motyak wrote: As long as it's tied to potential shut downs/the actions of politicians, go on with the planned parenthood stuff. If it devolves into the "it's life at X/No its life at Y/no at Z!" Argument, or another kind that isn't related to politics, then the discussion on that will stop. But the thread still won't close
motyak wrote: As long as it's tied to potential shut downs/the actions of politicians, go on with the planned parenthood stuff. If it devolves into the "it's life at X/No its life at Y/no at Z!" Argument, or another kind that isn't related to politics, then the discussion on that will stop. But the thread still won't close
100% agreed. I didn't bring it up to start any debate about PP itself, it's really just coincidental that PP is going to apparently be this year's sticking point for both sides to throw a hissy fit over to get what they want to threaten a shutdown. They have to pick something, of course, and what better option than some manufactured public outrage to distract the public away from realizing what a poor job our Congress is doing. Hey, that sounds just like the bogeyman concept I described earlier.
It will never happen. Cruz is polling at about 6%, and he may well see a drop after his Planned Parenthood noise, while Kasich is polling at about 3%. Also consider that Kasich took a good amount of flak in Ohio for the anti-abortion bill he signed into law back in 2013, so adding Ted "let's shut down government for the fetuses" Cruz to the mix has a good chance of hurting him in Ohio.
jasper76 wrote: Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.
Kasich is a moderate Republican Governor... not sure where he'd "plot on that political scale" but I'd be surprised if he's labeled a strong con. (he freak'n implemented Obamacare).
It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.
I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.
But, I think his wife forbade him from running for office.
I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.
But, I think his wife forbade him from running for office.
I think a good deal of Americans from all walks of life would love if Powell ran. I think he'd be a shoe in, to be honest.
I remember reading something a-ways back in time where his wife was worried for his safety, because at the time he wouldve been the first African-American President, and she thought he might be assassinated. Not sure if the Obama presidency has changed that calculation, but I think if Powell was interested, we'd have heard about it by now.
HRC's favorabiltiy rating is worse than Obama has EVER had on this poll.
Now do you understand why myself, and several others, have been repeatedly saying that Clinton is not a lock for the Big Chair?
Yeah... I'm coming around to that.
It's interesting, that the there's a split of the usual Democrat leaning media over HRC. One side will continue to fight for HRC, but the others are ambivalent, at best...
Hence why I think Biden may be able to snatch victory in the primary.
However, I just can't shake HRC rising from the dead to take the WH. They're way too connected.
It will never happen. Cruz is polling at about 6%, and he may well see a drop after his Planned Parenthood noise, while Kasich is polling at about 3%. Also consider that Kasich took a good amount of flak in Ohio for the anti-abortion bill he signed into law back in 2013, so adding Ted "let's shut down government for the fetuses" Cruz to the mix has a good chance of hurting him in Ohio.
You think so? Kasich was one of the few governors criticising Cruz during the last shutdown.
*shrugs*
Looks like it'll be Walker/Bush or Walker/Rubio (you have to have the Floridians on the ticket).
While I like that ticket... it doesn't inspire any confidence.
I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.
Considering how the Bush Administration threw him under the bus, I doubt he would be interested in a Republican candidacy. And, even if he were interested, he would quickly get RINOed. He could do quite well as a Democrat, though.
That said, he's 78, which would make him by far the oldest President at time of inauguration.
jasper76 wrote: Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.
It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.
Powell is not a Republican.
Wikipedia, at least, tells a different story, one where he is a "liberal Republican".
Anyways, I seriously doubt he will run.
He supported Obama.
Oh yeah, I forgot that opposing Obama is now a GOP membership requirement.
Give me a break. You cannot actively and publicly endorse the 'other' party's candidate for president (as Powell endorsed Obama) and expect to then headline a ticket for your party. Once you endorse the candiadte of the other party (regardless of nominally calling yourself an R or a D) you may as well join that candidate's party.
@CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.
Looks like it'll be Walker/Bush or Walker/Rubio (you have to have the Floridians on the ticket).
Walker would certainly come with a lot of baggage regarding the nature of his budget cuts in Wisconsin, especially given the state funding recently provided to build a new stadium for the Bucks.
I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.
Considering how the Bush Administration threw him under the bus, I doubt he would be interested in a Republican candidacy. And, even if he were interested, he would quickly get RINOed. He could do quite well as a Democrat, though.
That said, he's 78, which would make him by far the oldest President at time of inauguration.
jasper76 wrote: Never heard of Kasich, and Rubio is too far to the right for me to consider.
It's really going to take a surprise Powell candidacy at this point for me to seriously consider a GOP candidate.
Powell is not a Republican.
Wikipedia, at least, tells a different story, one where he is a "liberal Republican".
Anyways, I seriously doubt he will run.
He supported Obama.
Oh yeah, I forgot that opposing Obama is now a GOP membership requirement.
What part of OBAMA IS A DEMOCRAT did you miss?
Obama is a democrat, Powell is a self-identified Republican. So what? If all you're saying is that Powells endorsement of Obama would be a detriment to his chances in a Republican Primary, then I agree and lets move on.
But you can endorse a member of an opposing party without changing your own party affiliation. Whether or not the voters will punish you for it or not is not is up to the voters.
jasper76 wrote: @CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.
But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.
Give me a break. You cannot actively and publicly endorse the 'other' party's candidate for president (as Powell endorsed Obama) and expect to then headline a ticket for your party. Once you endorse the candiadte of the other party (regardless of nominally calling yourself an R or a D) you may as well join that candidate's party.
And here, lady's and gentlemen, is a prime example of why we can't have nice things in the US.
Compromise, that thing which allows representative governments to function, means not blindly supporting a candidate or initiative because he or it originated within your party. It is entirely possible to remain a Republican while believing that the Democratic candidate for President would be better for the job. Especially when you aren't actually a politician.
I would lurve... luuuuuuuuuuurve for Powell to run.
Considering how the Bush Administration threw him under the bus, I doubt he would be interested in a Republican candidacy. And, even if he were interested, he would quickly get RINOed. He could do quite well as a Democrat, though.
That said, he's 78, which would make him by far the oldest President at time of inauguration.
Him running on the Democrat ticket would make me vote for him.
But, yeah... he's up there in the age bracket. So, his running mate need to be someone strong.
Give me a break. You cannot actively and publicly endorse the 'other' party's candidate for president (as Powell endorsed Obama) and expect to then headline a ticket for your party. Once you endorse the candiadte of the other party (regardless of nominally calling yourself an R or a D) you may as well join that candidate's party.
And here, lady's and gentlemen, is a prime example of why we can't have nice things in the US.
Compromise, that thing which allows representative governments to function, means not blindly supporting a candidate or initiative because he or it originated within your party. It is entirely possible to remain a Republican while believing that the Democratic candidate for President would be better for the job. Especially when you aren't actually a politician.
Look at the way the Ds treated Lieberman... It sure as hell is not new nor unique to the Rs.
jasper76 wrote: @CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.
But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.
My main point going back is that so far, given the crop of GOP contenders, a surprise GOP Powell candidacy may be the only thing to get me to look at the Republican party s riously in 2016.
I agree it's highly unlike, ergo it doesn't seem likely at this point tha the Republican Primaries will produce a candidate that I will seriously consider.
jasper76 wrote: @CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.
But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.
My main point going back is that so far, given the crop of GOP contenders, a surprise GOP Powell candidacy may be the only thing to get me to look at the Republican party s riously in 2016.
I agree it's highly unlike, ergo it doesn't seem likely at this point tha the Republican Primaries will produce a candidate that I will seriously consider.
Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.
You might be surprised. His stance on LGBT issues would net him a lot of brownie points, and the belief that he got fethed over by the Bush Administration is widely held even among extremely liberal Democrats. Honestly he would have a lot more trouble with the R base, even if he hadn't endorsed Obama.
jasper76 wrote: @CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.
But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.
My main point going back is that so far, given the crop of GOP contenders, a surprise GOP Powell candidacy may be the only thing to get me to look at the Republican party s riously in 2016.
I agree it's highly unlike, ergo it doesn't seem likely at this point tha the Republican Primaries will produce a candidate that I will seriously consider.
Just seems silly to say 'Unless a D wins the R nomination, I won't vote for the R nominee. I can't undersand why folks think it is unreasonable to want a D to win it"
I mean, no gak. You clearly will vote for the most liberal candidate. Just as I will clearly vote for the most conservative. But you don't see me whining that the Ds won't nominate a conservative R.
jasper76 wrote: @CptJake: that's fine and all, but those rules are partisan rules, not mine. Supporting Obama or McCain would not have much bearing for me on whether Powell would make a good president.
But it has a LOT of bearing on declaring a candidacy for one party or the other. Independents/3rd Party candidates don't well running for POTUS. Powell cannot run as an R because he publicly endorsed the D candidate over the R candidate. Period. He could run as a D, but would not have much of a chance without first running for and winning a state level office as a D. Frankly, he would not be welcomed by the D base at all.
My main point going back is that so far, given the crop of GOP contenders, a surprise GOP Powell candidacy may be the only thing to get me to look at the Republican party s riously in 2016.
I agree it's highly unlike, ergo it doesn't seem likely at this point tha the Republican Primaries will produce a candidate that I will seriously consider.
Just seems silly to say 'Unless a D wins the R nomination, I won't vote for the R nominee. I can't undersand why folks think it is unreasonable to want a D to win it"
I mean, no gak. You clearly will vote for the most liberal candidate. Just as I will clearly vote for the most conservative. But you don't see me whining that the Ds won't nominate a conservative R.
Again, Powell is a self-described Republican. Whether his endorsement of Obama would, in reality, serve as a disqualifying factor in a Republican Primary is up to Republican Primay voters.
But he's not a Democrat. This is a "no true Scotsman" argument your putting forward, and verges on disrespectful since Powell has made it clear that he is a Republican. He may not meet your definition of Republican, but in reality , he is a Republican .
Look at the way the Ds treated Lieberman... It sure as hell is not new nor unique to the Rs.
I never implied that it was. Though the modern "good vs. evil" dichotomy of American politics definitely has its roots in Republican strategies that were employed during the 70's. Of course both sides do it now, but it is definitely far more pervasive within the GOP due to their nominal focus on moralizing. Not that Democrats don't moralize, it simply isn't as big a part of their general campaign strategy.
But he's not a Democrat. This is a "no true Scotsman" argument your putting forward, and verges on disrespectful since Powell has made it clear that he is a Republican. He may not meet your definition of Republican, but in reality , he is a Republican .
Yes, when it comes to political affiliations, I take people at their word unless I have some reason to believe they are lying. I don't have any reason to believe Colin Powell is lying about his political affiliation.
jasper76 wrote: Yes, when it comes to political affiliations, I take people at their word unless I have some reason to believe they are lying. I don't have any reason to believe Colin Powell is lying about his political affiliation.
Well, the lineup for the primetime debate on Fox News has been announced: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich That leaves the pregame show to: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore
Anybody know how long the debate is supposed to be? Realistically speaking, I just can't see much useful dialogue happening from 10 different candidates, many of whom will be trying to outdo each other in crazy, within only an hour or two. Sad we couldn't see Graham and Trump face off, would have been hilarious if they had been put next to each other on stage.
Another randomly awesome thought: Fox News should have Clinton or Sanders make an appearance to ask the candidates a question.
Anybody know how long the debate is supposed to be? Realistically speaking, I just can't see much useful dialogue happening from 10 different candidates, many of whom will be trying to outdo each other in crazy, within only an hour or two. Sad we couldn't see Graham and Trump face off, would have been hilarious if they had been put next to each other on stage.
Fox News brought on a special "guest producer" specifically for this debate... It's going to be Vince McMahon, and the debate "format" is a "chairs and ladders match" not entirely sure what that all means though...
Powell has always been a R. Do you really think GW would select Him as Sec of S. otherwise? He, like many Rs, started noticing his party getting pulled further and further to the right (as is now starting to happen more on the left). He also really liked McCain, but viewed Obama as a transformational figure that the nation sorely needed, so he picked him. Yeah, it would probably disqualify him from the GOP nomination today, but I would guess he could easily win in the Dem field. They like his views on Iraq, social issues, the Rs couldn't fall back on the whole weak on military, (oh and Whem, he supports affirmative action).
So I guess HRC's early years as a supporter of Goldwater disqualify her from the D nomination?
Anybody know how long the debate is supposed to be? Realistically speaking, I just can't see much useful dialogue happening from 10 different candidates, many of whom will be trying to outdo each other in crazy, within only an hour or two. Sad we couldn't see Graham and Trump face off, would have been hilarious if they had been put next to each other on stage.
Fox News brought on a special "guest producer" specifically for this debate... It's going to be Vince McMahon, and the debate "format" is a "chairs and ladders match" not entirely sure what that all means though...
I really want Trump to call Christie a jabroni. And follow it with do you smeeellll what the Christie was eating?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: You could do that, but you'd be partially wrong. Republicans are equally to blame with their "tactic" of saying "anything Obama wants is wrong, so we're gonna oppose it"
The economy isn't really driven by politics, outside of a few areas here or there. I mean, sure, in 2008 a stronger stimulus would have meant a shallower recession and faster recovery, and while Republicans were incredibly silly in rejecting most stimulus out of hand, but really the Blue Dogs weren't a hell of a lot better and the centre of the Democrats didn't fight too hard for a stronger bill.
But outside of that overall economic activity is pretty much outside the hands of the politicians. It was really up to the Federal Reserve after that and they did their job as they should, some Republicans claimed say deeply crazy nonsense, but it didn't affect the Fed's policy.
Though I will note that government has a powerful role to play in distribution, and on that the two parties are very different.
I could be wrong, and if you can give an example that'd be really interesting.
Glad you asked, lol.
In Oregon, Mark O. Hatfield pretty much gaks gold. He's got a bunch of stuff named after him, and is generally revered as a great statesman. While I don't think "Statesman" was applied to him during his whole career, I do recall seeing, on microfiche at the library, newspaper articles from the late, late 80s (like, 87-90 or so) that used the term, and I he retired in the early 90s. Ironically, he cited partisanship as one major reason for his retirement, and that was in the 90s, well before we got where we are today
Heh, I watched something recently, from the 90s, that complained about how partisan things had gotten. I laughed because they had no idea what was to come
And thanks for the story, interesting read.
