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.

**BrotherGecko**

Don't forget Bush Jr. placing them on the Axis of Evil during their democractic reform. Undoing all of it in favor of a more conservative leadership out of fear of US invasion. Which was rightly deserved because the Bush admin was infected with policy makers who were very intent on invading Iran had Iraq gone well.

Those same people are often employed by FoxNews to continue pushing the propaganda to invade Iran. FoxNews, for the neocons by the neocons lol.

Note: CNN/MSNBC generally would follow suit seeing as they plug Liberal Hawk propaganda lol.

**d-usa**

We also had an entire election where it was declared that simply talking to Iran was the craziest thing any US administration could ever do.

**Jihadin**

I seriously highly doubt we would have open a third "front" by invading Iran though. US Military was rebuilt and geared around a Two Front war concept. Just not long term sustainment over time like OEF and OIF.

**BrotherGecko**

No it wasn't, but look at what the DoD analysts for the Bush admin wanted. You had Rumsfeld trying to transform the whole military into a smaller, faster force capable of moving anywhere in the world and rapidly defeating the enemy and then moving onto the next target. The Bush Doctrine emphasized this military style by working off of the idea of a preemptive war. Afghanistan went in with a relatively small force and at the time achieved the win, proving the neocons in the DoD that this new military would work. Iraq was the next on the block because it was easy to convince Bush Jr. and liberal hawks to attack them, also they were considered relatively easy for their purposes.Rumsfeld wanted Iraq taken and won with barely more than 100k in troops (Total, not just the fighting part, as he didn't believe ground pounders won wars).

Iran was supposed to follow. However, it didn't work out in Afghanistan in the end nor did Iraq comply with the plan.

Neocons are pretty open about their agenda as a political ideology. Which is fustrating that their "news" channel is so popular despite conservatives generally being opposed to neocons while unknowingly subscribing to neocon philosophy

Edit: Petraeus redesigning COIN for the US changed everything.

**Vaktathi**

It also didn't help that, going into these places, there wasn't any plan for what to do after conventional forces were defeated or how these nations had actually managed to operate.

**Jihadin**

Shinseki started that transformation with the Stryker concept when he was Army Chief of Staff

Edit

From Wilki and from memory (Yes. No crap there I was..........had to have been there to understand)
During his tenure as Army Chief of Staff, Shinseki initiated an innovative but controversial plan to make the Army more strategically deployable and mobile in urban terrain by creating Stryker Interim-Force Brigade Combat Teams.[14] He conceived a long term strategic plan for the Army dubbed Objective Force, which included a program he designed, Future Combat Systems.[15] One other controversial plan that Shinseki implemented was the wearing of the black beret for all Army personnel.[16] Prior to Shinseki implementing this policy, only the United States Army Rangers could wear the black beret. When the black beret was given to all soldiers and officers, the Rangers moved to the tan beret.

**BrotherGecko**

Yes he did but he didn't fully believe in it. He was a Clinton man which is why Shoomaker was brought in. He would finish the stuff Shinseki begrudgingly started or at least try. My service was only during the repair of that failed strategy lol.

A core concept to neocon ideology is "if they ain't us they hate us", paraphraseed of course. You can go back and still look now at how much you see that idea being thrown around. Especially on FoxNews. They built that propaganda up because neoconservativism can only function if there is an enemy to defeat. The current enemy is Islam, the current intent is every non-democratic state in the M.E. needs to be "liberated" otherwise it is a threat to the US's interests which of course to neocons are its values.

"I'm a guardian of freedom and the American way of life"
America's values which the military must defend. The current soldiers creed shows up in 2003 when Shoomaker takes over by my amateur research.

Point is most of what you see on Iran these days is propaganda because it has to stay an enemy so that eventually we can invade them and bring "democracy." According to and quite openly by a great deal of the talking heads that work for FoxNews. Though admittedly rarely on TV, they do it at their seminars and such off of the main programing.

