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.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Signless: it's not a source for anything news related...never claimed it was....so gear over to reverse and back the truck up

I find it to be an interesting commentary on what does indeed seem to be happening in the US today....everybody is so divided over everything and blaming everybody else.

Being divided over everything describes a great deal of the United States' history, for example segregation, the war in Vietnam, unions, slavery, and whether to split from the British and form an independent country to name but a few. Trying to claim that the modern era is special is just wrong.

 whembly wrote:

Also... just saw this on twittah: “In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue.” —@POTUS https://t.co/3MGECPKU2e

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 16, 2016

Okay. Why is that controversial?

 whembly wrote:

Someone might wanna tell Clinton how Hamilton died.

Do you believe Clinton will be challenged to a duel?

 djones520 wrote:

Honestly, you're going to go there? Ok, guess I can be done talking with you now.

You went there first, and you're running from the questions.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we agree.

d and co'tor...

You've turned me into a believer. I'm all for IRV for the Primary and GE

Yay!

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Honestly, you're going to go there? Ok, guess I can be done talking with you now.

You went there first, and you're running from the questions.

I'm interested how it's going to play out when HRC sits down with countries that still have 'women are property' as the cultural norm.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Also... just saw this on twittah: “In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue.” —@POTUS https://t.co/3MGECPKU2e

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 16, 2016

Okay. Why is that controversial?

 whembly wrote:

Someone might wanna tell Clinton how Hamilton died.

Do you believe Clinton will be challenged to a duel?

Because Clinton is often confused.

Isn't that's like saying Obama worked with Paul Ryan... until Joe Biden shot him dead in a duel?

“She’s often confused.”

That could easily be to staffers "having a go" at the boss lady...

I've said worse about my bosses. Granted, they aren't running for office, nor was I dumb enough to put it in an email.

 djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Trust? Hardly. Respect. Yes. He shot someone, and that guy apologized for it.

You have respect for a guy that violated all gun safety rules?

 djones520 wrote:

Hillary will never command that type of fear/power/respect.

Why? Because she's a woman?

Honestly, you're going to go there? Ok, guess I can be done talking with you now.

Trumpo's already been there.

Maybe you shouldn't vote for him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Honestly, you're going to go there? Ok, guess I can be done talking with you now.

You went there first, and you're running from the questions.

I'm interested how it's going to play out when HRC sits down with countries that still have 'women are property' as the cultural norm.

If Hillary was President, I hope you as a US citizen would have the integrity to demand your elected representative as Head of State got properly respected by the Saudis or whoever.

Unless, that is, you don't think women should be in positions of power.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Trust? Hardly. Respect. Yes. He shot someone, and that guy apologized for it.

You have respect for a guy that violated all gun safety rules?

 djones520 wrote:

Hillary will never command that type of fear/power/respect.

Why? Because she's a woman?

Honestly, you're going to go there? Ok, guess I can be done talking with you now.

Trumpo's already been there.

Maybe you shouldn't vote for him.

Think I've made it pretty clear I have no intention to vote for him. The reasons are many, but his sexist attitude certainly ranks up there.

If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...

 d-usa wrote:
If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...

Hmm. Good point.

 feeder wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...

Hmm. Good point.

A relatively neutral look at her tenure as SECSTATE.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/was-hillary-clinton-a-good-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-2016-100766?o=0

Polls... what fickle beast you are...

Rasmussen says Trump 42%, Clinton 37%.

RealClearPolitics summary.

Salt accordingly:

 djones520 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...

Hmm. Good point.

A relatively neutral look at her tenure as SECSTATE.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/was-hillary-clinton-a-good-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-2016-100766?o=0

Does it answer the question of "how would a country like Saudi Arabia react to a woman in a position of power"?

 whembly wrote:

Because Clinton is often confused.

Says the person who cannot properly use contractions in his native language.

 whembly wrote:

Isn't that's like saying Obama worked with Paul Ryan... until Joe Biden shot him dead in a duel?

No, and I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

 d-usa wrote:
If only there were similar circumstances we could look at to see what might happen if a woman of power visits these countries, and how they acted towards her. Maybe someone in a position of being in power and representing our country, maybe seeing what happened when a woman visited as Secretary of State, maybe a woman visiting as the same woman that will be visiting...