But you could very well be right about the distinction between a "statesman" and "career politician", because thinking a bit more on it, I can't really recall anyone ever calling even Mr. Hatfield a "Career politician", and I can't think of too many instances, outside of a history class (wherein a term "career politician" is used as a statement of fact, not judgement) where the term has been used positively.
Cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Bernie comes off authentic because he's literally shouting out what he is and what he wants to do.
He's not your typical 'double-speaking' politician for sure.
Sure, but this is really because he has the freedom of being irrelevant. He can say what he wants knowing if it pisses off some group it doesn't matter, because he isn't going to win. And he doesn't have to parse his language carefully to make sure people can't take it out of context, because no-one is bothering to attack him, neither the Repubicans nor Hillary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I was just thinking, because I've been hearing a lot about it lately, do you think the R's will be focusing on abortion this election now that gay marriage is out the window as an issue? Or do you think they will focus less on the conservative christian voting bloc?
They put out that Planned Parenthood scam to time it with the primaries, so it looks like at some part of the party wants to take this election in that direction.
But they would want to be careful, because while making a lot of noise about abortion can be a good way to put some enthusiasm in their base, it's also certain to energise a large part of the Democratic base as well. Typically Republicans can count on most of their base getting out and voting, while the Democrats have a larger pool of voters but much lower turn outs. Republicans want an election like 2000, not 2008.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.
You pretty much have to, to win the primary. They'll try to swing back to the centre in the general.
The crazy wheel gets the grease. Note its not just social conservatives that work this way, but true believers of any kind. Note that Ron Paul has done well in a few primaries, especially in caucus where you have to be a total nut to sit through hours of that nonsense to get to finally cast a vote.
Its true with Democrats as well, and is one main reason Sanders is doing so well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Powell has always been a R. Do you really think GW would select Him as Sec of S. otherwise?
Powell was slated for Education if Gore had won. He's very Republican on foreign affairs, but on domestic issues he's got a mix of Republican and Democratic values.
But then, that's a large reason he'd never get the nod. The primary test for much of the Republican base is absolute, unquestioning adherence to Republican positions in all things. So he'd have huge problems getting his own base behind him. Meanwhile Democrats would be able to run vision of him in front of the UN talking about WMDs over and over again.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, the lineup for the primetime debate on Fox News has been announced: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich
That leaves the pregame show to: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore
Anybody know how long the debate is supposed to be? Realistically speaking, I just can't see much useful dialogue happening from 10 different candidates, many of whom will be trying to outdo each other in crazy, within only an hour or two. Sad we couldn't see Graham and Trump face off, would have been hilarious if they had been put next to each other on stage.
Another randomly awesome thought: Fox News should have Clinton or Sanders make an appearance to ask the candidates a question.
I'll be tuning in for pure entertainment value.
But if one candidate actually presents an alternative to the ACA other than "repeal and replace with something better", I will visit that candidates website and read over his platform.
With this many people, I think we're just in for a night of "Obama, Hilary, and/or Obamacare are bad", and little by way of actual substance.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.
You pretty much have to, to win the primary. They'll try to swing back to the centre in the general.
Which I think will hurt them overall as people will think they are being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on issues, etc. I really do think that Sanders will do quite well all the way through to the end of things, simply because he doesn't have to, and isn't going to "swing back" in any direction to try and bring in more votes.
sebster wrote: My political memory only goes back to the 80s, and my memory of US politics only goes back to the early 90s, but I can't remember a time when people weren't calling for an outsider to do magical outsider things. I even know of a few outsiders that won elections, and while a few were okay none of them ever managed to do anything magically different to the establishment candidates.
In this cycle, Benton has been running America's Liberty superPAC, which is boosting Rand Paul, one of the 10 Republicans to make it onto the prime-time Fox News debate stage Thursday night.
Benton managed Rand Paul's winning Senate run in Kentucky. He also managed Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell's 2014 reelection bid before resigned in August of last year.
Benton played a prominent role in Ron Paul's 2012 campaign. What's more, he is married to Ron Paul's granddaughter, who is a niece of Rand Paul.
...
In 2011, Sorenson was the salaried state campaign chairman for then-Rep. Michele Bachmann. He was one of the early Bachmann backers helping lay the groundwork for the Minnesota congresswoman, who was looking to make a splash.
But that December, shortly before the Iowa caucuses, Sorenson defected and endorsed Ron Paul. In Sorenson's guilty plea, he charged that Paul campaign officials paid him $73,000 to make the flip.
The new indictment alleges that in October 2011, Benton began negotiations with Sorenson, offering to match Bachmann's salary. By December, the four politicos — Sorenson, Benton, Kesari and Tate — were writing and editing a press release for Sorenson to announce his switch. They then had to draft a second release, to deny rumors of a payoff. The three Paul staffers began moving the money just before Christmas, according to the indictment.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.
You pretty much have to, to win the primary. They'll try to swing back to the centre in the general.
Which I think will hurt them overall as people will think they are being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on issues, etc. I really do think that Sanders will do quite well all the way through to the end of things, simply because he doesn't have to, and isn't going to "swing back" in any direction to try and bring in more votes.
Do you recall Mitt Romney's "Etch-a-Sketch" remark? That may well have been the nail on the coffin of his presidential aspirations, because it deflated any enthusiasm a personality like Romney was able to muster for going out to the polls...he admitted he'd been lying to them the whole time, and who wants to get out of bed to go vote for someone who's been lying to them.
I think the GOP field needs a dude, maybe a candidate who knows he won't win like Rand Paul, to level with the conservative base that they no longer have the demographic clout they used to, and they simply cannot win the White House on a platform that contains stances that are offensive to the majority of US voters. It might sound like I'm just bashing on the GOP, but I really do believe we need a "small government" platform in the mix, just for the love of all things reasonable, keep the small government stuff, and jettison the quixotic quest to ban abortion. I mean this whole Planned Parenthood thing...just when you might thing the GOP might be coming to its senses, boom! Surprise! We're still the same creepy old white-hairs who were trying to crawl in the sheets with you and your wife 4 years ago.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.
You pretty much have to, to win the primary. They'll try to swing back to the centre in the general.
Which I think will hurt them overall as people will think they are being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on issues, etc. I really do think that Sanders will do quite well all the way through to the end of things, simply because he doesn't have to, and isn't going to "swing back" in any direction to try and bring in more votes.
Do you recall Mitt Romney's "Etch-a-Sketch" remark? That may well have been the nail on the coffin of his presidential aspirations, because it deflated any enthusiasm a personality like Romney was able to muster for going out to the polls...he admitted he'd been lying to them the whole time, and who wants to get out of bed to go vote for someone who's been lying to them.
Had the Romney campaign, for all it's worts, had a strong ground game, he'd likely be President now. The Obama Campaign simply kicked ass.
I think the GOP field needs a dude, maybe a candidate who knows he won't win like Rand Paul, to level with the conservative base that they no longer have the demographic clout they used to, and they simply cannot win the White House on a platform that contains stances that are offensive to the majority of US voters.
Who do you think put the GOP back in charge in both the House and Senate? I think you're maybe conflating "conservative base" to the far "religious right".
It might sound like I'm just bashing on the GOP, but I really do believe we need a "small government" platform in the mix, just for the love of all things reasonable, keep the small government stuff, and jettison the quixotic quest to ban abortion. I mean this whole Planned Parenthood thing...just when you might thing the GOP might be coming to its senses, boom! Surprise! We're still the same creepy old white-hairs who were trying to crawl in the sheets with you and your wife 4 years ago.
Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.
Who do you think put the GOP back in charge in both the House and Senate? I think you're maybe conflating "conservative base" to the far "religious right".
I have no doubt that the GOP is still powerful in local elections....just nationally, they are not keeping up with dramatic demographic shifts. This is not news. If the GOP is content to remain a local power, that's a route that's available to them, but its becoming increasingly obvious that in order to really compete nationally, they will really have to moderate their platform.
In all fairness, they've made a good start by keepiong their mouths shut (for the most part) after gay marriage bans were rendered unconstitutional. All you gotta do is apply that silence to women's reproductive systems, and Voila! You're well on your way back to the path to national relevancy.
whembly wrote: Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.
Except for the inconvenient fact that federal funding for abortion is already outlawed. But the truth has never riled up the fringe like a good lie.
Who do you think put the GOP back in charge in both the House and Senate? I think you're maybe conflating "conservative base" to the far "religious right".
I have no doubt that the GOP is still powerful in local elections....just nationally, they are not keeping up with dramatic demographic shifts. This is not news. If the GOP is content to remain a local power, that's a route that's available to them, but its becoming increasingly obvious that in order to really compete nationally, they will really have to moderate their platform.
In all fairness, they've made a good start by keepiong their mouth shut (for the most part) after gay marriage bans were rendered unconstitutional.
We'll see how it goes...eh? Maybe a Trump/Oprah administration would make things palatable...
whembly wrote: Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.
Except for the inconvenient fact that federal funding for abortion is already outlawed. But the truth has never riled up the fringe like a good lie.
The inconvenient fact is that money is fungible. So, the fact that federal funding is outlawed is a red-herring.
I read an article today that Bill Clinton called him and encouraged him to run for President when he was mulling it over, and both Clinton's people and Trump's people admit that it happened.
I'll try to find the article and link it. I wonder if this will have any effect on his standing in the GOP field.
Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.
Clinton’s personal office in New York confirmed that the call occurred in late May, but an aide to Clinton said the 2016 race was never specifically discussed and that it was only a casual chat.
The talk with Clinton — the spouse of the Democratic presidential front-runner and one of his party’s preeminent political strategists — came just weeks before Trump jumped into the GOP race and surged to the front of the crowded Republican field.
The revelation of the call comes as many Republicans have begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation.
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. (AP photos/AP photos)
Trump took the call from his office in Trump Tower in New York, according to the four allies, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. The call came as Trump was making a final decision about whether to run, and he was candid about his political ambitions and his potential interest in seeking the White House during the talk, these allies said.
The 42nd president listened intently and then analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the GOP base, the Trump allies said.
The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.
One person with knowledge of Clinton’s end of the call said the former president was upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation.
Clinton aides declined to speak on the record about the call, saying the conversation was personal.
“Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”
One Trump adviser said Clinton called Trump, but the adviser did not provide specifics about how the call came about.
People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.
At the time, Trump was touting a “foolproof” but undisclosed plan to defeat Islamic State terrorists and ramping up his presence on the airwaves, including interviews where he was asked about his donations to the Clinton Foundation. He entered the race June 16.
Neither side would provide an exact date for the call, but both Bill Clinton’s office and a person close to Trump described it as “late May.”
Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, declined to comment. The campaign of Hillary Clinton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump is a longtime acquaintance of the Clintons, both of whom attended the businessman’s third wedding in 2005. Since Trump entered the presidential race, however, he and Hillary Clinton have increasingly traded barbs.
She has condemned Trump’s racially charged remarks about Mexican immigrants and tut-tutted about his remark that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is not a war hero.
“Donald Trump. Finally, a candidate whose hair gets more attention than mine,” Clinton joked at a Democratic dinner in Arkansas in July. “But there’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and families, and now the insults he has directed at a genuine war hero, Sen. John McCain.”
That was a rare instance in which Clinton mentioned Trump by name. Also in July, before a largely Hispanic audience, Clinton had this to say:
“I have just one word for Mr. Trump. Basta!”
In June, she criticized Trump, without using his name, over his references to Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals during his June campaign launch speech.
“A recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable,” Clinton said in an interview with Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston.
Clinton demurred when asked to specify to whom she was referring. Instead, she has frequently sought to tie Trump’s views to the broader GOP field.
“I think he is emblematic,” she said. “I want people to understand it’s not about him — it’s about everybody.”
Clinton has reserved her sharpest attacks for former Florida governor Jeb Bush and other candidates she has called out by name for their policies on immigration, abortion and other issues.
For his part, Trump said little about Clinton until recent weeks.
“Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina,” Trump wrote in a post on Instagram, following that interview. “This is why politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble.”
And on Wednesday, Trump wrote in a Twitter message: “Do you notice that Hillary spews out Jeb’s name as often as possible in order to give him status? She knows Trump is her worst nightmare.”
That’s a long way from the cordial, even cozy, relationship between the two when Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York and Trump was a constituent and supporter.
At Trump’s 2005 wedding, Hillary Clinton sat in the front row for the ceremony, and Bill Clinton joined her for festivities later. The Clintons were photographed laughing chummily with Trump and new wife Melania Knauss at the reception, with Bill Clinton clasping Trump’s shoulder.
Trump has also donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation.
If I were an opportunistic GOP contender, I'd be doing everything I could to paint Trump as the "Clinton's candidate", at least for as long as he seems like an actual contender.
More like "Bill Clinton fanned the flames of Trump's lust for power in order to make the GOP look ridiculous, and thereby increase the chances of his wife winning the White House."
They don't call him Slick Willy for nothing. If that indeed was his intent, then all I can say is, "Well done, sir."
It's just hard to imagine Trump being complicit in a conspiracy with the Clinton's, because of his massive ego, but I guess you never know...I am honestly still not sure whether Trump really wants to be President, or if this is just some big joke to him.
I plan on watching those debates, I will laugh my ass off if he does that to them!
Oh the tides are a turning for Clinton, and this opens things up as now Bernie is 30 to clintons' 32 ratings! Coming across as a fake in any shape or form is now hurtful to candidates in an America tired of the shucksters, and sheisters we call politicians
gak... I really liked Audioslave... and they're HONEST to GOD commie-bastards.
As bad as Cake?? If you have an iron constitution, watch some "live" footage from their concerts... I'm fairly all over the place on the political map, with a bit of a pull to the left, but holy crap those dudes (well, really the lead singer) are way the heck out there.
Heck, I remember Michael Stipe wasting my time spouting off about the evils of the Army and capitalism when what I paid for was musical entertainment. The show was a good show, but even the typical REM crowd types were like 'shut up and get on with it!' during his diatribe.
I learned a short while ago that it's best not to look up the lyrics of songs you like, nor to delve too much into the politics of celebrities you enjoy.
jasper76 wrote: Is anyone else seriously disappointed that Perry and Trump won't be on the same stage? These guys seem to have a genuine hatred for each other.
I would have liked to have seen that, yes. Who doesn't enjoy two clowns slapping each other when you go to the circus?
