Hillary is tanking now is sort of interesting... she's sucking now against Bernie (largely unknown) is a disaster.
She's up by a considerable margin in national polls. Sanders is winning polls in New England, but that's it.
Ouze wrote: Carly Fiorina has been running for various political offices for nearly 8 years now. The only thing keeping her from being a de facto professional politician is the fact she's as good at campaigning as she was at CEO'ing.
Trump is not an "outsider" either. Some people have even characterized him as a Clinton plant.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.
Yet we do have socialist tendencies, Highways, the other infrastructure, not all use it, but all paid for it, libraries and public hospitals and schools, tax-paid police and fire departments, ambulances (now most are private), so we work best as a regulated market economy capitalist state with socialistic tendencies, what the present course has done is make us stop being 1st world nation, except our war-making and Oligarchy.
Old style politics, working for the rich and not the people who voted them in is gonna lose them those jobs. Oh and those jobs were never envisioned by the Founding Fathers to be jobs, just a term of service of a non-military nature for the nation, but sadly some made it into a career move.
Sanders is up not just in New Hampshire, but Iowa and gaining ground in Ohio as well, and those are the big 3 early primary states.
Oh and the numbers of costs that Sanders would do if elected is inaccurate, as it does not take the costs we lose now into account, so in the long run, his plan would be less costly than what we have had which costs far more like double for the uninsured, the insurance middle man premiums, that folks still have to use the ER which sheds costs to all as opposed to just covering them ahead of time.
For real though, I am fairly convinced that Jeb Bush is in fact Will Farrell in disguise.
Also how does Trump literally flaunt his partaking corporate corruption in US politics and people are convinced he is incorruptible. That an half of what he talks about seems to be only about how much money he has or made.
+1000 points to Kasich for not buying into the zoo.
edit: Kasich for not buying into the all about Trump circus.
The sad part about all the Reagan worship, is how many voters are old enough to really even remember the Reagan years? I'm 38, I wasn't even in high school by the time he left office.
Kind of weird that with this wave of anti-immigration rhetoric, there's support for someone who is essentially an anchor baby.
Also, my favorite part of the debate so far was Santorum immediately and without context milking his disabled daughter. This is a man who truly doesn't feel shame.
Ouze wrote: Also, my favorite part of the debate so far was Santorum immediately and without context milking his disabled daughter. This is a man who truly doesn't feel shame.
I know what you meant here, but this conjures an entirely different mental image that will haunt me.
I left early, that was really difficult to watch. Pandering to the far right, rewriting the historical narrative and scoring cheap points by knocking Hillary Clinton.
Props once again to Kasich for staying focused on the issues.
Kind of weird that with this wave of anti-immigration rhetoric, there's support for someone who is essentially an anchor baby.
Erm... his folks were here legally.
Not weird.
His parents came to the US in 1956. He was born in 1971. His parents didn't attain naturalized citizenship until 1975. His parents were not citizens of the Untied States when he was born.
Also, the (gakky) term "anchor baby" isn't limited to only the children or illegal immigrants.
His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.
His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.
Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.
Look it up ya'll.
EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.
Actually a surprisingly good debate amidst the hoopla. Christy and Paul once again had the most intriguing back and forth. Why though did the good doctors not come out more forcefully for science? That is their wheelhouse. They could have nailed Trump's answer about vaccines. They were tepid where they should/could have been forceful and make Trump look like the baffoon he is.
His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.
Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.
Look it up ya'll.
EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.
According to American Heritage Dictionary:
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.
Being that Rubio's parents, as outlined by other users, were not actually citizens of the US... it would appear that they are using the term correctly.
whembly wrote: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.
Just being born in the US does not make a person an "anchor baby". What hypothetically makes a person an "anchor baby" is the influence their US citizenship might cause on the US immigration status of their family members. In the case of Rubio's family the whole US v. Communists thing was likely far more important than anything else, but it would be unfair to say his citizenship did not matter if you're claiming it matters for other children and their families.
His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.
Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.
Look it up ya'll.
EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.
According to American Heritage Dictionary:
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.
Being that Rubio's parents, as outlined by other users, were not actually citizens of the US... it would appear that they are using the term correctly.
BS.
It's not the child that being granted citizenship is what gets everyone's panties twisted...
It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberatelycome to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.
Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.
Not a fair apple-to-apples here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay... I LOL'ed too hard at this:
His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.
Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.
Look it up ya'll.
EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.
According to American Heritage Dictionary:
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.
Being that Rubio's parents, as outlined by other users, were not actually citizens of the US... it would appear that they are using the term correctly.
BS.
It's not the child that being granted citizenship is what gets everyone's panties twisted...
It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberatelycome to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.
Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.
Not a fair apple-to-apples here.
Bull gak? You're going to argue with with the dictionary? Let me know how that turns out for you...
Anyway, Rubio's parents didn't flee Cuba because of "unrest" and Communism. They left for economic reasons (you know, to get a better paying job in the US) two-and-a-half years before the Castro came to power. Then, after Castro came to power, they made repeated trips back to Cuba. I mean, come on Whembly... just admit you were wrong. I promise it won't hurt.
It's not the child that being granted citizenship is what gets everyone's panties twisted...
It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberatelycome to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.
Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.
Not a fair apple-to-apples here.
I wasn't arguing that... I happen to agree with you here. And by agree, I mean that I think Rubio's parents didn't come to the US for the sole purpose of having a child (which I think knowing gestation timelines, would be a given). I merely stated what the dictionary definition was.
IMHO, just because one fits the "definition" of a word, doesn't mean it necessarily applies. ie, not all people who do Crossfit are "Crossfitters"
It's not the child that being granted citizenship is what gets everyone's panties twisted...
It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberatelycome to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.
Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.
Not a fair apple-to-apples here.
I wasn't arguing that... I happen to agree with you here. I merely stated what the dictionary definition was.
IMHO, just because one fits the "definition" of a word, doesn't mean it necessarily applies. ie, not all people who do Crossfit are "Crossfitters"
Indeedeo!
Also... look at this Google Trends after the debate:
Alright, I went back because I was just too curious.
Overall I was extremely disappointed in the showing by most of the candidates for their fear mongering, lack of historical context, obvious omissions, and chest thumping. Most of the candidates seemed to be trying to prey on the fears of the common man by trumpeting how hard they will be on immigrants, Islamic terrorism or both. The constant calls to expand and add more funding to the military to combat this supposedly dangerous world were reminiscent of this as well. I forget who said it, but I was absolutely floored when someone said that our navy was too small, when the tonnage of our navy is greater than the world's next 13 largest navies combined.
Having spent a lot of time reading and doing research about the Middle East, Islam and terrorism, it was really frustrating to hear the candidates promise to eradicate ISIS/ISIL, and the attempts to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Obama Administration instead of coming up with a more thoughtful solution. The conveniently overlooked facts are that contemporary Islamic extremism is born from the failures of the Pan-Arab nationalist governments, the legitimacy gained by the mujahadeen during the 1980's, and the destabilization of Iraq. We've repeatedly shown that American meddling in Middle Eastern politics is often directly detrimental to our own self interest, so it is disheartening that a stage full of presidential hopefuls are advocating the same policies.
And it's very easy to paint Iran as the bad guy when you neglect the fact that American and British intelligence organs overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and put the Persian people under the yoke of a monarch whose egregious conduct led directly to his overthrow in 1979. Couple that with the fact that we've had hundreds of thousands of military personnel on their borders for a decade and declared them part of an Axis of Evil it isn't difficult to see why they'd seek protection from outside intervention with nuclear weapons. I certainly don't condone Iran's current course of action, but this bluster and tough guy attitude is what led us to the current situation.
Another thing that really stuck in my craw was their chest thumping about the absolute moral right of invading both Iraq and Afghanistan as the thing to do to run the terrorists to ground while conveniently forgetting that our supposed allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan either provide, or are major conduits for terrorist support. I think Dr. Carson's ideas were laudable and a much more sensible way to approach the issue, but it was hard to hear over everyone else beating the war drums.
The economy isn't my strong point, but aren't flat taxes or just taxing consumables both a giant 'feth you' to poor people?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Actually a surprisingly good debate amidst the hoopla. Christy and Paul once again had the most intriguing back and forth. Why though did the good doctors not come out more forcefully for science? That is their wheelhouse. They could have nailed Trump's answer about vaccines. They were tepid where they should/could have been forceful and make Trump look like the baffoon he is.
I was also a little stumped by that. Everything I've read completely refutes the vaccines cause autism debate, but I guess the doctors didn't want to offend anyone by taking a stand?
IAmTheWalrus wrote: I was absolutely floored when someone said that our navy was too small, when the tonnage of our navy is greater than the world's next 13 largest navies combined.
IIRC, the number of boats isn't a problem the Navy has, but rather they've been running on relative "skeleton crews" for as long as I can remember. It was also the chief complaint of my great uncle who spent 20+ years on Carriers (he was 15 minutes away from being in Top Gun)
It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberatelycome to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.
Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.
I don't see much of a difference. After all, if the citizenship status of your child matters to your immigration status it would be part of legally working the system.
IAmTheWalrus wrote: I was absolutely floored when someone said that our navy was too small, when the tonnage of our navy is greater than the world's next 13 largest navies combined.
IIRC, the number of boats isn't a problem the Navy has, but rather they've been running on relative "skeleton crews" for as long as I can remember. It was also the chief complaint of my great uncle who spent 20+ years on Carriers (he was 15 minutes away from being in Top Gun)
Right, I know the problem with our Navy certainly isn't the size of it, but Carly Fiorina said, “We need 50 Army brigades, 36 Marine battalions, 300 to 350 naval ships."
Anyway, Rubio's parents didn't flee Cuba because of "unrest" and Communism. They left for economic reasons (you know, to get a better paying job in the US) two-and-a-half years before the Castro came to power. Then, after Castro came to power, they made repeated trips back to Cuba. I mean, come on Whembly... just admit you were wrong. I promise it won't hurt.
They didn't leave due to Communism but the unrest, and therefore many of the economic issues, began with the Cuban Revolution in 1953.
@beatlesrefernce: seemingly the contenders have in their mind that the voters believe that science is the devil's project. At least we didn't have the obligatory "do you believe in evolution" question and the likewise obligatory evasion, or even worse negatory response. So I guess that's progress.
Edit: hooray for no hand raising questions that elicit no debate whatsoever.
Anyway, Rubio's parents didn't flee Cuba because of "unrest" and Communism. They left for economic reasons (you know, to get a better paying job in the US) two-and-a-half years before the Castro came to power. Then, after Castro came to power, they made repeated trips back to Cuba. I mean, come on Whembly... just admit you were wrong. I promise it won't hurt.
They didn't leave due to Communism but the unrest, and therefore many of the economic issues, began with the Cuban Revolution in 1953.
The point is, he had claimed that his parents fled Cuba as exiles, when they most definitely did not.
Anyway, Rubio's parents didn't flee Cuba because of "unrest" and Communism. They left for economic reasons (you know, to get a better paying job in the US) two-and-a-half years before the Castro came to power. Then, after Castro came to power, they made repeated trips back to Cuba. I mean, come on Whembly... just admit you were wrong. I promise it won't hurt.
They didn't leave due to Communism but the unrest, and therefore many of the economic issues, began with the Cuban Revolution in 1953.
The point is, he had claimed that his parents fled Cuba as exiles, when they most definitely did not.
But they could have had much cooler cars for a much cheaper price. People have no perspective.
IIRC (and I very well could be wrong), in our current system, as you reach certain steps, all income above that amount is taxed at X%. Lets say you make $250,000 (and all these numbers are made up) you'd pay a 5% tax on your first $10,000, 10% on the next $40,000, bringing you up to $50,000, 15% on the next $50000, up to $100,000, 20% on the next $150k, up to $250,000 so despite bing in the 20% tax range, you aren't paying 20% of your income in taxs. And that might inceas to 25% at $500k, 30% at $1M, ect. But if set a flat tac rate, it's you pay that amount on all your income, so if it's something like 17%, the poor would end up paying far more in taxes, while the rich may end up paying less.
Co'tor Shas wrote: IIRC (and I very well could be wrong), in our current system, as you reach certain steps, all income above that amount is taxed at X%. Lets say you make $250,000 (and all these numbers are made up) you'd pay a 5% tax on your first $10,000, 10% on the next $40,000, bringing you up to $50,000, 15% on the next $50000, up to $100,000, 20% on the next $150k, up to $250,000 so despite bing in the 20% tax range, you aren't paying 20% of your income in taxs. And that might inceas to 25% at $500k, 30% at $1M, ect. But if set a flat tac rate, it's you pay that amount on all your income, so if it's something like 17%, the poor would end up paying far more in taxes, while the rich may end up paying less.
Right, that was kind of my point when I called that and eliminating everything else in favor of a tax on consumables both a feth you to poor people. There's a hard floor of products that you need to consume to survive, and from what I've read there isn't a proportionate climb in consumption with increased wealth, so the effect of both of these plans seems to be that rich people pay less, while middle class and poor people pay more. Ensis stated this was kind of the case, and I was just asking for clarification.
Not gonna lie, the "congrats CNN, you found a plane" kinda killed me.
It makes me feel good that, regardless of our political beliefs, one of the things that can always bring us together is pointing out just how terrible CNN is.
"I will vote for the Republican nominee but let me say this flat out, Donald Trump is unfit to be President of the United States or the Republican Party's nominee."
It's nice to see him come out and say it directly.
I'm really sad he's not getting more attention, but I guess that's what happens when you are an un-exciting moderate who's pretty much stayed out of the public eye since finishing his terms as governor.
Edit: he also called out Kim Davis quite well
"There is a place where religion succeeds the rule of law, it's called Iran. It shouldn't be the United States."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Santorum is an idiot. He was trying to argue that the supreme court ruling in favor of gay marriage is unconstitutional (wut?), and trying to argue against judicial supremacy. You know, that thing that's been part of our government since the beginning.
His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.
Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.
Look it up ya'll.
EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.
According to American Heritage Dictionary:
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.
Being that Rubio's parents, as outlined by other users, were not actually citizens of the US... it would appear that they are using the term correctly.
No, the part in orange was NOT the case for Rubio. When folks, other than Democrats wanting to poke at Rubio use the term, that part in orange is what makes the term appropriate.
How do you know what the circumstances for Rubio's conception were? I mean, his parents waited until after they had him and his brother before applying for naturalization and almost 20 years after they came to the United States...
Been here how long as legal permanent residents? Having a kid at that point does not really improve 'chances for securing citizenship'. The Cuban Adjustment Act (and other laws) already pretty much guaranteed legal permanent residence and eventual citizenship (if/when the permanent resident went through the process).
They did not need to have a kid to stay here/be here legally. That should not be hard to grasp.
The way the term is used, having the kid on US soil enables the parents to remain, 'anchoring' them to the US. Hence therm, Anchor Baby'.
After watching the debate last night...all I have to say is that the more I watch Trump, the more I can't stand listening to him. His standard answer to everything is basically not to give an actual plan, but state "I'll fix (insert issue here) because I'm Donald Trump".
And his " your a beautiful woman" response to Fiorino after she zinged him on his "view of women" was just cringe worthy.
I came away liking Christie, Rubio, and Walker better. Bush did better, but I kind of get the feeling that he doesn't really want to be there.
I'm just waiting for the trump implosion, so the media can stop fixating on this guy.
CptJake wrote: Having a kid at that point does not really improve 'chances for securing citizenship'. The Cuban Adjustment Act (and other laws) already pretty much guaranteed legal permanent residence and eventual citizenship (if/when the permanent resident went through the process).
No, it doesn't. That's why "anchor baby" is such a terrible phrase.
I mean, I could make a decent argument that the Cuban Adjustment Act not only created "anchor babies" but "anchor people", all because "Lol, Communism is evil!"
Could you elaborate a little bit, or point me in the direction of a good explanation?
The "fair use" system would abolish the current tax code. Instead, it would place around a 19-25% tax on every item you buy. This tax would be displayed on the item's price tag in the store, instead of as the sales tax in the US, where it's calculated at the register.
In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do. And at all levels I mean: the mining company rates their raw material with taxes. The company that makes aluminum for Ford Motors pays that tax. Ford then pays a tax to buy that aluminum for their cars/trucks. The consumer then pays the tax on the ford vehicle that they just bought.
Of course, the way this hurts Ford, is when you or I buy a used vehicle, instead of brand new, since the only people making money off the tax, is the dealership/seller.
Ouze wrote: Not gonna lie, the "congrats CNN, you found a plane" kinda killed me.
It makes me feel good that, regardless of our political beliefs, one of the things that can always bring us together is pointing out just how terrible CNN is.
Glad to be of service...
But, the funniest thing I've seen was after the debate, Jeb tweeted:
Sorry Mom
— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) September 17, 2015
Obviously because he admitted to smoking pot as a kid...
Could you elaborate a little bit, or point me in the direction of a good explanation?
The "fair use" system would abolish the current tax code. Instead, it would place around a 19-25% tax on every item you buy. This tax would be displayed on the item's price tag in the store, instead of as the sales tax in the US, where it's calculated at the register.
In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do. And at all levels I mean: the mining company rates their raw material with taxes. The company that makes aluminum for Ford Motors pays that tax. Ford then pays a tax to buy that aluminum for their cars/trucks. The consumer then pays the tax on the ford vehicle that they just bought.
Of course, the way this hurts Ford, is when you or I buy a used vehicle, instead of brand new, since the only people making money off the tax, is the dealership/seller.
