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.

**LordofHats**

BrotherGecko wrote:

I'd love to see the experiment in action and watch the complete collapse of the American political system. I just feel very strongly that he is a threat to American lives and security and the direct future of all that fall in the US's shadow.

Don't worry. Trump will be sure to sell all his interests in 'America' to some idiot investors and be a country away when the value drops to zero and it all goes bankrupt

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.

Not to dogpile, but I think that was your first mistake. I know you're inclined to see how it was run as some kind of partisan thing, with the idea that they would somehow be favorable to Democrats. I am quite sure than once the Democratic debates start, it will become quite clear that this is simply the best CNN can do.

**DutchWinsAll**

BrotherGecko wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
Politics turned into a bad reality show where candidates one up each other with who can say the most unrealistic idea possible (always Trump).

Well when the leading candidate is a reality tv star, it makes a little more sense.

I live in a state where it really doesn't matter who I vote for (it'll be a Democrat who gets the Electrical College vote) but I kind of really do want Trump to win. I want America to admit to itself and the world that our politics are truly that ridiculous. Personally I think it's great. But I also have a huge case of schadenfreude. I guess it's not all that different from an Early Modern European nobleman buying his way into the court, but it still feels a bit more ridiculous to me that we have all this information at our fingertips, literally the sum total of human knowledge, mostly for free, and this is the best we can do.

I also enjoy telling my Mexican girlfriend that if he wins I'll have to put her on the train out of the US. She does not like these statements much lol.

I'd love to see the experiment in action and watch the complete collapse of the American political system. I just feel very strongly that he is a threat to American lives and security and the direct future of all that fall in the US's shadow.

I think you're giving him too much credit. We still have what, 60 weeks till the election? His style of rhetoric will be long gone before the actual elections. And do you really think President's have that much power / influence? Besides maybe the Iraq War, I can't really envision America today being any different, no matter who was elected.

It doesn't matter. That's the best part; it doesn't matter.

Politics used to make me mad. Now I love it because it's meaningless for the most part. I'll still vote for my favorite burlesque owner, Guy Smiley, but it really is meaningless. And that's why I love it. The thin veneer of choice is finally being cracked open, albeit slowly, but it's open. Vote for the one person that has half your views, and half not, or vote for the other person that has the other half of your views, but not the first half!

As bitter as it sounds I actually fething love the fact we can do this. As meaningless as it is, I'd rather at least have the option than a totalitarian system.

Side question, what do people in the UK chant at sports events?

America has "U! S! A! U! S! A! U! S! A!" Is it "Rule Britannia?" Or is it some of the sweet songs you all love during football matches? I feel like those are most likely a local thing though.

Thank you for reading my rambles.

**Ensis Ferrae**

DutchWinsAll wrote:
[
Side question, what do people in the UK chant at sports events?

America has "U! S! A! U! S! A! U! S! A!" Is it "Rule Britannia?" Or is it some of the sweet songs you all love during football matches? I feel like those are most likely a local thing though.

Thank you for reading my rambles.

Well, at rugby matches, you can hear "Swing Low" sung by the crowd quite often.

**Ouze**

Joe Biden “More Likely Than Not” to Enter 2016 Presidential Race

On the question of whether Vice President Joe Biden will enter the presidential race, it now looks more like an issue of when, rather than if, reports the Wall Street Journal. In Biden’s circle it seems conversations are now more focused on when would be the best time for the vice president to throw his hat in the ring. Regardless, the Journal warns that nothing is certain yet, pointing out that Biden “could still back out if he finds the emotional toll from the death of his elder son, Beau Biden, too much to overcome.”

Some in Biden’s team want the vice president to jump into the race soon so he can get a spot in the Democratic debate scheduled for October 13. Yet his advisers also have another date in their heads: October 22. That’s when Hillary Clinton is scheduled to testify in a House committee on Benghazi. It is seen as a pivotal moment for her campaign that could weaken or strengthen the former secretary of state’s candidacy. And the opinion there is split. Some want Biden to delay any decision until after the hearing, while others say it will look too opportunistic if he waits for Clinton to stumble in order to join the race.

The Journal article comes shortly after key fundraiser Josh Alcorn was overheard on Amtrak saying that “I am 100 percent that Joe is in,” according to the National Review. Alcorn reportedly expressed uncertainty about when the announcement would be but guessed it was going to take place in mid-October.