**Jihadin**

Shoomaker had no choice but to build on Shinseki concept

By the summer of 2003, the intensive combat operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan were placing a great strain on the U.S. Army. General
Peter J. Schoomaker, sworn-in as the chief of staff of the Army on 1
August 2003, believed that these operations, along with the demands of
an open-ended Global War on Terror, called for a major change in how
the service organized its forces. In early September 2003, he ordered
the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command to begin the process of
converting the Army to a modular, brigade-based force. This massive
effort would represent the most far-reaching transformation of the Army’s
operational forces since World War II and the most radical since the
Pentomic reorganization of the late 1950s

Shinseki goal was

To improve the Army’s strategic responsiveness, Shinseki
established a transformation process that would begin with current units,
designated as the Legacy Force, and move through an Interim Force to
what planners termed an Objective Force, the Army of the future. Upon
completion of the process, the service would be able to field a combat-
ready brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, a division in 120 hours,
and five divisions in 30 days. The key component of the Interim Force
would be medium brigade combat teams that could deploy more quickly
than existing heavy brigades but be more lethal and have greater tactical
mobility than existing light brigades.

Hhmmm now I know something that made me wonder what was up with all the damn JRTC rotations

When General Gordon R. Sullivan became the chief of staff of
the Army in June 1991, the service was beginning to change from a
forward-deployed force oriented toward deterring the Soviet Union to
a smaller, more flexible body based primarily in the United States. This
more compact force would have to be prepared to conduct missions of
all sizes, not just large-scale, high-intensity combat, and would have to
develop what service members called an expeditionary mind-set, to be capable of quick deployment overseas when necessary. Concerned after a
year in office that existing methods for changing the Army were too slow
to meet those demands, General Sullivan organized a set of experiments
and exercises known as the Louisiana Maneuvers to investigate how to
hasten developments. Much of the work that followed covered two main
areas: how best to design units that had fighting power equal to or greater
than that of current units but could deploy more quickly and how to use
new and future digital technology to improve command and control. To
save time and money, many of the experiments and exercises relied on
computer simulations

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

While we both know you really do mean that, we also both know that when a politician says that, what they really mean is "I want someone who agrees with my political ideology." You only ever hear politicians say they want constitutionalist judges when they disagree with the ruling.

As far as the whole American problem with Iran, keep in mind we are heavily in bed with Israel, so that generally makes our decisions for us at times. Besides, other countries do have legitimate reasons to dislike/distrust America. We do have a history of attempting to assassinate high ranking officials or overthrowing governments we don't like, just because we think we're right and they're wrong.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Tannhauser42 wrote:

While we both know really do mean that, we also both know that when a politician says that, what they really mean is "I want someone who agrees with my political ideology." You only ever hear politicians say they want constitutionalist judges when they disagree with the ruling.

Agreed, just look at the "1st Amendment Defense Act" or whatever they are calling it, that if passed (it won't be), would make it completely OK for people to violate EVERY federal law in regards to discrimination based on "moral convictions"

**d-usa**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

While we both know you really do mean that, we also both know that when a politician says that, what they really mean is "I want someone who agrees with my political ideology." You only ever hear politicians say they want constitutionalist judges when they disagree with the ruling.

It also doesn't help when one of the judges is on record basically saying "I don't care if the constitution disagrees, if enough people vote for something it should stay", and nobody on that side seems to have a problem with that.

**sebster**

You know, for a party that prides itself on being all about respect for the military, Trump's comment about McCain hasn't actually hurt him that much. Reminds me of the purple heart bandaids making fun of Kerry - for a lot of Republicans respect for the military is political, not genuine.

whembly wrote:
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.

That's a fair point. I think there's a similar dynamic in both parties, where people are keen for anyone that isn't the same old. So established figures aren't starting with a lead like in more regular political times, but actually starting with a deficit. Meanwhile novel candidates who aren't seen as 'establishment' are given the benefit of the doubt, until they prove otherwise. I guess long term though there's more to being on the political inside than just brand recognition, and sooner rather than later the established insiders with better fundraising, better support teams and more connections carry the day. I guess.

