Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: The embarrasment is the large number of people who agree with him.
Admittedly in the UK it's the same, but we don't have a constitution that forbids religious discrimination. In the USA it will be a lot of the same people relying on the 2nd amendment to protect their guns while denying the separation clause.
"separation clause"??
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: Out of curiosity, is there any precedent for those nomination rules changing? Has it happened in the past?
Yes, plenty.
The last one I remember was something like the nominee must have a majority of delegate votes in 8 states by Romney to quell a Ron Paul insurgency.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 20:40:26
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
Oh come on really? He's much more like Mussolini.
Except Mussolini had better hair.
Well, he did suggest Muslims should be registered, so.....
skyth wrote: I just had a thought. What are upsides/downsides of Hillary just boycotting any debates with Trump?
I would say negative:
1) Its almost a free win for her. HRC has done well in her debates so far. Trump, not so much. 2) She could set up her three ring philosophy: vote for me because I am not insane like the other guy; vote for me because we can unite; vote for me and you will have the first woman in the WH (and likely first Hispanic VP). 3) These debates won't feature the Morton Downey audience participation of the previous ones.
Now he'll say something coockoo right after or or the next day of course. Its his M O to regain the spotlight. But the media may be less quick to jump on that now that their girl will be in the game, and they may just pile on.
She should be concerned though, that he boycotts. He knows she'll clean his clock in a debate and its another method to keep attention on himself. Remember, he's not playing this like a politician. he's playing this like an entertainer. At least until all the dirt comes out about him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 20:54:04
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I was just thinking...Debating him gives a false sense of legitimacy to him and his ideas. I wouldn't even think of Hillary boycotting debating Kaisch or even Ryan...But Trump and Cruz are just whackjobs...
At this point, everyone who isn't pro-Trump knows he's a whackjob. What's the point of even having a debate?
But it might convince you to not vote for Trump, and it might get her base more excited to vote against him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 21:10:49
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: I really like this Austin Peterson (libertarian candidate):
Spoiler:
The problem with Libertarian Party candidates is the "total package" of Libertarian policy is just so laughably stupid.
There are a few ideals one could cherry pick from, however. It's not a total train wreck.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 21:12:38
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I like Gary Johnson, but he has the same problematic tax idea: Flat Tax.
Any idea of a Flat Tax is just unrealistic and it punishes those who make less more than those who make more. By the time you create all the rules to make it a fair tax, it ends up being just as complicated as what he currently have.
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
Yeah... I disagree with KK's premise.
Keep in mind that <40% of the GOP primary voters voted for the guy...
What if a majority of those delegates believes, rightly or not, that Trump would get curb stomped in the General? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the party leadership/delegates to stop Trump?
Ethically yes, but morally no. The party rules are clear, they have been followed correctly, and Trumpo is the winner. The party leadership now must either support the party's choice, or resign and collapse the party in order to prevent Trumpo from going further.
When did morals have anything to do with politics?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Somewhat unsurprisingly, the numbers are pretty close to the officer/enlisted ratio listed in their total respondents.
That is a little surprising to me, actually. That officers are more likely to back Clinton seems like a complete reversal from the politics I remember from my not-so-long-in-the-past day.
I choose to blame Army officers.
Lol, I'm saying that less as a statement on military ideology, and more on the "proven" metrics that people with a college education tend to lean more left of center than people with limited education. So, from the standpoint that all military officers must have a college degree, it makes sense.
Also, being that this survey was based on subscribers, and I mentioned this to the wife, the enlisted people who typically subscribed to Army Times or Military Times in general.... tend to be on the higher levels of the Enlisted scale.
It's less the education level and more of "who has gone through the left-leaning political indoctrination machine". Let's face it, that is basically what most colleges are today. Anyone that states otherwise is delusional.
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that the way the convention rules work, it can be simply changed at anytime. It's like the rules in the House/Senate... it's assumed that the previous session's rules are in effect, and thus are voted on every year prior to the beginning of the next session (usually rubber-stamped). But, nothing's stopping the House/Senate from changing some of the rules (ie, filibuster rules, floor rules, committee rules, etc...).
Yes, but that's why I said that it may be legal to change the rules, but it will cost them. The public perception of such a rule change is that one faction in the party lost, then abused their power to change the rules and declare themselves the winner.
However, the PR aftermath would be epic if they do indeed change the rules to deny Trump the nomination, so it's really this:
-Do you want the GOP be defined by Trump's populist/nationalistic profile?
-Or, is it worth 4/8 years of HRC as President to preserve the GOP brand?
No, the choice is actually:
-Do you want the GOP to nominate a weak candidate in 2016, lose horribly, and then try to re-define its brand for 2020 using "Trump is a failure" to drive a shift to other principles?
-Or is it worth decades of overwhelming democrat wins and the current republican party ceasing to exist to make a desperate last-ditch bid (which is almost guaranteed to fail) to win in 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: It's less the education level and more of "who has gone through the left-leaning political indoctrination machine". Let's face it, that is basically what most colleges are today. Anyone that states otherwise is delusional.
Irony, thy name is cuda1179.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 21:41:02
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Seaward wrote: It'll be pretty rough having the first president in history try something the Supreme Court will deem unconstitutional, admittedly.
I'm kind of wondering what history books you've been reading. The SC has ruled Presidential actions unconstitutional several times. Ever hear of the Trail of Tears?
