The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

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.

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

My objection is gubmint folks saying you must take it in the ass and do what I say.

If my physician recommends it... GREAT! Sign me up.

Cool but in that case your mouthbreathers don't get to be around everyone else in school.

This.

People against being vaccinated for anything other than medical reasons should be excluded. No ifs or buts.

Further, there are several vaccinations that require booster shots. As you near the booster period, your immunity weakens. One of these mouthbreathers got in GC's school and infected a bunch of them with whooping cough Thanks donkey-cave.

**cincydooley**

Prestor Jon wrote:

The real conservative position is to not have the govt be involved in licensing marriages at all. Unfortunately we're several decades too late to have a realistic chance of extracting the social engineering out of the tax code.

No kidding.

Too bad, too.

**dogma**

Prestor Jon wrote:
That said, it's not illegal not to get your kids vaccinated so the govt has no right to try to punish people for not doing it by withholding services like public education, etc. Having a govt that actively tries to oppress you because they disagree with your personal choices is not a good way to run a free country.

The refusal to vaccinate children is a public health issue, and therefore a matter which the state needs to address.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
That said, it's not illegal not to get your kids vaccinated so the govt has no right to try to punish people for not doing it by withholding services like public education, etc. Having a govt that actively tries to oppress you because they disagree with your personal choices is not a good way to run a free country.

The refusal to vaccinate children is a public health issue, and therefore a matter which the state needs to address.

Like I said... I really didn't have an issue about it per se.

Perry did have a mea culpa and the opponents were mostly mollified.

I'm curious if he recieved any substantial political contributions from the drug manufacturer Merck.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.

She won the popular vote in 2008.

whembly wrote:

I'm curious if he recieved any substantial political contributions from the drug manufacturer Merck.

He did. Why are you curious? HPV vaccines are good.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.

She won the popular vote in 2008.

For what? She lost the Presidential run.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

For what? She lost the Presidential run.

The Democratic primary. Obama won due to superdelegates and the nominal delegate count, but Hillary won the popular vote.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

For what? She lost the Presidential run.

The Democratic primary. Obama won due to superdelegates and the nominal delegate count, but Hillary won the popular vote.

Can you show a link to that? I did not think that was possible.

**dogma**

Sure.

**Frazzled**

thanks!

**Kap'n Krump**

I thought their race was close, but I didn't think it was THAT close. Wow.

**d-usa**

cincydooley wrote:
The biggest problem the GOP is going to continue to have is that many conservative males between the ages 25-40 (like myself) are too much RINOs to the hardliners, to whom, for whatever reason, the GOP likes to cater.

Honestly, I'll never understand it because those far right hardliners simply aren't going to vote Democrat. They're not. So why not appeal to those of us that fall in the Libertarian camp? Those of us that, for lack of better phrasing, don't give a gak what people do in the privacy of their own home.

I've always though the best move for the GOP is to push for marriage equality harder than the left. Because there are plenty of homosexuals that vote left on this sole issue, despite being fiscally conservative.

The whole "we gotta rally the base" thing will bite the GOP in the ass until they realize that the base will always vote for you simply because you are running against a democrat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kap'n Krump wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.

Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.

I agree that she won't get 50% of the population, but she will likely have an "in" with 50% of the population. If even a quarter of women vote for her based on gender, that's about the same 13% of the black vote Obama got, which was enough to for him to get ahead.

And it's true she didn't win the democratic ticket v. Obama, but as I recall, she was a very close second.

Time will certainly tell, though, one way or the other.

If you spend 5 minutes looking at the voting patterns of he African-American voting bloc you quickly realize that this argument is a myth.

The hey voted for Obama because he was a democrat, same reason they voted in every other election.

**Frazzled**

Well, often the Base doesn't vote.

**dogma**

d-usa wrote:

The whole "we gotta rally the base" thing will bite the GOP in the ass until they realize that the base will always vote for you simply because you are running against a democrat.

It isn't really about who your base votes for, regardless of party, it is about whether or not its members vote.

