily win the election over our frankly homely-as-a-hedge-fence but experienced, smart, and hardworking Democratic incumbent.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
A few questions. Does only the government there consider corporations people, or do the citizens consider them people too?
Is your democracy working as well as it did in the past, i.e., is it as democratic as ever? Forgive me this one, I'm passing it along after hearing it: do Americans vote, or are your elections bought? Is this a problem if they are purchased?
quote:Thank God.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I will, however, point out that a Tea Party loony who ran against my US Rep was heavily backed by the Koch brothers. The loony, Marilinda Garcia, served in the state legislature with me. She's quite pretty and her surname could possibly be expected to appeal to a growing demographic in our state. Apparently the Koch brothers believe that looks, a Hispanic surname, and the ability to smile widely, coupled with a gift for yakking interminably without ever actually saying anything would easily win the election over our frankly homely-as-a-hedge-fence but experienced, smart, and hardworking Democratic incumbent.
They were wrong.
quote:What do you think the Koch brothers want that would shock and horrify the voters who vote for the candidates supported by the Koch brothers? Money spent by PAC's doesn't bother me nearly as much as the access lobbyists have to the elected leaders. Nobody is proposing a change to that.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Canadian media report today that $4 billion was spent on this election of your's (Maclean's, CBC), with the big spenders and advertisers are such wonderful people as the Koch brothers who aired 44,000 ads, one in ten of the total ads aired, spending $300 million. Tom Steyer was reported as spending $73 million mostly against pro-pipeline candidates.
A few questions. Does only the government there consider corporations people, or do the citizens consider them people too?
Is your democracy working as well as it did in the past, i.e., is it as democratic as ever? Forgive me this one, I'm passing it along after hearing it: do Americans vote, or are your elections bought? Is this a problem if they are purchased?
quote:I do agree Hillary has earned it and has the ability and experience. But she doesn't inspire us the way Obama did and I believe Warren could. Warren has less experience but what she has is stellar. And she is simply fearless. She'll go toe-to-toe with the Koch bros or the rest of that crowd.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hillary--possibly with Elizabeth Warren for VP.
In 2008, I voted for H in the primaries. I thought both she and Obama needed a lot more experience, but they were who we had. Interestingly, any of the candidates in the fall election would've broken a glass ceiling of some sort.
For once in my life, I got to vote for a woman for president. That means a *lot* to me. I think H has earned it, this time. She was a good secty. of state, and I think she's finally found herself. She knows DC and the White House from the inside. I think she'd do a good job.
I don't know much about Elizabeth Warren. I did see her in a great interview with David Letterman. She grew up poor, still remembers it, and doesn't want anyone else to go through that.
If E and H run against each other, they'll split the Dem. vote. If they run as a team, they might just sweep the election.
quote:Pretending that these are two separate issues misses the point. The reason lobbyists have the access they do is because of the money spent on campaigns by their corporate masters.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you think the Koch brothers want that would shock and horrify the voters who vote for the candidates supported by the Koch brothers? Money spent by PAC's doesn't bother me nearly as much as the access lobbyists have to the elected leaders. Nobody is proposing a change to that.
quote:This seems contrary to conventional wisdom, which is that the access granted lobbyists is directly proportional to the amount of money their backers have contributed to a candidate. Why do you hold that elected officials are indifferent to campaign contributions?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As if corporations were the only ones employing lobbyists. Lobbyists have always had access to politicians. Lobbyists will continue to have access regardless of how much money PACs are allowed to spend on elections.
quote:I don't see where Beeswax Altar is suggesting any such thing. He's simply pointing out that that is not a new problem. The rampant "dark money" opened up by Citizen's United, however, is-- and seems to have had a significant impact on the outcome of the elections. That's cause for concern. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about lobbyists as well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems contrary to conventional wisdom, which is that the access granted lobbyists is directly proportional to the amount of money their backers have contributed to a candidate. Why do you hold that elected officials are indifferent to campaign contributions?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As if corporations were the only ones employing lobbyists. Lobbyists have always had access to politicians. Lobbyists will continue to have access regardless of how much money PACs are allowed to spend on elections.
quote:If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Who are these people voting Republican that would have voted for Obama if he were white? Only the politically blinkered believe they exist. A bigot might also believe they exist because the bigot thinks every last American in flyover country is secretly a member of the KKK even though the bigot has met precious few if any of the people the bigot judges so harshly.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, there's no racism involved. No, no, we're nice people, who just happen to think Obama's too uppity. Nothing to do with his skin colour.
And who said all those poor people with no health coverage deserved government meddling anyway? It doesn't read like that in my Bible.
(Sarcasm alert, for the politically blinkered)
What Hebrew or Greek word does your Bible translate government provided health insurance?
quote:Well they will reap what they sow, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and only recently gave up his Canadian citizenship. Is he a socialist spy from the North? They have free healthcare up there - gasp!
Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno. People have shown a remarkable capacity to obsess over the birthplace of a President...
quote:I would bet on Senator Kelly Ayotte.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ IngoB
... as long as it's not Sarah Palin.
quote:The problem is that in her applications to Penn and Harvard she checked the box that said she was Native American. In the site I linked to earlier, there is these paragraphs.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But as the parent of a Mormon convert, I'm not in a position to judge anyone relying on "family lore" to cling to flimsy claims of native American roots. There are so many many worse things you could say about most anyone on the playing field right now, it's just a giant yawn. It'll give the late-night crowd something to laugh about in the "I can see Russia from my back door" vein, but at the end of the day, I can't see it mattering a whole lot.
quote:In other words, she gained advantages by falsely claiming to be Native American. I think she honestly believed her family stories; what bothers me is that when she was offered clear proof that these stories were not true, she kept insisting they were.
The Boston Herald reported in April that Warren had listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory and that Harvard Law School had touted her supposed lineage when the program faced doubts about faculty diversity.
{snip}
Warren first listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Faculty in 1986, the year before she joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She continued to list herself as a minority until 1995, the year she accepted a tenured position at Harvard Law School.
quote:My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:That's still a matter of debate.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...
quote:Okay, a mistaken claim. The point is that confronted with very solid evidence of the mistake*, she refused to look at it. She still insists she's part Cherokee.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If she honestly believed it, I would be careful describing it as a false claim. A mistaken claim would be a better description.
quote:That sounds like the P J O'Rourke end of the GOP (though I have heard that even he may be a Democrat nowadays).
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Also worth pointing out that while we had a swing to the right for the Senate, we also had three states (well two and DC) legalize recreational marijuana.
Just a reminder that the US is a large and very diverse country when it comes to politics.
quote:Is there an American edition of Who Do You Think You Are? It's one of the things about the show that's quite interesting, how the stories handed down in families often to turn out to be true, but also that some of them are partly true but a little garbled (such as a couple of different facts getting mashed together).
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Okay, a mistaken claim. The point is that confronted with very solid evidence of the mistake*, she refused to look at it. She still insists she's part Cherokee.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If she honestly believed it, I would be careful describing it as a false claim. A mistaken claim would be a better description.
*The Cherokee genealogists had very extensive records.
Moo
quote:Actually, the John McCain isn't a natural born citizen card was already in the works because John McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone. Nobody would have claimed McCain was a Muslim because McCains father isn't a Muslim and his school records from Indonesia don't list him as being a Muslim. Chances are very good another conspiracy theory about John McCain would have arisen in due time. Conspiracy theorists always come up with something to hang on the president.
originally posted by Callan:
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
quote:Nice one
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
quote:Here is some evidence.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't actually find anything in the reports that consists of solid evidence she's wrong. I can only find reports showing that she lacks solid evidence that she's right.
Which isn't the same thing.
quote:Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:Here is some evidence.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't actually find anything in the reports that consists of solid evidence she's wrong. I can only find reports showing that she lacks solid evidence that she's right.
Which isn't the same thing.
Even if her family story were true, she is only 1/32 Cherokee. This should not qualify her for affirmative action. I would have no problem with her claiming to be Cherokee if she had not claimed special benefits.
Moo
quote:I don't understand this.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Well they will reap what they sow, Ted Cruz was born in Canada and only recently gave up his Canadian citizenship. Is he a socialist spy from the North? They have free healthcare up there - gasp!
Originally posted by orfeo:
I dunno. People have shown a remarkable capacity to obsess over the birthplace of a President...
quote:I don't know anything about the issue behind this, but what a seriously malevolent site.
Originally posted by Moo:
Here is some evidence. ...
quote:Nope, it was 5-4.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:That's still a matter of debate.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The last GOP president to get in was GWB, the first time he barely won...
--Tom Clune
quote:Yes, that is the way the conspiracy runs. Jon Stewart and many others have had a field day just basically running thru the implications of the conspiracy theory-- which not only involves his father plotting this long, involved 48 year plot and then leaving the scene, but also involves the knowing cooperation of a huge web of government officials from the governor of Hawaii on down. The fact that there are, in fact, people who actually believe this is... well, let's just say, remarkable.
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by seekingsister:
[qb] Going back to Barak Obama, am I right that the accusation by the conspiracy theorists isn't that he is barred because Hawaii isn't really in the US - even though the rest of us all think it is - but that he wasn't really born there at all and the records have been faked? Presumably this was by someone who had a strange foreknowledge that in 48 years time this small baby was going to run for president.
quote:No official bar, just the usual "electability" questions in a deeply "religious" (in some sense) nation.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the US is a secular state, why would being a Moslem - if he were one which it seems very clear to everyone else that he isn't - bar one from being president?
quote:"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be president. He probably is and Obama would have likely been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya.
quote:I assume that's what it means, rather than that it bars those born by caesarian section, i.e. like Macduff "from his mother’s womb untimely ripped."
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
I've wondered why this was never brought up when Mitt's dad was trying to get the nomination. (He was born in a Mormon settlement in Mexico.)
quote:I am not a fan of Barack Obama (not a fan of any politicos, actually) but this is something I really don't get - the so-called "Birther" position.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ted Cruz may not be eligible to be president. He probably is and Obama would have likely been eligible even if he had been born in Kenya. Being a Muslim wouldn't disqualify Barack Obama or anybody else from serving as president. Nobody claims Hawaii wasn't a state when Obama was born.
quote:I believe he was born in the Canal Zone, which was U.S. territory at the time.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And John McCain was born in Panama, where his father was serving in the US military.
quote:The issue WAS raised about John McCain. You seem to be under the impression that John McCain and his followers made a big deal about Obama's birthplace. John McCain did not. The people who did weren't and aren't big fans of John McCain either. The highest profile person to make an issue of this was Donald Trump who frequently makes a big deal about possibly running for president in order to gin up interest in The Apprentice. Obama's father was from Kenya. Why claim Obama was born in Canada or Belgium?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And John McCain was born in Panama, where his father was serving in the US military.
The 'birtherism' nuttiness is merely a thin veil for racism. Which is why it is important for the fantasy birth place to be Kenya. It would never do for the late Mr. Obama to have his future-president son in, say, Belgium or Canada.
quote:Not to the degree it was about Obama - not even close.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The issue WAS raised about John McCain.
quote:The view from outside was that it was all about race and racism.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That's because Obama won the election and McCain did not.
quote:Seconded. The tclune cutting edge at work. Nice to see you again, Tom.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Nice one
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
quote:Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Originally posted by Callan:
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
quote:And Condi should stick with that--exclusively.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also a concert pianist. That definitely would rate highly in my book. Not that I have a vote.
quote:I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Originally posted by Callan:
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
quote:Except a small number of Hawaiians, but for entirely different motives!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nobody claims Hawaii wasn't a state when Obama was born.
quote:Plug "McCain's citizenship questioned" into a search engine. Or read the Snopes.com article.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.
quote:That is a list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation. She claimed Cherokee ancestry through her mother.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.
quote:Here are three snippets from this site which I linked to earlier.
And like Lamb Chopped, I haven't seen anything in my research this evening that demonstrates Warren claimed special benefits. As far as I can see, she made the claim after being employed, not before, and in fact it's her failure to claim any special benefit while a student that has people saying she's been inconsistent.
quote:As I said before, I have no problem with Warren honestly believing that she had Cherokee ancestry and listing it on applications, etc. My problem is that she refused to discuss the matter with the Cherokee genealogists and tribal leaders. It is one thing to make an honest mistake, even if you benefit from it, and another to refuse to consider any evidence that it was a mistake.
The Boston Herald reported in April that Warren had listed herself as a minority in the American Association of Law Schools directory and that Harvard Law School had touted her supposed lineage when the program faced doubts about faculty diversity.
{snip}
But Penn’s 2005 Minority Equity Report identified her as the recipient of a 1994 faculty award, listing her name in bold to signify that she was a minority.
{snip}
Harvard hired Warren for a temporary position in 1992, and the law school reported a Native American woman on its federally mandated affirmative-action report. The program did not report a Native American woman for 1993 through 1995, during which time Warren was back at Penn — she had spurned Harvard’s initial offer of a tenured position, according to a Globe report.
quote:As I said in my first post on this topic, the Cherokees are very angry--as angry as black people would be if they learned that a white person had claimed to be black in order to benefit from affirmative action.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know anything about the issue behind this, but what a seriously malevolent site.
quote:If by mentioned, you mean filing a federal lawsuit challenging his eligibility then yes it's been mentioned.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I think it's more accurate to say that John McCain's birthplace being in Panama has been mentioned at times, most often to point out the intellectual inconsistency of various birthers. His citizenship has never really been questioned.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Well, McCain's citizenship has been questioned, at times, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Originally posted by Callan:
If John McCain had won in 2008, would there have been all this stuff about him being a covert Muslim and not, actually, being a citizen of the US at all? I don't think there would.
quote:My point is on her mother's side she has 2 grandparents, 4 great-grandparents, 8 great-great-grandparents and 16 great-great-great-grandparents. Are we even looking at the right ones here? Because we sure as heck aren't looking at a COMPLETE list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:That is a list of her maternal ancestors to the fourth generation. She claimed Cherokee ancestry through her mother.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evidence? That's a list of a few of her ancestors, not all of them. I don't even know if any of the people on that list are the ones that Warren ever claimed had Native American blood in them.
quote:Yes. The 4 were a small sign of *some* sanity on the court. The 5 should've been fired--it wasn't their decision to make.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Nope, it was 5-4.
Originally posted by tclune:
My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
--Tom Clune
quote:No. That is evidence that a person or persons unknown for some reason known to them has sufficient personal dislike of Mrs Warren to set up a blogsite to express that dislike. The website is designed simply so as to encourage other people to dislike her too.
Originally posted by Moo:
As I said in my first post on this topic, the Cherokees are very angry--as angry as black people would be if they learned that a white person had claimed to be black in order to benefit from affirmative action.
quote:Census reports don't go into details of mixture, though, do they? I mean, if someone asked me about my national heritage I'd want to tell them I was half-English with a fair amount of Irish believed to be in the other half, and a suspected dash of Cornish but we can only find that bloke's marriage certificate in London where he says he was from St Ives but we've not found anything to verify that claim... but I doubt there's a box for that.
Originally posted by Moo:
She claimed Cherokee ancestry though her mother. The census reports consistently listed her mother as white.
Moo
quote:But it doesn't work this way. The census forms ask YOU to identify what you are, and until very recently, they forced you to pick a single category. Thus most of my ancestors picked "white" (including those who were 50% Cherokee, no doubt) because you had only two choices--and one was considerably more socially acceptable than the other.
Originally posted by Moo:
If her mother had any Cherokee ancestry, then Elizabeth has only half as much. If her mother did not have enough Indian ancestry to list it on a census form, Elizabeth, with only half as much, should not have listed it on any application.
I read a lot more about this two years ago when the subject first came up. I don't remember what all the websites were, but I read Warren's side as well as the Cherokees. The Cherokees were far more convincing, and I hold it very much against Warren that she refused to talk to them.
Moo
quote:The difference between you and Elizabeth Warren is that she listed herself as Native American, and thereby made herself a more desirable university hire.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't mind the legal qualifications for federal aid, etc. That's reasonable, since some test must exist.
{snip}
I'm not claiming aid. I wouldn't take it if it were offered.
quote:Sigh.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doesn't mean you won't get a conservative Republican in the Oval Office. Just that he or she will need to be a smart conservative Republican.
quote:I'll give you political experience, but Clinton is 67 and Warren is 65.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Given the choice between her and Elizabeth Warren, I'd hope that registered dems would choose experience and political savvy over youth and energetic speeches this time around.
quote:Bridgegate is too much of a liability for Chris Christie. Ted Cruz is scum. Jeb Bush is a has been and missed his opportunity to be president when he lost the 1994 governors election to Lawton Chiles and George W. Bush beat Ann Richards. Rick Perry is an idiot. Mitt Romney is a two time loser. Rick Santorum hasn't held elected office in years. That leaves Marco Rubio and Rand Paul from the OP. My money would be on Rand Paul. I stopped taking Rubio seriously after the stupid comment about Republicans not needing any new ideas because they had an idea called America and it still worked. Of the Republicans beloved by the Tea Party, Mike Lee would be my choice. However, 2016 would not be the year to run a senator for president. Republicans have to run one of their governors.
originally posted by irish_lord99:
It's early to tell for the GOP, but I suspect they'll do what they did in 2012 and 2008 and nominate Chris Christie. He's moderate to quasi liberal now (well, at least he acknowledges man-made global warming) and I'm sure he can gin up enough conservative rhetoric to convince the right-er leaning members of his party that he's both electable and actually a conservative.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:You might be right, and Rubio's ethnic background would work to his advantage in the general election.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That leaves Marco Rubio and Rand Paul from the OP.
quote:Just because they voted for her doesn't mean they love her. More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton. I believe somebody like Amy Klobuchar would do better in the general election.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Beeswax Altar--
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.
Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.
If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.
quote:Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Beeswax Altar--
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men. Don't forget those 16 million votes (aka "cracks in the glass ceiling") that she won. And more girls have come of voting age since then. Many of them are desperately waiting for a woman president. Many of us who've been voting for a long time are desperately waiting, too.
Hillary is the best chance we've got, even with negative trappings from her husband's presidency and her own faults. None of the other women candidates put forth on this thread would get enough votes to win.
If we don't want to wait umpteen more years to have a woman president, it's got to be Hillary.
quote:What is the quantitative basis for this assertion? "Love" is difficult to measure quantitatively.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton.
quote:Indeed. But my sense is Beeswax Altar is right. I've always been a huge Clinton fan. While I"m not prepared to vote for someone just because I've been waiting for a woman president (Prez. Palin, anyone?) I have been waiting to vote for her. But I would be one who find more to be excited about, more to be optimistic about Warren than Clinton. She may be newer to the national stage, but she has a good, strong, history of public service and an excellent record. "Cherokeegate" seems like small potatoes compared to the issues that dog Clinton. I think she's electable. More than that, I think she would do enormous good as President.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:What is the quantitative basis for this assertion? "Love" is difficult to measure quantitatively.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
More people love Elizabeth Warren than Hillary Clinton.
quote:It's interesting that your suggested to key to GOP success involves passing a large chunk of the Democratic agenda that the GOP has always opposed.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, if the Republicans let me control the legislative agenda for the next two years, they would pass bills increasing the minimum wage, raise the earned income tax credit, forgive some student loans, and pass sentencing reform. Democrats couldn't oppose them. Obama would sign them.
quote:That's a hard sell when the most recent Republican presidential candidate essentially called those using the EITC a bunch of lazy, shiftless moochers who could never be convinced to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives". Most past Republican "support" for the EITC was as a bargaining chip to leverage budget cuts elsewhere.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republicans have supported raising the EITC in the past.
quote:That observation seems to be the opposite of reality.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Every time the Republicans win an election, the supposedly impartial talking heads tell them the voters want them to compromise and work with the Democrats. When Democrats win, it's a mandate for change.
quote:That strikes me as a very good question. Is there anyone who's actually going to have a vote in this election who is prepared to have a go at answering it?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.
Voting for her because otherwise you'd have to "wait umpteen more years for a woman president" seems, unless all other things are equal, a bit odd. But then, we've had a woman PM already I suppose - and look how wonderful and different to the way men do things she was....
quote:That was actually a 5-4 decision.
Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE] My understanding is that he won by a landslide -- 9-0.
quote:I'm not sure it's possible for our electoral system to produce a *good* president.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president?
quote:Around here I run into more Hillary haters than lovers. And I mean haters. Some of them nice liberal feminist men who just have some kind of personal thing against her.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Actually, there are lots of people who are in love with Hillary. Women and men.
quote:It's more important to me to have a good president. I'll likely vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate, but I kind-of hope she isn't. I don't think her winning the presidency would be the feminist victory that others seem to think it would be. And I'd like to stop fighting Vietnam in our public discourse at some point.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Genuine question - is it more important to have a woman president or a good president? I'd probably vote for her if I were an American and lived there, but that would be because the Republican options are deeply uninspiring, not remotely because of her gender.
Voting for her because otherwise you'd have to "wait umpteen more years for a woman president" seems, unless all other things are equal, a bit odd. But then, we've had a woman PM already I suppose - and look how wonderful and different to the way men do things she was....
quote:I think this is a pretty key point. We've seen what happens with Romney, for example, when a candidate swings out to one side to win the nomination then tries to swing back to the middle for the presidential election, which is where you need to be (Tea Party supporters notwithstanding).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
-she might be more moderate than either her progressive challenger or Republican opponent
quote:Oh jeez, I'd forgot about him. He was all the buzz a while back on conservative radio. He's too similar to a televangelist to do well in the general, IMO.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.
Clown cars, start your engines.
quote:Yep, hence the clown car reference. He has zero chance; why bother? The Moral Majority hasn't quite taken on board the notion that (a) they're no longer a majority, if they ever were, and (b) given some of their more prominent figures, they don't look especially moral to That Other Majority.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Oh jeez, I'd forgot about him. He was all the buzz a while back on conservative radio. He's too similar to a televangelist to do well in the general, IMO.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Aaanndd . . . we have our first contender.
Clown cars, start your engines.
Another conservative to split the tea party vote and nominate a moderate in the primary.
quote:Maybe there will be more contenders for the Democratic nomination than people think.
Former Virginia senator Jim Webb on Wednesday evening announced that he is launching an exploratory committee to consider running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.
