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.

**Jihadin**

Joe Biden might announce later down the road but currently he's involve in a pacifier issue

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Jihadin wrote:
Joe Biden might announce later down the road but currently he's involve in a pacifier issue

I thought there was an act of Congress that prevented Joe Biden from ever becoming president?

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I've said this before, but I've always seen the Republicans as champions of individual liberty. So why aren't they defending people's right to marry who they want? Why is America, the land of freedom, not allowing people the right to ingest whatever drugs they want? Yeah, I know about those 2 states allowing marijuana, but why aren't the Republicans championing this nationwide?

It's all very strange...

That's because the current GOP leaderships are cowards.... simply stated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Honestly, the US is this weird mix of extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism. It's always been a dynamic country, and probably always will be.

That's certainly true... but, if we're talking about actual political parties, one of the best description I've heard is this:

We have a tea-party movement (and other "groups" like NRA), a raucous / rivalrous gang of independent groups, precisely because GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs. Left-leaning PACs and independent groups are a supplement to the Democrats’ machine; right-leaning groups are an alternative to the Republicans’ machine.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I've said this before, but I've always seen the Republicans as champions of individual liberty. So why aren't they defending people's right to marry who they want? Why is America, the land of freedom, not allowing people the right to ingest whatever drugs they want? Yeah, I know about those 2 states allowing marijuana, but why aren't the Republicans championing this nationwide?

It's all very strange...

That's because the current GOP leaderships are cowards.... simply stated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Honestly, the US is this weird mix of extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism. It's always been a dynamic country, and probably always will be.

That's certainly true... but, if we're talking about actual political parties, one of the best description I've heard is this:

We have a tea-party movement (and other "groups" like NRA), a raucous / rivalrous gang of independent groups, precisely because GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs. Left-leaning PACs and independent groups are a supplement to the Democrats’ machine; right-leaning groups are an alternative to the Republicans’ machine.

Here's a question for you, or for anybody else who can answer.

If Hilary becomes President, what do we call Bill? First Husband, First Man, First master, First Dude, First Duke, First Mr President

Honestly, I've searching the web all day looking for an answer to this, and most people are stumped.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

That's certainly true... but, if we're talking about actual political parties, one of the best description I've heard is this:

We have a tea-party movement (and other "groups" like NRA), a raucous / rivalrous gang of independent groups, precisely because GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs. Left-leaning PACs and independent groups are a supplement to the Democrats’ machine; right-leaning groups are an alternative to the Republicans’ machine.

Why is the NRA characterized as a "group", and not just a group? It has a formal list of members who have to pay membership fees. Its loose affiliation with the GOP is not distinct from the loose affiliation of any left-leaning group has with the Democratic Party, of which there are many.

That quote seems like a really lame excuse for why the GOP is in trouble.

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Here's a question for you, or for anybody else who can answer.

If Hilary becomes President, what do we call Bill? First Husband, First Man, First master, First Dude, First Duke, First Mr President

Honestly, I've searching the web all day looking for an answer to this, and most people are stumped.

First Husband.

Although, when Sara Palin was a gov... her hubby was called "First Dude".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

That's certainly true... but, if we're talking about actual political parties, one of the best description I've heard is this:

We have a tea-party movement (and other "groups" like NRA), a raucous / rivalrous gang of independent groups, precisely because GOP leaders cannot exercise the sort of control over their coalition that Democrats do over theirs. Left-leaning PACs and independent groups are a supplement to the Democrats’ machine; right-leaning groups are an alternative to the Republicans’ machine.

Why is the NRA characterized as a "group", and not just a group? It has a formal list of members who have to pay membership fees. Its loose affiliation with the GOP is not distinct from the loose affiliation of any left-leaning group has with the Democratic Party, of which there are many.

That quote seems like a really lame excuse for why the GOP is in trouble.

That got your panties bunched up? O.o

This is a distinction... you either missed it or willfully ignore it.

Are there any typical Democrat-leaning groups that vexes the Democratic Leadership?