As an aside, in my long running argument of why the Republicans have way bigger problems than the Democrats, compare the fringe candidates both parties are currently doing surprisingly well in the polls. Sanders is certainly fringe, but his ideas are more impractical than actually terrible. Trump's ideas are basically a combination of ignorance and spite.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I doubt John Kerry would be committed enough to sit through an afternoon of John Kerry, if he could figure out how to avoid it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I remember Bush actually fething invading another country, so there's that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
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.

Yep. The US got really mad at the French for a while there, and all they did was not support the US' really terrible idea to invade another country. After what the West has done to Iran, a bit of political theatre is pretty mild, really.

I mean, the Iranian government is rather gak, both in what it does to its people and in its foreign policy esp regarding Israel, but the gakness is pretty much what you’d expect any nation to do in response to their history. This doesn’t mean they get a pass on being gakky, but it also means any effort to paint the Iranians as somehow inherently bad should be seen as very, very silly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
I seriously highly doubt we would have open a third "front" by invading Iran though. US Military was rebuilt and geared around a Two Front war concept. Just not long term sustainment over time like OEF and OIF.

Iraq was supposed to be over in a couple of months. A glorious wave of democracy sweeping across a Iraq as they welcomed the liberators with open arms.

**Jihadin**

Hell
We invaded in my life time so far
Cambodia
Cyprus
Lebanon
Sinai (David Peace Accord)
Honduras
Bolivia
Persian Gulf
Liberia
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia (build up to invade Iraq and Kuwait)
Haiti
Alnania
Grenada
Panama
Bosnia
Kosovo
Somalia
Iraq (twice)
Afghanistan

Eeesshhhhh
Might as well blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Carter, Obama

Iraq was supposed to be over in a couple of months. A glorious wave of democracy sweeping across a Iraq as they welcomed the liberators with open arms

With 25 days of offensive operations, coalition forces had relative control of all
major Iraqi cities, including Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk, and Tikrit.

Less then a month

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
Eeesshhhhh
Might as well blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Carter, Obama

Sure, blame all of them if you want. But don't then claim a high moral ground that Iran is horrible because they sometimes talk about wanting to destroy another country.

**Jihadin**

sebster wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Eeesshhhhh
Might as well blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Carter, Obama

Sure, blame all of them if you want. But don't then claim a high moral ground that Iran is horrible because they sometimes talk about wanting to destroy another country.

I take it you have on excellent knowledge that Iran will not try to nuke Israel?

**Vaktathi**

Jihadin wrote:
sebster wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Eeesshhhhh
Might as well blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Carter, Obama

Sure, blame all of them if you want. But don't then claim a high moral ground that Iran is horrible because they sometimes talk about wanting to destroy another country.

I take it you have on excellent knowledge that Iran will not try to nuke Israel?

In all honesty, the capability is much more one-sided in Israel's favor and will likely remain so for decades more, even if Iran were to develop such weapons. MAD is still a functional theory, and it's unlikely that the military and political leadership of Iran are willing to risk nuclear retaliation (no matter how big a game some talk). To be perfectly honest, one of their Arab neighbors is a much more likely target, both for practical realpolitik reasons and a lack of in-kind retaliatory capability.

**Jihadin**

Vaktathi wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
sebster wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Eeesshhhhh
Might as well blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Carter, Obama

Sure, blame all of them if you want. But don't then claim a high moral ground that Iran is horrible because they sometimes talk about wanting to destroy another country.

I take it you have on excellent knowledge that Iran will not try to nuke Israel?
In all honesty, the capability is much more one-sided in Israel's favor and will likely remain so for decades more, even if Iran were to develop such weapons. MAD is still a functional theory, and it's unlikely that the military and political leadership of Iran are willing to risk nuclear retaliation (no matter how big a game some talk). To be perfectly honest, one of their Arab neighbors is a much more likely target, both for practical realpolitik reasons and a lack of in-kind retaliatory capability.

