Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/11 18:47:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Too bad. Out of the frontrunners, I liked Rubio. So that pretty much leaves Bush, Cruz, and Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the nation doesn't need another Bush. Cruz is self-aggrandizing and quite happy to willfully alienate people he'll need in order to be an effective President. Trump is a populist and his "true self" is hidden and that scares me because we really don't know what we'll have should he actually become President.
Trump would most likely be a pro-business pragmatist, as I can pretty much guarantee that most of the ridiculous crap he has said is part of a campaign act. Honestly, I think he would be a better President than Cruz if only because the few policies he has explicitly attached himself to play well with the vast majority of Republicans, while Cruz's policy positions and unwillingness to negotiate within his own Party have served to alienate a large chunk of it; something that would only get worse if he were standing in the Oval Office.
A Jeb Administration would likely be much like a combination of the George W. and George H.W. Administrations, as he seems to sit between the two in terms of both personality and political positions. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could easily lead him into being a one term President for many of the same reasons that his father was.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/11 19:24:18
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/02/11 19:27:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: I do wonder if Christie would have chosen to pillory Rubio if he knew the he himself was going to drop out only several days later.
That was all grandstanding for a VP slot. He has now proven he can be a vicious attack dog on the campaign trail, so the actual candidate won't have to sully themselves with such tactics.
This really only works if Bush is the Nominee, and that is what Christie is betting on. The Establishment not going with Cruz or Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/11 19:28:37
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2016/02/11 19:32:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
Too bad. Out of the frontrunners, I liked Rubio. So that pretty much leaves Bush, Cruz, and Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the nation doesn't need another Bush. Cruz is self-aggrandizing and quite happy to willfully alienate people he'll need in order to be an effective President. Trump is a populist and his "true self" is hidden and that scares me because we really don't know what we'll have should he actually become President.
Well, even if there is something in Rubio to like, he's just not the kind of dude we want in the White House. I mean, you all saw the debate. Nothing needs to really be said.
The real writing in the wall IMO is in the stories that came out about his panic attacks, and these stories are coming from his supporters. I have loads of empathy for people with anxiety problems, and I don't think people should be looked down upon for having panic attacks, but at the same time, I really don't think someone with those particular issues and challenges should be running the country.
So Trump or Cruz?
While neither are an optimal choice, I think I prefer Cruz because he's a known element. I just can't see which way Trump will go on too many issues.
2016/02/12 00:20:46
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Well I wouldn't for a moment think Iran might be exaggerating a bit
But I think it was patently obvious from the get go that the GOP was exceptionally eager to turn a fairly mundane international scuffle into some kind of "Obama has betrayed AMERICA!" As if Benghazi and all this other nonsense they've been shuffling around hasn't already made it apparent the GOP will invent scandal when they can't find any. EDIT: And they did the same thing with the US navy patrol boat just a few weeks ago.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/12 00:25:03
Oh I have no doubt the GOP would use the prisoner transfer as a toy to score political points and I think they did. But I doubt they really wanted to extend it all the way to election day. Having the transfer negotiated at a different time than the Nuclear Treaty would have given them fuel to undermine and criticize the deal more than they already have. Beyond that, I doubt the GOP cared when the transfer happened, so long as they could get it on a different timeline.
I wouldn't doubt it. There are historians and political scientists that believe the GOP backroom negotiated the hostage crisis of 1979 to have it stall until elections, helping Reagan take the win.
If the GOP wanted another perfect 'October Surprise' courtesy of Iran that would have been the event.
Of course if Iran presented the evidence, that would be a real email scandal lmao.
2016/02/12 03:25:23
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
CptJake said 'another' 4-5 million. Which only works if the US health system currently employs zero people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Well, you look at the biggest chunk of Discretionary Spending, and that is where you have the most room to impact the budget overall by applying cuts. Now, I don't have the graph in front of me, but we can quickly find what big discretionary spending blocks get to 80% and that is where you have room to cut and make an impact. if you cut into the other stuff you are just moving deck chairs around.