Or just look up how other countries (who have or had a female head of state) interact with these countries that don't like women being in a position of power. It could be that simple. :/

Pure
Comedy
Gold

(R) "family values" candidate posts screenshot with Porn tabs still open....

http://deadstate.org/family-values-republican-who-shared-screenshot-with-smut-tabs-now-the-subject-of-endless-comedy/

(snip)

554SHARES COMMENTS


Mike Webb is a right wing candidate for the United States Congress (VA-8). According to his campaign announcement, he is seeking to start a conservative revolution with a hands-on approach and bring “responsiveness and accountability” to Virginia’s Eighth District via an unlikely victory. He said in a press release:

“If we succeed in winning this race as a conservative Republican in the most liberal district in the nation and the most Democratic in the South, that will be a real revolution that will have national implications.”

Webb has set out to prove his hands-on method by personally taking control of his social media accounts in order to “engage in dialogue” with voters and offer a personal touch. Unfortunately for Webb, he may have gotten too personal. While attempting to prove a point about trying to find jobs, which involved him posting a screenshot of a Yahoo! search to look up a conspiracy theory on Facebook, he forgot to close a few tabs.

 feeder wrote:

I'm interested how it's going to play out when HRC sits down with countries that still have 'women are property' as the cultural norm.

She already has.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Because Clinton is often confused.

Says the person who cannot properly use contractions in his native language.

Says the most pedantic dakkanaught...

 ulgurstasta wrote:
This is the woman that promised to invade Iran if she becomes president, thats bad enough without considering the rest of her hawkish past.

Nope, you're completely wrong. She said she would be willing to destroy Tehran if they launched nuclear weapons at Israel. Talking about a nuclear deterrent to protect allies from nuclear strikes is about as far from a contraversial position in US politics as you're ever going to get.

But of course, this is Clinton we're talking about - making gak up about her policy positions is just par for the course, isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I ain't voting for either of them.

I realize we still have a loooooooooooong time where I may be forced to change my mind.

And frankly, Clinton will handily win Missouri so my vote isn't worth gak. So... I'm opting out.

Yeah, I’m not trying to get you or anyone else to vote one way or another. Frankly that’s none of my business. I’m just trying to bring as much information and reason to the conversation as possible. That’s pretty much how I think things work best – people can decide whatever they want, but they should do it from as informed a position as possible.

In 2004, those really didn't manifest as "baggage" to the scale of Clinton's.

You seem to have walked yourself in to a position where you’re trying to argue that Benghazi should sink a politician, but Iraq shouldn’t.

It starts to be clear that the issue with Clinton is something of a ‘quantity of mud’ issue. It doesn’t matter if the attacks have any real substance to them, or even if they’re true. What matters is that things like Benghazi have been kept in the media for a long time – they take on the appearance of being very important and very harmful to Clinton just because they’ve been talked about a lot.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Because Clinton is often confused.

Says the person who cannot properly use contractions in his native language.

Says the most pedantic dakkanaught...

Last time contractions was used it pissed off the Clans. If we consider Politician Caste and the Warrior Caste. Warrior will win hands down.

 djones520 wrote:
Iraq's favorability was split almost entirely on party lines in 2004. The Patriot Act, the majority felt that it wasn't that big of an issue at the time. Hell, his favorability admist these scandals was way beyond Clintons today. Gotta say that Clintons issues of trustworthiness do cut much more deeply then Bush's issues of his day.

But that’s the point – the claim was that no-one else could survive Clinton’s baggage. But Bush had actual policy baggage and wasn’t as affected. So clearly it is capable for politicians to survive much worse than Clinton has.

If the Republicans had not picked such a divisive candidate themselves, I'd have to say it would be a shoe in for the R's.

The other thing you have to remember is Clinton’s favourability is dragged down an almost 100% unfavourability score among Republicans. They were never voting Clinton anyway. Her numbers among Democrats are fine, and will improve strongly if Clinton and Sanders handle the end stages of the primary sensibly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
This way of thinking about politics destroys meaning.

No, in fact it is the only way to understand any country’s politics. The alternative, that you’ve fallen for, is to sit there dumbfounded that the US population isn’t picking a president that you and lots of other Swedes would like. Well it’s because they’re a different country, with different beliefs, so they pick different politicians.

[quote As I said, Clinton doesn't represent leftism other than if you define it as having a D after your name which

 whembly wrote:

Says the most pedantic dakkanaught...

Calling out a fellow native speaker is not pedantry when the concern is not minor.