Ouze wrote: I learned a short while ago that it's best not to look up the lyrics of songs you like, nor to delve too much into the politics of celebrities you enjoy.
Indeed, for a period of time, I neglected to "unfollow" Moby on facebook (I actually do like some of his music)... the dude honestly NEVER posts about music. Instead, he is a literal broken record on all things vegan.
At least when you follow Cannibal Corpse, or Exmortus or the like on things like FB, they actually post things related to their work
CptJake wrote: Heck, I remember Michael Stipe wasting my time spouting off about the evils of the Army and capitalism when what I paid for was musical entertainment. The show was a good show, but even the typical REM crowd types were like 'shut up and get on with it!' during his diatribe.
Dead Kennedys come to mind here. That dude was (is?) pinker than a flamingo in heat.
CptJake wrote: Heck, I remember Michael Stipe wasting my time spouting off about the evils of the Army and capitalism when what I paid for was musical entertainment. The show was a good show, but even the typical REM crowd types were like 'shut up and get on with it!' during his diatribe.
Dead Kennedys come to mind here. That dude was (is?) pinker than a flamingo in heat.
Oh yeah, Biafra is even worse than la Rocha.
Keith Morris (black flag/circle jerks) is pretty hard core leftist too.
Who do you think put the GOP back in charge in both the House and Senate? I think you're maybe conflating "conservative base" to the far "religious right".
I have no doubt that the GOP is still powerful in local elections....just nationally, they are not keeping up with dramatic demographic shifts. This is not news. If the GOP is content to remain a local power, that's a route that's available to them, but its becoming increasingly obvious that in order to really compete nationally, they will really have to moderate their platform.
In all fairness, they've made a good start by keepiong their mouths shut (for the most part) after gay marriage bans were rendered unconstitutional. All you gotta do is apply that silence to women's reproductive systems, and Voila! You're well on your way back to the path to national relevancy.
I actually read some commentary after the 2012 election, about why we elected a bunch of Republican governors at the same time we elected a Democratic President. The suggestion was that we like our local politicians conservative, as the local level is usually just about maintaining the status quo, keeping state services running, etc, which is all easily accomplished by your friendly neighborhood conservative. But the national level is often where real social changes are made (some states will always be ahead of the curve, but the rest usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming by the Fed into the modern day), and that's where the liberal Ds come in.
I think the GOP field needs a dude, maybe a candidate who knows he won't win like Rand Paul, to level with the conservative base that they no longer have the demographic clout they used to, and they simply cannot win the White House on a platform that contains stances that are offensive to the majority of US voters. It might sound like I'm just bashing on the GOP, but I really do believe we need a "small government" platform in the mix, just for the love of all things reasonable, keep the small government stuff, and jettison the quixotic quest to ban abortion. I mean this whole Planned Parenthood thing...just when you might thing the GOP might be coming to its senses, boom! Surprise! We're still the same creepy old white-hairs who were trying to crawl in the sheets with you and your wife 4 years ago.
The problem with that is that "small government" is just a smoke and mirrors platform. For the Rs, it means cutting welfare/entitlements but increasing defense, for the Ds it means cutting defense but increasing welfare/entitlements. Ultimately, the government stays the same size, just the parts that one party didn't like shrunk while the parts they do like got bigger,
And, let's face it, sending some things back to the states just means we pay more state taxes (because, do you really think federal taxes will go down?).
We used to be the opposite here in Oklahoma. A very blue state, neighbors helping neighbors, a big state government. And going Red at the federal level to keep them in check.
gak... I really liked Audioslave... and they're HONEST to GOD commie-bastards.
As bad as Cake?? If you have an iron constitution, watch some "live" footage from their concerts... I'm fairly all over the place on the political map, with a bit of a pull to the left, but holy crap those dudes (well, really the lead singer) are way the heck out there.
Yup... Onstage, the Audioslave guys would say things like "we ought to be more like Cuba or Venezuala".
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Which I think will hurt them overall as people will think they are being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on issues, etc. I really do think that Sanders will do quite well all the way through to the end of things, simply because he doesn't have to, and isn't going to "swing back" in any direction to try and bring in more votes.
Yeah, one of the big things in politics is to manage that swing back to the centre without looking wishy washy, or just looking like you're saying anything to get elected. Not many of them handle it well, probably the best in recent memory was GW Bush.
Makes me wonder. Was GW Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" ethos entirely abandoned by the GOP? You never hear that phrase bandied about anymore except in reference to Bush.
Did the term become too closely associated with his Medicare expansion?
That was a great article, thanks for linking to that. And yeah, there's always an 'outsider' candidate, even though the merits of an outsider are dubious at best, and no-one on the national stage is ever really an outsider anyway.
Anyhow, I just thought I'd pick out some of the best bits in the article about the whole Trump thing;
"It’s still not clear whether he’s in on the joke—there’s always been a bit of mystery to how aware Donald Trump is that Donald Trump is full of gak."
"You can see why people think he’s more “honest” than one of the other randos in the GOP field—he’s gifted at not sounding like a politician even as he deploys standard tricks from the “I’m not a politician” handbook."
"the grim undercurrent of his rise is SHAME. After all, if you believe we must make America great again, then you must also believe that America, at the present moment, sucks. And pretty much everyone at the Trump picnic believed that America sucks."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.
And they'd be lying liars who lie to suckers who believe lies. To say it nicely. Seriously, there's been no Federal funding for the abortion services in PP for fething decades. Despite that basic fething reality, the lies continue.
The Federal funds for PP go to non-abortion services, like pre-natal check ups and other stuff that helps mothers deliver healthy babies. The bill put forward to defund PP would result in more babies dying.
But of course, the anti-abortion crowd in the US is a collection of liars, and so they don't actually care that babies might die.
whembly wrote: Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.
And they'd be lying liars who lie to suckers who believe lies. To say it nicely. Seriously, there's been no Federal funding for the abortion services in PP for fething decades. Despite that basic fething reality, the lies continue.
The Federal funds for PP go to non-abortion services, like pre-natal check ups and other stuff that helps mothers deliver healthy babies. The bill put forward to defund PP would result in more babies dying.
But of course, the anti-abortion crowd in the US is a collection of liars, and so they don't actually care that babies might die.
That's laughable sebster. You know exactly what I fething mean by what those $$$ are doing for PP and what I meant by that it's fungible.
That bill would redirected the non-abortion services to other community healthcare providers. No women services are being reduced at. all. by. that. bill.
Now with that out of the way.
The issue isn't about the funding... it's the fact that PP was caught on tape facilitating an organ harvest business for profit. Which is illegal.
1. Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (you know, a basic tenet that helps form the foundation of our legal system) that it was "for profit"?
2. The other healthcare providers that would have received this funding, do they have the same national coverage/presence as PP?
Tannhauser42 wrote: 1. Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (you know, a basic tenet that helps form the foundation of our legal system) that it was "for profit"?
You only need to watch the videos (5 in all so far) that shows them that an investigation is easily justified. Multiple states are conducting investigations as we speak.
2. The other healthcare providers that would have received this funding, do they have the same national coverage/presence as PP?
Absolutely. In fact, these providers are actually fighting for these fundings. But, since PP spends about 15 million per year in their lobbying efforts, it's easy for them to keep those federal/state fundings flowing.
Planned Parenthood's response to the latest video:
"The footage released today doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards. Instead, the latest tape shows an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab, The latest tape has at least 20 substantial and unexplained edits. Previous tapes released by this extremist group were heavily edited in order to distort what the people on the tapes actually said. These videos are intended to shock and deceive the public."
jasper76 wrote: Planned Parenthood's response to the latest video:
"The footage released today doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards. Instead, the latest tape shows an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab, The latest tape has at least 20 substantial and unexplained edits. Previous tapes released by this extremist group were heavily edited in order to distort what the people on the tapes actually said. These videos are intended to shock and deceive the public."
Extremists lying to push their agenda? Who woulda thought it.
jasper76 wrote: Planned Parenthood's response to the latest video:
"The footage released today doesn’t show Planned Parenthood staff engaged in any wrongdoing or agreeing to violate any legal or medical standards. Instead, the latest tape shows an extremely offensive intrusion and lack of respect for women, with footage of medical tissue in a lab, The latest tape has at least 20 substantial and unexplained edits. Previous tapes released by this extremist group were heavily edited in order to distort what the people on the tapes actually said. These videos are intended to shock and deceive the public."
Which they did release the full unedited the tapes, from start to finish.
That a damage control response if I ever seen one.
Curious, have you watched the full tapes.
Here's the thing, 'abortion' is such a politically toxic subject matter, we all lose our collective gak.
Oh hell no, I didn't watch it. I have absolutely zero interest in viewing videos of dead fetuses. Never have, and never will. I've kept up with the story on the Washington Post, whose reporting both sides quite detailed enough for my taste.
jasper76 wrote: Oh hell no, I didn't watch it. I have absolutely zero interest in viewing videos of dead fetuses. Never have, and never will. I've kept up with the story on the Washington Post, whose reporting both sides quite detailed enough for my taste.
jasper76 wrote: Makes me wonder. Was GW Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" ethos entirely abandoned by the GOP? You never hear that phrase bandied about anymore except in reference to Bush.
In the last couple of years of the Bush admin there was a lot of talk in the Republican party which basically amounted to asking ‘where did all of this go wrong?’ Incredibly the actual answer, ‘Iraq, you fething idiots’ was largely left off the table, and instead the party split in to two parts, those who thought the Bush admin was too right wing for middle America, and those who felt the party wasn’t right wing enough, and therefore not meaningfully different from the Democrats.
The ‘not right enough’ group won, mostly through structural advantages, but not significantly. Then in 2008 the Republicans got trounced, and this heightened the debate but didn’t end it. 2010 was the masterstroke, though, with the faux grassroots Tea Party decisively winning the case for ‘not right enough’. From there any moderate Republican was going to face a targeted attack, and many did. The excellent results in 2010 made it seem this strategy was a success not just within the party, but with the electorate as a whole.
But then after they failed to overcome Obama in a tanked economy, the question was asked again. But this time around there just weren’t that many moderate voices left to make the case for their side, so there was little chance of the Republicans moving back to the centre.
The narrowing of the base through moving further and further right will be terminal, but it’s a slow process, it’s likely Republicans will win more than few presidential elections, and have periods of congressional control before the issue is finally, clearly terminal for the party.
The issue, though, is that the longer they wait, the harder it will be to change course back to the centre.
That's not what I was saying. Re-read what I stated.
No, you just have to put some of the dots together. You complained that there’s no media celebrating the people protesting war against ISIS, like there was celebrating the protest against war in Iraq.
But the basic reality is that the latter was much easier to celebrate, because it was a much more meaningful, sensible protest. And that’s a thing that can’t actually be debated. People might believe both wars were necessary, and people might believe neither war is merited, but everyone has to recognise that the war against Iraq was a much weaker case than the war against ISIS.
From there, it really shouldn’t be too hard to understand why one group of protestors is given more favourable coverage than another.
And even if you don’t accept that, then there’s just the basic issue of scale – Iraq was a much bigger operation than the war against ISIS. It’s like complaining that Vietnam war protests got more coverage than Panama war protestors, therefore that means something about political bias.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I actually know more about Biafra through television appearances than about his band. I never got into punk music too much.
I was never really in to punk either. Some friends were so I got exposure through them, and from what I’ve heard I doubt there’s many people who’d buy in to the Dead Kennedy’s without buying in to the politics. The politics is pretty overt.
It does kind of lead to a question about exactly when you can and can’t leave a band’s politics at the door. Sometimes it’s fairly easy, and other times the politics is tied up in the band. On the one hand there’s acts like the REM where you could listen to a whole record without having any idea what Michael Stipe thinks about the world. But on the other end there’s acts like Billy Bragg – I doubt there’s anyone out there who thinks ‘gee I really like his simple, folksy guitar but I wish he’d stop singing about unionism all the time’.
In between there’s acts like Bruce Springsteen, his music isn’t purely political, but the stories he tells in his songs show his politics quite clearly. You can kind of ignore it (there was an interesting article posted on dakka, maybe way back in this thread, about Christie’s relationship with Springsteen’s music), but you can’t miss it.
The issue isn't about the funding... it's the fact that PP was caught on tape facilitating an organ harvest business for profit. Which is illegal.
Only if doing so involves interstate commerce (at least so far as Federal law is concerned), the gotcha videos that cite 289g–2 (a) usually leave that bit out. Funny how that works.
That bill would redirected the non-abortion services to other community healthcare providers. No women services are being reduced at. all. by. that. bill.
Well, aside from eliminating funding for an organization with a large, existential network of healthcare providers.
I've watched all of them, they were all very "meh" to me. I can understand how the sight of aborted fetuses might be unsettling for some, but I really don't get how a medical professional describing medical procedures and specimens in a clinical manner can be considered appalling.
whembly wrote: You only need to watch the videos (5 in all so far) that shows them that an investigation is easily justified. Multiple states are conducting investigations as we speak.
Yeah, Indiana already wrapped theirs up. Guess what they found?
I can't help but feel like if they had found the opposite, you'd have posted it, with italics and yellow text.
but I really don't get how a medical professional describing medical procedures and specimens in a clinical manner can be considered appalling.
Agreed. To me, it's kind of like that idiot marine who, in an interview around late 03 to 04 time frame was talking about the act of killing Iraqi combatants. All the "liberal media" were in a bit of a fit over that one, and it certainly set the "image" of a trained professional military back a tiny bit. But, at least in that case, the media outlets that released that interview, didn't need to rely on heavy editing to get the "shock" value out of it.
I can't help but feel like if they had found the opposite, you'd have posted it, with italics and yellow text.
Seems like the Indiana governor is a bit of a rookie when it comes to conservative outrage politics. He ordered an investigation to find out what was really happening. What a noob.
I can't help but feel like if they had found the opposite, you'd have posted it, with italics and yellow text.
Seems like the Indiana governor is a bit of a rookie when it comes to conservative outrage politics. He ordered an investigation to find out what was really happening. What a noob.
Maybe the plan is to immediately impanel another investigation, citing unanswered questions, and just keep repeating that over and over again for a few years.
I got an autopsy suite in my hospital, it's full of body parts of veterans who fought for this country. Now they are just floating around in jars. They are separated by body parts and wars they fought in and everything. It's horrible!
Tannhauser42 wrote: 1. Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (you know, a basic tenet that helps form the foundation of our legal system) that it was "for profit"?