"Over the past few months thousands of concerned Americans from across the political spectrum have urged me to run for president," he said in a video released on YouTube Wednesday. "I have decided to launch an exploratory committee to examine whether I should run for president in 2016. I made this decision after reflecting on numerous political commentaries."
<snip>
The announcement came as a surprise to political watchers. Webb, who had said previously that he was considering a presidential run, is the first potential Democratic candidate to launch an exploratory committee. It is unclear if his announcement will precipitate other Democratic exploratory committees in the near future.
quote:My first paying job was to digitize the 1851 and 1861 census returns for Augusta Township in Canada West (now Ontario) and it was fascinating. The form asked for place of birth and religion and the census taker usually put ethnicity for place of birth and one could not count on what they might inscribe. We encountered families where one generation would be counted as "coloured" and the children not. Other families were counted as "Indian" but not everyone in the household. We wondered if this meant that one parent was First Nations and the other not, but there was one case where two children were annotated as twins, one Indian, and the other not! One household featured a father with a well-known local Mohawk family name marked as "scotch" and his Pennsylvania Dutch Loyalist-named wife as "half-breed."
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Census reports don't go into details of mixture, though, do they? I mean, if someone asked me about my national heritage I'd want to tell them I was half-English with a fair amount of Irish believed to be in the other half, and a suspected dash of Cornish but we can only find that bloke's marriage certificate in London where he says he was from St Ives but we've not found anything to verify that claim... but I doubt there's a box for that.
Originally posted by Moo:
She claimed Cherokee ancestry though her mother. The census reports consistently listed her mother as white.
Moo
quote:A good friend has some Cherokee blood - a great grandmother she knew while growing up I think - but has always been recorded as "white". (This might be related to having a family name of Custer.) Certainly the record keeping on such matters can be quite spotty, especially for those of mixed race born out of wedlock.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In other words, do not rely solely on the documents as sometimes family tradition can make more sense...
quote:Speaking of which, Scott Walker is much loved by conservative commentators as a very Reagan-esq possibility for 2016. Any thoughts on that? He got some bad press a while back for how he handled the teachers unions in Wisconsin, but he's been able to turn their budget around from a significant deficit into a noteworthy surplus.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
For example He dismisses Wisconsin reelection of the Governor as irrelevant.
quote:This is a telling quote from that article.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I came across this entry at the "GOPlifer" blog at the Houston Chronicle website. The basic gist is that unfavorable demographic and electoral trends prevent any Republican candidate from realistically obtaining the White House in 2016.
From my perspective, I think Chris Ladd is reading too much into the mid-term results. It's almost impossible to project mid-term results into presidential year turnout. For example, Mitt Romney carried West Virginia by a margin of 26.8 percentage points in 2012, yet we're supposed to believe (according to Mr. Ladd's map) that the state is up for grabs in 2016 because of close mid-term results this year? Or that Nevada, which Obama carried by a much slimmer margin of 6.7 percentage points in 2012, is completely out of reach for the GOP in 2016? I don't think the American electorate has shifted that far in two years.
quote:Earlier in the thread I was thinking that the GOP would surely find a candidate whose primary aim was to stop "kissing off" the votes of ethnic minority groups. I think it is probably true that the GOP cannot win unless and until they repent of that "kissing off". That requires policy shifts and modifications which the GOP heartland might initially hard to swallow at best, anathema at worst.
Vote suppression is working remarkably well, but that won’t last. Eventually Democrats will help people get the documentation they need to meet the ridiculous and confusing new requirements. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races. Meanwhile we kissed off minority votes for the foreseeable future.
quote:To me, this sounds like she has a good chance of being nominated as the Republican candidate.
RuthW: She didn't do a great job at HP, and she was forced out of the job.
quote:The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--
Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.
As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.
quote:I doubt they will be minority by 2016. The key parts of the legislation only came into effect this year. Yet already the tide is shifting as more and more middle- and low-income Americans are discovering that it is far from the Big Bad Wolf of Government Tyranny they've been led to expect. If AFA is able to continue w/o significant GOP dismantling (a big if, sadly) by 2016 I expect it will be part of the comfortable middle-class safety net that is considered politically off-limits. The big question will not be whether or not people like AFA-- it will be whether or not GOP will be able to successfully induce collective amnesia to forget the lies they spent 6 years weaving (again, sadly, they've proven to be quite adept at this sort of smoke-and-mirrors).
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I suspect the supporters of Obamacare, though a minority, are more likely to allow its defence to influence their vote than critical Democrats to desert.
quote:I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--
Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.
As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.
So Carly may have as much of a shot as Mitt (who, I hear, is being begged to run again).
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:My first cynical thought is that the DNC expects the next President to be Republican, and is running Hilary as this go-round's Dukakis.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Now, the Democrats are determined to give Hillary Clinton her opportunity to run for president in a general election. Few people of any political persuasion are in love with her. I don't get it. Democrats should nominate Amy Klobuchar. She has all the same policy positions as Clinton and she's likeable.
quote:Yes, they're pro BIG business, though they like to talk as if they're in favor of small business, too.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:I would tend to agree with you but, generally speaking, what is important is that the Republic party is believed to be pro-business. Whether or not it actually is may not be terribly relevant.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:The Republicans are only pro certain businesses, though. They certainly support the Mitt Romney sorts of business, which create capital out of completing the destruction of possibly foundering businesses, but not necessarily the bread-and-butter mom-and-pop type businesses which comprise so much of the main Street not Wall Street sorts of enterprise that fuel much of the US economy.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LeRoc--
Except the Republican party is pro business. If they stop to think about that, they might decide it's wiser not to support Carly. She was a large part of running HP into the ground and wrecking its much-vaunted culture.
As a woman, I was thrilled and proud when she got that job--doesn't happen often, here. Let's say I was not amused by her job performance.
So Carly may have as much of a shot as Mitt (who, I hear, is being begged to run again).
quote:Huh. I thought that was a plank in the Republican platform.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So unless they nominate her for wrecking a worker-friendly culture...which is not out of the question...
quote:Isn't this how Rick Perry kicked off his presidential bid in 2012, with a supposedly non-political prayer rally? Of all the Republican efforts in 2012 that seems like the the one future candidates should try to avoid emulating. It was poorly organized, the candidate was ill-prepared for public appearances, and . . . there was a third thing but I forget what it was.
Next month, Gov. Bobby Jindal is bringing a mass prayer event to LSU's campus sponsored by a conservative Christian group that has espoused controversial views on a number of issues, including the causes of Hurricane Katrina.
quote:Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
quote:And let's not forget Benjamin and William Henry Harrison.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
quote:Or drove better.
Originally posted by Porridge:
We could have added the Kennedys if only they didn't keep getting assassinated.
quote:There has been only one presidential election without a Bush or a Clinton since 1976. That's 38 years.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
quote:C) the Citizens United decision, which has given a whole new meaning to the saying "money talks."
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The only reasons the Republicans are doing well in Congress is
A) gerrymandering of districts in the House
B) standard shift away from party of the incumbent president in the Senate
quote:This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Presidents having to show Christian credentials? Meh. What you have to do is show alleged MORAL credentials. Which is why a Mormon made it as far as he did in the last race, and why Jimmy Carter got bagged on all the time for actually believing all that stuff and letting it affect his actions. (Mustn't go that far, of course!) Basically what you must have is church membership in a mainstream denomination, the duller the better (we're not looking for much more than that as an electorate, and we'll get squeamish about active activity such as teaching or preaching, or even membership in some of the denominations with a more "active" reputation.) and an ability to make broad sweeping statements that can't offend anybody (for example, Muslims/Jews/extreme patriots/other Christian groups, which means avoiding a lot of potholes, most notably all but the most glancing of references to Jesus). So no praying in Jesus' name or mentions of Christian doctrine where anybody can hear you, which includes your private life (which won't be private, of course). But you can quote him as a great human teacher all you want, and it will add to your moral cred (don't ever come out and say that, but do act from that perspective and you'll be all right).
quote:Well, citing John Quincy is a good way to make me uncomfortable with American dynasties. He was an asshat.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Why? We've had them before. John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It mildly surprises me that America is comfortable with political dynasties.
quote:But it's only two months until the Iowa State Fair, where candidates will be evaluated on whether or not they can eat a corn dog in a dignified manner. I truly cannot think of a better way to evaluate leadership ability.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The election is not for more than a year!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
n,This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!
. . . Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.
. . .
Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.
quote:But when I noted Southern Baptist Ted Cruz's use of the equally Southern Baptist Liberty University as the place to announce his candidacy she explicitly rejected the idea that Liberty U. was associated with what she'd termed "mainstream denomination[s]".
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
quote:Liberty is affiliated with a group of 500+ churches called Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia. These churches separated from the 14,000+ church Baptist General Association of Virginia. While the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia are considered a state convention by the SBC, Liberty is not affiliated with the SBC.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But when I noted Southern Baptist Ted Cruz's use of the equally Southern Baptist Liberty University as the place to announce his candidacy she explicitly rejected the idea that Liberty U. was associated with what she'd termed "mainstream denomination[s]".
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
quote:Exactly. For the purposes of this discussion, Southern Baptist and non-denominational (i.e. independent) evangelical are as mainstream as it gets, and the gold standard for GOP candidates. Roman Catholic used to be a problem for US presidential candidates (see JFK) but now that we (evangelicals) have joined up with them to bully gays and feminists, we've decided they're "mainstream" Christian as well-- at least for voting purposes. Mormon (see Romney) is still a bit on the edge, but likely to also become an acceptable stances for GOP presidential material, as long as they don't cave on the aforementioned dead horse issues.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
n,This came up as a tangent in another thread and rather than getting off on an unrelated tangent I thought I'd analyze it here. So what are the religious affiliations of the current field of candidates? How many of them belong to a "mainstream denomination"? Let's see!
. . . Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz – Not just a Southern Baptist, but his father is a pastor. The Southern Baptists are not a "mainstream denomination", not least because they reject being called a "denomination" of any sort.
. . .
Lindsey Graham – A Southern Baptist, which means he's not a member of a "denomination" (see note on Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee above), let along a "mainstream" one.
As for "denomination," I know plenty of Southern Baptists who have no problem at all with the Southern Baptist Convention being called a denomination. But in any event, I understood Lamb Chopped to be using "denomination" generally to mean "religious group," rather than in a more strict sense. So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
quote:Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics. They are:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Your Wikipedia link is to "Mainline Protestant." "Mainline" is not the same as "mainstream," either in meaning or etymology. A religious group can be mainstream without being Mainline, and an argument could be made that some of the Mainline groups are decreasingly mainstream. Where I live, Southern Baptists are the mainstream religious group, and as they're the largest Protestant group in the country, I don't see how they cannot be considered mainstream by any definition.
quote:As noted before, the Catholic Church most notably fails LC's "no teaching or preaching" standard. They're very enthusiastic about both.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So I understood "members of mainstream denominations" to include Sourhern Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews.
quote:No, I don't see why the equivalence was noted.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics. They are:
- dull (optional)
- not engaged in active activity such as teaching or preaching
- don't have an "active" reputation
- make broad, sweeping, yet inoffensive statements
- never make any but the most glancing references to Jesus
- never pray in Jesus' name
- never mention Christian doctrine where anybody can hear
- only quote Jesus as a "great human teacher"
These characteristics don't make me think of Southern Baptists generally or any of the various presidential candidates claiming to be Southern Baptists specifically. They do sound s lot like the standard criticisms white American evangelicals have been leveling against mainline Protestant churches for the past several decades, ever since they decided that "evangelical" and "mainline Protestant" were mutually exclusive categories. You can see why the equivalence was noted.
quote:With the possible exception of Carly Fiorina, I'm not sure this distinction makes any real difference to the candidate analysis.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All, or almost all, of the characertistics you've listed were given as characteristics of the candidate, not of any denominations—as in we get antsy about candidates who engage in activities such as preaching or teaching or who pray openly in Jesus' name.
quote:It makes a significant difference when you frame your entire analysis by saying:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:With the possible exception of Carly Fiorina, I'm not sure this distinction makes any real difference to the candidate analysis.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All, or almost all, of the characertistics you've listed were given as characteristics of the candidate, not of any denominations—as in we get antsy about candidates who engage in activities such as preaching or teaching or who pray openly in Jesus' name.
quote:It makes a difference because the analysis is based on a faulty premise. Contrary to your premise, LC did not define the characteristics of a mainstream denomination in the context of US presidential politics. She described the religious characteristics of a candidate likely to be successful in a presidential race, not characteristics of denominations and not characteristics of all who announce their candidacy.
Well, let's look at what LC defines as the characteristics of a "mainstream denomination" in the context of U.S. Presidential politics.
quote:The term "mainline" is often misused and often used interchangeably with the even vaguer term "mainstream." What would be considered "mainstream" (or "normal") Christianity would vary greatly depending on one's own pov and the geographical region one is in. In the American South, Southern Baptist would be about as "mainstream" as it gets. In the midwestern Bible belt, it might be Southern Baptist, it might be Reformed or Lutheran, but probably not Catholic. Here in California what's considered "mainstream" would break down even further, depending on whether you're in L.A county, Orange County, northern Calif, or the San Joaquin Valley. And of course, in Utah Mormon is mainstream, but not so almost anywhere else. Again, it's a vague term with a lot of variation in usage.
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is very odd. How can any phrase used to mean 'normal' non-whacky, trinitarian denominations not include the RCC and the Southern Baptists? True, it's not my country, but aren't both those ecclesial communities quite large in the USA?.
quote:The RCC and the SBC are both mainstream but not mainline. Mainline and mainstream aren't synonyms. The "Mainline" in "Mainline Protestant" refers to the Philadelphia Mainline. The Philadelphia Mainline does not represent mainstream America. The average American wishes that we could be so lucky.
Originally posted by Enoch:
This is very odd. How can any phrase used to mean 'normal' non-whacky, trinitarian denominations not include the RCC and the Southern Baptists? True, it's not my country, but aren't both those ecclesial communities quite large in the USA?
Also, if the whole of the US Episcopalian Church meets Crœsos's blandness tick-list, I'm not sure that the CofE would be in communion with it. I doubt either, that the CofS would want to have links with a Presbyterian church if it really met the Crœsos test.
There are plenty of people in the CofE who would pass the Crœsos test, but we don't all.
quote:I can't take full credit for the tick list. All the items were originally proposed by Lamb Chopped, as well as their applicability to American presidential politics.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Also, if the whole of the US Episcopalian Church meets Crœsos's blandness tick-list, I'm not sure that the CofE would be in communion with it.
quote:How do you figure that?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
quote:That would be awesome...for the Democrats. Rubio is very unpopular with Hispanic/Latinos and since approximately 50,000 Hispanic/ Latinos turn 18 and become eligible to vote each month, in states with large numbers of electoral college votes, that doesn't bode well.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:How do you figure that?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
quote:To be fair, Voldemort has a longer track record than most of the GOP field.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Voldemort is polling better.
quote:That's true in the red states that have managed to block much of the implementation of Obamacare (refusing to set up their own state exchanges, not taking advantage of the federal $$ to expand Medicare). Conservatives in those states do continue to loathe/fear Obamacare precisely because they have no real experience of it-- they only know the boogieman that GOP has painted it to be and the scapegoat the insurers have made of it ("we're raising your rates-- but it's not our fault, really! It's not that we're greedy shameless pigs, it's because Obamacare made me!").
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Also, if Republicans do manage to shaft Obamacare recipients via the upcoming supreme court decision, then look for the more moderate GOP candidates to surge in popularity, especially in red states where the court decision is going to be felt most.
quote:Not true. By my estimate Obama had a longer track record (time spent in elected office at a state or federal level) than Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and Bobby Jindal. That's seven of the thirteen Republican candidates who have either officially announced their candidacy or scheduled announcements.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Every GOP candidate has a longer track record than did Obama at the time he ran.
quote:I thought we were talking about the general.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Here is the thing. The potential Supreme Court ruling only affects 6 million people in the 37 red states. 6 million seems like a large number but it is stretched out over 37 states. How many of those 6 million people were ever going to vote Republican in the first place? Of the ones who were going to vote Republican, how many of them only purchased insurance to avoid the fines? Of those who were potential Republican voters who like Obamacare, how many of them are voting strictly on that issue? How many of them will vote in the primary? The backlash against candidates who oppose Obamacare in the Republican primary will be negligible. What there is will be more than offset by Republican voters delighted with Supreme Court decision.
quote:Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries. I don't even know which party's primary I will be voting in or if I will either bother. We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Not true. By my estimate Obama had a longer track record (time spent in elected office at a state or federal level) than Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and Bobby Jindal. That's seven of the thirteen Republican candidates who have either officially announced their candidacy or scheduled announcements.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Every GOP candidate has a longer track record than did Obama at the time he ran.
quote:As long as folks keep voting for dimocrats and republicans that is
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.
quote:I covet your optimism.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:As long as folks keep voting for dimocrats and republicans that is
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We're pretty much screwed beyond repair, istm.
certainly the case.
Either way, the man-child will be replaced. That will be great whether it's Hillary or any of the (r)s.
quote:This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.
quote:Again, nationwide polls on individual issues aren't really that important because of the electoral college. The only question is if the Republican views on those issues will prevent them from winning enough of the battleground states to win the election. Gerrymandering doesn't explain Republican control of the Senate and 31 state houses. On the other hand, turn out might prove to be an issue once again.
originally posted by cliffdweller:
The party itself is far far far to the right of the country as a whole. That works well for the GOP in Congressional races, where gerrymandering has allowed them to carve out niche districts of voters who would vote Republican even if the candidate had burned down an orphanage on Xmas Eve. But when it comes to a presidential race it works against them, and Obamacare is just one example.
quote:Right, Graham has no track record of being in charge of something. Sanders has.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.
quote:Agreed-- that (all of it) was my point.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Again, nationwide polls on individual issues aren't really that important because of the electoral college. The only question is if the Republican views on those issues will prevent them from winning enough of the battleground states to win the election. Gerrymandering doesn't explain Republican control of the Senate and 31 state houses. On the other hand, turn out might prove to be an issue once again.
originally posted by cliffdweller:
The party itself is far far far to the right of the country as a whole. That works well for the GOP in Congressional races, where gerrymandering has allowed them to carve out niche districts of voters who would vote Republican even if the candidate had burned down an orphanage on Xmas Eve. But when it comes to a presidential race it works against them, and Obamacare is just one example.
Now, many in the Republican Pary believe they are to the right of the American people on social issues and to that end have all but thrown social conservatives under the bus. Unfortunately, social conservatives make up over a 1/3 of the GOP vote. Hard to believe their votes could be replaced by all the social liberal hawks who believe the rich are getting a raw deal.
quote:ouch
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
quote:That's OK. I intend to vote for Elizabeth Warren even though she insists she's not running...
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:ouch
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Ben Domench wrote the same article over at the federalist. He represents the libertarian lite wing of the Republican Party that believes post 2008 a majority of Americans want to give banks and big business more power while at the same time virtually eliminating the safety net. John Kasich may be running for vice president and that's why I put him second. Frankly, I don't understand the problem. Both articles appear to be saying, "What's with all you RINOs wanting to nominate a competent pragmatist with years of experience in both state and federal government?"
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:ouch
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republican Ticket: Rubio/Kasich
You saw it here first!
quote:Brrrr.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".
quote:It's anybody's guess how much this will matter to a public that knows damn-all about US (or any other) history, probably never heard of Pickett's Charge, and doesn't read except in 140-character bits.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Jeb Bush has unveiled his new primary campaign strategy: sending waves of his followers on a hopeless charge against entrenched artillery. Casualties are expected to top out at no more than 50% overall. Seriously though, if you're going to make an historical reference you should at least be familiar with the events you're referring to and how it turned out for the participants.
Then again, maybe it's just the Bush family's natural foot-in-mouth speaking style coming out.
quote:To be fair, Pickett's Charge was being referenced by "one Bush ally", not Bush himself. Of course, one of the most important things presidential campaigns do is control the message they send out. If someone's going to be speaking to the New York Times about your campaign, the phrase "Pickett's Charge" should never cross the metaphorical Emmitsburg Road of their lips.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What I find telling is, successful or not, the campaign Jeb is referencing is a famous Confederate Army action.
quote:But what, exactly, is the President "in charge" of?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Right, Graham has no track record of being in charge of something. Sanders has.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems an artificially narrow way to define "track record". Take, for example, Republican Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham, who has spent nearly a quarter century in government at various levels (2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 8 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and by election day 2016 he'll have spent 14 years in the U.S. Senate). It seems very odd to describe someone with that history as having no track record because he's never held an executive branch position. Or to hold that Bernie Sander's eight year tenure as Mayor of Burlington, VT (executive experience!) is his most relevant bit of personal history in assessing his suitability as a President.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Ok. There's so many running I overlooked some but then, Obama's executive experience was still basically nil. I doubt I'll vote for a senator in the primaries.
If I owned an MLB team and I was picking a manager, I'd be more interested in your managerial experience then what's on the back of your card. Two different jobs.
quote:I believe a governor who has experience dealing with a state legislature has a leg up on someone who has just been a congressman or senator. That seems to usually be the judgement of the nation as a whole during my lifetime with just Kennedy and Obama being elected from the senate.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Being able to deal with Congress is therefore a pretty vital component of the job. I therefore query whether having been "in charge" of something is actually the best indicator.
quote:I'm only familiar with the TV series. But IIRC Stillson was the seriously-disturbed politician, whose life kept intertwining with Johnny's?
Originally posted by art dunce:
Sorry for double post. Just mentioned this to my son and he said I am reminded of Greg Stillson from "The Dead Zone".
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:While I prefer Republicans to Democrats and a punch in the stomach to a kick in the nads, I also prefer governors to senators. I'm also hinky about folks who hold to a theology you describe, messing with other people and their stuff.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I can see the comparison. My main problem with Ted Cruz (besides his being a Republican) is his father's Dominionism theology, which involves Ted and other men being anointed as kings/princes and producing an "end-times transfer of wealth" from evil people to Christians.*
quote:Here's some polling analysis of why Mr. Trump is a terrible candidate.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The birthday of our lives is here! Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring today. The GOP clown car now has its driver -- let the rejoicing commence!
quote:The included graph is also amusing.
[P]opularity is performance in politics, and Trump is the first candidate in modern presidential primary history to begin the campaign with a majority of his own party disliking him. A whopping 57 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Trump, according to an average of the three most recent polls. That beats former record holder Pat Buchanan, who had a 43 percent unfavorable rating at this point in the 2000 election cycle.¹ Buchanan, of course, ended up running as an independent.