These latest signs of Biden’s apparent willingness to enter the race comes as almost 50 prominent Democratic fundraisers and party activists signed a letter calling on Biden to run for president due to the “spectacular success” of the Obama–Biden administration. “To finish the job, America needs a leader who is respected both home and abroad, and who understands the real challenges facing American families. In our opinion, the next president must be Joe Biden. If he announces he’s running, we’re all in. It’s a campaign we know he will win,” the letter says.

I'd be sort of excited about Biden running.

**Co'tor Shas**

So... what do you guys think will be the political fallout of the pope's visit.

**Tannhauser42**

It all depends on what the Pope says, and what the candidates say in response. This is a Pope that has proven immensely popular, and who appeals to many outside of the Catholic Church (I'm not particularly religious, and I like the guy; we need to clone him a few times to have one for every major religion in the world and then we might actually have a chance at peace). The GOP candidates will have to watch their words very carefully when criticizing any of the Pope's comments/actions. And criticize they will. Because the Pope has also proven to be too liberal for that really conservative Christian base that many of the candidates pander to.

**Gordon Shumway**

Well he is already saying things that will rankle the GOP https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/with-clean-streets-and-a-bit-of-suspense-cuba-awaits-pope-francis/2015/09/19/ee4a5ba6-5bf5-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html

**Ouze**

Very pleased to hear that Jeb Bush's claim that George W Bush "kept us safe" is being rebutted. That was a particularly gross one, I thought.

Post-debate, Mrs. Firorina has risen, but she isn't taking Mr. Trumps's votes - he's gained points.

Also, it looks like Scott Walker is starting to have money problems. It might be a little early to say so, but I think the Walker campaign is just about done.

**Gordon Shumway**

Walker is done, where did you get the latest polls?

**Ouze**

The Vox one isn't present here, but this is a good place for polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president - you can see that both Trump and Fiorina are up, and Walker's averaging out to around 1.5% over the last couple of days and has shown a protracted decline over the last few months.

**Tannhauser42**

So, this happened...

After a man spews anti-Muslim rhetoric at a Trump rally where Trump doesn't even bother to correct him ("not morally obligated to defend Obama" my ass, you damn well are morally obligated to defend the truth).
After a Muslim kid gets arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school just because someone thought it looked like it could possibly be a bomb.

And yet, the GOP candidates are falling all over themselves trying to outdo one another in promoting policies of religious freedom (see: Kim Davis situation), but I guess that only counts when it's their religion?

**Grey Templar**

I think he actually did the best thing you could do. Don't engage with the crazy and give him attention. Course that's not much when talking about trump, but still

**Gordon Shumway**

No, the best he could do was exactly what McCain did when he got a similar question from a crazy.

**Grey Templar**

Remember this is Trump. By his standards this was pretty good.

**BlaxicanX**

That's a terrible metric.

**Grey Templar**

I don't disagree, but its something

**Gordon Shumway**

You make a sad point well.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Very pleased to hear that Jeb Bush's claim that George W Bush "kept us safe" is being rebutted. That was a particularly gross one, I thought.

Wow... that's peak Bush Derangment Syndrome there...

As to the current polls... man, Trump is showing some staying power so far.

**Co'tor Shas**

I almost feel sorry for the republicans. If Trump wins the primary, that's pretty much an auto-lose for them in the general.

Peraonly, what I think will be more interesting, is if the Ds can win back enough seats in the H+S to re-gain control.

**LordofHats**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Peraonly, what I think will be more interesting, is if the Ds can win back enough seats in the H+S to re-gain control.

Well realistically, the next presidential term is likely to be inconsequential (which might be why the Republicans care so little that their primary is just a mess). Even if the Dems do win the White House, that president won't get much done, because it's unlikely that Republicans will lose control of both the Senate and the House, and so long as they can hold onto one, they can cut right into the first two years of the next presidency and keep any significant legislation they dislike from moving forward.

**sebster**

Prestor Jon wrote:
I'm not sure what conclusion you chose to draw from my inclusion of Ron Paul in a list of well known modern day Republicans that have espoused libertarian ideals but I included him because that's what he is, well known, Republican and he takes libertarian positions. Anything else is what you chose to read into it.