**Ouze**

On the style issue, I suspect the correct answer is "First Gentlemen", although the custom is usually to use the former title for a ex-president (i.e President Bush instead of Mr. Bush).

I disagree with that custom, because in my mind it then becomes akin to a title of nobility, which the US does not bequeath. That custom will become especially difficult, thankfully, if Hillary wins since you can't have to Presidents Clinton.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
On the style issue, I suspect the correct answer is "First Gentlemen", although the custom is usually to use the former title for a ex-president (i.e President Bush instead of Mr. Bush).

I disagree with that custom, because in my mind it then becomes akin to a title of nobility, which the US does not bequeath. That custom will become especially difficult, thankfully, if Hillary wins since you can't have to Presidents Clinton.

The custom of referring to a Former President as "President So-and-So" is really only practiced by the media. The "proper" address is "The Honorable _______" when making public introductions and in written correspondence and "Mr. ______" when addressing them in conversation. Using "President ______" and "Mr. President" are only proper when addressing the current head of state.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Are there any typical Democrat-leaning groups that vexes the Democratic Leadership?

You mean other than unions and environmentalist groups?

**Ouze**

and Code Pink?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I wonder how much it's going to cost to protect Bill?

As an ex-President, he gets Secret Service protection for life, and if he becomes First Gentleman, that's even more Secret Service.

Will he need secret service protection for the secret service protection?

**A Town Called Malus**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wonder how much it's going to cost to protect Bill?

As an ex-President, he gets Secret Service protection for life, and if he becomes First Gentleman, that's even more Secret Service.

Will he need secret service protection for the secret service protection?

It's just part of his master plan to eventually have all of the secret service assigned to his protection

**BlaxicanX**

And if the Secret Service' recent behavior is anything to go by, they'd probably be happy to oblige Mr. Clinton.

He always did throw the best parties.

**dogma**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As an ex-President, he gets Secret Service protection for life, and if he becomes First Gentleman, that's even more Secret Service.

As the spouse of a former President Hillary is also entitled to protection, though who is entitled to protection (and for how long) is a bit of a contentious matter.

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:
As the spouse of a former President Hillary is also entitled to protection, though who is entitled to protection (and for how long) is a bit of a contentious matter.

IMO anyone who serves as US President deserves Secret Service protection for life. I am not fond of the legislation that ended that post-Clinton. I think it's an office that necessarily makes a lot of enemies and the protection isn't particularly expensive - ($4 million or so/yr for all previous presidents in 2012)... kind of a weird place to cheap out.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
dogma wrote:
As the spouse of a former President Hillary is also entitled to protection, though who is entitled to protection (and for how long) is a bit of a contentious matter.

IMO anyone who serves as US President deserves Secret Service protection for life. I am not fond of the legislation that ended that post-Clinton. I think it's an office that necessarily makes a lot of enemies and the protection isn't particularly expensive - ($4 million or so/yr for all previous presidents in 2012)... kind of a weird place to cheap out.

Why?

They all make a damned fine pension, and make a gak ton giving speeches and for other things. They can afford to pay for whatever level of security they feel they need. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for something these private citizens can afford on their own?

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:
Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for something these private citizens can afford on their own?

Should the US also eliminate health benefits for veterans that can easily pay for their own? The protection is provided as an acknowledgment of service to the US.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

CptJake wrote:
Ouze wrote:
dogma wrote:
As the spouse of a former President Hillary is also entitled to protection, though who is entitled to protection (and for how long) is a bit of a contentious matter.

IMO anyone who serves as US President deserves Secret Service protection for life. I am not fond of the legislation that ended that post-Clinton. I think it's an office that necessarily makes a lot of enemies and the protection isn't particularly expensive - ($4 million or so/yr for all previous presidents in 2012)... kind of a weird place to cheap out.

Why?

They all make a damned fine pension, and make a gak ton giving speeches and for other things. They can afford to pay for whatever level of security they feel they need. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for something these private citizens can afford on their own?