You only need to watch the videos (5 in all so far) that shows them that an investigation is easily justified. Multiple states are conducting investigations as we speak.
And another fundamental tenet that forms the foundation of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty", not "innocent until investigated".
But let's not let a little thing like the legal process get in the way of manufactured outrage.
I think I am a subscriber to the theory of Trump being paid to run for Clinton's benefit.
It just seems too convenient that everyday I see him hitting a new far right talking point. He has made for himself quite the niche at this point. He is just enough anti-immigration (despite what he actually does) and apparently now he is also an anti-vaxer. Almost every fringe conservative I know that pays zero attention to politics, does not research candidates or irrationally hates liberals (and anything actually of the conservative ideology it seems) is favoring Trump.
BrotherGecko wrote: I think I am a subscriber to the theory of Trump being paid to run for Clinton's benefit.
It just seems too convenient that everyday I see him hitting a new far right talking point. He has made for himself quite the niche at this point. He is just enough anti-immigration (despite what he actually does) and apparently now he is also an anti-vaxer. Almost every fringe conservative I know that pays zero attention to politics, does not research candidates or irrationally hates liberals (and anything actually of the conservative ideology it seems) is favoring Trump.
Lol :(
I think the debate is going to be a bust tonight.
Each candidate get, what 5-10 minutes? Boring.
That might actually help Trump because he's got the charisma to pop in such a short timeframe.
Hours away from mayhem.
I wonder who would be the "bad guy" and go after everybody else but the Trump
Who be the first idiot to go after Trump in attack mode
I did read an opinion piece on CNN that said all it may take to bring down Trump are a few really good one-liners at his expense. Historically, Trump reacts very badly when he is mocked.
I'm going to have to DVR it. I will want to see the point of reference to all the dumb stuff I will see in social media lol.
Trump won't go down yet, his role still needs to be played. He won't do wrong in this debate because he is seen as the not politician (lmao) and every failure on his part will help confirm that for his fans.
Don’t have a cable subscription? Unfortunately, there are limited online options to watch Thursday’s Republican primary presidential debate hosted by Fox News.
The main debate will be broadcast live from Cleveland at 9 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel, according to the network. It will also be streamed live at FOXNews.com and on the Fox News app, both of which require a cable subscription login. The second tier debate for candidates who didn’t make the top 10 in terms of polling numbers will be broadcast the same way at 5 p.m.
For those who don’t have cable TV, there’s always Twitter, Facebook and live blogs for following along in real-time.
Don’t have a cable subscription? Unfortunately, there are limited online options to watch Thursday’s Republican primary presidential debate hosted by Fox News.
The main debate will be broadcast live from Cleveland at 9 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel, according to the network. It will also be streamed live at FOXNews.com and on the Fox News app, both of which require a cable subscription login. The second tier debate for candidates who didn’t make the top 10 in terms of polling numbers will be broadcast the same way at 5 p.m.
For those who don’t have cable TV, there’s always Twitter, Facebook and live blogs for following along in real-time.
No, that is not 'literally a pay per view event'. It literally is included in almost every basic cable or satellite TV subscription, unlike an actual pay per view event for which a fee to watch that event must be paid, you know, where you literally must Pay per view (hence the name).
Well, considering one has to pay for a cable subscription, it literally is pay per view. I'm of the opinion, all debates must be mandated to be simulcast on CSPAN and the emergency alert system (lets actually use it for something). Screw corporate media stocks, they are one of the reasons our nation has become so polarized into thinking as "us vs. them" when really we are all on the same team (go USA!) just looking to get spots on the starting roster.
The fact that it is exclusively broadcasted through a paid cable channel and no camdidate refuses to participate becaise of that shows whose pocket the candidates hold.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well, considering one has to pay for a cable subscription, it literally is pay per view.
Again, no.
Pay Per View is where you pay a fee to watch a particular broadcast (like a sporting event). This debate literally does NOT fit the definition as this broadcast is included in about every basic satellite and cable subscription.
A service offered by cable television companies that allows subscribers to view special programs for an additional charge.
TV of or having to do with a system in which a person pays for single showings of films or other programming, as by cable or satellite
A service offered by cable television companies that allows subscribers to view special programs for an additional charge.
A television service in which viewers are required to pay a fee in order to watch a specific programme:
a pay television service in which a subscriber pays for each program viewed.
As a Brit who hasn't been to America since this election cycle started, can I ask who the moderate Republicans are throwing their weight behind right now?
(by moderate I mean someone who thinks Obama's a decent guy trying to do the best for your country but you disagree with the way he's going about it)
All we're seeing in the news over here is Trump (who's a joke). Who are the serious candidates that can win the middle ground?
Henry wrote: As a Brit who hasn't been to America since this election cycle started, can I ask who the moderate Republicans are throwing their weight behind right now?
(by moderate I mean someone who thinks Obama's a decent guy trying to do the best for your country but you disagree with the way he's going about it)
All we're seeing in the news over here is Trump (who's a joke). Who are the serious candidates that can win the middle ground?
Does the middle ground exist in American politics any more?
d-usa wrote: If you dont have FoxNews already, you are not the target demographic for any of these candidates anyway...
Negatory, in democracies all candidates and debates should be available to everybody regardless of economic ability or ideology.
And who's going to pay for that? Do YOU want your taxes to go up? You want your neighbours taxes to go up? Get out of here you stinking socialistcommunistnazi!
(been working on my American impressions. How'd I do?)
d-usa wrote: If you dont have FoxNews already, you are not the target demographic for any of these candidates anyway...
Negatory, in democracies all candidates and debates should be available to everybody regardless of economic ability or ideology.
And who's going to pay for that? Do YOU want your taxes to go up? You want your neighbours taxes to go up? Get out of here you stinking socialistcommunistnazi!
(been working on my American impressions. How'd I do?)
You got me, thought you were serious for a second lol.
To answer you either way. American citizens pay in their taxes already for the National Public Radio and the Public Broadcast Service so there wouldn't be any increase.
What we would get is cable cannels not being able to control access to people running for public office or worse as with FoxNews having most the RNC candidates being people that have been on their pay rolls. It would be nice for the candidates to be beholden to the public and not corporates for once.
Fiorina won the "kiddie table" debate... she went after Trump's close relationship with the Clintons (pieced together from my twittah):
"I didn't get a phone call from Bill Clinton before I jumped in the race, did you? Did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn't. Maybe it's because I hadn't given money to the [Clinton] Foundation or donated to his wife's Senate campaign," Fiorina said. "Since he has changed his mind on amnesty, on healthcare and on abortion I would just ask what are the principles by which he would govern?"
Fiorina also congratulated Trump for being the front runner and credited him for tapping into an anger toward the political class:
"They're sick as politics as usual," she said. "The political class has failed you, that's just a fact and that's what Donald Trump taps into."
There's a live feed of the debate on NBC. I'm not going to watch, after Australia's performance in the cricket yesterday and some of the commentary this morning I've had more than my fair share of rage for one 24 hour period.
Ouze wrote: Maybe the plan is to immediately impanel another investigation, citing unanswered questions, and just keep repeating that over and over again for a few years.
Oh christ this debate...it's everything I hoped it would be. The moderators are gunning for Trump without any subtlety and he's loving it and throwing it right back and doesn't waste a chance to insult reporters or other politicians, and everyone else is playing sideshow.
LOL Trump slammed them all on doing the bidding of the donors. Those who took donations
He used himself as an example with Hillary. He donated to her organization so she had to come to his wedding
whembly wrote: Oh gawd... Trump is TRUMPING when he's called out for going through 4 bankruptcies.
The other candidates are having a hard time keeping a straight face.
o.O
This whole thing is playing exactly to his style, it's beautiful, I'm not at all a Trump guy, have never been a fan, and I find myself rooting for him.
Trump admitted he took advantage of the laws of bankruptcy Also those who were in on his deals were high rollers/risk takers. Cannot remember what's his name modding him on that question but Trump checked him bad
Edit
COMEDY GOLD
I'm actually liking him more after that19 trillion dollar debt comment he made
Basically
"Who would you want in charge of this goat rope?"
On a different note, Schumer has just announced he will vote against the Iran deal. I read his statement, and found the argument largely reasonable, especially compared to the vitriolic rhetoric spewed by so many from even before the details were released.
I do have one major issue with his argument. He states that if one believes that the Iranian leadership will moderate, then it is a good deal. If the leadership hardlines instead, it will be a bad deal and he believes that the Iranian leadership will not moderate over the next ten years. My issue with that logic is that refusing this deal (one that was co-negotiated with other nations, mind you) will most likely guarantee that Iran's leadership will not moderate.
Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.
Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.
And I think a lot of that is driven by the mistaken view that Iran is a rising regional power, when they're actually quite isolated, and buried in a bunch of proxy wars that are extremely unlikely to deliver them anything but empty pockets.
And yeah, total Iranian capitulation would be terrible. The last ten years really should have taught people that in the current political climate in the middle east, instability does not lead to nice, western friendly leadership.
I would say shooting it down is very very bad for us. With a growing generation ready to become moderate, not supporting them will do them no go what so ever. Showing a change in their favor from the US will embolden their cause.
At the very least we need to make it aboundantly clear we have no intention to liberate them by fire power (even if I know most candidates are being funded by an industry with that very intention).
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.
And I think a lot of that is driven by the mistaken view that Iran is a rising regional power, when they're actually quite isolated, and buried in a bunch of proxy wars that are extremely unlikely to deliver them anything but empty pockets.
And yeah, total Iranian capitulation would be terrible. The last ten years really should have taught people that in the current political climate in the middle east, instability does not lead to nice, western friendly leadership.
I dunno - there is a sound bite of that whole "we will kill Israel, death to America" thing. Nukes in the hands of people who want to use them is bad bad bad.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anyway, I fear that the vote on this deal really just boils down to politics rather than actually honestly trying a diplomatic solution. Because, when you get right down to it, we are just that deeply in bed with Israel. Let's face it, nothing less than the unconditional and total capitulation of Iran would have satisfied our own American hardliners.
And I think a lot of that is driven by the mistaken view that Iran is a rising regional power, when they're actually quite isolated, and buried in a bunch of proxy wars that are extremely unlikely to deliver them anything but empty pockets.
And yeah, total Iranian capitulation would be terrible. The last ten years really should have taught people that in the current political climate in the middle east, instability does not lead to nice, western friendly leadership.
I dunno - there is a sound bite of that whole "we will kill Israel, death to America" thing. Nukes in the hands of people who want to use them is bad bad bad.
They are not getting a nuke from anybody so why is that a talking point?
If they actually wanted one, they would have got one. Its not like Pakistan or Russian wouldn't have sold them one. There is a large part of their political elite that believe nuclear weapons are anti-Islamic. However, they are much more lax on the notion of nuclear power. The deal takes away the easy route for nukes and allows for monitoring, if they break the deal what happens currently would continue. Either way it is not our right to impose rules on a sovereign state while we have nuclear plants, actively have nuclear research and have thousands of nuclear weapons.
Dontcha think that might make us look like the bad guys to a small nation on the otherside of the world that happens to have a different major religion. Personally I wouldn't be in favor of the US's continued existance either if I were them. I am a US citizen though and I want my gov to stay out of other nations business.
But that is me and I definitely don't hold a popular view.
If they actually wanted one, they would have got one. Its not like Pakistan or Russian wouldn't have sold them one.
That's debatable. Russia and Pakistan, while not hostile towards Iran, aren't close enough to the Islamic Republic to outright sell them complete nuclear weapons. This is especially true of Russia, which is primarily interested in Iran because Iran annoys the US and Western Europe.
Putin/Russia lined up quite a few contracts to help build nuke reactors once this deal went "Green"
Saudi IIRC has ten reactors lined up to be built
Jordan one
Egypt one
All with assistance from Putin
Mind you it does not have to be a full nuke capable weapon
A dirty bomb is more easy to develope
You can build a dirty bomb in the basement of any medical research hospital so that is a non-point. Gaining enough radioactive material for a dirty bomb wouldn't exactly be difficult for a nation like Iran, yet they haven't built or used one.
zgort wrote: I dunno - there is a sound bite of that whole "we will kill Israel, death to America" thing. Nukes in the hands of people who want to use them is bad bad bad.
And? Lots of countries will make all sorts of claims as part of their positioning. Remember when the US said Iran was part of an Axis of Evil? It wasn’t because the US was about to nuke them.
People treat world diplomacy like a game of he said/she said. It’s fething tedious.
BrotherGecko wrote: You can build a dirty bomb in the basement of any medical research hospital so that is a non-point. Gaining enough radioactive material for a dirty bomb wouldn't exactly be difficult for a nation like Iran, yet they haven't built or used one.
A dirty bomb is not a nuke. They are a terror/pain in the ass/area denial weapon, NOT a destructive weapon. Making one and using one as a country would do nothing but bring down reprisals and sanctions and guarantee any facilities you have which could be used for a real nuke meet tons of bunker busting fun dropped from the sky. So, them not having built and used a dirty bomb is pretty damned useless in making an argument they do not want actual nukes.
Seems over 50% of the viewers approved of Trump.
Stumping Trumping I watched the after show of Luntz(?) where he was polling a group of peeps and it seems half those individuals are holding Trump entertainment career against him. Guess they forgot that Reagan was a Hollywood actor before he seeked a political position
zgort wrote: I dunno - there is a sound bite of that whole "we will kill Israel, death to America" thing. Nukes in the hands of people who want to use them is bad bad bad.
And? Lots of countries will make all sorts of claims as part of their positioning. Remember when the US said Iran was part of an Axis of Evil? It wasn’t because the US was about to nuke them.
People treat world diplomacy like a game of he said/she said. It’s fething tedious.
Exactly. Besides, we all know our politicians will say anything in order to make their voters and corporate paymasters happy, why would the Iranians be any different? I mean, if we don't trust a single word our leaders say, why do we treat other world leaders as speaking pure truth?
Tannhauser42 wrote: On a different note, Schumer has just announced he will vote against the Iran deal. I read his statement, and found the argument largely reasonable, especially compared to the vitriolic rhetoric spewed by so many from even before the details were released.
That means that the Democrats already have enough votes to block, so Schumer can save face with his constituents.