Having the person with 1/50 the stature and historic relevance of the others is comical. The only way you can't see that is if you don't get how lists work, or you don't realise how minor a figure Ron Paul is compared to Reagan and Eisenhower.

I've yet to meet a small l or capital L libertarian that actually believes transforming the USA into a true libertarian state is possible but I'm sure some exist somewhere.

I've yet to meet a libertarian who is even remotely coherent in their political ambitions. In almost all cases it's someone who's annoyed at the amount of tax they pay, and adds to that a series of vague semi-conspiracy stuff about the Federal government.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
It might be to some people, but it is important to me. Senator, governor, mayor even, I'd like someone who is running for president to have at least some experience in government.

Sure, but anyone who gets to this position has plenty of experience with government. Trump, for instance, built his fortune in major property developments. In working those deals he wasn't just able to get planning approval, in most cases he actually worked government well enough to get significant tax exemptions. Fiorina, similarly, managed a multinational merger that was built around offshoring jobs, and you need to handle government very well to get that to happen.

And even outside of those specifics, to just get to the primary campaign you need to have schmoozed and gathered a vast connection of contacts and allies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I think both would be personally happy in a true Libertarian USA but if asked directly I think both would admit that actually turning the USA into a true Libertarian state isn't politically feasible. Although maybe Ron does believe it's possible, he's a little crazy. Rand is probably too politically savvy to be naive enough to believe that such a transformation is possible.

A truly libertarian state isn't just politically impossible, it's an impossible concept in and of itself. Because people and societies just don't work like libertarians believe.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
It was pathetic. Amateur hour. I expected a lot better of CNN.

No you didn't. No-one has expected anything from CNN since about 1998.

You're just feigning surprise to make political gains.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
I'd be sort of excited about Biden running.

It's interesting, Biden seems to be waiting to see if Clinton will implode or not. He doesn't want to run against her unless she's well and truly sunk, so I guess the question is why.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tannhauser42 wrote:
And yet, the GOP candidates are falling all over themselves trying to outdo one another in promoting policies of religious freedom (see: Kim Davis situation), but I guess that only counts when it's their religion?

Yep. Religious freedom is a hugely important concept, but most of the people who talk about it the most often don't believe in it one bit. It's just a cover to their basic motivation - their tribe.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Very pleased to hear that Jeb Bush's claim that George W Bush "kept us safe" is being rebutted. That was a particularly gross one, I thought.

Wow... that's peak Bush Derangment Syndrome there...

What specifically is BDS about refuting the idea that George W. Bush "kept us safe"? I've seen a few particularly execrable attempts by prominent Republicans to re-write history. It's pretty terrible but I guess the low-information voters gobble it up, so why not.

Anyway, here is a current CNN poll (post-debate) . Obviously it's CNN, so who knows how accurate it is, but the takeaway is:

Carly Fiorina is in second place.

Donald Trump has bled off 8 points, which contradicts yesterday's story that she wasn't eating into his support.

Scott Walker is now polling at one half of one percent (0.5%). Ouch.

Ben Carson has held steady.

Marco Rubio has risen.

**Grey Templar**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Very pleased to hear that Jeb Bush's claim that George W Bush "kept us safe" is being rebutted. That was a particularly gross one, I thought.

Wow... that's peak Bush Derangment Syndrome there...

What specifically is BDS about refuting the idea that George W. Bush "kept us safe"? I've seen a few particularly execrable attempts by prominent Republicans to re-write history. It's pretty terrible but I guess the low-information voters gobble it up, so why not.

I think that would be the sort of thing you'd find almost impossible to refute at all. Especially since "safe" is such a relative term. Granted its all political hogwash, but I think saying its outright false isn't something you could claim. Not a score for the "fact checkers" on this one.

**d-usa**

The longest war on history started on his watch. Much safety, such peace, very protection.

**Grey Templar**

Did you mean "in history"? because that doesn't make any sense.

And neither does the longest war in history. There have been many wars which lasted way longer.

**LordofHats**

Hundred Years War. The years are in the name

**Ouze**

I think "presiding over the biggest domestic attack since Pearl Harbor" is pretty quantifiably unsafe, along with the 13 embassy attacks with 70ish people dead that we never mention when we're screaming BENGHAAAAAAZI.

But, this is the OT, so lets pretend!

**d-usa**

Longest US war, sorry.

**Ouze**

Yeah, I knew what you meant