-----
¹For each candidate, I averaged the three most recent polls in the first half of the year before the primaries. But for some candidates, only one or two polls were available.
quote:Question from a foreigner who doesn't really have the measure of US politics. Is Donald Trump well regarded and widely seen either in the US or in a significant part of US public opinion, as presidential material?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The birthday of our lives is here! Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring today. The GOP clown car now has its driver -- let the rejoicing commence!
quote:Yes, we have those too. We've even got a whole party of them. They got quite a lot of votes, but only got one seat in the recent election.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... The reason he is to be feared is because he is a spoiler. He may, from pure nuttiness, draw support and money away from more viable candidates. ...
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He adds some much needed seriousness to the GOP field.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Are you being serious or sarcastic, please? Thanks.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He adds some much needed seriousness to the GOP field.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:It was a well known Italian who had sprung to my mind.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... People do sometimes elect a nutter, or someone who's incapable, or unqualified, etc. IMHO, Dubya Bush springs to mind. ...
quote:A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
quote:That's what they *want* you to think.
Enoch: A crackpot then.
quote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
quote:What would happen if both main parties nominated a nut in the same year?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In all seriousness, Trump is utterly unelectable. A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in. We're not absolutely suicidal, mostly.
quote:Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other, that would mean ⅓ of the electorate are crackpots. I could possibly, just about, credit ⅓ of backbench politicians are crackpots, but of the American people, no.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
quote:I'd say that is what appeared to be true to the author at the time he wrote it. I don't really disagree with him, though.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other, that would mean ⅓ of the electorate are crackpots. I could possibly, just about, credit ⅓ of backbench politicians are crackpots, but of the American people, no.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:A Truther is a conspiracy theorist—especially one who believes that 9/11 was actually orchestrated by the government, that Obama was actually born in Africa and is Muslim, or the like—and who is intent on exposing the "truth."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what's a 'Truther'?
quote:We aren't doing that already?
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:What would happen if both main parties nominated a nut in the same year?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In all seriousness, Trump is utterly unelectable. A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in. We're not absolutely suicidal, mostly.
quote:To everyone's surprise, the people of Wisconsin elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura as governor in 1998. He turned out to be not a bad governor.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in.
quote:Minnesota
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:To everyone's surprise, the people of Wisconsin elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura as governor in 1998. He turned out to be not a bad governor.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A party may be seized by dementia and put a nut or a loon on the ballot. (Sarah Palin, you have mail!) But the electorate won't vote them in.
quote:Hard to say. The 9/11 poll referenced was conducted in 2007, and there's always the question of wording. An ambiguously worded question could lump together people who believe the Twin Towers were brought down by a secretly arranged controlled detonation and those who knew of the existence of the "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" memo as those who "believe George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks". There doesn't seem to be a lot of more recent polling on the subject. Those that do exist mostly indicate Rasmussen's results were an outlier.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is that article really true?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html
quote:Trump will drop out in time to film the next season of Celebrity Apprentice. Last couple of election cycles, he got attention simply by making noise about running for president. Just making noise about running for president wasn't getting him the attention he wanted so he actually has to enter the race for a few months and take part in one or two debates.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:The question is whether he knew and Howard Dean played some with the idea. And the article doesn't show an exactly equal crackpottery but, for the two questions asked, more crackpottery amongst the democrats.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, the main point of such articles is to create a false equivalency, which mostly serves to shut down any kind of thoughtful analysis (both sides are exactly equal in crackpottery) and to give the reader a sense of his or her own moral/intellectual superiority over all those fools. I'm pretty sure that no Democratic presidential candidate has suggested George W. Bush was secretly behind the 9/11 attacks.
quote:I don't see him making to the financial disclosure deadline.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Trump will drop out in time to film the next season of Celebrity Apprentice. Last couple of election cycles, he got attention simply by making noise about running for president. Just making noise about running for president wasn't getting him the attention he wanted so he actually has to enter the race for a few months and take part in one or two debates.
quote:http://www.trump.com/charities/
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:Huh. Guess our Quaker friends were right: there is something of God in everyone. Even The Donald.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.trump.com/charities/
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:Most really appallingly greedy capitalists have some sort of charity they support. Good PR, and a great tax shelter.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.trump.com/charities/
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:You really mean that?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps then it would be more fair to say that he gives not a hoot about the political system or the governance of the country. The presidential race is not to him a way to select a ruler of the US. It is a venue to promote himself and the Trump brand. So it's not that he doesn't care about human beings as a whole; he simply doesn't care about Americans.
quote:What's interesting is that similar criticisms could be leveled against other Republican contenders. For example, it could just as easily be argued that Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum (to pick two candidates at not-quite-random) are "running" in order to burnish their conservative standing, thus raising their speaking fees on the lecture circuit and their salaries at their Fox "News" sinecures. Is it just that Trump doesn't have a background in politics that requires people to play along and pretend that self promotion is political principle?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Perhaps then it would be more fair to say that [Trump] gives not a hoot about the political system or the governance of the country. The presidential race is not to him a way to select a ruler of the US. It is a venue to promote himself and the Trump brand.
quote:Interesting that his charity is sick kids-- not poor kids. Not that I mind a charity that helps sick kids, of course. But my biggest gripe with The Donald is his revisionistic "self-made millionaire"/ "poverty is a result of your own lazy bad choices" schtick. If he had to actually get involved with helping poor kids he might end up accidentally meeting one and having his whole worldview/ self-image challenged.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Most really appallingly greedy capitalists have some sort of charity they support. Good PR, and a great tax shelter.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:http://www.trump.com/charities/
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump is not (in his heart of hearts) actually hoping to win an election. He is not even hoping to become the GOP nominee. He is in this to juice his brand. He wants to be on the stage at the debates and get a free commercial for his various frauds, shows, and enterprises. It is a purely financial thing. He certainly does not give a penny piece about any other human being on this planet.
quote:Probably not a safe assumption. Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is that article really true? If nobody holds both crackpot ideas at the same time, and assuming approximately 50% of Americans support one party and 50% the other . . . .
quote:I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.
quote:That maths only works if one accepts that the foot-soldier members of the two parties are statistically seriously battier than the rest of the population. Cynically one might sometimes think that, but it would be a bit depressing if it were really true that you have to be an above average nutter to join a serious (not a fringe, note) political party.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Probably not a safe assumption. Recent polls I've seen show that somewhere around 25% of Americans identify as Republican, while around 30% identify as Democrats. By contrast, as much as 40+% of Americans identify as independent. And it appears that the number of those who don't identify with either of the major parties, or any of the smaller ones, is growing.
quote:In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
quote:You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
quote:In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
quote:No. Folks might make assumptions based upon how you registered. I don't know how my wife is registered but my dad tell her when we were young and she was majoring in education that, or course, she can vote how ever she wants to. However, if you want a teaching job, or any other tax-payer funded job, you'd better registered Democrat. Don't know if it still that way. In our state, you can only vote in your registered party's primary. But if you are registered as unaffiliated, you pick out which party's primary you are going to vote in when you get to the polling station.
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for?
quote:yes, who you voted for is secret but you can look up to see if someone voted.
Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
quote:It is their business here. You can register Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and unaffiliated. They still seem to think having folks from the two major parties keeps it neutral ground.
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
quote:Though both in the US and UK. whoever owns the press can aim to deliberately destroy a strong candidate and leave weaker ones, or ones who will have a less broad appeal. Has it been done? I would guess so.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
quote:In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for? Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm registered as independent. There's really no reason to register with a party unless you want to work the polls because the Democrats and Republicans control who do that in NC, aiui.
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
quote:I understand that this depends on the State you live in?
irish_lord99: You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
quote:I suppose it's a difference in political cultures but to me, quite a lot of that is fairly shocking.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:No. Folks might make assumptions based upon how you registered. I don't know how my wife is registered but my dad tell her when we were young and she was majoring in education that, or course, she can vote how ever she wants to. However, if you want a teaching job, or any other tax-payer funded job, you'd better registered Democrat. Don't know if it still that way. In our state, you can only vote in your registered party's primary. But if you are registered as unaffiliated, you pick out which party's primary you are going to vote in when you get to the polling station.
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the US, do you have to say when you register to vote which party you intend to vote for?
quote:yes, who you voted for is secret but you can look up to see if someone voted.
Isn't the ballot supposed to be secret?
quote:It is their business here. You can register Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and unaffiliated. They still seem to think having folks from the two major parties keeps it neutral ground.
Here, party allegiance is very definitely none of the Electoral Registration Officer's business, and the polling station is very strictly neutral ground.
quote:Yes, it can be if let it get to you.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suppose it's a difference in political cultures but to me, quite a lot of that is fairly shocking.
quote:It does have some uses. For example, my mother was laid up with dementia for several years. I'd check to make sure someone else didn't vote in her place. A good friend of mine was helped by the local democrat party boss way back in the 80s. They loaded up several buses with loyalists and gave them the name and address to use as they got off the bus at each of the precinct stations they voted in. I would check my mother's name, and still check for people who I KNOW didn't vote, to make sure they are not recorded as having voted. What I could really do about it beyond b&m, though, I don't know.
I've never heard it even argued that it should be anyone else's business in a country where voting is not compulsory, to be entitled to know whether you voted or not.
quote:Corruption is fine if it is your guys doing it. One of our elders tells me that when he was much younger that young lady teachers would come to his county north of mine and would stay in homes of families paid by the county to keep them. Student teachers, I think it was, or whatever you call a college student being put in a classroom for a semester for training purposes. Anyway, he was there when one young teacher was told she had to leave one house and go stay at another because where she was originally put had the same last name of a loyal democrat family but are really republicans. Republicans were not allowed.
Most of us would be very sensitive of any suggestion that local authorities should decide who to employ depending on how they voted. The suspicion does exist, particularly of some authorities, but it is regarded as one of the most obvious markers of corruption.
quote:State and local pay for them here who pays in NC
We don't have primaries here. There've been arguments for them, but I hope we never do. I can't see the point of them or where they fit into the system. But surely, if you have them the parties are responsible for running and paying for them, not the government.
quote:Unaffiliated means you're registered to vote and that's it. Folks can read whatever meaning they want into that. I started out Democrat like my folks were when I first registered in 1977. Republican for about 1980 to maybe early 1990s, or so. Libertarian for a wee bit. Finally unaffiliated when it became an available choice. I would at least like to think that it means that I am contacted less by political campaigns.
What is the difference between 'Libertarian' and 'Unaffiliated'? Unaffiliated translates to me as 'undecided' or 'none of your business', but presumably that excludes you from both primaries.
quote:It can be that as long as you aren't messing with other people or their stuff. [url=
But Libertarian sounds like sex drugs and rock and roll.
quote:I've been trying to stay away from the press and the news since my major depressive bout in the fall of 2011 with maybe the exception of sports and weather.
The press is a different issue altogether, but at least nobody is obliged to take any notice of what they say. I don't. Do you?
quote:Even if he wasn't able to do anything about it, it would make enduring it that much easier.
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:It does, as do rules about whether one affiliates with a specific party when one registers to vote.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I understand that this depends on the State you live in?
irish_lord99: You can vote for whomever you want in the general, but can only vote in the primary to nominate a member of your party. A republican, therefore, can't vote to nominate a weak candidate for the DNC.
quote:...especially if the comedian doesn't want to give even weirder ideas to the candidates!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think that some of them don't even need to be mocked. Some of them can mock themselves quite effectively.
I guess it's not easy for a comic presenter sometimes to think of something even weirder than the candidates have already done.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Pres. Harry Truman. As in, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
quote:Again, Minnesota leads the way. Well, in the Senate anyway...
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:BURN.
When another follower asked her to choose between Trump and fellow Republican Ted Cruz, her response was just as frank: "That's like saying 'would you rather have a Migraine or Throw Up.'"
quote:Unless he is the one being mocked. Then that is a different story.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Pres. Harry Truman. As in, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I'm supporting Jon Stewart.
Can you imagine a president who could effectively mock all the bullshit peddlers on a routine basis?
quote:Our current one certainly isn't.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The only good thing if Jeb Bush wins is that we'd have a Latina first lady. AFAIK, they've all been white.
quote:Not sure about that. Trump seems to have surged in the polls of likely Republican primary voters since he let his nativist freak flag fly. Whatever the rest of the country thinks of him, he's winning over the folks who matter for picking the Republican nominee. Like any successful strategy, I expect there to be imitators.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think Trump has just about guaranteed that a Latino will get the Republican nomination...unless party's brass are so anti-Latino that they can't see that it might get them a ton of Latino votes.
quote:Although among the type of voters Trump seems to be appealing to it doesn't matter if you're from Cuba or Guatemala or the Bronx; if your ancestors came from a Spanish speaking country you'll still get called a "Mexican" by them.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, is Trump insane, a publicity whore or is he there to set a floor so low that it raises every other Republican candidate by comparison?
Or is he just drumming up support for Ted Cruz, the only Republican who can get away with saying shite* like this?
*though he should generate outrage amongst voters of Mexican decent as he is not Mexican.
quote:Not much fresh grass on the Dims path either.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Unfortunately the GOP seems to be treading the same well-worn path yet again.
quote:In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
quote:Can't say that I know many people who are too enthusiastic about sending HillBilly back to the White House (particularly after that Libya decision). But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.
Originally posted by romanlion:
They will enthusiastically support a tired, not particularly bright or charming, demonstrated liar and cheat for POTUS, and move Slick Willy back into the whor...er, White House again in the process.
quote:But of course you will vote, right?
Originally posted by saysay:
Can't say that I know many people who are too enthusiastic about sending HillBilly back to the White House (particularly after that Libya decision). But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.
quote:Please support a third party.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't see myself voting in the general election.
quote:I've read that but haven't figure out about this state yet. If a drivers license is what is used to select for jury duty then that would be a help.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
quote:That probably beats fretting and fuming.
Originally posted by saysay:
But the entire presidential field looks pretty bleak. I may have to do a media blackout for this election cycle.
quote:As long as folks can be peaceful about it, it shouldn't be a forbidden thought. The last time such a thought was acted upon we had hundreds of thousands slaughtered so don't be surprised if lots of folks break out in a severe case of the willies.
But then I'm getting to the point where I think the best plan may be to dissolve the US and form smaller more regional provinces or something.
quote:According to the North Carolina Jury Service website,
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I've read that but haven't figure out about this state yet. If a drivers license is what is used to select for jury duty then that would be a help.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:In Arizona, as long as you have a valid drivers license you're eligible for jury duty. I don't know about other states.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'll wait until about February 21 to give it some serious thought unless I go ahead and cancel my voter registration if it won't cause me to not be selected for jury duty.
quote:(emphasis added by me)
At least every two years, a Master Jury List is prepared in each county, using the lists of registered voters and licensed drivers. For each week of court, citizens’ names are randomly selected from the Master Jury List, and jury summons are issued for those whose names are drawn.
quote:I do.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Does anyone else take comfort in the fact that the election won't come down to one vote?
quote:Yes. It's like that for most all of us. I read this and have to pretty much agree with what he has to say.
I'm in the lucky position of living a life that is probably not going to change much regardless of who wins.
quote:It really shouldn't for several reasons, including why have said, and it seems if they have a say they shouldn't mind you having one.
I'm just really glad that I don't have to know that my vote one way or the other made half of my family really upset.
quote:Way cool. Thanks for finding that.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
According to the North Carolina Jury Service website,quote:(emphasis added by me)
At least every two years, a Master Jury List is prepared in each county, using the lists of registered voters and licensed drivers. For each week of court, citizens’ names are randomly selected from the Master Jury List, and jury summons are issued for those whose names are drawn.
quote:There can, of course, be policy ramification to this 'I've got mine, screw you' electoral attitude. For example, it was frequently noted during the Iraq War that the U.S. military was drawn from a smaller proportion of the overall population than in times past. That minimized the electoral consequences of the decision to go to war (and maintain the war), since most Americans were "living a life that is probably not going to change much" whether their country was involved in a protracted war of choice in the Middle East or not.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Yes. It's like that for most all of us.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I'm in the lucky position of living a life that is probably not going to change much regardless of who wins.
quote:This man's wife got mad because her husband didn't vote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
quote:
A Mesa man is in critical condition after his wife ran over him with her Jeep because she was upset he didn’t vote in the presidential election and feared her family would suffer with President Obama’s re-election...
quote:You could also remember that American elections use a secret ballot and that the only way they'll know to get mad at you is if you tell them.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
quote:That's what I'm talking about. Romney won Arizona by over 200,000 votes. Now had Obama won by one vote, she might have had something to be mad about.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:This man's wife got mad because her husband didn't vote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess I shouldn't have said that my life won't be affected by the election. If I vote one way my wife gets mad at me, if I vote the other my brother gets mad at me, either way I have one of my two best friends mad at me, and the only way I can deal with the run up to this inevitable result is to remember that at least my one vote won't decide the election.
quote:
A Mesa man is in critical condition after his wife ran over him with her Jeep because she was upset he didn’t vote in the presidential election and feared her family would suffer with President Obama’s re-election...
quote:I have a solution to that, Og, and it's really pretty simple. Drink beer.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They both ask, and I am a terrible liar. Not to mention the weeks building up to the election when I am the subject of "I can't believe he might vote for that guy" conversations among friends and family. It is ideally a personal, private matter, but these days so few people keep it to themselves that lots of people feel no shame in asking "so who are you going to vote for," or just launching into a rant on the assumption you agree with them.
quote:But if you do you'll miss the (unintentional?) hilarity of candidates using the Waffen-SS in their campaign materials.
Originally posted by RuthW:
For people who don't want to read election news: Slate's election news blocker.
quote:Could be good advice in lots of places and circumstances.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So the warning was, if you see a police looking guy walking down the street for you, casually move away as fast as you could.
quote:We can only hope.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is nearly August -- the silly season. Of course Trump polls on top -- it's the time of year for it. He will flae out by October.
quote:Blogger Steve M makes the interesting observation that Trump is polling at 32% among Republicans and Republican-leaning registered voters who don't have a college degree and at 8% among those who do. That's a pretty wide separation.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The latest news from the clown car; in a recent poll Trump poll lead widens. It's a small poll and many Republicans are hoping things change.
quote:Well, that's everyone in the pool, isn't it? Everyone with an exploratory committee on the Republican side is now officially running. For those who need a score card, the list (in chronological order of official declaration of candidacy) is:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
John Kasich is officially in the race. I hope he can make it into the top 10. I want to hear him lecture The Donald about St. Peter.
quote:Why on earth do you think he will flame out by October? What could cause him to do that? Do you think he'll say something incredibly offensive? He already did that that and its put him the the lead in the polls.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is nearly August -- the silly season. Of course Trump polls on top -- it's the time of year for it. He will flae out by October.
quote:I've wondered lately if Hillary manages to sprout a personality capable of overcoming her negatives and wins the White House, will we all be calling Bill the "First Gentleman"?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Honestly, I find the joke a bit offensive (as well as stale-- we've been hearing it for almost 16 years). It reminds me a lot of when I was first ordained and folks would call me "Pastor" Cliffdweller with an audible inflection that implied air quotes next to "pastor". When, in fact, there was nothing amusing about it-- I was and am a pastor. No air quotes. And, if Hilary is elected, Bill will indeed be the "first gentleman". No air quotes. Nothing particularly funny about it, even if some folks don't think he always acts all that "gentlemanly".
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I've wondered lately if Hillary manages to sprout a personality capable of overcoming her negatives and wins the White House, will we all be calling Bill the "First Gentleman"?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All of which makes us Dems very, very happy indeed.
That's almost too funny to wish against!
quote:Not that surprising. If you asked any American who doesn't follow politics closely they'd have much the same reaction. They either wouldn't know who you were talking about, or would identify them with some vague descriptor rather than by name. Like "that guy who was really thirsty that one time on national television" or "the one who doesn't like volcano monitoring" or "the one whose name is a vaguely disgusting internet neologism" [slightly NSFW].
Originally posted by Enoch:
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about. Perhaps other non-US shipmates will tell me I'm just ignorant. But the only two that are likely to be known to even a moderately well informed foreigner are Jeb Bush because of his more famous dad and brother and Donald Trump for a collection of wrong reasons all of which mark him out as depressingly disturbing presidential material.
Are the rest all nonentities, or is there hidden gold somewhere in there?
quote:You'd probably know something about many of them if you followed US politics at all, but if you don't, you wouldn't. What's so remarkable about that? They're not interested in getting your vote.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Crœsos, it may, or possibly won't, surprise you to know that of that of the 17 names you've listed, almost all of them are either unknown abroad, or if known, are just names a person might have heard of but knows nothing about.
quote:Throw Scott Walker into the list of serious candidates. The name Bush is problematic. On the other hand, the Republicans haven't won a presidential election without somebody named Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've heard of all except three, Mark Everson, Ben Carson, and Lindsey Graham. Admittedly I don't know much about most of them, and knew of Carly Fiorina as a chief executive rather than as a politician, but there are plenty of British politicians I don't know much about either.
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic ?
quote:Not the first time I've heard those names linked. Although I generally think Nixon was more trustworthy than Dubya.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The name Bush is problematic. On the other hand, the Republicans haven't won a presidential election without somebody named Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.
quote:The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic?
quote:Hoping for Walker, personally. Bush might actually be able to BS people into thinking he's a moderate. Walker isn't capable of doing so on a national scale - he's virtually guaranteed to lose a general election unless the Dems hose it up royally. (That said, the Democrats are past masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
quote:This is something of a byproduct of the Citizens United decision. While it's always been possible for a wealthy individual to self-finance a presidential run, they historically had to do so outside the apparatus of an established party. Post-Citizens-United it seems impossible for organized parties to use the traditional methods of enforcing message discipline, like cutting off funding. In the old days the Republican Party would have had the option to tell someone like Donald Trump to go away (and to make it stick). Now their only option is to have Reince Priebus ineffectually wag his finger at Trump.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.
Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to.
quote:I don't think he's going anytime soon and I think this quote from a Huffington Post article on Trump will tell you why
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He doesn't need the party. He could run as a third-party candidate.