**Jihadin**

Two years is plenty of time for someone to become the village idiot. Two years is plenty of time to find those focus points that is the current concern Americans have in mind. Two years ISIS role might swing voters, border security issue might swing it, benefits might swing it, etc etc etc

Two years of gotcha politics.

Side Note
I see the keystone Pipeline Bill was passed in the Senate.

**Easy E**

Winning elections now days are ALL about mobilizing your base.

Swing voters don't matter.

**dogma**

Easy E wrote:
Winning elections now days are ALL about mobilizing your base.

Swing voters don't matter.

That depends on the election. Local elections often depend on swing votes a lot, as do primaries.

**Ensis Ferrae**

squidhills wrote:
Hillary Clinton is unelectable as president. I say that as a card-carrying liberal Democrat.

Hillary's problem is that every single man, woman, child, and house pet in the country knows *exactly* what they think of her. She has a 0% chance to win over any of her detractors, and she can't win over an undecided, because there aren't any when it comes to her. Everybody (or as near to "everybody" as makes no odds) has already formed their opinion of Hillary Clinton. The Dems need to run somebody that 100% of the country hasn't heard of and decided whether they like or dislike already. They need a candidate that is known in one part of the country (so he or she has a support base), who they can "introduce" to the rest of the U.S. during the campaign.

The Dems have the problem of not having anyone seriously considering a run, because it is assumed Hillary is the lock. The Republicans have the problem of everyone considering a run because nobody is the lock. If Hillary runs, I will be very surprised if the Republicans don't win the 2016 election.

This....

It's because, as much as having a female as president is "new", Hillary isn't new in National politics. She has the Clinton name, she has time in various offices (aka, a record that people can pull the negative out of), and she has Benghazi on her name... Now, obviously we had a whole thread on Benghazi, so we don't need to discuss it, but I'd be very surprised if Republicans DIDN't use that against her (for right or wrong)

Personally, I'd like to see the Republicans put forward a "JFK" type... young, "brash" and not so completely indoctrinated/neck deep in Washington BS. I'm talking a guy/gal who is right near the Constitutional limit for Presidency as far as age is concerned.

**Jihadin**

If ISIS manages to pull an attack off on mainland US of A in the next two years or North Korea (whoever does the hack) shuts down a power grids going to influence individuals choice on who to vote for.

**whembly**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
squidhills wrote:
Hillary Clinton is unelectable as president. I say that as a card-carrying liberal Democrat.

Hillary's problem is that every single man, woman, child, and house pet in the country knows *exactly* what they think of her. She has a 0% chance to win over any of her detractors, and she can't win over an undecided, because there aren't any when it comes to her. Everybody (or as near to "everybody" as makes no odds) has already formed their opinion of Hillary Clinton. The Dems need to run somebody that 100% of the country hasn't heard of and decided whether they like or dislike already. They need a candidate that is known in one part of the country (so he or she has a support base), who they can "introduce" to the rest of the U.S. during the campaign.

The Dems have the problem of not having anyone seriously considering a run, because it is assumed Hillary is the lock. The Republicans have the problem of everyone considering a run because nobody is the lock. If Hillary runs, I will be very surprised if the Republicans don't win the 2016 election.

This....

It's because, as much as having a female as president is "new", Hillary isn't new in National politics. She has the Clinton name, she has time in various offices (aka, a record that people can pull the negative out of), and she has Benghazi on her name... Now, obviously we had a whole thread on Benghazi, so we don't need to discuss it, but I'd be very surprised if Republicans DIDN't use that against her (for right or wrong)

Eh... the Republicans will keep the 'ghazi fire going, but it won't shift anything unless there's a bombshell.

*shrug*

I think that since there's not another *strong* candidate, the Democratic voters would rally around Hillary.

Personally, I'd like to see the Republicans put forward a "JFK" type... young, "brash" and not so completely indoctrinated/neck deep in Washington BS. I'm talking a guy/gal who is right near the Constitutional limit for Presidency as far as age is concerned.