BrotherGecko wrote: You can build a dirty bomb in the basement of any medical research hospital so that is a non-point. Gaining enough radioactive material for a dirty bomb wouldn't exactly be difficult for a nation like Iran, yet they haven't built or used one.
A dirty bomb is not a nuke. They are a terror/pain in the ass/area denial weapon, NOT a destructive weapon. Making one and using one as a country would do nothing but bring down reprisals and sanctions and guarantee any facilities you have which could be used for a real nuke meet tons of bunker busting fun dropped from the sky. So, them not having built and used a dirty bomb is pretty damned useless in making an argument they do not want actual nukes.
I know what a dirty bomb is and I'm sure my comment showed that. I was responding against the idea that if they won't be able to build a nuke then they will build a dirty bomb. You just agreed with me and then argued at me lol and I've got no idea why.
CptJake wrote: Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.
CptJake wrote: Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.
CptJake wrote: Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.
And how would a nuke not be?
Because they see a nuke capability as entrance into being taken seriously on the world stage and furthering regional power/influence as well as a deterrent factor against US/Israeli attack. A dirty bomb does not convey those benefits.
They look at the Norks and see crazy town and its leader able to do basically what ever they want with no real repercussions because no one wants to see Seoul under a mushroom cloud.
jasper76 wrote: After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.
For some reason the Democrats very much want Bush to run. He won't be the candidate.
Am I the only guy who saw Walker and kept thinking he looked like an SNL guy?
CptJake wrote: Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.
I think their goals include wiping Israel off the map - a nuke should make that easier, yeah?
CptJake wrote: Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.
I think their goals include wiping Israel off the map - a nuke should make that easier, yeah?
Iran is smart enough to know that the moment that anybody thinks that they are in possession of a nuke, then Israel will bomb the living hell out of them and nobody is going to do a thing to stop them, and that if they somehow managed to actually shoot of a nuke at Israel they will be on the receiving end of a full nuclear response from Israel.
The Republican debate was weird. Didn't they lose the last election because their guy had to go so far to the right before winning nomination that he couldn't then tack his sails back to the mainstream views? I heard that was the reason, anyway. And now it looks kind of like the exact same thing.
Edit to add: from my newspaper-editorial influenced viewpoint, that is.
jasper76 wrote: After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.
For some reason the Democrats very much want Bush to run. He won't be the candidate.
It could be because Jeb is a fairly decent guy, and he might be the one that makes some Dems secretly think "well, if we have to lose the election, we'd rather lose to Jeb than any of the others."
Of course, that right there also means he won't get the nomination, because how dare one party nominate a candidate that the other party can at least tolerate?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charles Rampant wrote: The Republican debate was weird. Didn't they lose the last election because their guy had to go so far to the right before winning nomination that he couldn't then tack his sails back to the mainstream views? I heard that was the reason, anyway. And now it looks kind of like the exact same thing.
Edit to add: from my newspaper-editorial influenced viewpoint, that is.
Romney also made a few glaring missteps like the Etch-a-Sketch comment and the 47% comment. Sound bites like that are easy to play and replay.
Charles Rampant wrote: The Republican debate was weird. Didn't they lose the last election because their guy had to go so far to the right before winning nomination that he couldn't then tack his sails back to the mainstream views? I heard that was the reason, anyway. And now it looks kind of like the exact same thing.
Edit to add: from my newspaper-editorial influenced viewpoint, that is.
We don't need that kind of insight on dakka
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just been reading some disturbing info...
Apparently, Reagan didn't get off to a good start either when he first declared a run at the White House. He was behind in the polls, and nobody thought an actor could be taken seriously.
CptJake wrote: Because a dirty bomb would NOT further their goals at all. There is ZERO reason for them to do so. Doing so would very much be counter productive.
I think their goals include wiping Israel off the map - a nuke should make that easier, yeah?
Iran is smart enough to know that the moment that anybody thinks that they are in possession of a nuke, then Israel will bomb the living hell out of them and nobody is going to do a thing to stop them, and that if they somehow managed to actually shoot of a nuke at Israel they will be on the receiving end of a full nuclear response from Israel.
If Iran shoots first, it could be too late for Israel. Some parts of Israel are only a few miles wide. It's a small country and it would be easy for a well placed nuke to cause a lot of damage.
Frazzled wrote: Trump won't make it. He admitted to being a shill. No Republican openly attacks another. No Republican admits to forming a third party.
He couldn't even say when (as if he did) become a Republican. This guy is a Clinton plant.
If anything, the guy's an Obama plant. Whilst everybody is talking about Trump, very few people have noticed a story about the White House getting it in the neck for 'massaging' their numbers on America's fight against human trafficking around the globe.
From what I saw on the news, the Senate committee was pretty scathing about this. A good day to bury bad news, as far as Obama is concerned.
jasper76 wrote: After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.
jasper76 wrote: After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.
Make that Rubio/Fiorina.
I didn't think Bush had a good night.
Agreed. I'm dropping Walker and inserting Kacinich as well. He handled himself well.
jasper76 wrote: After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.
Make that Rubio/Fiorina.
I didn't think Bush had a good night.
Agreed. I'm dropping Walker and inserting Kacinich as well. He handled himself well.
Walker held his own... his issue is that he doesn't seem "telegenic".
Jihadin wrote: Putin/Russia lined up quite a few contracts to help build nuke reactors once this deal went "Green"
Saudi IIRC has ten reactors lined up to be built
Jordan one
Egypt one
All with assistance from Putin
Which is still not the same thing as handing someone a fully functional nuclear weapon. There are so many political and security problems associated with doing that you would need to be incredibly desperate to even consider it.
Jihadin wrote: Putin/Russia lined up quite a few contracts to help build nuke reactors once this deal went "Green"
Saudi IIRC has ten reactors lined up to be built
Jordan one
Egypt one
All with assistance from Putin
Which is still not the same thing as handing someone a fully functional nuclear weapon. There are so many political and security problems associated with doing that you would need to be incredibly desperate to even consider it.
Indeed.
Because these nuclear fuels actually has a distinctive fingerprint (where it's likely mined/sold). If not an easy thing to anonymously "give" a nuke to anyone. If Iran uses a bomb on someone that they bought from Russia or Pakistan... then those countries would be dragged into the political (or warring) fallouts.
Because these nuclear fuels actually has a distinctive fingerprint (where it's likely mined/sold). If not an easy thing to anonymously "give" a nuke to anyone. If Iran uses a bomb on someone that they bought from Russia or Pakistan... then those countries would be dragged into the political (or warring) fallouts.
Not to mention that if the bomb used you have no control over what the target is, and there plenty of terrorist groups supported by Iran that rather dislike Russia. This is also why its highly unlikely you'll ever see a nuke put into the hands of terrorists that exist outside direct state control*, there are too many variables in play and too many possible negative outcomes to make doing so worthwhile.
*And terrorists under direct state control are basically just another form of delivery system.
Tannhauser42 wrote: What I find interesting is that there are almost no comments about Ted Cruz's performance. It's almost as if he wasn't there.
He was 'the Cruz' and provided plenty of red meat at the end.
Yeah, he said the same gak he's said every time he has had a national audience. I think he's aiming to position himself as a more articulate version of Palin in a bid for a VP selection.
jasper76 wrote: After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.
For some reason the Democrats very much want Bush to run. He won't be the candidate.
Am I the only guy who saw Walker and kept thinking he looked like an SNL guy?
I was commenting just on what combination I thought would give Clinton the best run for her money.
Yeah, Walker looked kinda like a Daily Show correspondent or somethingm. He was way too laid back to make an impression. He looked kinda bored at times.
If you wanted Clinton to win, I'd guess you'd be routing for Rand Paul or a sadsack like Lindsey Graham. I don't know if you saw the earlier debate, but the dude looked like he'd been weeping or something. His eyes were all red and he seemed sad.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll admit that one of the reasons Bush was appealing was by way of contrast to more conservative positions and/or more pessimistic demeanors and outlooks of the debate opponents.
Well Hillary can't really nail Trump on his contributers/donaters.
Though at the moment Hillary is playing damage control with the latest development of the server issue
Jihadin wrote: Well Hillary can't really nail Trump on his contributers/donaters.
Though at the moment Hillary is playing damage control with the latest development of the server issue
Jihadin wrote: Well Hillary can't really nail Trump on his contributers/donaters. Though at the moment Hillary is playing damage control with the latest development of the server issue
jasper76 wrote: After seeing both of the debates now, my current thinking is a Bush/Fiorina ticket would be the best shot for the Republicans to beat Clinton.
Make that Rubio/Fiorina.
I didn't think Bush had a good night.
Agreed. I'm dropping Walker and inserting Kacinich as well. He handled himself well.
Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul is my dream ticket right now. Paul is right on so many things but Sanders would curb his unnecessary sentiments. Or the other way around, Paul and Sanders.
A proper Democractic ticket would include both parties to represent most of the people.
jasper76 wrote: Yeah, Walker looked kinda like a Daily Show correspondent or somethingm. He was way too laid back to make an impression. He looked kinda bored at times.
My opinion: a strong play from someone who knows how to win.
He knows perfectly well that none of this means anything. It's a clown show people won't remember in 2 weeks. People know already his name, fundraisers already know his name. Normally "laying low" is a pretty bad strategy - look at Fred Thompson and how that worked - but in this case, with so many of these junior varsity has-beens and never-was's looking to differentiate themselves by a high-profile poopfling, it's better to play the long game, wait until the "anyone but Jeb" game gets to the last round, and then play to win. Let Trump take all the noise and hits, and then whoever is next; and so on.
Obviously it's a strategy not without risk but I think Scott Walker is possibly the most talented strategist in the running.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freakazoitt wrote: I'm not sure if writing in proper thread but dont want to make another
Jihadin wrote: Well Hillary can't really nail Trump on his contributers/donaters.
Though at the moment Hillary is playing damage control with the latest development of the server issue
Why nail someone on your payroll?
Trump's position last night was that we need someone like Donald Trump to save America from crooked politicians and businessmen like Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Jihadin wrote: Trump made it very clear he was a "Business Man" not a "Politician"
Edit
Forgot to add
Except his record says otherwise lol. Which I'm sure nobody wants to pay attention to. To borrow a phrase, "forge the narrative."
I personally see zero benefit to hiring a corporate businessman as president. Mostly because after presidency he will still be a corporate businessman. We having already seen how well that works...*coughcheneycough* *coughrumsfeldcough*
Always good to hire a man with a severve conflict of interest with zero understanding of 99% of citizenship and a healthy open contempt for anyone not as rich as himself to be the leader of the country...
The questions directed to Trump was fair game and I'm glad it was asked this early in the primary. If Trump survives this round... he might actually make some noise later on the process.
I don't know if I'd go as far as "it was an inquisition".
But, kudos to fox for not turning it into a WWE sideshow.
It's a shame that for all this debate was hyped at... the candidates really only had like 4-10 minutes of airtime... which is redonkulous.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: I will say this... the op-ed closing:
They should square their slogans with their records, and that’s what Fox made them do. On this night, the network that pampers Republicans provoked them instead.
Was exactly right. Fox did impress me there and I wished they're always this hard-hitting throughout the network.
I suspect the only reason Fox was so "hard hitting" was because they hoped to either knock down Trump or get one of the others to at least come out far enough ahead to block Trump sooner than later.
Lol I believe you are right. He convinced people for 8 years (and many afterwards) that he made a single decision as president lol. His 2nd term was definitely Bush Sr.'s first term haha.
whembly wrote: I don't know if I'd go as far as "it was an inquisition".
His turn of phrase wasn't particularly good, but I understood what he meant. This was an attempt to take these candidates to task and really grind them about prior statements and how they measure up for today's expectations.
whembly wrote: But, kudos to fox for not turning it into a WWE sideshow.
Truly, I was afraid of this turning into a barking carnival very quickly.
whembly wrote: It's a shame that for all this debate was hyped at... the candidates really only had like 4-10 minutes of airtime... which is redonkulous.
Really, considering the time allotted, number of candidates, and time that had to be budgeted for miscellaneous items(moderator questioning, commercials, fielding public questions, etc.) they spoke plenty. Truth be told though, it was too crowded for a real debate setting. Regardless, I still found it to be moderately insightful at the very least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: I suspect the only reason Fox was so "hard hitting" was because they hoped to either knock down Trump or get one of the others to at least come out far enough ahead to block Trump sooner than later.
I think this is rather unfair to say. It isn't as if they only beat the hell out of Trump and gave other a free pass. Scott Walker is in many ways the darling of many Conservatives, and has gotten heaps of praise on Fox News, but they still took him to the woodshed as well. And it isn't as if he was the only one. Were they harder on Trump? Sure, but lets not pretend like he hasn't been painting targets on his back for years.
I liked the Fox structure:
1. It focused on weaknesses as well as strengths so that Republicans could better understand how strong the candidates were.
2. Candidates didn't have enough time to drone on and on.
3. They weren't softball questions, and you were able to understand the actual candidates better.
4. It wasn't the usual lame ass questions and follow up attacks by the usual Democratic suspects: Stephanopoulis et al. The issues were typically Republican issues, or questions the the above would likely throw at them in a real debate.
Still it was all style and no real substance. I'm better because reasons, sums up these debates. The questions were admirable mostly but the answers were generally soft.
I will say that I appreciated the fire. I believe passion is sorely missed in American politics. If Republicans want to topple Trump they will have to use his force and fire and add actual substance and conservative ideas (actual conservative ideas). To win Republicans will have to stop pandering to their vocal religious base and start offering ideas for America's wellbeing.
The Democrats will not be fighting with fire. They will beat Trump on substance (Not Hilary) or greater celebrity (Hilary).
Between July 14 and July 15 did the population of the US grow by 2000? Or a few more. Because the steadily decreasing unemployment suggests that, while the number increased marginally, a lot of people found their way into work. More than those that didn't.
motyak wrote: Between July 14 and July 15 did the population of the US grow by 2000? Or a few more. Because the steadily decreasing unemployment suggests that, while the number increased marginally, a lot of people found their way into work. More than those that didn't.
How many times are those numbers only reflecting those who are still "actively" unemployed (ie, pulling unemployment, active within 24-48 hours on job sites, etc)? While I would also dispute the sheer number (seriously, almost 100 million people??? I doubt that) How many unemployment surveys account for people like many of my friends who, even though she's got a bachelor's degree, has made the conscious decision to not work while the kids are in the house? Seriously, she hasn't had a job in about 5 years now. Most unemployment surveys aren't going to count her, because she's no longer "actively seeking" employment.