But I wouldn't get too excited about Trump enthusiasm.
quote:link
Trump has also largely eschewed the poverty-shaming strain of Republicanism espoused in Paul Ryan's "makers and takers" rhetoric, Scott Walker's drug testing of food stamp applicants, and the "let him die" episode from a 2011 primary debate. But not all of the GOP base wants to stick it to the poors. Many of them are poor, and fed up with a government that doesn't seem to be looking out for them. They like Medicare and Social Security, and think Democrats are raiding the programs to fund Obamacare and Obamaphones. They don't see why banks should get bailouts while their friends get pink slips.
Trump is targeting that segment of the Republican party, which shares many economic concerns with Democrats and independents. Trump's campaign speeches don't revert to the time-honored Republican promise to "save" Social Security by slashing benefits for retirees. Instead, he vows to preserve the safety net -- even Medicaid -- by making everybody so rich that the programs would be on sound financial footing.
quote:Lindsey Graham's response is a thing of beauty:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Donald Trump has doxxed Lindsey Graham. After Graham called him a 'jackass' in a TV interview Trump responded by reading out Graham's cell phone number at a live televised event and Graham now has to get a new number.
quote:I agree with you. What Trump says looks a lot like these European politicians, and thoughts that he'll be off-stage quickly might be overly optimistic. There is a difference in the US (and the UK) of course because of their districtal system, I wonder how that will work out.
Bibliophile: These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc.
quote:The electoral systems in both France and the UK work heavily against UKIP and the Front National respectively but they have both still a substantial number of voters who aren't in any hurry to switch back to the main parties. I think Trump could do reasonably well (but not win overall) in the primaries. After that he could well run as an Independent or 3rd party candidate.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I agree with you. What Trump says looks a lot like these European politicians, and thoughts that he'll be off-stage quickly might be overly optimistic. There is a difference in the US (and the UK) of course because of their districtal system, I wonder how that will work out.
Bibliophile: These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc.
quote:My guess is that if he's eliminated in the primaries, his ego won't allow him not to run as an independent. Which will give the GOP a serious problem.
Bibliophile: I saw this clip of him being interviewed this week on the Dana Loesch show. He was asked about running as a 3rd party candidate and if you listen carefully to his answer you'll hear its what I believe politicians call a 'non-denial denial'
quote:The situations are by no means comparable. There is no equivalent to FPTP in national elections, and the FN is doing pretty well in first rounds.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The electoral systems in both France and the UK work heavily against UKIP and the Front National respectively
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Lindsey Graham's response is a thing of beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSFRMJhlgY
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:It now seems that even the finger wagging option may be getting out of reach. Trump has now openly threatened to run as as 3rd party candidate if the RNC don't 'treat him fairly'
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This is something of a byproduct of the Citizens United decision. While it's always been possible for a wealthy individual to self-finance a presidential run, they historically had to do so outside the apparatus of an established party. Post-Citizens-United it seems impossible for organized parties to use the traditional methods of enforcing message discipline, like cutting off funding. In the old days the Republican Party would have had the option to tell someone like Donald Trump to go away (and to make it stick). Now their only option is to have Reince Priebus ineffectually wag his finger at Trump.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.
Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to.
quote:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/248910-exclusive-trump-threatens-third-party-run
NEW YORK — Donald Trump says the chances that he will launch a third-party White House run will “absolutely” increase if the Republican National Committee is unfair to him during the 2016 primary season.
“The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,” the business mogul told The Hill in a 40-minute interview from his Manhattan office at Trump Tower on Wednesday. “The RNC has been, I think, very foolish.”
Pressed on whether he would run as a third-party candidate if he fails to clinch the GOP nomination, Trump said that “so many people want me to, if I don’t win.”
“I’ll have to see how I’m being treated by the Republicans,” Trump said. “Absolutely, if they’re not fair, that would be a factor.”
quote:That is why the GOP loves voter id laws and eliminating early voting and same-day registration - because of the disproportionate impact on people of color and the poor and students and women -- all groups which lean Democratic. If they GOP can suppress their votes effectively, they might have a shot at the White House. They've already wrapped up the House until the next census and will probably always have a rural vs. urban advantage in that body. In the last election cycle, there was talk of changing the winner-take-all electoral college to distributing the electors based on congressional districts, which again would favour the GOP presidential candidate.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think any Republican candidate can win the 2016 Presidential election unless the GOP finds both policies and a candidate to attract the (very distrustful) Hispanic and Black voters. At present, there is not much sign of both of those things happening in time.
Here is a link, with a voter composition table which makes interesting reading.
Trust once lost is hard to regain. Coupled with state voting patterns, the electoral college structure is at present (and for the foreseeable future) more favourable to the Democrats, even if the popular vote is close. ...
quote:Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
quote:That's the way it is now. Those of us in states with a small number of EC votes might as well stay home on Election Day. And those of us who consistently don't vote for the candidate of the favored party in such a state are totally wasting our vote.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
quote:If you do the math you will see that the smaller states are heavily weighted through the EC.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:That's the way it is now. Those of us in states with a small number of EC votes might as well stay home on Election Day. And those of us who consistently don't vote for the candidate of the favored party in such a state are totally wasting our vote.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
I want my vote to count just as much as any other vote in any other state. It will never happen with the current system.
quote:Sorry. That's nonsense. It is not believable that all the voters in one big state would vote for the same candidate. If there's a straight headcount, all votes are of equal value, wherever they are.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
quote:Damn straight.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Personally, I think it's time for us to acknowledge that it's really only rich people who matter in this whole process. If a candidate can't persuade rich people to donate, it doesn't matter what the likes of you and me think.
quote:Hilarious!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
quote:I'm always amazed at the level of self-contradictory "reasoning" fans of the electoral college can come up with the support that anachronism. In the 2012 election Wyoming voted Republican by a margin of more than 40 percentage points, while the Dakotas had margins of about 20 percentage points each. Under the electoral college, any effort that doesn't move the state to a majority in your favor is wasted. Given this, there's no reason to visit those states now, as can be seen from this handy website. On the other hand, if votes from those states would still be counted in your presidential total even if you didn't carry a majority of the population, that would be an incentive to pay them some attention.
Originally posted by romanlion:
A straight popular vote would insure that no candidate for POTUS would ever be seen outside the 10 or 12 most populous states.
quote:No one is saying that he is a progressive but on a number of issues he is on the left of the American political spectrum.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Hilarious!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/
quote:I think it was Huffington Post.
Brenda Clough: Who was it, who decided that all Trump coverage should not be filed under News & Politics but should be posted under Entertainment?
quote:Is Donald Trump Jewish? Wikipedia thinks he is Presbyterian. This starts to conjure up the image of every social, religious and ethnic group rushing around frantically trying to claim he isn't and never has been anything to do with them.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...
quote:No, but Jon Stewart is rather famously Jewish and is probably referring to the fact that as long as Donald Trump is in the race the Daily Show will never want for material.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Is Donald Trump Jewish? Wikipedia thinks he is Presbyterian. This starts to conjure up the image of every social, religious and ethnic group rushing around frantically trying to claim he isn't and never has been anything to do with them.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...
quote:I know. I've been going to bed with Stewart (wink, wink) every night very years... it won't be the same.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Won't the Daily Show want for Jon Stewart himself shortly? A thought that makes me very sad. There is nobody quite like him on either side of the pond.
quote:Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
quote:Google "Bernie Sanders on immigration".
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
quote:I did. My post reflects the results of that search.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Google "Bernie Sanders on immigration".
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
quote:But only six months before the first caucus and primaries. And exactly a week before the opening of the Iowa State Fair, which in a year which happens to fall before a year evenly divisible by four happens to be a big candidate showcase.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
A debate 15 months before the Nov 2016 election? Each candidate getting maybe 1 or 2 questions?
quote:Six months is still too far out, imo. That leaves the debate mattering because of a state fair. Here I am 56 years old having thought all of my life a fair was for riding rides and looking at crops and animals.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But only six months before the first caucus and primaries. And exactly a week before the opening of the Iowa State Fair, which in a year which happens to fall before a year evenly divisible by four happens to be a big candidate showcase.
quote:I don't see much of a distinction between the two. I also don't much of a distinction between the DNC and the the other cable news channels.
As for the number of questions likely in the amount of time available, that's a decision that's been made by the Republican Party/Fox News. (Is there a meaningful distinction between these entities at this point?) This kind of early circus is how they feel it's best to provide the first public showing of next year's presidential hopefuls.
quote:Agreed-- a much more productive use of time. But I would advocate carving a bit of time there to catch Stewart's take on it all-- even if it's doomed to make us love him all the more and thus make the parting all the more poignant.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.
quote:Sanders is actually rather liberal on immigration issues. As for saying that open borders is a Koch brothers proposal that's simply a statement of fact.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
quote:You would have a better shot of catching something fresh and actually funny if you watched the debate.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Agreed-- a much more productive use of time. But I would advocate carving a bit of time there to catch Stewart's take on it all...
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.
quote:It would be groovy but there isn't any cable tv outlets at the pool. I've already looked. Soaking in the pool, downing some suds and watching a baseball game was my plan. We live in a condo and it's the pool for the condo complex so it isn't something I can easily remedy. So, instead of groovy we have to settle for swell.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps our Nick could arrange things so he could lounge in the swimming pool, drink beer and watch the comedy show all at the same time.
quote:You just need a little more initiative. Slingbox or similar in your unit, hooked up to your cable. Webcast the video to a laptop or tablet in the pool.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It would be groovy but there isn't any cable tv outlets at the pool. I've already looked.
quote:I think that Scott Walker would be a terrible candidate and frankly I don't see why Tea Party people would like him so much. He's done flip flops on immigration and various other issues
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic?
quote:You underestimate the degree to which the Tea Party (and similar) is about simple resentment. Scott Walker hates unions and busts them, particularly public sector unions. Plus he survived a recall election, so he's already stuck it to "them". ("Them" in this case being some vaguely liberal conspiracy.) Yes he's terrible at public speaking, but "smarmy asshole" is what the Tea Party is looking for. It's their key demographic.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:I think that Scott Walker would be a terrible candidate and frankly I don't see why Tea Party people would like him so much. He's done flip flops on immigration and various other issues
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The conventional (in both senses of the term) wisdom, at least as far as I've been able to follow it, is that the "serious candidates" are J.E.B. Bush* (the establishment candidate) and Scott Walker (the darling of the Tea Party and other far right purists). Marco Rubio is considered a potential spoiler if either of these two stumbles.
quote:No, no. Lindsey Graham is a man...
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless I'm missing something, the only woman is on the reserve list.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Oops. That should be the "other seven". I left out this guy:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The "other six", who will be participating in the earlier "kiddie table" debate, are:
- Rick Santorum
- Bobby Jindal
- Carly Fiorina
- Lindsey Graham
- George Pataki
- Jim Gilmore
quote:Yep, especially when it isn't the August of an election year. I drank beer and watched some Cheers on Netflix with my wife then read and farted around for a while until Rectify. They can all pound sand until after the Super Bowl.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August
quote:Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Yep, especially when it isn't the August of an election year. I drank beer and watched some Cheers on Netflix with my wife then read and farted around for a while until Rectify. They can all pound sand until after the Super Bowl.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
the ridiculousness of polls and debates in August
quote:That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
quote:Well yes. You'll note that the Democrats aren't starting their debates until October. Of course, there's a lot less winnowing that needs to be done there.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
quote:Yes, that's true, but Martin O'Malley's bellyaching.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Well yes. You'll note that the Democrats aren't starting their debates until October. Of course, there's a lot less winnowing that needs to be done there.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:That's six months away and the candidates all go all over Iowa, anyway. It just seems awfully early to me, that's all.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course the folks in Iowa would prefer to have a chance to hear from the candidates before they vote in their caucuses, which take place six days before the Super Bowl. New Hampshire votes two days after Super Bowl 50.
quote:I just read that FOX had 24 million viewers for the debate so, there you go.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Oh well. Fox got its content, perhaps a little ratings bump, and advertizing dollars. If ESPN can invent a need for bowl games featuring mediocre college football teams so that it has something to show in December, I guess Fox can invent a need for debates in August, as long as the candidates show up.
quote:Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe that the size of the Trump ego is such that he not only really believes that he can win the nomination, he believes he can win the election and become a viable president. This man's attachment to reality is of the most tenuous.
quote:Any network would be glad to have her.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I mean look at who he picked as his target. Prior to this, all sorts of people would have told you that Megan Kelly was only on TV because she has a pretty face and can spout Fox talking points.
quote:I doubt it. He can't talk out of his ass like that and look better over time.
If there is anyone who he can be sure that people will stop siding with in a few weeks max, it's Megan Kelly.
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
quote:They should put that in the Bodyform advert.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
7lPeriod- shaming? Really? What is this, 1985?
Actually, what he seems to be implying is that women are sharper, more aggressive pundits when on their periods, so maybe we ought to use that superpower more.
quote:You really think he needs Fox News money? That would be a serious pay cut for him... of course president would be too; but never underestimate the attraction of power.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
Running for prez helps you position yourself to get paid the really big, easy money giving talks at conservative think-tanks/ guest commentator on Fox. The chances of him every taking a job as difficult and thankless as POTUS are exactly nil.
quote:Again, this is a pattern for Trump... and for other GOP leaders as well. There is some pretty serious money to be made on the (both conservative & liberal) speaking circuit for pretty easy work. It's not like you'd have to give up your day job (as you would with POTUS)-- it's just a nice lucrative side job. And you still get the ego thing-- everybody ponying up big $$ to listen to you, quoting you, applauding you-- w/o having to be accountable for your decisions or having to do the hard work of negotiating with Congress (something I can't see Trump doing in a million years).
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:You really think he needs Fox News money? That would be a serious pay cut for him... of course president would be too; but never underestimate the attraction of power.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why do you assume that he is actually doing this because he wants to be President?
Trump has a long history of flirting with running for President without actually sticking it out. Pretty much every election since 1988.
I think it has nothing to do with his ego telling him that he can win the nomination, and everything to do with furthering his brand as the brash straight talker.
Running for prez helps you position yourself to get paid the really big, easy money giving talks at conservative think-tanks/ guest commentator on Fox. The chances of him every taking a job as difficult and thankless as POTUS are exactly nil.
quote:Oh, who knows? To your point, he appears to be playing with his own money (one of his stupider statements, "I don't take special interests money, I AM special interests...), although one wonders if that is his plan longterm. Trump isn't exactly a rational investor-- he's been bankrupt 4 times. He's a reckless swing-for-the-fences kind of guy who has the big wins and the big losses to show for it.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Does it really outway the cost of running in the first place ?
quote:Whilst I think they had very different motivations, part of the appeal they both share is they are speaking to people who feel oppressed by their current situation.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What worries me about Trump is that when Hitler rose to power everyone thought he was a clown, too. His very presence in the lineup shows that there's something deeply wrong.
quote:Ugh, that reminds me of his appearance in front of a Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry a few years ago. When asked to provide evidence to back up his assertions (in this case on the negative impact on tourism of wind turbines) he replied "I am the evidence".
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(one of his stupider statements, "I don't take special interests money, I AM special interests...)
quote:Well, he is running... when he first got in, I just thought he was too independent and too liberal to win... but I dunno, he's gaining a lot of traction. I thought the same thing of Obama around this time in the election cycle, was just praying he'd hang in there til the Calif primary so I'd get to vote for him at least once... and look what happened... in many ways, Sanders reminds me of Obama.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Why can't we have someone like him for president?
quote:Hey, we were having a moment there.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Perhaps a Trump/Palin ticket?
I could see it winning a big chunk of the popular vote, and perhaps the electoral votes of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota....
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Don't go putting you-know-what in the punchbowl.
quote:If Trump sends some money her way, she'll likely do whatever he wants. It will definitely be "TRUMP for President in 2016", not "Trump/Palin in 2016."
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
those who criticize his blatant misogyny.quote:Anyone who can recognize misogyny should also be able to recognize tokenism.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
Putting a woman (albeit Palin) on the ticket would
...
quote:I'm sure even now he's trying to figure out a way to make it a Trump/Trump ticket.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
quote:There's always this.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I'm sure even now he's trying to figure out a way to make it a Trump/Trump ticket.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you really think that Trump would want to share the spotlight with Sarah Palin?
quote:Naked ego in politics beats naked politicians. Ask around.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
quote:It has been a long, long time since he has looked in a mirror, apparently.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the news shows:
About his treatment of women more generally, Trump told Todd: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
quote:The hair alone demonstrates that.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:It has been a long, long time since he has looked in a mirror, apparently.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From the news shows:
About his treatment of women more generally, Trump told Todd: “When I was attacked viciously by those women, of course, it’s very hard for them to attack me on looks, because I’m so good-looking.”
It has been a long, long time since we have seen such a naked ego in politics!
quote:He does! If he actually makes it through the nominations I think almost any Democrat but Clinton would beat him. It's not her fault, but she is so hated by most Republicans, I think they would vote for any Republican rather than her.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
The Donald is the real wild card in this election. I find very few redeeming qualities there (OK, I find none) but he stands a good chance of playing kingmaker--for the Democrats.
quote:Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News. She would normally be the very last kind of person to be attacked by a Republican presidential candidate. By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Trump doesn't need the Fox News money but he definitely needs their unfair, not balanced backing from their various talking heads. The Fox Faithful are ditto heads.
This morning Trump says anyone who thought his remarks referred to anything other than nose bleeds are "deviants." He also says he will be "phenomenal to the women." Thanks for being so specific, Donald. I feel better now.
quote:I think you're wrong about that.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So Trump has been uninvited to speak at a Red State forum after suggesting that Megan Kelly asked him pointed questions because she was on her period.
This is too easy. He makes a big fuss about how neither of the parties are ready for a straight talker who can cut through the B.S., drops out of the Republican primaries, but reminds everyone that he never said he wouldn't run as an independent. He goes out on top, and he gets will he or won't he coverage for the next 12 months.
I'd set the over / under at Labor Day, but that's three weeks out.
quote:I never heard of Megan Kelly until this story broke. I doubt that many people who don't watch Faux News had heard of her. Now everyone has. She couldn't have bought this kind of publicity. If anything, Trump's behavior is apt to encourage other moderators to try for the same treatment.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.
quote:fwiw, "smart" is not a word anyone would have used to describe Kelly prior to the debate.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News.
quote:Was it Oscar Wilde who suggested that it wasn't the last refuge but the first?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A "Janet and John" summary of Trump's immigration policy now follows.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
quote:Nope. Trump's standard mode of interaction with anyone is to either talk about how great he (or anything with his name on it) is or to insult and denigrate anyone who asks him a tough question or disagrees with him. This isn't a deliberate plan, it's just Trump being Trump. I suppose it could be argued that Trump's overall campaign strategy is to appeal to the belligerent asshole faction of the Republican party, but that's more playing to his strengths than any kind of deliberate plan.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Thinking about this I think that his targeting of Megan Kelly was at least in part calculated because of who she is. She is a smart attractive blonde woman who works as a presenter for Fox News. She would normally be the very last kind of person to be attacked by a Republican presidential candidate. By attacking her Trump has sent out a message 'If even Megan Kelly isn't safe from being verbally attacked and made headlines of by Trump then no journalist is'. I think Trump will get less difficult questions from interviewers and debate moderators after that.
quote:Bear in mind -- it was founded by Rupert Murdoch.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bibliophile
For your information, Fox News is not a news service. Its stock in trade is propaganda. I learned this by watching its coverage of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections.
YMMV but if it does you are wrong.
quote:"Straight up propaganda network" as a description fits in very well with the coverage of the last two Presidential elections by Fox which I personally observed. There were times when the bias was so blatant, I couldn't believe my eyes and my ears.
The creation of straight-up propaganda networks like Fox News in America has done enormous damage to the quality of democratic discourse in that country. Many people blame the abolition of the Federal Communications Commission’s “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, under President Reagan, for setting this process of degeneration in motion. This rule had required broadcasters, both radio and television, to inform their audience about matters of public interest, and specified that “coverage of these issues must be fair in the sense that it provides an opportunity for . . . contrasting points of view.” This doctrine was, over the years, unpopular with both the left and right, depending on the tenor of discussion in the media. It seems clear, however, that a lot of current right-wing talk radio, as well as Fox News, could not operate as it currently does without the abolition of this rule.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:About a year ago, I was in the presence of someone was complaining that, of a group of young business people profiled in a magazine, none of them listed a truly "great" film as their favorite movie. I think your favorite book or movie need not be the book or movie that has most influenced you, and that whenever people put "The Bible" as their favorite book, it comes off as a boast rather than a believable statement. If I were going to a deserted island for a year, I would certainly want to bring my Bible and BCP, but that doesn't mean that either one is my favorite book (the Code of the Woosters).
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
A couple of days ago - I might be mis-remembering - I heard that Donald Trump said his favourite book was "The Art of the Deal" and his second favourite book was the Bible. Today, I heard the same two books, but reversed. Anyway ....
Does anyone really believe Donald Trump's favourite book is the Bible?
quote:I don't really see the point of challenging him, as he no doubt has an outrageous response ready which will put him back in the limelight.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Is anyone going to challenge him <cough> Pastor Huckabee <ahem>? And if I may be allowed a follow-up, what will the Bible-lovers make of his "I will be great on women's health issues"?
quote:I might have been a little over eager when I set the over / under at Labor Day, although I'm not paying on over yet. His numbers have plateaued and perhaps dropped a bit. He is still in the lead, but given that his negative numbers are so high among the 75-85% of Republicans who don't support him, it seems unlikely that he will pick up supporters as other candidates drop out.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How long until the wheels come off the Donald Clown Car? I wanna see Bernie Sanders face off with Scott Walker, gorrammit.
quote:Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.
Originally posted by romanlion:
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.
quote:Plus, she has said she didn't receive anything that was designated "classified." I expect the FBI might find some classified information that was sent to her private e-mail but not flagged as classified, in which case it wont be her fault, but I'm sure FOX news will go nuts.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.
quote:I find the dynamics of what is happening between the BLM movement and the Democrat candidates rather interesting.
Og, King of Bashan: People get upset with BLM for protesting Democrats rather than Republicans.
quote:That sounds great, until State says that she used personal email exclusively.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Her claim is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State on her personal server as opposed to the government one set up for that purpose.