You realize the combined amount of tax money you pay that supports the Former Presidents Act (pension, staff/office, insurance, and Secret Service protection) is like fractions of a penny, right? Here is a frame of reference for you: NASA has a budget of around $18,000,000,000... out of all the federal tax money you paid last year, you were on the hook for less than $9.00 of that $18 billion.

I think after having one of the most (if not the most) difficult jobs in the world, shelling out a couple of million from our bottomless coffers is the least we could do to acknowledge what they've done the United States.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I've said this before, but I've always seen the Republicans as champions of individual liberty. So why aren't they defending people's right to marry who they want? Why is America, the land of freedom, not allowing people the right to ingest whatever drugs they want? Yeah, I know about those 2 states allowing marijuana, but why aren't the Republicans championing this nationwide?

It's all very strange...

That's because the current GOP leaderships are cowards.... simply stated.

That's part of it, because they want to please all the subgroups. Another part is that the Republican Party likes to present itself as the champion of conservative family values. So, despite the whole states rights thing, drugs and LGBT rights are still outside the whole family values thing. So, basically, "we believe in your individual rights, so long as they are rights we agree with." Not really any different from the Democrats in that particular mentality, it's just that the irony is stronger with the Republicans for it.

Kind of like how the Republicans also say they are for smaller government...except for the parts of the government they like (military, homeland security, etc.). Those parts they want bigger. Just like how the Democrats would like to expand other parts while shrinking other parts.

**CptJake**

dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for something these private citizens can afford on their own?

Should the US also eliminate health benefits for veterans that can easily pay for their own? The protection is provided as an acknowledgment of service to the US.

Most vets I know (including me) who can afford their own health care, buy their own health care anyway to avoid the VA, so the tax payers are not shelling out for it. I would be willing to bet no vets that are multi-millionaires (like all the ex-presidents are) are using the VA hospital.

But that really is besides the point. Part of the benefit package used to attract folks to join the armed services is the health care. I very, VERY seriously doubt we need to offer 'Security For Life!' as part of a benefit package to get folks to run for president.

And the 'small amount' folks bring up is also beside the point. I could care less how tiny a fraction of the bloated federal spending it is, it is a fraction we should't be paying. These cats can surround themselves with ex-SEALs/SF/FBI/Secret Service types all day every day if they feel the need on their own dime.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

You realize the combined amount of tax money you pay that supports the Former Presidents Act (pension, staff/office, insurance, and Secret Service protection) is like fractions of a penny, right? Here is a frame of reference for you: NASA has a budget of around $18,000,000,000... out of all the federal tax money you paid last year, you were on the hook for less than $9.00 of that $18 billion.

I think after having one of the most (if not the most) difficult jobs in the world, shelling out a couple of million from our bottomless coffers is the least we could do to acknowledge what they've done the United States.

All these guys cash in big time on having been the president.

Look at the net worth of the living ex-presidents:

http://247wallst.com/banking-finance/2010/05/17/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-washington-to-obama/5/

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:

Most vets I know (including me) who can afford their own health care, buy their own health care anyway to avoid the VA, so the tax payers are not shelling out for it. I would be willing to bet no vets that are multi-millionaires (like all the ex-presidents are) are using the VA hospital.

I'm sure they aren't, but they have the option to do so; that's the point. This is not dissimilar to the situation regarding Secret Service protection for former Presidents and their families. Eligible people don't have to accept Secret Service protection, and often refuse or supplement it, but it is available to them.

CptJake wrote:

Part of the benefit package used to attract folks to join the armed services is the health care.

Do you know anyone who joined the military for the healthcare? I know quite a few current and former US soldiers, but I can't think of one who would say they joined up because of the VA benefits. Further, speaking from my own (admittedly dated) experiences with recruiters, healthcare was rarely mentioned and when it was the pitch amounted to "If you get hurt, we'll cover you." not "If you join, you'll have healthcare for life.".

CptJake wrote:

And the 'small amount' folks bring up is also beside the point. I could care less how tiny a fraction of the bloated federal spending it is, it is a fraction we should't be paying.