Could you elaborate a little bit, or point me in the direction of a good explanation?
The "fair use" system would abolish the current tax code. Instead, it would place around a 19-25% tax on every item you buy. This tax would be displayed on the item's price tag in the store, instead of as the sales tax in the US, where it's calculated at the register.
In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do. And at all levels I mean: the mining company rates their raw material with taxes. The company that makes aluminum for Ford Motors pays that tax. Ford then pays a tax to buy that aluminum for their cars/trucks. The consumer then pays the tax on the ford vehicle that they just bought.
Of course, the way this hurts Ford, is when you or I buy a used vehicle, instead of brand new, since the only people making money off the tax, is the dealership/seller.
How does the government collect the tax on private sales?
The "fair use" system hurts the majority of people because most of us pay much less than 19-25% of our net income in taxes. While paychecks will increase by the amount that used to be withheld for federal income tax it won't be nearly enough to allow people to maintain current spending habits when prices rise 19-25%. Living expenses would rise by wages would still be the same so people would just spend less money and the government would collect less taxes. If the tax system incentivizes frugality then people will spend less.
I'm convinced that Jeb is just using this time to stay as far under the radar as possible and appear when he has to to be personable, have a sense of humor, and just not insane. Basically he's trying to keep the amount of ammo the democratic nominee will have to use from the primaries to a minimum (should he get the nomination).
Hulksmash wrote: I'm convinced that Jeb is just using this time to stay as far under the radar as possible and appear when he has to to be personable, have a sense of humor, and just not insane. Basically he's trying to keep the amount of ammo the democratic nominee will have to use from the primaries to a minimum (should he get the nomination).
Very good point. I'm convinced that Trump is a democrat plant, because anybody who takes him on, it's just rolling in the mud and making themselves look stupid.
Mark Twain once said you should never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.
And that's what Trump is doing - wrecking the Republicans and anybody stupid enough to engage with him.
No, and no. I kind of hope we can start moving forward on this at some point.
On the plus side I realistically think now that in my lifetime marijuana will be decriminalized, and I have hopes that the drug war will end. That latter thing I'm less sure on, obviously, too many people getting too much money out of it. But at least now with even Republicans, typically "law and order" types, talking about the hideous costs to our society... maybe.
Debate reaction: obviously Fiorna won the debate. But the debate went best for Jeb Bush, who showed that he has some of a pair. You can tell Bush is still the establishments choice. One of the biggest applause lines was when he referenced GW "kept us safe".
Trump just looks worse and worse evertime I see him, and a couple opponents made him look downright infantile, especially Fiorna and Paul.
All other candidates made no additional impression than they did the first debate IMO
At this point, I'm still guessing that either a Bush-Fiorna or Bush-Rubio ticket is the most likely outcome. And I wouldn't be horribly surprised if Fiorna won he nomination, at least if debates matter, as she is far and away the most able debater of the bunch.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
True. There's a big difference between the dictatorial powers of a CEO and trying to get Congress to pass legislation to accomplish your agenda. The plans the candidates propose (on both sides) and what can and will actually get passed by Congress are very rarely in alignment.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
I'm inclined to believe that this might be perceived by Republican voters as a strength, rather than a weakness. The base seems pretty disaffected with Republicans in the House and Senate.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
I'm inclined to believe that this might be perceived by Republican voters as a strength, rather than a weakness. The base seems pretty disaffected with Republicans in the House and Senate.
True dat... which is fething ironic as Obama didn't have experience either.
Published by Doug Kaplan
Post-Debate National Poll Shows Fiorina Tied for First with Trump
Fiorina Skyrockets in Post-Debate National Poll
Washington, D.C., September 17, 2015 - One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, announces its national post-debate poll taken immediately after Wednesday night’s GOP Debate at the Ronald Reagan Library. Carly Fiorina jumps to first place at 22 percent, tied with Donald Trump. OAN’s previous national poll, conducted on September 3-4, showed the former HP top executive in seventh place with 2.7%. Marco Rubio lands in the third spot with 15 percent. The U.S. Senator from Florida ranked third in OAN’s early September poll with 12 percent, a three point gain for Rubio. Rounding out the top five are Dr. Ben Carson at 12 percent followed by Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tied at 6 percent. Bush drops nearly half his early September support of 11.4 percent to a post-debate 6 percent.
If the election for President were held today, which GOP candidate would you vote for?
Fiorina also had the highest showing with GOP national voters having a 78 percent more favorable opinion of the candidate post-debate. The less favorable percent came in at 13 percent with 10 percent unchanged. Thirty-three percent of GOP voters polled believed that Fiorina won the debate, the highest of any GOP Candidate. Trump came in second with 21 percent.
According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “One America News’ national post-debate poll shows it’s all Fiorina coming out of the second debate. It shows that some of the lesser known candidates have tremendous upside as voters across the nation become more familiar with them. Senator Rubio also had a strong showing on Wednesday picking up 3 points since our previous national poll in early September.
The poll, conducted exclusively for One America News Network by Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, sampled a random survey of 1,337 registered Republican voters across the U.S. regarding the performance and opinions of the Republicans that took place in the second Republican Primary debate. The poll has a margin of error of ± 3%. The polls were conducted using IVR technology and weighted by gender.
One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates. One America News Network will be releasing on-going 2016 Presidential polling results. Complete poll results are available at http://www.oann.com/pollresults/l
CNN got viewership, and ratings, but the questions were just as "soft" as Fox pitched at them.
Mostly more about Cut Planned Parenthood/Obamacare and make us bankrupt making more weapons and going to war with them along with tear up Iran deal. otherwise it was like watching arguing between drunks with the cutting each other off, and hurling insults.
Not one of them had revealed anything of substance, but I will agree, Carly Fiorina had as big a pair of balls as Trumpy
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
I'm inclined to believe that this might be perceived by Republican voters as a strength, rather than a weakness. The base seems pretty disaffected with Republicans in the House and Senate.
Yes.
I'd give good odds of a Fiorina/Rubio ticket. After the clownact of Trump, the party will be eager to restart its recruitment efforts. Fiorina is the outsider who neutralizing the "first female" advantage, is coherent/vicious (almost Texan there), while Rubio is youthful and gives good policy arguments. I'd take that bet against Team Private Server.
Brown is making noise again. Interesting. hopefully he runs and gets crushed.
Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.
jasper76 wrote: Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.
Yeah she pretty much drove HP towards the dirt, walked away with a ton of money, but did damage that is now fixed by others with more competency at managing a corporation than her. She already said she would push for trillions of dollars worth of war machines and then seek out to use them on someone, she would crash America as she almost did to HP.
I doubt that. I think you thought it was funny because you're a Republican.
That makes no sense.
You're not in my head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.
*meh*
I doubt that... in the General Election I think she'll have a harder time being that outsider and a woman.
jasper76 wrote: Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.
Yeah she pretty much drove HP towards the dirt, walked away with a ton of money, but did damage that is now fixed by others with more competency at managing a corporation than her. She already said she would push for trillions of dollars worth of war machines and then seek out to use them on someone, she would crash America as she almost did to HP.
False. You're lapping up her opposition's talking points.
She got fired because she championed the merger between HP and Compaq.
That was instrumental in solidifing HP's computer side in the industry and what's overlooked, she solidified the printer business…
Back then... how many fething printers were there in the market and it's crazy ink business?
She also opened up Central and South America to the HP printing business, a huge move, and solidified that market area.
Freaking Craig Bartlett, CEO of Intel stated that, she saved HP because of her bold moves.
Leaders makes those hard decisions.
Now, it one thing to say that you don't believe Carly is qualified for the Presidency because of her lack of political experience... that criticism is warranted. But, to simply say she "ran HP to the ground" is blatantly false.
Could you elaborate a little bit, or point me in the direction of a good explanation?
The "fair use" system would abolish the current tax code. Instead, it would place around a 19-25% tax on every item you buy. This tax would be displayed on the item's price tag in the store, instead of as the sales tax in the US, where it's calculated at the register.
In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do. And at all levels I mean: the mining company rates their raw material with taxes. The company that makes aluminum for Ford Motors pays that tax. Ford then pays a tax to buy that aluminum for their cars/trucks. The consumer then pays the tax on the ford vehicle that they just bought.
Of course, the way this hurts Ford, is when you or I buy a used vehicle, instead of brand new, since the only people making money off the tax, is the dealership/seller.
How does the government collect the tax on private sales?
The "fair use" system hurts the majority of people because most of us pay much less than 19-25% of our net income in taxes. While paychecks will increase by the amount that used to be withheld for federal income tax it won't be nearly enough to allow people to maintain current spending habits when prices rise 19-25%. Living expenses would rise by wages would still be the same so people would just spend less money and the government would collect less taxes. If the tax system incentivizes frugality then people will spend less.
That is one reason why I'm not particularly a fan of it. It totally is dependent on people spending money on the dumb stuff we do.
jasper76 wrote: Debate reaction: obviously Fiorna won the debate. But the debate went best for Jeb Bush, who showed that he has some of a pair. You can tell Bush is still the establishments choice. One of the biggest applause lines was when he referenced GW "kept us safe".
Sure, as long as you don't count the largest terrorist attack in history that happened on his watch, it's a fair rap. And after all, why would you count that?
whembly wrote: Now, it one thing to say that you don't believe Carly is qualified for the Presidency because of her lack of political experience... that criticism is warranted. But, to simply say she "ran HP to the ground" is blatantly false.
When she took over, the company had 42 billion in sales and 3.1 billion in net profits. When she left, it was making 87 billion in sales (since the merger made a much larger company) yet only 2.4 billion in net profits, and literally halved the stock value. While she was doing that, she tripled her salary and after laying off nearly 30,000 people and sending their jobs overseas, she was rewarded with a 40 million dollar golden parachute. These are not opinions, they are facts. Unless she is claiming she will double the size of the national debt while halving revenue, that's not a track record to run on.
I've seen a few op-eds trying to kickstart the "Carly Didn't Run HP Into The Ground" lie-train, but I think they're going to need a bigger bs battery for that particular locomotive - I don't think the usual mixture of "intellectual dishonesty, disregard for the inconvenient facts, and ability to out-endure the people willing to call you a liar" will be adequate this time.
whembly wrote: That was instrumental in solidifing HP's computer side in the industry and what's overlooked, she solidified the printer business…
Back then... how many fething printers were there in the market and it's crazy ink business?
The problem Fiorina has to face is perception, not facts. Regardless of what the actual facts may be regarding her time at HP, to a large part of America she represents what is hated about corporate America: the fatcat CEO that fiddles away as thousands lose their jobs and she bails out on her golden parachute worth millions.
jasper76 wrote: Debate reaction: obviously Fiorna won the debate. But the debate went best for Jeb Bush, who showed that he has some of a pair. You can tell Bush is still the establishments choice. One of the biggest applause lines was when he referenced GW "kept us safe".
Sure, as long as you don't count the largest terrorist attack in history that happened on his watch, it's a fair rap. And after all, why would you count that?
whembly wrote: Now, it one thing to say that you don't believe Carly is qualified for the Presidency because of her lack of political experience... that criticism is warranted. But, to simply say she "ran HP to the ground" is blatantly false.
When she took over, the company had 42 billion in sales and 3.1 billion in net profits. When she left, it was making 87 billion in sales (since the merger made a much larger company) yet only 2.4 billion in net profits, and literally halved the stock value. While she was doing that, she tripled her salary and after laying off nearly 30,000 people and sending their jobs overseas, she was rewarded with a 40 million dollar golden parachute. These are not opinions, they are facts. Unless she is claiming she will double the size of the national debt while halving revenue, that's not a track record to run on.
I've seen a few op-eds trying to kickstart the "Carly Didn't Run HP Into The Ground" lie-train, but I think they're going to need a bigger bs battery for that particular locomotive - I don't think the usual mixture of "intellectual dishonesty, disregard for the inconvenient facts, and ability to out-endure the people willing to call you a liar" will be adequate this time.
whembly wrote: That was instrumental in solidifing HP's computer side in the industry and what's overlooked, she solidified the printer business…
Back then... how many fething printers were there in the market and it's crazy ink business?
I got ninja'd! , I was about to link him that Forbes magazine article which I was basing my post on actually, not the silliness of trump, but her actual track record. She came out of that mess smelling pretty sweet according to her sign on deal/compensation and severance packs, and that is why CEOs are getting looked at closely these days, those insane packages!
Tannhauser42 wrote: The problem Fiorina has to face is perception, not facts. Regardless of what the actual facts may be regarding her time at HP, to a large part of America she represents what is hated about corporate America: the fatcat CEO that fiddles away as thousands lose their jobs and she bails out on her golden parachute worth millions.
Good thing she doesn't have the body of Chris Christie then
I doubt that... in the General Election I think she'll have a harder time being that outsider and a woman.
She isn't an outsider. She has certainly tried to present herself as one because she knows her supporters will eat it up without thinking critically about such a claim. She is quite like Trump in that regard.
I mean, the woman was John McCain's adviser during his 2008 Presidential campaign. The fact that she got that nod means she was making political inroads well before that. A significant portion of her opposition in the General and Primary will actively try to establish her as one more politician. This will not be unlike what some people are attempting to do to Trump now.
I think it's going to be a little easier to hang that hat on Mrs. Fiorina than it is on Mr. Trump. While he's run for office many times, it's always been presumed that he wasn't a serious candidate and was just doing it for publicity and lulz.
Which is how I think this run started, but I no longer think it is. I think he's deadly serious, and why not? Look at this crowd of has-beens and never weres. He could actually win the nomination, FFS.
Not that the Democrats are better. I suspect most Americans realize that the drama with the private server is exactly how the rest of Mrs. Clinton's presidency would be; just a few plausible deniable notches above one sleazy scandal after another. And will the GOP work with her? I daresay, they will not. It would make the last 8 years look like minor friction, and the excitement of the historic First Woman President would be quickly surpassed by the First Woman President / First Husband & Wife Presidents To Get Impeached. So, it's that, or Senator Nochance, or Whats His Face with a name recognition marginally less than mine.
Maybe I'm just getting old and tired and jaded, but man, this is the worst electoral match I have seen in my entire life.
jasper76 wrote: Fiorina's biggest hurdle will be overcoming her time at HP. Amongst the conservatives I discuss politics with, she is a non-starter, because she laid off thousands of people and shipped jobs to China, or at least that's the impression anecdotally my acquaintances have of her.
Indeed. She is not liked here for what she did to Compaq.
I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of). Its like they are actually a little worried to get in the open right now.
Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.
If Trump can achieve what I still feel is his personal goal, a more moderate Democrat could step up and sweep the race by appealing to some of the Republicans. Now who that is I have no idea because it sure is not HRC and Bernie is too socialist for any one right to even nightmare about voting for.
BrotherGecko wrote: I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of). Its like they are actually a little worried to get in the open right now.
Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.
I suspect the DNCs silence has a LOT more to do with the fact that they did not intend to have to deal with a real Primary. They assumed Clinton would sweep away anyone with the audacity to run against her. Unfortunately, the leftist base is sick of establishment types like Hilary and loves the self proclaimed socialist candidate (and hoped they would get an even further left leaner like Warren to jump in). Clinton self immolating over her emails just adds to the dissatisfaction of those who think Obama did not go hard enough left.
Now, the DNC and big money types are trying to figure out the best timing to announce a Biden run, probably while trying to convince Hilary to quietly fade away (slim chance of that happening, after all it is her turn...) They hope a establishment controlled Not Hilary in the form of Biden will steal enough of the Sanders voters away from Sanders to shut him down.
Ouze wrote: And will the GOP work with her? I daresay, they will not. It would make the last 8 years look like minor friction,
I think what's sad is, based on Sanders' comments at that "Liberty University" speech he gave, he genuinely would try to work with the GOP, but I suspect that with today's climate, that would largely be a one way street.
Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.
Traditionally neither side attacks the other until the General. At least unless there is a very likely opponent who is not only polarizing, but in the midst of a significant scandal.
Ouze wrote: And will the GOP work with her? I daresay, they will not. It would make the last 8 years look like minor friction,
I think what's sad is, based on Sanders' comments at that "Liberty University" speech he gave, he genuinely would try to work with the GOP, but I suspect that with today's climate, that would largely be a one way street.
The fault lies with both parties and Sanders' is just making comments for good PR when he knows it's worthless. Bernie Sanders' positions on most issues are so far apart from a lot of the GOP Representatives in the House that even meeting halfway requires both sides to move so far away from the positions supported by their respective bases that it's politically untenable. All Sanders is saying is the same stuff every politician says, I'll stake a claim to my position that nowhere near what the opposition is comfortable with supporting and then use their refusal to support a position that is diametrically opposed to theirs as proof that the two parties can't work together, blame the other side for not compromising their views to support mine and then move ahead with whatever unilateral action I can get away with. None of the politicians ever actually offer to change their positions to be more palatable for the other side to support, they just demand support from the other side and then when it's not given blame them for not compromising. It's how politicians avoid challenges from their base and convince people that they're doing something or at least trying really hard to do something when they're really doing nothing at all besides just repeating hard line partisan campaign speeches. The game isn't about actually solving problems, the game is about taking a side on an issue that lets you pander to the people likely to turn out and vote in the next election and keep the issue unresolved so you can keep running on solving it.
dogma wrote: The GOP will probably maintain control of Congress, and there are lots of Republican supporters who hate anyone whose last name is "Clinton". That means anything a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton tries to do will be stonewalled by Congress because there is hay to made by claiming "I opposed something a Clinton tried to do!".