Granted, it is WAY more complicated than that. I look forward to you tearing me apart on the subject.
Not at all. I agree with you entirely on finding the bulk of savings from the large ticket items. I actually spent about an hour last week in a meeting with our executive, trying to tell them over and over again that there’s simply no way we return to surplus by only cutting materials expenses. 75% of our costs are salaries, therefore…
I still don’t get how Pareto fits in to it, but that might just be me having a very dumb moment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
Timing is everything. For Rubio it wasn’t just Christie’s attack and Rubio weird non-decision to just keep doing it, it was that it came for Rubio after his second place finish, when lots of voters were looking at him for the first time. The first thing they saw was Rubio being shown as an empty suit. The fact that it was funny meant it got even bigger.
But it wasn’t a complete story until his fifth place in New Hampshire. That lead to Rubio immediately being given the easy narrative – rise, gaffe, collapse. But that narrative only works when you look at his placing, if you look at the actual poll numbers its Trump winning by a mile, Kasich in a comfortable second, then a logjam of Cruz, Bush and Rubio all a bit over 10%. If Rubio had scored another 1.2% he’d have finished in third, and then the story would be Rubio as the standout to challenge Trump.
Weirdly enough, Bush has now had two mediocre results, barely finished ahead of Rubio in NH, and he’s getting talked about as the guy with momentum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I'm just hoping that the "anti-Trump" wins the nomination as Trump is the only candidate at the moment who loses to Clinton/Sanders in the general.
That's way too speculative right now. One of the things about the Trump nonsense is there's been barely any time spent on any other candidate, for good or for bad. Rubio travelled along nicely for months, had three days of spotlight after the first primary, and then look at what happened. Whereas Clinton has been under the spotlight since 1992.
So pointing out that Clinton loses to Cruz or anyone else right now is forgetting that there'll be a long, long campaign season where Cruz or anyone else will have a whole new host of attacks on them.
Obama is probably the best example. His star shone bright early in the primary, with some excellent results, but quick enough the attacks came, Ayers etc, and in the end it was only through a better delegates campaign he snuck over the line. If one of the not-Trump candidates starts to become the clear opposition, watch for the same to happen. ANd keep that in mind when looking at any polling that says 'will this Republican we the general public knows almost nothing about beat Clinton?'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I do wonder if Christie would have chosen to pillory Rubio if he knew the he himself was going to drop out only several days later.
I wonder if Christie’s decision not to go after Trump for his lie about ‘New Jersey muslims cheering’ was playing on his mind. He didn’t want to miss a second chance to take down a rival, even though it was probably too late for him.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/12 04:04:41
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/12 06:37:47
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
For a guy who prides himself as a politician who tells it how it is, his failure to denounce Trump making a a political attack on the constituents of the state he represents revealed a lack of character. That it wasn't even true made it a shameful lack of character.
But hey, why look out for the people who voted you into the office and pay your salary when you can maybe try to hook yourself a low-level cabinet position in a hypothetical Trump administration, right?
feth Chris Christie right in his fat face-hole.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/02/12 08:27:48
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: For a guy who prides himself as a politician who tells it how it is, his failure to denounce Trump making a a political attack on the constituents of the state he represents revealed a lack of character. That it wasn't even true made it a shameful lack of character.
But hey, why look out for the people who voted you into the office and pay your salary when you can maybe try to hook yourself a low-level cabinet position in a hypothetical Trump administration, right?
feth Chris Christie right in his fat face-hole.
Yeah, maybe Christie was chasing a position in Trump's admin. But Trump made the claim late last year, Trump was leading in polls then but I think the common expectation at that time was that Trump was going to flame out soon enough. So perhaps Christie was playing that game most Republicans played for too long, hoping that they could pick up Trump supporters when he imploded?