Lot riding on a theory.
Israel not going to ride that theory.
Israel will more likely strike first and since we're in a "Deal" with them that we have to protect their nuclear program or something to that effect what will the US of A do eh

**Dreadclaw69**

BlaxicanX wrote:
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.

You comparisons are in no way, shape, or form apt.

http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/supreme-leader
"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is Iran’s most powerful official. As supreme leader, he has constitutional authority or substantial influence over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government as well as the military and media."

" As supreme leader, Khamenei has constitutional authority over the judiciary, the regular armed forces and the elite Revolutionary Guards, and the state-controlled media. He also has effective control over Iran’s second most powerful institution, the 12-member Guardian Council, which has the authority to vet electoral candidates and veto parliamentary decisions. (Khamenei appoints half its members, as well as the judicial chief who appoints the other half.) The Iranian economy is largely state-controlled, and Khamenei has the most authority over how the country’s oil revenue is spent. He also has control over the country’s bonyads—charitable foundations with billions of dollars in assets—in addition to the millions more his office receives in charitable donations offered to Iran’s holy shrines."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran
So as you now be more familiar with the role of Ali Khamenei you can hopefully see that he wields a substantially more power than the POTUS does, much less what "some Rush Limbough type idiot" can muster

**Vaktathi**

Jihadin wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
sebster wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Eeesshhhhh
Might as well blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Carter, Obama

Sure, blame all of them if you want. But don't then claim a high moral ground that Iran is horrible because they sometimes talk about wanting to destroy another country.

I take it you have on excellent knowledge that Iran will not try to nuke Israel?
In all honesty, the capability is much more one-sided in Israel's favor and will likely remain so for decades more, even if Iran were to develop such weapons. MAD is still a functional theory, and it's unlikely that the military and political leadership of Iran are willing to risk nuclear retaliation (no matter how big a game some talk). To be perfectly honest, one of their Arab neighbors is a much more likely target, both for practical realpolitik reasons and a lack of in-kind retaliatory capability.

Lot riding on a theory.
Israel not going to ride that theory.
Israel will more likely strike first and since we're in a "Deal" with them that we have to protect their nuclear program or something to that effect what will the US of A do eh

If they want to initiate a conflict fine, but I'd much rather we at least try to work a deal out, and demanding Iran make it's entire nuclear program dependent on production in other nations, or not allowing it entirely, with the alternative being war, is somewhat ridiculous. We certainly would not accept such conditions if the situations were reversed. I don't think that the deal reached was a bad one.

If Israel has strong objections, well, that's tough on them, they weren't part of the talks. If they want to fight a war over it, let them, but keep us out of it. With Israel's enemies currently eating each other or falling apart internally, I see no good reason for them to refocus that ire onto themselves unless they just want a war for its own sake and are unwilling to trust their allies.

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
I take it you have on excellent knowledge that Iran will not try to nuke Israel?

If you’re going to lurch in to something completely unrelated, at least swing the conversation over to something that’s interesting, like maybe the cricket. I really like the way Steve Smith is batting – a unique technique but one that suits his strengths. I can’t guarantee he won’t one day fire a nuclear weapon at Jerusalem, but in the meantime we can just enjoy watching the guy who is likely to be our best batsmen since Ricky Ponting.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

After sitting through that Senate hearing yesterday, I forgot to post my take on the whole thing, and this won't come as a surprise to Americans on dakka, but that hearing was a disgrace.

No wonder people on this forum are depressed at the prospect of next year's Presidential campaign, because yesterday's hearing was partisan politics at its worst.

The Republican response to the deal can be summed up as this: Democrats bad. Iran very very bad.

When it was pointed out that GW Bush offered Iran a similar deal, their response was democrats bad.

When the Republicans were asked what they would have done differently, they were silent for a while, and then it was Democrats bad.

Rubio's grandstanding was nauseating at the best of times. Yes, we know you're running for president. And the other Republican senators weren't much better.