I think we're probably a point where Clinton Derangement Syndrome has spread to anyone who dares to hold the Presidency while a Democrat.
It used to make sense that it was just the Clintons they hated so very much, but having watch the frequently flying rodent gak opposition they put up against Obama, I'm pretty confident Republicans will do just the same if another Democrat is elected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The three "outsiders" are leading this poll 1-2-3.
Yowsa!
Yep, I called it a while back. In 2012 it looked like the sequence of briefly popular candidates was a case of 'anyone but Mitt'... but now watching this extremely bizarre 2016 primary, it seems the defining mood among Republican voters is anyone but a Republican.
BrotherGecko wrote: I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of). Its like they are actually a little worried to get in the open right now.
Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.
I suspect the DNCs silence has a LOT more to do with the fact that they did not intend to have to deal with a real Primary. They assumed Clinton would sweep away anyone with the audacity to run against her. Unfortunately, the leftist base is sick of establishment types like Hilary and loves the self proclaimed socialist candidate (and hoped they would get an even further left leaner like Warren to jump in). Clinton self immolating over her emails just adds to the dissatisfaction of those who think Obama did not go hard enough left.
Now, the DNC and big money types are trying to figure out the best timing to announce a Biden run, probably while trying to convince Hilary to quietly fade away (slim chance of that happening, after all it is her turn...) They hope a establishment controlled Not Hilary in the form of Biden will steal enough of the Sanders voters away from Sanders to shut him down.
I'd say that is a pretty fair assessment of the situation. After seeing Kasich debate (not sure how controversial this is buuuttt), I believe he is just moderate enough to steal disenfranchised Democrats that are not comfortable with the party pandering to the far left. If he could get some more exposure I think he would be a much much stronger candidate. I'm fairly impressed with him. Maybe he could tap a multiparty cabinet plan and really appeal to Americans on the fence.
dogma wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote: I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of).
The first DNC debate is October 13th, 2015 at the Wynn in Las Vegas. I dearly wish I was making that last bit up.
-_- Oi, way to make your first showing a zoo Denocrats...
Personally I think they are laying low and trying to see if the Republicans will implode on Trump before stepping up.
Traditionally neither side attacks the other until the General. At least unless there is a very likely opponent who is not only polarizing, but in the midst of a significant scandal.
Well I suppose so but the Republican candidates are going hard in the mudda fething paint on both HRC and Bernie (because who else is running again?) with no effective return fire.
Prestor Jon wrote: The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians.
It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues.
It's such a constant and ceaseless complaint that I kind of have to wonder if getting to feel smugly faux-outraged might actually the appeal of libertarianism.
It's not so much that the Dems are laying low, it's just that their side of the race isn't really much of a race. The media loves a fight, the Dems aren't playing along, instead mostly talking about wonky policy positions. Those won't get covered because they are hard to put into a ten second sound byte. So the media focuses on the "scandals" of emails and the horse race of Sanders catching up (though still way behind nationally) and the rumors of a possible Biden run. That is when they aren't focusing on Trumpmania.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Also, Santorum is an idiot. He was trying to argue that the supreme court ruling in favor of gay marriage is unconstitutional (wut?), and trying to argue against judicial supremacy. You know, that thing that's been part of our government since the beginning.
It's not so much that Santorum is an idiot, more that he doesn't give a gak about stuff like that. He'll talk a lot about law, the constitution, and religious libery but he doesn't actually give one gak about any of those subjects.
Santorum cares about increasing/maintaining the power of his tribe - Conservative Christians. They're his people, they are the people he feels comfortable around and what makes them happy is the only thing that worries him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Trump has had plenty of moments that would have been implosions for another candidate already.
I'm not sure what an implosion for Trump would even look like at this point.
That was the point things reached with Palin. It got to a point where there was just no point continuing to show that she was woefully incapable of holding national office, because her supporters just did not care.
Well I suppose so but the Republican candidates are going hard in the mudda fething paint on both HRC and Bernie (because who else is running again?) with no effective return fire.
What are they supposed to say? Any attack will only strengthen the "persecuted conservatives" concept that most of the GOP candidates are trying to play to.
Prestor Jon wrote: The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians.
It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues.
It's such a constant and ceaseless complaint that I kind of have to wonder if getting to feel smugly faux-outraged might actually the appeal of libertarianism.
Not sure where you get your information about US politics but the Republican party has always chosen to portray itselfin the modern era as the party of limited government. You might want to go read some of the speeches and interviews of politicians like Goldwater, Reagan, Ron Paul, Eisenhower and pundits like William F Buckley. The Republican Party actively claims to hold political positions that align with those of limited govt fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. If the Republican party stopped claiming to hold certain ideals yet act in contradiction to them people would stop complaining about it. I'm not sure why people trying to hold political parties accountable for the politics they espouse is such a rich source of schadenfreude for you. Would you prefer that people be more apathetic and give up on trying to get politicians to live up to their rhetoric?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: In essence, you only pay taxes on money you spend. So when you buy a car, you pay the "fair" tax for the goods and the materials that went into it. When you buy a house, same thing. The good side of this "system" as far as I've read, is that when more people spend money at all levels, more tax revenue is had. The bad side of this is, as numerous studies have shown, the super wealthy, especially that top 1% crowd, don't really spend money the way us plebes do.
Yep. The strength of a tax like that is that it is much harder to avoid, a lot more grey market stuff is picked up (ie plumbers offering discounts for cash).
The issue, though, isn't just that the tax is regressive (the poor spend all the income so are fully taxed, the rich spend only a portion so are taxed much less). The greater issue is that a modern country simply needs a progressive tax system. Not even for the sake of fairness, but because you just can't set the rate high enough to raise enough money. About 30% of US households earn less than $30,000 a year. Right now they pay no tax. If a flat tax was put in place they'd be paying the same as everyone else. Make it 20% and those households would be losing up to $6,000. Is anyone honestly going to claim that families with a couple of kids that are really struggling at $30,000 a year are going to survive at $24,000?
Facing that reality, the tax rate gets pushed down. Maybe it seems not too cruel to only take $3,000, so a 10% tax rate is accepted. But that's the rate you're now taxing everyone. and so your total tax revenue is just 10%. About the lowest spending budget you'll ever see a modern economy run at is about 20% of GDP.
It just doesn't work. The only way you can make it work is by talking about all sorts of unstated spending cuts, the ever popular but completely meaningless 'small government'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
Experience is really just a thing people like to say about other people's favourite candidates. If the other guy's candidate was a senator they've got no 'executive experience'. If the other guy's candidate was a governor then they 'don't know how to get things done in Washington'. Nobody ever considers the government experience of their guy when deciding where their vote goes.
It's really just an attack with no meaning. By definition anyone who wins through a primary and a general is connected enough, and experienced in running a huge juggernaut of an organisation.
Prestor Jon wrote: The limited govt libertarian-esque small c conservative part of the Republican party is constantly marginalized by the big govt big business party establishment appartchiks and politicians.
It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues.
It's such a constant and ceaseless complaint that I kind of have to wonder if getting to feel smugly faux-outraged might actually the appeal of libertarianism.
Not sure where you get your information about US politics but the Republican party has always chosen to portray itselfin the modern era as the party of limited government. You might want to go read some of the speeches and interviews of politicians like Goldwater, Reagan, Ron Paul, Eisenhower and pundits like William F Buckley. The Republican Party actively claims to hold political positions that align with those of limited govt fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. If the Republican party stopped claiming to hold certain ideals yet act in contradiction to them people would stop complaining about it. I'm not sure why people trying to hold political parties accountable for the politics they espouse is such a rich source of schadenfreude for you. Would you prefer that people be more apathetic and give up on trying to get politicians to live up to their rhetoric?
BrotherGecko wrote: I find it interesting how quiet the Democrats are. No huge publicity stunt debates on major TV (that I'm aware of). Its like they are actually a little worried to get in the open right now.
The Democrats picked their 2016 candidate in 2008, so there hasn't been much need to have debates or any of that stuff.
It isn't quite going to plan, because it turns out Hillary has picked up her 2016 campaign pretty much where she left 2008.
Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs. Honestly he gave THE worst foreign policy plan I have ever witnessed. It was so blindly stupid I almost peed myself and attacked my TV. Yet he takes no damage because a large chunk of his fan base either doesn't care and want to watch the world burn or simply do not understand what is foreign policy or why it matters.
Prestor Jon wrote: Not sure where you get your information about US politics but the Republican party has always chosen to portray itselfin the modern era as the party of limited government.
Republicans do say 'limited government', they say it a whole lot. I thought about explaining to you why libertarianism and limited government aren't actually one in the same, but trying something as dry as that in response to a guy who listed Ron Paul in between Reagan and Eisenhower probably wouldn't achieve a hell of a lot.
Instead I'll just repeat the point you were responding to "It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues."
To explain that more completely - small government is just one thing Republicans talk about. They also talk about wanting all kinds of laws for nothing more than moral reasons, reductions in personal privacy, and increased military operations overseas. There can be lots of good reasons for many of these things, but they're in direct opposition to even the mildest form of limited government, let alone actual libertarianism.
Libertarians, bless every single one of them, seem to believe that when a Republican candidate says 'limited government' he doesn't just mean reduced spending and a tax cut, as everyone else interprets that, but as a complete reform of government. Then they seem shocked when this doesn't happen, and more incredibly that everyone outside of the libertarian bubble just isn't that bothered that it isn't.
This happens so often that, when combined with the complete impracticality of libertarianism, I'm left to conclude that the whole exercise isn't about actually producing a libertarian state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: You know Santorum can both be for his 'tribe' and an idiot. No need to limit him.
Sure. I mean, he is an idiot in that he frequently says idiotic things. But my point, I guess, is that by raw intelligence he's by no means limited to the idiotic comments he's made. He didn't summon all of his thinking power to reach the conclusion that a SC ruling was unconstitutional. The guy ties a pretty neat tie, he's clearly got more capability than that.
Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs. Honestly he gave THE worst foreign policy plan I have ever witnessed. It was so blindly stupid I almost peed myself and attacked my TV. Yet he takes no damage because a large chunk of his fan base either doesn't care and want to watch the world burn or simply do not understand what is foreign policy or why it matters.
*note* I'm an international relations major lol
As an international relations major I'm sure you can appreciate that pretty much everyone, including the politicians and bureaucrats in charge dont fully appreciate the complexity nuance and long standing history of interrelated actions that need to be accounted for in foreign relations. The vast majority of everyone is ill informed because there is a lot of information and a myriad of factors to take into consideration and few people have the time and desire to track it all down themselves because the media sure has no interest in providing an educational in depth contextual report on the matter. To really understand the situation in areas like the ME you pretty have to do all the research yourself and that first requires you to even know where to look.
All the politicians will do is offer sound bites that are oversimplifications and generalizations designed to pander to a given crowd by promoting an agenda or reinforcing their preconceived notions or both.
Interesting piece on the Republicans and the Asian American vote, which went from 55% in 1992 to 26% in 2012. It's the story you see across all demographics, as Republicans have looked to do whatever they can to shore up the votes in their white base, they've haemoraged everyone else. The graph in the link is quite interesting, as it shows the issue with Asian American voters actually got better for Republicans from GW Bush's first term to his second term, which reflects on what I've heard elsewhere - that Bush was the last Republican to effectively argue for a more inclusive approach. From 2004 to 2012 the Asian American vote has been in freefall.
Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs. Honestly he gave THE worst foreign policy plan I have ever witnessed. It was so blindly stupid I almost peed myself and attacked my TV. Yet he takes no damage because a large chunk of his fan base either doesn't care and want to watch the world burn or simply do not understand what is foreign policy or why it matters.
I think a large part of the appeal is that he pisses off people who do know what they're talking about.
Prestor Jon wrote: Not sure where you get your information about US politics but the Republican party has always chosen to portray itselfin the modern era as the party of limited government.
Republicans do say 'limited government', they say it a whole lot. I thought about explaining to you why libertarianism and limited government aren't actually one in the same, but trying something as dry as that in response to a guy who listed Ron Paul in between Reagan and Eisenhower probably wouldn't achieve a hell of a lot.
Instead I'll just repeat the point you were responding to "It seems the life of libertarians to be endlessly frustrated that politicians don't dedicate themselves to ignoring the vast majority of their voting base to instead follow the whim of this tiny fringe of extreme ideologues."
To explain that more completely - small government is just one thing Republicans talk about. They also talk about wanting all kinds of laws for nothing more than moral reasons, reductions in personal privacy, and increased military operations overseas. There can be lots of good reasons for many of these things, but they're in direct opposition to even the mildest form of limited government, let alone actual libertarianism.
Libertarians, bless every single one of them, seem to believe that when a Republican candidate says 'limited government' he doesn't just mean reduced spending and a tax cut, as everyone else interprets that, but as a complete reform of government. Then they seem shocked when this doesn't happen, and more incredibly that everyone outside of the libertarian bubble just isn't that bothered that it isn't.
This happens so often that, when combined with the complete impracticality of libertarianism, I'm left to conclude that the whole exercise isn't about actually producing a libertarian state.
I'm not sure what conclusion you chose to draw from my inclusion of Ron Paul in a list of well known modern day Republicans that have espoused libertarian ideals but I included him because that's what he is, well known, Republican and he takes libertarian positions. Anything else is what you chose to read into it.
I've yet to meet a small l or capital L libertarian that actually believes transforming the USA into a true libertarian state is possible but I'm sure some exist somewhere.
The issue that is of primary importance to me and to like minded individuals I know is to find politicians willing to push back against a federal govt that constantly seeks to grow more powerful and intrusive by attempting to solve problems beyond its ability while creating negative unintended consequences and reducing individual liberty in the process. There are already a host of problems that the govt is in the midst of failing spectacularly at solving to the detriment of society. The War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, its all manifestations of the same failed premise, that a cumbersome far reaching one size fits all answer implemented by a massive intrusive faceless bureaucracy is the best way to help solve the problems faced by specific individuals. The federal govt is only aware of individuals in the aggregate and using it as a tool to create solutions that to be most effective require the tailoring to specific individual circumstances is illogical and doomed to failure.
Desiring that the govt limit itself to taking responsibility only for what it can do effectively, intelligently and within the confines of the Constitution may be a utopian pipe dream but even limited success toward that goal would yield tangible benefits for society.
Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs.
Trump knows many things, but the one which is most currently relevant is how to appeal to people who want to be entertained; that's the basis of his campaign.
Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs.
Trump knows many things, but the one which is most currently relevant is how to appeal to people who want to be entertained; that's the basis of his campaign.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
Experience is really just a thing people like to say about other people's favourite candidates. If the other guy's candidate was a senator they've got no 'executive experience'. If the other guy's candidate was a governor then they 'don't know how to get things done in Washington'. Nobody ever considers the government experience of their guy when deciding where their vote goes.
It's really just an attack with no meaning. By definition anyone who wins through a primary and a general is connected enough, and experienced in running a huge juggernaut of an organisation.
It might be to some people, but it is important to me. Senator, governor, mayor even, I'd like someone who is running for president to have at least some experience in government.
I've yet to meet a small l or capital L libertarian that actually believes transforming the USA into a true libertarian state is possible but I'm sure some exist somewhere.
I think Ron Paul believes that, probably Rand Paul too. Then there are all the people who think Ayn Rand was awesome.
But of course all of those people are only interested in certain forms of liberty, which is the problem.
I've yet to meet a small l or capital L libertarian that actually believes transforming the USA into a true libertarian state is possible but I'm sure some exist somewhere.
I think Ron Paul believes that, probably Rand Paul too. Then there are all the people who think Ayn Rand was awesome.
But of course all of those people are only interested in certain forms of liberty, which is the problem.
I think both would be personally happy in a true Libertarian USA but if asked directly I think both would admit that actually turning the USA into a true Libertarian state isn't politically feasible. Although maybe Ron does believe it's possible, he's a little crazy. Rand is probably too politically savvy to be naive enough to believe that such a transformation is possible.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No experience though, she hasn't even been a senator.
Experience is really just a thing people like to say about other people's favourite candidates. If the other guy's candidate was a senator they've got no 'executive experience'. If the other guy's candidate was a governor then they 'don't know how to get things done in Washington'. Nobody ever considers the government experience of their guy when deciding where their vote goes.
It's really just an attack with no meaning. By definition anyone who wins through a primary and a general is connected enough, and experienced in running a huge juggernaut of an organisation.
It might be to some people, but it is important to me. Senator, governor, mayor even, I'd like someone who is running for president to have at least some experience in government.
Having an accurate understanding of how governance works is what's really important, moreso than experience in doing it. A candidate could have some experience in Congress or as a governor and still not really understand how to effectively implement policy from the executive branch. Candidates can campaign well, win the election and fail miserably at actually delivering legislative results for the policy solutions he/she promised to deliver in the campaign because he/she doesn't know how to leverage congressional support.
Interesting I think I finally realized of how Trump has so much appeal. He doesn't know anything and a large chunk of his supporters don't either so they never notice his gaffs. Honestly he gave THE worst foreign policy plan I have ever witnessed. It was so blindly stupid I almost peed myself and attacked my TV. Yet he takes no damage because a large chunk of his fan base either doesn't care and want to watch the world burn or simply do not understand what is foreign policy or why it matters.
