The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.
Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.
Apples and Oranges Frazz. Apples and Oranges.
Is it really though? Have any of our modern military efforts in regime change left a secure nation-state? Have they led to a more secure United States? Were any of them worth the toll of US blood and treasure that they incurred?
The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.
Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.
Apples and Oranges Frazz. Apples and Oranges.
How? Taliban are winning. How are they different than ISIL? ISIL is there too now.
FOllowing this logic, we have to stay in the ME and North Africa FOREVER.
No ing thanks.
The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.
Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.
Apples and Oranges Frazz. Apples and Oranges.
Is it really though? Have any of our modern military efforts in regime change left a secure nation-state? Have they led to a more secure United States? Were any of them worth the toll of US blood and treasure that they incurred?
Germany, Japan, Phillipines, examples from the 20th century. Iraq would have been eventually, if we stuck to it. Afghanistan, that is going to be a generational project. The region needs a national identity before it can start to climb up on its own. It's far from having even that though.
The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.
Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.
Apples and Oranges Frazz. Apples and Oranges.
How? Taliban are winning. How are they different than ISIL? ISIL is there too now.
FOllowing this logic, we have to stay in the ME and North Africa FOREVER.
No ing thanks.
First off, Iraq is a true nation. It's people consider themselves Iraqi's. They have a national identity. Patriotism is a thing for them. Afghanistan has none of that. What you have is a hodge podge of people who up until a couple decades ago knew each other more as the donkey-caves from the next mountain valley that we'll occasionally raid, than anything else. Afghanistan has a 5% literacy rate. The only "learned" people that the majority of the population interacts with is their religious leader, hence the ease to convert to islamic extremism there. The region of Afghanistan is NOTHING at all like the geopolitical structure of Iraq, and that is why the two conflicts are drastically different and in no way can be compared to each other.
They were (are) both efforts to topple a government we didn't like, and replace it with a secure government we do like. Both efforts in that regard have been costly failures.
It's time to face the cold hard fact that the modern USA sucks at regime change.
jasper76 wrote: But, we are an empire. We've got occupied territories, client States, the whole 9 yards.
The founders didn't envisage an empire, but that's what we've inherited, whether we want it or not.
Correct I should be more clear. When we don't act like an actual empire we are not good at it. When we acted like an empire in the 1800s we were pretty good at it-of course we had a tendency to leave no one alive then either.
Kilkrazy wrote: Being realistic, did McCain campaign on a platform of staying in Iraq for as long as it would take?
He did, indeed. McCain was very critical of Obama's platform of a timelined withdrawal from Iraq.
That was Bush's timeline I thought. He just wasn't going to be in office for part of it.
The SOFA that Bush had arranged had expired then. It wasn't a hard end time for him. It was a goal, that if not ready for, he'd work to extend. Obama just hit 2010, and pulled us out. No attempt to rework the SOFA.
I'm not sure who the author of the timeline that Obama supported was, to be honest, I just distinctly remember John McCain opposing it, saying it wouldn't give the generals the flexibility they need to complete their mission, and so forth.
djones520 wrote: The SOFA that Bush had arranged had expired then. It wasn't a hard end time for him. It was a goal, that if not ready for, he'd work to extend. Obama just hit 2010, and pulled us out. No attempt to rework the SOFA.
I changed it above when there was no replies yet but just in case:
I realize we might be talking about different parts of the plan as there were lots of moving parts and multiple players.
djones520 wrote: The SOFA that Bush had arranged had expired then. It wasn't a hard end time for him. It was a goal, that if not ready for, he'd work to extend. Obama just hit 2010, and pulled us out. No attempt to rework the SOFA.
I changed it above when there was no replies yet but just in case:
I realize we might be talking about different parts of the plan as there were lots of moving parts and multiple players.
She was big out in California, wasn't she? That's what Cruz needs to keep in contention to survive to the convention. Cali isn't a winner take all, so if he can win enough districts there, that would keep him afloat maybe.
Was he wrong in his 2008 statements on what would happen if we did leave early?
You decide.
The electorate decided. Naturally Iraq wasn't the only issue, but it was an important one. If Obama campaigned on the basis of withdrawing and then didn't he would have been blamed, as he was for not closing Guantanamo fast enough after making that promise.
Ted Cruz will announce today his selection of Carly Fiorina as his running mate for the presidency, a source familiar with the decision tells National Review.
Easy E wrote: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/434661/cruz-tap-fiorina-running-mate
Ted Cruz will announce today his selection of Carly Fiorina as his running mate for the presidency, a source familiar with the decision tells National Review.
Why?
He's probably hoping to garner more media attention and get win more support in the upcoming California primary. It's unlikely that Fiorina will create the kind of bounce his campaign needs.
Easy E wrote: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/434661/cruz-tap-fiorina-running-mate
Ted Cruz will announce today his selection of Carly Fiorina as his running mate for the presidency, a source familiar with the decision tells National Review.
Why?
He's probably hoping to garner more media attention and get win more support in the upcoming California primary. It's unlikely that Fiorina will create the kind of bounce his campaign needs.
Easy E wrote: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/434661/cruz-tap-fiorina-running-mate
Ted Cruz will announce today his selection of Carly Fiorina as his running mate for the presidency, a source familiar with the decision tells National Review.
Why?
California... and, she a counter to many things Clinton would yammer about...
He's probably hoping to garner more media attention and get win more support in the upcoming California primary. It's unlikely that Fiorina will create the kind of bounce his campaign needs.
California politics is pretty wonkey...
But, it's a closed Primary and Fiorina does have some pull in California.
CA is not the issue, women voters are. She can attack Clinton how ever she wants and not be called a misogynist, AND attack Trump for being a misogynist (or at least for polling very poorly with women).
CptJake wrote: CA is not the issue, women voters are. She can attack Clinton how ever she wants and not be called a misogynist, AND attack Trump for being a misogynist (or at least for polling very poorly with women).
If Cruz has a bad showing in California then there's a good chance Trump reaches 1237 delegates and wins the nomination outright. That would make Cruz irrelevant so for his campaign to have a chance with a contested convention California's primary is crucial. He desperately needs any help Fiorina can give him with the California primary.
Just heard on the news that Trump's foreign policy, if elected, will be America first!
What is this? The 1930s!!!
Can we expect to see Congress pass neutrality acts? Or Charles Lindbergh touring the country and accusing Britain of wanting to drag America into another European war?
yellowfever wrote: Honest question. What's wrong with a American wanting America first. Shouldn't all countries look after themselves first.
Normal countries put thesmselves first, but America isn't a normal country - it's a superpower. And superpowers make their own rules, and often have global responsibilities, even if they don't like it. Them's the rules.
During the 19th century, when Pax Brittania ruled the world, America benifited from this this. American ships travelled the world unmolested becuase of the Royal Navy keeping the peace. British investment helped America grow before and after the Civil War, and so on.
Now, America has repaid that debt many times over. 2 world wars being a good example.
But like it or not, we need a strong and active America, given that China regards the South China sea as it's personal lake, who else but the US Navy can sail ships through and keep vital sea lanes open for everybody else?
djones520 wrote: [Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.
After George W. Bush couldn't get the Iraqi government to sign a new SOFA, and so signed a joint agreement that all US forces should leave by 2011 (and even that was hard to agree to, if I recall he was only able to get that facing the alternative of all troops leaving immediately - in 2008), should Obama have, upon assuming the presidency, invaded Iraq (again)?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Just heard on the news that Trump's foreign policy, if elected, will be America first!
What is this? The 1930s!!!
Can we expect to see Congress pass neutrality acts? Or Charles Lindbergh touring the country and accusing Britain of wanting to drag America into another European war?
He has also advocated the spread of nuclear weapons to our allies who don't already have them, while stating simultaneously that he is against nuclear proliferation. When he was told repeatedly that the spread of nuclear weapons is synonymous with nuclear proliferation, he didn't seem to understand the logic. This is not a foreign policy heavyweight that we're dealing with.
I've got one rule as regards voting that I will never break...I will never vote for someone who knows less about crucial issues like foreign policy than I do.
Trump's weird "other countries will be forced to pay us for helping them out" stance just feeds on the same kind of misinformation that has people complaining about foreign aid.
We are not helping all those countries fight ISIS or AQ out of the goodness of our hearts, spending US money and having US military forces die in some sort of act of charity.
We are helping those countries fight because it is in our own self interest.
Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
To be honest a few of the NATO countries have been picking up their slack, especially Poland and the Baltic States. I remember just reading that Estonia and Latvia just bought a bunch of javelins.
jasper76 wrote: Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Eh... my problem is that he's conveying the message that these NATO countries isn't worth having an Alliance.
Keep in mind that 9/11 is the only time that article 2 was invoked.
Having said that... I'm really interested to how these numbers came about:
Spoiler:
Because, that... doesn't look *good*...
But, how would Trump fix this? Or anyone for that matter?
Don't worry. Trump's a terrific deal maker. It's gonna be great. We're gonna squeeze the Eurozone for cash so hard that you're gonna get sick of squeezing.
Or something like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way I think those numbers might look so inequitable could be due to relative GDP
jasper76 wrote: Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Eh... my problem is that he's conveying the message that these NATO countries isn't worth having an Alliance.
Keep in mind that 9/11 is the only time that article 2 was invoked.
Having said that... I'm really interested to how these numbers came about:
Spoiler:
Because, that... doesn't look *good*...
But, how would Trump fix this? Or anyone for that matter?
whembly wrote: But, it's a closed Primary and Fiorina does have some pull in California.
Indeed, this should bring Cruz tens of votes.
I don't see any way that reminding the American public she's a huge liar with regards to Planned Parenthood could hurt Cruz, or that the democratic nominee could point to the dozen plus state investigations into PP that showed her story was totally made up, or maybe mention some of the actual consequences of her lies.
I'm sure that Carly will bring the Cruz campaign the same winning brand she brought to HP, and the McCain campaign, and her own Senate campaign, and her own presidential run, though!
d-usa wrote: We had a plan for Iraq, but then Obama decided to screw that plan and decided to pull out all troops without leaving behind a security force totally abandoning Iraq even though they wanted out help. Totally his fault.
Nope... not really anyway.
See, we had this little thing called a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), and the one that Bush Jr. signed with al Maliki gave a pretty clear timetable for us to be completely gone. I was still in the army at that point, and we kept seeing memos floating around and whatnot that were telling the Pres. "They are not ready for this!"
So, Obama goes to al Maliki and says, "my experts say y'all are still a hot mess, you want us to stick around a bit and help you unfeth yourselves?" and Maliki says, "Nah brah, we good, your predecessor signed the document and in'shallah, that's what we gonna do!"
When Cruz first teased this afternoon's "major announcement," three possibilities sprang to mind. First, he was landing a serious endorsement, possibly from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. Second, he was following through on the groundwork he started laying earlier in the week to roll out his (very hypothetical) running mate. Third, the hype was a head-fake, designed to goad the networks into offering live coverage of a theatrical debate challenge to Donald Trump. The best case scenario was the first one. Picking up needed institutional support and/or reeling in a big name in the must-win Hoosier state would generate at least a modicum of positive press. The worst case scenario was the final option. You'd think the media would have a vested interest in helping pressure Trump into agreeing to another mega-ratings debate, but Cruz's renewed demands have gone largely uncovered, mostly drawing yawns. He would get pummeled for wasting everyone's time, and Trump probably wouldn't even respond. Once Pence's office denied that the governor would be at Cruz's event, door number two opened wider. Then WMUR-TV confirmed many observers' most plausible suspicion early this afternoon:
WMUR reporting: Cruz to announce intention to name Fiorina as his running mate https://t.co/fmGgnfXzxw — Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) April 27, 2016
Last night, after Donald Trump had completed his dominant sweep of five northeastern blue states, National Review editor Rich Lowry offered some advice to Cruz:
The question now is whether this surge is limited regionally or transfers to Indiana. Certainly, all of the Trump-is-inevitable talk in the media isn’t going to hurt him. If Cruz has a gambit to blunt the media narrative out of the Northeast and turn the page going into Indiana–there’s been speculation of a VP pick–this might be the time to drop it.
Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller made the case a few weeks ago that joining forces with Carly Fiorina was Cruz's best play, given the circumstances:
Cruz probably needs to take some additional chances. His campaign has been utterly competent at the blocking and tackling (areas where Marco Rubio’s team was deficient), but when you’re down by a touchdown, you can’t play conservatively (no pun intended). Here’s one obvious idea that could shake things up: With the “unity ticket” idea out the window, Cruz should still consider selecting a running mate now (or, if there are some legal or technical reasons this cannot happen prior to the nomination, of making his intentions clear). Cruz, I think, might especially benefit from selecting a female for this role. Carly Fiorina, who has already endorsed Cruz, could barnstorm the country attacking Hillary Clinton...it would be new and fresh and exciting. It would also allow him to basically be in two places at once—to have two stars on TV, on the stump, and on the fundraising circuit.
That piece was published just after the Texan's sweeping victory in Utah, which he built upon with a string of primary and delegate wins across the first half of April. But the last two weeks have knocked Cruz back into a weakened, defensive crouch. He cannot afford to lose Indiana next Tuesday -- his delegate math would be dented badly, and the psychological impact of falling in a state that was once tentatively chalked up as a probable win for him would be immense. The media narrative, which is already deafening, would become ear-splitting. And so, in a week of desperation gambits, a Hail Mary is launched. Yesterday, we linked to Allahpundit's post outlining why picking Carly now might be Cruz's least-bad selection from a menu of unappealing options. I don't disagree with many of his points, and I'm a Carly admirer, but I'll be surprised if this stunt is met with anything other than widespread derision. Here's a guy who's down by millions of votes, and hundreds of delegates, and who's obviously worried that the window to stop his surging rival is closing. So with literally no path to the nomination before a potential second ballot at July's convention, he's going to...announce his Vice Presidential running mate?