I mean, yeah, the unemployment numbers are going down, woo hoo, but that's the thing that so many news outlets fail to report on, is that there are many people who are dropping off of those tracking metrics, which is why, while I may raise an eyebrow at nearly 100 million people, I'm not all that surprised that there could be nearly 1/3d of all people not working.
I'm not an economist but 100 million people not in the workplace means actual unemployment, with 218m working age americans, would be like, 50%, which sounds to me like there is some shenanigans afoot with how those numbers are being presented.
93,770,000 people out of the workforce... numbers not seen since the late 70's.
And you wonder why some folks are harping against the illegal immigration fiascos.
Those people should probably spend more time wondering why illegals are getting the jobs that Americans aren't. Why aren't those unemployed Americans out there working the fields, cleaning hotel rooms, working construction, etc.? Illegals aren't the cause, they're a symptom.
Why aren't those unemployed Americans out there working the fields, cleaning hotel rooms, working construction, etc.? Illegals aren't the cause, they're a symptom.
Is it laziness then, or poor education? Is it entitlement, or the perception of it? Is it the other side of the spectrum? By that I mean, are the ludicrously rich maintaining that wealth by paying people illegal wage rates for work done "under the table" as opposed to taking a slight hit to their almighty Margin to pay for legitimate help? Perhaps somewhere in the middle?
Ouze wrote: I'm not an economist but 100 million people not in the workplace means actual unemployment, with 218m working age americans, would be like, 50%, which sounds to me like there is some shenanigans afoot with how those numbers are being presented.
I've always found the age breakdown to be a bit annoying. I understand the 16-19 category as that pretty well encompasses the group who are legally able to work, but still in school full-time. But the absence of an 18-23, or even 16-23, category seems rather lame given the number of people who move on to higher education.
The beginning? Most likely. I mentioned before the debate that all it would really take is someone getting under Trump's skin, as he has a history of reacting very badly to people who mock/annoy him. Whether or not this will start bringing down the Trumpmania™, who knows? He didn't say it on live TV in front of 24 million people, and his fans will remain his fans. If a few of the other candidates can get their barbs in, too, then we might see Trump spiral out of control.
Why aren't those unemployed Americans out there working the fields, cleaning hotel rooms, working construction, etc.? Illegals aren't the cause, they're a symptom.
Is it laziness then, or poor education? Is it entitlement, or the perception of it? Is it the other side of the spectrum? By that I mean, are the ludicrously rich maintaining that wealth by paying people illegal wage rates for work done "under the table" as opposed to taking a slight hit to their almighty Margin to pay for legitimate help? Perhaps somewhere in the middle?
Probably all of that, with higher costs of living today mixed in and more. Here's what I do know: both of my grandfathers, after WWII, had a wife, a house, each had five kids, and both were able to support their families with a job in the auto-industry in Flint, MI (one worked for GM, one for ACDelco, although later on one of my grandmothers got a job as a secretary in a doctor's office). Would such a thing be even remotely possible today?
I saw Erick Ericson disinvited him from some Redstate gathering.
Hilarious. It wasn't a problem when he was a disgusting sexist to all those other women, but once Trump said something about Megyn Kelly, people can't wait to mount their white chargers and defend the maiden's virtues. What transparent toolboxes.
I saw Erick Ericson disinvited him from some Redstate gathering.
Hilarious. It wasn't a problem when he was a disgusting sexist to all those other women, but once Trump said something about Megyn Kelly, people can't wait to mount their white chargers and defend the maiden's virtues. What transparent toolboxes.
The debate, Hmmm, not much answered on the few subjects they covered, typically vague political answers for the most part, and nothing on Climate Change, Income and Wealth Inequality, crumbling infrastructure, our un-ending war cycles, or many meatier subjects.
It was as others said a chance to thin the herd down, aimed at knocking Trump off his saddle as he is easy to anger, and he starts spewing like a volcano.
shasolenzabi wrote: The debate, Hmmm, not much answered on the few subjects they covered, typically vague political answers for the most part, and nothing on Climate Change, Income and Wealth Inequality, crumbling infrastructure, our un-ending war cycles, or many meatier subjects.
Some of those topics would be pointless to bring up in a solely Republican debate, as it would just be an echo chamber.
Which is kinda sad, really. The first R with the balls to stand up and say "whether or not climate change is real, I do believe in cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment for our kids to breathe, drink, and live in" will be one worth listening to. But instead that stay laser focussed on the climate change arguments.
shasolenzabi wrote: The debate, Hmmm, not much answered on the few subjects they covered, typically vague political answers for the most part, and nothing on Climate Change, Income and Wealth Inequality, crumbling infrastructure, our un-ending war cycles, or many meatier subjects.
Some of those topics would be pointless to bring up in a solely Republican debate, as it would just be an echo chamber.
Which is kinda sad, really. The first R with the balls to stand up and say "whether or not climate change is real, I do believe in cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment for our kids to breathe, drink, and live in" will be one worth listening to. But instead that stay laser focussed on the climate change arguments.
And yeah, I can't really see one of them truly addressing the "unending war cycle", because for many Rs out there, the thought that maybe we shouldn't be fighting all the damn time would be considered "cowardly".
I saw Erick Ericson disinvited him from some Redstate gathering.
Hilarious. It wasn't a problem when he was a disgusting sexist to all those other women, but once Trump said something about Megyn Kelly, people can't wait to mount their white chargers and defend the maiden's virtues. What transparent toolboxes.
The amount of "she's a stupid bitch so who cares about what Trump said" posts from Republican friends and family members with links to other editorial sites defending him/demonizing her on good old Facebook is pretty eye opening.
I saw Erick Ericson disinvited him from some Redstate gathering.
Hilarious. It wasn't a problem when he was a disgusting sexist to all those other women, but once Trump said something about Megyn Kelly, people can't wait to mount their white chargers and defend the maiden's virtues. What transparent toolboxes.
The amount of "she's a stupid bitch so who cares about what Trump said" posts from Republican friends and family members with links to other editorial sites defending him/demonizing her on good old Facebook is pretty eye opening.
A) He's a fething donkey-cave.
B) He's exactly what you'd call a RINO.
C) At least he didn't call a political party Iranian Hardliners.
D) Trump is going down.
See, I think there is a sizeable minority of GOP voters who won't care what he says; he just appears anti establishment, talks tough and struts and they will eat it up. His top end of likely voters is probably only 20%, but his bottom end hardcore voters is probably upwards of 15%. That 15% won't win him the primary, but it will likely keep him in the race with so many other candidates, and as a result, the spotlight will stay on him. Which is not good for the GOP image at large.
shasolenzabi wrote: The debate, Hmmm, not much answered on the few subjects they covered, typically vague political answers for the most part, and nothing on Climate Change, Income and Wealth Inequality, crumbling infrastructure, our un-ending war cycles, or many meatier subjects.
Some of those topics would be pointless to bring up in a solely Republican debate, as it would just be an echo chamber.
Which is kinda sad, really. The first R with the balls to stand up and say "whether or not climate change is real, I do believe in cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment for our kids to breathe, drink, and live in" will be one worth listening to. But instead that stay laser focussed on the climate change arguments.
And yeah, I can't really see one of them truly addressing the "unending war cycle", because for many Rs out there, the thought that maybe we shouldn't be fighting all the damn time would be considered "cowardly".
It's not about being "cowardly," but about making money. The real truth is that the defense industry is worth billions, and brings LOTS of money to various politician's districts. Every politician is in the pocket of at least one special corporate interest. For example, on the climate change thing, look at every politician who vigorously denies it, and then look at how much the oil and coal industries are paying them, or how much of that industry is in their district. Look at those espousing the alternative energy industry, and see who pays them or who is in their districts. It's rarely about what is right or what is best for our future, it's about money.
Well.....Reagan didn't have a excellent politician upbringing.......
After completing fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses, Reagan enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the cavalry on May 25, 1937
OMG.......Shake n Bake LT
In January 1944, Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the Sixth War Loan Drive. He was reassigned to the First Motion Picture Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II.[34] He was recommended for promotion to major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year.[35] While with the First Motion Picture Unit in 1945, he was indirectly involved in discovering actress Marilyn Monroe.[36] He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.
Reagan never left the United States during the war, though he kept a film reel, obtained while in the service, depicting the liberation of Auschwitz, as he believed that someday doubts would arise as to whether the Holocaust had occurred. It has been alleged that he was
overheard telling Israeli foreign minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1983 that he had filmed that footage himself and helped liberate Auschwitz,though this purported conversation was disputed by Secretary of State George Shultz.
Say it ain't so BRIAN!!!!
During the late 1940s, Reagan and his wife provided the FBI with names of actors within the motion picture industry whom they believed to be communist sympathizers, though he expressed reservations; he said "Do they expect us to constitute ourselves as a little FBI of our own and determine just who is a Commie and who isn't?".
Reagan testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on the subject as well. A fervent anti-communist, he reaffirmed his commitment to democratic principles, stating, "I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment."]
When legislation that would become Medicare was introduced in 1961, Reagan created a recording for the American Medical Association warning that such legislation would mean the end of freedom in America. Reagan said that if his listeners did not write letters to prevent it, "we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free. He also joined the National Rifle Association and would become a lifetime member.
NOT THE NRA!!!!! NNNOOOOOOO
Reagan was involved in high-profile conflicts with the protest movements of the era. On May 15, 1969, during the People's Park protests at UC Berkeley, Reagan sent the California Highway Patrol and other officers to quell the protests, in an incident that became known as "Bloody Thursday", resulting in the death of student James Rector and the blinding of carpenter Alan Blanchard. Reagan then called out 2,200 state National Guard troops to occupy the city of Berkeley for two weeks to crack down on the protesters. A year after "Bloody Thursday", Reagan responded to questions about campus protest movements saying, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement. When the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped Patty Hearst in Berkeley and demanded the distribution of food to the poor, Reagan joked to a group of political aides about a botulism outbreak contaminating the food.[85] Conversely, in that one afternoon, "Bloody Thursday", 111 police officers were injured, including one C.H.P. officer who was knifed in the chest. After calling in the National Guard, the Guard remained in Berkeley for 17 days, camping in People's Park, and demonstrations subsided as the University removed cordoned-off fencing and placed all development plans for People's Park on hold.
Pick up the can Civilian.
Edit
We all can go on and on and on like a wheel on a bus on point; counter point. Not saying Trump a Reagan being one done the Oval Office rodeo but...its Reagan.....Its Trump....
Obama wrote:It's those hard-liners chanting ‘death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They are making a common cause with the Republican caucus.
I don't see any indication that Obama called the Republican caucus "Iranian Hardliners".
I didn't manage to see the Republican debate, but I've read a few interesting pieces afterwards. What I found most interesting was what was only mentioned a few times - Obamacare. No-one tried to make it a major issue. It's almost as if Republicans got all the political gain they could out of it before it was in place and working, and now they're just trying to ease that talking point in to retirement.
Hate to say I told you so, but...
Tannhauser42 wrote: Exactly. Besides, we all know our politicians will say anything in order to make their voters and corporate paymasters happy, why would the Iranians be any different? I mean, if we don't trust a single word our leaders say, why do we treat other world leaders as speaking pure truth?
It gets even crazier, because we don't trust anything any Iranian says if it promotes peace or stability, but if any Iranian leader says anything aggressive then we hold it as a mark against their national soul forever, no matter the context, or the speaker, or anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If Iran shoots first, it could be too late for Israel. Some parts of Israel are only a few miles wide. It's a small country and it would be easy for a well placed nuke to cause a lot of damage.
The Iranian strike would have to be significant enough to take out every US facility as well.
First strike doesn't make any sense when talking about second string players, because there are much bigger kids on the block who won't tolerate little kids firing off nukes at will.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Walker held his own... his issue is that he doesn't seem "telegenic".
The real issue Walker's problem is that his reforms have delivered nothing. Taking on the unions and slashing taxes is political gold for Republicans, but the actual effect has been crappy economic growth and budget blow outs. Well, at least that kind of mediocre results should be Walker's problem. You're probably right that his appearance on TV is probably a bigger hurdle.
Jihadin wrote: I feel that we could have gotten a better deal then what we have now. Deal has to much of "Whatever I can get to make my mark in diplomacy" feel to it
The thing is, though, this deal isn't just between the US and Iran. It was also worked out with China, Russia, France, Germany, and the UK. In rejecting this deal, what message will we be sending to these other world powers who accepted the deal? That the US is incapable of negotiating in good faith? The lines between opposition and support of the deal are purely political; actual and honest diplomacy doesn't enter into it, as we are far too deeply in bed with Israel to the point where it colors all of our foreign policy decisions in that part of the world. Before the deal's details were even announced, at least one special interest group stated they were planning to spend upwards of $20 million to lobby against it.
93,770,000 people out of the workforce... numbers not seen since the late 70's.
Okay then, sure, we’ll just ignore population growth and deal in absolute figures. Under Carter there was 136 million people in jobs, now under Obama there’s 189 million! Truly Obama is the great and sainted employer, who has finally created the socialist utopia of employment the US was always destined to be.
So, uh… yeah, I hope you can see the silliness in using absolute numbers. And from there you can realise that what actually matters is the participation rate – ie the number of people employed divided by the total population.
Look at that and you’ll start to see the actual story – employment in the US dropped massively in the GFC and despite recovery elsewhere in the economy the participation rate has only very slightly recovered. Lots of people have tried to use that to score a point against Obama, dragging in claims like immigration or Obamacare (somehow?), but they’re basically all liars and/or idiots. The actual story, like most things in economics, is outside of the control of politicians.
The US is watching the baby boomers retire. It’s a demographics thing. Since women working has become the norm, the biggest reasons to not be employed is because you were under 18 or over 65. Whether the economy is healthy or in the absolute dumps, the biggest reason people aren’t working is because they’re not working age. And the big demographic shift in the US right now is baby boomers shifting to retirement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: How many times are those numbers only reflecting those who are still "actively" unemployed (ie, pulling unemployment, active within 24-48 hours on job sites, etc)? While I would also dispute the sheer number (seriously, almost 100 million people??? I doubt that)
The measure is of the participation rate, not unemployment. ie how many people don't have job for any reason. So that 100 million includes not just the 25 year old who's looking for work, but also includes, you know, 78 year old retirees and 4 year olds just about ready to start kindergarten.