*note* I'm an international relations major lol
As an international relations major I'm sure you can appreciate that pretty much everyone, including the politicians and bureaucrats in charge dont fully appreciate the complexity nuance and long standing history of interrelated actions that need to be accounted for in foreign relations. The vast majority of everyone is ill informed because there is a lot of information and a myriad of factors to take into consideration and few people have the time and desire to track it all down themselves because the media sure has no interest in providing an educational in depth contextual report on the matter. To really understand the situation in areas like the ME you pretty have to do all the research yourself and that first requires you to even know where to look.
All the politicians will do is offer sound bites that are oversimplifications and generalizations designed to pander to a given crowd by promoting an agenda or reinforcing their preconceived notions or both.
I do appreciate that it is something important to me so I have the time and energy to delve into it. Yet, all of the candidates at least gave the ghost of a policy except Trump...he had none...zero. I don't even count not agreeing with it, I can at least respect an understanding of foreign policy. I will know that individual is capable of at the minimum of strategy and critcal thinking. Rubio and Kaisch gave fairly intelligent foreign policy stances in the time alloted that displayed that they understand it very well.
Trump's plan amounted to,"we would be totes bros." How is that anything? Anybody not asleep at the wheel should of been aghast at how dense Trump was during the debate. Yet, his rating endure like he didn't just stand on stage and display his ability to be the most dangerous man in the world to America's security.
I think both would be personally happy in a true Libertarian USA but if asked directly I think both would admit that actually turning the USA into a true Libertarian state isn't politically feasible. Although maybe Ron does believe it's possible, he's a little crazy. Rand is probably too politically savvy to be naive enough to believe that such a transformation is possible.
I agree with your differentiation between the two, but what do you mean by "true Libertarian"?
Anybody not asleep at the wheel should of been aghast at how dense Trump was during the debate.
But lots of people are asleep at the wheel, because most of the political process is boring. A significant number of people talk about wanting to hear about issues, but that isn't reflected in election results.
The lack of debates and how poorly timed they are falls squarely on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, maybe she was trying to protect Hilary? She has been like a dictator and all Democratic voters and politicians running are demanding a better debate schedule.
Bernie has gotten serious, and Time even ran an article on him, and put him on the cover. Media is starting to see he has a chance, and he has done it w/o as much money or TV ads as the rest.
I have seen Biden is looking to run, but sadly, he is still in mourning, and honestly, he would be little better than Obama or Hilary imho
Bernie has a momentum that is not going away, no matter how much pro-Hillary news outlets have tried to ignore him.
That debate was just more empty piffle as the questions were so low ball and not hard to answer, so they gave vague and empty responses, besides beating on each other
The 'beating on each other' was actively encouraged. The majority of the questions seemed to be variations on one of the two:
Candidate A thinks you are a jerk. Do you think candidate A is a jerk?
Candidate A said you think he is a jerk. Is he a jerk?
Add in the inability or unwillingness of the moderators to maintain even a tiny bit of control except to insert themselves long enough to kick the bee hive and I think the debate was a farce. I bet the CNN crew doesn't run it the same way for the Ds.
BlaxicanX wrote: Trump has outlined a more comprehensive description of his stance on gun-control and immigration, as well as the policies he'd like to enact.
So he has no foreign policy laid out what so ever. Unless people honestly think we can force Mexico to build a wall between itself and us while we ignore the wide open boarders between us and Canada?
I figured his platform was dumb but I guess I didn't realize how dumb it actually was.
CptJake wrote: The 'beating on each other' was actively encouraged. The majority of the questions seemed to be variations on one of the two:
Candidate A thinks you are a jerk. Do you think candidate A is a jerk?
Candidate A said you think he is a jerk. Is he a jerk?
Add in the inability or unwillingness of the moderators to maintain even a tiny bit of control except to insert themselves long enough to kick the bee hive and I think the debate was a farce. I bet the CNN crew doesn't run it the same way for the Ds.
It is most likely a result of having 400,000 candidates (I might be exaggerating slightly) seeking the R nomination. The Ds only really have two running atm so it isn't really that strange that the questions at this point are a bit different as well. Once both parties have a nominee I'm sure they will lambaste each other to no avail.
Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.
It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.
Co'tor Shas wrote: There are two others than Bernie and Hillary, it's just you never hear anything about them because all the time it taken up by the repulican circus.
Thus the 'really' part of the statement. Anyone can run, but that won't mean it matters. At this point the only ones that matter that are actively running are HRC and Bernie, and Bernie probably doesn't really have a realistic shot, but then it is far enough off that anyting can happen. It doesn't change that the Republicans have a lot more openly seeking the office at this point than the Democrats.
CptJake wrote: Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.
It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.
CptJake wrote: Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.
It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.
I didn't CNN saw the circus that happened on FoxNews and jumped on that sweet sweet advertisement money too. The whole thing was supposed to be a circus. I remember Kaisch getting kind of pissed in the beginning with what was going on but eventually he had to play ball to talk. Which of course was what people want to see. Politics turned into a bad reality show where candidates one up each other with who can say the most unrealistic idea possible (always Trump).
CptJake wrote: Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.
It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.
And the candidates could have refused to answer those personal attack questions, forcing the moderator to actually move onto something else.
The only reason those questions were asked is because many of the candidates are unprofessional enough to fall for it, or they feel like they can't let Trump talk for the whole show.
CptJake wrote: Bull crap, they could have stayed with position points for the questioning instead of purposely playing the 'Well he said you're a jerk, how do you react to that' track they took.
It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.
And the candidates could have refused to answer those personal attack questions, forcing the moderator to actually move onto something else.
The only reason those questions were asked is because many of the candidates are unprofessional enough to fall for it, or they feel like they can't let Trump talk for the whole show.
Exactly. Expecting better from CNN is missing the point entirely, it's the candidates we should be expecting better from. They're supposed to be well-educated, experienced professionals with at least a decent skill level in public speaking and debate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shasolenzabi wrote: CNN was after ratings, BUT the Republican candidates seemed to also go along with the circus. American media is focused on distractions and fills
It's because American media is focused on the ratings numbers and nothing else. As long as sponsors are needed to pay the bills, ratings will always be the overriding factor.
I think both would be personally happy in a true Libertarian USA but if asked directly I think both would admit that actually turning the USA into a true Libertarian state isn't politically feasible. Although maybe Ron does believe it's possible, he's a little crazy. Rand is probably too politically savvy to be naive enough to believe that such a transformation is possible.
I agree with your differentiation between the two, but what do you mean by "true Libertarian"?
I'm not trying to dodge the question but I'll try to be brief, avoid ascribing my personal views to true Libertarians and not veer too far off topic. The meaning I meant to convey with " true Libertarian " is essentially a federal govt strictly confined to its responsibilities expressly laid out in the Constitution. No more War on Whatever policies, no more intrusive nanny state policies, no thought crime laws or attempts to legislate morality or use the tax code as a social experiment. It would definitely be consistent with the political stance that the civil rights act went to far as espoused by Rand in his infamous Rachel maddow appearance but not necessarily as far as open borders and the privatization of virtually all local, stats and federal govt services. A significant reigning in of the federal leviathan but not a total anarchic society of individual freedom.
Granted I'm making a differention between Libertarian and Anarchistic that is based solely on my personal view but I think anyone willing to join a political party even a Libertarian one is acknowledging a belief in working within the system and therefore accepts the existence of a system.
BrotherGecko wrote: Politics turned into a bad reality show where candidates one up each other with who can say the most unrealistic idea possible (always Trump).
Well when the leading candidate is a reality tv star, it makes a little more sense.
I live in a state where it really doesn't matter who I vote for (it'll be a Democrat who gets the Electrical College vote) but I kind of really do want Trump to win. I want America to admit to itself and the world that our politics are truly that ridiculous. Personally I think it's great. But I also have a huge case of schadenfreude. I guess it's not all that different from an Early Modern European nobleman buying his way into the court, but it still feels a bit more ridiculous to me that we have all this information at our fingertips, literally the sum total of human knowledge, mostly for free, and this is the best we can do.
I also enjoy telling my Mexican girlfriend that if he wins I'll have to put her on the train out of the US. She does not like these statements much lol.
BrotherGecko wrote: Politics turned into a bad reality show where candidates one up each other with who can say the most unrealistic idea possible (always Trump).
Well when the leading candidate is a reality tv star, it makes a little more sense.
I live in a state where it really doesn't matter who I vote for (it'll be a Democrat who gets the Electrical College vote) but I kind of really do want Trump to win. I want America to admit to itself and the world that our politics are truly that ridiculous. Personally I think it's great. But I also have a huge case of schadenfreude. I guess it's not all that different from an Early Modern European nobleman buying his way into the court, but it still feels a bit more ridiculous to me that we have all this information at our fingertips, literally the sum total of human knowledge, mostly for free, and this is the best we can do.
I also enjoy telling my Mexican girlfriend that if he wins I'll have to put her on the train out of the US. She does not like these statements much lol.
I'd love to see the experiment in action and watch the complete collapse of the American political system. I just feel very strongly that he is a threat to American lives and security and the direct future of all that fall in the US's shadow.
I'd love to see the experiment in action and watch the complete collapse of the American political system. I just feel very strongly that he is a threat to American lives and security and the direct future of all that fall in the US's shadow.
Don't worry. Trump will be sure to sell all his interests in 'America' to some idiot investors and be a country away when the value drops to zero and it all goes bankrupt
CptJake wrote: It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.
Not to dogpile, but I think that was your first mistake. I know you're inclined to see how it was run as some kind of partisan thing, with the idea that they would somehow be favorable to Democrats. I am quite sure than once the Democratic debates start, it will become quite clear that this is simply the best CNN can do.
BrotherGecko wrote: Politics turned into a bad reality show where candidates one up each other with who can say the most unrealistic idea possible (always Trump).
Well when the leading candidate is a reality tv star, it makes a little more sense.
I live in a state where it really doesn't matter who I vote for (it'll be a Democrat who gets the Electrical College vote) but I kind of really do want Trump to win. I want America to admit to itself and the world that our politics are truly that ridiculous. Personally I think it's great. But I also have a huge case of schadenfreude. I guess it's not all that different from an Early Modern European nobleman buying his way into the court, but it still feels a bit more ridiculous to me that we have all this information at our fingertips, literally the sum total of human knowledge, mostly for free, and this is the best we can do.
I also enjoy telling my Mexican girlfriend that if he wins I'll have to put her on the train out of the US. She does not like these statements much lol.
I'd love to see the experiment in action and watch the complete collapse of the American political system. I just feel very strongly that he is a threat to American lives and security and the direct future of all that fall in the US's shadow.
I think you're giving him too much credit. We still have what, 60 weeks till the election? His style of rhetoric will be long gone before the actual elections. And do you really think President's have that much power / influence? Besides maybe the Iraq War, I can't really envision America today being any different, no matter who was elected.
It doesn't matter. That's the best part; it doesn't matter.
Politics used to make me mad. Now I love it because it's meaningless for the most part. I'll still vote for my favorite burlesque owner, Guy Smiley, but it really is meaningless. And that's why I love it. The thin veneer of choice is finally being cracked open, albeit slowly, but it's open. Vote for the one person that has half your views, and half not, or vote for the other person that has the other half of your views, but not the first half!
As bitter as it sounds I actually fething love the fact we can do this. As meaningless as it is, I'd rather at least have the option than a totalitarian system.
Side question, what do people in the UK chant at sports events?
America has "U! S! A! U! S! A! U! S! A!" Is it "Rule Britannia?" Or is it some of the sweet songs you all love during football matches? I feel like those are most likely a local thing though.
DutchWinsAll wrote: [
Side question, what do people in the UK chant at sports events?
America has "U! S! A! U! S! A! U! S! A!" Is it "Rule Britannia?" Or is it some of the sweet songs you all love during football matches? I feel like those are most likely a local thing though.
Thank you for reading my rambles.
Well, at rugby matches, you can hear "Swing Low" sung by the crowd quite often.
On the question of whether Vice President Joe Biden will enter the presidential race, it now looks more like an issue of when, rather than if, reports the Wall Street Journal. In Biden’s circle it seems conversations are now more focused on when would be the best time for the vice president to throw his hat in the ring. Regardless, the Journal warns that nothing is certain yet, pointing out that Biden “could still back out if he finds the emotional toll from the death of his elder son, Beau Biden, too much to overcome.”
Some in Biden’s team want the vice president to jump into the race soon so he can get a spot in the Democratic debate scheduled for October 13. Yet his advisers also have another date in their heads: October 22. That’s when Hillary Clinton is scheduled to testify in a House committee on Benghazi. It is seen as a pivotal moment for her campaign that could weaken or strengthen the former secretary of state’s candidacy. And the opinion there is split. Some want Biden to delay any decision until after the hearing, while others say it will look too opportunistic if he waits for Clinton to stumble in order to join the race.
The Journal article comes shortly after key fundraiser Josh Alcorn was overheard on Amtrak saying that “I am 100 percent that Joe is in,” according to the National Review. Alcorn reportedly expressed uncertainty about when the announcement would be but guessed it was going to take place in mid-October.
These latest signs of Biden’s apparent willingness to enter the race comes as almost 50 prominent Democratic fundraisers and party activists signed a letter calling on Biden to run for president due to the “spectacular success” of the Obama–Biden administration. “To finish the job, America needs a leader who is respected both home and abroad, and who understands the real challenges facing American families. In our opinion, the next president must be Joe Biden. If he announces he’s running, we’re all in. It’s a campaign we know he will win,” the letter says.
It all depends on what the Pope says, and what the candidates say in response. This is a Pope that has proven immensely popular, and who appeals to many outside of the Catholic Church (I'm not particularly religious, and I like the guy; we need to clone him a few times to have one for every major religion in the world and then we might actually have a chance at peace). The GOP candidates will have to watch their words very carefully when criticizing any of the Pope's comments/actions. And criticize they will. Because the Pope has also proven to be too liberal for that really conservative Christian base that many of the candidates pander to.
Post-debate, Mrs. Firorina has risen, but she isn't taking Mr. Trumps's votes - he's gained points.
Also, it looks like Scott Walker is starting to have money problems. It might be a little early to say so, but I think the Walker campaign is just about done.
The Vox one isn't present here, but this is a good place for polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president - you can see that both Trump and Fiorina are up, and Walker's averaging out to around 1.5% over the last couple of days and has shown a protracted decline over the last few months.
So, this happened... After a man spews anti-Muslim rhetoric at a Trump rally where Trump doesn't even bother to correct him ("not morally obligated to defend Obama" my ass, you damn well are morally obligated to defend the truth). After a Muslim kid gets arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school just because someone thought it looked like it could possibly be a bomb.
And yet, the GOP candidates are falling all over themselves trying to outdo one another in promoting policies of religious freedom (see: Kim Davis situation), but I guess that only counts when it's their religion?
I think he actually did the best thing you could do. Don't engage with the crazy and give him attention. Course that's not much when talking about trump, but still
Co'tor Shas wrote: Peraonly, what I think will be more interesting, is if the Ds can win back enough seats in the H+S to re-gain control.
Well realistically, the next presidential term is likely to be inconsequential (which might be why the Republicans care so little that their primary is just a mess). Even if the Dems do win the White House, that president won't get much done, because it's unlikely that Republicans will lose control of both the Senate and the House, and so long as they can hold onto one, they can cut right into the first two years of the next presidency and keep any significant legislation they dislike from moving forward.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm not sure what conclusion you chose to draw from my inclusion of Ron Paul in a list of well known modern day Republicans that have espoused libertarian ideals but I included him because that's what he is, well known, Republican and he takes libertarian positions. Anything else is what you chose to read into it.
Having the person with 1/50 the stature and historic relevance of the others is comical. The only way you can't see that is if you don't get how lists work, or you don't realise how minor a figure Ron Paul is compared to Reagan and Eisenhower.
I've yet to meet a small l or capital L libertarian that actually believes transforming the USA into a true libertarian state is possible but I'm sure some exist somewhere.
I've yet to meet a libertarian who is even remotely coherent in their political ambitions. In almost all cases it's someone who's annoyed at the amount of tax they pay, and adds to that a series of vague semi-conspiracy stuff about the Federal government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: It might be to some people, but it is important to me. Senator, governor, mayor even, I'd like someone who is running for president to have at least some experience in government.
Sure, but anyone who gets to this position has plenty of experience with government. Trump, for instance, built his fortune in major property developments. In working those deals he wasn't just able to get planning approval, in most cases he actually worked government well enough to get significant tax exemptions. Fiorina, similarly, managed a multinational merger that was built around offshoring jobs, and you need to handle government very well to get that to happen.
And even outside of those specifics, to just get to the primary campaign you need to have schmoozed and gathered a vast connection of contacts and allies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I think both would be personally happy in a true Libertarian USA but if asked directly I think both would admit that actually turning the USA into a true Libertarian state isn't politically feasible. Although maybe Ron does believe it's possible, he's a little crazy. Rand is probably too politically savvy to be naive enough to believe that such a transformation is possible.
A truly libertarian state isn't just politically impossible, it's an impossible concept in and of itself. Because people and societies just don't work like libertarians believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.
No you didn't. No-one has expected anything from CNN since about 1998.
You're just feigning surprise to make political gains.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'd be sort of excited about Biden running.
It's interesting, Biden seems to be waiting to see if Clinton will implode or not. He doesn't want to run against her unless she's well and truly sunk, so I guess the question is why.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: And yet, the GOP candidates are falling all over themselves trying to outdo one another in promoting policies of religious freedom (see: Kim Davis situation), but I guess that only counts when it's their religion?
