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.

 whembly wrote:

Yup. The Democrats will go to bat for HRC ala Obama...

The Democrats will go to bat for whomever the Party nominates.

 whembly wrote:

Hillary is tanking now is sort of interesting... she's sucking now against Bernie (largely unknown) is a disaster.

She's up by a considerable margin in national polls. Sanders is winning polls in New England, but that's it.

 Ouze wrote:
Carly Fiorina has been running for various political offices for nearly 8 years now. The only thing keeping her from being a de facto professional politician is the fact she's as good at campaigning as she was at CEO'ing.

Trump is not an "outsider" either. Some people have even characterized him as a Clinton plant.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think the problem here is over-zealousness. You can't turn the US (one of the least socialist western nations) into Sweden overnight. Although he's damned sure correct that we need to put a gak-ton into our infrastructure. If we don'[t soon, it will turn into a major disaster. Sadly, it seems to take a major disaster to get congress to do anything that isn't political football these days.

Yet we do have socialist tendencies, Highways, the other infrastructure, not all use it, but all paid for it, libraries and public hospitals and schools, tax-paid police and fire departments, ambulances (now most are private), so we work best as a regulated market economy capitalist state with socialistic tendencies, what the present course has done is make us stop being 1st world nation, except our war-making and Oligarchy.
Old style politics, working for the rich and not the people who voted them in is gonna lose them those jobs. Oh and those jobs were never envisioned by the Founding Fathers to be jobs, just a term of service of a non-military nature for the nation, but sadly some made it into a career move.

Sanders is up not just in New Hampshire, but Iowa and gaining ground in Ohio as well, and those are the big 3 early primary states.

Oh and the numbers of costs that Sanders would do if elected is inaccurate, as it does not take the costs we lose now into account, so in the long run, his plan would be less costly than what we have had which costs far more like double for the uninsured, the insurance middle man premiums, that folks still have to use the ER which sheds costs to all as opposed to just covering them ahead of time.

Watching the CNN debate...

I need help... are we sure this isn't a SNL skit?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn... Fiorina did her homework...

You need help?
Here ya go, CNN's official GOP Debate BINGO! card:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/09/politics/gop-debate-bingo/

Yeah, I just saw that and came here to post it as I thought it was too funny not to share.

For real though, I am fairly convinced that Jeb Bush is in fact Will Farrell in disguise.

Also how does Trump literally flaunt his partaking corporate corruption in US politics and people are convinced he is incorruptible.
That an half of what he talks about seems to be only about how much money he has or made.

+1000 points to Kasich for not buying into the zoo.

edit: Kasich for not buying into the all about Trump circus.

Bwahahaha...

I love how Trump is criticizing Florina for firing people, says the man whose catchphrase is “you’re fired."

EDIT: saw this on twittah:

TRUMP: No man can defeat me

FIORINA: I am no man

ROTFLMAO!!!

I love that CNN is trolling all of the candiates by having them stand in front Regan's Air Force One...



It's the closest any of them will get to the real thing!

Update again:
Daaamn... Rubio is kicking arse here.

The sad part about all the Reagan worship, is how many voters are old enough to really even remember the Reagan years? I'm 38, I wasn't even in high school by the time he left office.

 whembly wrote:
Daaamn... Rubio is kicking arse here.

Kind of weird that with this wave of anti-immigration rhetoric, there's support for someone who is essentially an anchor baby.

Also, my favorite part of the debate so far was Santorum immediately and without context milking his disabled daughter. This is a man who truly doesn't feel shame.

 Ouze wrote:
Also, my favorite part of the debate so far was Santorum immediately and without context milking his disabled daughter. This is a man who truly doesn't feel shame.

I know what you meant here, but this conjures an entirely different mental image that will haunt me.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Daaamn... Rubio is kicking arse here.

Kind of weird that with this wave of anti-immigration rhetoric, there's support for someone who is essentially an anchor baby.

Erm... his folks were here legally.

Not weird.

I left early, that was really difficult to watch. Pandering to the far right, rewriting the historical narrative and scoring cheap points by knocking Hillary Clinton.

Props once again to Kasich for staying focused on the issues.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Daaamn... Rubio is kicking arse here.

Kind of weird that with this wave of anti-immigration rhetoric, there's support for someone who is essentially an anchor baby.

Erm... his folks were here legally.

Not weird.

His parents came to the US in 1956. He was born in 1971. His parents didn't attain naturalized citizenship until 1975. His parents were not citizens of the Untied States when he was born.

Also, the (gakky) term "anchor baby" isn't limited to only the children or illegal immigrants.

 whembly wrote:

Erm... his folks were here legally.

