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.

So you're saying do everything legal to keep Hillary from being elected. Way ahead of you.

I kind of like the fact that homosexuals can marry not. It really ticks of the rebel flag wearing set and I enjoy that thoroughly.

The Roberts Court has done some good things, even a few with him on the (surprisingly) liberal side of things. The SCOTUS is in an interesting point at time right now, and I think it is interesting to watch Roberts grow into his role.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
This election is starting to depress me already. I really dislike Hilliary, and none of the current R frontrunners are any good either. It's probably going to be a choice between bad and worse, kind of sad for my first time voting.

Come on Shas.
I gave up on politicians a long long time ago
We need something new
We need some entertainment
We need someone who shock everyone at the debates
Trump has my vote
Unless Colin Powell runs then Trump S.O.L.

BeAfraid wrote:
This election, and the next administration is for ONE THING and one thing only:

• Control of the Supreme Court.

Whoever controls the White House in 2016 - 2024 will likely control it for the remainder of the Century (or most of it), due to the Justices they appoint.

That is one reason to like Hillary, regardless of anything else you think about her, is that Justices she appoints will undo EVERYTHING the Roberts' Court has done, and it will undo the Gerrymandering which currently keeps the GOP in power in Congress.

MB

So you are not a fan of the ACA? I thought your life absolutely depended on the ACA. Does that make you suicidal?

The thing about the Roberts court is that many of the big things only barely squeaked though. One more conservative on the court and things would be a whole lot different.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
This election is starting to depress me already. I really dislike Hilliary, and none of the current R frontrunners are any good either. It's probably going to be a choice between bad and worse, kind of sad for my first time voting.

Come on Shas.
I gave up on politicians a long long time ago
We need something new
We need some entertainment
We need someone who shock everyone at the debates
Trump has my vote
Unless Colin Powell runs then Trump S.O.L.

I would like to see Mattis run.

He would be awesome in debates.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
This election is starting to depress me already. I really dislike Hilliary, and none of the current R frontrunners are any good either. It's probably going to be a choice between bad and worse, kind of sad for my first time voting.

This is largely how I feel.

The Republican field largely amounts to a clown bus. None of the candidates are anyone I'd want to see anywhere near the presidency, and most of them it's very clear they're not really running to win but to simply generate money/publicity/sell books/etc or position themselves for other offices, or in Trump's case, simply troll everyone for the lulz. I don't think any of them have a snowball's chance in hell in a general election, and most of them know that. In the process however, they're drowning out any more capable candidates, splitting their base, and largely eating each other. It's also somewhat awkward when four or five them are former paid Fox News "consultants".

On the other side, we've got Hillary. I'm not at all a fan of her (she has the ruthlessness of a Merkel or Putin, but nothing near the shrewdness, subtlety, or ability), and I like political dynasties even less. Unfortunately, I think the election is her's to lose, not an opponent's to win. I think that, unless something dramatic happens and HIllary's campaign implodes for some unforeseen reason, she's going to be the next President.

It's loooking very much a repeat of the 2004 election, just reversed. There's a chance for the "out of office" party to capture the office from the "in office" party, but the former are so divided, unorganized, and simply not serious that they fall apart while the latter sits behind a mediocre (but well positioned) candidate and slides to victory on the wave of incompetence from the other side. Now that may change, but if I had to put money on how it'd turn out, I wouldn't put money on anyone but Hillary.

And that hurts me, almost physically

o.0

How the hell are you people considering Hillary winning the national election? Or are you guys only paying attention to the mainstream media, who have a blackout on Sanders, and not the local outlets that are actually following him around?

This dude is pulling huge crowds everywhere he goes. 11k in Phoenix. 8k in Dallas. Over 5k in Houston. More importantly? His speeches are resonating with working-class voters in conservative states. You want to talk about a guy who's reaching across the aisle and building bridges in the voting populace? Sanders is that guy.

 Jihadin wrote:

Unless Colin Powell runs then Trump S.O.L.

I'm pretty liberal (my vote is with Sanders so far), and I'd seriously consider Powell. More to the point, if Powell decided to run, it's hard for me to imagine that any contender from either party could beat him, either in the Primaries or the general election.

 Psienesis wrote:
o.0

How the hell are you people considering Hillary winning the national election? Or are you guys only paying attention to the mainstream media, who have a blackout on Sanders, and not the local outlets that are actually following him around?

This dude is pulling huge crowds everywhere he goes. 11k in Phoenix. 8k in Dallas. Over 5k in Houston. More importantly? His speeches are resonating with working-class voters in conservative states. You want to talk about a guy who's reaching across the aisle and building bridges in the voting populace? Sanders is that guy.

It's all well and good for him to do what he's doing, and I'd certainly vote for him over Hillary, however Hillary's campaign hasn't even really kicked into high-working mode yet (because it doesn't need to honestly), has far more backing amongst the establishment and a far larger network of donors and party machinery. One can look at many former candidates who were able to bring out crowds and whatnot early on but crashed once the first primaries came around.