Originally posted by romanlion:
So her story, if I follow, is that she never sent or received classified emails during her time at State.
quote:I agree. My experience is extremely outdated but the last jobs my husband and I had before retiring we were often doing things on the computer for our bosses who had no clue how to do it themselves. Things are different now but I think Clinton was probably only half joking when someone asked her if she had wiped her account and she said, "You mean with a cloth?" Did Eisenhower know how to type? Could Kennedy take shorthand? I doubt it, and I doubt that the Secretary of State knew how to erase a hard drive.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I don't know about State, but in my Agency the use of email for Classified information is discouraged. so yeah, I do find it believable that she never sent or received an email containing information designated as "classified". Such material may have been exclusively sent/received in hard copy, or via diplomatic data systems which are more secure than email. email is, in my experience, rarely use for that sort of thing. But my experience may be outdated, since it's been a while since I dealt with diplomatic issues at work. Nevertheless, I find it completely plausible that she did not handle that sort of email herself, but rather that staff would have handled it for her, and provided her with hard copy when necessary.
quote:You would be surprised (well, perhaps not) at the number of public sector managers who were horrified at learning that erase from their e-mail folder was not equivalent to destroying the message. I fear that I was among the minions who took pleasure at the visible involuntary quiver when they were told that a government business message, even when sent on their own machine on an unofficial account, still fell under the Act and, what was more, was copyright to the Government.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The rule is simple: "Never put anything in e-mail that you wouldn't want a jury to see."
quote:Only, if I put the paper envelope in the trash, chances are good it's gone forever, but if I put the e-mail in the trash, it's still there. I didn't know this either for a long time. Should people simply not do any business actions, or ordering of medical supplies, or banking online?
In my official days, I treated emails as if they were formal correspondence, and the only difference was that they appeared on screens rather than were inserted in envelopes.
quote:You certainly shouldn't ever put anything secret in an unencrypted email. Think of email as being like a postcard. Probably, nobody will look at it, but anyone in the delivery chain could have a read. (Oh, and they can easily store a copy if they like.)
Originally posted by Twilight:
Only, if I put the paper envelope in the trash, chances are good it's gone forever, but if I put the e-mail in the trash, it's still there. I didn't know this either for a long time. Should people simply not do any business actions, or ordering of medical supplies, or banking online?
quote:I'm actually Clinton's age, and would disagree. Most of us women of that era did in fact learn to type in high school-- yes, for sexist reasons (the boys took shop, girls took home economics & typing) but most of us did learn. And it was quite helpful for those of us, like Mrs. Clinton, who went on to higher education and grad school (our male peers usually had to pay big $$ to get their papers and dissertations typed). In those days of lower tuition/ more scholarship opportunities I was able to put myself thru college & grad school working as a faculty secretary-- good training for when I became an academic with my own administrative assistant.
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type, or normally typed, before the email era. Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
If there are shipmates young enough not to know why, please say, and I will explain.
quote:I'm older than she is, and typing was a required course for academic-track (college bound) students.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I'm actually Clinton's age, and would disagree. Most of us women of that era did in fact learn to type in high school. . . .
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type. . . .
quote:"Post 2000"? Wow, that is surprising. What's the evidence for this?
Originally posted by Enoch:
Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
quote:In my high school days in Ontario (1967-72), academic-stream girls would usually not take typing as that was for girls who intended to become secretaries and not go to university. I was one of the few males in the class (64 wpm on manual, IIRC) as I suspected that typed essays would soon become mandatory. By 1980, the tide had turned and all academic-stream students were taking typing.
Originally posted by Enoch:
It is very unlikely that an educated woman of Mrs Clinton's age will have learnt to type, or normally typed, before the email era. Until surprisingly recently, post 2000, it was a career limiting skill that it was dangerous for an ambitious woman to acquire if she wished to be taken seriously.
If there are shipmates young enough not to know why, please say, and I will explain.
. quote:On the link quoted above is a further link to
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In other news; a candidate called Deez Nuts is rising in the polls to 9% in the North Carolina polls against Clinton and Trump.
quote:Why just the FBI? Don't state investigators count? On the Republican side that club includes Scott Walker (whose investigation was squelched under dubious circumstances and whose appointees seem to keep winding up in prison), Rick Perry (currently under indictment), and Chris Christie (multiple investigations relating to the vindictive use of power in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal). Interestingly these are all criminal investigations, unlike the Clinton e-mail investigation, which is the result of "a 'counterintelligence referral' -- not a 'criminal referral'".
Originally posted by romanlion:
I wonder how soon one of them will be the focus of an FBI investigation?
quote:If you mean the marital cheating thing, the Republicans would seem more likely just through sheer numerical superiority (seventeen declared candidates as opposed to five). If you mean the criminal investigation thing, the Republicans seem to be leading there as well (two active and one recently quashed investigation vs. zero)
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?
quote:I think that by definition, sexual conservatives have more to hide.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Has it occurred to you that this is equally likely for candidates of any party?
quote:Reminds me of Gary Hart.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
quote:But by the time Bill came along we decided that adultery is an issue between him & his wife & his God. Fortunately, the Lincoln bedroom had a very comfy couch so the nation didn't suffer from having a sleep-deprived president.
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:Reminds me of Gary Hart.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
quote:Elected leaders have been breaking promises and betraying people since (I'll bet) the first vestiges of democracy appeared. We really shouldn't be surprised when they do the same in what are sometimes called their "private" lives.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
quote:Amazingly, Hillary didn't kill him, after he embarrassed her in front of the entire world. So we know she can exercise restraint in a crisis. Handy skill, should she be president.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But by the time Bill came along we decided that adultery is an issue between him & his wife & his God. Fortunately, the Lincoln bedroom had a very comfy couch so the nation didn't suffer from having a sleep-deprived president.
quote:The thing that bothered me was how staged Hillary's reaction was. She's not stupid enough to not have known about it (there are no relationships without compromises, and while that's not a deal I would make, there's no way she didn't know he was sometimes unfaithful).
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously? This is adultery we're talking. Not cohabiting or something.
I'm pretty sure people of all stripes have an issue with elected leaders breaking promises and betraying people they're committed to.
quote:She quite possibly did, since it wasn't the first time. But as an aside, I do find the persistent (in a number of venues/contexts) "on some level you must have known" narrative re adultery tiresome blame-the-victim nonsense. Probably because I was clueless about my first husband's serial adulteries for 11 years.
Originally posted by saysay:
The thing that bothered me was how staged Hillary's reaction was. She's not stupid enough to not have known about it.
quote:I go way beyond that. I don't think the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate someone who could possibly, or even likely, lose to one of the clowns when, in my view, Hillary will be the next President barring something utterly extraordinary.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
.
Hilary's still probably the likely candidate, but not as much of a fait accompli as we would have thought a month or two ago.
quote:Could be she was just keeping her mouth shut because of the startling resemblance of her daughter to her former law partner, who knows?
Originally posted by saysay:
She's not stupid enough to not have known about it...
quote:Nate Silver has his odds up to 5% for winning the Democratic nomination. Sanders is popular with liberal white democrats, especially men. He polls badly with black voters (they give him credit for his record) and "Reagen Democrats." I think a lot of us (myself included) probably overestimate his shot because we tend to have lots of white liberal friends, so we see a lot about him on social media.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you are most likely correct-- but would just say I don't think it is entirely a foregone conclusion that Hilary will get the Democratic nomination. Sanders is drawing far more support than I would have guessed. In another season I would have thought he was far too leftist to win, but with the GOP clown car careening wildly toward the cliffs of doom, he has a chance to invigorate us Dems who otherwise would go for a more sensible choice.
quote:Any number of them, depending on voter turn out. Obama made it to the White House on the back of a super successful get out the vote campaign. Bad turn-out has cost the Democrats the Senate and the balance of governor's seats, and it could easily cost them the White House.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Let me throw out a question:
Who, among the clown car, stands a ghost of a chance against Hillary in the general election?
quote:In my opinion, all the GOP aspirants so far have been and will continue to be be a gift to the Democrats.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that a Trump nomination would be a gift to the Democrats.
quote:A Message On Donald Trump From Conspiracy Theory Hillary.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In fact, some are already saying that, and some are even suggesting that he may be a stooge planted by by Democrats (perhaps those crafty, cunning Clintons?).
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The man will certainly go down in the anals of history.
quote:I guess this is another example of white privilege in this country. I'm white, and the candidates jump all over themselves to appeal to me. Meanwhile, a group of Latinos organize a forum in Iowa on immigration and no-one other than O'Malley and Chafee deign to attend.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Also, the clown car is doing a fine job of energizing Hispanics. Jeb and Rubio are doing little to help matters.
quote:At this point in the election cycle, I think they're looking for large donations rather than votes. They probably figure they have more hope for the big bucks from white audiences than they do from Latinos.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess this is another example of white privilege in this country. I'm white, and the candidates jump all over themselves to appeal to me. Meanwhile, a group of Latinos organize a forum in Iowa on immigration and no-one other than O'Malley and Chafee deign to attend.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
tangent:
She quite possibly did, since it wasn't the first time. But as an aside, I do find the persistent (in a number of venues/contexts) "on some level you must have known" narrative re adultery tiresome blame-the-victim nonsense.
quote:Do I give a shit what Trump cares about? I am just gleefully noting how he is eroding his potential Republican base.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kelly--
I doubt that Trump cares--except he may well think that they shouldn't be here, either.
Reality, reason, history, and common sense are beyond his ken.*
*"...and Barbie, and all my other action figures!"--Lorn, "Angel".
quote:I think the US Government (rather like the UK Government) just allows this to happen, rather than having more progressive* taxation policies. The gap between rich and poor grows naturally.
Originally posted by saysay:
More realistically I suspect a lot of people are simply not going to vote in this election. The government redistributes wealth upwards no matter who is in office, so what does it matter?
quote:Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992? Many within the Black Lives Matter movement blame the Clintons for the anti-crime policies that have resulted in mass incarceration of non-violent black offenders.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
quote:As a reminder, in 1992 African-Americans composed 8% of the U.S. electorate and cast 83% of their ballots for the Democratic presidential candidate. The Republican party may wish that "nothing has changed" since then, but assumptions that African-American voters were simply going to dissolve into the æther is what gave us the (unintentional) hilarity of the Unskewed Polls fiasco in 2012.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
quote:Sadly, this is not the case. We have Baltimore and Ferguson and New York and California. We have five percent of the world's population an 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the US Government (rather like the UK Government) just allows this to happen, rather than having more progressive* taxation policies. The gap between rich and poor grows naturally.
(* Definition: A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.)
quote:I definitely think the Clinton era changes have played a role, but most that I've read trace it further back to Reagan's zero-tolerance drug laws/ mandatory sentencing.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992? Many within the Black Lives Matter movement blame the Clintons for the anti-crime policies that have resulted in mass incarceration of non-violent black offenders.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
quote:All I'm saying is that if someone generally ignored your issues and told you to vote for them anyway because they were better than the other guy or because they have always had your back (even when they didn't), you would be upset. The Black Lives Matter movement feels like this is what is happening to black voters now, and there is an argument that it is happening to Latino voters as well. If your main strategy to appeal to minority voters is to let the other guy say racist things and hope that the minority voters punish him at the ballot box, you aren't earning their votes. This isn't a partisan argument, this is about recognizing that white voters are treated differently from black and Latino voters. You earn the white vote with campaign promises, and then you hope the other guy says enough scary things to get the black and Latino vote out. That is wrong. And that's why you need a primary with multiple contenders. If the party insiders settle on one candidate whose main job is keeping the big donors happy, who is going to force them to listen to the people who don't have the dollars to influence policy?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:As a reminder, in 1992 African-Americans composed 8% of the U.S. electorate and cast 83% of their ballots for the Democratic presidential candidate. The Republican party may wish that "nothing has changed" since then, but assumptions that African-American voters were simply going to dissolve into the æther is what gave us the (unintentional) hilarity of the Unskewed Polls fiasco in 2012.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Are you sure nothing has changed since 1992?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
The Clintons have always been extremely popular among African-Americans. I'm quite certain that they will be out in force (perhaps only slightly dimimshed from 2008 and 2012).
quote:That seems to be true, but I'm not sure if that rapport extends to Hilary.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Issues aren't the only thing that matters to voters.
Of equal imortance, perhaps of more importance, is rapport (I can't think of a better term). The relationship between Bill and the Affrican-American community has always been extremely close. It's a personal and emotional bond, and I don't think that it's at all faked on Bill's part.
This is well-illustrated by Bill opening his post-Presidential office in Harlem.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So you have actual people on the streets pleading with you to listen to them. Actual black youths being killed in encounters with the police. A justice system that has more black men in jail than were enslaved in 1850. And what are you going to do about it?
Tell blacks that their issues aren't really important to them and that they will really be happy with visits from someone they have rapport with.
I can't say what the response will be, but if it is "fuck that," I don't blame them.
quote:I'm not sure either, which is why I suggested the above effective role for him. I think that he can make it clear that a vote for Hilary is a vote for both of them - a transposition of an earlier line he used during his campaigns.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:That seems to be true, but I'm not sure if that rapport extends to Hilary.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Issues aren't the only thing that matters to voters.
Of equal imortance, perhaps of more importance, is rapport (I can't think of a better term). The relationship between Bill and the Affrican-American community has always been extremely close. It's a personal and emotional bond, and I don't think that it's at all faked on Bill's part.
This is well-illustrated by Bill opening his post-Presidential office in Harlem.
quote:Which must surely be a subjective statement. Some would say he failed to lead the world in a war against Iran. Others that he failed to cut carbon emissions. And, of course, the US electorate will largely judge him based on domestic policy, which (to me) seems to have the usual combination of good and bad.
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Obama's presidency has been an utter global catastrophy
quote:When Secretary Clinton told the BLM representatives that their movement should also be developing and presenting concrete policy proposals, they responded that asking them for solutions was "victim-blaming". Unfortunately for them, I think she's right: if all the BLM movement creates is a hashtag and street demonstrations, nothing will change. And there are some really obvious things they should have been able to present immediately: end mandatory minimum sentencing, end three-strikes-and-you're-out, outlaw papers-please and stop-and-frisk, decriminalize possession of illegal drugs for personal use, establish national guidelines for use-of-force and investigating police killings, improve public defender services, equip police with as many fricking recording devices as they can carry, ensure every inmate in prison has access to education and mental health treatment, as well as better support for parole, probation and release ... I could go on.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So you have actual people on the streets pleading with you to listen to them. Actual black youths being killed in encounters with the police. A justice system that has more black men in jail than were enslaved in 1850. And what are you going to do about it? ...
quote:Nothing in there to address Jamyla Bolden
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think I saw a website with 10 policy proposals by the BLM movement. I have to look it up.
ETA found it: Campaign Zero
quote:I am delighted that Obama has failed to lead us into a war. How often do we need to hear it? No land wars in Asia!!! No one could say our little adventure in Iraq was worth the billions of dollars and many deaths it cost. Both my children are in the US Army, so chicken hawks get no quarter from me.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Which must surely be a subjective statement. Some would say he failed to lead the world in a war against Iran. Others that he failed to cut carbon emissions. And, of course, the US electorate will largely judge him based on domestic policy, which (to me) seems to have the usual combination of good and bad.
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Obama's presidency has been an utter global catastrophy
quote:Sure. There is no doubt that African-Americans have every right to complain about the Democrat's casual indifference/ sense of entitlement to their vote. There is no doubt that they have every right to complain about the current state of affairs. Frustration, heartbreak, raw anger-- all appropriate responses.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If you were being harassed at work, you complained to the boss, and he said "come back with some proposals to make things better for you," wouldn't you want to say "O gave you my proposal, stop being an asshole"?
quote:Mountains of paperwork that no human being working outside the insurance industry can hope to understand including a three-inch wide dictionary that you are expected to store somewhere and when you go to the doctor they still send you a bill that you realize you will likely spend the rest of your life paying.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And thank God for Obamacare! The sick get care -- where's the down side in that?
quote:The proposals were out there long before the riots or black lives matter movement. It's just nobody was paying attention.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I think the slate of specific proposals that have come out since then illustrate.
quote:Apparently you never had to wade thru the paperwork, appointment center nightmares, and bean-counting approval process native to any and all American HMOs prior to Obamacare.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Mountains of paperwork that no human being working outside the insurance industry can hope to understand including a three-inch wide dictionary that you are expected to store somewhere and when you go to the doctor they still send you a bill that you realize you will likely spend the rest of your life paying.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And thank God for Obamacare! The sick get care -- where's the down side in that?
quote:It is the case, whatever one's views about the reality of the class war. The description of the US and UK tax systems as not very progressive in accordance with the classic definition is simply a statement of fact.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Sadly, this is not the case.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the US Government (rather like the UK Government) just allows this to happen, rather than having more progressive* taxation policies. The gap between rich and poor grows naturally.
(* Definition: A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.)
quote:Let us say that you are right and there is a class war being waged by those with power and money in order to maintain their own position. What do you think should be done about that in the context of the upcoming Presidential election? Which is what this thread is about.
We have Baltimore and Ferguson and New York and California. We have five percent of the world's population an 25 percent of the world's prisoners.
There is an open class war being waged, and those who have power and money have made it clear that they will do anything to maintain their power and money.
quote:Never gonna happen, nice as it would be. Nobody in politics wants it to happen, especially Hillary; who's gotten quite wealthy off of money in politics.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
quote:Agreed, shut down Faux news and MSNBC simultaneously and you'll immediately elevate the level of discourse: the problem is policing the sheer volume of media out there, and finding a way for both sides to agree on what's 'fair'.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Next, reinstate the "fairness doctrine" for media giving opposing viewpoints equal time or space to rebut potential bias in the media. That would put an end to overt partisan propaganda peddled in the guise of news.
quote:This is defeatist and obscures the issue. ldjjd indicated one thing that could be done to make the effect of money far less baleful, and you ignore it. We may never be able to get money out of politics completely (why the reference to HRC? Is that a tu quoque or a non sequitur?) but we can do a hell of a lot better than we're doing now.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Never gonna happen, nice as it would be. Nobody in politics wants it to happen, especially Hillary; who's gotten quite wealthy off of money in politics.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
quote:I'm simply being realistic.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is defeatist and obscures the issue. ldjjd indicated one thing that could be done to make the effect of money far less baleful, and you ignore it. We may never be able to get money out of politics completely (why the reference to HRC? Is that a tu quoque or a non sequitur?) but we can do a hell of a lot better than we're doing now.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:Never gonna happen, nice as it would be. Nobody in politics wants it to happen, especially Hillary; who's gotten quite wealthy off of money in politics.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A first step would be to get big money out of politics.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
Apparently you never had to wade thru the paperwork, appointment center nightmares, and bean-counting approval process native to any and all American HMOs prior to Obamacare.
quote:You know, my mother died young of a condition that she probably wouldn't have died from if she had access to appropriate health care, so this attempt at emotional manipulation is not going to work.
And those of us who were unable to get ANY health insurance prior to Obamacare due to "pre-existing conditions" are happy to read 3 dictionaries in order to get the care we or our loved ones need. At a high cost, yes, but measurably less so than under the prior system.
quote:You said the US government, like the UK government, sits by and simply lets the redistribution of wealth upwards happen. I objected to that description as far too passive given the government's actions. What they did in Ferguson has been documented in reputable news sources. What they did elsewhere is being documented.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is the case, whatever one's views about the reality of the class war.
quote:I'm actually of the opinion that states need to start drawing up their articles of secession.
Let us say that you are right and there is a class war being waged by those with power and money in order to maintain their own position. What do you think should be done about that in the context of the upcoming Presidential election? Which is what this thread is about.
quote:Oh, I admit, she'll likely get the Democratic nomination. (not because she's addressed the necessary changes, because she hasn't, but because people think it's her turn)
Originally posted by ldjjd:
saysay, my feiend,
Who is likely to defeat Hilary? Who, other than Bernie Sanders, is showing more interest in the necessary changes you mention other than Hilary, and she has addressed them.
quote:Although (as Trump himself pointed out in an odd bit of argument): all this does is remove the middle man. Instead of electing a corporate special-interest shill you elect the corporate special-interest directly.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The problem is certainly not limited to Clinton; but if you want a POTUS in 2016 who didn't get there on the backs of corporate sponsors and special interest groups then you'll have to vote for Trump.
quote:Indeed. Since Trump and his empire are one and the same, the Trump Empire (a royal house of sorts?) would preside. Would he or could he honestly divest himself of his identity with his empire for even a few years?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Although (as Trump himself pointed out in an odd bit of argument): all this does is remove the middle man. Instead of electing a corporate special-interest shill you elect the corporate special-interest directly.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The problem is certainly not limited to Clinton; but if you want a POTUS in 2016 who didn't get there on the backs of corporate sponsors and special interest groups then you'll have to vote for Trump.
quote:No manipulation-- just my experience. I know what it's like to spend hours upon hours wading thru meticulous paperwork trying to get the right combination of factors, to get in just the right network with just the right pediatrician, to get the referral that would get my son the treatment he needed.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
Apparently you never had to wade thru the paperwork, appointment center nightmares, and bean-counting approval process native to any and all American HMOs prior to Obamacare.
Well, no, I didn't, since I got what little medical care the state required at the free clinic.
quote:You know, my mother died young of a condition that she probably wouldn't have died from if she had access to appropriate health care, so this attempt at emotional manipulation is not going to work.
And those of us who were unable to get ANY health insurance prior to Obamacare due to "pre-existing conditions" are happy to read 3 dictionaries in order to get the care we or our loved ones need. At a high cost, yes, but measurably less so than under the prior system.
If you're going to refuse to listen to the people when they tell you that in many cases the medical bills after Obamacare are more expensive than they were before it, prepare for your candidate to lose.
quote:I suspect you are correct, but it will be interesting to see. At this moment in time Sanders has a bit of the same feel that Obama had at this point in the election cycle. I was sure at that time that he would never get the nomination, but hoped he would hang in there long enough for me to vote for him in our state's primary. But he did get the nod. So... I don't know.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
saysay, my feiend,
Who is likely to defeat Hilary? Who, other than Bernie Sanders, is showing more interest in the necessary changes you mention other than Hilary, and she has addressed them. I know, I'll admit that it may be campaign rhetoric, but what is the alternative.