To be fair, Democrat Senators were equally as clueless.

I actually thought Kerry and his team argued their case quite well, and after reading some of the detail of the deal, IMO it's not a bad deal.

But God almighty, it's just as well most of America doesn't watch these hearings because you would see another American revolution.

The sad thing is, this circus will repeat itself on Tuesday when Kerry goes before Congress.

American dakka members, I've said this before, and I acknowledge that British politicians are equally as bad, but if that's the calibre of politicians that the USA is producing, then I genuinely fear for your country. I would not let these people run a hotdog stand, never mind a global superpower.

**CptJake**

Another fun fact about Iran that has bearing on the situation which I don't see mentioned very much.

Yemen had been a decent ally in our fight against AQ both in Yemen and in the region. Iran supported ($$, weapons, training, Quds leadership) the rebels that took out the Yemeni government. This happened while we were negotiating. This, coupled with other actions we have and are seeing is indicative of how they see their role in the region as contrary to US goals/objectives. Probably does not mean a lot to some of you, but it does have implications for the future in the region.

And lets not forget the US citizens Iran is currently holding (that we left out of the deal).

**Tannhauser42**

Yep, to paraphrase George Carlin, when you have stupid voters you get stupid politicians, garbage in, garbage out.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yep, to paraphrase George Carlin, when you have stupid voters you get stupid politicians, garbage in, garbage out.

I compared it to a circus earlier, but on reflection, it does a major disservice to any circus on this planet! At times it was like comedy hour.

When you watch the news, you would have gotten a 20 second clip from the proceedings, which no doubt made it look respectable. It was anything but.

Sad to see such an important issue reduced to the level of the school playground.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Another fun fact about Iran that has bearing on the situation which I don't see mentioned very much.

Yemen had been a decent ally in our fight against AQ both in Yemen and in the region. Iran supported ($$, weapons, training, Quds leadership) the rebels that took out the Yemeni government. This happened while we were negotiating. This, coupled with other actions we have and are seeing is indicative of how they see their role in the region as contrary to US goals/objectives. Probably does not mean a lot to some of you, but it does have implications for the future in the region.

And lets not forget the US citizens Iran is currently holding (that we left out of the deal).

Earlier I praised Kerry, but the issue of American hostages was not presented well, and at times, Kerry tried to dodge it, and the Republicans rightfully gave him stick for it.

But then the Republicans shot themselves in the foot by reverting back to the Democrats are bad, no matter what they do, approach.

You may have the answer to this, but for the life of me, I don't know why the Republicans act like this.

One minute they're acting like proper, serious, politicians, the next minute, it's fingers in the ear time, la la la, Democrats are bad etc etc .

Would they act like this if there wasn't a Presidential election next year?

It's all very puzzling.

**Tannhauser42**

The problem is that the Ayatollah is quite correct when he called America "arrogant" recently. As you can see, our politicians wanted this deal to basically take everything from Iran without giving them anything in return. That's not how a deal works, but our current crop of politicians cut the word "compromise" out of their dictionaries long ago.

**djones520**

sebster wrote:
You know, for a party that prides itself on being all about respect for the military, Trump's comment about McCain hasn't actually hurt him that much. Reminds me of the purple heart bandaids making fun of Kerry - for a lot of Republicans respect for the military is political, not genuine.

I thought he was a clown before, but those comments of his has given me an actual distaste for the man now. I will actively preach against him because of his attack on McCain.

**Jihadin**

Double standards? No outcry when Chris Rock did it but then Chris Rock wasn't running for POTUS.
Yet I did not know Chris Rock made similar reference about McCain till recently.
Just saying

Still has my vote just for Entertainment Value and the mayhem of the upcoming debates and that he is not a politician

**Tannhauser42**

Comedians do tend to get a bit more leeway because of their role in holding a mirror up to society.
But even that leeway is disappearing these days.

Anyway, in pseudo-political news, Ted Cruz got "Shatnered".