I still have no idea what you meant.

So back in February Sanders thought he was going to win a majority of pledged delegates, and so the super-delegates were a roadblock to him winning the nomination. So Sanders and his supporters worked to have the superdelegates automatically support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. They organised pledges and everything. The request in one of the petitions read "announce that in the event of a close race, you’ll align yourself with regular voters - not party elites."

Now its May and Sanders has no realistic chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates. So now his campaign has changed its tune completely. Per his campaign manager Jeff Weaver; “"Now we can argue about the merits of having superdelegates, but we do have them. And if their role is just to rubber-stamp the pledged-delegate count then they really aren't needed. They're supposed to exercise independent judgment about who they think can lead the party forward to victory."

So when Sanders backed himself to win the pledged delegate count, super-delegates should just be a rubber stamp. But once Sanders realised that he can’t win the super-delegates, then they shouldn’t just be a rubber stamp, but instead should base their vote on Sander’s new criteria.

Similarly, back in August last year Trump was entering the primary with a strategy about dominating news coverage, and didn’t worry too much about buying news time. It was a low cost strategy so Trump didn’t need much in donation, and so he said this about this about large backers; "These are highly sophisticated killers, and when they give $5 million, or $2 million or $1 million to Jeb, they have him just like a puppet."

But now Trump is heading in to a national campaign where dominating news coverage alone won’t cut it, so he needs money. And so he’s worked with the RNC to set up big donor superPACs, which can take single donations as much as $449k. Trump is courting Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner and long time backer of the GOP, for a donation that could exceed $100 million. Suddenly these guys aren’t killers, or Trump just doesn’t care if they are.

The point, basically, is that these guys will change their views as the circumstances around them change. This isn’t just because they’re politicians, it’s because they’re people. Look at the supporters for any candidate, they’ll change tune as quickly as the politician does.

But people still like these guys because they say it like it is, that they’re not like other politicians. The issue isn’t just that they’re politicians, they’re also people. Don’t just think it’s Clinton, Trump, or Sanders who tell this kind of bs – look at their supporters – they lap it up. Bullshitting is a human condition, and if you try and pick a politician who is honest, then it’s you who is bullshitting yourself.

 feeder wrote:
I'm interested how it's going to play out when HRC sits down with countries that still have 'women are property' as the cultural norm.

The same way it played out when Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto or Angela Merkel managed it. Power speaks, and cultural standards get put aside as long as that person is in power.

Hell, Pakistan and Bangladesh have large populations, possibly majorities, that don't like women going outside of the house without a male escort. But they both elected female prime ministers.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Says the most pedantic dakkanaught...

Calling out a fellow native speaker is not pedantry when the concern is not minor.

Please read what I've link'ed in the previous post.

I still have no idea what you meant.

She's lauding the idea that Jefferson "worked with" Hamilton... in criticism of modern politics.

I bet she (or whomever posted it) doesn't know the history of how Hamilton died (Jefferson's VP shot him in a duel) and how much Jefferson hated Hamilton.

EDIT: the original tweet was about Obama commencement speech at Rutgers... that was the wrong tweet I was referring to. Here's what I should've posted previously:

Hillary Clinton ✔ ‎@HillaryClinton
America has always been about working together to get things done. pic.twitter.com/hO6931hVwb

My apologies for the confusions...

That's what I get for having a million chrome tabs open at once.

Yeah, they hated each other, but the statement isn't incorrect. They did work together. They both served in Washington's cabinet, Hamilton even endorsed Jefferson in an election (against Adams, was it?). Neither of them aired or attacked each other's personal lives (Jefferson and his affairs with a slave and Hamilton's extra marital affairs) and kept their disagreements to policy by and large.

Here's a great article on Trump, and how he got this far.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11598838/donald-trump-predictions-norm-ornstein

Ornstein called Trump as a serious contender way before just about anyone else, back in 2015. He managed this because he'd been watching the Republican Party from the inside for a long time, and had a lot of insight in to what the party had become.

Norm Ornstein is a centrist, but has been working with the Republican Party since the early 1970s, and currently works for the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Point is - this is not a left wing hatchet job.

Anyhow, here's a some choice quotes on how a ludicrous idiot became a presidential nominee in one of the two major parties of the US;

"But if you forced me to pick one factor explaining what's happened, I would say this is a self-inflicted wound by Republican leaders. Over many years, they've adopted strategies that have trivialized and delegitimized government. They were willing to play to a nativist element. And they tried to use, instead of stand up to, the apocalyptic visions and extremism of some cable television, talk radio, and other media outlets on the right."