We'll see how the optics play out, but I suspect it'll look and feel like something out of Ted Cruz's land of make believe, in which voters aren't voting the way they are, and the Manhattan media are the only true villains. Fiorina is an accomplished woman and a sound political performer who possesses an elite intellect and temperament. To her credit, she's doing everything she can to help stop a man she and many conservatives view as an unelectable, uninformed, untethered embarrassment to the party. But this maneuver has the stench of a 'final throes' spasm from a campaign that fears it is doomed. If Carly defies the odds by breathing life into the Cruz effort, rallying him to victory Indiana, then proving herself to be a real asset in California, this will look like a stroke of genius in hindsight. Color me skeptical. Then again, even if none of those things happen, this afternoon's performance is at least a concerted effort to change the trajectory of the race and disrupt a suffocating storyline. Cruz has do something. Choosing Carly is it. Let's see how the chips fall.
I agree with the author that this looks bad to me... not that I have a problem with Cruz picking Fiorina (although, I'd rather have Nikki Haley). But, then again, what else is Cruz supposed to do?
As someone who's in the #NeverTrump camp, I'm happy he's trying *something*... 'cuz... feth Trump!
Hypothetical: Wished someone named Bill (no, not Clinton) would run as the top ticket and Cruz as his VP... then we can have a "Bill & Ted Adventure" campaign.
whembly wrote: But, it's a closed Primary and Fiorina does have some pull in California.
Indeed, this should bring Cruz tens of votes.
She as pull with the GOP voters in CA.
I don't see any way that reminding the American public she's a huge liar with regards to Planned Parenthood could hurt Cruz, or that the democratic nominee could point to the dozen plus state investigations into PP that showed her story was totally made up, or maybe mention some of the actual consequences of her lies.
Nope. She was right.
If you're buying into the meme that those videos are edited... then, every damn news show on the planet who uses 'stock videos' are all fakey-fake then.
I'm sure that Carly will bring the Cruz campaign the same winning brand she brought to HP, and the McCain campaign, and her own Senate campaign, and her own presidential run, though!
Yeah, because you just *know* HP would still be the same giant, successful company had Carly not been the CEO at the time... say, what's the next winning lotto number?
Yikes. Cruz is reeking of desperation now. The Kasich thing was a bad move, and I think this is as well. It is kind of the opposite of projecting confidence and doesn't really address any of his campaign's issues. I guess it is a desperate play to appeal to Fiorina's Cali ties, but she got smoked there and comes across as exactly the wealthy political type that the primary has shut out this season. (When Boxer criticized Fiorina's choice "to become a CEO, lay off 30,000 workers, ship jobs overseas [and] have two yachts," a spokesman for Fiorina responded that the Fiorinas were a two-yacht family because they spent time in both California and Washington, D.C. Great comeback response.)
All she really brings is the ability to attack Trump for being misogynistic, which will then be replayed in the general. So good for giving HRC more political ad ammo, I guess?
Only two years is absolutely fething disgusting! Personally, I think this just further shows what a joke our "justice" system is.
Am I both a hypocrite in some fashion for cheering that he's at least going to prison and at the same time, calling out how the FBI caught him is total BS?
They got him by catching him structuring... which is a means to withdraw/deposit large cash right under the report-limit, in order to payoff his victims.
I don't see any way that reminding the American public she's a huge liar with regards to Planned Parenthood could hurt Cruz, or that the democratic nominee could point to the dozen plus state investigations into PP that showed her story was totally made up, or maybe mention some of the actual consequences of her lies.
Nope. She was right.
See what I mean? This is the best part of this call. We can keep pointing out how there was investigation after investigation showing she was totally full of it, and people will just keep doubling down on it. It's awesome! I love talking about this and I don't see any way this will hurt the Cruz campaign. Lets talk about know Cruz's home state, known bastion of liberalism, Texas, not ony investigated and found no wrongdoing on PP's part, they actually indicted the accusers/liars. How could that backfire?
I mean, there's no point in arguing with you about this, obviously, but the average American, in my experience, has somewhat less enthusiasm for being lied to in a totally bald-faced manner like they're idiots. Cruz\Carly 2016!
Makes you wonder, though: Was Fiorina Cruz's first choice? Or was she the only one willing to accept his offer? And how far down the list was she if that was the case?
I don't see any way that reminding the American public she's a huge liar with regards to Planned Parenthood could hurt Cruz, or that the democratic nominee could point to the dozen plus state investigations into PP that showed her story was totally made up, or maybe mention some of the actual consequences of her lies.
Nope. She was right.
See what I mean? This is the best part of this call. We can keep pointing out how there was investigation after investigation showing she was totally full of it, and people will just keep doubling down on it. It's awesome!
I love talking about this and I don't see any way this will hurt the Cruz campaign.
Good... let's keep talking about it.
Lets talk about know Cruz's home state, known bastion of liberalism, Texas, not ony investigated and found no wrongdoing on PP's part, they actually indicted the accusers/liars. How could that backfire?
You mean, the same fething Texas county that tried to indict Gov. Perry for doing his job? That the case was thrown out?
I mean, that Texas prosecutosr is going after those investigator for using fake IDs... yeah... go ahead in put all of your marbles in that basket.
This amounts to prosecutural abuse imo. Just like the CA authority RAIDING The Videographer's house swat style and all....
I mean, there's no point in arguing with you about this, obviously, but the average American, in my experience, has somewhat less enthusiasm for being lied to in a totally bald-faced manner like they're idiots. Cruz\Carly 2016!
You mean... like... Hillary and Obama during Benghazi gate?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If the voters believe that the only way to participate in the aptly named participatory democratic process is to turn up on a pre-determined day to vote, and then complain after the fact about their limited choices then truly, voters get the government they deserve.
There is no implication there that d needs to run for office as you took and, pun intended, ran with. I'm sure that you are more than well aware of the numerous ways that there are to participate in the democratic process other than the extremes of 1) apathy from lack of choice, 2) running for office
LordofHats wrote: Until then I'm going to have to ask you to fill out this form listing all political activities you've participated in for the last five years. Be warned that leaving this form blank will result in me adding nothing to a conversation, but vague whining about how you're the problem. If you're not participated in the electoral process, you aren't allowed to offer an opinion on it, and even if you have I'll probably still just keep going on this triad because I've got nothing constructive to say.
Honestly. We've read what you said. Somehow you've just missed how absurd what you say is.
Non-citizen, so political activity is sadly limited as I cannot vote, run for office, or many other things besides, I have taken part in other activities that do not require me to vote.
So some 'expert witnesses' in a House Select Panel make a bunch of claims and the person that chaired the meeting (a woman that was chosen to manage debate on a bill that would criminalize all abortions after 22 weeks) decides they should be follow up on. Okay?
We're all aware that in the derpophere that you inhabit that investigation = guilt, but thanks for reminding us.
Only two years is absolutely fething disgusting! Personally, I think this just further shows what a joke our "justice" system is.
Am I both a hypocrite in some fashion for cheering that he's at least going to prison and at the same time, calling out how the FBI caught him is total BS?
They got him by catching him structuring... which is a means to withdraw/deposit large cash right under the report-limit, in order to payoff his victims.
I don't think that's total BS.... but it's conditional. I mean, if someone is "spying" on the banking habits of a public figure, that's wrong. But if an accuser went to the FBI, and during the course of the FBI's investigation uncovered this "structuring" process which would broaden the scope of initial charges, then that's cool, I guess.
I just think it fething disgusting the volume of crimes committed, and it's only 2 fething years. If this isn't a clear-cut case of a political/wealthy class receiving favorable treatment, I don't know what is.
I just think it fething disgusting the volume of crimes committed, and it's only 2 fething years. If this isn't a clear-cut case of a political/wealthy class receiving favorable treatment, I don't know what is.
To be fair, the sentence he received for sexually abusing kids is the exact same sentence everybody else would have received for that particular crime at this point in history: zero days. He was not charged for the abuse because they happened so long ago that it was no longer possible to charge him for it, that doesn't really have anything to do with his status as a politician or wealthy person.
He was charged with, tried for, convicted of, and sentenced for bank fraud, not the abuse.
I know it doesn't do much to change the fact that he got away with molesting the boys, but it is something we should probably keep in mind when talking about how little time he got for the crime considering he was never on trial for that particular crime to begin with.
I will also admit that I have no idea what the potential maximum sentence for the bank fraud could have been, so I don't know if he got of light for that crime or not.
Only two years is absolutely fething disgusting! Personally, I think this just further shows what a joke our "justice" system is.
Am I both a hypocrite in some fashion for cheering that he's at least going to prison and at the same time, calling out how the FBI caught him is total BS?
They got him by catching him structuring... which is a means to withdraw/deposit large cash right under the report-limit, in order to payoff his victims.
I don't think that's total BS.... but it's conditional. I mean, if someone is "spying" on the banking habits of a public figure, that's wrong. But if an accuser went to the FBI, and during the course of the FBI's investigation uncovered this "structuring" process which would broaden the scope of initial charges, then that's cool, I guess.
I disagree. They didn't find out about this because he structured...
It's because they couldn't catch him until they brought up the structuring thing.
Just goes to show when the FBI knocks on your door... you just shut the feth up and get a lawyer.
I just think it fething disgusting the volume of crimes committed, and it's only 2 fething years. If this isn't a clear-cut case of a political/wealthy class receiving favorable treatment, I don't know what is.
So some 'expert witnesses' in a House Select Panel make a bunch of claims and the person that chaired the meeting (a woman that was chosen to manage debate on a bill that would criminalize all abortions after 22 weeks) decides they should be follow up on. Okay?
We're all aware that in the derpophere that you inhabit that investigation = guilt, but thanks for reminding us.
Myself and others have pointed out to you a multitude of times where you have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, been entitled to your own "facts" despite being such an "informed voter." This is yet another example of that.
whembly wrote: So, do you want to add something constructive to the conversation, or do you feel like winning the Internet Tough Guy™ award?
I already did and you unsurprisingly ignored it.
Myself and others have pointed out to you a multitude of times where you have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, been entitled to your own "facts" despite being such an "informed voter." This is yet another example of that.
No. You haven't.
The CMP videos were not shown to be "deceptively" edited or taken out of context.
The raw videos is right there in the link. But, you chose to ignore that.
The videographer didn't make PP's staff "say" those things...
The videographer didn't "make" the ex-PP staff blow the whistle on what's going on there...
The PP staff is on actual video there describing certain techniques to harvest "specific organs" based on the interviewer's request... which is illegal.
So, I welcome Fiorina/Cruz a chance to push this back into the sunlight, because the PP & supporters would love nothing more than to stop talking about it.
They want to stop talking about it because of the kind of discussion that is just now cropping back up here. We're moving off PP in this thread again. Leave it
jmurph wrote: Sebster: 538's Nate Silver seems to have had a personal boas against trump that I think flavored a lot of the early coverage. Trump never really hit a "ceiling" it's just that point of the race included a serious outlier state- Utah.
Nah, looking at Trump’s massive unfavourability ratings, often in excess of 50% of Republican voters, it was pretty straight forward to predict that Trump would hit a ceiling. And for a time he looked ‘stuck’ at around 40% of the vote – it’s just that was enough to win because the rest of the party failed to form around anyone else.
What’s interesting is that while Trump has now recorded 50%+ results in a string of states, it’s possible this has been more due to the collapse of the opposition. The Republican turn out in these recent North East states has been very low, Trump may be claiming 50%+ only because the rest aren’t turning up to vote. Which may be because Cruz and Kasich have failed to appeal to Republicans in those states, but it may also be that many Republicans voters consider this election over – they don’t want to it dragged to a convention. Some exit polling supports that, even voters who don’t support Trump think he should be the nominee if he leads the delegate count.
So the Stop Trump message, which accepts he’ll have the most delegates, and plans to simply stop him winning automatically, may have been a disaster for the Cruz and Kasich. Especially when you factor in the good job Trump has done selling his message that he is the ‘deserved’ winner.
Essentially it was an anomaly in Trump's path and his delegate count has been consistently grinding on a steady path upwards. I agree that the miscalls are largely because this has been an "anti-Establishment" year so the expected frontrunners didn't make it out of the gates.
Everyone missed the Republican race having such a strong anti-establishment tone, because this kind of thing is extremely rare. Failing to pick an extreme outlier is getting it wrong for a good reason – people who pick extreme outliers all the time may get it right occasionally but that doesn’t make them useful forecasters. People who give a spread of reasonably likely options will get it wrong from time to time, but they’re still the most reliable.
The reporting establishment missed the tone of the race early on and discounted Trump, but were more than happy to play up the horse race later (as in all national elections).
There is certainly a horse race element to the campaign, that’s encouraged its see-sawing nature. That’s been seen in both races – they’ve been playing up Sanders chances, talking about him squeaking wins in small states, when all the time he’s been way behind in raw delegates and in polls. The media wants close races, as you said.
One thing that's very interesting about national politics is that it's largely a mix of regional, ethnic/cultural, and economic factions, not the imaginary "liberal/conservative" divide. For example, northeast blue-collar workers tend to pull towards Trump while upper income Southerners do not. The Democrats meanwhile have pretty much locked up the POC blocs, but are struggling to hold a lot of their working class base as they have shifted to more corporatist/business support.
Yeah, the need to build coalitions is exactly what I was talking about. That’s a very common part of mainstream politics in most countries. The Republican party right now isn’t really functioning in that way, it seems to have lost its means of building a coalition. This is because the nature of the party has changed – it’s now a group of extreme factions fighting for control of the party.
Regardless, the Republican's current anti-immigrant, hostility to POC, pro mega business stance propped up by moralist rhetoric is unsustainable as a winning national platform, though it continues to see strong support in certain regions. I really think a shift back to more worker friendly economic realism would do them wonders. Kicking the moral majority back to the edge would also help and bring them back in line with a minimalist government stance. Strong borders is fine so long as it emphasizes national safety, but too often veers into racist dogma and ignores the huge benefit large companies get from exploiting undocumented workers. The one bright spot the Republicans do have is national defense, but they to get back to emphasizing national defense and away from the neo-conservative interventionism.
Yeah, the Republicans are in the difficult position of needing the moral majority, but finding it very difficult to satisfy them without alienating other possible voters. They need to find a way to continue banking on those voters while normalising their policy positions.