Its a really important statistical measure (it's a really powerful indicator of future economic growth), but it's not much use politically because it's driven mostly by demographic issues that are entirely outside of politics.
Peaceful Nuclear Power? Well, that would mean switching out uranium reactors and making Thorium reactors as Thorium, unlike Uranium, cannot be weaponized.
shasolenzabi wrote: Peaceful Nuclear Power? Well, that would mean switching out uranium reactors and making Thorium reactors as Thorium, unlike Uranium, cannot be weaponized.
Ouze wrote: I'm not an economist but 100 million people not in the workplace means actual unemployment, with 218m working age americans, would be like, 50%, which sounds to me like there is some shenanigans afoot with how those numbers are being presented.
Unemployment is measured as 'people who looking for work' divided by 'people in work + people who are looking for work'. So there's about 9 to 10 million Americans currently unemployed and looking for work, and 189 million people with jobs. 10/(189+10) gives you an unemployment figure of about 5%.
Participation rate is measuring the number of people in work, against the total population. Exactly why someone wouldn't have a job doesn't matter (those reasons are given in other measures). So the almost 100 million includes retirees, people no longer able to work, children and so on.
Does it really account for children who aren't even of "Working age" yet? I thought that the 317 million population figure was counting basically "only" people who were already of voting age.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Does it really account for children who aren't even of "Working age" yet? I thought that the 317 million population figure was counting basically "only" people who were already of voting age.
The 317 million is all people in the US, regardless of age. There's about 80 million kids in the US, about 200 million people of working age, and about 40 million retirees.
Ouze wrote: I'm not an economist but 100 million people not in the workplace means actual unemployment, with 218m working age americans, would be like, 50%, which sounds to me like there is some shenanigans afoot with how those numbers are being presented.
Unemployment is measured as 'people who looking for work' divided by 'people in work + people who are looking for work'. So there's about 9 to 10 million Americans currently unemployed and looking for work, and 189 million people with jobs. 10/(189+10) gives you an unemployment figure of about 5%.
Participation rate is measuring the number of people in work, against the total population. Exactly why someone wouldn't have a job doesn't matter (those reasons are given in other measures). So the almost 100 million includes retirees, people no longer able to work, children and so on.
Thanks. I knew that was being presented inaccurately, but I didn't know why.
whembly wrote: It's just that many folks are trying to infer that Trump's donkey-cave -nish is par for the course for all GOP.
Trump is doing this for Trump.
Who is the current frontrunner as far as GOP polling goes? Clearly he's saying something you guys like.
It's just that many folks are trying to infer that Trump's donkey-cave -nish is par for the course for all GOP.
Trump is doing this for Trump.
Of course Trump is doing this for Trump. Everything Trump has done has been for Trump, and what's more I'd argue hardly any politician acts out of service to their party. We can argue all day about whether they're really motivated about personal ambitions or about service to the country, but in terms of loyalty to their political party, I think that rarely ever merits a consideration.
But it would be very interesting if a misogynist dig did political harm to Trump, when an attack on a US POW as a loser did no harm. Would that mean the modern Republican party has suddenly become more concerned about women's equality than about protection of the nation's fighting men and women... or would it more accurately reflect that Megyn Kelly is a protected establishment figure in a way that John McCain isn't. If this actually does finally sink Trump, it's hard to see it as any other than the latter, but I actually doubt it will move Trump's numbers. The 80 to 85% of Republicans who hate him and would never vote for him will continue to hate him and not vote for him, while the 15 to 20% who support him... well they haven't been discouraged by any of the stupid bs so far, so I doubt this will be any different.
It's just that many folks are trying to infer that Trump's donkey-cave -nish is par for the course for all GOP.
Trump is doing this for Trump.
Of course Trump is doing this for Trump. Everything Trump has done has been for Trump, and what's more I'd argue hardly any politician acts out of service to their party. We can argue all day about whether they're really motivated about personal ambitions or about service to the country, but in terms of loyalty to their political party, I think that rarely ever merits a consideration.
But it would be very interesting if a misogynist dig did political harm to Trump, when an attack on a US POW as a loser did no harm. Would that mean the modern Republican party has suddenly become more concerned about women's equality than about protection of the nation's fighting men and women... or would it more accurately reflect that Megyn Kelly is a protected establishment figure in a way that John McCain isn't. If this actually does finally sink Trump, it's hard to see it as any other than the latter, but I actually doubt it will move Trump's numbers. The 80 to 85% of Republicans who hate him and would never vote for him will continue to hate him and not vote for him, while the 15 to 20% who support him... well they haven't been discouraged by any of the stupid bs so far, so I doubt this will be any different.
Nah...
Trump is going down because more than just the political junkies watched the debate, where Trump didn't do himself any favors.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If Iran shoots first, it could be too late for Israel. Some parts of Israel are only a few miles wide. It's a small country and it would be easy for a well placed nuke to cause a lot of damage.
I always see this argument - what if Iran launched or detonated a nuke at Israel? And the line of thought never goes very far.
First, here's what a 60kt nuclear weapon (the largest one India had ever tested, so comparable) would look like if detonated in Tel Aviv:
It would kill approximately 200,000 people if an airburst or 138,000 in a surface detonation. It would be unbelievable awful, a tragedy unmatched in modern times, except all those times just as many people died in war via bullets and less rapidly - to paraphrase Lord of War, the AK-47 truly is the real weapon of mass destruction. But I digress, between 140k and 200k israelis are dead and another 400k are injured.
There are 8 million people living in Israel. Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens next?
Iran has spent the last few decades trying to expand their influence, most notable into Iraq. No one really disputes this. People don't fill out mortgage paperwork in the morning when they're planning on doing a murder-suicide that evening. No one really disputes this. Those ideas need to get connected.
whembly wrote: Mostly... it's because many are wanting to punish the RNC with a bad candidate.
Many conservatives feel jilted that the current GOP leadership are worthless hacks.
As I said earlier in the thread, last primary election people thought the series of weird, flavour of the month candidates was an 'anyone but Romney' thing. Seeing this primary it might be more of an 'anyone but a Republican' thing. The Republican establishment politicians have spent so much time talking about how establishment politicians are bad they've actually made it hard to win their own primary.
But I think there's another issue here - Trump has talked almost complete gibberish throughout his campaign, but why would anyone turn off that gibberish and switch to a different Republican? Would they switch to Bush? His concept is that throughout completely unstated means he's going to create the greatest sustained productivity increase in US history (4% growth without large population growth would be probably the greatest achievement in economic history). And his credentials to support this claim is that he sat there while Florida went through a massive property bubble that crashed shortly after he left office.
Would they switch to Walker? His anti-unions reforms were supposed to be necessary to drive economic growth in Wisconson... but its delivered completely mediocre growth. Meanwhile his tax cuts were supposed to maintain budget revenue because the Laffer curve unicorn would work just fine, except the projected 1 billion surplus ended up a 2 billion deficit.
No-one in the Republican primary has any genuine substance behind their positions. Voting Republican at this point means you're basically buying in to a lot of fantastical nonsense, so really the difference is whether you'd prefer it came from someone using the usual poltiical language, or an abrasive donkey-cave. 20% prefer it comes from an abrasive donkey-cave.
Trump is going down because more than just the political junkies watched the debate, where Trump didn't do himself any favors.
Early polling, admittedly on-line, has Trump polling in the low 20s, actually increasing his numbers.
I think Trump will fall away as the field narrows and most of the vote coalesces around a couple of more traditional candidates, so that Trump's 20 odd % no longer competes. But I really doubt it will happen because of something he says - what could he possibly say than stating you don't like prisoners of war because they aren't winners?
Ouze wrote: I always see this argument - what if Iran launched or detonated a nuke at Israel? And the line of thought never goes very far.
Yeah. Geography matters a lot when trying to prevent, say, a sudden advance by an armoured column, and that's where Israel has an almost uniquely bad strategic position. It's the issue that's driven much of Israel's defence policy, including their own decision to acquire nukes.
But when it comes to nuke slinging it's just a total non-issue, because you don't throw nukes all over the whole country, you hit the cities. And your images show why very clearly - relative to total geography, cities are actually very small, and while a nuke is awesomely powerful, it's an extraordinarily expensive way to knock out 6 dairy farms. So you target cities, and there having lots of countryside surrounding your cities gives no extra protection.
And what if they manage to knock out Jerusalem in one strike? They would have the remainder of Israels military and nuclear arsenal staring in their faces, every single western power retaliating, and every single Islamic country pissed off for leveling the Temple Mount. They could but it would be incredibly stupid to do so, and even Iran knows this.
I don't think that Iran has the intention to commit mass suicide with their last thoughts being "at least Israel is gone", especially since even destroying Jerusalem wouldn't get rid of Israel. And people who keep on insisting that Iran would do it should know better.
I just can't figure out a reason to pick any of them, to be honest.
I another interesting comment I read about the debates - the Reagan thing is starting to get really weird. His economic record was actually pretty crappy (less jobs created than Carter, funnily enough), and his policy legacy doesn't exist (he thought Medicare was a socialist takeover, and wanted to dismantle Social Security - so effectively his legacy is some nice speeches). But more than that - it was 35 years ago! Imagine if a political party in 1980 was idolising someone from 1945, you’d have to think something had gone pretty badly wrong. Then imagine if a political party in 1945 was still holding to the policies of their leader in 1910, you’d know they were badly in need of modernising. A lot changes in 35 years.
Since 1980 Republicans there's been a whole lot of political change. Unions have been effectively sidelined, international trade has been almost entirely opened up, and the US has seen the Soviet Union collapse to become the single major power in world affairs. Welfare has gone through what, two major reforms? All this time we've seen Republicans calling for lower and lower taxes in the belief that it will grow jobs. At what point does a sober assessment conclude that whatever potential these policies have has been reached?
And the biggest issue is that the economic environment has changed massively - what might have been a decent idea 35 years ago doesn't necessarily apply to the new world. US manufacturing production has grown, but manufacturing jobs have decreased by about half, because competitive manufacturing today is almost entirely automated. We’ve seen microcomputers go from a new economic driver to absolute saturation. There’s now more than a billion robots at work around the world. The largest growth companies of the last decade have been internet companies with hardly any employees. Given the vastly different economy, the idea that business investment just naturally leads to growth has gone from being contentious to being almost complete gibberish. But Republicans couldn’t even dare question that Reagan’s ideas were a bit too simplistic.
The defense for Obama ya'll trying to spin is getting nauseating.
I'm not spinning anything. I'm pointing out that your characterization of Obama's words is not reflective of what Obama actually said. Stating that one group of people has found common cause with another group of people does not indicate that the speaker believes that they are the same, or even necessarily comparable.
d-usa wrote: And what if they manage to knock out Jerusalem in one strike? They would have the remainder of Israels military and nuclear arsenal staring in their faces, every single western power retaliating, and every single Islamic country pissed off for leveling the Temple Mount. They could but it would be incredibly stupid to do so, and even Iran knows this.
I don't think that Iran has the intention to commit mass suicide with their last thoughts being "at least Israel is gone", especially since even destroying Jerusalem wouldn't get rid of Israel. And people who keep on insisting that Iran would do it should know better.
I served in the gulf on a sub, trust me my friend it will never happen. Spent few years in Asian waters too, good luck anybody else.
d-usa wrote: And what if they manage to knock out Jerusalem in one strike? They would have the remainder of Israels military and nuclear arsenal staring in their faces, every single western power retaliating, and every single Islamic country pissed off for leveling the Temple Mount. They could but it would be incredibly stupid to do so, and even Iran knows this.
I don't think that Iran has the intention to commit mass suicide with their last thoughts being "at least Israel is gone", especially since even destroying Jerusalem wouldn't get rid of Israel. And people who keep on insisting that Iran would do it should know better.
You're labouring under the assumption that religious fanatics operate under the same rational processes that the rest of us live by.
Just because it's the 21st century, doesn't mean to say that Medieval ways of thinking have completely vanished.
History is replete with people doing bad things in the name of religion...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If Iran shoots first, it could be too late for Israel. Some parts of Israel are only a few miles wide. It's a small country and it would be easy for a well placed nuke to cause a lot of damage.
I always see this argument - what if Iran launched or detonated a nuke at Israel? And the line of thought never goes very far.
First, here's what a 60kt nuclear weapon (the largest one India had ever tested, so comparable) would look like if detonated in Tel Aviv:
It would kill approximately 200,000 people if an airburst or 138,000 in a surface detonation. It would be unbelievable awful, a tragedy unmatched in modern times, except all those times just as many people died in war via bullets and less rapidly - to paraphrase Lord of War, the AK-47 truly is the real weapon of mass destruction. But I digress, between 140k and 200k israelis are dead and another 400k are injured.
There are 8 million people living in Israel. Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens next?
Iran has spent the last few decades trying to expand their influence, most notable into Iraq. No one really disputes this. People don't fill out mortgage paperwork in the morning when they're planning on doing a murder-suicide that evening. No one really disputes this. Those ideas need to get connected.
What about the fallout? Land being contaminated for years?
d-usa wrote: And what if they manage to knock out Jerusalem in one strike? They would have the remainder of Israels military and nuclear arsenal staring in their faces, every single western power retaliating, and every single Islamic country pissed off for leveling the Temple Mount. They could but it would be incredibly stupid to do so, and even Iran knows this.
I don't think that Iran has the intention to commit mass suicide with their last thoughts being "at least Israel is gone", especially since even destroying Jerusalem wouldn't get rid of Israel. And people who keep on insisting that Iran would do it should know better.
I served in the gulf on a sub, trust me my friend it will never happen. Spent few years in Asian waters too, good luck anybody else.
On the eve of world war 1, Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, laughed at the prospect of a war engulfing Europe...
In 1938, the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, returned from Munich clutching a piece of paper. Peace in our time...
We al know those events played out, unfortunately...
Point is, it's dangerous to predict nothing will happen.
To paraphrase a famous American. In Life you can only be certain of 3 things: death, taxes, and war in the Middle East
Yes, that would be a large problem... for Lebanon as well.
But the point is Iran wouldn't be around to see it. And again, none of the things they're actually doing - trying to extend regional power- sync up with the fairy tale of apocalyptic martyrs.
d-usa wrote: And what if they manage to knock out Jerusalem in one strike? They would have the remainder of Israels military and nuclear arsenal staring in their faces, every single western power retaliating, and every single Islamic country pissed off for leveling the Temple Mount. They could but it would be incredibly stupid to do so, and even Iran knows this.
