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.
But Powell's wife I had heard was worried about him getting assassinated if he became prez.
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
Well, the lineup for the primetime debate on Fox News has been announced: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich That leaves the pregame show to: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore
Anybody know how long the debate is supposed to be? Realistically speaking, I just can't see much useful dialogue happening from 10 different candidates, many of whom will be trying to outdo each other in crazy, within only an hour or two. Sad we couldn't see Graham and Trump face off, would have been hilarious if they had been put next to each other on stage.
Another randomly awesome thought: Fox News should have Clinton or Sanders make an appearance to ask the candidates a question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/05 01:39:47
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Anybody know how long the debate is supposed to be? Realistically speaking, I just can't see much useful dialogue happening from 10 different candidates, many of whom will be trying to outdo each other in crazy, within only an hour or two. Sad we couldn't see Graham and Trump face off, would have been hilarious if they had been put next to each other on stage.
Fox News brought on a special "guest producer" specifically for this debate... It's going to be Vince McMahon, and the debate "format" is a "chairs and ladders match" not entirely sure what that all means though...
Powell has always been a R. Do you really think GW would select Him as Sec of S. otherwise? He, like many Rs, started noticing his party getting pulled further and further to the right (as is now starting to happen more on the left). He also really liked McCain, but viewed Obama as a transformational figure that the nation sorely needed, so he picked him. Yeah, it would probably disqualify him from the GOP nomination today, but I would guess he could easily win in the Dem field. They like his views on Iraq, social issues, the Rs couldn't fall back on the whole weak on military, (oh and Whem, he supports affirmative action).
So I guess HRC's early years as a supporter of Goldwater disqualify her from the D nomination?
Anybody know how long the debate is supposed to be? Realistically speaking, I just can't see much useful dialogue happening from 10 different candidates, many of whom will be trying to outdo each other in crazy, within only an hour or two. Sad we couldn't see Graham and Trump face off, would have been hilarious if they had been put next to each other on stage.
Fox News brought on a special "guest producer" specifically for this debate... It's going to be Vince McMahon, and the debate "format" is a "chairs and ladders match" not entirely sure what that all means though...
I really want Trump to call Christie a jabroni. And follow it with do you smeeellll what the Christie was eating?
The Donald may bring a whole new meaning to "presidential debate"
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
Ensis Ferrae wrote: You could do that, but you'd be partially wrong. Republicans are equally to blame with their "tactic" of saying "anything Obama wants is wrong, so we're gonna oppose it"
The economy isn't really driven by politics, outside of a few areas here or there. I mean, sure, in 2008 a stronger stimulus would have meant a shallower recession and faster recovery, and while Republicans were incredibly silly in rejecting most stimulus out of hand, but really the Blue Dogs weren't a hell of a lot better and the centre of the Democrats didn't fight too hard for a stronger bill.
But outside of that overall economic activity is pretty much outside the hands of the politicians. It was really up to the Federal Reserve after that and they did their job as they should, some Republicans claimed say deeply crazy nonsense, but it didn't affect the Fed's policy.
Though I will note that government has a powerful role to play in distribution, and on that the two parties are very different.
I could be wrong, and if you can give an example that'd be really interesting.
Glad you asked, lol.
In Oregon, Mark O. Hatfield pretty much gaks gold. He's got a bunch of stuff named after him, and is generally revered as a great statesman. While I don't think "Statesman" was applied to him during his whole career, I do recall seeing, on microfiche at the library, newspaper articles from the late, late 80s (like, 87-90 or so) that used the term, and I he retired in the early 90s. Ironically, he cited partisanship as one major reason for his retirement, and that was in the 90s, well before we got where we are today
Heh, I watched something recently, from the 90s, that complained about how partisan things had gotten. I laughed because they had no idea what was to come
And thanks for the story, interesting read.
But you could very well be right about the distinction between a "statesman" and "career politician", because thinking a bit more on it, I can't really recall anyone ever calling even Mr. Hatfield a "Career politician", and I can't think of too many instances, outside of a history class (wherein a term "career politician" is used as a statement of fact, not judgement) where the term has been used positively.
Cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Bernie comes off authentic because he's literally shouting out what he is and what he wants to do.
He's not your typical 'double-speaking' politician for sure.
Sure, but this is really because he has the freedom of being irrelevant. He can say what he wants knowing if it pisses off some group it doesn't matter, because he isn't going to win. And he doesn't have to parse his language carefully to make sure people can't take it out of context, because no-one is bothering to attack him, neither the Repubicans nor Hillary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I was just thinking, because I've been hearing a lot about it lately, do you think the R's will be focusing on abortion this election now that gay marriage is out the window as an issue? Or do you think they will focus less on the conservative christian voting bloc?