The same can be true of the small government set (who need to be distinguished from the pro-business set). That group is hyper-focused on the deficit, on taxes and on entitlements, when those issues barely register as national concerns. And yet they’ve still got almost every sitting member to sign up to Norquist’s No Tax pledge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: The Republicans lost national defense as an issue with their epic failure in Iraq.
Not sure that this means Trump loses it as an issue, because Trump has no national defense experience.
14 years is a long time in politics. Keep Cheney, Powell and anyone else publically associated with the Iraq debacle out of the national spotlight, and Democrats will find it almost impossible to relate that back to any current Republican in the spotlight.
Then Republicans just go back to making lots of noise about national security, and their brand will be just fine on that issue.
whembly wrote: So, I welcome Fiorina/Cruz a chance to push this back into the sunlight, because the PP & supporters would love nothing more than to stop talking about it.
The "sunlight" of coming in second behind Donald Trump and never being President.
Look, it's great that you're jumping back on the Fiorina bandwagon again after quietly jumping ship a couple of months ago. But don't worry, I'm sure they'll be a distant memory come November when you pull the lever next to Donald Trump's name... "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia," and all that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But like it or not, we need a strong and active America, given that China regards the South China sea as it's personal lake, who else but the US Navy can sail ships through and keep vital sea lanes open for everybody else?
That's why Trump's policy is perplexing.
Yeah, this. Simply by establishing and being the passive force behind international law, America puts itself first. Because international trade is how America works, how it benefits best.
Trump’s “America First” is more like “We’re in it for ourselves, and everyone else can do as they please”. Which is the worst possible environment for international trade, and therefore the worst possible environment for America.
I think we've discussed this a few times before, but is anyone really surprised anymore when strong anti-gay legislators end up being convicted of sex crimes?
whembly wrote: So, I welcome Fiorina/Cruz a chance to push this back into the sunlight, because the PP & supporters would love nothing more than to stop talking about it.
The "sunlight" of coming in second behind Donald Trump and never being President.
Look, it's great that you're jumping back on the Fiorina bandwagon again after quietly jumping ship a couple of months ago. But don't worry, I'm sure they'll be a distant memory come November when you pull the lever next to Donald Trump's name... "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia," and all that.
Nope... not pulling that Trump lever.
I'm writing in Cthulu and then voting conservatives downticket.
jasper76 wrote: Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Yeah, definitely agreed on this one. And not just NATO, but other major players. Japan is starting to come to town on this issue, but there’s other players in the Pacific that also need to commit to spend the money for greater capabilities and not just rely on the US.
For what it’s worth Australia is now committing a 3% target for defence spending. But it’s been handled very badly, instead of identifying capability requirements and then allocating the funding that is needed, we’ve just decided that this is giant pile of cash defence will get. So expect that we’ll likely get a lot more backroom staff, increasingly generous packages (esp. for senior staff), and few actual new capabilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Hypothetical: Wished someone named Bill (no, not Clinton) would run as the top ticket and Cruz as his VP... then we can have a "Bill & Ted Adventure" campaign.
We almost had Abbott and Costello and one point. It didn't happen, and it would have been Costello and Abbott (as Costello would have been PM in that setup)... but still.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Yeah, because you just *know* HP would still be the same giant, successful company had Carly not been the CEO at the time... say, what's the next winning lotto number?
So, her success in business, the reason she has a national profile in the first place, basically comes down to 'sure, HP tanked while Fiorina was in charge, but it might have tanked as badly anyway'. I’m not sure that’s what I’d want to run on or vote for, tbh.
whembly wrote: Hypothetical: Wished someone named Bill (no, not Clinton) would run as the top ticket and Cruz as his VP... then we can have a "Bill & Ted Adventure" campaign.
We almost had Abbott and Costello and one point. It didn't happen, and it would have been Costello and Abbott (as Costello would have been PM in that setup)... but still.
Heh... late night comedy shows would've had plenty of materials.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Yeah, because you just *know* HP would still be the same giant, successful company had Carly not been the CEO at the time... say, what's the next winning lotto number?
So, her success in business, the reason she has a national profile in the first place, basically comes down to 'sure, HP tanked while Fiorina was in charge, but it might have tanked as badly anyway'. I’m not sure that’s what I’d want to run on or vote for, tbh.
HP wouldn't be this powerhouse if it wasn't her initiative to acquire Compaq. That's taking a tough call to do what she believed was the best course for HP. The current HP CEO said as much.
Besides, her tenure at HP isn't her only work experience ...
whembly wrote: HP wouldn't be this powerhouse if it wasn't her initiative to acquire Compaq. That's taking a tough call to do what she believed was the best course for HP. The current HP CEO said as much.
Possibly. Personally I’ve got a lot of problems any time a CEO, or team coach or anyone else like that, is given direct credit for team performance. It’s called attribution error, and it’s everywhere.
So if Fiorina got to the presidential stage through state and congressional politics, and it was her opponents trying to bring up HP, I think there’d be a case for her, and for the argument you made that HP might have struggled under anyone else as well. But she has no other time in office, it’s just HP and then some failed elections. HP is what she’s got and she refers to it all the time, and so it makes sense to point out that your claim that HP might have sucked under someone else is, well, not a selling point.
Besides, her tenure at HP isn't her only work experience ...
Yeah, she had a good resume before HP, but she was never CEO anywhere else, and that’s pretty much all that matters. You don’t get on the national stage by being a good President of Corporate Operations.
whembly wrote: HP wouldn't be this powerhouse if it wasn't her initiative to acquire Compaq. That's taking a tough call to do what she believed was the best course for HP. The current HP CEO said as much.
Possibly. Personally I’ve got a lot of problems any time a CEO, or team coach or anyone else like that, is given direct credit for team performance. It’s called attribution error, and it’s everywhere.
So if Fiorina got to the presidential stage through state and congressional politics, and it was her opponents trying to bring up HP, I think there’d be a case for her, and for the argument you made that HP might have struggled under anyone else as well. But she has no other time in office, it’s just HP and then some failed elections. HP is what she’s got and she refers to it all the time, and so it makes sense to point out that your claim that HP might have sucked under someone else is, well, not a selling point.
Besides, her tenure at HP isn't her only work experience ...
Yeah, she had a good resume before HP, but she was never CEO anywhere else, and that’s pretty much all that matters. You don’t get on the national stage by being a good President of Corporate Operations.
CEO sets the tone and leads. They need to inspire upper management and downward.
So, yeah it *is* teamwork, but don't discount what a good (or bad) leadership a CEO can provide.
It's not "nothing" with respect to whether or not a person can also be a good statesmen/women in politics.
Here's her relevant background…she was chosen to be VP at At&T where she did an amazing job.
Then was chosen to be CEO of Lucent, again an amazing job.
Then, if you objectively take a look...as CEO of HP, it's argued that she made the tough call for the strategic longevity for the company.
Here are the facts pre-Compaq merger, HP was on the ropes, it was losing market share and was behind the times...
This was a time where PC were becoming ubiquitous and HP desktop/laptop sucked balls. The server / printer market was the backbone at HP, but were facing serious competition.
Compaq PCs at the time were really good, but their server business were very *meh* (gave me griefs when I supported them).
Her merger with Compaq is now credited with not only saving HP, but making it the powerhouse company that it is today.
And yeah, she was skewered by the press for the layoffs and the PR aftermath is a textbook example of what NOT to do in an acquisition... you should look it up as it was epically fugly.
But what she did was strengthened the computer side and solidified the printer business…which they went from something like 2 patents a week to 11 patents a week (or something like that), and most of those were in the printer side.
She's credited with opening up Central and South America to the HP printing business, a huge move, that solidified that market area.
When the dot-com bubble burst in the late 1990s, a shock wave went through every high-tech board room in the U.S. CEOs were faced with critical decisions that would affect their companies' future for years to come. Many simply hunkered down to wait out the recession. Some, like Intel, doubled down on research and development and capital spending to increase new product flow.
Under Carly Fiorina, Hewlett-Packard recognized that the computer industry needed consolidation and engineered the largest high-tech merger in history, combining HP and Compaq. There were plenty of skeptics to the bold actions taken by HP. But history has a way of straightening out the facts and the noted opinions of outside experts.
The merger of HP and Compaq was an unqualified success. It helped transform HP into the largest computer manufacturer in the world and provided a strong foundation for HP's current success under its very capable management team.
Carly Fiorina, the architect of the HP-Compaq merger and now a candidate for U.S. Senate, deserves great credit for her actions while CEO of HP. She understood the challenges of the marketplace, the dangers of the status quo, and the need for companies to move forward with bold actions to ensure their success.
As CEO of Intel at the time, I remember watching those plans unfold with more than casual interest, as HP and Compaq were two of Intel's largest customers. It was a ringside seat to an industry-changing event. It wasn't always pretty, but it was carefully planned and well-executed, and the bottom-line result was exactly on target.
Throughout the merger, Carly had her detractors. Some of them persist even today. It has been said that she abandoned the original vision of HP founders Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard and that she ignored their core values like "meaningful innovation," "speed and agility," and "a passion for customers."
From my perspective, these critiques just do not match the facts. HP has always been and still is an innovative company bringing great products into the market. HP has always been customer-focused. What did change was a dramatic move to ensure HP's future in a world where living in the past and refusing to move forward was a recipe for mediocrity or worse.
Today, HP is a stronger company because of Carly Fiorina's bold action. Certainly some of this credit goes to current management, who capitalized on the changes Carly made. But it was Carly who shook up the status quo. She engineered the merger. She restructured the combined company. She positioned HP to gain market share, and she deserves credit for standing up to the naysayers and critics to achieve the positive end result.
In the current political campaign, many accusations have been leveled against her and her tenure at HP. As someone who knows the industry well and was there watching all the details, I have to respectfully disagree.
Carly Fiorina, who started her career as a receptionist and rose to be the first woman to run a Fortune 20 company, tackled the most difficult issues and brought exactly the right approach to a company that would have faced a more uncertain future otherwise. Despite what others might say, I suspect the two giants who started HP — who were in their own right daring, strong-willed and tenacious — would approve.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If the voters believe that the only way to participate in the aptly named participatory democratic process is to turn up on a pre-determined day to vote, and then complain after the fact about their limited choices then truly, voters get the government they deserve.
It's amazing the way you continually shoot yourself in the foot, and say "fallacy" when you get called on it.
whembly wrote: CEO sets the tone and leads. They need to inspire upper management and downward.
So, yeah it *is* teamwork, but don't discount what a good (or bad) leadership a CEO can provide.
You misunderstand. Attribution error isn’t thinking the CEO matters, it’s thinking the CEO matters a lot more than they really do. In this case the error is ‘HP lost revenue and profits and had to shed jobs, therefore the CEO was bad’. That’s attribution error, because the CEO could have done everything right, but it was just a tough time to be in computer manufacturing.
Then was chosen to be CEO of Lucent, again an amazing job.
Then, if you objectively take a look...as CEO of HP, it's argued that she made the tough call for the strategic longevity for the company.
She wasn’t CEO at Lucent. And ‘it’s argued’ is nonsense. Of course people trying to build her brand are going to argue a case in her favour. Similarly, ‘it’s argued’ that she was a disaster at HP, because of the Democrats are going to try and hurt her brand.
What matters isn’t what is argued, but what is true. And what is true is that HP is a highly complex company with an incredible amount of moving parts, and even if you or I was to go and sit down and spend weeks studying press releases and speaking to past and current staff, we’d still not have that great an understanding of exactly how HP was travelling before Fiorina, or how much she managed to make things worse or better why she was there.
So instead we pick simple narratives that support our side. You believe what ‘is argued’ by your side, I believe what ‘is argued’ by my side. Well, I try not to, and I urge you to try and not do that as much as possible as well.
So as to whether Fiorina was actually a successful CEO, well let’s just admit we don’t know. But what we do know is how you her record will be sold. She will run on ‘first female CEO of an F20’, and that’s a hell of a claim. Then the other side will come back with ‘merger, mass layoffs, plummeting share price’, and those are also good hits. Then… what? Fiorina comes back with a bunch of talk about patent counts and how well the share price is doing after she left?
What I’m saying is that story is tough to sell to voters. Remember about 100 pages back when I was talking about how the side that needs more than a sentence to get their view across is going to lose? Yeah.
yellowfever wrote: Honest question. What's wrong with a American wanting America first. Shouldn't all countries look after themselves first.
It's an interesting question. I think the first point is what does America First mean?
Does America First mean aggressively promotion of American interests at the expense of everyone else's.
What are America's interests? It used to be said that the business of America is Business. That hasn't worked out too well for the bottom 80% of the US population over the past 40 years. Why should those people support America First if it brings them no rewards?
sebster wrote: ‘merger, mass layoffs, plummeting share price’, and those are also good hits.
Sorry, in my book, any CEO that resorts to mass layoffs is not a good fit for public office regardless of how the company does afterwords. I understand why they do it, and it's good for business, but business and government are two different animals.
jasper76 wrote: Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Agreed. I'm with the USA on this one, and from a geopolitical point of view, the solution is very simple, and it goes like this:
The USA, UK, France, and Germany need to get round a table and agree the following:
1) Germany needs to ditch the historical baggage and start spending more on defence.
2) France, Germany, and the UK, agree to keep Russia contained in Europe. Between the 3 of them, they should be able to check Russia and maintain the status quo in Europe.
3) The USA shifts its focus to other areas such as Asia and the Middle East.
4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe. Without this backup plan, the whole thing collapses.
IMO, this will please everyone. The USA can focus on Asia, Europe can contain Russia, but are reassured because they know that America is still in the background ready to lend a hand.
Everybody's a winner. Of course, this whole plan hinges on Trump or Clinton willing to sit down and agree to this.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 1) Germany needs to ditch the historical baggage and start spending more on defence.
Are you aware that Germany is ninth on the list of top military spending (with only two EU countries outspending them: the UK and France) and that they just passed their biggest hike in military spending in decades? They still be under the 2% of GDP target for NATO countries, but it's a marked increase and clear reversal of previous trends.
2) France, Germany, and the UK, agree to keep Russia contained in Europe. Between the 3 of them, they should be able to check Russia and maintain the status quo in Europe.
Do they not already agree to that? I was under the assumption that France, Germany, and the UK were allies. I mean, Germany has extremely strong ties to France and I figured they probably think the UK is alright.