His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Erm... his folks were here legally.

His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.

Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.

Look it up ya'll.

EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.

Actually a surprisingly good debate amidst the hoopla. Christy and Paul once again had the most intriguing back and forth. Why though did the good doctors not come out more forcefully for science? That is their wheelhouse. They could have nailed Trump's answer about vaccines. They were tepid where they should/could have been forceful and make Trump look like the baffoon he is.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Erm... his folks were here legally.

His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.

Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.

Look it up ya'll.

EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.

According to American Heritage Dictionary:

n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.

Being that Rubio's parents, as outlined by other users, were not actually citizens of the US... it would appear that they are using the term correctly.

 whembly wrote:
It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.

Just being born in the US does not make a person an "anchor baby". What hypothetically makes a person an "anchor baby" is the influence their US citizenship might cause on the US immigration status of their family members. In the case of Rubio's family the whole US v. Communists thing was likely far more important than anything else, but it would be unfair to say his citizenship did not matter if you're claiming it matters for other children and their families.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Erm... his folks were here legally.

His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.

Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.

Look it up ya'll.

EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.

According to American Heritage Dictionary:

n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.

Being that Rubio's parents, as outlined by other users, were not actually citizens of the US... it would appear that they are using the term correctly.

BS.

It's not the child that being granted citizenship is what gets everyone's panties twisted...

It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberately come to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.

Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.

Not a fair apple-to-apples here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay... I LOL'ed too hard at this:

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Erm... his folks were here legally.

His parents were naturalized in 1975 after having lived in the US for 19 years, Rubio was born in 1971. They weren't illegal immigrants, but if anchor babies are a thing then Rubio certainly counts.

Then "anchor babies" as a term isn't used properly.

Look it up ya'll.

EDIT: It's a term used to when childrens are born here and (more importantly) used as a means to facilitate legal status for the rest of the family.

According to American Heritage Dictionary:

n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.

Being that Rubio's parents, as outlined by other users, were not actually citizens of the US... it would appear that they are using the term correctly.

BS.

It's not the child that being granted citizenship is what gets everyone's panties twisted...

It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberately come to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.

Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.

Not a fair apple-to-apples here.

Bull gak? You're going to argue with with the dictionary? Let me know how that turns out for you...

Anyway, Rubio's parents didn't flee Cuba because of "unrest" and Communism. They left for economic reasons (you know, to get a better paying job in the US) two-and-a-half years before the Castro came to power. Then, after Castro came to power, they made repeated trips back to Cuba. I mean, come on Whembly... just admit you were wrong. I promise it won't hurt.

 whembly wrote:

BS.

It's not the child that being granted citizenship is what gets everyone's panties twisted...

It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberately come to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.

Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.

Not a fair apple-to-apples here.

I wasn't arguing that... I happen to agree with you here. And by agree, I mean that I think Rubio's parents didn't come to the US for the sole purpose of having a child (which I think knowing gestation timelines, would be a given). I merely stated what the dictionary definition was.

IMHO, just because one fits the "definition" of a word, doesn't mean it necessarily applies. ie, not all people who do Crossfit are "Crossfitters"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

BS.

It's not the child that being granted citizenship is what gets everyone's panties twisted...

It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberately come to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.

Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.

Not a fair apple-to-apples here.

I wasn't arguing that... I happen to agree with you here. I merely stated what the dictionary definition was.

IMHO, just because one fits the "definition" of a word, doesn't mean it necessarily applies. ie, not all people who do Crossfit are "Crossfitters"

Indeedeo!



Also... look at this Google Trends after the debate:

Alright, I went back because I was just too curious.

Overall I was extremely disappointed in the showing by most of the candidates for their fear mongering, lack of historical context, obvious omissions, and chest thumping. Most of the candidates seemed to be trying to prey on the fears of the common man by trumpeting how hard they will be on immigrants, Islamic terrorism or both. The constant calls to expand and add more funding to the military to combat this supposedly dangerous world were reminiscent of this as well. I forget who said it, but I was absolutely floored when someone said that our navy was too small, when the tonnage of our navy is greater than the world's next 13 largest navies combined.

Having spent a lot of time reading and doing research about the Middle East, Islam and terrorism, it was really frustrating to hear the candidates promise to eradicate ISIS/ISIL, and the attempts to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Obama Administration instead of coming up with a more thoughtful solution. The conveniently overlooked facts are that contemporary Islamic extremism is born from the failures of the Pan-Arab nationalist governments, the legitimacy gained by the mujahadeen during the 1980's, and the destabilization of Iraq. We've repeatedly shown that American meddling in Middle Eastern politics is often directly detrimental to our own self interest, so it is disheartening that a stage full of presidential hopefuls are advocating the same policies.