Whatever Christie’s political calculation was, the end result was exactly as shameful as you say. And what adds to it is how easily one single, mostly comical attack worked on Rubio. I’m left to wonder if a similarly pointed attack on Trump back in November might have sunk him.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/12 09:28:08
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It wasn't CptJake that came up with that number, Seb, it was me.
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
That 1.5million includes all the doctors, nurses, technicians etc. in the NHS, though.
So it is not like the UK is employing 1.5million bureaucrats as people seemed to think.
According to US Bureau of Labour statistics, about 16.6 million people are employed in healthcare and social assistance in production and non-supervisory roles (i.e. they are workers not managers.) About another 2.2 million are employed as supervisors.
Anyone hoping for a Democratic brokered convention??
My brain hooked on Deb's:
superdelegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.
Wut?
Then again... the party can do whatever they want in their Primary elections.
*Shrugs*
Maybe a better reply would be that the delegates were redistributed from the big winner to the big loser? It's the same kind of “fairness” the Democrat preaches with every other things they demand... right???
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/12 15:52:48
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
superdelegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.
Wut?
Well, yeah. Why did you think that they existed? Bear in mind that Republican superdelegates must commit their votes to the majority candidate for pretty much the same reason, the GOP doesn't want another Ron Paul.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/12 16:23:39
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
superdelegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.
Wut?
Well, yeah. Why did you think that they existed? Bear in mind that Republican superdelegates must commit their votes to the majority candidate for pretty much the same reason, the GOP doesn't want another Ron Paul.
Just didn't think she'd be so honest.
I guarantee you that most primary voters are unaware of this...
I think my math is right (feel free to correct), but Hillary can still get the nomination even if she gets 42% of the popular vote in the primary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/12 16:24:04
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/12 16:31:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I don't like Rubio at all, but I also don't think public speaking difficulties are really such a big deal for a leader. Lots of really successful and awesome people have anxiety about speaking in public.
The Republican field is pretty friggin' dismal. Cruz is a lying sleazy scumbag who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw Christie, Trump is Trump, and Rubio is an empty suit.
That said, I dislike Clinton quite a lot too, but don't think that Bernie Sanders would win against Cruz or Rubio (who are the likely Republican nominees). Pretty crappy all round, though it is very encouraging that a self proclaimed socialist could get as far as Bernie has gotten - maybe a sign that US politics is slowly waking up to the fact that the Cold War is over, and there are no Reds under their Beds.
So, the Dem Debate. Was there a knock-out punch there? Did Bernie get out his message enough for Southern/Western states? Did Hilary manage to make Bernie look bad on Foreign Policy?
Your thoughts? I did not get to see it.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2016/02/12 17:33:01
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
CptJake said 'another' 4-5 million. Which only works if the US health system currently employs zero people.
No, CptJake used the number Do_I_Not_Like_That provided, just as Do_I_Not_Like_That said I did. The 'Another' was referencing adding that 4-5 million to the Fed Govt, just as Do_I_Not_Like_That implied you would have to do.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/02/12 19:38:28
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ted Cruz campaign pulls ad after learning actress did porn
The Ted Cruz presidential campaign pulled a recent advertisement after realizing that one of its actresses appeared in adult films.
In “Conservatives Anonymous,” which parodies Alcoholics Anonymous, a group of conservatives meets to discuss feelings of betrayal after voting for candidates who profess to stand for conservative values but swiftly compromise after arriving in Washington, D.C.
Actress Amy Lindsay has a speaking role in the TV spot for the Texas senator’s presidential campaign, telling another conservative, “Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time.”
At the end of the ad, a new arrival enters the room wearing a shirt in support of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, asking if the group has room for one more.
Actress Amy Lindsay speaks in an ad for Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign. (Photo: Ted Cruz for President/YouTube)
The Daily Caller was among the first to report that Lindsay has had an extensive career in soft-core pornography, appearing in “Erotic Confessions,” “Insatiable Obsession,” “Secrets of a Chambermaid” and other similar titles.