3) The USA shifts its focus to other areas such as Asia and the Middle East.
Some of our strongest allies are South Korea and Japan. We have over 28,000 service members in Korea and another 50,000 or so in Japan. As far as the Middle East goes... have you not been watching the news over the last 15 years or so?
4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe. Without this backup plan, the whole thing collapses.
Again, isn't this kind of the whole point of NATO?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 1) Germany needs to ditch the historical baggage and start spending more on defence.
Are you aware that Germany is ninth on the list of top military spending (with only two EU countries outspending them: the UK and France) and that they just passed their biggest hike in military spending in decades? They still be under the 2% of GDP target for NATO countries, but it's a marked increase and clear reversal of previous trends.
2) France, Germany, and the UK, agree to keep Russia contained in Europe. Between the 3 of them, they should be able to check Russia and maintain the status quo in Europe.
Do they not already agree to that? I was under the assumption that France, Germany, and the UK were allies. I mean, Germany has extremely strong ties to France and I figured they probably think the UK is alright.
3) The USA shifts its focus to other areas such as Asia and the Middle East.
Some of our strongest allies are South Korea and Japan. We have over 28,000 service members in Korea and another 50,000 or so in Japan. As far as the Middle East goes... have you not been watching the news over the last 15 years or so?
4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe. Without this backup plan, the whole thing collapses.
Again, isn't this kind of the whole point of NATO?
To address some of your points:
1) Germany has increased its defence spending, and like you say, it still falls short of the 2% of GDP, but it needs to hit that level.
2) Germany does have close relations with France, this is true, but it also has strong trade links with Russia, and for this reason, it sat on the fence when it came to sanctions against Russia during the Ukraine crisis. Should a future crisis arise involving Russia, Germany needs to take a firmer stance.
3) Obviously, I am aware of NATO but the alliance's reaction to ease the concerns of the Baltic states these past 2-3 years has been woefully inadequate. It's all very well invoking article 5, but if people don't have the stomach to back this up...well...
4) To address the main point which is US foreign policy under Trump or Clinton, I'll say this:
I'm well aware of what has happened in the Middle East these past 15 years, but America can't afford to abandon the region. The Saudis are a close ally, and of course, it would be political suicide for any American president to abandon Israel. For these 2 reasons alone, the USA will be in the Middle East. But to what end? Containment of Iran and Russia?
As for Asia, there is no denying the links between Japan and South Korea, but other nations need US support: Vietnam of all places, the Philippines, Malaysia, and so on. What happens if North Korea collapses?
Questions questions, questions.
As it stands, America has three key areas of focus: Europe, Middle East, and Asia.
By cutting a deal with the big 3 of Europe, the next American president can shift resources from Europe to other areas, and save money by getting Europe to take up more of the slack on defence spending.
Of course the US benefits from international trade, but it also pays costs. Large actors have overwhelmingly benefitted while American workers continue to face high unemployment and stagnant wages. Trump's "America First" rhetoric rings of protectionism and isolationism because it targets disenfranchised workers for votes, not because it is a coherent policy. Just like his anti-immigrant stances.
yellowfever wrote: Honest question. What's wrong with a American wanting America first. Shouldn't all countries look after themselves first.
It used to be said that the business of America is Business.
You have to remember that this quote was before the "Shareholder Value" trend that we see in business today. In those days, business was more nationalistic and less about hyper-focusing on delivering value to Shareholders above all else. Therefore, the idea behind it was if it was good for America it was good for Business, and vice-versa. That no longer holds true as what is good for Shareholders is what is good for business.
I am not articulating this very well, but I hope you get the idea.
Apparently un-consentingly placing your junk in someone's mouth is no longer rape. Because logic!
....what?
Please tell me that that's a joke. Please.
So here's the thing, U.S. criminal law is *very* picky. Something has to codified to be a criminal offense. The OK criminal law they were dealing with looks like this:
Universal Citation: 21 OK Stat § 21-888v2 (2014)
A. Any person who forces another person to engage in the detestable and abominable crime against nature, pursuant to Section 886 of this title, upon conviction, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a period of not more than twenty (20) years. Except for persons sentenced to life or life without parole, any person sentenced to imprisonment for two (2) years or more for a violation of this subsection shall be required to serve a term of post-imprisonment supervision pursuant to subparagraph f of paragraph 1 of subsection A of Section 991a of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes under conditions determined by the Department of Corrections. The jury shall be advised that the mandatory post-imprisonment supervision shall be in addition to the actual imprisonment. Any person convicted of a second violation of this section, where the victim of the second offense is a person under sixteen (16) years of age, shall not be eligible for probation, suspended or deferred sentence. Any person convicted of a third or subsequent violation of this section, where the victim of the third or subsequent offense is a person under sixteen (16) years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of life or life without parole, in the discretion of the jury, or in case the jury fails or refuses to fix punishment then the same shall be pronounced by the court. Any person convicted of a violation of this subsection after having been twice convicted of a violation of subsection A of Section 1114 of this title, a violation of Section 1123 of this title or sexual abuse of a child pursuant to Section 843.5 of this title, or of any attempt to commit any of these offenses or any combination of said offenses, shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of life or life without parole.
B. The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:
1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or
2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or
3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or
4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or
5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.
Notice something missing? Yup, apparently they didn't think to include situations whereby the victim was incapacitated or otherwise incapable of giving consent for reasons other than "mental illness or any unsoundness of mind." Whoops. Since the leg forgot that part, there the State can't prosecute the behavior under that statute. Worse, even after it's added, it can't be used retroactively.
Maybe they have some other offense that might cover it, maybe not. But it seems like the people of OK should be pretty upset with a legislature that has time to pass laws regarding open carry without a permit, strip doctor licenses for performing otherwise legal abortions, and ban Sharia law, but can't be bothered to draft a proper rape statute.
jmurph wrote:
Notice something missing? Yup, apparently they didn't think to include situations whereby the victim was incapacitated or otherwise incapable of giving consent for reasons other than "mental illness or any unsoundness of mind." Whoops. Since the leg forgot that part, there the State can't prosecute the behavior under that statute. Worse, even after it's added, it can't be used retroactively.
Maybe they have some other offense that might cover it, maybe not. But it seems like the people of OK should be pretty upset with a legislature that has time to pass laws regarding open carry without a permit, strip doctor licenses for performing otherwise legal abortions, and ban Sharia law, but can't be bothered to draft a proper rape statute.
Well, let's hope they do now. Because at this point it's pretty disgusting.
I heard on the radio that he said something to the extent that of all the people,Democrat or Republican, he's ever had to work with, Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever met.
I saw this link on my twitter feed... it's a transcript on Rush Limbaugh's show (lawd that's a hideous website) and here's the snippet:
RUSH: I’m glad you made it through, Sean. Thanks so much.
CALLER: Thanks. I just wanted to make a point, at least my perspective on the support of Trump. I reluctantly support him but I do straight… I mean, I do support him, and it’s not about conservatism. It’s not, as some people say — and I’ve heard it on your show, too, from a lot of callers calling in. It’s not really about, “Well, you know, people are being fooled that he’s not really conservative.” It’s not. I know he’s not a conservative. The fact is, to put it simply, Trump will fight. Not only will he fight, he’ll fight dirty, and the thing is we gotta get that. We have to have someone that’s gonna fight in the mud, ’cause that’s where our opponents are. That’s where our opponents have been.
RUSH: Fight who?
CALLER: The Democrats. I mean, look at what happened after 9/11. Remember it was like a month or two after that, and then Kennedy came out and he started slamming George Bush. You know, all of his supporters were waiting for him to stand up and defend himself, and he didn’t. For eight years, he just let the Democrats plaster him. And then what happens? Obama gets elected, and he rams Obamacare down our throats. What were Reid and Pelosi doing? They were locking people out of committee meetings, remember that?
What was our response? Did we fight back? No. We didn’t fight back. So then what did we do? We have a landslide victory. We give them the House. Do they do it? Do they repeal Obamacare? No. They do nothing. They say, “Well, we can’t do anything ’cause we don’t have the Senate.” Okay, we give you the Senate. What do they do? “Oh, you know, we’re not gonna do anything ’cause we’re gonna take our only weapon off the table before we do battle with these people.”
We’re sick and tired of fighting with people who won’t fight, and when it comes to down to Cruz, you know, my instincts with Cruz is that, yeah, he’s a nice guy. And don’t get me wrong, if he magically wins this nomination, of course I’ll support him. But the problem is, I suspect he won’t fight. Three days ago there was an article in Breitbart where he’s being interviewed and he said, “You know, if I’m elected, “he said something to that effect of, “I’m not gonna get personal. This is gonna be about issues.”
Okay, great. You just handed them the election, ’cause you know what they’re gonna do? They’re gonna make it personal against you and you’re gonna be like the new George Bush just sitting up there like Jeb. You won’t fight. You’ll just sit there and take it and we’re gonna lose again. And the thing is, Trump, you know what? I disagree with probably 80% of the stuff that he believes in, or he purports to. But the thing is, I think we’re facing an existential crisis. It comes down to immigration, illegal immigration —
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: — and Obamacare.
RUSH: Stop. You don’t need to say any more. You just said everything in about five words. “I don’t agree with 80% of what I think Trump stands for, but I’m voting for him.” That is why the Republican establishment is about ready to commit harakiri. They can’t figure this out.
I heard on the radio that he said something to the extent that of all the people,Democrat or Republican, he's ever had to work with, Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever met.
I heard on the radio that he said something to the extent that of all the people,Democrat or Republican, he's ever had to work with, Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever met.
That's an endorsement!
Not really. My dad was working for the Senate for awhile after he retired from the Army, and he's become incredibly disillusioned with a lot of politicians he previously liked after meeting them. We were talking about it and he called out Cruz as the worst person he had to deal with while there, and he made a habit of trying to avoid him (before the BS became so much he went private sector).
Full disclosure though, apparently Rubio is a pretty kick guy when it comes to just sitting down and hanging out XD
This is me, but I can see I wouldn't particularly like to have a pint with Hillary Clinton, unless her husband was there too, which I think would be rather a hoot, but if he wasn't, I could do it for politeness' sake.
When it comes to Trump I would pay a moderate amount not to have to have a pint with him if the circumstance should threaten itself.
I heard on the radio that he said something to the extent that of all the people,Democrat or Republican, he's ever had to work with, Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever met.
That's an endorsement!
Not really. My dad was working for the Senate for awhile after he retired from the Army, and he's become incredibly disillusioned with a lot of politicians he previously liked after meeting them. We were talking about it and he called out Cruz as the worst person he had to deal with while there, and he made a habit of trying to avoid him (before the BS became so much he went private sector).
Full disclosure though, apparently Rubio is a pretty kick guy when it comes to just sitting down and hanging out XD
Disagree... for the anti-establishment & #NeverTrump crowd, this is the most important endorsement Cruz has had so far.
However, in this late in the Primary... not sure if it'll help/hurt Cruz anyways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: This is me, but I can see I wouldn't particularly like to have a pint with Hillary Clinton, unless her husband was there too, which I think would be rather a hoot, but if he wasn't, I could do it for politeness' sake.
When it comes to Trump I would pay a moderate amount not to have to have a pint with him if the circumstance should threaten itself.
But I'm not american so it doesn't matter.
Well... he wouldn't drink a pint anyways as he doesn't drink alcohol.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Just heard on the news that Trump's foreign policy, if elected, will be America first!
What is this? The 1930s!!!
Can we expect to see Congress pass neutrality acts? Or Charles Lindbergh touring the country and accusing Britain of wanting to drag America into another European war?
Sounds like a good idea. Yes we're looking at you Canada...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe.
Didn't we promise something along this line to the Ukraine? How that's working out for them? I'm also fairly certain Georgia thought we had their backs. I wonder what gave them that impression?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe.
Didn't we promise something along this line to the Ukraine? How that's working out for them? I'm also fairly certain Georgia thought we had their backs. I wonder what gave them that impression?
The impression was given by some guy sitting in the White House. Perhaps he should have drawn a red line
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Just heard on the news that Trump's foreign policy, if elected, will be America first!
What is this? The 1930s!!!
Can we expect to see Congress pass neutrality acts? Or Charles Lindbergh touring the country and accusing Britain of wanting to drag America into another European war?
Sounds like a good idea. Yes we're looking at you Canada...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Compel wrote: Sounds like it's pretty similar to the "Al Capone" trick, then?
The United States of America Federal Government: you can kill or rape anyone you want, but if you mess with the money they will get you!
Its our way, the Chicago Way!
Frazz, how many times have I got to tell you? Canada has never lost a war and has repelled numerous American invasions over the years. Don't mess with your maple syrup brethren to the north.
Apparently un-consentingly placing your junk in someone's mouth is no longer rape. Because logic!
Dumbasses.
Well, at least they identified a problem in the law and will (hopefully) try to fix it.
A while ago here in the UK we had a Saudi prince get off a rape charge with the defence argument of "He tripped and fell onto the sleeping woman and his penis just so happened to penetrate her."
And from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gays-for-trump-crowd-gathers-at-costa-mesa-rally-20160428-story.html:
"I'm protesting because I want equal rights for everybody, and I want peaceful protest," said 19-year-old Daniel Lujan, one of hundreds in a crowd that appeared to be mostly Latinos in their late teens and 20s.
"I knew this was going to happen," Lujan added. "It was going to be a riot. He deserves what he gets."
About five police cars were damaged in total, police said, adding that some will require thousands of dollars' worth of repairs.
"Dump the Trump," one sign read. Another protester scrawled anti-Trump messages on Costa Mesa police cars.
Video footage showed some anti-Trump demonstrators hurling debris at a passing pickup truck. One group of protesters carried benches and blocked the entrance to the 55 Freeway along Newport Boulevard, with some tossing rocks at motorists near the on-ramp.
Charming. No way this has any unintended consequences....
With the Ukraine you have the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances where we were supposed to initiate some type of UN action if the Ukraine was ever attacked.