"As a brand new member of the House, (Newt Gingrich) had a full-blown theory of how Republicans could break out of their seemingly permanent minority, and build a majority. And over the next 16 years, he put that plan into action. He delegitimized the Congress and the Democratic leadership, convincing people that they were arrogant and corrupt and that the process was so bad that anything would be better than this. He tribalized the political process. He went out and recruited the candidates, and gave them the language to use about how disgusting and despicable and horrible and immoral and unpatriotic the Democrats were. That swept in the Republican majority in 1994. The problem is that all the people he recruited to come in really believed that gak."

"I think when Republicans had their stunning victory in 2010, Cantor et al thought they could now co-opt these people. Instead, they were co-opted themselves."

"Cantor, McConnell, and others went out and really tried to fan the flames of Tea Party and populist anger, working it to their advantage in midterm contests. But what ended up happening was that they undermined their own authority."

"When you basically move dramatically away from what we call the regular order, when you almost debase your own institutions — you’re gonna find an opening for somebody who’s never been a part of it and who can offer you very, very simplistic answers."

"Another element of this that Trump also recognized is that Republican voters are an older, white crowd. And so their desire to blow up government doesn't extend to Medicare and Social Security."

"But I think there are several strains that run through the Republican Party and its base now. First, there's an anti-establishment, anti-leadership populist base that is driven by identity politics and culture and a visceral reaction against leaders of all sorts. That's best represented by Trump. Then, there's a more radical conservative ideology that has been a dominant force out there in Washington and in a lot of states. That’s the Freedom Caucus and Cruz, and that's what we wrote about in the book. This is a radical set of beliefs. They want to blow up all of government, and are willing to use more radical tactics. They don’t much care about shutting down the government or breaching the debt ceiling, or any of those things. Finally, there's an establishment leadership. That's not a moderate leadership — it would be a big mistake to call Paul Ryan a moderate. Or to call Mitch McConnell a moderate. By any historic standards or reasonable standards, they are very conservative. But they’re pragmatic in some ways, even ruthlessly pragmatic."

Read the article, it really does says just about everything that needs to be said about what's happened to the Republican party, and how they accidentally just handed the most important appointment in the party to a guy with a guy who is probably best described as an angry narcissist with almost no interest in the practical realities of running the country.

He gives Trump about a 20% chance of winning the general, for what it's worth.

 sebster wrote:

I treat it as relative to the population in question. And in that sense we can get a fairly objective standard, you just line people up from most left to most right, and the guy in the middle is the political centre. And then you can figure out how left or right wing different people are by how far they are from that political centre.

This is navel-gazing. The actual ideologies that people adhere to is far more important for whether one should support them than how they stand in relation to each other. The conservative may be more left-wing than the nazi but that doesn't mean leftists could support the conservative, now does it? The socialist may be more right-wing than the communist but why would someone who wants conservative ideology to rule accept a choice between only those two?

Your understanding of what political ideologies mean is the product of decades being spent on constructing a false dichotomy between The Republican and The Democrat to distract you from the fact that their actual policies are different in degree rather than character.

 sebster wrote:

Uh huh, my perspective is too narrow. But you’re the one who wants to talk about politics in a stable democracy through the lens of violent uprising.

I am telling you that actual leftist extremists would not care about voting for a social democrat and would in fact reject voting wholesale, kill the ruling class and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. This statement has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to do so, it is simply what has historically happened. There isn't any of this going on in the US so we can safely conclude that the US doesn't have much in the way of far leftists and that characterising someone who won't vote for Clinton as extreme is a limited way of understanding things.

People seeing the Democratic Party as more leftist than the GOP rather than seeing it for its own actual ideology has been carefully cultivated by the Democratic Party to soak up votes but constantly positioning yourself only in relation to the other party is intellectually bankrupt, which is revealed now that the Republicans have had one of the clowniest nomination processes ever and the Democrats are free to field someone who truly believes in something. Instead they do the only thing they're capable of; they field a technocratic triangulation fanatic Whose Time Has Come because the policies she stand for are already in effect so people should be used to her being president already.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I treat it as relative to the population in question. And in that sense we can get a fairly objective standard, you just line people up from most left to most right, and the guy in the middle is the political centre. And then you can figure out how left or right wing different people are by how far they are from that political centre.