Catherine Frazier, the national press secretary for the Cruz campaign, told the news site in a statement that they were unaware of her erotic past before releasing the ad.
“The actress responded to an open casting call,” the statement reads. “She passed her audition and got the job. Unfortunately, she was not vetted by the casting company. Had the campaign known of her full filmography, we obviously would not have let her appear in the ad. The campaign is taking the ad down and will replace it with a different commercial.”
After the clip was taken off YouTube, the Los Angeles-based actress tweeted that she was disappointed in the campaign’s decision.
“Extremely disappointed the #TedCruz campaign pulled the national television spot I had a role in,” she tweeted.
According to her IMDB page, Lindsay has also appeared in non-erotic, mainstream TV series and films, such as “Star Trek: Voyager” and “The Portrait of a Lady.”
She told BuzzFeed News that she is a conservative Christian and a Republican and has not performed in hardcore porn films.
The actress said that her appearance in Cruz’s ad is actually cool because it shows that not all Republicans fit neatly into a stereotype.
“In a cool way, then hey, then it’s not just some old, white Christian bigot that people want to say, ‘It could be, maybe, a cool kind of open-minded woman like me,’” she said to BuzzFeed of Cruz supporters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/12 19:42:28
2016/02/12 22:51:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Da Boss wrote: I don't like Rubio at all, but I also don't think public speaking difficulties are really such a big deal for a leader. Lots of really successful and awesome people have anxiety about speaking in public.
Yep... Just look at that poor Austrian painter dude... He majorly screws up one speech, and is laughed out of the spotlight. But he doesn't give up. No, he bootstraps himself so hard that, by the time he's ready for the public spotlight again, he's one of the best public speakers in the world!
Bootstraps!
I think that many people who don't like Rubio could care less about his public speaking abilities, or lack thereof. They care more about the empty shell style of politics where he has no real stances, except where the money takes him.
2016/02/12 23:16:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think that many people who don't like Rubio could care less about his public speaking abilities, or lack thereof. They care more about the empty shell style of politics where he has no real stances, except where the money takes him.
I disagree with that premise...
If anyone's the "empty suit", it's both Trump and Clinton.
Rubio/Cruz/Bush are solid conservatives, just as Clinton/Sanders are solid liberals (Sanders 'proud' lefty).
The contrast couldn't be more apparent.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/12 23:24:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Why not? Sanders is damn new off the chart on the political spectrum here in the states. And, he's not shy in telling anyone who'd listen.
Also, why would someone working in soft porn even be an issue? I don't get it.
I don't agree with this decision, but understand where they're coming from. The Cruz campaign is try hard to go after the evangelicals (via the Reagan strategy) and they're still the "no bewbs or arses on teevees" crowd.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/12 23:32:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Why not? Sanders is damn new off the chart on the political spectrum here in the states. And, he's not shy in telling anyone who'd listen.
If Sanders is actually proud of being extremely liberal, then placing the word "proud" in quotations doesn't make sense as quotations are used to separate a term from the overall structure of a sentence or indicate sarcasm. By placing the word "proud" in quotations you're effectively indicating that Sanders is not proud to be very liberal, and is in fact full of gak; which doesn't seem to jive with what you've just written.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/13 00:34:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think that many people who don't like Rubio could care less about his public speaking abilities, or lack thereof. They care more about the empty shell style of politics where he has no real stances, except where the money takes him.
I disagree with that premise...
If anyone's the "empty suit", it's both Trump and Clinton.
Rubio/Cruz/Bush are solid conservatives, just as Clinton/Sanders are solid liberals (Sanders 'proud' lefty).
The contrast couldn't be more apparent.
Being called out, by Christie of all candidates for using canned responses/talking point responses would be my definition of an empty suit. Yes, he's in a situation where he has to say just about anything to remain relevant and try to get elected, but for many people, it doesn't get much worse than resorting to old "that's what she said" type responses (in this case, I'm using "That's what she said" as a euphemism for an old and tired line that in itself has become rather canned/generic)