Yep. Religious freedom is a hugely important concept, but most of the people who talk about it the most often don't believe in it one bit. It's just a cover to their basic motivation - their tribe.
Wow... that's peak Bush Derangment Syndrome there...
What specifically is BDS about refuting the idea that George W. Bush "kept us safe"? I've seen a few particularly execrable attempts by prominent Republicans to re-write history. It's pretty terrible but I guess the low-information voters gobble it up, so why not.
Wow... that's peak Bush Derangment Syndrome there...
What specifically is BDS about refuting the idea that George W. Bush "kept us safe"? I've seen a few particularly execrable attempts by prominent Republicans to re-write history. It's pretty terrible but I guess the low-information voters gobble it up, so why not.
I think that would be the sort of thing you'd find almost impossible to refute at all. Especially since "safe" is such a relative term. Granted its all political hogwash, but I think saying its outright false isn't something you could claim. Not a score for the "fact checkers" on this one.
I think "presiding over the biggest domestic attack since Pearl Harbor" is pretty quantifiably unsafe, along with the 13 embassy attacks with 70ish people dead that we never mention when we're screaming BENGHAAAAAAZI.
It's outright false. 9/11 anyone? Had he qualified that his brother kept Americans safe post 9/11 (which to be fair is probably what he meant) he might have been on firmer ground. But the statement as it stands is blatantly false.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It's outright false. 9/11 anyone? Had he qualified that his brother kept Americans safe post 9/11 (which to be fair is probably what he meant) he might have been on firmer ground. But the statement as it stands is blatantly false.
Ouze wrote: I think "presiding over the biggest domestic attack since Pearl Harbor" is pretty quantifiably unsafe, along with the 13 embassy attacks with 70ish people dead that we never mention when we're screaming BENGHAAAAAAZI.
But, this is the OT, so lets pretend!
He also let SARS into the country. Which is only fair to bring up since Ebola was Obama's fault.
The Vietnam War (US involvement) lasted from 1961 to 1973, with US military personnel working directly in/with the South Vietnamese government as early as the Eisenhower Administration
The War on Terror (unless we're going by some measure of involvement rather that just straight involvement) needs another 4-6 years to be the longest US conflict. EDIT: And lets be fair, it probably will last longer than 4-6 more years
Gordon Shumway wrote: It's outright false. 9/11 anyone? Had he qualified that his brother kept Americans safe post 9/11 (which to be fair is probably what he meant) he might have been on firmer ground. But the statement as it stands is blatantly false.
So you admit you are taking it totally out of context to ensure it remains false
Gordon Shumway wrote: It's outright false. 9/11 anyone? Had he qualified that his brother kept Americans safe post 9/11 (which to be fair is probably what he meant) he might have been on firmer ground. But the statement as it stands is blatantly false.
So you admit you are taking it totally out of context to ensure it remains false
Evidently you didn't read my comment. The statement was false. I gave him the benefit of the doubt to what I think he actually meant (in other words, I added in the context he left out) but didn't say. Good try though.
Grey Templar wrote: Its false, if taken out of context when obviously it was referring to the later years of the presidency after 9-11.
So if we remove the bits where unsafe things happened, then it was a very safe presidency. This is a bit like saying the Challenger was the safest shuttle launch, if you remove those last seven seconds.
Really, its just trying to play "gotcha". Pretty weak stuff to try and claim "oh the stupid republicans are all liars and are just BSing you!" with.
I'm really, really bored with the complaints about 'gotcha'. Yes, there is sometimes a kind of media questioning that is looking to trip a candidate up, lure them to some answer and then ambush them with some other thing. But that kind of questioning barely exists at all in the US media, where interviewers are offer up either hopeless softball questions, or pundits who shout their opinion at the interviewee without any kind of skill or planning.
And to use it as a defence in this case just makes no fething sense at all. Bush wasn't led to his statement, he offered it up himself. It isn't 'gotcha' to actually look at fething facts to figure out if that's true or not.
It's interesting, Biden seems to be waiting to see if Clinton will implode or not. He doesn't want to run against her unless she's well and truly sunk, so I guess the question is why.
If I had to guess I would say that he doesn't want to deal with a repeat of the 2008 campaign.
CptJake wrote: It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.
No you didn't. No-one has expected anything from CNN since about 1998.
You're just feigning surprise to make political gains.
No, I did expect better from CNN, a lot better. I have no 'political gains' either way, and I'm not prone to lying and was not feigning anything. So unless you have some insight as to my actual thoughts, you can quit attempting to translate them into what ever political point you are attempting to make.
The sharp and rapid rise of Carly Fiorina is, for me at least, another indicator that polling right now is volatile and flawed. I actually think if primary season started tomorrow, we’d find the last men standing would be Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, with Cruz having a slight advantage — for now at least.
Polling has been largely wrong since 2010 and has been increasingly wrong after 2014. From showing many races in this country as too close to call to even missing the Tory blowout in Britain, something is wrong methodologically with polling. Likewise, the sharp spikes and declines, also too easy to predict, are too easily caught in flash polling. It does not make a lot of sense.
What does make sense and I think what remains are traditional campaign outlooks. I think Trump will fade, Fiorina will fade, and Carson is already fading. They are doing so because their momentum is based more on name identification and not on records or ground games.
If we look at traditional campaign data, which under the smoke and veneer of Campaign 2016 still matters, what we will find is that Ted Cruz is laying down a hell of a ground game and has tons of cash with not nearly the burn rate that even Jeb Bush has. Cruz stands to profit the most from the collapse of Carson, Fiorina, and Trump — all of whom are playing on the outsider advantages right now. Those advantages will start to go away as more traditional and necessary campaign tactics and strategies kick in like, for example, ballot access.
Cruz can get himself on ballots and get signatures collected. He can make a play through the SEC primary better than many of the other candidates can. He captures the conservative outsider angst while also being a more credible candidate long term than any of the other outsiders. Cruz has, after all, won an election and has a professional campaign team.
While conservatives will gravitate rapidly to Cruz, the more establishment oriented people who recognize the party still needs a fresh face and chage will likely go to Marco Rubio. Already I’m hearing that both Walker and Bush donors are looking at Rubio as their next pick. Rubio has the highest positives of any of the candidates and is, in fact, the one Republican that the Democrats desperately fear because of his perceived ability to attract women, young voters, and Hispanics.
Likewise, Rubio has an experienced team that will be able to navigate ballot access laws, has consistently high polling in a volatile (and inaccurate) polling year, and did I mention just how positively people view him. Rubio also is running a tighter campaign with a slower burn rate than some of the others.
Being liked is a pretty big indicator of where people will head as their candidates start to fade. Rubio also has a pretty solid fundraising ability magnifying his nimble campaign’s ability to get out there the closer we get to the primaries.
I think over the coming weeks, the campaign vultures will circle the Scott Walker campaign, looking to see if he has a pulse and, if they find none, will begin in earnest to pull voters and donors away from him. I suspect we’ll see the more conservative elements head to Cruz and the more establishment elements head to Rubio.
Next month’s debate performance could rupture it. There’s still a lot that could change. But right now to me it looks like we are headed toward a Cruz vs. Rubio primary and, given how well the outsiders are doing currently, Cruz has a slight advantage.
I agree that I'm not convinced that Trump, Fiorina and Carson has staying power...
Plus, throw in the fact that Jeb and Walker isn't do so well... that it probably will be between Rubio vs. Cruz.
If that's the case, I'd be in Rubio's corner because he'd have the best chance to take on HRC in the General election.
The sharp and rapid rise of Carly Fiorina is, for me at least, another indicator that polling right now is volatile and flawed. I actually think if primary season started tomorrow, we’d find the last men standing would be Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, with Cruz having a slight advantage — for now at least.
Polling has been largely wrong since 2010 and has been increasingly wrong after 2014. From showing many races in this country as too close to call to even missing the Tory blowout in Britain, something is wrong methodologically with polling. Likewise, the sharp spikes and declines, also too easy to predict, are too easily caught in flash polling. It does not make a lot of sense.
What does make sense and I think what remains are traditional campaign outlooks. I think Trump will fade, Fiorina will fade, and Carson is already fading. They are doing so because their momentum is based more on name identification and not on records or ground games.
If we look at traditional campaign data, which under the smoke and veneer of Campaign 2016 still matters, what we will find is that Ted Cruz is laying down a hell of a ground game and has tons of cash with not nearly the burn rate that even Jeb Bush has. Cruz stands to profit the most from the collapse of Carson, Fiorina, and Trump — all of whom are playing on the outsider advantages right now. Those advantages will start to go away as more traditional and necessary campaign tactics and strategies kick in like, for example, ballot access.
Cruz can get himself on ballots and get signatures collected. He can make a play through the SEC primary better than many of the other candidates can. He captures the conservative outsider angst while also being a more credible candidate long term than any of the other outsiders. Cruz has, after all, won an election and has a professional campaign team.
While conservatives will gravitate rapidly to Cruz, the more establishment oriented people who recognize the party still needs a fresh face and chage will likely go to Marco Rubio. Already I’m hearing that both Walker and Bush donors are looking at Rubio as their next pick. Rubio has the highest positives of any of the candidates and is, in fact, the one Republican that the Democrats desperately fear because of his perceived ability to attract women, young voters, and Hispanics.
Likewise, Rubio has an experienced team that will be able to navigate ballot access laws, has consistently high polling in a volatile (and inaccurate) polling year, and did I mention just how positively people view him. Rubio also is running a tighter campaign with a slower burn rate than some of the others.
Being liked is a pretty big indicator of where people will head as their candidates start to fade. Rubio also has a pretty solid fundraising ability magnifying his nimble campaign’s ability to get out there the closer we get to the primaries.
I think over the coming weeks, the campaign vultures will circle the Scott Walker campaign, looking to see if he has a pulse and, if they find none, will begin in earnest to pull voters and donors away from him. I suspect we’ll see the more conservative elements head to Cruz and the more establishment elements head to Rubio.
Next month’s debate performance could rupture it. There’s still a lot that could change. But right now to me it looks like we are headed toward a Cruz vs. Rubio primary and, given how well the outsiders are doing currently, Cruz has a slight advantage.
I agree that I'm not convinced that Trump, Fiorina and Carson has staying power...
Plus, throw in the fact that Jeb and Walker isn't do so well... that it probably will be between Rubio vs. Cruz.
If that's the case, I'd be in Rubio's corner because he'd have the best chance to take on HRC in the General election.
Ugh, anyone but Cruz. I utterly loathe and detest that hypocritical excuse for a human being. Cruz would be a poison pill that would cost the GOP a lot of votes, even if he was just on the ballot as VP. Palin cost them in 2008 (I would have voted for McCain, but never with her on the ballot), and I would bet money that Cruz would get the same result. Besides, the GOP leadership aren't going to be very accepting of him given his constant attempts to piss them off along with everyone else. And there are still a few people out there who remember his role in the government shutdown.
Ugh, anyone but Cruz. I utterly loathe and detest that hypocritical excuse for a human being. Cruz would be a poison pill that would cost the GOP a lot of votes, even if he was just on the ballot as VP. Palin cost them in 2008 (I would have voted for McCain, but never with her on the ballot), and I would bet money that Cruz would get the same result.
I think what made Palin even worse is that McCain is pretty old and there was a very realistic chance that he might croak during his term and put Palin in the hot seat. You REALLY had to consider the potential of Palin becoming president, more than you normally would for a VP candidate.
CptJake wrote: [No, I did expect better from CNN, a lot better. I have no 'political gains' either way, and I'm not prone to lying and was not feigning anything. So unless you have some insight as to my actual thoughts, you can quit attempting to translate them into what ever political point you are attempting to make.
If I had to pick between "I honestly expected better from CNN" and "OK, I am just pretending that because I want to claim bias".... Those are both pretty terrible camps. I mean, you saw when they reported on a missing airplane for like a year nonstop, right?
Would that not be more the fault of the viewers? CNN, like any other news network, lives and dies by the ratings numbers. Gotta give the people what they want...
dogma wrote: If I had to guess I would say that he doesn't want to deal with a repeat of the 2008 campaign.
Fair point. Hillary lost that won, and it didn't stop Obama from going on to win the general, but against that is the fact that Biden isn't Obama, and 2016 isn't 2008.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: No, I did expect better from CNN, a lot better. I have no 'political gains' either way, and I'm not prone to lying and was not feigning anything. So unless you have some insight as to my actual thoughts, you can quit attempting to translate them into what ever political point you are attempting to make.
Had you seen CNN before? The debate was pretty run of the mill CNN stupidity.
This is a bit like saying 'oh my gosh I can't believe a college is making such a big deal out of someone using the n-word, the college must have a secret agenda for punishing that student'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Would that not be more the fault of the viewers? CNN, like any other news network, lives and dies by the ratings numbers. Gotta give the people what they want...
Jackass just gave people what they wanted as well. And if they ran a primary debate I wouldn't have been surprised if lacked substance.
And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.
And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.
I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.
Tannhauser42 wrote: And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.
And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.
I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.
To be fair... sharia is incompatible to US laws.
Unless you're okay with Jizya, honor killing and all that...
Tannhauser42 wrote: And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.
And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.
I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.
I've said it before on other threads, that if America starts treating its Muslim citizens as a fifth column, then there will be nothing but trouble and strife in the future. Carson should know better than to spout garbage like that.
Tannhauser42 wrote: And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.
And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.
I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.
To be fair... sharia is incompatible to US laws.
Unless you're okay with Jizya, honor killing and all that...
I've said it before on other threads, that if America starts treating its Muslim citizens as a fifth column, then there will be nothing but trouble and strife in the future. Carson should know better than to spout garbage like that.
IIRC Islam is the worlds fastest growing religion. Although in the US it's Atheism/no religion.
Tannhauser42 wrote: And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.
And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.
I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.
To be fair... sharia is incompatible to US laws.
Unless you're okay with Jizya, honor killing and all that...
I've said it before on other threads, that if America starts treating its Muslim citizens as a fifth column, then there will be nothing but trouble and strife in the future. Carson should know better than to spout garbage like that.
IIRC Islam is the worlds fastest growing religion. Although in the US it's Atheism/no religion.
Unless you're okay with Jizya, honor killing and all that...
Only if you make the wild (and incorrect) assumption that sharia law is this specific well defined thing. It's not. 'Sharia' means "path to be followed." Calling it 'law' is something of misnomer produced by media outlets. Sharia in itself is simply a religious interpretation of Mohammed's life based on the Quran and Hadith. Figh (jurisprudence) is based on scholarly interpretations of Sharia which produces Madhhab (doctrine) which is what is appropriately described as 'Islamic Law.'
Asking a Muslim to ignore Sharia is like asking a Christian to denounce Jesus Christ and burn their copy of the Bible. 'Sharia' is only a problem if we make wildly incorrect assumptions about what Muslims believe and how their beliefs are applied to their daily lives.
LordofHats wrote: 'Sharia' is only a problem if we make wildly incorrect assumptions about what Muslims believe and how their beliefs are applied to their daily lives.
whembly wrote: Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.
That's what we throw around the phrase "Sharia law" to mean, but its lead to confusion about what the word 'Sharia' actually means in Islamic faith, and an overtly misleading oversimplification of how Islamic law is developed and derived (as well as the false notion that all 'Sharia law' involves things like honor killing and stoning infidels and what not). There are numerous interpretations of Sharia, ranging from "She's walking around without her head covered BURN THE WITCH" to the rather familiar "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's (aka Mark 12:17)."
Again, you might as well pretend that every Christian who believes the Bible is the word of god is Guy Fawkes and demand every Christian denounce the Nicene Creed.
whembly wrote: Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.
That's what we throw around the phrase "Sharia law" to mean, but its lead to confusion about what the word 'Sharia' actually means in Islamic faith, and an overtly misleading oversimplification of how Islamic law is developed and derived (as well as the false notion that all 'Sharia law' involves things like honor killing and stoning infidels and what not). There are numerous interpretations of Sharia, ranging from "She's walking around without her head covered BURN THE WITCH" to the rather familiar "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's (aka Mark 12:17)."
I know that... but we're talking about what attributes we look into our candidates when voting.
We vote for whatever we damn please.
It's like the US will never vote for a full-on evangelical like Huckabee.
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
Again, you might as well pretend that every Christian who believes the Bible is the word of god is Guy Fawkes and demand every Christian denounce the Nicene Creed.
Well, you'd probably confuse the hell out of all the Christians who don't believe in the Nicene Creed at all, but I imagine Catholics and some Angelicans would be pretty livid.
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.
So by "clarifying" his insanely stupid comment, he made another insanely stupid comment by saying in more words, "feth you, Constitution... specifically Article VI."
Once again proving that people like him only choose the parts of the Constitution they like and ignore the rest. Despite his calm and quite demeanor, Carson is the most extreme candidate in the field (and like the rest, has no real shot at actually becoming President).
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.
So by "clarifying" his insanely stupid comment, he made another insanely stupid comment by saying in more words, "feth you, Constitution... specifically Article VI."
Once again proving that people like him only choose the parts of the Constitution they like and ignore the rest. Despite his calm and quite demeanor, Carson is the most extreme candidate in the field (and like the rest, has no real shot at actually becoming President).
Ah... so you'd feel that way about folks who didn't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon?
Or, even for poeple voting for Obama simply because he's black?
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.
So by "clarifying" his insanely stupid comment, he made another insanely stupid comment by saying in more words, "feth you, Constitution... specifically Article VI."