Spoiler:

America is in the midst of another US presidential primary season. That means a bunch of politicians are doing whatever they can to appeal to almost every demographic in the country.

So if one of them meets a "Star Wars" fan, they'll probably try to win their vote by pretending to do a mind meld or saying how much they hate those pesky Cylons (which happen to be from "Battlestar Galactica," not "Star Trek"). Then the world gets to sit back and enjoy the awkward hilarity of their misinformed pandering.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a candidate for the Republican nomination, already had such a moment in an awkward video attempt to audition for "The Simpsons" on BuzzFeed. Still, I'll give him props for one thing. He appears to have a genuine interest in and prowess for pop-culture knowledge that most of politicians would kill to possess. He knows enough to have a conversation about "Star Trek," as he did in a Q&A with The New York Times Magazine that was published Thursday and led to a strange assertion about the political leanings of the franchise's most famous character.

Interviewer Ana Marie Cox asked the senator about his love for all things "Star Trek" and whether he preferred Capt. James T. Kirk from the original "Star Trek" series or Capt. Jean-Luc Picard from "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Cruz said he's an old-school Kirk fan because he prefers "a complete captain" who possesses the "heart and mind" needed to be a spaceship captain.

"The original 'Star Trek' was grittier," Cruz told the Times. "Kirk is working class; Picard is an aristocrat. Kirk is a passionate fighter for justice; Picard is a cerebral philosopher. The original 'Star Trek' pressed for racial equality, which was one of its best characteristics, but it did so without sermonizing."

Cox then asked Cruz whether he thought Kirk would be a Democrat or a Republican. Unless you're completely ignorant of American politics, you can probably guess Cruz's response.

"I think it is quite likely that Kirk is a Republican and Picard is a Democrat," Cruz said.

Well, there is at least one person out there who disagrees with Cruz's assessment -- and that's Capt. Frickin' Kirk himself. Actor William Shatner, who played Kirk in the original "Star Trek" series, jumped on his Twitter account on Thursday to voice his opinion on Cruz's claim that Kirk should have an "(R)" next to his name if he ever ran for public office.

https://twitter.com/WilliamShatner/status/624290094942433280 William Shatner: "Star Trek wasn't political. I'm not political; I can't even vote in the US. So to put a geocentric label on interstellar characters is silly"

Frankly, I'm not going to get in the middle of this debate. But it's not because I believe that pop culture doesn't belong in national politics or that our time should be better spent discussing more important issues potential presidential candidates.

In fact, I really want this war of words between Cruz and Shatner to escalate so they'll have to fight each other the way that Spock and Kirk did in the "Amok Time" episode with that battle music playing in the background. I'm sure that the folks at CNN are thinking the same thing so they can use their hologram technology to show something cool for once.

Oh, and Wil Wheaton's response is priceless.

Spoiler:

**whembly**

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigation-sought-into-hillary-clintons-emails-1437714369

Um... things aren't looking good for HRC.

She and her staff took classified material provided by the intelligence community and dropped it into unsecured communications... which is a violation of the law, and a potential disaster for national security.

So... let's update the scorecard eh?
"Just wanted one device." LIE
"All work emails handed over." LIE
"Never received classified info." LIE
"Never sent classified info." LIE

Rank and File officials would be charged already. Why is HRC going largely unscathed?

Oh... right... #DemocratPrivilege

**Tannhauser42**

Eh, I still believe that it probably doesn't really matter who it is, just that it isn't the kind of thing a lot of people care about to begin with.

After all, the whole OPM thing has largely been forgotten by the masses, and that was a tangible disaster that only barely made the top headlines for a little while before the latest celebrity breakup/hookup took over.

As far as why she isn't charged already compared to "rank and file officials"? Tinfoil-Hat-Conspiracy-Idea: The Republicans secretly want to drag it out as long as they can so they can produce the real "Gotcha!" at the height of her campaign shortly before the election.

The sad part is, the state of our politics is such that that idea may actually be possible.

EDIT: In other news, one of the charges against Rick Perry has been dropped.