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that the way the convention rules work, it can be simply changed at anytime. It's like the rules in the House/Senate... it's assumed that the previous session's rules are in effect, and thus are voted on every year prior to the beginning of the next session (usually rubber-stamped). But, nothing's stopping the House/Senate from changing some of the rules (ie, filibuster rules, floor rules, committee rules, etc...).
Yes, but that's why I said that it may be legal to change the rules, but it will cost them. The public perception of such a rule change is that one faction in the party lost, then abused their power to change the rules and declare themselves the winner.
However, the PR aftermath would be epic if they do indeed change the rules to deny Trump the nomination, so it's really this:
-Do you want the GOP be defined by Trump's populist/nationalistic profile?
-Or, is it worth 4/8 years of HRC as President to preserve the GOP brand?
No, the choice is actually:
-Do you want the GOP to nominate a weak candidate in 2016, lose horribly, and then try to re-define its brand for 2020 using "Trump is a failure" to drive a shift to other principles?
-Or is it worth decades of overwhelming democrat wins and the current republican party ceasing to exist to make a desperate last-ditch bid (which is almost guaranteed to fail) to win in 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: It's less the education level and more of "who has gone through the left-leaning political indoctrination machine". Let's face it, that is basically what most colleges are today. Anyone that states otherwise is delusional.
Irony, thy name is cuda1179.
Um.....what's so ironic about it? I've been to college. As I majored in Engineering I was basically in the last bastion of neutrality on the campus. My major required me to take Fact based courses, not fell-good political indoctrination classes. I'd watch as people that can only be described as "not quite cool enough to be hippies" shouted for socialized everything. This was all 16 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten better since then.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/10 22:10:08
jreilly89 wrote: I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
He's not a close embodiment of Hitler. He's not even really that conservative if you look at his well-documented history - he's functionally a moderate who is playing to the base in an extremely exaggerated, "no one's going to call me on my gak" manner. And why not? It's totally working, it's worked the whole campaign, because he's expertly played a media which cares about drama more than honesty.
But at the end of the day he's just clownish dude who says ridiculous gak which I don't think anyone thinks he really believes, which incidentally revealed an ugly side of the American voting public in 2016, and I think he'd probably not be a great president, but calling him Hitler is more than a little ridiculous, I'm sorry.
skyth wrote:I just had a thought. What are upsides/downsides of Hillary just boycotting any debates with Trump?
None. She should absolutely debate him. She's terrible campaigner, but she generally doesn't cause self-inflicted wounds the way that Trump does - some of his biggest controversies have been totally unforced errors. He'll be a little more polished now but the chances of him saying something that hurt his own electability remain very high, in my opinion. And also...
skyth wrote:I was just thinking...Debating him gives a false sense of legitimacy to him and his ideas.
His ideas are legitimate, though. He is his parties nominee. I think he's sort of a ridiculous choice, but they were all sort of terrible choices and this is who the people wanted. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hillary Clinton has an obligation to debate him, but our process works best when the people are well informed, and the people are best informed by knowing more about the candidate's ideas and temperaments via a debate, ideally more than one debate.
Anyway, the other side of the coin is the perception that Trump is a dangerous outsider representing the people that the establishment is afraid of. Hillary Clinton is an establishment candidate. Why feed into that mystique? It empowers him, it's what his base loves about him. It would be a huge mistake. Better to simply reveal him for what he is, an easily angered blowhard who says stupid things he doesn't really believe, who constantly issues easily debunked lies, often doesn't know what he is talking about, and who doesn't really have the background, temperament or gravitas to be POTUS.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/05/10 23:12:30
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Kilkrazy wrote: The embarrasment is the large number of people who agree with him.
Admittedly in the UK it's the same, but we don't have a constitution that forbids religious discrimination. In the USA it will be a lot of the same people relying on the 2nd amendment to protect their guns while denying the separation clause.
"separation clause"??
Better known as the Establishment Clause:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Y'know, that part of the Constitution that the more religious members of the GOP (Ted Cruz, for example) would throw out given half a chance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/10 23:32:10
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Kilkrazy wrote: The embarrasment is the large number of people who agree with him.
Admittedly in the UK it's the same, but we don't have a constitution that forbids religious discrimination. In the USA it will be a lot of the same people relying on the 2nd amendment to protect their guns while denying the separation clause.
"separation clause"??
Better known as the Establishment Clause:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Y'know, that part of the Constitution that the more religious members of the GOP (Ted Cruz, for example) would throw out given half a chance.
Aye.
It's easier to claim rights under the 2nd amendment, compared to arguing the "separation vs church and state" doctrine.
"The swing-state surveys from Quinnipiac University and a national snapshot from Public Policy Polling, a left-leaning firm, show a surprisingly close general-election race. The PPP survey found Clinton leading Trump by just four points nationally, 42 percent to 38 percent, while Quinnipiac found the two essentially tied in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Trump edged Clinton by four points in the Buckeye State, and Clinton led him by a point in Florida and Pennsylvania. As with any poll taken six months before the election, these require a couple grains of salt, and in the case of Quinnipiac, perhaps a few more. Other political forecasters pointed out that its sample of voters in the three states was more white than in 2012 exit polls, while the electorate is expected to be similar in 2016 if not more diverse than four years ago. A sample with more white voters would favor Republicans."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/what-landslide/482088/
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
~1.5k