They put out that Planned Parenthood scam to time it with the primaries, so it looks like at some part of the party wants to take this election in that direction.
But they would want to be careful, because while making a lot of noise about abortion can be a good way to put some enthusiasm in their base, it's also certain to energise a large part of the Democratic base as well. Typically Republicans can count on most of their base getting out and voting, while the Democrats have a larger pool of voters but much lower turn outs. Republicans want an election like 2000, not 2008.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.
You pretty much have to, to win the primary. They'll try to swing back to the centre in the general.
The crazy wheel gets the grease. Note its not just social conservatives that work this way, but true believers of any kind. Note that Ron Paul has done well in a few primaries, especially in caucus where you have to be a total nut to sit through hours of that nonsense to get to finally cast a vote.
Its true with Democrats as well, and is one main reason Sanders is doing so well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Powell has always been a R. Do you really think GW would select Him as Sec of S. otherwise?
Powell was slated for Education if Gore had won. He's very Republican on foreign affairs, but on domestic issues he's got a mix of Republican and Democratic values.
But then, that's a large reason he'd never get the nod. The primary test for much of the Republican base is absolute, unquestioning adherence to Republican positions in all things. So he'd have huge problems getting his own base behind him. Meanwhile Democrats would be able to run vision of him in front of the UN talking about WMDs over and over again.
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2015/08/05 06:34:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Not content with bringing peace to the Middle East (Iran deal) and saving healthcare in the USA
it seems that Obama has a new target: saving the world.
His next mission is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions and make the USA more 'greener.'
He's proposing new powers for the EPA, and the possible creation of a new department/agency to over see these tough climate targets.
I'm sure Frazz and Whembley will be delighted at the prospect of another layer of government bureaucracy in Washington
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, the lineup for the primetime debate on Fox News has been announced: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich
That leaves the pregame show to: Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore
Anybody know how long the debate is supposed to be? Realistically speaking, I just can't see much useful dialogue happening from 10 different candidates, many of whom will be trying to outdo each other in crazy, within only an hour or two. Sad we couldn't see Graham and Trump face off, would have been hilarious if they had been put next to each other on stage.
Another randomly awesome thought: Fox News should have Clinton or Sanders make an appearance to ask the candidates a question.
I'll be tuning in for pure entertainment value.
But if one candidate actually presents an alternative to the ACA other than "repeal and replace with something better", I will visit that candidates website and read over his platform.
With this many people, I think we're just in for a night of "Obama, Hilary, and/or Obamacare are bad", and little by way of actual substance.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/05 13:52:20
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.
You pretty much have to, to win the primary. They'll try to swing back to the centre in the general.
Which I think will hurt them overall as people will think they are being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on issues, etc. I really do think that Sanders will do quite well all the way through to the end of things, simply because he doesn't have to, and isn't going to "swing back" in any direction to try and bring in more votes.
sebster wrote: My political memory only goes back to the 80s, and my memory of US politics only goes back to the early 90s, but I can't remember a time when people weren't calling for an outsider to do magical outsider things. I even know of a few outsiders that won elections, and while a few were okay none of them ever managed to do anything magically different to the establishment candidates.
In this cycle, Benton has been running America's Liberty superPAC, which is boosting Rand Paul, one of the 10 Republicans to make it onto the prime-time Fox News debate stage Thursday night.
Benton managed Rand Paul's winning Senate run in Kentucky. He also managed Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell's 2014 reelection bid before resigned in August of last year.
Benton played a prominent role in Ron Paul's 2012 campaign. What's more, he is married to Ron Paul's granddaughter, who is a niece of Rand Paul.
...
In 2011, Sorenson was the salaried state campaign chairman for then-Rep. Michele Bachmann. He was one of the early Bachmann backers helping lay the groundwork for the Minnesota congresswoman, who was looking to make a splash.
But that December, shortly before the Iowa caucuses, Sorenson defected and endorsed Ron Paul. In Sorenson's guilty plea, he charged that Paul campaign officials paid him $73,000 to make the flip.
The new indictment alleges that in October 2011, Benton began negotiations with Sorenson, offering to match Bachmann's salary. By December, the four politicos — Sorenson, Benton, Kesari and Tate — were writing and editing a press release for Sorenson to announce his switch. They then had to draft a second release, to deny rumors of a payoff. The three Paul staffers began moving the money just before Christmas, according to the indictment.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.