BeAfraid wrote:
This election, and the next administration is for ONE THING and one thing only:

• Control of the Supreme Court.

Whoever controls the White House in 2016 - 2024 will likely control it for the remainder of the Century (or most of it), due to the Justices they appoint.

That is one reason to like Hillary, regardless of anything else you think about her, is that Justices she appoints will undo EVERYTHING the Roberts' Court has done, and it will undo the Gerrymandering which currently keeps the GOP in power in Congress.

MB

Welcome to my nightmare.

This Robert court has been trending "liberally" for years.

Gimme a strict, textual constitutionalist... any day.

Otherwise, if we're going to treat the SC as a political entity (ala, Congress)... then, feth it... let's go Calvinball and fething pack the court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
o.0

How the hell are you people considering Hillary winning the national election? Or are you guys only paying attention to the mainstream media, who have a blackout on Sanders, and not the local outlets that are actually following him around?

This dude is pulling huge crowds everywhere he goes. 11k in Phoenix. 8k in Dallas. Over 5k in Houston. More importantly? His speeches are resonating with working-class voters in conservative states. You want to talk about a guy who's reaching across the aisle and building bridges in the voting populace? Sanders is that guy.

Sanders is a proud Socialist.

If he's the nominee, we'll see another Reagan wave.

HRC is formiable... she has the funding and an extremely favorable media class working for her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Unless Colin Powell runs then Trump S.O.L.

I'm pretty liberal (my vote is with Sanders so far), and I'd seriously consider Powell. More to the point, if Powell decided to run, it's hard for me to imagine that any contender from either party could beat him, either in the Primaries or the general election.

I'd vote for Powell.

He'd be a fantastic President.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like we are in complete agreement. There's more than enough blame to go around.

Yep, more than enough blame to go around.

In other news, Hillary is trailing in new polling.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/politics/hillary-clinton-marco-rubio-jeb-bush-polls/index.html

Interesting. Wonder if it's a blip or possibly a sign of her terrible campaigning already beginning to show.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like we are in complete agreement. There's more than enough blame to go around.

Yep, more than enough blame to go around.

In other news, Hillary is trailing in new polling.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/politics/hillary-clinton-marco-rubio-jeb-bush-polls/index.html

Interesting. Wonder if it's a blip or possibly a sign of her terrible campaigning already beginning to show.

*meh*

It's too early... and the R's haven't had their first debates yet.

I don't buy it. Well... maybe it's a little something as all polls are measuring right now is "name recognition".

Once we get to brass tacks 6 mo prior to the election, that's the time to pay attention to polls.

For some strange reason, I'll be spending most of the afternoon watching John Kerry before the Senate Foreign affairs committee, defending the Iran deal

I love American history and politics, but I think my dedication is going too far. I doubt if most Americans would sit through this

If the day ever comes that I apply for a green card or American citizenship, I want extra points for doing this

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For some strange reason, I'll be spending most of the afternoon watching John Kerry before the Senate Foreign affairs committee, defending the Iran deal

I love American history and politics, but I think my dedication is going too far. I doubt if most Americans would sit through this

If the day ever comes that I apply for a green card or American citizenship, I want extra points for doing this

How's that going for him after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's recent comments about American policies in the region being "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, while the crowd chanted "Death to America"?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-disturbed-iranian-leaders-criticism-deal-121454843--finance.html

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For some strange reason, I'll be spending most of the afternoon watching John Kerry before the Senate Foreign affairs committee, defending the Iran deal

I love American history and politics, but I think my dedication is going too far. I doubt if most Americans would sit through this

If the day ever comes that I apply for a green card or American citizenship, I want extra points for doing this

How's that going for him after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's recent comments about American policies in the region being "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, while the crowd chanted "Death to America"?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-disturbed-iranian-leaders-criticism-deal-121454843--finance.html

I'm losing the will to live, so it's hard to tell.

Some people in the audience have interesting mullets, which is distracting me


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This hearing's heating up.

Jim Risch (R-Idaho) banging his fist on the table. John Kerry threatens him with a copy of the Washington post

Does the second amendment apply in the Senate? This could escalate


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rubio dropping major hints that he will throw this deal out of the window if he's elected president.

Donald Trump has been mentioned WTF

Throw the deal out, and then what?


Also, Kerry has done more as sec. of state than Hilliary has. He really gets a lot more done than her, and better too. He probably would have been a good president, much better than who was elected at the very least. He's a horrible politician, but a good statesman (is that the right word).

Remember back in the day when Obama people were trying their damdest on getting the Iran Pres. on to talk to them after he talked to Britain Prime Minister when he was at the UN.

Edit

Trump down in Texas touring the Southern Border. So unlike a good number of GOP candidates he has more "visual" on the matter currently

Are the republicans actually listening to the responses to their questions? Are they really asking questions or just grandstanding to the public with their minds already firmly made up? Are they listening to the nuclear scientists who are actually, you know, experts on the topic?