With Georgia we had train and equip agreements, and they helped in the Balkans and Iraq (had the 3rd most forces in Iraq at one point, and their guys actually fought). We didn't have a defense agreement with them, but they were being looked at for NATO membership and there were actually some US forces (trainers) in country when Russia invaded. We still work with them quite a bit (they sent forces to Afghanistan, we send guys to their mountaineering school for example).
I did read them. The Russians violated the first three points of the agreement, which should have triggered consultations between Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. Maybe my assumption that meant at the UN is wrong.
CptJake wrote: I did read them. The Russians violated the first three points of the agreement, which should have triggered consultations between Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. Maybe my assumption that meant at the UN is wrong.
But what else do you think I am getting wrong?
The agreement only triggers that if Ukraine is attacked with (or threatened with) nukes, hence the reference to the treaty of nonproliferation. Beyond that there are no assurances of support if one of the parties instigates non-nuclear action against Ukraine.
Apparently the Ukraine was led to believe UNSC action would be taken even if an aggressor did not use nukes as part of the aggression. At least that's what they're claiming. They're not the first to make a bad deal with the US *cough* indian tribes *cough* and we can only guess at what they were told versus what ended up in the actually text.
Breotan wrote: Apparently the Ukraine was led to believe UNSC action would be taken even if an aggressor did not use nukes as part of the aggression. At least that's what they're claiming. They're not the first to make a bad deal with the US *cough* indian tribes *cough* and we can only guess at what they were told versus what ended up in the actually text.
I can get behind that. I imagine that the USA and UK, however, were very eager to make sure that they were not legally tied to offer support as I'm sure that the negotiators at the time were well aware that what we are seeing now was a distinct possibility and having that back door to wiggle out of if it did go down would be very advantageous.
Hard to believe the governor that has passed religiously motivated laws at the last minute behind closed doors would come out in support of the theocratic candidate.
Hard to believe the governor that has passed religiously motivated laws at the last minute behind closed doors would come out in support of the theocratic candidate.
Wow, from just looking at his record on LGBT stuff on wikipedia, the guy is an donkey-cave
Kilkrazy wrote: NATO is a defensive alliance. Neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are members.
This has nothing to do with anything. My statement is a commentary on the current value of US guarantees and/or promises of such.
What guarantees or promises were made towards Ukraine or Georgia?
When Russia annexed the Crimea, Obama said it wasn't a done deal. I remember watching that press conference.
When the Ukraine military asked the USA for heavy weaponry, they got night vision goggles and medical aid. Useful stuff, but not what they wanted.
When the Baltic NATO members asked America for some symbolic backup (one suggestion was to send the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the region for publicity purposes) they got nothing.
When chemical weapons were used in Syria, Obama talked about red lines...and nothing happened.
The point that I, and others are making is this: if an American president talks the talk, he has to walk the walk, otherwise he is made to look a chump, and doubts enter the minds of US allies. Can we rely on the USA?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: When Russia annexed the Crimea, Obama said it wasn't a done deal. I remember watching that press conference.
Saying "it isn't a done deal" - I'm going to assume you're accurately reporting it - doesn't sound like a promise to militarily defend another country to me, much less a properly ratified treaty agreement.
The US is not obligated to defend Ukraine, or Georgia, or Syria in the event of conventional attacks. The treaty covering Ukraine indicated that the signatories would meet to discuss the situation, and that's exactly what happened - the US, UK, and Ukraine met and Russia declined to attend. There is a clause indicating that any sort of nuclear event would be referred to the UN Security council, but no such nuclear situation occurred.
So far as "can we trust the USA?", I'd personally prefer you didn't. I'd love it if you'd petition your government to spend more money so you can send some more of your own troops and weapons to Asia, and the Middle East and so on and so forth as you so generously suggested we do earlier in the thread. Maybe if some of our allies carried a little more of their weight militarily, we could afford socialized medicine as well.
Ouze wrote: Maybe if some of our allies carried a little more of their weight militarily, we could afford socialized medicine as well.
Pretending that the amount the US spends on its military is what prevents it from having socialised health care is asinine. Socialised healthcare is cheaper, more efficient and produces better results for the population. The reasons for the US not having socialised healthcare are purely ideological to the detriment of the majority.
That isn't to say that other countries shouldn't take a greater responsibility for security spending. Indeed I agree they should. But trying to pin a major failing in the US on the unrelated interests of other countries is contemptible.
So far as "can we trust the USA?", I'd personally prefer you didn't. I'd love it if you'd petition your government to spend more money so you can send some more of your own troops and weapons to Asia, and the Middle East and so on and so forth as you so generously suggested we do earlier in the thread. Maybe if some of our allies carried a little more of their weight militarily, we could afford socialized medicine as well.
I made a mistake here. When I wrote "can we trust the USA?" I should have added that's what Saudi Arabia/Israel/other gulf states will be asking themselves. I wasn't focusing on my own individual view, I was merely speculating on behalf of America's allies.
For the record, if you read my earlier comments. you'll see that I sympathise with the USA for feeling short-changed at doing the bulk of heavy lifting when it comes to defence spending. My country (UK) does hit the 2% GDP target for defence, but I am in favour of countries like Germany spending more on defence, and allowing the USA to shift its focus away from Europe.
As for socialized medicine, any country that spends $600 billion a year on defence could spend an equal amount on an American version of our NHS. If the political will is there, it can happen, but that's an argument for another day.
Hard to believe the governor that has passed religiously motivated laws at the last minute behind closed doors would come out in support of the theocratic candidate.
Kilkrazy wrote: NATO is a defensive alliance. Neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are members.
This has nothing to do with anything. My statement is a commentary on the current value of US guarantees and/or promises of such.
What guarantees or promises were made towards Ukraine or Georgia?
When Russia annexed the Crimea, Obama said it wasn't a done deal. I remember watching that press conference.
When the Ukraine military asked the USA for heavy weaponry, they got night vision goggles and medical aid. Useful stuff, but not what they wanted.
To be fair, Ukraine doesn't have a shortage of weapons & equipment. In fact, in the mid 90's they had a hundred rifles to each Ukrainian soldier as the Soviet Army retreated through Ukraine after pulling out of Europe and dumped literally hundreds trainloads of weapons and equipment there (though granted, much of it was stolen/sold since then). They have a problem with effectively using what they have in addition to logistical and corruption issues. Simply giving them weapons would have been a silly idea, as there's no guarantee they'd go where they were needed or that they'd be able to effectively use them (or that they wouldn't just end up getting resold halfway down the logistics or command line), and such has been a consistent problem with the Ukrainian army throughout the conflict. Weaponry supply is also made more difficult given that Ukraine uses pretty much entirely Soviet pattern equipment that NATO generally does not have a means to supply & support in large, consistent quantities, and new equipment would be dramatically more expensive and resource intensive to train the Ukrainians on and subsequently supply them.
When the Baltic NATO members asked America for some symbolic backup (one suggestion was to send the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the region for publicity purposes) they got nothing.
Why just this week it was announced that nearly 4,000 NATO troops from the US, German, and UK militaries would be deployed to Poland and the Baltic states, flew F-22's through there, and the US Navy has been increasing naval patrols and having run-ins with Russian aircraft in the region.
When chemical weapons were used in Syria, Obama talked about red lines...and nothing happened.
Except that Syria turned over a buttload of chemical weapons after the Russians hopped in and explained it would be in their best interests too prevent a US attack, and the OPCW appears to be satisfied at this point that Syria has turned over its stockpiles.
The point that I, and others are making is this: if an American president talks the talk, he has to walk the walk, otherwise he is made to look a chump, and doubts enter the minds of US allies. Can we rely on the USA?
It's a complicated issue when both sides can annihilate each other in a couple of hours with the press of a couple of buttons, particularly when for one side it's pretty much their only meaningful card to play because they're dramatically overmatched in every other measure.
I made a mistake here. When I wrote "can we trust the USA?" I should have added that's what Saudi Arabia/Israel/other gulf states will be asking themselves. I wasn't focusing on my own individual view, I was merely speculating on behalf of America's allies.
And the truth is, no, they can't. America's allies cannot trust the USA, and America's enemies cannot trust the USA, either. Any political agreement/treaty/deal we make may only last as long as the next election, if the opposing party even lets it get that far out of pure political spite. I hate to sound like I'm giving an endorsement here, but at least Trump has the balls to say "America First" out loud, when the rest are just putting party first, then America.
And, on the subject of not-endorsements, Whembly, you ought to get a huge kick out of this: It just hit me the other day that, with regards to my severe loathing of Ted Cruz, I realized that the car I drive is...a Chevy Cruze.
Kilkrazy wrote: Actually it's a basic principle of international law that successor governments are bound by the treaties and agreements made by their predecessors.
The US does not ratify treaties, pretty much by reflex.
The USA ratifies some treaties and not others. For example the USA adopted SALT 1 but decided not to ratify SALT 2 after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The US a treaty member of NATO.
Apart from treaties there are agreements such as free trade areas and international unions on standards (postal, telegraphic, and so on.)
The basic point is that a new President doesn't get to throw all the toys out of the pram, just because wah wah wah. Things don't work like that in the real world outside Trump's groupthink support bubble.
Kilkrazy wrote: The USA ratifies some treaties and not others.
The USA signs some treaties, but does not often ratify them. The examples you pointed out are solid, but US instability isn't going to make waves as it used to.
The basic point is that a new President doesn't get to throw all the toys out of the pram, just because wah wah wah. Things don't work like that in the real world outside Trump's groupthink support bubble.
I would agree if US foreign policy wasn't so dictated by the Executive.
Kilkrazy wrote: The USA ratifies some treaties and not others.
The USA signs some treaties, but does not often ratify them. The examples you pointed out are solid, but US instability isn't going to make waves as it used to.
The basic point is that a new President doesn't get to throw all the toys out of the pram, just because wah wah wah. Things don't work like that in the real world outside Trump's groupthink support bubble.
I would agree if US foreign policy wasn't so dictated by the Executive.
If US foreign policy is so beholden to the executive, why hasn't Congress or the Senate reigned in the Executive? I am assuming of course that they can do this.
Kilkrazy wrote: NATO is a defensive alliance. Neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are members.
This has nothing to do with anything. My statement is a commentary on the current value of US guarantees and/or promises of such.
What guarantees or promises were made towards Ukraine or Georgia?
When Russia annexed the Crimea, Obama said it wasn't a done deal. I remember watching that press conference.
When the Ukraine military asked the USA for heavy weaponry, they got night vision goggles and medical aid. Useful stuff, but not what they wanted.
To be fair, Ukraine doesn't have a shortage of weapons & equipment. In fact, in the mid 90's they had a hundred rifles to each Ukrainian soldier as the Soviet Army retreated through Ukraine after pulling out of Europe and dumped literally hundreds trainloads of weapons and equipment there (though granted, much of it was stolen/sold since then). They have a problem with effectively using what they have in addition to logistical and corruption issues. Simply giving them weapons would have been a silly idea, as there's no guarantee they'd go where they were needed or that they'd be able to effectively use them (or that they wouldn't just end up getting resold halfway down the logistics or command line), and such has been a consistent problem with the Ukrainian army throughout the conflict. Weaponry supply is also made more difficult given that Ukraine uses pretty much entirely Soviet pattern equipment that NATO generally does not have a means to supply & support in large, consistent quantities, and new equipment would be dramatically more expensive and resource intensive to train the Ukrainians on and subsequently supply them.
When the Baltic NATO members asked America for some symbolic backup (one suggestion was to send the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the region for publicity purposes) they got nothing.
Why just this week it was announced that nearly 4,000 NATO troops from the US, German, and UK militaries would be deployed to Poland and the Baltic states, flew F-22's through there, and the US Navy has been increasing naval patrols and having run-ins with Russian aircraft in the region.
When chemical weapons were used in Syria, Obama talked about red lines...and nothing happened.
Except that Syria turned over a buttload of chemical weapons after the Russians hopped in and explained it would be in their best interests too prevent a US attack, and the OPCW appears to be satisfied at this point that Syria has turned over its stockpiles.
The point that I, and others are making is this: if an American president talks the talk, he has to walk the walk, otherwise he is made to look a chump, and doubts enter the minds of US allies. Can we rely on the USA?
It's a complicated issue when both sides can annihilate each other in a couple of hours with the press of a couple of buttons, particularly when for one side it's pretty much their only meaningful card to play because they're dramatically overmatched in every other measure.
I agree that steps are being taken by the USA in order to rectify the situation in Eastern Europe by bolstering the military presense and reasuring the allies, but in the immediate aftermath of the annexation of the Crimea, not a lot was done. Everybody was running around with their heads up their ass, and my own country was just as bad.
As for the situation in Syria regarding chemical weapons, the USA lost the strategic initiative at the time, because Russian involvement and the bolstering of the Assad regime, by having both involved in the destruction of chemeical weapons, put the USA on the back foot, and entrenched a regime that was on the brink of collapsing. The rest is history...
If US foreign policy is so beholden to the executive, why hasn't Congress or the Senate reigned in the Executive? I am assuming of course that they can do this.
The Legislature can do that, but why should any given member of the Legislature support such an initiative?
If US foreign policy is so beholden to the executive, why hasn't Congress or the Senate reigned in the Executive? I am assuming of course that they can do this.
The Legislature can do that, but why should any given member of the Legislature support such an initiative?
Exactly. Because while the opposing party will bemoan the power of the Executive, they still want that very same power for themselves.
I made a mistake here. When I wrote "can we trust the USA?" I should have added that's what Saudi Arabia/Israel/other gulf states will be asking themselves. I wasn't focusing on my own individual view, I was merely speculating on behalf of America's allies.
And the truth is, no, they can't. America's allies cannot trust the USA, and America's enemies cannot trust the USA, either. Any political agreement/treaty/deal we make may only last as long as the next election, if the opposing party even lets it get that far out of pure political spite. I hate to sound like I'm giving an endorsement here, but at least Trump has the balls to say "America First" out loud, when the rest are just putting party first, then America.
And, on the subject of not-endorsements, Whembly, you ought to get a huge kick out of this: It just hit me the other day that, with regards to my severe loathing of Ted Cruz, I realized that the car I drive is...a Chevy Cruze.
This is why there is an oil price war currently. SA is driving the price down as much as possible to impact Iran. Notice the timing of when they started and certain agreement made with Iran.