Walker?

Rand Paul?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
If ISIS manages to pull an attack off on mainland US of A in the next two years or North Korea (whoever does the hack) shuts down a power grids going to influence individuals choice on who to vote for.

O.o

Wut?

Do you see that as a possibility?

*glances at my bugout bag*

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Walker?

Rand Paul?

Rand Paul is extremely well entrenched in Washington politics*, which makes his attempt to mock Clinton and Bush for being members of dynasties pretty amusing.

I would also argue that Walker's own political experience prevents him from characterizing himself as an outsider, but then I think anyone who tries to characterize himself as an outsider while running for any office is an idiot.

*He's not only a Senator, but the son of a former Congressman and Presidential candidate.

**whembly**

Good point dogma.

I'd still say "ex-Governors" make better Prez.

My twittah feeds is going ape-gak now... Romney is announce whether or not he's running again?

O.o

**Frazzled**

He's not running. His campaign people are switching to Bush like right now in real time.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
He's not running.

Good!

His campaign people are switching to Bush like right now in real time.

Ugh.

**Frazzled**

Called it!

Lucianne.com is saying he's announced he's not running.

**sirlynchmob**

Prestor Jon wrote:

It's stupid not to get your kids vaccinated so that they don't contract serious potentially fatal illnesses. That said, it's not illegal not to get your kids vaccinated so the govt has no right to try to punish people for not doing it by withholding services like public education, etc. Having a govt that actively tries to oppress you because they disagree with your personal choices is not a good way to run a free country.

The real conservative position is to not have the govt be involved in licensing marriages at all. Unfortunately we're several decades too late to have a realistic chance of extracting the social engineering out of the tax code.

The government can and should force people to get them. We punish those who try to faith heal their kids instead of taking them to a doctor. If a parent doesn't get their kids vaccinated they should be charged with neglect as well. It's this notion that vaccines should be a choice which has lead to diseases that were claimed eradicated making a come back.

fun fact about marriage licenses, they were pushed onto the government by the conservatives of the day, as a way to discriminate against interracial couples.

I'd like to see - Elizabeth Warren run. The republicans nomination process should be pure comedic gold especially with mama bear wanting to run

**Frazzled**

Isn't Elizabeth Warren the one who claimed she was native american to get tenure but turns out she's whiter than whiteout?

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
Isn't Elizabeth Warren the one who claimed she was native american to get tenure but turns out she's whiter than whiteout?

That's the one...

She's also even more liberal and populist than Obama.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Isn't Elizabeth Warren the one who claimed she was native american to get tenure but turns out she's whiter than whiteout?

Not the way you describe, no.

She claims that she was Native American, but only was able to offer a poorly documented 1/32 bloodline , and that's not enough to legally be classified as a Cherokee, which is the tribe she claims to be of. Even if her 1/32 claim is rock solid - and it totally isn't - you must be 1/16th.

There's no evidence that this factored into her gaining tenure, or that she attempted to leverage it in attempt to do so. It's just the standard way of casting shade on someone's accomplishments, as it was claimed that Barack Obama was a product of affirmative action (pro-tip: being black and bright might get you into Harvard, but it won't graduate you magna cum laude)

There's an article here if you wish to read it that lays it out pretty well.

i'm sure this meme will keep recurring anyway, though.

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
Isn't Elizabeth Warren the one who claimed she was native american to get tenure but turns out she's whiter than whiteout?

close, she claimed she has native american ancestry. but according to snopes that accusation is unproven:
http://www.snopes.com/Politics/politicians/warren.asp

My wife is whiter than whiteout, and her grandma still has the X>% to claim native american, but after 2 more generations my wife fell below that percentage. So my wife does have native american ancestry, just not enough to receive the benefits associated with it.

The same may or may not be true for Warren.

I always found the term native american odd. I was born in america, so I am a native american right? well no. It's really odd when you think of all the people who claim to be americans, yet only a small portion are actually native americans.