I sometimes wish they would have never introduced cameras into the hearings. We might actually get honest discussions there as opposed to political grandstanding for the public on both sides. I think the Supreme Court has the right of it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For some strange reason, I'll be spending most of the afternoon watching John Kerry before the Senate Foreign affairs committee, defending the Iran deal

I love American history and politics, but I think my dedication is going too far. I doubt if most Americans would sit through this

If the day ever comes that I apply for a green card or American citizenship, I want extra points for doing this

How's that going for him after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's recent comments about American policies in the region being "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, while the crowd chanted "Death to America"?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-disturbed-iranian-leaders-criticism-deal-121454843--finance.html

I've always liked how people are so quick to point at this guy as a reflection of Iranian thought-process, yet when you point at some Rush Limbough type idiot who screams about gays being the cause of earthquakes and other nonsense, Republicans say that he's just one politician and you can't use the rhetoric of a handful of people to brush a broad stroke over an entire country.

"b-but the difference is Ali Khamenei is the top official in Iran!" Right, and Bush was our president for 8 years, yet his views were only shared by about 40% of the country.

Imagine if the world audience used the Tea Party as a metric of the average American's sanity.

it's almost like McCain and others constantly talking about how we need to bomb Iran despite never trying to pass any legislation to actually bomb Iran.

 d-usa wrote:
it's almost like McCain and others constantly talking about how we need to bomb Iran despite never trying to pass any legislation to actually bomb Iran.

McCain's defense he thinks they are talking about Barbara Ann, his old girlfriend. She was a hottie.

Limbaugh is not a politician/elected official/leader of a nation. He is an entertainer. I think it is a lot more valid to take the de facto leader of a country's position as more important/relevant than that of a some radio personality.

One had control over how his guys negotiated the nuke deal and does indeed speak for his country, one is a paid entertainer who speaks to his audience.

In fairness, he actually pointed out your exact criticism as the counter argument and he also pointed to the Tea Party (many who do serve in congress) and Bush to counter that counter. I noticed you ignored that bit

To me it's just a more cost efficient version of sending a U.S. carrier group to certain areas to "stand up to Russia".

The Russians will use calls by political leaders to move naval resources near them to point out that we are a warmongering nation intent on destroying them.

The US will see the move as standing up to the great enemy of Russia and protecting the world.

Both sides know that neither Russia nor the US are actually willing to start a war and that moving a carrier group, as well as complaining about it, just serves to play to and rile up your domestic base.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
In fairness, he actually pointed out your exact criticism as the counter argument and he also pointed to the Tea Party (many who do serve in congress) and Bush to counter that counter. I noticed you ignored that bit

In fairness, I don't remember Bush calling to completely erase another country the way Khamenei and his folks have.

And in fairness, the 'Tea Party' he likes to attribute some monolithic organized structure to is nothing but a loosely associated group of local/state groups who had some success getting more conservative candidates elected. And none of those candidates are leaders of a country threatening to erase another country...

As head of the Tea Party I call for the utter destruction of Catonia.

Wait, what do you mean there is no Catonia. of course there is. thats where the cats come from. They must be destroyed! Hey why are you putting that jacket on me. No not the tazer Ow! hurts so good.

Think we're counting on the France Aircraft Carrier Group to pick up the slack of of the US not being able to fund a US Carrier Group in the Med.
Also its out that the Pentagon is/was considering placing USMC units on foreign flag naval vessels being the lack of funds to keep US Naval ships in operation

As for Iran I am still a little irritated of them having a hand in providing materials for IED's that killed US Servicemembers

 Jihadin wrote:
Think we're counting on the France Aircraft Carrier Group to pick up the slack of of the US not being able to fund a US Carrier Group in the Med.
Also its out that the Pentagon is/was considering placing USMC units on foreign flag naval vessels being the lack of funds to keep US Naval ships in operation

As for Iran I am still a little irritated of them having a hand in providing materials for IED's that killed US Servicemembers

Not just materials (in both Iraq and Afghanistan), but Quds force guys actively leading and training Shia militia in Iraq and going on ops with them to kill our guys. feth them.

Keep in mind that a lot of the Iranian "death to america" stuff is speaking to an internal audience and in many ways is often a show. The direct phrasing being used used is also typically more "down with" than really "death to". Iran has its crazies and internal politics just as the US does.

It also needs to be kept in mind that Iran has some valid reasons for being paranoid and disliking the "West", having been invaded and occupied in WW2 by the Birts and the USSR despite not being a combatant, and having a democratically elected government overthrown and replaced with a Western backed police state. These are all things that have happened within living memory, and that plays a role in things that many don't seem to realize. I mean, if such had happened to the US, I'm sure we'd be just as hostile to such foreign powers in our dealings with them.

There's a lot of mistrust and harsh feelings on both sides, with some very good and very real reasons. The only way to change that however is to try and talk things out, as the perpetual standoff isn't doing either side any long term good, and open conflict would be even worse for both parties.