They are also actively engaged in proxy wars in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen with Iran.
No country should ever trust another country. Thats not a prudent concept.
Kilkrazy wrote: The USA ratifies some treaties and not others.
The USA signs some treaties, but does not often ratify them. The examples you pointed out are solid, but US instability isn't going to make waves as it used to.
The basic point is that a new President doesn't get to throw all the toys out of the pram, just because wah wah wah. Things don't work like that in the real world outside Trump's groupthink support bubble.
I would agree if US foreign policy wasn't so dictated by the Executive.
If US foreign policy is so beholden to the executive, why hasn't Congress or the Senate reigned in the Executive? I am assuming of course that they can do this.
The constitution already requires that all treaties with foreign governments be ratified by Congress and requires Congress to issue a declaration fo war. Congress holds the most power over foreign policy the President gets to set the agenda but is reliant on Congress to take action to support that agenda.
If Trump were PotUS he could negotiate whatever agreement he wants but he'd still need Congress to sign on the dotted line to make in order to close the deal.
I'm hitting the reset button and taking back what I said about Congress and the Senate, because I've suddenly remembered I sat through Senate and Congressional oversight committes on the Iran nuclear deal!
The less power those two bodies have over US foreign policy, the better!
It's coming up because the Australian confiscation model is being mentioned amongst Democratic circles, and the other side is hopping on trying to make it out like it's being pushed *wayyy* more than it actually is.
I would absolutely not support such a scheme in the US, but it's also not like it's a realistic possibility to have to worry about with the makeup of congress as it is, so mostly it's just push-button issue to energize the base voters.
"Do you really want to go through the next four years with a president who, if your child came home and simply uttered the words coming out of that president's mouth, would make you punish your child, would make you embarrassed for your child?" Cruz asked.
So does that include talk of fornication with rats?
"Do you really want to go through the next four years with a president who, if your child came home and simply uttered the words coming out of that president's mouth, would make you punish your child, would make you embarrassed for your child?" Cruz asked.
Another reason not to vote for Cruz. If I had children that acted like him, I would be embarrassed as well
If you could turns the lights out on your way it'd be appreciated
Its just sort of defeatist nonsense that cost you Hastings. No I say, we shall not go quietly into the night (cue stirring theme music and closeup shot) I say we fight! We will fight them on the beaches in the taquerias in the barbeque joints in the bayous in the kiddie pools in the strip malls in the strip joints I say we fight!
(we will not fight them in the libraries because we don't cotton to no book learnin round these parts).
Worse to worse we should invade Mexico if just for old time's sake.
Something weird is going on. American history pages on Wikipedia are changing Back to the future style!
The Battles of Lexington and Concord was the first and only military engagements of the abortive American Rebellion. They were fought on April 19, 1775, in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge, near Boston. The battles marked the outbreak of open armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and thirteen of its colonies on the mainland of British America.
About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy rebel military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations. They also received details about British plans on the night before the battle and were able to rapidly notify the area militias of the British expedition.
The British forces began their peaceful return march to Boston after completing their search for military supplies, and more militiamen continued to surrender when the British produced articles from the 2016 US Presidential campaign, the militiamen abandoning the notion of an independent America, and instead pledging allegiance to the British crown.
If you could turns the lights out on your way it'd be appreciated
Its just sort of defeatist nonsense that cost you Hastings. No I say, we shall not go quietly into the night
(cue stirring theme music and closeup shot)
I say we fight!
We will fight them on the beaches
in the taquerias
in the barbeque joints
in the bayous
in the kiddie pools
in the strip malls
in the strip joints
I say we fight!
(we will not fight them in the libraries because we don't cotton to no book learnin round these parts).
Worse to worse we should invade Mexico if just for old time's sake.
I dunno, I'm kinda impressed for him for doing that. There were chunks there of times where I was thinking, "good on you." Admittedly, he did head into my personal definition of "crazy town" a few times as well, often enough that, if I were American, I wouldn't vote for him.
At least he came across as, "the world won't be screwed if he's elected" to me.
Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin
.... err...
.. nope.
I got nothing.
In al fairness, the headline is definitely taking liberties.
“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don't even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”
“I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”
Doesn't really sound like an accusation. More like innuendo.
Apparently the National Enquirer has published a photo of Rafael B. Cruz with Oswald handing out leaflets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee taken outside the International Trade Mart in New Orleans on Aug.16, 1963. Now, Cruz has admitted that he supported Castro, but during the revolutionary period circa 1959, but there seems to be some controversy about when that support ended. Even if the elder Cruz is in the picture, it doesn't mean he had anything to do with the JFK assassination. It is absurd to think all pro-Cuba or pro-Communist leaning activists were involved in a plot to murder the president.
To me, it does open up the broader picture of strange political and philosophical alliances over the years, and how they tie in to our current leaders. JFK's father in bootlegging or George Bush's grandfather's ties to Nazi financiers, for example.
@Compel: (assuming you were responding to the video of Cruz with Trump supporters). It's not that there's nothing to admire in someone who goes into the Lion's Den...it's just that it does you no good to argue publically with people who just say stuff like "Nana-Nana-Nana. I can't hear what you're saying. You're stupid. Trump, please."
jasper76 wrote: @Compel: (assuming you were responding to the video of Cruz with Trump supporters). It's not that there's nothing to admire in someone who goes into the Lion's Den...it's just that it does you no good to argue publically with people who just say stuff like "Nana-Nana-Nana. I can't hear what you're saying. You're stupid. Trump, please."
Hypothetically, one wouldn't do it to change the Trump supporters minds, one would do it for the cameras / people on the internet, especially who might not be planning on voting. EG, "you don't vote in the primary, you're letting that guy decide the Republican nominee.
2016 Transhumanist Party Presidential Candidate Futurist, philosopher, speaker and journalist
Transhumanist Party Candidate 2016 Zoltan Istvan Declared 2016 Transhumanist Party Candidate
It's all about technology for Transhumanist Party founder and presidential nominee Zoltan Istvan. His main priority is the allocation of funding for research scientists to develop augmentations for the human body that will destroy disease, enhance natural senses, and even conquer the specter of death.
@Compel: However, if the US has an abundance of anything, it's those guys. And I don't think Cruz came off well in the interchange. He showed that his presence is not commanding, and that he doesn't have enough respect amongst these people for them to even bother treating him in a civil manner.
The former construction company owner, mountaineer and competitive triathlete, governed New Mexico for two terms as a Republican. One of the few unqualified gubernatorial success stories for the Republican Party over the last couple of decades, his entry into politics was a low-key affair, driven mainly by a core of loyal backers. The then politically-inexperienced Johnson was hardly given a chance in the run up to the New Mexico gubernatorial race of 1994, especially after being rebuffed by state Republican leaders who ‘suggested’ that he should instead seek a seat in the State Legislature first.
However, his convictions and doggedness saw him scrapping past his Republican challenger in the primary, Richard P. Cheney, by a mere 1%, securing 34% of the ballots. The win was all the more impressive considering his campaign was funded almost entirely from his own $500,000 contribution. In the general election, with the Republican Party machinery firmly behind him, Johnson soundly, although very surprisingly, defeated the incumbent Governor, Democrat Bruce King, by an impressive 10 points. He repeated the feat four years later by beating Democrat Albert Chavez by another comprehensive ten-point margin to win reelection – impressive feats in a state with an over 40% Latino population.
His time in office was typified by aggressive cost cutting measures aimed at eliminating the state’s budget deficit and spending growth. Johnson, armed with the lessons learned building his construction firm, was known to be a decisive, yet collaborative operator who is most often remembered as the Governor who never increased taxes during his tenure.
In 2012, Johnson joined the Libertarian Party after severing his ties with the GOP.
The former construction company owner, mountaineer and competitive triathlete, governed New Mexico for two terms as a Republican. One of the few unqualified gubernatorial success stories for the Republican Party over the last couple of decades, his entry into politics was a low-key affair, driven mainly by a core of loyal backers. The then politically-inexperienced Johnson was hardly given a chance in the run up to the New Mexico gubernatorial race of 1994, especially after being rebuffed by state Republican leaders who ‘suggested’ that he should instead seek a seat in the State Legislature first.
However, his convictions and doggedness saw him scrapping past his Republican challenger in the primary, Richard P. Cheney, by a mere 1%, securing 34% of the ballots. The win was all the more impressive considering his campaign was funded almost entirely from his own $500,000 contribution. In the general election, with the Republican Party machinery firmly behind him, Johnson soundly, although very surprisingly, defeated the incumbent Governor, Democrat Bruce King, by an impressive 10 points. He repeated the feat four years later by beating Democrat Albert Chavez by another comprehensive ten-point margin to win reelection – impressive feats in a state with an over 40% Latino population.
His time in office was typified by aggressive cost cutting measures aimed at eliminating the state’s budget deficit and spending growth. Johnson, armed with the lessons learned building his construction firm, was known to be a decisive, yet collaborative operator who is most often remembered as the Governor who never increased taxes during his tenure.
In 2012, Johnson joined the Libertarian Party after severing his ties with the GOP.
A man who controls a large building company, an industry sector known for employment of casual Mexican labourers, does unexpectedly well in a state that borders Mexico and has a large Mexican immigrant population.
Kilkrazy wrote: A man who controls a large building company, an industry sector known for employment of casual Mexican labourers, does unexpectedly well in a state that borders Mexico and has a large Mexican immigrant population.
Hum.
It reminds me of the days when we had the rotten boroughs and 40 MPs being elected by three men and a goat!
Kilkrazy wrote: A man who controls a large building company, an industry sector known for employment of casual Mexican labourers, does unexpectedly well in a state that borders Mexico and has a large Mexican immigrant population.
Hum.
It reminds me of the days when we had the rotten boroughs and 40 MPs being elected by three men and a goat!
kronk wrote: "It is absurd to think all pro-Cuba or pro-Communist leaning activists were involved in a plot to murder the president. "
That's what pro-communist lizard people WANT you to think!
Indeed. The other day Heidi Cruz held a small press gathering where she denied that her husband was the Zodiac Killer, and I remember thinking, that's exactly what the wife of the Zodiac Killer would say. What did she know, and when did she know it?
Other than the crushing him in the primaries part, Trump seems to be exactly what Cruz would have ordered crazed geneticists to create to make Cruz look like less of a lunatic.
Again, if it wasn't Trump, you could see the appeal of a more likable person running a similar campaign. Incredibly dubious attack ads have become the norm, but say something compaable, out loud, as a candidate and you're a bully...
kronk wrote: "It is absurd to think all pro-Cuba or pro-Communist leaning activists were involved in a plot to murder the president. "
That's what pro-communist lizard people WANT you to think!
Indeed. The other day Heidi Cruz held a small press gathering where she denied that her husband was the Zodiac Killer, and I remember thinking, that's exactly what the wife of the Zodiac Killer would say. What did she know, and when did she know it?
The former construction company owner, mountaineer and competitive triathlete, governed New Mexico for two terms as a Republican. One of the few unqualified gubernatorial success stories for the Republican Party over the last couple of decades, his entry into politics was a low-key affair, driven mainly by a core of loyal backers. The then politically-inexperienced Johnson was hardly given a chance in the run up to the New Mexico gubernatorial race of 1994, especially after being rebuffed by state Republican leaders who ‘suggested’ that he should instead seek a seat in the State Legislature first.
However, his convictions and doggedness saw him scrapping past his Republican challenger in the primary, Richard P. Cheney, by a mere 1%, securing 34% of the ballots. The win was all the more impressive considering his campaign was funded almost entirely from his own $500,000 contribution. In the general election, with the Republican Party machinery firmly behind him, Johnson soundly, although very surprisingly, defeated the incumbent Governor, Democrat Bruce King, by an impressive 10 points. He repeated the feat four years later by beating Democrat Albert Chavez by another comprehensive ten-point margin to win reelection – impressive feats in a state with an over 40% Latino population.
His time in office was typified by aggressive cost cutting measures aimed at eliminating the state’s budget deficit and spending growth. Johnson, armed with the lessons learned building his construction firm, was known to be a decisive, yet collaborative operator who is most often remembered as the Governor who never increased taxes during his tenure.
In 2012, Johnson joined the Libertarian Party after severing his ties with the GOP.
The #NeverTrump ought to vote for him.
IMO the only way he'd EVER win a Presidential election (Clinton vs Trump vs Johnson) is if neither candidates get to 270 EV. Then, the current House of Representative picks Johnson...
d-usa wrote: A blanket ban on heretics in the galaxy, Space Marine Chaplains spreading the best words, ABBADON will pay for the cost of defending the gate!
He also guarantees there's no problem with the size of his codpiece. He guarantees it.
The former construction company owner, mountaineer and competitive triathlete, governed New Mexico for two terms as a Republican. One of the few unqualified gubernatorial success stories for the Republican Party over the last couple of decades, his entry into politics was a low-key affair, driven mainly by a core of loyal backers. The then politically-inexperienced Johnson was hardly given a chance in the run up to the New Mexico gubernatorial race of 1994, especially after being rebuffed by state Republican leaders who ‘suggested’ that he should instead seek a seat in the State Legislature first.
However, his convictions and doggedness saw him scrapping past his Republican challenger in the primary, Richard P. Cheney, by a mere 1%, securing 34% of the ballots. The win was all the more impressive considering his campaign was funded almost entirely from his own $500,000 contribution. In the general election, with the Republican Party machinery firmly behind him, Johnson soundly, although very surprisingly, defeated the incumbent Governor, Democrat Bruce King, by an impressive 10 points. He repeated the feat four years later by beating Democrat Albert Chavez by another comprehensive ten-point margin to win reelection – impressive feats in a state with an over 40% Latino population.
His time in office was typified by aggressive cost cutting measures aimed at eliminating the state’s budget deficit and spending growth. Johnson, armed with the lessons learned building his construction firm, was known to be a decisive, yet collaborative operator who is most often remembered as the Governor who never increased taxes during his tenure.
In 2012, Johnson joined the Libertarian Party after severing his ties with the GOP.