You pretty much have to, to win the primary. They'll try to swing back to the centre in the general.
Which I think will hurt them overall as people will think they are being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on issues, etc. I really do think that Sanders will do quite well all the way through to the end of things, simply because he doesn't have to, and isn't going to "swing back" in any direction to try and bring in more votes.
Do you recall Mitt Romney's "Etch-a-Sketch" remark? That may well have been the nail on the coffin of his presidential aspirations, because it deflated any enthusiasm a personality like Romney was able to muster for going out to the polls...he admitted he'd been lying to them the whole time, and who wants to get out of bed to go vote for someone who's been lying to them.
I think the GOP field needs a dude, maybe a candidate who knows he won't win like Rand Paul, to level with the conservative base that they no longer have the demographic clout they used to, and they simply cannot win the White House on a platform that contains stances that are offensive to the majority of US voters. It might sound like I'm just bashing on the GOP, but I really do believe we need a "small government" platform in the mix, just for the love of all things reasonable, keep the small government stuff, and jettison the quixotic quest to ban abortion. I mean this whole Planned Parenthood thing...just when you might thing the GOP might be coming to its senses, boom! Surprise! We're still the same creepy old white-hairs who were trying to crawl in the sheets with you and your wife 4 years ago.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/05 21:55:37
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Outside of Trump, it seems like the majority of candidates from the Republican side are focusing MORE on the conservative christian block, not less.
You pretty much have to, to win the primary. They'll try to swing back to the centre in the general.
Which I think will hurt them overall as people will think they are being wishy-washy, or flip-flopping on issues, etc. I really do think that Sanders will do quite well all the way through to the end of things, simply because he doesn't have to, and isn't going to "swing back" in any direction to try and bring in more votes.
Do you recall Mitt Romney's "Etch-a-Sketch" remark? That may well have been the nail on the coffin of his presidential aspirations, because it deflated any enthusiasm a personality like Romney was able to muster for going out to the polls...he admitted he'd been lying to them the whole time, and who wants to get out of bed to go vote for someone who's been lying to them.
Had the Romney campaign, for all it's worts, had a strong ground game, he'd likely be President now. The Obama Campaign simply kicked ass.
I think the GOP field needs a dude, maybe a candidate who knows he won't win like Rand Paul, to level with the conservative base that they no longer have the demographic clout they used to, and they simply cannot win the White House on a platform that contains stances that are offensive to the majority of US voters.
Who do you think put the GOP back in charge in both the House and Senate? I think you're maybe conflating "conservative base" to the far "religious right".
It might sound like I'm just bashing on the GOP, but I really do believe we need a "small government" platform in the mix, just for the love of all things reasonable, keep the small government stuff, and jettison the quixotic quest to ban abortion. I mean this whole Planned Parenthood thing...just when you might thing the GOP might be coming to its senses, boom! Surprise! We're still the same creepy old white-hairs who were trying to crawl in the sheets with you and your wife 4 years ago.
Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/05 22:09:40
Who do you think put the GOP back in charge in both the House and Senate? I think you're maybe conflating "conservative base" to the far "religious right".
I have no doubt that the GOP is still powerful in local elections....just nationally, they are not keeping up with dramatic demographic shifts. This is not news. If the GOP is content to remain a local power, that's a route that's available to them, but its becoming increasingly obvious that in order to really compete nationally, they will really have to moderate their platform.
In all fairness, they've made a good start by keepiong their mouths shut (for the most part) after gay marriage bans were rendered unconstitutional. All you gotta do is apply that silence to women's reproductive systems, and Voila! You're well on your way back to the path to national relevancy.
whembly wrote: Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.
Except for the inconvenient fact that federal funding for abortion is already outlawed. But the truth has never riled up the fringe like a good lie.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/08/05 22:18:50
Who do you think put the GOP back in charge in both the House and Senate? I think you're maybe conflating "conservative base" to the far "religious right".
I have no doubt that the GOP is still powerful in local elections....just nationally, they are not keeping up with dramatic demographic shifts. This is not news. If the GOP is content to remain a local power, that's a route that's available to them, but its becoming increasingly obvious that in order to really compete nationally, they will really have to moderate their platform.
In all fairness, they've made a good start by keepiong their mouth shut (for the most part) after gay marriage bans were rendered unconstitutional.
We'll see how it goes...eh? Maybe a Trump/Oprah administration would make things palatable...
whembly wrote: Well... the Democrat did filibuster the defund PP bill... so, now the GOP can say that the Democrats are forcing all taxpayer to pay for fetal organ harvesting for profit.