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
quote:What qualifies him to do this job? Stewart is amazing at what he's been doing for the last 15 years or so, but I don't see how a gift for satire would make him a stellar political operator.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Maybe... with Jon Stewart as campaign manager...
quote:
Plouffe began his political career by working for Senator Tom Harkin's 1990 re-election campaign.[15] He later worked as a state field director for Harkin's unsuccessful 1992 Presidential campaign. In the same year he successfully managed Congressman John Olver's first re-election bid in Massachusetts. In 1994 Plouffe managed Delaware Attorney General Charles M. Oberly's unsuccessful campaign against Senator William V. Roth. He then worked as campaign director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1995. In 1996 Plouffe managed Bob Torricelli's successful campaign to fill Bill Bradley's New Jersey seat in the United States Senate.[citation needed]
From 1997-98, Plouffe served as Democratic leader Dick Gephardt's Deputy Chief of Staff. In 1999–2000, as executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Plouffe led Democrats to gains that came within several thousand votes of winning back the House. He also led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to unusually high fundraising amounts, during his tenure at the DCCC. In the winter of 2000, Plouffe joined AKPD Message and Media but left briefly to serve as a strategist for Gephardt's unsuccessful Presidential bid. He returned to the firm and became a partner in February 2004. Beginning in 2003, Plouffe and fellow AKPD partner David Axelrod worked on Barack Obama's 2004 Illinois Senate campaign, beginning his association with Obama. Plouffe worked with Axelrod on the successful 2006 campaign of Deval Patrick for Governor of Massachusetts.
quote:I don't see him as a Hilary fan. Oh, I'm sure if she ends up with the nod he'll support her-- but I don't see him getting excited enough about her presidency to leave a lucrative career where he can pretty much write his own ticket. I could see him however getting that excited about Sanders or Warren.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
A Vice-Presidential candidate perhaps? Hilary could act "Presidential" while Stewart goes for the jugular. He'd have a field day with any GOP nominee.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
quote:It's a hard choice, though. Between allowing a party to continue to think they can take you for granted with no real action on your pressing issues, or ending up like the Green Party, who's petulant 3rd party bid brought down the most pro-environmental candidate imaginable and gave us instead Bush/Cheney.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After Obama, I think the Democrats may well be attracted to an experienced 'fixer and manipulator' given a) that they are likely to win again (demographics) and b) have to cope with a stacked House of Reps and/or Senate. That's the edge the Clinton family will have in selection of candidate. That happens first. On presidential polling day, disaffected minorities may see their choice as being between 'a louse and a double-louse' (a famous observation from a previous election). But if they stay away, they will get the GOP with a House Majority to boot. I don't think they will go for that.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:What Republicans label as socialist is sometimes beyond the comprehension of us poor Canadians, and is food for another thread (Canadian election coverage available on the web to the curious south of the border). In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
quote:True enough. I suppose it depends on how angry you feel. But Obama's publicly expressed frustrations seem real enough to me. He's hamstrung.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's a hard choice, though. Between allowing a party to continue to think they can take you for granted with no real action on your pressing issues, or ending up like the Green Party, who's petulant 3rd party bid brought down the most pro-environmental candidate imaginable and gave us instead Bush/Cheney.
quote:Too right. Bernie Sanders is just a left-of-centre candidate, and nothing to scare the horses. Now some of my fellow Dippers, they scare the horses. We call them the Socialist Caucus.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:What Republicans label as socialist is sometimes beyond the comprehension of us poor Canadians, and is food for another thread (Canadian election coverage available on the web to the curious south of the border). In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
quote:Bernie Sanders is what I call nearly dead.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
quote:Don't overestimate the political sophistication of the typical American voter, for whom "Socialism" means horrible countries like Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and France, lands without freedom and economic opportunity. In the minds of many, even Canada would be on the list.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:Too right. Bernie Sanders is just a left-of-centre candidate, and nothing to scare the horses. Now some of my fellow Dippers, they scare the horses. We call them the Socialist Caucus.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:What Republicans label as socialist is sometimes beyond the comprehension of us poor Canadians, and is food for another thread (Canadian election coverage available on the web to the curious south of the border). In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:Are you sure about that. Obama was constantly labelled a socialist by Republicans and yet he was elected twice.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sanders, for all his good sense and great ideas, will not be able to overcome the "Socialist" label. If he wins the nomination, he will be crushed in the general election.
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
quote:Well, he's not a spring chicken, but I always wish those in public life a long and healthy life (although some individuals I would like to see them experience retirement).
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Bernie Sanders is what I call nearly dead.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bernie Sanders is what I call just getting started.
quote:I have a friend who is just old enough to remember Saskatchewan when the CCF brought in Medicare in 1961. 30% patients never paid their bills, they were either dead or deadbeat. By 1962 Saskatchewan was a net destination for doctors as they made more money than under the private system. The Government took its cut for appearances, and let the doctors have the rest, and assured payment for every patient they saw.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Don't forget "socialized medicine", a designation which has helped hold back a national health care system here.
quote:It seems to me the SC (to which I belonged in my dipper days) inspires more yawns than fear. Their website and newsletter don't even seem to have been updated in some time. Fightback on the other hand seems to have a little more organizing clout. (The Toronto New Democratic Youth is dominated by Fighback entrists and frequently clashes with its provincial executive, who at one point voided the TNDY's executive elections when it returned a slate of Fightback/IMT Trotskysts).
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Now some of my fellow Dippers, they scare the horses. We call them the Socialist Caucus.
quote:No, actually he didn't. He ran as an Independent in most elections, and as the Liberty Union candidate in others. See the Wikipedia article here for specifics.
In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
quote:I stand corrected; I had relied on Burlington television news coverage, which our local cable company picked up in those halcyon days.
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Augustine the Aleut wrote:
quote:No, actually he didn't. He ran as an Independent in most elections, and as the Liberty Union candidate in others. See the Wikipedia article here for specifics.
In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
quote:I stand corrected; I had relied on Burlington television news coverage, which our local cable company picked up in those halcyon days.
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Augustine the Aleut wrote:
quote:No, actually he didn't. He ran as an Independent in most elections, and as the Liberty Union candidate in others. See the Wikipedia article here for specifics.
In this case, however, Bernie Sanders formally ran under the Socialist Party label in Vermont, and was elected several times.
quote:Canadian NDP
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's a dipper please? The usual meaning I know if this rather charming little bird.
quote:To be fair to you, I don't think Channel 3 ever called him anything but "the Socialist Mayor of Burlington".
I stand corrected; I had relied on Burlington television news coverage, which our local cable company picked up in those halcyon days.
quote:Scott Walker's campaign seems to have been sinking like a rock lately. Here is the latest polling average from Huffington Post
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Throw Scott Walker into the list of serious candidates.
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've heard of all except three, Mark Everson, Ben Carson, and Lindsey Graham. Admittedly I don't know much about most of them, and knew of Carly Fiorina as a chief executive rather than as a politician, but there are plenty of British politicians I don't know much about either.
Who are considered the most serious candidates at this stage ? I am guessing Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, or is the name Bush considered too problematic ?
quote:LOL. He's also know in fifth place in the latest Iowa polls, joint fourth in New Hampshire and joint seventh in South Carolinia. Its difficult to see how he recovers from that.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I am sorry to hear that Scott Walker is fading from the scene-- I was really anxious to hear how the northern frontier barrier (Wall of Scott doesn't have the same poetry as Wall of Hadrian) would be doing. I thought that perhaps it could provide employment for mosaic makers, so that the artistic shining wall could improve the aesthetic sensibilities of Minnesotans.
quote:Oh Pleeeeeeaaaasssseeeee Lil' baby Jesus, may it be so!
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I don't know if this is th right thread to put this in but apparently Glenn Beck's 'The Blaze' in in trouble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfxVM7U_C2g
I can't say I'm sorry about this, I'm not really a Glenn Beck fan
it would be beyond satisfying to see his empire collapse.
quote:Oh, my-- that sounds horrible. Do they at least pay your some sort of hazard pay bonus??? I would have thought the labor code/occupational safety board would have some sort of rules against such work conditions. I'm available to organize picket lines/ boycotts...
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I have to listen to three hours of his ranting every day on the job,
quote:Really? A poll claims that Donald Trump would win ~30% of the Hispanic vote and ~25% of the black vote (no Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 11% of the black vote since 1996), and Hillary Clinton getting the same result (within the margin of error) as all the other Democrats in the poll is the thing that draws your attention? I'd say the former is much more notable (and sufficient grounds for increased skepticism about SurveyUSA's methodology) than the latter.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A couple more polls from the last week here (don't worry I'm not about to post up every poll but I do think these are particularly interesting). The first is a general election poll on Trump. Now Trump has been gradually improving his general election polling numbers but this is the first one that show Trump in the lead
Trump 45%
Clinton 40%
Trump 44%
Sanders 40%
Trump 44%
Biden 42%
Trump 44%
Gore 41%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6
Interesting to note how Clinton does worse out of possible Dem candidates on this poll.
quote:OK here's another general election poll from a different polling company. This one the latest ORC poll for CNN
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Really? A poll claims that Donald Trump would win ~30% of the Hispanic vote and ~25% of the black vote (no Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 11% of the black vote since 1996), and Hillary Clinton getting the same result (within the margin of error) as all the other Democrats in the poll is the thing that draws your attention? I'd say the former is much more notable (and sufficient grounds for increased skepticism about SurveyUSA's methodology) than the latter.
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A couple more polls from the last week here (don't worry I'm not about to post up every poll but I do think these are particularly interesting). The first is a general election poll on Trump. Now Trump has been gradually improving his general election polling numbers but this is the first one that show Trump in the lead
Trump 45%
Clinton 40%
Trump 44%
Sanders 40%
Trump 44%
Biden 42%
Trump 44%
Gore 41%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6
Interesting to note how Clinton does worse out of possible Dem candidates on this poll.
quote:Rick Perry has now dropped out of the race. I wonder if CNN will go ahead with having eleven in the main debate and four at the secondary event?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Looks like the lineup for the Republican primary debate next week has been determined.
The main event will consist of:
- Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump
- Ben Carson
- J.E.B. Bush
- Ted Cruz
- Scott Walker
- Marco Rubio
- Carly Fiorina
- Mike Huckabee
- Rand Paul
- John Kasich
- Chris Christie
Note that Fiorina and Kasich have moved up from the "kiddie table" debate into the main event. Interestingly this debate will have one more candidate in the main event than last time (bringing the total to eleven*), but it still means that one candidate who was in the main event last time has been "demoted" to the earlier debate in next week's event. In this case it's Rick Perry who has been pushed down to the undercard event, where he'll join Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham. Jim Gilmore has been dropped from the event entirely, not because he's dropped out of the race but because he hasn't achieved the minimum threshold of polled support to qualify for a seat.
--------------------
*The Spinal Tap-themed promotions practically write themselves. "The Reagan Library Republican Primary Debates: this time they go to eleven!"
quote:Quinnipiac poll
- Matchups among all American voters show:
- Biden tops Trump 48 - 40 percent. He beats Bush 45 - 39 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 41 percent.
- Clinton edges Trump 45 - 41 percent. She gets 42 percent to Bush's 40 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent.
- Sanders edges Trump 44 - 41 percent and edges Bush 43 - 39 percent. Rubio gets 41 percent to Sanders' 40 percent.
quote:Matchups from the ORC poll I linked to above
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Maybe not:
quote:Quinnipiac poll
- Matchups among all American voters show:
- Biden tops Trump 48 - 40 percent. He beats Bush 45 - 39 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 41 percent.
- Clinton edges Trump 45 - 41 percent. She gets 42 percent to Bush's 40 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent.
- Sanders edges Trump 44 - 41 percent and edges Bush 43 - 39 percent. Rubio gets 41 percent to Sanders' 40 percent.
Biden has his amusing moments, but he's no doofus. Many of President Obama's accomplishments were built on foundations that Biden developed, using the wisdom and connections developed over years of public service. He's been referred to as the nation's Eulogizer-in-Chief and he has huge personal appeal among a wide variety of people.
quote:And President Obama was born in '61, meaning he was younger than most of the above when he ran the first time around.
Originally posted by HCH:
It is interesting to notice the ages of the various contenders.
Bernie Sanders was born in 1941.
Joe Biden was born in 1942.
Donald Trump was born in 1946.
Hillary Clinton was born in 1947.
Ben Carson was born in 1951.
Carly Fiorina was born in 1954.
Chris Christie was born in 1962.
Rand Paul was born in 1963.
Ted Cruz was born in 1970.
Marco Rubio was born in 1971.
While the Republicans apparently have a supply of relatively young, ambitious participants and more in the wings, the top Democrats are not spring chickens. Who does the Democratic party have to run for President in 2020, 2024, 2028, etc.?
(Our youngest President was 42 when he was sworn in, and the oldest was 69. The average is 54 years, 11 months.)
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
quote:Depends on who she's running against. The GOP at this point seems entirely incapable of pulling their s**t together to put forward an even halfway credible candidate. Hilary, Biden, and even Sanders would have a cake walk against Trump. But, as has been noted already, it's early days still, so time will tell.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
She can win the party nomination, but I don't think she can win the general election.
quote:"Complete hatred" may be an overstatement. I doubt many out there consider Hillary someone that they would 'like to have a drink with'; and a lot of people don't entirely trust her (including me). But a lot of us also remember how much better the middle and working classes had it under the Clinton administration and a lot of us want that back.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think Biden is ready to retire and if he jumps in the race it will be because Hillary is very vulnerable and the Democrats don't believe Sanders can win.
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
She can win the party nomination, but I don't think she can win the general election.
quote:I think it would be tough for him to be on the campaign trail and suffer the inevitable attacks right now (which is rough at the best of times, much less when you're in mourning).
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Biden--
He'd be much happier not running, IMHO. AIUI, he's only considering it because his son (Bo?), before he died, asked him to run. Maybe even made him promise to.
quote:What makes you think electing Hillary will get the middle and working classes back the prosperity of the 90s?
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
"Complete hatred" may be an overstatement. I doubt many out there consider Hillary someone that they would 'like to have a drink with'; and a lot of people don't entirely trust her (including me). But a lot of us also remember how much better the middle and working classes had it under the Clinton administration and a lot of us want that back.
quote:Right. She is one of the super-wealthy, one of the class that has made it perfectly clear that they are willing to do anything to preserve the power that they (in many cases undeservedly) hold.
Personally, I don't find Hillary to be genuine, I don't entirely trust her, don't find her to be particularly charismatic, and I believe that her bid for the presidency is ultimately aimed at increasing her personal wealth.
quote:And again I'm baffled by your belief that she has anyone's interests but her own (and her wealthy donors') in mind. You said it yourself - she's a shrewd, calculating, political mover.
But I'll still vote for her, because I believe that she is a shrewd, calculating political mover and I think that is what it takes to get stuff done. Bill can run as her VP for all I care.
Right now, any hope we have of closing the income inequality gap lies with Hillary. The GOP won't do it, and the rest of the DNC crew lacks the political awareness and/or capital to push the proper legislation through.
YMMV
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Not sure the media really grasp the general public's complete hatred of both them and Billary/ Hillbilly.
The "general public's" supposed hatred of the Clintons is largely an artifact of the media's deep and abiding genuine hatred of the Clintons. (e.g. the New York Time's massively inaccurate "scoop" on the Clinton e-mail "scandal".) The American public have never hated either of the Clintons with the degree of antipathy the press feels they should.
quote:Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
Trump touted his tough-talking style as a plus.
"It's an attitude that our country needs. We get pushed around by everybody," he told Fox News, adding, "We have to push back."
quote:I'm not an American, but my impression is that most people American or not are tempted to believe everyone is pushing us around, and if you include under 'pushing around' as 'not moving when we push them anymore', more so.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
quote:Relative privilege. White working class men are certainly privileged compared to working class women and black working class men. But that doesn't mean that being working class isn't of itself a serious lack of privilege.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege.
quote:Agreed. But apparently it is one that a significant segment of working/middle class white men are willing to engage.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Relative privilege. White working class men are certainly privileged compared to working class women and black working class men. But that doesn't mean that being working class isn't of itself a serious lack of privilege.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege.
Being "spoken for" by a multi-millionaire is of itself a serious form of erasure.
quote:You know, if the Republicans were actually running a decent candidate, this thread would be a perfect illustration of why they would get elected.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
quote:Don't hold back. Why?
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:You know, if the Republicans were actually running a decent candidate, this thread would be a perfect illustration of why they would get elected.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Americans really believe anyone is pushing them around?!
quote:I have a few questions.
Originally posted by saysay:
You know, if the Republicans were actually running a decent candidate, this thread would be a perfect illustration of why they would get elected.
Clinton can barely conceal her contempt at the vast majority of Americans. People have noticed.
quote:The general attitude of sneering, looking down upon the people doing the manual labor that keeps the world running, signalling class position through certain words, and talking and acting as if the superior class knows the real motivation of everyone better than they do.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Don't hold back. Why?
quote:Nobody has a decent candidate. The least evil wins...
And why do you think it is that the Republicans aren't running a decent candidate? What does that say about them that they can't/won't?
quote:Most people don't see the policy. They see the liar in front of them telling them pretty lies, and they feel the damage that gets done when they're told they have to pay more than they will ever earn for something they're required (by gov't) to have.
If there is class warfare on the part of the DNC (more likely, neglect from what I've seen), it's given excellent cover by the more extreme and visible class warfare on the part of the GOP. As has been noted above, Clinton and the DNC may not be very motivated to take some constituencies' concerns very seriously when the competition is the GOP clown car.
quote:Not sneering. Not at the American public, anyway. Trump is unequivocally the least qualified candidate in the mainstream race. I understand the frustration with the business as usual pols, but jumping on board the clown car is not the solution.
Originally posted by saysay:
But keep right on sneering. Y'all will be irrelevant soon enough.
quote:Certainly a fair and balanced account of events.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
quote:Brenda, thanks for that. As an outsider I was having difficulty understanding why
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Not all Americans. But Trump does not speak for all. He speaks for ageing white working class men, a group that is indeed under stress and angry about their loss of privilege. One cannot but pity people who are no longer allowed to look down upon persons of ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:Certainly a fair and balanced account of events.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
quote:Many colleges and universities were established by state governments. This usually means that significant legal changes to their charters have to be approved by those same governments. Ditto for federal institutions and funding. Heck, my own institution had to get the provincial government to amend the Universities Act in order to ticket* mis-parked cars on campus. Pell grants were established by an act of Congress that applies <gasp> only to college students. O noes! And of course, lots and lots and lots of laws are written with specific groups of people in mind - e.g. only owners and drivers of motor vehicles have to have drivers' licenses and insurance.
Originally posted by saysay:
... Legislators in California, New York, and now congress are writing "safe campus" acts - laws that apply only to college students. ...
quote:Easy peasy - the Republican economic rules are very, very simple. If you want rich people to work harder, you have to give them more money. If you want poor people to work harder, you have to give them less money.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.....
quote:That makes a lot of sense. I was never quite sure about the Republican
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Easy peasy - the Republican economic rules are very, very simple. If you want rich people to work harder, you have to give them more money. If you want poor people to work harder, you have to give them less money.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.....
quote:I am happy to have this discussion, but in private. I learned long ago not to try to explain such things among this pack of wolves.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:Thank you.
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:Certainly a fair and balanced account of events.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's an example from the past of outright hostility toward manual laborers and workers:
During the Great (Bush) Recession, Democrats repeartedly tried to extend and/or increase unemployment benefits, a vital matter for workers at a time when jobs were nearly impossible to find.
Republicans in Congress stalled and often blocked these humane attempts using lies ("there's plenty of jobs"), scare tactics ("we can't afford it, we'll become like Greece") and demonization ("lazy, alcohol and drug addicted freeloaders").
Here was Republican scorn, contempt, and supreme arrogance in full display. Contrast that with the Democrats. That's just one example.
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.
I admit that an extremely tiny number of GOP members of Congress did side with the unemployed. That sensible and compassionate stand took guts.
quote:Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
quote:Translation?
Originally posted by GCabot:
Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
quote:While there is life there is hope
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Translation?
Originally posted by GCabot:
Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
quote:Actually, what I learned from both the Hilary faux scandal and the Sony hacking was that other people have far, far more interesting email correspondence than I do. I pity the poor NSA agent charged with pouring over my work emails, although I suppose if they suffer from insomnia they might come in useful...
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
quote:You may not have been watching the Styx recently, but we have confirmed that we do have a guideline which says if you use a foreign language tag, you have to provide a translation. In this case, someone else has kindly done that for you. But next time, do it yourself.
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:Ah well. Dum vita est, spes est.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
In light of Hillary's non-partisan-motivated pending crucifixion over private e-mails, I've decided to avoid that dangerous form of communication.
quote:I missed the debate, but just looked that up.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Bush III wants to put Thatcher on the ten dollar bill?
quote:(Carly Fiorina's response is more lengthy, but it's on that same page.
Chris Christie: Abigail Adams
John Kasich: Mother Theresa
Scott Walker: Clara Barton
Carly Fiorina: Wouldn't change it*
Donald Trump: His daughter, Ivanka Trump, or Rosa Parks
Ben Carson: His mother
Ted Cruz: Rosa Parks
Marco Rubio: Rosa Parks
Mike Huckabee: His wife
Rand Paul: Susan B. Anthony
quote:
The future First Lady wrote in part, “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”
quote:Not a big fan of Fiorina, didn't vote for her when she ran for office here in CA, but I thought she handled a very difficult situation with class. Even more so, though, I thought the whole awkward exchange revealed even more clearly Trump's view on women: I can't think of a single time he has commented on any woman, anywhere, including (horrifically) his own daughter, on anything other than her physical appearance. Fiorina either "has a face no one could vote for" or she is "beautiful." His own daughter is "so stunning if she wasn't my daughter I'd be dating her". But no mention for either one of their intelligence or any other aspect of their person-- no mention on whether Fiorina has the right leadership skills, policy positions, or temperament for the position. And this is pretty much true of every public exchange she's had with our about any woman, any where. It's the only thing he notices. And, as Fiorina says, women are hearing that.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I've always suspected that Ms. Fiorina is an ice queen, in which case, Trump's (repentant?) mention of her beauty would provide half the definition, and her actions at HP would provide the rest.
quote:With extreme class. She handled it briefly and precisely, yet she refrained from going full on Carol Peletier on him.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not a big fan of Fiorina, didn't vote for her when she ran for office here in CA, but I thought she handled a very difficult situation with class.
quote:Hmm...Dubya gave her a very unwanted shoulder massage at a conference, caught on camera. She was visibly upset. I thought she showed enormous restraint in not hitting him.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
Actually, come to think of it, as Brenda noted, that could be quite fun...
quote:Still definitely feels like it'll be Bush vs. Clinton in the real election, which honestly worries me. Though I'm not sure whether Jeb's name will help him after two Bushes in office, one can only hope not.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
quote:They missed a big one.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
The Washington Post has and excellent review of last nights lies and misinformation.
quote:Anyone remember this stuff?