My wife has been a fan of his for a while now
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: A blanket ban on heretics in the galaxy, Space Marine Chaplains spreading the best words, Cadia will pay for the cost of defending the gate!
Next thing he'll have the head of a secret lodge endorse him...
But this is perhaps the most measured and polite description that one could give of how operator after operator took turns dumping magazines' worth of ammunition into bin Laden's body, two confidential sources within the community have told us. When all was said and done, UBL had over a hundred bullets in him, by the most conservative estimate.
But this is perhaps the most measured and polite description that one could give of how operator after operator took turns dumping magazines' worth of ammunition into bin Laden's body, two confidential sources within the community have told us. When all was said and done, UBL had over a hundred bullets in him, by the most conservative estimate.
If true, I could sympathize with the action. Although it would have been far better to be able to provide photographic proof of his death.
IMO there is no reason to release the pictures of OBL's corpse. There are two classes of people:
A.) The average person, who will hear that Navy Seals successfully executed a mission to apprehend or kill OBL, a wholly valid military target, operating under a legal AUMF from Congress. They will presume that it's true.
B.) People who will not believe he is dead no matter what manner of proof is provided.
The people in group A don't need a picture, and the people in group B won't accept a picture. So why cheapen ourselves?
It's not about enflaming... anyone. It's about having the same respect for the dead we'd like for ourselves. It was wrong to do it with Saddam Hussein's sons, and it was right not to do it with OBL.
It's not about enflaming... anyone. It's about having the same respect for the dead we'd like for ourselves. It was wrong to do it with Saddam Hussein's sons, and it was right not to do it with OBL.
This right here... I think that it's a good thing we're beyond the days of William Wallace and quartering/stringing up corpses as a "warning" to all who can see of how we deal with the law.
And publishing pictures of OBL would essentially be posting the head on a pike at the gates.
It's not about enflaming... anyone. It's about having the same respect for the dead we'd like for ourselves. It was wrong to do it with Saddam Hussein's sons, and it was right not to do it with OBL.
This right here... I think that it's a good thing we're beyond the days of William Wallace and quartering/stringing up corpses as a "warning" to all who can see of how we deal with the law.
And publishing pictures of OBL would essentially be posting the head on a pike at the gates.
Especially considering he hundreds of bullets in him, would of made him a bigger martyr
Tweet from Kasich: "Sen. @tedcruz should be proud of his strong and disciplined campaign. Texas is lucky to have you. Best wishes going forward. -John"
Yeah, I would argue the rest of the country is lucky we're stuck with him, not the other way around.
Bernie Sanders was just declared the victor of the Indiana Primary by NBC News at 9:10 Eastern time, with Sanders holding a 6-point margin over Hillary Clinton with 62% of precincts reporting
While I think I can say the best part of this campaign has been seeing Ted Cruz fail, the second part is probably got to be watching, over the next few months, as Whembly slowly begins to justify why it's OK to vote for Donald Trump (presuming he is the nominee).
Ouze wrote: While I think I can say the best part of this campaign has been seeing Ted Cruz fail, the second part is probably got to be watching, over the next few months, as Whembly slowly begins to justify why it's OK to vote for Donald Trump (presuming he is the nominee).
TheMeanDM wrote: News is reporting that Sanders will win the Indiana primary.
There’s been an interesting pattern of Clinton underperforming polls whenever it appears she has the nomination locked up. It’s never been enough to really throw the Democratic nomination into doubt, but it is, I think, a potentially worrying sign.
I suspect that there are a great many voters out there who are happy to have Clinton as their president, but they’re just not that enthusiastic about it.
“What do we want?”
“More of the same!”
“Who do we want it from?”
“A lady with absolutely no personal charisma!”
A large number of people want Clinton to win, but they’re not that excited about it. Nowhere near as excited as a smaller number of voters are about Sanders. So while the Sanders voters will get out and vote even when their candidate pretty much can’t win (often by convincing themselves he’s still right in the race), the Clinton voters tail off as the race gets less competitive. This is something of a reversal of the usual trend – normally voters tail off when their guy has no chance of winning.
I don’t think this has enough of an effect to throw the race in to doubt, and in many ways it’s actually self-defeating – when Clinton voters don’t show up and Sanders has some results that drag him back in to the race, this pushes up Clinton numbers in future races.
But it does potentially make for an interesting result in November when Clinton faces Trump. It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?
I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November.
2016 Transhumanist Party Presidential Candidate Futurist, philosopher, speaker and journalist
Transhumanist Party Candidate 2016 Zoltan Istvan
Declared 2016 Transhumanist Party Candidate
It's all about technology for Transhumanist Party founder and presidential nominee Zoltan Istvan. His main priority is the allocation of funding for research scientists to develop augmentations for the human body that will destroy disease, enhance natural senses, and even conquer the specter of death.
I'm really hoping Sanders drops out now. When you have the possibility of someone like Trump becoming president, you need the party to be as unified as possible. Clinton may not be perfect but she's the best chance in the general the D's have right now, and they need it.
OTOH, Trumps favrobility rating haven't pushed 40%, and his unfavrobility is generally mid-60s, so maybe I'm overly concerned.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm really hoping Sanders drops out now. When you have the possibility of someone like Trump becoming president, you need the party to be as unified as possible. Clinton may not be perfect but she's the best chance in the general the D's have right now, and they need it.
OTOH, Trumps favrobility rating haven't pushed 40%, and his unfavrobility is generally mid-60s, so maybe I'm overly concerned.
"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?
I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."
"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?
I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."
"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?
I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."
Aye...
We could see record LOW turnouts in the general.
I did see a headline the other day saying that even though she is currently winning, Clinton has drastically lower numbers then she did 8 years ago in the primaries. Dem's are not at all pumped about getting out there this year.
"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?
I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."
Aye...
We could see record LOW turnouts in the general.
Which is a shame, because there's so much more on the ballot than President, and much of that "other stuff" will impact the average person more than who is sitting in the White House.
"It’s likely that the general narrative will be that Trump has no chance, I’d be surprised if he led in many polls between now and election day. So it’s possible that with Clinton presumed to win, a lot of people might just not bother voting on election day. Why stand in line for an hour to vote for the ‘meh’ candidate, when ‘everyone knows’ Trump has no chance?
I’m not saying this is going to happen, or even that it’s that likely. It probably won’t happen. But it is the one way I can see Trump getting up in November."
Aye...
We could see record LOW turnouts in the general.
Which is a shame, because there's so much more on the ballot than President, and much of that "other stuff" will impact the average person more than who is sitting in the White House.
I don't know about Oklahoma, but there is always a huge difference between presidential and midterm turnout.
I mean just on the November vote. So many people only think of the Presidential voting on the ballot and give no mind to the rest of it, the state and local voting, which they can have a much larger influence in and will affect them to a greater degree in most cases.
Yeah, there's a kind of 2000 element to this. Low turnouts are Trump's big chance. However, the one thing Bush had going for him was that people thought he was an idiot, but they didn't personally dislike the guy. Whereas right now people don't laugh about Trump, they get angry and scared.
But that might change if Trump changes his approach a little, and will be massively helped if Trump is played in the media more as a funny buffoon, than a properly scary idiot.
Still really unlikely of course, but we're in an election that so far has been defined by very unlikely things happening.
Yeah, there's a kind of 2000 element to this. Low turnouts are Trump's big chance. However, the one thing Bush had going for him was that people thought he was an idiot, but they didn't personally dislike the guy. Whereas right now people don't laugh about Trump, they get angry and scared.
But that might change if Trump changes his approach a little, and will be massively helped if Trump is played in the media more as a funny buffoon, than a properly scary idiot.
Still really unlikely of course, but we're in an election that so far has been defined by very unlikely things happening.
That's true...
Both Clinton and Trump are/were VERY pubic figures, so all the "negative stuff" is generally "baked-in".
I don't know what the feth is going to happen, but I'd be betting TOP $$$ for a Clinton-Landslide.
whembly wrote: Both Clinton and Trump are/were VERY pubic figures, so all the "negative stuff" is generally "baked-in".
Yeah, that is one pretty unusual element to this campaign - both candidates are well known to everyone, including low information voters. I can't see there being much new negative stuff that will dissuade someone who's already committed to voting for each candidate.
But then, every election I'm amazed at the number of undecided voters in September/October - wondering what information these people are waiting on that hasn't been spelled out, hashed and re-hashed dozens of times already.
I don't know what the feth is going to happen, but I'd be betting TOP $$$ for a Clinton-Landslide.
Yeah, I won't be betting against that But November is still a long time away, and we've all been wrong so many, many times just through the primaries...
But then, every election I'm amazed at the number of undecided voters in September/October - wondering what information these people are waiting on that hasn't been spelled out, hashed and re-hashed dozens of times already.
I think that in general, especially in the internet age, it isn't so much what piece of information is missing, but rather who is going to make the worst campaign mistake... Ie, Romney's "47%" remark
While I agree with you and whembly that more than likely November is gonna be Clinton by a lot.... I do think this could be a year in which we finally see a third party candidate win. Gut feeling tells me that if he ran as a third party independent, all those kids who don't vote in primaries would come out and give a solid showing to prevent either Trump or HRC getting into office. I could be way wrong on that though.
But then, every election I'm amazed at the number of undecided voters in September/October - wondering what information these people are waiting on that hasn't been spelled out, hashed and re-hashed dozens of times already.
I think that in general, especially in the internet age, it isn't so much what piece of information is missing, but rather who is going to make the worst campaign mistake... Ie, Romney's "47%" remark
While I agree with you and whembly that more than likely November is gonna be Clinton by a lot.... I do think this could be a year in which we finally see a third party candidate win. Gut feeling tells me that if he ran as a third party independent, all those kids who don't vote in primaries would come out and give a solid showing to prevent either Trump or HRC getting into office. I could be way wrong on that though.
djones520 wrote: I did see a headline the other day saying that even though she is currently winning, Clinton has drastically lower numbers then she did 8 years ago in the primaries. Dem's are not at all pumped about getting out there this year.
No, I think Sebster nailed it. I'm inclined to vote for Hillary, but I sure don't feel very good about it. I certainly didn't caucus for her. The only person I know, anecdotally, that is excited about it is my wife's cousin, who is a 70 year old white woman.
My stomach kind of feels bad when I think about what her presidency is going to look like. 4, if not 8, years of one crappy scandal after another, with her being just a plausibly deniable distance away from each one.
Impeachment proceedings within the first 2 years.
Government shutdowns, even worse gridlock that before - if the Democrats retake the Senate, I think Sebster was right - I think you're going to see just how bad partisanship can actually get after the shenanigans with Merrick Garland and how hard it was to get Obamacare passed - they're not going to repeat the mistakes of offering any concessions at all because they know "yes" votes are never going to materialize.
Hillary has shown an appetite for foreign adventurism that I felt we were just finally starting to get away from.
I'm not reflexively against gun control, but she has come out in favor of the worst kinds of gun control - "assault weapon bans" that ban items based upon cosmetic aspects like barrel shrouds and pistol grips.
And so on, and so forth. I tend to lean liberal - how excited could I get about a candidate who is essentially a moderate Republican, back when those still existed, even without all the baggage she brings?
And that, in my mind, is the best case! The alternative is President Trump.
It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.
It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.
He won't be able to get to 270 EV.
All he'll do is draw mostly votes from Clinton, possibly preventing her from getting 270 EV.
If no one gets to 270EV... then the GOP House would select the president... who's that going to be? Trump? Gary Johnson? Zoltan?
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.
Well, he's already my candidate of choice... I would have no problems with writing him in, if that's what it took
I think that if somehow Sanders were to become president, you wouldn't see the insane levels of gridlock we see now, but for completely different reasons
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think that in general, especially in the internet age, it isn't so much what piece of information is missing, but rather who is going to make the worst campaign mistake... Ie, Romney's "47%" remark
I think it isn't so much about what information is missing, but how a person comes to be defined. The Bush campaign did an incredible job of nullifying Kerry's war record, and focusing everyone on his inconsistent political positions.
While I agree with you and whembly that more than likely November is gonna be Clinton by a lot.... I do think this could be a year in which we finally see a third party candidate win.
I think the chance of Sanders winning is incredibly small. Sanders couldn't beat Clinton while the contest was even, if he runs as an independent it'll be the same, only he'll have a whole bunch of new infrastructure disadvantages. He outspent Clinton over the primaries, and still got beat. You think he could go again, face a spending ratio of probably more than 5:1, and win?
The only thing Sanders could achieve is to drag enough votes from Clinton to give Trump a chance. Which would go back to my comparison to the 2000 election, when Nader's 3% of the vote might possibly have cost Gore the election. That is possible, I guess, if Sanders chooses ego over reality, and enough voters choose purity over pragmatism.
Gut feeling tells me that if he ran as a third party independent, all those kids who don't vote in primaries would come out and give a solid showing to prevent either Trump or HRC getting into office. I could be way wrong on that though.
There's a really common and almost unchallenged assumption that Sanders has millions of supporters, they just didn't show up on election day. I don't think that assumption holds a lot of water. People assume its true because Sanders has lots of internet popularity, and gets good crowds to his events. But the more likely possibility is that Sanders has a strong core of very enthusiastic voters who are noisy on the internet, and very likely to turn out to see him speak, but not that large of a base of voters beyond that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Government shutdowns, even worse gridlock that before - if the Democrats retake the Senate, I think Sebster was right - I think you're going to see just how bad partisanship can actually get after the shenanigans with Merrick Garland and how hard it was to get Obamacare passed - they're not going to repeat the mistakes of offering any concessions at all because they know "yes" votes are never going to materialize.
The other part of this is that Democrats are slowly but surely starting to play the same game. The votes for Sanders shows that there might a voting base within the Democratic party that is as strident as what we see in the Republican party. Sanders wants to play a role in writing the Democratic 2016 party platform, and given concern over Sanders running a spoiling campaign, I think the party is going to give him what he wants.
It'll be interesting to see from here if that translates in to a more hardline Democratic party.
djones520 wrote: I did see a headline the other day saying that even though she is currently winning, Clinton has drastically lower numbers then she did 8 years ago in the primaries. Dem's are not at all pumped about getting out there this year.