So you're not on board with paying to protect a person who had access to to the highest order or US national secrets, and didn't suddenly forget them after leaving office?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

CptJake wrote:
And the 'small amount' folks bring up is also beside the point. I could care less how tiny a fraction of the bloated federal spending it is, it is a fraction we should't be paying. These cats can surround themselves with ex-SEALs/SF/FBI/Secret Service types all day every day if they feel the need on their own dime.

The "bloated federal spending" is the biggest crock of gak you could have trotted out in defense of the preposterous that former Presidents don't deserve security after leaving the most high-profile and powerful position in the world. You're only argument is that we shouldn't spend the money to do it, even though it is a staggeringly insignificant amount of money in the grand scheme of things. Is there something I'm missing in your argument or is that it?

All these guys cash in big time on having been the president.

Look at the net worth of the living ex-presidents:

http://247wallst.com/banking-finance/2010/05/17/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-washington-to-obama/5/

So basically you're jealous that they make more money than you and because of the nature of their position, are afforded the consideration of the government they ran?

**Dreadclaw69**

Just out of interest are former heads of state in other countries also provided with taxpayer funded security for the rest of their days?

**Co'tor Shas**

Well, considering there is a petition to remove such protection for Tony Blair, I'm going to assume there is in the UK.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just out of interest are former heads of state in other countries also provided with taxpayer funded security for the rest of their days?

Without any evidence, I would say it probably pretty common in Western governments. I doubt we are hardly unique in that regard.

**Bullockist**

it's an old article, but it does mention security cost in there so Australia has the same system. The article is worth it for the picture of John Howard alone. I swear the man looks like a hobbit. Peter Jackson sign him up for the next movie!

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/we-pay-nearly-6000week-john-howards-expenses/1645163/

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just out of interest are former heads of state in other countries also provided with taxpayer funded security for the rest of their days?

What do you mean by "heads of state", and what sort of countries are you talking about?

**A Town Called Malus**

Well this would certainly make our elections more exciting

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-13/polish-prince-challenges-nigel-farage-to-18th-century-style-duel/

Polish prince challenges Nigel Farage to 18th Century-style duel

A Polish prince has challenged Ukip leader Nigel Farage to a sword fight, claiming he has "had enough" of what he describes as "discrimination" against his countrymen and women.

In a video message posted to YouTube, Yanek Zylinski - whose father Andrzej Zylinski was a military officer led a successful charge against the Nazis in 1939 - accused Farage of blaming eastern European migrants for the country's problems.

"I have had enough of discrimination against Polish people in this country. The most idiotic example I have heard must be Mr Nigel Farage blaming migrants for traffic jams on the M40."

Holding his father's sword, Zylinksi told Farage "enough is enough" and challenged him to an 18th Century-style duel in London.

"I'd like us to meet in Hyde Park one morning with our swords and resolve this matter in a way that an 18th Century Polish aristocrat and an English gentleman would traditionally do.
Are you up for it, Mr Farage?"

Alternatively, he offered a "duel of words" if Farage's sword was "a little bit rusty".
Ukip were not immediately available for comment on the challenge.
Last updated Mon 13 Apr 2015

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I've been reading a lot of newspaper coverage over Hilary Clinton's decision to run for the White House, and it can be summed up by the following:

America: vote for me because I'm a woman and we've never had a female President before...

I've nothing against women getting the top job, but what a depressing, dull vision for the USA. I feel sorry for the American people, and myself, because we'll be bombarded with this for the next two years!!

Where's the ideas? Where's the vision? America will have an epic fight on its hands this century against China (and I don't mean military), so who's going to take America forward? Who's going to react to new challenges?

I've been re-reading John Adams Vs Thomas Jefferson and their battle for America, and I must admit, those guys must be spinning in their graves at the intellectual poverty of ideas and vision in the USA.

**reds8n**

Is there a specific reason why Iowa has become so important in the elections, or is it just one of those things has has happened and now just carries on ?

I -- sort of -- understand that their caucuses are a bit different and/or happen a bit earlier, is there a reason for this ?