This is navel-gazing. The actual ideologies that people adhere to is far more important for whether one should support them than how they stand in relation to each other. The conservative may be more left-wing than the nazi but that doesn't mean leftists could support the conservative, now does it? The socialist may be more right-wing than the communist but why would someone who wants conservative ideology to rule accept a choice between only those two?

Your understanding of what political ideologies mean is the product of decades being spent on constructing a false dichotomy between The Republican and The Democrat to distract you from the fact that their actual policies are different in degree rather than character.

Most of the countries left to right ideologies fall between these two dividing lines. While there are more extreme views on both sides, most people recognise that the way to change the system is through gradual shifts in power through a democratic process. First you elect some democrats/republicans and push the country left/rightwards, then some socialists/libertarians who push it further left/right, then after decades of hard work and campaigning you can elect the left/right wing dream team. These things take time and effort and hoping that by electing someone that is a little further left will suddenly result in a socialist paradise is just plain wrong.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Uh huh, my perspective is too narrow. But you’re the one who wants to talk about politics in a stable democracy through the lens of violent uprising.

I am telling you that actual leftist extremists would not care about voting for a social democrat and would in fact reject voting wholesale, kill the ruling class and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. This statement has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to do so, it is simply what has historically happened. There isn't any of this going on in the US so we can safely conclude that the US doesn't have much in the way of far leftists and that characterising someone who won't vote for Clinton as extreme is a limited way of understanding things.

Yeah. . . no. The socialist revolution happened in other places and it didn't go well. I think the people of the United States would rather there be a peaceful democratic transition than the Glorious Revolution.

Rosebuddy wrote:
People seeing the Democratic Party as more leftist than the GOP rather than seeing it for its own actual ideology has been carefully cultivated by the Democratic Party to soak up votes but constantly positioning yourself only in relation to the other party is intellectually bankrupt, which is revealed now that the Republicans have had one of the clowniest nomination processes ever and the Democrats are free to field someone who truly believes in something. Instead they do the only thing they're capable of; they field a technocratic triangulation fanatic Whose Time Has Come because the policies she stand for are already in effect so people should be used to her being president already

Hillary is further left than the current Republicans. Under her direction, there will be gradual changes as budget and public opinion allows for them, resulting in a shift further leftwards in general politics. Policy changes do not need to be abrupt or Earth shattering.

This election has it all. Reality stars, the outsider, threats to leave the country, and now we have The American Revolution 2; Electric Boogaloo

https://www.change.org/p/entire-us-population-if-sanders-is-denied-the-presidency-we-as-a-nation-must-rise-up-and-open-revolution

 whembly wrote:

Please read what I've link'ed in the previous post.

I did, and I'm still trying to figure out why you are vehemently opposed to Clinton on those grounds, but fond of Ted Cruz.

 whembly wrote:

She's lauding the idea that Jefferson "worked with" Hamilton... in criticism of modern politics.

I bet she (or whomever posted it) doesn't know the history of how Hamilton died (Jefferson's VP shot him in a duel) and how much Jefferson hated Hamilton.

Jefferson did work with Hamilton, in spite of a deep-seated rivalry. And I'm fairly certain any person involved with politics knows about the Burr/Hamilton duel, a duel which ended Hamilton's life and Burr's political career.

Jefferson dropped Burr from his ticket before the duel, by the way.

Rosebuddy wrote:

I am telling you that actual leftist extremists would not care about voting for a social democrat and would in fact reject voting wholesale, kill the ruling class and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. This statement has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to do so, it is simply what has historically happened.

When has any revolution installed a dictatorship of the proletariat?

Rosebuddy wrote:

People seeing the Democratic Party as more leftist than the GOP rather than seeing it for its own actual ideology has been carefully cultivated by the Democratic Party to soak up votes but constantly positioning yourself only in relation to the other party is intellectually bankrupt, which is revealed now that the Republicans have had one of the clowniest nomination processes ever and the Democrats are free to field someone who truly believes in something. Instead they do the only thing they're capable of; they field a technocratic triangulation fanatic Whose Time Has Come because the policies she stand for are already in effect so people should be used to her being president already.

No, I'm pretty sure that if I were to use the phrase "true belief" it would be quickly followed by the phrase "intellectually bankrupt". Believing in things makes you dumb, because you get emotionally attached to them.