"There's one thing I'll tell you about my brother," said Jeb(!) Bush. "He kept us safe."
quote:If that ever proves to be the case, and I hope he never gets the opportunity, she will get the better of him.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies. ...
quote:If last night was any indication, I don't think Jeb will make it. He was saddled with too much baggage defending his brother's record. If he was willing to distance himself from W I think he'd have a more than decent chance, but he signaled last night that he's gonna tie his bid to W's record, which can't be a winning strategy.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:Still definitely feels like it'll be Bush vs. Clinton in the real election, which honestly worries me. Though I'm not sure whether Jeb's name will help him after two Bushes in office, one can only hope not.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Imagine Trump trying to negotiate with Angela Merkel when all he can notice is that she has boobies.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If they had started correcting each other the event would have lasted another four hours, so one must thank God that no one bothered.
quote:Well, such predictions have been going on for a long time. Opinions vary on their truth. I really, really hope they're wrong. One problem with Soc. Sec. is that Congress uses it as a rainy day fund, and puts the money elsewhere.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
quote:The fact is that even if nothing in the program is changed, Social Security for retirees will be able to pay full benefits for years and years to come. Decades from now benefits would likely have to be reduced somewhat - again if nothing is done.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Well, such predictions have been going on for a long time. Opinions vary on their truth. I really, really hope they're wrong. One problem with Soc. Sec. is that Congress uses it as a rainy day fund, and puts the money elsewhere.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
The ref to Harvard and Dartmouth probably means he was referring to research/opinions from those institutions.
quote:I hope that is the case. I went on it early, due to disability. While I don't live in fear over it, I do sometimes think of it--especially when Congress openly doesn't have the political will to shore it up, and some members want to cut it altogether.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:The fact is that even if nothing in the program is changed, Social Security for retirees will be able to pay full benefits for years and years to come. Decades from now benefits would likely have to be reduced somewhat - again if nothing is done.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Well, such predictions have been going on for a long time. Opinions vary on their truth. I really, really hope they're wrong. One problem with Soc. Sec. is that Congress uses it as a rainy day fund, and puts the money elsewhere.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Christi, citing support from "Harvard and Dartmouth"
(whatever the hell that means) claimed Social Security will be insolvent in "seven or eight years".
Such a claim is either an outrageous lie or a display of incredible ignorance, yet no one in the clown car corrected him.
The ref to Harvard and Dartmouth probably means he was referring to research/opinions from those institutions.
quote:Well, I'm obviously biased-- a pretty hard-core, lifelong democrat. But in years past I've been able to identify at least some Republicans I didn't think would be an absolute disaster. John McCain 1.0, for example (2.0 being when he went over to the dark side and joined up with Rove & Palin, 3.0 being when he morphed into a bitter old man sitting on his porch yelling at the kids to get off the lawn). In recent years though it's gotten harder and harder to find any viable candidate on that side of the aisle. In the current clown car there's no one that seems even remotely sane. As a Dem, that of course is good news-- it should be a cake walk come fall of 2016 (although Jon Stewart will remind me to not underestimate the Dem's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory). But really it's not good news for the country-- as noted earlier, if the election turns into a cake walk there will be no one to hold the Dems feet to the fire, to make us be more disciplined, to make us take seriously the concerns of our constituents.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos and cliffdweller
Hard for me to believe that there is mileage in playing the "Bush card" and the "kept us safe" myth. But the performance of the GOP candidates is looking more and more bizarre on this side of the pond. Is there a "sensible, or at least comparatively sensible" favourite?
quote:It seems you're not the first person to get that impression. From 2008
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
quote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/politics/06fiorina.html?_r=0
Opinion is still split on whether Ms. Fiorina or her successor as chief executive, Mark V. Hurd, deserve credit for Hewlett’s success after Ms. Fiorina drove through the company’s $25 billion acquisition of Compaq in 2002. By many accounts, Ms. Fiorina was superb at marketing, mixed on strategy, bad at execution — and extraordinarily successful in unifying the board against what Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld of the Yale School of Management calls her “street bully” leadership style.
“What a blind spot this is in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality in this way,” said Mr. Sonnenfeld, the senior associate dean for executive programs at the management school and one of Ms. Fiorina’s sharpest critics. “You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned C.E.O. to be your standard-bearer.”
quote:I registered Republican for the only time in my life in order to vote for Anderson in the primary. When he withdrew to run as an independent, I had to hold my nose and vote for the least-bad of the remaining candidates. That was GHW Bush, who at the time was still ridiculing Reagan's "voodoo economics". I went on to work full-time for a few months on Anderson's campaign.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I still remember John Anderson fondly, but he never got that third-party thing off the ground. Colin Powell was so smart that he refused to run, but if he had he would have been great.
quote:I don't recall seeing her smile once during the debate, even during the jokes. She makes Hillary (criticized for a supposed lack of emotion) seem all warm and cuddly. Fiorina strikes me as Palin with a brain instead of a heart.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
quote:This strikes me as just a slightly more sophisticated version of what Trump did. Again, I'm not fan of Fiorina-- because of her policies. But I really couldn't care less whether or not she smiles a lot, or is warm and cuddly. Give me a decent health care system, keep us from another war in the Middle East, maybe do something to turn back global warming at least a bit (none of which Fiorina seems to care about)-- and you can consistently scowl so fiercely you scare little children for all I care. And I have to wonder why we're not counting how many times the male candidates do/do not smile.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:I don't recall seeing her smile once during the debate, even during the jokes. She makes Hillary (criticized for a supposed lack of emotion) seem all warm and cuddly. Fiorina strikes me as Palin with a brain instead of a heart.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
I thought Ms. Fiorina was channeling Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. She seem so icy cold.
quote:That may indeed be a sign of character. According to Reuters after her failed 2010 Senate run she left owing staff and supplies about half a million dollars and then didn't pay them for four years, that is until shortly before she announced she was running for President, even though she estimated to have a net worth of up to $120 million.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Carly Fiorini had a great answer about Trumps insult toward her face when she said that the women of America heard what he was saying loud and clear, but when Trump then smarmed, "I think you're beautiful." To me a slight eye roll and smile would have been so much better than that look of stone cold hatred over a childish insult.
quote:http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/21/us-usa-election-fiorina-idUSKBN0O60FV20150521
Twelve of about 30 people who worked on Fiorina’s failed 2010 California Senate campaign, most speaking out for the first time, told Reuters they would not work for her again...“I’d rather go to Iraq than work for Carly Fiorina again,” said one high-level former campaign staffer
It's not common for campaigns to end in debt but not extraordinary either, said Trevor Potter, a Republican former FEC chairman. Usually wealthy candidates pay off the debts themselves "as a matter of honor and reputation because they feel badly about vendors who are stuck with these debts."...
A number of former campaign workers said they were upset that Fiorina paid them only once she had decided to run for president...nine months after she lost the election, Fiorina paid $6.1 million for a 5-acre (2. hectare) waterfront estate in Virginia, near Washington, D.C. The house has no mortgage, property records show.
quote:yeah-- Cheney could be creepy that way, for example. (*shudders*)
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Yes, you're right, my friend. I suppose it's actually worse when people joyfully smile while they sabre-rattle, or advocate other harmful/dangerous policies..
quote:I'm sure that was deliberate. We all know what happens when you roll your eyes on camera.
Originally posted by Twilight:
... To me a slight eye roll and smile would have been so much better than that look of stone cold hatred over a childish insult. ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:It seems like the Republican party is flailing, procedurally speaking. From the article*:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There's an interesting article on how New GOP rules on the election may give Trump the nomination or at least be a power broker.
quote:Those who remember the 2008 post-mortem will recall that the Republicans concluded that McCain's early securing of the nomination was harmful to his electability, since the ongoing Democratic primaries kept the public focused on Clinton and Obama. So in 2012 the Republican primaries went much longer than typical with a wide field of candidates and, after another defeat, the conclusion was that they needed "to head off a prolonged and divisive nomination fight", in the words of Nagourney and Martin's Times article. I'd suggest that this vacillating between "we need a long primary" and "we need a short primary" is distracting from the main problem the GOP has these days: the American general electorate no longer finds their positions compelling.
When gloomy Republican Party leaders regrouped after President Obama’s 2012 re-election, they were intent on enhancing the party’s chances of winning back the White House. The result: new rules to head off a prolonged and divisive nomination fight, and to make certain the Republican standard-bearer is not pulled too far to the right before Election Day.
quote:Not mentioned in the article, but something to keep in mind, is that on the Democratic side current members of Congress and Governors are superdelegates, so their endorsement actually translates into a vote at the convention (though not weighted in the same way as 538 counts them). Former presidents, vice presidents, house speakers, and a few other leadership positions are also superdelegates. In 2008 Barack Obama rather famously spent a lot of time lobbying superdelegates before the primary election process got underway, effectively stealing a march on Clinton and forcing her to fight an uphill battle throughout the primaries.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is a '538' insight.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd suggest that this vacillating between "we need a long primary" and "we need a short primary" is distracting from the main problem the GOP has these days: the American general electorate no longer finds their positions compelling.
quote:Once considered a top-tier contender, and he's gone before a single primary vote is cast.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has suspended his presidential campaign, effectively ending a once-promising GOP presidential bid that collapsed amid tepid debate performances and other missteps.
"Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top," Walker said in a brief speech in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday evening. "With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately."
quote:Considering that Walker claims God told him to run in the first place this isn't surprising. From God's similar message to Rick Perry telling him to run this time around I think the only thing to conclude is that God gets his kicks by watching these guys flame out spectacularly in the polls. I think He told four different candidates to run last time, including Michele Bachmann.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other charming report making the rounds is that God told Walker to drop out.
quote:Well, no, not really! If that were the case, rock solid conservatives like Walker would be in the laager and dubious fly-by-nights like Trump would be out. But it's the other way round!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A circling of the wagons?
I hadn't thought about it much before, but there may be something in the concept of a "laager mentality" within the GOP.
quote:one for the quotes file.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Remember, if God tells you to run in the Republican presidential primaries He's probably just doing it for the lulz.
quote:I wish God would have a chat with Donald Trump. (Maybe he has, and the Donald just thinks he knows better.)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other charming report making the rounds is that God told Walker to drop out.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:I missed it. Where is it?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Did anyone notice the "posted by" credit?!
Hilarious!
quote:Yeah, the fundamental errors here are mind-blowing. As is the notion that a successful, educated African-American is waxing nostalgic over America's supposedly "Christian" (and slave-owning) founding fathers.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And in other news:
"Ben Carson Preaches Theocracy At Georgia Megachurch" (Patheos)
quote:Pantone numbers?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
How is one's degree of whiteness determined?
quote:If I remember my history, paper bags are usually involved.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
"whiter people"?
How is one's degree of whiteness determined? I'd like to know exactly how white I am since that's very, very important, so please tell me your criteria.
quote:DMC.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Pantone numbers?
Originally posted by ldjjd:
How is one's degree of whiteness determined?
quote:BTW, congratulations to American Jews! Apparently according to the people who judge such things you're now "white"*. Your backlogged applications to various country clubs will now be processed.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up!
And I haven't seen five whiter people on one stage since I caught the Moody Blues back in high school.
quote:Another example of American assimilation via naming:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the US there are honorary white people. This is nearly always closed to black people (google the word 'octoroon' if you like). Occasionally achieved by intermarriage, but more often tincture of time is responsible. A batch of immigrants (Chinese, Irish) come in and in spite of vehement discrimination and outright violence hang on, keep their noses down, and assimilate like fury, using tactics like naming the kids.
quote:From The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay.
Superman, you don't think he's Jewish? Coming over from the old country, changing his name like that. Clark Kent, only a Jew would pick a name like that for himself.
quote:For much of U.S. history, it wasn't enough to be caucasian to be socially acceptable. One had to be a certain kind of caucasian. This excluded Europeans of Irish, Jewish, Southern and Eastern European descent and it meant they often faced descrimination and negative social attitudes. These attitudes only changed with time, assimilation, and other things. This is what some people mean when they talk of certain ethnic groups "becoming white."
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry, Brenda. I think you'll have to explain this to us non-Americans. I accept that the Chinese are Chinese. But wherever else they may be on the social ladder as one time immigrants, if you are Irish, Italian or Jewish - or for that matter Ukrainian, Litvak or Swedish, all are white. If that is not the case, then 'white' isn't being used with quite the same meaning as the rest of the world understands it.
quote:I had no idea looking at him how he occupies his imagination.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:BTW, congratulations to American Jews! Apparently according to the people who judge such things you're now "white"*.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up!
And I haven't seen five whiter people on one stage since I caught the Moody Blues back in high school.
quote:He looks like an old white guy to me.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Who suggested that there were visual cues?
quote:I was once present at a conversation where most of the participants were of Ukrainian origin (some from the US, and others from Canada) who were discussing their cousin, who had married a white girl, although his previous spouse had been "one of us."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes 'white' in this context actually doesn't have much to do with skin color. It has more to do with being accepted in the main culture.
quote:Oh, please. You make a Seinfeld reference and then try to pretend you didn't know he was Jewish? That dog won't hunt.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bernie Sanders is like some over the top Seinfeld character. Every time he opens his mouth I crack up! ...
What exactly was the visual cue that I missed that identified him as Jewish?
quote:In all honesty, I can't see myself voting for any of the Republicans this year, but at least they are putting up a fight. Can anyone really take on Clinton, is anyone actually going to try, and what's the point of the debates if they don't?
Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy, a Republican Senator, and Hillary Clinton walk into a bar. Bartender looks them over and says, “Christ, this is 60 percent of the Democratic presidential campaign field? You m***********s make Richard Nixon look like Leon Trotsky.” Then Jim Webb knifes him, because Jim Webb is a f******g maniac.
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
... I have read two interesting articles in the last 24 hours, both of which wonder why Bernie Sanders won't go on the attack ....
quote:CSM - Bernie Sanders
“I’m very proud to say, I’ve never run a negative political ad in my entire life, and I’ve been attacked a whole lot,” Sanders responded.
quote:Are you implying something about Clinton?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Since he's not a Christian, it just might be because he's decent.
quote:It ain't nothing new. And this is between good friends.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is, or rather should be, a difference between criticising an opponents policies and attacking them.
it can be done, it should work. What does it say about politicians and voters that it doesn't happen more?
quote:Given the criticisms Sanders has leveled at Clinton's proposed policies (her previous TPP stance, her support of the Iraq War, her support of the surveillance state, etc.), I can only take this to mean you think Sanders should go on the personal attack against Hillary Clinton. Something along the lines of "you look stupid and girls have cooties", perhaps?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Was the Democratic debate too nice and unified?
I have read two interesting articles in the last 24 hours, both of which wonder why Bernie Sanders won't go on the attack, as he clearly needs to do if he is going to peel off enough votes from Clinton to get the nomination.
quote:Just in case anyone was actually wondering whether Carson's campaign was a serious political effort or just a PR stunt.
Republican presidential contender Dr. Ben Carson has put his public campaign events on hold for two more weeks to go on book tour for his new tome “A More Perfect Union” and catch up on fundraising events.
quote:Never said it was new. But the difference, as far as I can ascertain, is the remarks quoted in that video seem very apparently hyperbolic. The attacks of today much less so.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It ain't nothing new. And this is between good friends.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is, or rather should be, a difference between criticising an opponents policies and attacking them.
it can be done, it should work. What does it say about politicians and voters that it doesn't happen more?
quote:Sometimes I have the feeling that also a lot of money can be made by running (and afterwards). I don't know to which extent this is true.
Golden Key: --Running for president seems to be a rite of passage for a lot of (male) people.
quote:Yes. The old standard for the media used to be "bread and circuses", but it does seem that the need for bread gets put more and more on the back burner. Or, worse, the circus show is presented as though it was bread. That's bad for democracy.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interestingly the American media seems to be pining for something like that. All the back-and-forth, will-he-won't-he speculation about Joe Biden is their form of wishful thinking that they won't have to cover a policy debate and can instead cover a Reality TV-style clash of personalities, which is a lot easier. The Republican primaries have spoiled them!
quote:No it's not.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... And this is interesting. ...
quote:With the name recognition of a presidential run, there is absolutely a lot of money to be made on the speaking circuit, and a far far easier gig than a real job like being president. For Republicans there also is the very real possibility of parlaying that name recognition into a very well paid and equally cushy gig as Fox News commentator, as Huckabee and Palin have done. Gingrich spent most of his run last time on his book tour, very clearly that was his real agenda. The vast majority of the GOP candidates, and possibly a chunk of the Dems as well, seem to have these sort of auxiliary but far more lucrative money-making schemes in mind.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Sometimes I have the feeling that also a lot of money can be made by running (and afterwards). I don't know to which extent this is true.
Golden Key: --Running for president seems to be a rite of passage for a lot of (male) people.
quote:What else is new? It seems like the only people who should govern should be those who'd prefer not to.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
quote:For the last few years, we've had a run of Republican elected officials laboring under the explicit mantra that "government is the problem." Thus they have no interest whatsoever in seeing government work-- to actually solve problems. And, big surprise, what we have found is a government officials from appointed lackeys (remember "good job, Brownie"?) to Congress who prove the proposition thru their utter incompetence.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:What else is new? It seems like the only people who should govern should be those who'd prefer not to.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
quote:Saw a snippet of a programme in which John Cleese stated that democracy is dead. I'm not sure he was completely wrong.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
That's bad for democracy.
quote:{Cue The Man Who Rules The Universe, from the H2G2 books, enter stage right.}
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:What else is new? It seems like the only people who should govern should be those who'd prefer not to.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carson is taking some time off to promote his book. None of these people have the least interest in the work of governance. They are abusing the political system for their own personal aggrandizement.
quote:Or maybe we will:
Jim Webb will end his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination at a press conference Tuesday, according to two sources with knowledge of the decision.
quote:
The former Virginia senator who launched a longshot presidential bid earlier this year is considering an independent run, according to his campaign.
quote:Probably Imperial Earth:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I forget which Arthur C. Clarke SF novel it was in which the future World President was always chosen from people who had other careers and did not want the job. (The World Computer did the choosing, which probably was worth its construction right there.) The idea was that if you did not want the job you did it well in hopes of getting time off for good behavior. Running for the job explicitly disqualified you for ever.
quote:
For the last century, almost all top political appointments [on the planet Earth] had been made by random computer selection from the pool of individuals who had the necessary qualifications. It had taken the human race several thousand years to realize that there were some jobs that should never be given to the people who volunteered for them, especially if they showed too much enthusiasm. As one shrewd political commentator had remarked: “We want a President who has to be carried screaming and kicking into the White House — but will then do the best job he possibly can, so that he’ll get time off for good behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sounds just like jury duty.
quote:From a Democratic perspective, the only decent reasons for a Biden run for the presidency at this late stage of the campaign-forming process would be:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Joe Biden will not be running.
quote:Eh? I'd say it's great news for them.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Bad news for the GOP.
quote:The opposite. There's almost no way he could have won the primary, but he would have been a lot more likely to win the general.
If Biden could somehow have won the primary, he would have been soundly defeated by several, if not most, of the clowns.
quote:Why? (Seriously, why would you think that?)
This has been a great couple of weeks for Hillary. Tomorrow is likely to bring even more good news.
quote:
The contentious exchange between Gowdy and Cummings underscores the increasing pressure on the committee to produce evidence of misconduct by Clinton or forever be labeled a taxpayer-funded political attack designed to damage her presidential campaign.
quote:I'll do better than that. I'll source the image.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's a great image making the rounds, of a comic-book-art Hillary, unsmiling and steely. She is saying, "You don't understand. I am not locked in here with you. You are locked in here with me." (ID that quote!)
quote:
Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee ended his long-shot bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, he announced at a Washington event Friday.
"As you know I have been campaigning on a platform of Prosperity Through Peace," Chafee said at the DNC's annual Women's Leadership Forum in Washington. "But after much thought I have decided to end my campaign for president today. I would like to take this opportunity one last time to advocate for a chance be given to peace."
quote:"We"?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Now we know that she knew all along she and the administration was not being truthful with the American people when they claimed the Benghazi attack was over a film.
quote:It's from a report released by the demcocrats on the house select committee on Benghazi. Page 28, towards the bottom,
Originally posted by ldjjd:
quote:"We"?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Now we know that she knew all along she and the administration was not being truthful with the American people when they claimed the Benghazi attack was over a film.
Can you point to the exact testimony where this was established?
quote:Whatever this may do in the primaries in my state in about 5 months or in the general election is early to tell, but probably not much. Folks are talking about the beloved Carolina Panthers, not politics. What is it, anyway, maybe 90% or more of the voters vote the way they always have?
Later that afternoon, Secretary Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil regarding the events in Cairo and Libya. The notes from that call indicate that the Secretary relayed information consistent with reporting at the time: “We know that the
attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” The notes also indicate that she acknowledged that Ansar al-Sharia reportedly claimed responsibility for the attacks: “Your not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”
quote:That link shows Fox News being irresponsible in their reporting. Fox News! Someone get a fan and smelling salts, I think I shall faint.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:I do.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:Well, I believe this (from the link)
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I do.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:That article describes the real world of confusion and conflicting advice and differing opinions at the time. Rather than an imaginary world of immediate omniscient knowledge and understanding. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
quote:From the memo itself:
Jeb Bush, once a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, is slashing pay across the board for his struggling campaign as he attempts to regain traction just 100 days before the party’s first nominating contest.
The campaign is removing some senior staff from the payroll, parting ways with some consultants, and downsizing its Miami headquarters to save more than $1 million per month and cut payroll by 40 percent this week, according to Bush campaign officials who requested anonymity to speak about internal changes. Senior leadership positions remain unchanged.