Once again proving that people like him only choose the parts of the Constitution they like and ignore the rest. Despite his calm and quite demeanor, Carson is the most extreme candidate in the field (and like the rest, has no real shot at actually becoming President).
Ah... so you'd feel that way about folks who didn't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon?
Or, even for poeple voting for Obama simply because he's black?
Holy gak dude, you couldn't be more off the mark if you tried. Did you even read what you wrote? Do you understand it?
How a voter personally feels about a candidate is nowhere close to saying that a candidate should publicly reject parts of their faith. Voting in a secret ballot against Obama because you don't like black people (or like when people voted against Kennedy because of his Catholicism) isn't unconstitutional, but requiring someone to denounce their faith is. I mean for feth's sake, even Ted Cruz understands that.
In an interview with The Hill, Carson opened up about why he believes a Muslim would be unfit to serve as commander in chief.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam. “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”
Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”
“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.
So by "clarifying" his insanely stupid comment, he made another insanely stupid comment by saying in more words, "feth you, Constitution... specifically Article VI."
Once again proving that people like him only choose the parts of the Constitution they like and ignore the rest. Despite his calm and quite demeanor, Carson is the most extreme candidate in the field (and like the rest, has no real shot at actually becoming President).
Ah... so you'd feel that way about folks who didn't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon?
Or, even for poeple voting for Obama simply because he's black?
Holy gak dude, you couldn't be more off the mark if you tried. Did you even read what you wrote? Do you understand it?
How a voter personally feels about a candidate is nowhere close to saying that a candidate should publicly reject parts of their faith. Voting in a secret ballot against Obama because you don't like black people (or like when people voted against Kennedy because of his Catholicism) isn't unconstitutional, but requiring someone to denounce their faith is. I mean for feth's sake, even Ted Cruz understands that.
Calm down scooty... show me where Carson is advocating a Constitutional religious test.
Calm down scooty... show me where Carson is advocating a Constitutional religious test.
Don't condescend me, Whembly.
You seem unfamiliar with what is being discussed, so here is what the clause in Article VI says:
[...] no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Having to publicly denounce any part of your faith more than qualifies as a religious test. A voter deciding whether or not to vote for a candidate based on the color of his skin is not in any way related to this.
Calm down scooty... show me where Carson is advocating a Constitutional religious test.
Don't condescend me, Whembly.
Honestly not trying too... sorry mang...
You seem unfamiliar with what is being discussed, so here is what the clause I. Article VI says:
[...] no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Having to publicly denounce any part of your faith more than qualifies as a religious test. A voter deciding whether or not to vote for a candidate based on the color of his skin is not in any way related to this.
And you seem to think that Carson himself actually meant that as a legal requirement. I'm just pointing out that it's his own personal opinion (ie, "I would not advocate" / "I absolutely would not agree" / etc...).
Like it or not, we all discriminate. The only difference is that in some mindsets, only some are to be punished for it.
whembly wrote: Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.
...which is completely incorrect, as was explained to you.
Though, I highly doubt Mr. Carson knows what Sharia actually is either. He also likely doesn't care, as virtually no one who would vote for him cares. Rather they care about what they think Sharia is, and what they think it is likely isn't far from what you just stated. Of course, Mr. Carson might also know exactly what Sharia really is, and was simply looking for a politically expedient way to state that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim.
Like it or not, we all discriminate. The only difference is that in some mindsets, only some are to be punished for it.
Of course we all discriminate. Discrimination is essentially the basis for decision making. The question at hand is whether or not the form that discrimination takes is justifiable.
whembly wrote: Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.
...which is completely incorrect, as was explained to you.
Though, I highly doubt Mr. Carson knows what Sharia actually is either. He also likely doesn't care, as virtually no one who would vote for him cares. Rather they care about what they think Sharia is, and what they think it is likely isn't far from what you just stated. Of course, Mr. Carson might also know exactly what Sharia really is, and was simply looking for a politically expedient way to state that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim.
So you'll have Wiki and other publications fix that, right?
So you'll have Wiki and other publications fix that, right?
I can't really have Wikipedia fix anything, and inaccuracy regarding widely misunderstood topics is one of the major issues with websites like Wikipedia. This is especially true regarding topics which many people believe do not require a great deal of technical knowledge to understand: e.g. topics related to political science, philosophy, religion, psychology, and the like.
As to other publications, sure. Unfortunately that would essentially amount to a full-time, unpaid, job. I have more valuable things to do with my time.
whembly wrote: And you seem to think that Carson himself actually meant that as a legal requirement. I'm just pointing out that it's his own personal opinion (ie, "I would not advocate" / "I absolutely would not agree" / etc...).
Yes, even though he feths up sometimes, Carson generally knows how to say the right things when getting his point across.
The clause in Article VI doesn't say anything about an "official" religious test, it just says no religious test shall ever be required. Carson pretty plainly disagrees with the Constitution on that matter, as his opinion is that a Muslim should have to publicly renounce parts of his faith that Carson disagrees with. He's using his words to call for one indirectly, which is the same thing that Kennedy went through during his run for president and is equally as bad (if not worse).
So you'll have Wiki and other publications fix that, right?
I can't really have Wikipedia fix anything, and inaccuracy regarding widely misunderstood topics is one of the major issues with websites like Wikipedia. This is especially true regarding topics which many people believe do not require a great deal of technical knowledge to understand: e.g. topics related to political science, philosophy, religion, psychology, and the like.
As to other publications, sure. Unfortunately that would essentially amount to a full-time, unpaid, job. I have more valuable things to do with my time.
For the best. Here's what happens when you try to fix something on Wikipedia; You notice a factual error on Wikipedia. You delete it.. Two hours later, the original editor of that citation reverts your change, accuses you of lying/being a plat for some obscure conspiracy/trying to twist facts. Being a reasonable person, you go back to your source, explain what it says and why it is correct. Ten editors then say your wrong, citing the incorrect information already in the article, cause if it's on Wiki it must be true. Still being a reasonable person, you investigate the cited source on Wiki to try and see what it says only to find it doesn't say what Wiki says it says/has nothing to do with the subject matter at all/doesn't even exist. You return to Wiki with your discovery and restore you're original change.Two hours later the original editor has again reverted your changes, asked his friendly moderator to lock the page from further changes, and has reported you to ANI (administrator's noticeboard incidents) where the editor has accused you of being a liar, a troll, and threat to Wikipedia.
^Note I've seen the above happen for things a stupid as whether or not to include a coma before the word 'and.' Wikipedia members will then spend the next few hours arguing about whether or not you really are a liar, a troll, and a threat to Wikipedia (with whoever first accused you of such no doubt operating several sock puppets to perpetuate the debate) all the while the page is locked and unchangeable with the factual error still present for all to read. You try to defend your actions, but no one really cares because by now they're all just trying to get editors they don't like banned by the admins over things that have nothing to do with the original article you tried to edit. Maybe if you're lucky, the article will be unlocked in three days and you can repeat the process all over again.
Please note the above process becomes even more insane if you attempt anything more complicated than correcting punctuation and spelling. There's another phrase for "fixing wikipeida'; Flame War. There's a reason I never became an editor. I'll leave that to masochists and sadists.
I thought he said that he could not support a Muslim running for POTUS due to that individual view unless that Individual renounce that aspect of his/her religion. He gave his opinion. An opinion I can of agree with but an opinion. A view. A stance.
The "I kind of agree with" bit is the individual decisions in office might have the perception of being influence by his/her upbringing under "Sharia"
whembly wrote: And you seem to think that Carson himself actually meant that as a legal requirement. I'm just pointing out that it's his own personal opinion (ie, "I would not advocate" / "I absolutely would not agree" / etc...).
Yes, even though he feths up sometimes, Carson generally knows how to say the right things when getting his point across.
The clause in Article VI doesn't say anything about an "official" religious test, it just says no religious test shall ever be required. Carson pretty plainly disagrees with the Constitution on that matter, as his opinion is that a Muslim should have to publicly renounce parts of his faith that Carson disagrees with. He's using his words to call for one indirectly, which is the same thing that Kennedy went through during his run for president and is equally as bad (if not worse).
The Constitution sets limits on the Federal Gov't, and sets up what they can do/are responsible for doing. I find it difficult to see any part of it, to include Article VI as NOT covering 'official' acts allowed or not allowed by the Federal gov't. Of course it is saying the Fed gov't cannot require a religious test. Which has no bearing what so ever on what individual voters may or may not require for them to vote for or against any person.
I find it mildly ironic that a portion of the conservative base are doing exactly what they claim they are afraid of about Muslims/Sharia: having an inability to separarate religious doctrine from secular law. Carson wants to base the tax system on tithing. A number of them flat out reject the supreme court's ruling on gay marriage, going so far as to say they will rather follow "the laws of nature or the laws of nature's God."--Mike Huckabee. All of them reject the law of the land in terms of abortion rights.
They are projecting in thinking that a Muslum would not be able to make a distinction between personal faith and Constitutional law. Which is weird when all they would have to do is look across the aisle and see a number of the people in the other party seem to be able to handle it just fine. Of course those people aren't real believers though.
Frazzled wrote: Then of course there is the large portion of liberals who can't stand anyone of faith to be in office.
As someone who might be seen to fall into this category, its not really people of faith. It's zealots (people like Cruz) who I'm scared of.
In other words, people who believe in their religion really, really bad. I'd be nervous with such a person in charge of the arsenal whether they were a Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or any other kind of zealot. The religion in question is fairly immaterial to me.
Frazzled wrote: Then of course there is the large portion of liberals who can't stand anyone of faith to be in office.
As a secular humanist, I have no belief in mysticism or the supernatural and that humans can rise above their lot in life. However, as a pragmatist, I know a non believer is worse than a Muslim as far as politics is concerned in this country. As a person with some minor sense of history, I know that many people of faith have improved humanity's lot. Put that together, I vote for who I think can best promote humanity's elevation and who can conceivably get elected. That's it. "Can't stand anyone of faith" doesn't play into it. I can't stand the color brown, but I don't judge people based on their choice of suit or pant suit color. That's as much consideration as I give to a politician's religious views, because that's about how much meaning I think it has unless that politician makes their political platform their religious beliefs.
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
I'm just noting, just as there is the hardcore reactionary religious element on the Republican side, there is the hardcore reactionary anti religious side on the Democrat side.
Frazzled wrote: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
I'm just noting, just as there is the hardcore reactionary religious element on the Republican side, there is the hardcore reactionary anti religious side on the Democrat side.
Neither, I am believing what you wrote (so I guess my eyes, anybody care to substantiate what he wrote?) (whether or not you believe it, I have no idea).
Where are the viable politicians willing to espouse their non religious views? (What's that? They speak in code?) I guess the Dems are more pragmatic as well.
You're right. There are absolutely no antireligious types in the Democratic Party. I will go off to repent via forcing myself to drink only midpriced rum and water tonight.
Maybe I'll watch some old shows about comedic aliens...
Frazzled wrote: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
I'm just noting, just as there is the hardcore reactionary religious element on the Republican side, there is the hardcore reactionary anti religious side on the Democrat side.
On the Democrat side, its not an anti-religious reaction, its an anti-fundamentalist reaction.
Atheists are still the least trusted minority in the population, repeatedly and reliably scoring worse than Muslims and homosexuals in opinion polls. If what you said were true, than the Democratic Party would include a significant subset of atheist elected politicians...but it doesn't. At least not on the national level.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. There are absolutely no antireligious types in the Democratic Party. I will go off to repent via forcing myself to drink only midpriced rum and water tonight.
Maybe I'll watch some old shows about comedic aliens...
Damn, I'm drinking low priced scotch and ice tonight. You got me beat... GOP and their over spending ways.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. There are absolutely no antireligious types in the Democratic Party. I will go off to repent via forcing myself to drink only midpriced rum and water tonight.
Maybe I'll watch some old shows about comedic aliens...
Damn, I'm drinking low priced scotch and ice tonight. You got me beat... GOP and their over spending ways.
You know it. Not to mention lighting up a churchill with a wooden match and a Benjamin baby!
Maybe it's just a minor technicality that only matters to people who pay attention to actual words and such, but there might just be a tiny difference between "I wouldn't vote for a [faith] president", and "presidential candidates should have to renounce [faith] if they run for office".
d-usa wrote: Maybe it's just a minor technicality that only matters to people who pay attention to actual words and such, but there might just be a tiny difference between "I wouldn't vote for a [faith] president", and "presidential candidates should have to renounce [faith] if they run for office".
d-USA is correct.
"I wouldn't vote for a vegetarian" is good whereas
"Presidential candidates should renounce vegetarianism" is not wait thats good too. What about
"Vegetarians got no reason to live" It sounds bad but it sure feels good.
Real Ben Carson: I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country. Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.
Bizarro World Ben Carson: I do not believe laws derived from Biblical principals are consistent with the Constitution of this country. Christians feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.
Sharia
Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet (Hadith and Sunna), prescribing both religious and secular duties and sometimes retributive penalties for lawbreaking. It has generally been supplemented by legislation adapted to the conditions of the day, though the manner in which it should be applied in modern states is a subject of dispute between Islamic fundamentalists and modernists
Jihadin wrote: Sharia
Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet (Hadith and Sunna), prescribing both religious and secular duties and sometimes retributive penalties for lawbreaking. It has generally been supplemented by legislation adapted to the conditions of the day, though the manner in which it should be applied in modern states is a subject of dispute between Islamic fundamentalists and modernists
Yes, I think we're all familiar with the general concept of Sharia.
What's odd to me is that Carson wasn't asked whether a "supporter of the implementation of Sharia" should be elected President. He was asked if a Muslim should be elected President.
So he doesn't see any differentiation between the two.
This guy seems less and less impressive to me as time goes on. As a candidate, he is certainly an in-artful speaker. I am now starting to wonder whether its not clumsy speech at all, but just clumsy thinking.
jasper76 wrote: What's odd to me is that Carson wasn't asked whether a "supporter of the implementation of Sharia" should be elected President. He was asked if a Muslim should be elected President.
So he doesn't see any differentiation between the two.
This guy seems less and less impressive to me as time goes on. As a candidate, he is certainly an in-artful speaker. I am now starting to wonder whether its not clumsy speech at all, but just clumsy thinking.
He's a great, high end surgeon. Thats kind of...it.
Speaking of surgeon's, when I play the "Who would I vote for?" game among the GOP field, I like Rand Paul the best. Why is this dude's ranking so low?
He uses words that are too big. Doesn't support rampant unending military conflict. Is not a fan of corporatism. Isn't really caught up in immigration, islam and other faux issues. He isn't Christian enough. Understands foreign policy and statesmanship...etc etc.
Oh, and he isn't a Republican by modern Republican standards.
jasper76 wrote: Fair enough, I guess those might be some of the reasons why I like him.
My professor showed me an analysis of the last debate. Trump is still pulling the best numbers. What was interesting was that all of the candidates used language that reflected roughly and 8th grade education level except Cruz and Trump. Trump was using a 5th grade level (up from the previous debate of 4th grade) and Cruz was using a 12th grade level consistently (ironic because he is considered dumb lol).
Trump literally debates at a 5th grade education level lol.
jasper76 wrote: Fair enough, I guess those might be some of the reasons why I like him.
My professor showed me an analysis of the last debate. Trump is still pulling the best numbers. What was interesting was that all of the candidates used language that reflected roughly and 8th grade education level except Cruz and Trump. Trump was using a 5th grade level (up from the previous debate of 4th grade) and Cruz was using a 12th grade level consistently (ironic because he is considered dumb lol).
Cruz's debate tactic is to segway from question to canned soliloquy-style speech segment, which might explain the more advanced "grade". He's pretty good at it, I think. However, he came off in both debates as over-emotional, very afraid and pessimistic. There is something about his eyebrow position when he is speaking that makes him look like a hungry kid begging for food, and that makes him seem weak.
I never got the impression from him that he was unintelligent, though.
jasper76 wrote: Cruz's debate tactic is to segway from question to canned soliloquy-style speech segment, which might explain the more advanced "grade". He's pretty good at it, I think. However, he came off in both debates as over-emotional, very afraid and pessimistic. There is something about his eyebrow position when he is speaking that makes him look like a hungry kid begging for food, and that makes him seem weak.
I never got the impression from him that he was unintelligent, though.
I'll admit... he comes off "smarmy"... but, that's me.
But the dude knows his legal chops... Maybe the next SC Justice? (what heads goes splodey, but the Congress-critters would love to have Cruz out of Congress).
Cruz hasn't played nice with the GOP, so I doubt any hyoptherical GOP President would have him high on their Christmas list. I think the Senate might be the pinnacle for Cruz's career in government.
jasper76 wrote: Fair enough, I guess those might be some of the reasons why I like him.
My professor showed me an analysis of the last debate. Trump is still pulling the best numbers. What was interesting was that all of the candidates used language that reflected roughly and 8th grade education level except Cruz and Trump. Trump was using a 5th grade level (up from the previous debate of 4th grade) and Cruz was using a 12th grade level consistently (ironic because he is considered dumb lol).
Trump literally debates at a 5th grade education level lol.
Don't underestimate Cruz, you will do so at your own demise. He is extremely intelligent, extremely good at promoting his own premise, and extremely good at making his position look mundane.
All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...
All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...
All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...
Old Man Carson? I don't think he is an idiot but definitely represents the peanut gallery.
I didn't find Fiorina to be unintelligent. If the GOP wasn't such a good ole boys club I think she might be able to articulate different concepts. Unfortunately, to stand out in the GOP she has to come off even more hawkish and 'masculine'. Unless that IS how she truly is...in which then yah she probably is an idiot lol.