And it's very easy to paint Iran as the bad guy when you neglect the fact that American and British intelligence organs overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and put the Persian people under the yoke of a monarch whose egregious conduct led directly to his overthrow in 1979. Couple that with the fact that we've had hundreds of thousands of military personnel on their borders for a decade and declared them part of an Axis of Evil it isn't difficult to see why they'd seek protection from outside intervention with nuclear weapons. I certainly don't condone Iran's current course of action, but this bluster and tough guy attitude is what led us to the current situation.

Another thing that really stuck in my craw was their chest thumping about the absolute moral right of invading both Iraq and Afghanistan as the thing to do to run the terrorists to ground while conveniently forgetting that our supposed allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan either provide, or are major conduits for terrorist support. I think Dr. Carson's ideas were laudable and a much more sensible way to approach the issue, but it was hard to hear over everyone else beating the war drums.

The economy isn't my strong point, but aren't flat taxes or just taxing consumables both a giant 'feth you' to poor people?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Actually a surprisingly good debate amidst the hoopla. Christy and Paul once again had the most intriguing back and forth. Why though did the good doctors not come out more forcefully for science? That is their wheelhouse. They could have nailed Trump's answer about vaccines. They were tepid where they should/could have been forceful and make Trump look like the baffoon he is.

I was also a little stumped by that. Everything I've read completely refutes the vaccines cause autism debate, but I guess the doctors didn't want to offend anyone by taking a stand?

 IAmTheWalrus wrote:
I was absolutely floored when someone said that our navy was too small, when the tonnage of our navy is greater than the world's next 13 largest navies combined.

IIRC, the number of boats isn't a problem the Navy has, but rather they've been running on relative "skeleton crews" for as long as I can remember. It was also the chief complaint of my great uncle who spent 20+ years on Carriers (he was 15 minutes away from being in Top Gun)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IAmTheWalrus wrote:

The economy isn't my strong point, but aren't flat taxes or just taxing consumables both a giant 'feth you' to poor people?

If you're referring to a "fair use" system... it sort of is, and sort of isn't, if that makes sense.

 whembly wrote:

It's the fact that illegal aliens deliberately come to the U.S. for the purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, and THEN petition for the rest of the family to stay in the states.

Very different from Rubio's family fleeing from the unrest in Cuba and then legally worked the system for nationalization.

I don't see much of a difference. After all, if the citizenship status of your child matters to your immigration status it would be part of legally working the system.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote: I was absolutely floored when someone said that our navy was too small, when the tonnage of our navy is greater than the world's next 13 largest navies combined.

IIRC, the number of boats isn't a problem the Navy has, but rather they've been running on relative "skeleton crews" for as long as I can remember. It was also the chief complaint of my great uncle who spent 20+ years on Carriers (he was 15 minutes away from being in Top Gun)

Right, I know the problem with our Navy certainly isn't the size of it, but Carly Fiorina said, “We need 50 Army brigades, 36 Marine battalions, 300 to 350 naval ships."

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 IAmTheWalrus wrote:

The economy isn't my strong point, but aren't flat taxes or just taxing consumables both a giant 'feth you' to poor people?

If you're referring to a "fair use" system... it sort of is, and sort of isn't, if that makes sense.

Could you elaborate a little bit, or point me in the direction of a good explanation?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Anyway, Rubio's parents didn't flee Cuba because of "unrest" and Communism. They left for economic reasons (you know, to get a better paying job in the US) two-and-a-half years before the Castro came to power. Then, after Castro came to power, they made repeated trips back to Cuba. I mean, come on Whembly... just admit you were wrong. I promise it won't hurt.

They didn't leave due to Communism but the unrest, and therefore many of the economic issues, began with the Cuban Revolution in 1953.

@beatlesrefernce: seemingly the contenders have in their mind that the voters believe that science is the devil's project. At least we didn't have the obligatory "do you believe in evolution" question and the likewise obligatory evasion, or even worse negatory response. So I guess that's progress.

Edit: hooray for no hand raising questions that elicit no debate whatsoever.

 dogma wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Anyway, Rubio's parents didn't flee Cuba because of "unrest" and Communism. They left for economic reasons (you know, to get a better paying job in the US) two-and-a-half years before the Castro came to power. Then, after Castro came to power, they made repeated trips back to Cuba. I mean, come on Whembly... just admit you were wrong. I promise it won't hurt.

They didn't leave due to Communism but the unrest, and therefore many of the economic issues, began with the Cuban Revolution in 1953.

The point is, he had claimed that his parents fled Cuba as exiles, when they most definitely did not.