The campaign is also cutting back 45 percent of its budget, except for dollars earmarked for TV advertising and spending for voter contacts, such as phone calls and mailers. Some senior-level staff and consultants will continue to work with the campaign on a volunteer basis, while other junior-level consultants, primarily in finance but including other areas, will be let go, the officials said.
quote:For some reason this reads to me like a snippier version of Hirohito's declaration that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage". I'm actually a bit surprised that J.E.B. isn't better at "the family business".
It's no secret that the contours of this race have changed from what was anticipated at the start. We would be less than forthcoming if we said we predicted in June that a reality television star supporting Canadian-style single-payer health care and partial-birth abortion would be leading the GOP primary.
quote:That's, uh, pretty candid. And graphic.
"Belt tightening is one thing, but sometimes you need to change pants," said a Republican strategist who insisted on anonymity to speak candidly.
quote:Hillary and the admin knew better yet kept pumping crap for some reason about a video. Pols should just tell us the truth and if they don't know it yet, just say so instead of making shit up.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Well, I believe this (from the link)
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I do.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:That article describes the real world of confusion and conflicting advice and differing opinions at the time. Rather than an imaginary world of immediate omniscient knowledge and understanding. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
quote:One thing was made clear during Clinton's testimony yesterday.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Well, I believe this (from the link)
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I do.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as your apparent belief in a Clinton/Rice/Obama conspiracy theory.
quote:That article describes the real world of confusion and conflicting advice and differing opinions at the time. Rather than an imaginary world of immediate omniscient knowledge and understanding. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
What those who focus on the questions of the amount of pre-planning and the role of the YouTube seem to miss is that the answers to those questions make no difference to the bottom line: That the attacks were terrorism and that the terrorists murdered four Americans. And they make no difference to the most important point going forward—that the U.S. must do the best job it can in protecting its diplomatic, intelligence and military personnel serving in dangerous places.
quote:I agree with this statement. When will the Benghazi committee admit to their true motivations, then?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Pols should just tell us the truth and if they don't know it yet, just say so instead of making shit up.
quote:She spoke these words at the reception of the bodies of the dead men from the outhouse in Benghazi. Near enough to the coffins and the families to have spit on them.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Here's what Hillary said at Andrews AFB:
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with."
It seems to me that she has clearly separated Benghazi from the video-imspired attacks at embassies.
quote:According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
In the quote I posted, she clearly separated the violence at the Benghazi outpost from the protests at the embassies. The Benghazi outpost was NOT as is not an embassy. As such, she did NOT say that the Benghazi tragedy was linked to the video.
Spitting on coffins? Please!
quote:Now that the documented evidence turns up empty, we're going with unsubstantiated hearsay supposedly from a bereaved family member under duress. If Hilary DID think the attack was a reaction to the film, she wouldn't have said they were going to arrest the filmmaker. Which undermines the credibility of the whole report.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
quote:It didn't turn up empty. Hillary and the administration told the American people things that they knew were not true. Hillary maintained the lie to the father receiving the body of his dead son. She has no character.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Now that the documented evidence turns up empty, we're going with unsubstantiated hearsay supposedly from a bereaved family member under duress. If Hilary DID think the attack was a reaction to the film, she wouldn't have said they were going to arrest the filmmaker. Which undermines the credibility of the whole report.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
quote:Charles Woods related a number of colorful details about that occasion in his interview on The Blaze with Glenn Beck, including
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:According to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods who was killed at Benghazi, he met Hillary at Andrews Air Force Base when the bodies were returned two days after the attack. He says that Hillary told him "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son".
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
In the quote I posted, she clearly separated the violence at the Benghazi outpost from the protests at the embassies. The Benghazi outpost was NOT as is not an embassy. As such, she did NOT say that the Benghazi tragedy was linked to the video.
Spitting on coffins? Please!
quote:Tyrone Woods' mother, however, described a very different atmosphere in a Facebook posting shortly afterward:
Mr. Woods [said] that the President seemed cold and distant at the time, saying: 'Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish.'
"His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye," Woods says of meeting Obama. "I could tell he was not sorry. He had no remorse."
"An hour later, he [Biden] came over and approached me," Woods told Beck. "And in an extremely loud and boisterous voice, [he asked,] 'Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'"
quote:
The entire afternoon was overpowering and unreal. Little did I know that I would find myself in a reception room being comforted, hugged, and, yes, even kissed by the President of the United States. Along with the President, there was Vice-President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and General and Mrs. Colin Powell. They were all wonderful. They held my hand, offered condolences, gave warm hugs, and were extremely compassionate and genuinely sad for my loss, as I fought back tears and tried to project an image of strength to honor my SEAL son.
Each of them commended Tyrone for his courage, his bravery, and his ultimate sacrifice for his country. While squeezing Secretary Clinton's hand and choking back tears, I told her that what worried me was that my son died possibly thinking that he had failed in the mission he was to carry out, that of protecting Ambassador Stevens and the people in the compound.
Looking me firmly in the eye, she told me that my son did not fail. She called him a hero and that if not for him, the 30 people inside the consulate would not have made it out. He was doing his job, fighting for his life, putting others ahead of his own safety, but then that was his job, which he did well.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
and in other news; Huckabee said poor criminals should be sold into slavery That's what the bible says.
quote:Fear serves conservatives. Always.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To follow up; I was watching a Season 4 episode from The West Wing, within which a moderate Republican, fighting for his seat and being balked by both Democrats and more conservative Republicans observed thisways. "If I'm running scared, I'm running to the Right. That's where the money is".
Who is really gaining from this increasing polarisation? What interests are really being served?
quote:Silly girl. You stand behind whichever one serves at the moment. They have their heads perfectly in this. Context is of the devil, convenience is heavenly.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They really haven't got their heads round this old testament, new testament thing have they ?
quote:Much as I dislike Huckabee's policy positions, blatantly misrepresenting what he said really isn't doing the left any favors.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
and in other news; Huckabee said poor criminals should be sold into slavery That's what the bible says.
I'm assuming that debt slavery is not a dead horse. Redirect me if I'm wrong.
quote:That's true. But what is being damaged is the credibility of democratic processes. Powerful financial vested interests would seem to have the most to gain by a weakening of government of the people for the people by the people.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Fear serves conservatives. Always.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To follow up; I was watching a Season 4 episode from The West Wing, within which a moderate Republican, fighting for his seat and being balked by both Democrats and more conservative Republicans observed thisways. "If I'm running scared, I'm running to the Right. That's where the money is".
Who is really gaining from this increasing polarisation? What interests are really being served?
quote:I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, way too establishment in her dealings. Of course, holding one's nose and voting Hillary to avoid a Trump president is a possibility.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, at this writing, there is no better and more electable candidate, on either side. It is hers now, to lose. (I went to the local farm market today, where they were happily handing out Hillary bumper stickers.)
quote:So they don't trust somebody as much as they used to. So they prefer to vote for someone whom no one has ever trusted.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, ...
quote:Sanders is the one who's starting to look surprisingly electable. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, way too establishment in her dealings. Of course, holding one's nose and voting Hillary to avoid a Trump president is a possibility.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also, at this writing, there is no better and more electable candidate, on either side. It is hers now, to lose. (I went to the local farm market today, where they were happily handing out Hillary bumper stickers.)
quote:I would not call it impossible, as he is highly thought of by the anti-government element in the Republican party, but his popularity is low
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:So they don't trust somebody as much as they used to. So they prefer to vote for someone whom no one has ever trusted.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm beginning to think Trump is electable. He's surprisingly popular, and a lot of my friends who used to be fans of Hillary were muttering months ago they don't trust her anymore, ...
From outside this choice, that's really scary.
quote:And these ally naturally with conservative governments. Though, to be fair, they are unfortunately not anathema to liberal governments.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But what is being damaged is the credibility of democratic processes. Powerful financial vested interests would seem to have the most to gain by a weakening of government of the people for the people by the people.
quote:And we can show that this is demonstrably false. Were it true, we would already have supply in excess of need. The very fact that private giving plus support offered by government is insufficient illustrates this clearly.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Plus some kind of trusting notion that voluntary redistribution of wealth via individual generosity is all that is really necessary.
quote:Unfortunately what your wife and I see as 'up himself,' a lot of people see as a self-assured and confident. After all the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, men whose professions were all about posturing and posing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
quote:Arnold won a in a recall.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Unfortunately what your wife and I see as 'up himself,' a lot of people see as a self-assured and confident. After all the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, men whose professions were all about posturing and posing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
quote:This election is so weird.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It's not Democrats or Republicans who elect candidates, it is the people of the United States. No Democrat or Republican will take the White House without a broad appeal to independents and swing voters.
I think there are still Republicans in the field who might be able to pull that together. I don't think the current front runners can.
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
quote:So what if he's an actor? So was Reagan. At least Franken was funny.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
quote:You may have a point.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:This election is so weird.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It's not Democrats or Republicans who elect candidates, it is the people of the United States. No Democrat or Republican will take the White House without a broad appeal to independents and swing voters.
I think there are still Republicans in the field who might be able to pull that together. I don't think the current front runners can.
AFAICT the people most likely to win their party's nomination are also the people most likely to lose the general election.
Which leaves us with a write-in vote for Omar....
quote:I guess that covers the vanity, but not the creepiness. I don't think creepiness builds confidence. And he sure comes across as creepy to me too. A very strange man.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Unfortunately what your wife and I see as 'up himself,' a lot of people see as a self-assured and confident. After all the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura, men whose professions were all about posturing and posing.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife reckons Trump is creepy and vain, so far up himself you can't measure it. She hasn't got a vote of course but I'd be surprised if the 'up himself' perception wasn't very common in the US.
quote:But then, given 3 years to look, the Republicans couldn't find anyone better to contest the next election in 2006 than Arnold, so your fixation on the fact that he first won in a recall seems to excuse nothing.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
The dims have as much history electing idiots like him as the republicans do. And they did it in a straight up election, not in the process of throwing some other dipshit out.
quote:I don't care if he's an actor. I was responding to this:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So what if he's an actor?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
...the Republican party has a history of electing actors and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura...
quote:Video please.
Originally posted by mousethief:
At least Franken was funny.
quote:Interestingly Franken has been much more of a workhorse than a show pony since his election to the Senate. For example, this incident where criticized Republican laziness on the judiciary committee demonstrates his dedication to his legislative job. Since his election Franken has missed 0.6% of roll call votes, which is a lot better than any of the four current Republican Senators running for President: Cruz 6.7%, Graham 4.1%, Paul 3.4%, and Rubio 6.7%. Those numbers exclude roll call votes taken in 2015, since running for president (and planning a run for the presidency) is a time consuming process and would artificially inflate those numbers even further. (For those who are curious, Santorum missed 2.1% of all roll call votes that occurred during his two terms in the U.S. Senate.)
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Al Franken is a professional clown. Also an actor.
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Nonsense. I think you need to attend the circus more often.
quote:Ok, I suppose. More so than Hillary, of course. She seems too much like a Leona Helmsley type for my taste.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mere Nick
Purely as a matter of interest, how do you rate Gowdy's veracity?
quote:Hard to say. It would be difficult to have a job investigating certain matters and you don't have all information.
And his competence as Committee Chair?
quote:Queen of Mean the Second? I suppose one interesting part of her history was her feud with Donald Trump. Neither came out of that very well IIRC.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems too much like a Leona Helmsley type for my taste.
quote:Queen of Mean the Second? I suppose one interesting part of her history was her feud with Donald Trump. Neither came out of that very well IIRC.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
She seems too much like a Leona Helmsley type for my taste.
quote:Since you have chosen to lower the tone by referring to "Dims", I assume you would have no objection to references to the "Republicunts"? You know, just to be fair.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Dims <snip> dims
quote:Didn't one of the idiots admit this on camera prior to the hearing?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gowdy is not at all Senator McCarthy the Second, but perhaps they do have one thing in common. When you are over-reaching, it eventually becomes clear that that is what you are doing. But in this case it didn't need an Ed Murrow the Second to point it out. Just the actions in that hearing.
quote:In my university days, a Trotskyite acquaintance used to refer to Capitalist Faction No.1 and Capitalist Faction No.2. My problem was that I couldn't remember which was No.1 and which No.2 (which, perhaps, might have been the point).
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:Since you have chosen to lower the tone by referring to "Dims", I assume you would have no objection to references to the "Republicunts"? You know, just to be fair.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Dims <snip> dims
Or perhaps you'd consider the courtesy in discussion and debate of referring to each party by their self-chosen appellation? What do you say?
quote:Can we come up with something else? Cunts have warmth and depth.
Originally posted by Leaf:
Since you have chosen to lower the tone by referring to "Dims", I assume you would have no objection to references to the "Republicunts"? You know, just to be fair....
quote:Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't this kind of winners-and-losers tier system exactly the kind of thing the Republican party advocates for everyone else? Rand Paul, of all people, shouldn't be complaining about this realization of the libertarian dream where the "makers" (those with high poll numbers) don't have to share with the moochers and takers who can't get out of the single digits.
The drama began Tuesday afternoon as RNC officials led campaigns on a walk-through of the debate site. After touring the stage, candidates got a peek at what their greenrooms looked like.
Trump was granted a spacious room, complete with plush chairs and a flat-screen TV. Marco Rubio got a theater-type room, packed with leather seats for him and his team of aides. Carly Fiorina’s room had a Jacuzzi.
Then there was Chris Christie, whose small space was dominated by a toilet. So was Rand Paul’s.
quote:I think I feel a song coming on...
Ooh! Let's all go into the hot tub!
quote:You could be thinking of the moment in 1976 when Ford declared eastern Europe to be free of Soviet domination.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re weird presidential debates:
There was one--Carter/Ford?--where one guy called the other a communist, then "apologized" by saying it was a Freudian slip. (I.e., he really meant it.)
I think *maybe* Ford said it.
quote:Note that the way Trump sees it, evangelicals owe him their vote (well, I'm guessing he thinks everyone owes him their vote) and that they've "let [him] down a little bit" by not giving him the votes he's entitled to.
"Iowa, will you get your numbers up, please?" Trump begged on Tuesday night, something he rarely does. "Will you get these numbers up? I promise you: I will do such a good job."
<snip>
"I do well with the evangelicals, but the evangelicals let me down a little bit," Trump said. "I don't know what I did."
<snip>
"You know what, people might say: 'It's terrible. He's a terrible person, a terrible human being. I shouldn't, but I'm going to vote for him anyway.' Okay, that's fine," Trump said. "I'm actually a nice person."
<snip>
"What the hell are you people doing to me?" he demanded.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:He needs something more spectacular. And in such a way that he can blame someone else for it.
Brenda Clough: The traditional statement is " ... to spend more time with my family." Trump may have difficulty making this fly.
quote:Being ignored? I don’t think he’ll have to worry for a while--when it comes to generating entertainment on a slow news day, he is unparalleled. He can rail against the media, but they love him.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think there's only one thing Trump is afraid of.
quote:I mentioned earlier that J.E.B. Bush had recently cut staff salaries. Either this new slogan is payback for the cuts or these people are still drastically overpaid.
To most American voters (especially the younger ones), Jeb Bush’s new slogan will mostly just sound uninspired, and slightly reminiscent of Bob the Builder. But for pretty much anyone even mildly aware of British popular culture, the words “Jeb Can Fix It,” soon to be plastered on every surface his dying campaign can touch, will bring to mind just one thing: Jimmy Savile, one of the most prolific child abusers in the history of entertainment.
<snip>
That slogan is now inexorably linked, in the British popular imagination, to a depraved and vile criminal, whose unconscionable acts were covered up by powerful people for decades. And also, now, to Jeb Bush.
quote:Yes, he certainly "fixed" that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It made me think of the recount in Florida in 2000, when Jeb was governor.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Long form ruminations on this point.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:Yes, he certainly "fixed" that.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It made me think of the recount in Florida in 2000, when Jeb was governor.
quote:With "Santorum," the definition with the most hits was intentionally developed to sabotage Rick Santorum's image and campaign.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
quote:His image certainly, but since the definition of "Santorum" [vaguely NSFW] was developed in mid-2003 and Santorum wasn't up for re-election until late 2006 (which he lost by a margin almost unheard of for an incumbent senator not under indictment nor involved in a sex scandal) it wasn't directly an attempt to sabotage any political campaign of his. The context was Santorum's comments on the then-pending case of Lawrence v. Texas, where it was decided that laws criminalizing various consensual sex acts were unconstitutional. Santorum took a different approach than the Supreme Court eventually took, arguing that that states should have the authority to jail anyone for having sex with a same-gendered partner. It was this, coupled with is his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality and incest, that roused the ire of Dan Savage, who publicized what he felt was the best Santorum neologism* submitted by his readers. Savage later pointed out that not every anti-gay politician gets this treatment at his hands. It was Santorum's advocacy of prison for gays that really put him over the top, as far as Savage was concerned.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:With "Santorum," the definition with the most hits was intentionally developed to sabotage Rick Santorum's image and campaign.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
quote:As I observed earlier, if God tells you to run in the Republican Presidential primaries, it's probably so He can have a good laugh at your expense.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Again, far elsewhere on the net, a friend of mine is insisting that Ben Carson is ordained by Jesus to be president.
quote:Really? Why would the Bush campaign possibly care that his new slogan bears a vague resemblance to the name of a long-defunct British TV show hosted by someone with zero name recognition in the US even after his pedophilia scandal?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Far elsewhere I have been compiling a list of Write Hacks -- aids for writers. The item I keep referring to is Google. Always Google any new name, slogan, term or combination of words. There is nothing new under the sun. If that cute alien term, or that keen new logo, or that snappy name for your hero, is already being used by gangsters on the streets of Salerno to refer to an unusually repellent sex act involving courgette squash, you want to know.
quote:Apropos of very little I simply wish to opine that "reologism" is a supremely fine word.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
*I'm not sure "neologism" is the best term for re-purposing an existing word. It might be better to call it a "reologism", except that term is itself a neologism (and an inelegant one at that)
quote:If "now" means 1992, that's correct.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
quote:Makes sense, considering he never claimed that he had.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
quote:Right. He even wrote way back in 1992 that he didn't.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Makes sense, considering he never claimed that he had.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
BBC reports Carson now admits he never applied to Westpoint.
quote:A distinction with out a difference since it means the same thing.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What may be causing confusion is that you never need a scholarship to go to West Point. The tuition is zero.
quote:There are two types of nomination: congressional and service-connected.
However, you do have to be accepted, and there are demanding criteria, including a recc from your congressman. And to be accepted you do have to apply.
quote:Politico has greatly helped his campaign by running this sorry excuse for a hit piece on him.
Since Carson says he was offered a full scholarship (wrote it in his autobiography) he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
quote:Certainly not a dis-qualifier for a potential POTUS. (Or even a sitting one)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
....he has only a tenuous grip on the facts.
quote:I think that had anyone in Jeb's campaign raised this as a potential red flag, that person should have been fired. There can't be more than a vanishingly small number of Americans (let alone Republican primary voters) who know or care about the existence of that 20 year old foreign TV show, and anyone who is aware of it is extremely unlikely to be of any help in winning the election. This connection is possibly the least problematic thing about that stupid slogan.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One assumes that Jeb is paying people to generate these things. (The other possibility, that he is dreaming these things up himself, is fearful to contemplate.) It is their job to do due diligence, and not let their man tumble into potholes. Even if he is having these ideas himself, it must be somebody's job to vet them. Somebody has to be there to gently tug on the Emperor's bare arm and point out that there are no clothes.
quote:Interesting - the writer makes a reasonable case (I think) for why his West Point story shouldn't matter to voters, but his pyramid ideas should.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A more cogent and in-depth article about Carson's woes.
quote:I don't think so. In 2004 George W. Bush won New Mexico by 0.8 percentage points. In 2008 Barack Obama carried the state by a 15 percentage point margin. Similarly Bush won Iowa by 0.7 percentage points in 2004 and McCain lost it by 9.5 percentage points in 2008. These are both swings of more than ten percentage points. When you're talking about state-level data compared across different electoral cycles, a swing of ten percentage points isn't that unheard of in U.S. elections.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your criterium for 'battleground states' is much too broad. In contrast to other countries, 10% is a huge difference in US politics.
quote:I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016. I'm basing this on the observation that the states don't really change their partisan "lean" that much from one cycle to the next (Wyoming is "more Republican" than Texas, which is "more Republican" than Ohio, etc.) By ranking them according to margin, that gives a rough idea of how much the losing party would have to "shift" the electorate from where it was last time to achieve victory this time around.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Swings from one election to another aren't that important. That's a lousy prediction mechanism.
quote:In that case, 'battleground state' is perhaps the wrong term. This to me seems to be a term that is very much connected to election outcome predicting. I more or less see what you want to do here, but the term 'battleground state' gets me on the wrong foot.
Crœsos: I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016.
quote:States with the lowest margins (in absolute terms) would be the ones to 'flip' one way or the other by shifting the electorate, so I'm not sure there's a better term. For example, the electorate as a whole shifted ~9.7 percentage points between the 2004 presidential election and the election of 2008 (nearly my whole ten point margin for indicating which states are most at risk of flipping, if you prefer that locution to the term "battleground"). Thus you had states like Virginia going from picking Bush II by 8.2 percentage points in 2004 to going for Obama by a 6.3 percentage point margin in 2008.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:In that case, 'battleground state' is perhaps the wrong term. This to me seems to be a term that is very much connected to election outcome predicting. I more or less see what you want to do here, but the term 'battleground state' gets me on the wrong foot.
Crœsos: I'm not trying to "predict" anything, just get a general feel for the electoral 'terrain' of 2016.
quote:sigh.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks like the sort of thing a RL "Josh Lyman" of "Leo McGarry" would do.
quote:I have often suspected that when I get an obnoxious, in-the-middle-of-dinner phone call telling me to vote for Candidate A, that the call is actually from Candidate B's supporters, hoping I'll get so annoyed at Candidate A's harassment that I'll vote for Candidate B.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I live in a battleground state (Virginia) and it is a weariness. Already they are phoning me. Tonight we got a call from the Carson campaign. My son politely dismissed them, otherwise I would have offered to trade my vote for a declaration from the candidate that he is Luke Skywalker's father.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am considering replying to a request to vote for Carson with 'Would I screw a mandrill?')
I double dog dare you! That's definitely big block of cheese information. And also worthy of the Quotes file.