All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...
Now now... you know that's not true.
Which part? The part where I want people to remember that the GOP were considering these clowns as possible candidates? No, that is completely true. The fact that they are idiots is definately debatable. Debate away, don't strain yourself.
All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...
Now now... you know that's not true.
Which part? The part where I want people to remember that the GOP were considering these clowns as possible candidates? No, that is completely true. The fact that they are idiots is definately debatable. Debate away, don't strain yourself.
(CNN)Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she opposes the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, taking sides with progressives who are fighting the 1,179-mile project over environmental concerns.
The announcement, which comes after months of Clinton remaining mum over the hot-button 2016 issue, immediately drew praise from liberals and environmental groups but was criticized by Republican presidential candidates.
"I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is -- a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change," Clinton told a community forum in Des Moines, Iowa.
"And unfortunately from my perspective, one that interferes with our ability to move forward with all the other issues," she said. "Therefore I oppose it."
The Democratic 2016 front-runner announced her opposition to the project -- which is still the subject of a years-long State Department review -- as Pope Francis landed in the United States, dominating national media attention.
RELATED: Clinton says decision on Keystone pipeline coming 'soon'
Clinton had not previously disclosed her position on the campaign trail despite consistent questions about her position on the project, which is widely favored by conservatives but opposed by liberals who believe it will contribute to climate change. In explaining her answer Tuesday, Clinton said she didn't want to interfere with a review process that started under her watch.
"I was in a unique position as secretary of state at the start of this process, and not wanting to interfere with ongoing decision-making that the President and Secretary (of State John) Kerry have to do in order to make whatever final decisions they need," Clinton said. "So I thought this would be decided by now, and therefore I could tell you whether I agree or disagree, but it hasn't been decided, and I feel now I've got a responsibility to you and voters who ask me about this."
Speaking to the Des Moines Register's editorial board after the event, Clinton said she had "no idea" she would be asked about the pipeline Tuesday.
But, she said, "I think I owed it to people to say where I stood," adding, "clearly, the time had come for me to answer the question."
Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's communications director, said in a statement to CNN that Clinton's role as a former secretary of state put her "in a different situation than other candidates."
"Having the experience of being a former secretary of state distinguishes her and her candidacy, but it comes with responsibilities that at times can limit her," Palmieri said. "But we know that the experience is well worth whatever price she may pay politically."
A Clinton campaign aide told CNN that the former secretary of state couldn't wait any longer to explain her position.
"She's been taking on water for (not taking a position) ... She didn't want to jam Secretary Kerry or jam the President but it was just time. It's September," the aide said.
The aide said as pressure had mounted for Clinton to take a position, she wanted to give the administration space but doing so became untenable. The aide noted Clinton's meeting with the Des Moines Register, and the campaign was expecting the question to come up. She wanted to be able to answer, the aide said.
The White House was briefed on Clinton's position prior to her comments Tuesday, another Clinton aide said.
"Also, in the course of discussing her plans for increasing investment in energy infrastructure with labor officials in recent weeks, she privately made her opposition to the pipeline known to them as well," the aide added.
RELATED: Is Hillary Clinton 'likable enough'?
Clio Cullison, a student at Drake University who came to the event after a friend of hers at 350.org, an active climate change advocacy group that has regularly followed Clinton on the campaign trail, asked her to attend and ask Clinton about the pipeline.
"I was really nervous to ask," Cullison told CNN. "I haven't asked any political candidates a question ever, so that was really exciting."
The student added that she "was afraid of her answer, to be honest. I didn't know where she was going to stand. I didn't know if she was going to answer at all. I am really glad she did answer, one, and two, did oppose the Keystone pipeline."
A frequent question on the trail
Clinton has repeatedly been asked about Keystone on the campaign trail but has never answered directly.
"I am not going to second guess (President Barack Obama) because I was in a position to set this in motion," Clinton said at a July event in New Hampshire. "I want to wait and see what he and Secretary Kerry decide."
At the same event, she later added, "If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question."
And throughout much of 2013 and 2014, Clinton criss-crossed the country on the paid speaking circuit and later on her book tour. She was asked about Keystone a number of times, particularly in Canada, where the pipeline would originate. At no point did she take a position, however.
Clinton's announcement on Tuesday was met with praise from environmental groups.
Jane Kleeb, director of the anti-pipeline group Bold Nebraska, said the decision "was a long time coming," and demonstrates that Democratic candidates need to pay closer attention to the progressive base.
"Political insiders continue to not give credit to the climate movement and not give credit to farmers and ranchers who are opposed to these risky fossil fuel projects," Kleeb told CNN. "This is a big part of her progressive base -- people who are not just against Keystone but want to see action on climate change."
And Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, said Clinton has slowly been moving in this direction since 2010, when she said she was "inclined" to approve the project. "It's been a good evolution, always in the right direction," he said.
"Over time, she has come to understand that a defining issue of the next election is climate change and there's no way to address it seriously without this being answered," McKibben said, calling it a "boondoggle" that he expects Obama to reject as well.
2016ers weigh in
Clinton's Democratic presidential opponents have opposed the deal. On Tuesday, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, lambasted her for the delay in taking a position.
"On issue after issue -- marriage equality, drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, children fleeing violence in Central America, the Syrian refugee crisis, and now the Keystone Pipeline, Secretary Clinton has followed -- not forged -- public opinion," O'Malley said in a statement.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said he was "glad" Clinton came out against the pipeline.
"As a senator who has vigorously opposed the Keystone pipeline from the beginning, I am glad that Secretary Clinton finally has made a decision and I welcome her opposition to the pipeline," Sanders said. "Clearly it would be absurd to encourage the extraction and transportation of some of the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet."
But Republican presidential hopefuls quickly bashed Clinton over the announcement. Jeb Bush slammed Clinton for favoring "environmental extremists" in making her decision.
".@HillaryClinton finally says what we already knew. She favors environmental extremists over U.S. jobs. #KeystoneXL," he tweeted.
Bobby Jindal noted that Clinton's announcement came at the same time Pope Francis arrived in the U.S.
"Hoping that Americans would be distracted by the Pope's visit, Hillary finally admitted she opposes #KeystoneXL," Jindal tweeted, linking to a petition on his campaign website to urge construction of the pipeline.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham fired off a series of tweets, saying the pipeline would help the economy and boost national security by reducing dependence on foreign oli.
"In opposing Keystone pipeline, @HillaryClinton once again shows that she intends to continue the failed polices of the Obama Administration," he said.
Heh...
Graham is the only one who's really trying to tie HRC to Obama (aka, the 3rd Obama Term).
whembly wrote: Um... lordy... Sharia is actually an islamic legal system.
It isn't one legal system. There is sharia law in many countries, and it varies wildly based on local values and systems. Indonesia is the largest muslim country in the world and has sharia courts, but those courts are purely for divorce, inheritance and other property questions. There is no honour killing or anything like that.
Similarly, there are Christian countries with truly horrendous laws in place. Uganda's Christian revival led directly to the return of the death penalty for homosexuality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Ah... so you'd feel that way about folks who didn't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon?
Or, even for poeple voting for Obama simply because he's black?
Yes. Of course. If anyone, anywhere has said Romney needed to reject some part of Mormonism before they could be considered for the presidency, I'd call that person a religious bigot.
And holy gak we've been over the 'people voted for Obama just because he's black' thing so many damn times before. It's not a thing, move on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I find it mildly ironic that a portion of the conservative base are doing exactly what they claim they are afraid of about Muslims/Sharia: having an inability to separarate religious doctrine from secular law. Carson wants to base the tax system on tithing. A number of them flat out reject the supreme court's ruling on gay marriage, going so far as to say they will rather follow "the laws of nature or the laws of nature's God."--Mike Huckabee. All of them reject the law of the land in terms of abortion rights.
They are projecting in thinking that a Muslum would not be able to make a distinction between personal faith and Constitutional law. Which is weird when all they would have to do is look across the aisle and see a number of the people in the other party seem to be able to handle it just fine. Of course those people aren't real believers though.
Yep, this is a really good point.
And I think it's a really good example of a point I mentioned earlier about tribalism, that I think explains how much of the right wing thinks about faith. They talk about religious freedom all the time, but only on issues that bother them and people like them.
It comes down to a view of religious freedom that amounts to competing tribes, either you have religious freedom or I do. So the only way they can be free is by dominating the other tribes. So all at once they want their religious laws applied to the country, while claiming to be worried that someone else might apply their own religious laws.
It's the right of two gay people to get married somehow came to be believed by millions of people as a loss of their own religious freedom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Then of course there is the large portion of liberals who can't stand anyone of faith to be in office.
They're not doing a very good job of it.
Obama - Christian.
Bush - Christian
Clinton - Christian
Bush - Christian
Reagan - Christian
Carter - Christian
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I'm just noting, just as there is the hardcore reactionary religious element on the Republican side, there is the hardcore reactionary anti religious side on the Democrat side.
Yes, but scale matters. Having 13 idiots in a commune two miles outside of San Fran talking endlessly about how stupid religious people are is simply not relevant compared to the vast and politically connected Christian dominionists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Maybe it's just a minor technicality that only matters to people who pay attention to actual words and such, but there might just be a tiny difference between "I wouldn't vote for a [faith] president", and "presidential candidates should have to renounce [faith] if they run for office".
Both are completely unacceptable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: He uses words that are too big. Doesn't support rampant unending military conflict. Is not a fan of corporatism. Isn't really caught up in immigration, islam and other faux issues. He isn't Christian enough. Understands foreign policy and statesmanship...etc etc.
Oh, and he isn't a Republican by modern Republican standards.
flying rodent gak economic arguments that border on conspiracy theory is so 2012.
It's pretty common for the most right wing candidates in any election to be considered stupid. Just like the most left wing candidates are typically seen as weak.
Just a weird stereotype that people seem to have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...
If you think they're idiots, and they are idiots, you're not underestimating them, you're estimating them correctly
@whembly: who said "and the democrats are any better" with lots of laughing ork faces after it.
Yes, yes they are in this political season. Want to put up the twelve or thirteen or so GOP candidates' economic policies? Every one of the the Dems have put one up. Three of the GOP have. Read um? No need to. Others have done it for you--see CBO. Jebs plan will increase the deficit by 1.3 trillion, or 3.3 billion if you believe in the magical fairy of trickle down, which nobody ever has managed to capture or photograph. The two others who have managed to put it into words and on paper (Rubio and Jindal) are somewhere in the middle of that. Trump, the GOP frontrunner's, will be"huge and awesome" though. So I guess you have something to look forward to.
The Pope is in America. The Chinese President is in America, and Donald Trump is on the campaign trail.
Please God, let there be an incident. Please make Donald Trump throw his toupee at one of these individuals or vomit over them, or something equally as funny.
All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...
No one on that stage was an idiot, even Trump.
I'm sure the professor showed them to be debating ata low level. I'm sure he's just a Republican trying to reform the process...right
Thats the debate CNN wanted. Its also why I didn't watch it.
All of them know precisely what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Well, yeah. You can underestimate him and Carson, and Fiiorina. They are all idiots. Thing is, those idiots, are the majority of the GOP base right now. I hope people remember this...
No one on that stage was an idiot, even Trump.
I'm sure the professor showed them to be debating ata low level. I'm sure he's just a Republican trying to reform the process...right
Thats the debate CNN wanted. Its also why I didn't watch it.
The professor is South Korean and can't vote in the US. Nor does he seem to be liberal as he hoping Kaisch pulls to the front. I know becasue he is a professor he is supposed to be a liberal so that their analysis can be ignored.
You should have watched the CNN debate because Trump actually had to raise his debate level. On FoxNews it was at a 4th grade level (probably because of the target audience).
Lets also be honest here. Trump is not a smart man and I don't think he is business savy either. Trump is a money man, he gives money to smart people and they make him more money. He survives off lawyers finding loop holes and corporate corruption.
BrotherGecko wrote: He survives off lawyers finding loop holes and corporate corruption.
Trump is the original "start up company" guy. he made his fortune by consistently building businesses, not caring if they lasted, and selling all his interests before the business imploded. But because he constantly comes out ahead money wise, he ended up with the silly reputation for being a really good businessman, when he's really much closer to a scam artist.
BrotherGecko wrote: He survives off lawyers finding loop holes and corporate corruption.
Trump is the original "start up company" guy. he made his fortune by consistently building businesses, not caring if they lasted, and selling all his interests before the business imploded. But because he constantly comes out ahead money wise, he ended up with the silly reputation for being a really good businessman, when he's really much closer to a scam artist.
He isn't even that though-he started with a silver spoon in his mouth from daddy. Saw a recent analysis somewhere that I can't find right now, but it basically figured out that had the Donald just invested his inherited money in a mutual fund he would be worth more now than he actually is. He actually did worse by doing anything with it.
BrotherGecko wrote: He survives off lawyers finding loop holes and corporate corruption.
Trump is the original "start up company" guy. he made his fortune by consistently building businesses, not caring if they lasted, and selling all his interests before the business imploded. But because he constantly comes out ahead money wise, he ended up with the silly reputation for being a really good businessman, when he's really much closer to a scam artist.
He is a good con artist that is for sure. I wonder how his style plays on the international state level. Who will bail him out? Or is this presidental bid his ultimate scam? I wonder if he is doing this to help make more money. Put a billionaire corporate businessman in office that will still be a billionaire corporate businessman after office. What laws will he alter to improve his lot at the cost of the country? How will he be so chummy with Putin (offer him chances to gain money at the US expense)?
His numbers are stong enough that I don't think he will drop out. I feel Republicans will make a deal with the devil to get their party in the oval office (no matter how tenuous the connection is). The media will love him because his lunacy equals viewers. FoxNews can keep their viewers in the dark so that they adore a man fething them and CNN can play on loop that he is fething us to keep their viewers outraged.
I'm pretty convinced we will see Trump vs HRC for president and the country will be a poorer place for it.
The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s success at salvaging personal e-mails that Clinton said had been deleted raises the possibility that the Democratic presidential candidate’s correspondence eventually could become public. The disclosure of such e-mails would likely fan the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system for official business.
The FBI is investigating how and why classified information ended up on Clinton’s server. The probe probably will take at least several more months, according to the person, who described the matter on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing and deals with sensitive information.
A review by Clinton and her aides determined that about half of the 60,000 e-mails she exchanged during her four-year tenure as secretary of state were of a personal nature, the presidential candidate has said.
Those e-mails, she said, mostly dealt with planning for Chelsea’s wedding, yoga routines and condolence messages.
Clinton said the personal e-mails were deleted from the server and her staff turned over paper copies of the remaining work-related e-mails in December to the State Department for processing and archiving. The FBI obtained Clinton’s server from the Colorado-based company managing it.
Recover E-Mails
Outside computer specialists have said the FBI has the technical capability to recover deleted e-mails. The exact number of personal e-mails recovered by the FBI could not be learned.
Once the e-mails have been extracted, a group of agents has been separating personal correspondence and passing along work-related messages to agents leading the investigation, the person said.
Since the existence of the e-mail system became public in March, Clinton has seen her standing in polls slide, particularly in regards to questions about her trustworthiness. She also has been heavily criticized by congressional Republicans who have raised questions over whether the private server jeopardized the security of sensitive data.
Internal government watchdogs have determined that classified information ended up on the system. Their findings sparked the FBI inquiry.
Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, did not respond to phone calls or e-mails seeking comment. Nick Merrill, a spokesman, said, “We’ve cooperated to date and will continue to do so, including answering any questions about this that anyone including the public may have.”
Iowa Caucuses
The bureau’s probe is expected to last at least several more months, according to the person. That timeline would push any final determination closer to the Democratic presidential primary calendar, which kicks off Feb. 1 with the Iowa caucuses.
A bureau spokeswoman, Carol Cratty, declined to discuss any aspect of the investigation. Emily Pierce, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.
Clinton is not accused of any wrongdoing. She has said she is confident that material in her e-mails wasn’t marked as classified when it was sent and received through her server. For anyone who mishandled such information, prosecutors must prove that they knowingly did so to charge them with a crime.
The former secretary of state has said she decided to use a private e-mail address -- hrod17@clintonemail.com -- to conduct all of her electronic correspondence as a matter of convenience, to avoid the need to carry two devices, one personal and one professional. She served from 2009 through 2013 as the nation’s top diplomat.
E-Mails Posted
As the result of public information lawsuits, the State Department has posted almost 8,000 of those work-related e-mails on its website. The State Department has determined that dozens of the e-mails contained classified information.
Many of the work-related e-mails contain schedules, press clippings, staffing updates, speech notes, and requests to aides for tech support. Some e-mails are simply requests to speak with people over secure phone lines.
In 2013, the Clintons turned the private server over to a Colorado-based technology company to manage. The firm, Platte River Networks, installed the device in a New Jersey data center and managed and maintained it.
Andy Boian, a spokesman for the Platte River, said the FBI last month asked the company to hand over the server. Platte River asked the Clintons what it should do, and within 24 hours a representative for the Clintons told the company to provide the device to agents, Boian said.
There has been some question as to whether Clinton deleted her messages or took the more thorough and technical step of “wiping” the server. Boian said Tuesday that Platte River had “no knowledge of it being wiped.”
Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system is being examined by congressional committees that have the power to subpoena the FBI to obtain the messages. The e-mails also may be sought under public-information laws.