Except for the inconvenient fact that federal funding for abortion is already outlawed. But the truth has never riled up the fringe like a good lie.
The inconvenient fact is that money is fungible. So, the fact that federal funding is outlawed is a red-herring.
I read an article today that Bill Clinton called him and encouraged him to run for President when he was mulling it over, and both Clinton's people and Trump's people admit that it happened.
I'll try to find the article and link it. I wonder if this will have any effect on his standing in the GOP field.
Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.
Clinton’s personal office in New York confirmed that the call occurred in late May, but an aide to Clinton said the 2016 race was never specifically discussed and that it was only a casual chat.
The talk with Clinton — the spouse of the Democratic presidential front-runner and one of his party’s preeminent political strategists — came just weeks before Trump jumped into the GOP race and surged to the front of the crowded Republican field.
The revelation of the call comes as many Republicans have begun criticizing Trump for his ties to Democrats, including past financial donations to the Clintons and their charitable foundation.
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. (AP photos/AP photos)
Trump took the call from his office in Trump Tower in New York, according to the four allies, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. The call came as Trump was making a final decision about whether to run, and he was candid about his political ambitions and his potential interest in seeking the White House during the talk, these allies said.
The 42nd president listened intently and then analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the GOP base, the Trump allies said.
The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said. Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.
One person with knowledge of Clinton’s end of the call said the former president was upbeat and encouraging during the conversation, which occurred as Trump was speaking out about GOP politics and his prescriptions for the nation.
Clinton aides declined to speak on the record about the call, saying the conversation was personal.
“Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times. President Clinton returned his call in late May,” a Clinton employee said. “While we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”
One Trump adviser said Clinton called Trump, but the adviser did not provide specifics about how the call came about.
People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.
At the time, Trump was touting a “foolproof” but undisclosed plan to defeat Islamic State terrorists and ramping up his presence on the airwaves, including interviews where he was asked about his donations to the Clinton Foundation. He entered the race June 16.
Neither side would provide an exact date for the call, but both Bill Clinton’s office and a person close to Trump described it as “late May.”
Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, declined to comment. The campaign of Hillary Clinton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump is a longtime acquaintance of the Clintons, both of whom attended the businessman’s third wedding in 2005. Since Trump entered the presidential race, however, he and Hillary Clinton have increasingly traded barbs.
She has condemned Trump’s racially charged remarks about Mexican immigrants and tut-tutted about his remark that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is not a war hero.
“Donald Trump. Finally, a candidate whose hair gets more attention than mine,” Clinton joked at a Democratic dinner in Arkansas in July. “But there’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and families, and now the insults he has directed at a genuine war hero, Sen. John McCain.”
That was a rare instance in which Clinton mentioned Trump by name. Also in July, before a largely Hispanic audience, Clinton had this to say:
“I have just one word for Mr. Trump. Basta!”
In June, she criticized Trump, without using his name, over his references to Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals during his June campaign launch speech.
“A recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable,” Clinton said in an interview with Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston.
Clinton demurred when asked to specify to whom she was referring. Instead, she has frequently sought to tie Trump’s views to the broader GOP field.
“I think he is emblematic,” she said. “I want people to understand it’s not about him — it’s about everybody.”
Clinton has reserved her sharpest attacks for former Florida governor Jeb Bush and other candidates she has called out by name for their policies on immigration, abortion and other issues.
For his part, Trump said little about Clinton until recent weeks.
“Wow, it’s pretty pathetic that Hillary Clinton just blamed me for the horrendous attack that took place in South Carolina,” Trump wrote in a post on Instagram, following that interview. “This is why politicians are just no good. Our country’s in trouble.”
And on Wednesday, Trump wrote in a Twitter message: “Do you notice that Hillary spews out Jeb’s name as often as possible in order to give him status? She knows Trump is her worst nightmare.”
That’s a long way from the cordial, even cozy, relationship between the two when Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York and Trump was a constituent and supporter.
At Trump’s 2005 wedding, Hillary Clinton sat in the front row for the ceremony, and Bill Clinton joined her for festivities later. The Clintons were photographed laughing chummily with Trump and new wife Melania Knauss at the reception, with Bill Clinton clasping Trump’s shoulder.
Trump has also donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns and to the Clinton Foundation.
If I were an opportunistic GOP contender, I'd be doing everything I could to paint Trump as the "Clinton's candidate", at least for as long as he seems like an actual contender.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/05 22:31:19