No, I think Sebster nailed it. I'm inclined to vote for Hillary, but I sure don't feel very good about it. I certainly didn't caucus for her. The only person I know, anecdotally, that is excited about it is my wife's cousin, who is a 70 year old white woman.
My stomach kind of feels bad when I think about what her presidency is going to look like. 4, if not 8, years of one crappy scandal after another, with her being just a plausibly deniable distance away from each one.
Impeachment proceedings within the first 2 years.
Government shutdowns, even worse gridlock that before - if the Democrats retake the Senate, I think Sebster was right - I think you're going to see just how bad partisanship can actually get after the shenanigans with Merrick Garland and how hard it was to get Obamacare passed - they're not going to repeat the mistakes of offering any concessions at all because they know "yes" votes are never going to materialize.
Hillary has shown an appetite for foreign adventurism that I felt we were just finally starting to get away from.
I'm not reflexively against gun control, but she has come out in favor of the worst kinds of gun control - "assault weapon bans" that ban items based upon cosmetic aspects like barrel shrouds and pistol grips.
And so on, and so forth. I tend to lean liberal - how excited could I get about a candidate who is essentially a moderate Republican, back when those still existed, even without all the baggage she brings?
And that, in my mind, is the best case! The alternative is President Trump.
This is how I feel exactly. It's a really fething depressing political landscape for anyone who isn't a warmongering, corporate loving douche.
Frankly though, Bernie wouldn't make a good President either. We just really had a gakky list of candidates this year all around.
Seaward wrote: It means he's now in fourth place in a race that only has two guys in it. The metaphysics of that are impressive.
Nate Silver posted a list of previous candidates who won more states than Kasich.
Howard Dean (two states in 2004)
Ed Muskie (three to five states in 1972, depending on how Maine and Iowa are counted)
Newt Gingrich (two states in 2012)
Pat Buchanan (four states in 1996)
Steve Forbes (two states in 1996)
Pat Robertson (four states in 1988)
Jerry Brown (six states in 1992)
When eternal punchlines like Howard Dean and Pat Buchanan outperform you, it might be time to rethink your presidential ambitions.
In what sense? He is literally still campaigning and has his name on the ballots for all remaining states, but in terms of having a chance of winning... not so much.
He's kind of like that guy at the NY marathon who still plugs on, getting to the finish line hours after the first person crossed the line, to be cheered on by his family and the people cleaning up all the mess. It's a hell of an achievement to have run the race, but we shouldn't confuse that with having had a chance of winning.
"I know that the Clinton campaign thinks this campaign is over. They're wrong," Sanders said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from New Albany, Indiana. "Maybe it's over for the insiders and the party establishment but the voters today in Indiana had a different idea."
I guess I just felt like it was a stupid question? Literally typing "Is Bernie still in the race" into Google gives you him a news result that he won Indiana and is still in the running. It's one thing when people ask questions maybe not best asked on a wargaming forum, "like why am I pooping blood" and "I headbutted my computer help me pick a new one" , but it's even worse when it would take literally less effort to just google the damn question.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know, in retrospect, that was pretty jerky. I should have just ignored it. That was a bit rude, sorry.
sebster wrote: He's kind of like that guy at the NY marathon who still plugs on, getting to the finish line hours after the first person crossed the line, to be cheered on by his family and the people cleaning up all the mess. It's a hell of an achievement to have run the race, but we shouldn't confuse that with having had a chance of winning.
That is the kind of pessimism I expect from someone living under an oppressive, freedom-hating regime that is also under constant threat from drop-bears.
I don't see Trump losing in a single state now that Cruz is out.
If Trump takes the next two handily, I wonder if Kasich will drop out and stop wasting money, or if he will stick it out and hope Trump gets struck down by a micro meteorite, or hit by a car?
At least he'd be able to say that he was willing to stick it out.
So, who do you think Trumps running mate will be? Christie? Cruz to unify the party? His hair?
I'm not living in the USA but even so, the fact such a man managed to lie so blatantly about his skills to the point it could have been really damaging to his own country and put lives at stakes at such a high level is really frightening.
About Trump, our own media is of course "covering" the news but honestly, I feel like they're making too much noise for something that's not really worth it. I mean, is it really that important? To me, it just look like another step, but maybe I'm wrong.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm really hoping Sanders drops out now. When you have the possibility of someone like Trump becoming president, you need the party to be as unified as possible. Clinton may not be perfect but she's the best chance in the general the D's have right now, and they need it.
OTOH, Trumps favrobility rating haven't pushed 40%, and his unfavrobility is generally mid-60s, so maybe I'm overly concerned.
You should be concerned. Clinton's are barely[i][u] above them.
Trump is the Presidential nominee. To quote some chick "So this is how freedom dies, to thunderous applause."
It's totally possible.
Sanders would do well to try and convince those disenchanted with HRC and Trump to vote for him if he continued as a third party candidate.
News flash, Sanders IS a third party candidate. He's a Socialist, not a Democrat.
Waking up to Trump clinching the nomination is frightening.
But I also saw that scientists are trying to revive brain dead people so...like whatever. It's not like the world is a fantastic place to live in anyway.
Is Bernie Sanders still running for president? Because out of all the ideals that each candidate has, he seems to be the most suited for a presidential term.
I think this just reaffirms how *terrible* this crop of candidates is. On the one hand you have a repellant, corrupt narcissist who can't even squelch a 70 year old socialist who seems lost half of the time and on the other hand you have a repellant, corrupt, bloviating narcissist who talks out of both sides of his mouth, with both sides being equally ill informed and terrifying. Battle of the oligarchs indeed!
I am reminded of Helen Keller's statement,""Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee."
djones520 wrote: I did see a headline the other day saying that even though she is currently winning, Clinton has drastically lower numbers then she did 8 years ago in the primaries. Dem's are not at all pumped about getting out there this year.
No, I think Sebster nailed it. I'm inclined to vote for Hillary, but I sure don't feel very good about it. I certainly didn't caucus for her. The only person I know, anecdotally, that is excited about it is my wife's cousin, who is a 70 year old white woman.
My stomach kind of feels bad when I think about what her presidency is going to look like. 4, if not 8, years of one crappy scandal after another, with her being just a plausibly deniable distance away from each one.
Impeachment proceedings within the first 2 years.
Government shutdowns, even worse gridlock that before - if the Democrats retake the Senate, I think Sebster was right - I think you're going to see just how bad partisanship can actually get after the shenanigans with Merrick Garland and how hard it was to get Obamacare passed - they're not going to repeat the mistakes of offering any concessions at all because they know "yes" votes are never going to materialize.
Hillary has shown an appetite for foreign adventurism that I felt we were just finally starting to get away from.
I'm not reflexively against gun control, but she has come out in favor of the worst kinds of gun control - "assault weapon bans" that ban items based upon cosmetic aspects like barrel shrouds and pistol grips.
And so on, and so forth. I tend to lean liberal - how excited could I get about a candidate who is essentially a moderate Republican, back when those still existed, even without all the baggage she brings?
And that, in my mind, is the best case! The alternative is President Trump.
An excellent overview of what a HRC administration will look like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: I think this just reaffirms how *terrible* this crop of candidates is. On the one hand you have a repellant, corrupt narcissist who can't even squelch a 70 year old socialist who seems lost half of the time and on the other hand you have a repellant, corrupt, bloviating narcissist who talks out of both sides of his mouth, with both sides being equally ill informed and terrifying. Battle of the oligarchs indeed!
I am reminded of Helen Keller's statement,""Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee."
This is not the first time in history that America has been on the verge of picking a bad president from a poor field of candidates.
America will survive - your checks and balances, plus the strength of your institutions, will outlive HRC or Donald Trump.
You're from NY... why do you think Trump has a better chance than I do?
(Internet crapped out last night, so this reply is a bit late.)
I worry because I see people I know, people who I thought of as friendly, reasonable, decent people standing behind him. I see support for a person like him. The sexism, the racism, the islamophobia, the general horribleness, they see it and lap it up. They throw themselves behind xenophobia. They embrace hatred and fear. They embrace taking away others liberties to quiet their own fears. They denigrate people to raise themselves up. That so many people in our country support him makes me feel sick to my stomach.
This is so much more than someone I disagree with. I would not be scared if a conservative got in the white house, disappointed, and perhaps frustrated, but not scared. But Trump represents the antithesis of my core beliefs. The one belief of mine that will never change is that we are all equal. That we, as a people, and stronger when we work together. That greatness comes from unity, not from division. But these people are they opposite. They hate people who are different. They want to divide us. And not just along class, religious and racial lines. Along party lines and beliefs. They hate people who have different viewpoints. They scream about greatness, but would bring only ruin. That is what I fear. I fear these people, and these ideas, taking root.
With that out of the way, I was discussing Trump's rise with a buddy and I think he distilled why Trump is winning.
Remember during GWB years? How harsh his critics were... especiallythe big media? GWB and "his team" never really addressed those criticism head-on, instead, mostly employed the strategy of "I'm not going to dignify that with a response".
Same with McCain/Romney refusing to hit Obama *hard* during the '08 / '12 election. The GOP Primary was nastier than the General Election.
It drove the GOP voters nuts...
Enter Trump.
You *know* he'll fight in the gutters... and in fact excels in that kind of tango.
Clinton's challenge is to stay out of the gutters...
:barf:
:sigh:
What do ya'll think?
Is it that simple? That Trump's rise is simply a candidate that the voters recognized that he'll fight "dirty"?
With that out of the way, I was discussing Trump's rise with a buddy and I think he distilled why Trump is winning.
Remember during GWB years? How harsh his critics were... especially the big media? GWB and "his team" never really addressed those criticism head-on, instead, mostly employed the strategy of "I'm not going to dignify that with a response".
Same with McCain/Romney refusing to hit Obama *hard* during the '08 / '12 election. The GOP Primary was nastier than the General Election.
It drove the GOP voters nuts...
Enter Trump.
You *know* he'll fight in the gutters... and in fact excels in that kind of tango.
Thats part of it. The real part is this, adn the same reason the only person on the planet old and crotchety enough as me gave HRC a hard run.
*People are hurting in this country. Our economy is turning into a South American one with lots and lots of lower class, and a very small elite. The supposed recovery did nothing but accelerate that. Both parties dither and dither, very content in how things are working-because the people that run them are the elites benefiting from it.
If the parties had worked to deal with this, or at least try to ameliorate the change, these guys would never have made it through the door.
HRC should not underestimate that anger. She represents "The Same." People are tired of the same. For the same reasons the 30s brought Fascism and Communism through Europe, and semi dictatorship here under FDR, Trump/Sanders gained power.
(Internet crapped out last night, so this reply is a bit late.)
I worry because I see people I know, people who I thought of as friendly, reasonable, decent people standing behind him. I see support for a person like him. The sexism, the racism, the islamophobia, the general horribleness, they see it and lap it up. They throw themselves behind xenophobia. They embrace hatred and fear. They embrace taking away others liberties to quiet their own fears. They denigrate people to raise themselves up. That so many people in our country support him makes me feel sick to my stomach.
This is so much more than someone I disagree with. I would not be scared if a conservative got in the white house, disappointed, and perhaps frustrated, but not scared. But Trump represents the antithesis of my core beliefs. The one belief of mine that will never change is that we are all equal. That we, as a people, and stronger when we work together. That greatness comes from unity, not from division. But these people are they opposite. They hate people who are different. They want to divide us. And not just along class, religious and racial lines. Along party lines and beliefs. They hate people who have different viewpoints. They scream about greatness, but would bring only ruin. That is what I fear. I fear these people, and these ideas, taking root.
I'll be honest with you...
Your reservation here was exactly how I felt prior to Obama winning.
:shrugs:
This country has survived Obama and it would sure as hell survive a Clinton or Trump administrations.
With that out of the way, I was discussing Trump's rise with a buddy and I think he distilled why Trump is winning.
Remember during GWB years? How harsh his critics were... especially the big media? GWB and "his team" never really addressed those criticism head-on, instead, mostly employed the strategy of "I'm not going to dignify that with a response".
Same with McCain/Romney refusing to hit Obama *hard* during the '08 / '12 election. The GOP Primary was nastier than the General Election.
It drove the GOP voters nuts...
Enter Trump.
You *know* he'll fight in the gutters... and in fact excels in that kind of tango..
Thats part of it. The real part is this, adn the same reason the only person on the planet old and crotchety enough as me gave HRC a hard run.
*People are hurting in this country. Our economy is turning into a South American one with lots and lots of lower class, and a very small elite. The supposed recovery did nothing but accelerate that. Both parties dither and dither, very content in how things are working-because the people that run them are the elites benefiting from it.
If the parties had worked to deal with this, or at least try to ameliorate the change, these guys would never have made it through the door.
HRC should not underestimate that anger. She represents "The Same." People are tired of the same.
For the same reasons the 30s brought Fascism and Communism through Europe, and semi dictatorship here under FDR, Trump/Sanders gained power.
Trump capturing that "non-politician" vote.
We're seeing a huge voting bloc of that now... and, even to a certain degree it's why Sanders is enjoying support (he's an outsider too).
Nostromodamus wrote: What I find ironic is that not too long ago there was a large portion of people who were fed up with "old white guys" running the country.
Now, after 8 years of a younger black guy sitting in the oval office, 2 of the top contenders are old, white guys
Did I miss HRC is "guy" now?
O.o
You probably meant, 2 old white-wealthy candidates.
Thinking...Guiliane DHS Christie Attorney General
Patreus CIA
Firona State Dept.
Carson General Surgeon or Surgeon General
Rubio Ambassador to Cuba
Cruz Ambassador to Canada
Jeb...well....Jeb
Nostromodamus wrote: What I find ironic is that not too long ago there was a large portion of people who were fed up with "old white guys" running the country.
Now, after 8 years of a younger black guy sitting in the oval office, 2 of the top contenders are old, white guys
Did I miss HRC is "guy" now?
O.o
You probably meant, 2 old white-wealthy candidates.
Nostromodamus wrote: What I find ironic is that not too long ago there was a large portion of people who were fed up with "old white guys" running the country.
Now, after 8 years of a younger black guy sitting in the oval office, 2 of the top contenders are old, white guys
ing thanks.