The FBI isn’t likely to hand over any such messages until its investigation has been completed. Even then, public records laws provide exceptions protecting personal information.
Buckle your seats... 'tis going to be a bumpy ride.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Careful, Whembly, I did warn you some time ago that the deleted emails could just a be a whole bunch of cybersex between her and Bill...
Hey... at least she can say... "I was RIGHT SUCKA! Now your plebs, kindly piss off!"
Then, she'd skate into the primary and win a landslide in the general.
Hey... at least she can say... "I was RIGHT SUCKA! Now your plebs, kindly piss off!"
Scandals don't work that way. The opposition will continue to push the matter even if they're in the wrong, because there will never be enough information until the accuser is proven correct; just look at the Benghazi and IRS scandals. And any attempt to positively state "I didn't do it!" simply makes the speaker appear more guilty.
Frazzled wrote: No one on that stage was an idiot, even Trump.
I'm sure the professor showed them to be debating ata low level. I'm sure he's just a Republican trying to reform the process...right
Thats the debate CNN wanted. Its also why I didn't watch it.
You're right, no-one on that stage is an idiot. But the stupidity in the debate wasn't due to anything CNN, as the first debate was just as stupid. The poor state of the debates is because that's what the works for the voting base.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Trump is the original "start up company" guy. he made his fortune by consistently building businesses, not caring if they lasted, and selling all his interests before the business imploded. But because he constantly comes out ahead money wise, he ended up with the silly reputation for being a really good businessman, when he's really much closer to a scam artist.
Nah, Trump still has maintained his interest in his major developments. You look at all his major hotels and golf courses, and Trump owns as much now as he ever has.
I think that reputation comes from what happens when a deal involving Trump goes bad. He does whatever nasty gak he has to to make sure he doesn't take the hit. He'll burn any and every working partner he's got to make sure someone else ends up wearing the loss. That isn't nice, and it probably isn't even good business, but it only happens on deals that go bad, and truth is those kinds of bad deals happen in property all the time. But Trump has about as good a ratio of good projects to bad projects as anyone else.
My absolute favourite Trump story is quite recent, in Trump's last bankruptcy gambit. It was after the GFC hit, Trump had a lot of projects on the go and they were financed up to the hilt, and suddenly he was facing massive writedowns in values for these projects. So the banks came knocking. Trump wasn't even close to being genuinely bankrupt, but he would have had to access bridging finance at much higher rates of interest, and Trump does not take the hit. So instead he claimed 'force major', a term in his contract that offered re-negotiation for an act of God. Trump claimed the GFC was an act of God, basically. It's stupid, but it made the banks choose between having to fight it for who knows how long in court, while receiving no payments. The banks chose to accept it, and re-negotiated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: He isn't even that though-he started with a silver spoon in his mouth from daddy. Saw a recent analysis somewhere that I can't find right now, but it basically figured out that had the Donald just invested his inherited money in a mutual fund he would be worth more now than he actually is. He actually did worse by doing anything with it.
It's true but misleading. One of the things people don't realise is that passive investment in the stock exchange is an amazingly good return, as good as most businesses. Almost everyone underperforms the S&P500 over the long time. Trump's property projects have kept in line with S&P growth, so on the one hand Trump could have done nothing for 35 years and be in the same place, but on the other hand most people with 200 million in 1980 don't have 8 billion today.
d-usa wrote: The DoJ already stated that she had the right to delete these emails and didn't break any rules by deleting them.
Of course that all got drowned out in all the "the DoJ should investigate her" noise.
Yeah, but that doesn't absolve her if she wasn't supposed to have those emails in the first place and they were incorrectly handled. And deleting them could still count as destruction of evidence.
dogma wrote: Scandals don't work that way. The opposition will continue to push the matter even if they're in the wrong, because there will never be enough information until the accuser is proven correct; just look at the Benghazi and IRS scandals. And any attempt to positively state "I didn't do it!" simply makes the speaker appear more guilty.
Yep. And even if this scandal went away, I really doubt Clinton would just surge in to the Whitehouse.
I mean, as a scandal it is seriously weak nonsense. The reason it continues to have power is because Clinton has given people nothing else to focus on. She's a terrible campaigner.
dogma wrote: The opposition will continue to push the matter even if they're in the wrong, because there will never be enough information until the accuser is proven correct;
Yep... if that pile of emails were "cybersex" between her and bill, the religious conservatives would still be up in arms about how it wasn't "proper" because they weren't in missionary, with the lights off
Anybody else looking forward to the political circus tonight that will be after the Pope's address to Congress? It will be interesting to see how they will choose their words to state they disagree with the Pope, while still showing full respect for him, and without looking like total hypocrites (saying the Pope needs to stay out of politics, while they're bringing religion into politics regularly already).
I heard on the radio that there is already one congressman who is boycotting the event.
Anyone catch the Colbert Late Show interview with Trump. I thought Colbert did an excellent job of letting Trump paint himself as an idiot. And he didn't play Trumps game at all. Quite enjoyed it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anybody else looking forward to the political circus tonight that will be after the Pope's address to Congress? It will be interesting to see how they will choose their words to state they disagree with the Pope, while still showing full respect for him, and without looking like total hypocrites (saying the Pope needs to stay out of politics, while they're bringing religion into politics regularly already).
I heard on the radio that there is already one congressman who is boycotting the event.
Most Christian politicians in the US can outright criticize him and not take flak. He is the Pope of the the Catholic faith and as such isn't considered Christain by many Americans. Or at least in my experience Catholics are not considered Christian by many people of the various other denominations much like the Mormons. So I expect some strong go back to the Vatican were you belong rhetoric if the Pope says anything that isn't liked.
I imagine the GOP candidates will give their opinion on the matter too.
He's a South American Latino liberal who very much praises the ideals of socialism.
You don't really know much about the Pope or Catholicism, you do?
Que?
He's Argentinian... right? Ain't dat in South America?
As to Catholicism... what makes you say that?
<--- sends his kids to Catholic schools and has regular meetings with the Deacons and Fathers...
Because despite the American media's best attempt to convince you otherwise, you don't realize that Pope Francis is not some out-of-left-field liberal Pope. He's towing the company line pretty hardcore, and your comments seem to say pretty clearly that you don't know much about Catholic social teaching; nothing Pope Francis has said is revolutionary in the Catholic Church.
He's a South American Latino liberal who very much praises the ideals of socialism.
You don't really know much about the Pope or Catholicism, you do?
Que?
He's Argentinian... right? Ain't dat in South America?
As to Catholicism... what makes you say that?
<--- sends his kids to Catholic schools and has regular meetings with the Deacons and Fathers...
Because despite the American media's best attempt to convince you otherwise, you don't realize that Pope Francis is not some out-of-left-field liberal Pope. He's towing the company line pretty hardcore, and your comments seem to say pretty clearly that you don't know much about Catholic social teaching; nothing Pope Francis has said is revolutionary in the Catholic Church.
Um... I don't recall John Paul or Benedict decrying the faults of capitalism and all that...
If they did... I missed it during my hedonistic period.
And for what it's worth... I though all Popes were generally lefties.
whembly wrote: Um... I don't recall John Paul or Benedict decrying the faults of capitalism and all that...
If they did... I missed it during my hedonistic period.
A good place to start with understanding Pope Francis is with his encyclical from May of this year. The Church has always condemned greed, even that inherent in a capitalistic economy. In fact, John Paul II wrote extensively about unchecked capitalism in his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. The most telling line from that encyclical is this:
The tension between East and West is an opposition... between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples, both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction... This is one of the reasons why the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism.
An economic system is good only to the extent that it applies the principles of justice taught by the Church. Capitalism, as currently practiced in the Western world, does not do that (neither does any form of collectivism for that matter).
John Paul II wrote even about the issue in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, which is also a pretty good read.
And for what it's worth... I though all Popes were generally lefties.
whembly wrote: Um... I don't recall John Paul or Benedict decrying the faults of capitalism and all that...
If they did... I missed it during my hedonistic period.
A good place to start with understanding Pope Francis is with his encyclical from May of this year. The Church has always condemned greed, even that inherent in a capitalistic economy. In fact, John Paul II wrote extensively about unchecked capitalism in his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. The most telling line from that encyclical is this:
The tension between East and West is an opposition... between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples, both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction... This is one of the reasons why the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism.
An economic system is good only to the extent that it applies the principles of justice taught by the Church. Capitalism, as currently practiced in the Western world, does not do that (neither does any form of collectivism for that matter).
John Paul II wrote even about the issue in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, which is also a pretty good read.
Good info...
IT's just that it's pie-in-the-sky wishlisting of how the system ought to be... which discounts human nature.
Ya know... the concepts of sin.
And for what it's worth... I though all Popes were generally lefties.
I like the Popes. They're, obviously, dogmatic to the traditions of Catholicism... as such, those views can be diametrically opposed to ideals of Western nations.
Case in point: Do you think we'd ever get to the point of abolishing both the Death Penalty and Abortions?
The practical matter is that unchecked capitalism and socialism is neigh impossible. The deliberations has always been, how far do you want that pendulum to shift (ie, how close to the capitalist/socialist model do you advocate). However, I will argue that the Church (or any pious organizations for that matter), advocating for social policies is a good thing.
We don't need an echo chamber... we should be challenged to approach the issues of our days with good intentions.
You're making hilariously inaccurate statements about something you don't know enough about and I called you out on it. Don't get pissy with me because you were wrong.
I like the Popes. They're, obviously, dogmatic to the traditions of Catholicism... as such, those views can be diametrically opposed to ideals of Western nations.
Case in point: Do you think we'd ever get to the point of abolishing both the Death Penalty and Abortions?
The practical matter is that unchecked capitalism and socialism is neigh impossible. The deliberations has always been, how far do you want that pendulum to shift (ie, how close to the capitalist/socialist model do you advocate). However, I will argue that the Church (or any pious organizations for that matter), advocating for social policies is a good thing.
We don't need an echo chamber... we should be challenged to approach the issues of our days with good intentions.
I'm not going to argue with you over the virtues of the Church and whether or not they're good for America (besides, the Church's social doctrines stand above the the economic systems of man), but just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them "diametrically opposed" to the ideals of Western nations (or make them "socialist" or "liberal" or whatever term you want to use for gak you don't like). Further, Pope Francis condemns the ethics of modern capitalism and consumerism: "The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us." There are victims of free-market capitalism and the Church both calls on the faithful to help them and the leaders of nations to right the course. The Church took the same stance against communism during the Cold War and will again take a similar stance when the next economic institution begins to victimize the less fortunate.
Anyways, sorry I wasted your time... Please return to your regularly scheduled program of the next HRC scandal.
You're making hilariously inaccurate statements about something you don't know enough about and I called you out on it. Don't get pissy with me because you were wrong.
I like the Popes. They're, obviously, dogmatic to the traditions of Catholicism... as such, those views can be diametrically opposed to ideals of Western nations.
Case in point: Do you think we'd ever get to the point of abolishing both the Death Penalty and Abortions?
The practical matter is that unchecked capitalism and socialism is neigh impossible. The deliberations has always been, how far do you want that pendulum to shift (ie, how close to the capitalist/socialist model do you advocate). However, I will argue that the Church (or any pious organizations for that matter), advocating for social policies is a good thing.
We don't need an echo chamber... we should be challenged to approach the issues of our days with good intentions.
I'm not going to argue with you over the virtues of the Church and whether or not they're good for America (besides, the Church's social doctrines stand above the the economic systems of man), but just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them "diametrically opposed" to the ideals of Western nations (or make them "socialist" or "liberal" or whatever term you want to use for gak you don't like). Further, Pope Francis condemns the ethics of modern capitalism and consumerism: "The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us." There are victims of free-market capitalism and the Church both calls on the faithful to help them and the leaders of nations to right the course. The Church took the same stance against communism during the Cold War and will again take a similar stance when the next economic institution begins to victimize the less fortunate.
Anyways, sorry I wasted your time...
Hey... I'll leave that between you and Manchu.
Please return to your regularly scheduled program of the next HRC scandal.
The Pope's visit isn't really about how much power and influence he directly commands. The handful of Catholic congress critters and the Catholic voters aren't going to base any decisions directly on what the Pope commands. The Pope's influence is more that he's a major world leader, and one that commands a lot of interest and respect. And he happens to use that platform quite skillfully to argue for positions he believes are important.
So you won't see anyone, Catholics or otherwise, saying 'well the Pope said it so now I have to vote like this'... but it's more that the Pope will raise issues and it will lead to them being discussed a little more than they might have been, and maybe even discussed in a different light. It won't change the world, but most things don't.
I'm disappointed that the Pope's visit to Congress passed without incident. I was expecting at least one Republican to do something crazy, like say, citizen's arrest or vomit all over him or something
The FBI is investigating how and why classified information ended up on Clinton’s server. The probe probably will take at least several more months, according to the person, who described the matter on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing and deals with sensitive information.
We want to know why she might have had information she shouldn't have had on there, but keep my name out of this because I shouldn't be talking about it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm disappointed that the Pope's visit to Congress passed without incident. I was expecting at least one Republican to do something crazy, like say, citizen's arrest or vomit all over him or something
I thought Juilian Assange said the Pope was going to tell the world aliens exist?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm disappointed that the Pope's visit to Congress passed without incident. I was expecting at least one Republican to do something crazy, like say, citizen's arrest or vomit all over him or something
I an honestly amazed that almost everybody seem to have shown enough intelligence and self control to keep their mouths shut. And that really is the best strategy: let the Pope say his thing, and move on. Particular when this Pope's approval rating is at least 3-4 times that of Congress's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Speaker John A. Boehner finally realizing it is time to move on.
House Speaker a John A. Boehner told members of his party in a Friday morning meeting in the Capitol that he will step down at the end of October.
I'm not surprised. There's a good chance we may have another government shutdown this October 1, and if so, it looks like it'll be the House's fault, not the Senate's. I read that the House Republicans are even more divided than the Senate over the upcoming continuing resolution (because Congress can't ever seem to do it's one job: pass a damned budget). And Boehner is probably going to take the heat for it, despite his best attempts otherwise.
At least I get paid tomorrow, so my bills for the month will be covered if the shutdown lasts more than a week or two.
My guess is this means Boehner is going to allow a vote and with the help of the Dems will pass a funding bill. Of course, this means he knows he will be challenged by irate members in his party so he announced his stepping down to cut it off right away. Looks to be the responsible move on his part. I think he could have been a really good speaker and gotten a lot done had he not had to babysit the extreme fringe of his caucus constantly.
Edit: after having read the story linked above, I suppose it isn't much of a guess...so yeah, read the story first Gordo
Co'tor Shas wrote: Huh, well he wasn't insane, I'll give him that. And he certainly tired to keep some of the crazy in line.
I wonder who the next one will be.
It's a sorry state of affairs if the best thing you can say about the speaker is that he's not insane!
American politics can't be that bad?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: My guess is this means Boehner is going to allow a vote and with the help of the Dems will pass a funding bill. Of course, this means he knows he will be challenged by irate members in his party so he announced his stepping down to cut it off right away. Looks to be the responsible move on his part. I think he could have been a really good speaker and gotten a lot done had he not had to babysit the extreme fringe of his caucus constantly.
Edit: after having read the story linked above, I suppose it isn't much of a guess...so yeah, read the story first Gordo
Are you claiming credit for something somebody else said?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm disappointed that the Pope's visit to Congress passed without incident. I was expecting at least one Republican to do something crazy, like say, citizen's arrest or vomit all over him or something
I an honestly amazed that almost everybody seem to have shown enough intelligence and self control to keep their mouths shut. And that really is the best strategy: let the Pope say his thing, and move on. Particular when this Pope's approval rating is at least 3-4 times that of Congress's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Speaker John A. Boehner finally realizing it is time to move on.
House Speaker a John A. Boehner told members of his party in a Friday morning meeting in the Capitol that he will step down at the end of October.
I'm not surprised. There's a good chance we may have another government shutdown this October 1, and if so, it looks like it'll be the House's fault, not the Senate's. I read that the House Republicans are even more divided than the Senate over the upcoming continuing resolution (because Congress can't ever seem to do it's one job: pass a damned budget). And Boehner is probably going to take the heat for it, despite his best attempts otherwise.
At least I get paid tomorrow, so my bills for the month will be covered if the shutdown lasts more than a week or two.
Friend of mine will be visiting the USA around that time.
We're not going to be seeing a repeat of the museums, historic sites, and national parks shut down again, are we?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm disappointed that the Pope's visit to Congress passed without incident. I was expecting at least one Republican to do something crazy, like say, citizen's arrest or vomit all over him or something
I thought Juilian Assange said the Pope was going to tell the world aliens exist?
That's David Icke's job
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well, I disagreed with him politically on almost everything. That's not a bad thing, just not a good thing for me, personally.
And the fact that his name always made me laugh like a juvenile
Edit: eh, nevermind, pointless exposition at this time
Edit of my edit: I'm personally not convinced that Boehner stepping down somehow magically means a clean CR will pass the House. There's something else going on.
I think this will hurt the GOP in the long run. He is good enough of a politician who managed to minimize some of the damage the hardcore members were willing to dish out, but with him gone the nation will see what it is like to have the "new" GOP govern and I don't think they will like it.
, I was about to link him that Forbes magazine article which I was basing my post on actually, not the silliness of trump, but her actual track record. She came out of that mess smelling pretty sweet according to her sign on deal/compensation and severance packs, and that is why CEOs are getting looked at closely these days, those insane packages!