I don't think that Iran has the intention to commit mass suicide with their last thoughts being "at least Israel is gone", especially since even destroying Jerusalem wouldn't get rid of Israel. And people who keep on insisting that Iran would do it should know better.
Unless its smuggled in and goes off.
With nothing incoming from Iran, who do we know its from Iran? What does the world do if Israel "unilaterally" (which is how it will be spun) attacks Iran after?
I'm not actually pro any side on this (other than the side that gets us out of the region utterly and right freaking now), but that is one real world scenario.
Yes, that would be a large problem... for Lebanon as well.
But the point is Iran wouldn't be around to see it. And again, none of the things they're actually doing - trying to extend regional power- sync up with the fairy tale of apocalyptic martyrs.
If you belong to a religious subsect that believes in the very real pending Armaggedon and you want to trigger it off, how is this a bad thing?
d-usa wrote: And what if they manage to knock out Jerusalem in one strike? They would have the remainder of Israels military and nuclear arsenal staring in their faces, every single western power retaliating, and every single Islamic country pissed off for leveling the Temple Mount. They could but it would be incredibly stupid to do so, and even Iran knows this.
I don't think that Iran has the intention to commit mass suicide with their last thoughts being "at least Israel is gone", especially since even destroying Jerusalem wouldn't get rid of Israel. And people who keep on insisting that Iran would do it should know better.
Unless its smuggled in and goes off.
With nothing incoming from Iran, who do we know its from Iran? What does the world do if Israel "unilaterally" (which is how it will be spun) attacks Iran after?
I'm not actually pro any side on this (other than the side that gets us out of the region utterly and right freaking now), but that is one real world scenario.
The chances of Iran building a nuclear weapon and smuggling it into Israel without anybody stopping it is pretty damn remote, and if we are talking "dirty bomb" it is something that they could have done for a very long time now. The chances of Iran pulling it off without leaving any of their fingerprints all over the place is even more remote.
Both of those chances are less likely than the chance that Iran is stupid enough to even try to do something that guarantees their annihilation from the combined force of Israel/the western world/the Islamic world.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Over the weekend, Bernie Sanders had a rally shut down by a group of BLM protesters. I find the irony, and self-serving idiocy delicious there.
Looks like this "group" is pretty much just two people, who are known for being idiots. Looks like the main BLM group made it pretty clear what they thought about them calling out Sanders and asking him "what have you done for black people".
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Over the weekend, Bernie Sanders had a rally shut down by a group of BLM protesters. I find the irony, and self-serving idiocy delicious there.
Looks like this "group" is pretty much just two people, who are known for being idiots. Looks like the main BLM group made it pretty clear what they thought about them calling out Sanders and asking him "what have you done for black people".
One of them at least, appears to be a for hire protestor. Funny when Hilrary doesn't show up protestors crash the show.
I don't know what it is specifically but I think this election race looks fishy.
If you belong to a religious subsect that believes in the very real pending Armaggedon and you want to trigger it off, how is this a bad thing?
Islamic eschatology, especially within the Twelver tradition, is extremely complicated. But one broadly consistent principle is that resurrection, and final judgment, will only come to pass after the emergence of The Madhi; and event signaled by great Muslim conquests. Prior to that*, all the traditional prohibitions against suicide and the wasting of Muslim lives apply.
*And claiming to be The Madhi, or that someone else is The Madhi, is viewed in much the same way as similar messianic declarations are viewed in Christianity.
If you belong to a religious subsect that believes in the very real pending Armaggedon and you want to trigger it off, how is this a bad thing?
Islamic eschatology, especially within the Twelver tradition, is extremely complicated. But one broadly consistent principle is that resurrection, and final judgment, will only come to pass after the emergence of The Madhi; and event signaled by great Muslim conquests. Prior to that*, all the traditional prohibitions against suicide and the wasting of Muslim lives apply.
*And claiming to be The Madhi, or that someone else is The Madhi, is viewed in much the same way as similar messianic declarations are viewed in Christianity.
One of them at least, appears to be a for hire protestor.
If true, that makes their actions make a bit more sense.
Funny story, Back when I was in school, I actually saw one of these "professional protesters" in Portland, OR. Or rather, I saw them on the news. I honestly don't remember the bill that was being protested, but it was over a "controversial" law that was trying to be passed. Anyhow, there was a "pro-" rally on a thursday, which was on the 5 o'clock news where I saw a very distinct hair do on this lady standing right at the front. Then, on Friday, there was an "anti-" rally, and I saw her again, this time her hair was slightly pulled up but still unmistakable
Ahh, if only social media had been around back then
If you belong to a religious subsect that believes in the very real pending Armaggedon and you want to trigger it off, how is this a bad thing?
Islamic eschatology, especially within the Twelver tradition, is extremely complicated. But one broadly consistent principle is that resurrection, and final judgment, will only come to pass after the emergence of The Madhi; and event signaled by great Muslim conquests. Prior to that*, all the traditional prohibitions against suicide and the wasting of Muslim lives apply.
*And claiming to be The Madhi, or that someone else is The Madhi, is viewed in much the same way as similar messianic declarations are viewed in Christianity.
It is a quandary.
So, what you're saying is that it's kind of like saying the "Z-word" in a zombie movie??
You know... in serious zombie movies, no one is "allowed" to say the word zombie.
I mean, it's one thing to claim that you are "the Madhi", but to also have rules stating that others cannot claim that you are the Madhi seems a bit like the zombie movie thing.
You know... in serious zombie movies, no one is "allowed" to say the word zombie.
I mean, it's one thing to claim that you are "the Madhi", but to also have rules stating that others cannot claim that you are the Madhi seems a bit like the zombie movie thing.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Over the weekend, Bernie Sanders had a rally shut down by a group of BLM protesters. I find the irony, and self-serving idiocy delicious there.
Looks like this "group" is pretty much just two people, who are known for being idiots. Looks like the main BLM group made it pretty clear what they thought about them calling out Sanders and asking him "what have you done for black people".
One of them at least, appears to be a for hire protestor. Funny when Hilrary doesn't show up protestors crash the show.
I don't know what it is specifically but I think this election race looks fishy.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Over the weekend, Bernie Sanders had a rally shut down by a group of BLM protesters. I find the irony, and self-serving idiocy delicious there.
Looks like this "group" is pretty much just two people, who are known for being idiots. Looks like the main BLM group made it pretty clear what they thought about them calling out Sanders and asking him "what have you done for black people".
One of them at least, appears to be a for hire protestor. Funny when Hilrary doesn't show up protestors crash the show.
I don't know what it is specifically but I think this election race looks fishy.
From what I've seen the woman with the longer hair has protested in Seattle as a Palestinian not too long ago.
Also the pair of them apparently claim co-founding Seattle's BLM movement despite there being a BLM movement that predates theirs. They managed to create a FB page for their group while there is already a BLM Seattle page. Seemed like people were not happy with them co-opting their BLM movement. There is also the the original BLM movement leadership that had no idea that the protest was going to be staged.
I'm not big on conspiracy theory but with Soros funding BLM protestors, Bernie not accepting Soros's money and Hilary somehow escaping these protests and being Soros's girl you have to wonder a little.
Mix that with the Trump theories floating around and Hilary having a history of doing anything to achieve her goals and things get weirder lol.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Over the weekend, Bernie Sanders had a rally shut down by a group of BLM protesters. I find the irony, and self-serving idiocy delicious there.
Looks like this "group" is pretty much just two people, who are known for being idiots. Looks like the main BLM group made it pretty clear what they thought about them calling out Sanders and asking him "what have you done for black people".
One of them at least, appears to be a for hire protestor. Funny when Hilrary doesn't show up protestors crash the show.
I don't know what it is specifically but I think this election race looks fishy.
From what I've seen the woman with the longer hair has protested in Seattle as a Palestinian not too long ago.
Also the pair of them apparently claim co-founding Seattle's BLM movement despite there being a BLM movement that predates theirs. They managed to create a FB page for their group while there is already a BLM Seattle page. Seemed like people were not happy with them co-opting their BLM movement. There is also the the original BLM movement leadership that had no idea that the protest was going to be staged.
I'm not big on conspiracy theory but with Soros funding BLM protestors, Bernie not accepting Soros's money and Hilary somehow escaping these protests and being Soros's girl you have to wonder a little.
Mix that with the Trump theories floating around and Hilary having a history of doing anything to achieve her goals and things get weirder lol.
The part that stuck out to me the most was:
According to a group familiar with BLM operations on the ground in Seattle, Johnson and fellow protester Mara Jacqueline are “opportunists” from a group called Outside Agitators 206 who co-opted the BLM label — an easy thing to do considering that BLM is essentially a leaderless movement.
It does reek of some sort of political character assassination. Not only that, it confuses the image of the real BLM movement and causes more people to associate them in a negative way. My first thought was that they were trying to discredit the BLM by acting in this way.
Bernie would do well to not get in the way or walk away. Both course of actions only makes himself look bad in the bigger picture. He should have stuck it out and listened to them and then thanked them when he got on the mic, how ever long that would take.
Whether hired or rogue BLM members, they sought to sew confusion and draw attention.
Ahtman wrote: I thought #blacklivesmatter was just a hashtag, didn't realize it was an organization.
In that second article they mentioned that BLM is an organization but one without a real leader and as a result of that you get incidents like the two women in question.
This is also a good article as to why this rogue version of the BLM is not gaining traction.
BrotherGecko wrote: It seems to be loose associations of people rather than an organization. So people claiming BLM are paid by outside individuals to rabble rouse.
This whole election gives me the creeps.
We can take those creeps away. Vote Wiener Dog 2016. A treat in every bowl!
BrotherGecko wrote: It seems to be loose associations of people rather than an organization. So people claiming BLM are paid by outside individuals to rabble rouse.
This whole election gives me the creeps.
We can take those creeps away. Vote Wiener Dog 2016. A treat in every bowl!
If you can provide more entertainment then Madman Stumpin Trumpin then NO
In all serious though from what being said on some media news outlet that the more likely reason that Trump leading in the polls is that majority being polled are a bit tired of career politicians. I'm one of those who is tired of "career politicians"
I am VERY tired of career politicians, especially incumbent congress critters with decades of congress crittership to their names.
Having said that, I watched the debate and I was much less than impressed with Trump. He comes across as petty and petulant to me. Even if you chuck out the fact that politically he is not near the conservative candidate I would prefer he just does not seem to have a grasp on what the term 'presidential' means when used as an adjective describing a person and not a hotel suite.
I can see him using the IRS or NSA to harass/dig up dirt on people who piss him off, and frankly I don't care if you go with a D or an R by your name, that is wrong.
The current 'Last Name Paul' candidate/savior of Libertarians everywhere also comes across as petty and petulant. I like his politics better than Trump's but 'spoiled child' is how he comes off to me.
The defense for Obama ya'll trying to spin is getting nauseating.
I'm not spinning anything. I'm pointing out that your characterization of Obama's words is not reflective of what Obama actually said. Stating that one group of people has found common cause with another group of people does not indicate that the speaker believes that they are the same, or even necessarily comparable.
Really? Here's his double-down on CNN's interview:
Uh... no... not a mischaracterization. It's a tactic to paint the oppositions as an extreme viewpoint, as it's agreed that the hardliners in Iran are far away extreme themselves.
The oppositions are for multitude of reasons... namely:
a) very pro-Israel
b) the idea of "negotiating" with a terrorist state with US servicemen's blood on their hands
c) 'rewarding' Iran for relinquishing held money (billions)
d) gakky deal all round
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: How is it remote. They are going to build a bomb.
They need a shipping container or just a large box depending on how big it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: How is it remote. They are going to build a bomb.
They need a shipping container or just a large box depending on how big it is.
How do you prove they did it?
Would any one believe you?
Would the religious leaders care?
If a nuke or dirty bomb is detonated... the intelligence agencies (world wide) can figure out the source of the nuclear materials. They can figure out where it's likely mined and estrapolate the source.
The defense for Obama ya'll trying to spin is getting nauseating.
I'm not spinning anything. I'm pointing out that your characterization of Obama's words is not reflective of what Obama actually said. Stating that one group of people has found common cause with another group of people does not indicate that the speaker believes that they are the same, or even necessarily comparable.
Really? Here's his double-down on CNN's interview:
Spoiler:
Uh... no... not a mischaracterization. It's a tactic to paint the oppositions as an extreme viewpoint, as it's agreed that the hardliners in Iran are far away extreme themselves.
The oppositions are for multitude of reasons... namely:
a) very pro-Israel
b) the idea of "negotiating" with a terrorist state with US servicemen's blood on their hands
c) 'rewarding' Iran for relinquishing held money (billions)
d) gakky deal all round
Did you actually watch and listen to the video? He's not factually wrong.
It's simple logic:
Group A opposes a thing + Group B opposes same thing = common cause
The reasons for opposing it are irrelevant to that equation, the simple fact of opposition is what is relevant to the comparison. Was it a bad choice of words, intended solely to provoke and antagonize? YES, but it still does not change the fact that many of those opposing the deal did so before the deal was completed, before they even knew the details, solely because those politicians are in the pockets of special interest groups.
Uh... no... not a mischaracterization. It's a tactic to paint the oppositions as an extreme viewpoint, as it's agreed that the hardliners in Iran are far away extreme themselves.
Yes, that is indeed what Obama is trying to do, but that it isn't how you originally characterized what he said. You stated that he called the Republicans "Iranian Hardliners", when he in fact merely stated that the GOP had found common cause with that group (ie. reflexively opposing the agreement). As has been pointed out these are two entirely different comments, with entirely different meanings.
The oppositions are for multitude of reasons... namely:
a) very pro-Israel
b) the idea of "negotiating" with a terrorist state with US servicemen's blood on their hands
c) 'rewarding' Iran for relinquishing held money (billions)
d) gakky deal all round.
Only A has any diplomatic significance, B and C amount to political posturing in an election year, while D is nothing more than a nondescript melange of positions taken by others. Additionally, it should be noted that the focus for the Republican opposition has centered on B and C, with D only being trotted out by politicians who need to pass a litmus test and lazy observers who have very strong feelings, but very little information.
