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.
2015/09/21 03:50:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It's outright false. 9/11 anyone? Had he qualified that his brother kept Americans safe post 9/11 (which to be fair is probably what he meant) he might have been on firmer ground. But the statement as it stands is blatantly false.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/09/21 03:51:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Gordon Shumway wrote: It's outright false. 9/11 anyone? Had he qualified that his brother kept Americans safe post 9/11 (which to be fair is probably what he meant) he might have been on firmer ground. But the statement as it stands is blatantly false.
Gordon, what does safe even mean, tho
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/09/21 03:52:42
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: 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!
He also let SARS into the country. Which is only fair to bring up since Ebola was Obama's fault.
2015/09/21 03:56:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The Vietnam War (US involvement) lasted from 1961 to 1973, with US military personnel working directly in/with the South Vietnamese government as early as the Eisenhower Administration
The War on Terror (unless we're going by some measure of involvement rather that just straight involvement) needs another 4-6 years to be the longest US conflict. EDIT: And lets be fair, it probably will last longer than 4-6 more years
Just saying
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/21 03:57:19
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Gordon Shumway wrote: It's outright false. 9/11 anyone? Had he qualified that his brother kept Americans safe post 9/11 (which to be fair is probably what he meant) he might have been on firmer ground. But the statement as it stands is blatantly false.
So you admit you are taking it totally out of context to ensure it remains false
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It's outright false. 9/11 anyone? Had he qualified that his brother kept Americans safe post 9/11 (which to be fair is probably what he meant) he might have been on firmer ground. But the statement as it stands is blatantly false.
So you admit you are taking it totally out of context to ensure it remains false
Evidently you didn't read my comment. The statement was false. I gave him the benefit of the doubt to what I think he actually meant (in other words, I added in the context he left out) but didn't say. Good try though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/21 04:06:46
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/09/21 04:07:41
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Its false, if taken out of context when obviously it was referring to the later years of the presidency after 9-11.
Really, its just trying to play "gotcha". Pretty weak stuff to try and claim "oh the stupid republicans are all liars and are just BSing you!" with.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Its false, if taken out of context when obviously it was referring to the later years of the presidency after 9-11.
So if we remove the bits where unsafe things happened, then it was a very safe presidency. This is a bit like saying the Challenger was the safest shuttle launch, if you remove those last seven seconds.
Really, its just trying to play "gotcha". Pretty weak stuff to try and claim "oh the stupid republicans are all liars and are just BSing you!" with.
I'm really, really bored with the complaints about 'gotcha'. Yes, there is sometimes a kind of media questioning that is looking to trip a candidate up, lure them to some answer and then ambush them with some other thing. But that kind of questioning barely exists at all in the US media, where interviewers are offer up either hopeless softball questions, or pundits who shout their opinion at the interviewee without any kind of skill or planning.
And to use it as a defence in this case just makes no fething sense at all. Bush wasn't led to his statement, he offered it up himself. It isn't 'gotcha' to actually look at fething facts to figure out if that's true or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/21 05:30:14
“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.
2015/09/21 17:07:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
If I had to guess I would say that he doesn't want to deal with a repeat of the 2008 campaign.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/09/21 17:39:31
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
No, I did expect better from CNN, a lot better. I have no 'political gains' either way, and I'm not prone to lying and was not feigning anything. So unless you have some insight as to my actual thoughts, you can quit attempting to translate them into what ever political point you are attempting to make.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2015/09/21 19:38:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The sharp and rapid rise of Carly Fiorina is, for me at least, another indicator that polling right now is volatile and flawed. I actually think if primary season started tomorrow, we’d find the last men standing would be Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, with Cruz having a slight advantage — for now at least.
Polling has been largely wrong since 2010 and has been increasingly wrong after 2014. From showing many races in this country as too close to call to even missing the Tory blowout in Britain, something is wrong methodologically with polling. Likewise, the sharp spikes and declines, also too easy to predict, are too easily caught in flash polling. It does not make a lot of sense.
What does make sense and I think what remains are traditional campaign outlooks. I think Trump will fade, Fiorina will fade, and Carson is already fading. They are doing so because their momentum is based more on name identification and not on records or ground games.
If we look at traditional campaign data, which under the smoke and veneer of Campaign 2016 still matters, what we will find is that Ted Cruz is laying down a hell of a ground game and has tons of cash with not nearly the burn rate that even Jeb Bush has. Cruz stands to profit the most from the collapse of Carson, Fiorina, and Trump — all of whom are playing on the outsider advantages right now. Those advantages will start to go away as more traditional and necessary campaign tactics and strategies kick in like, for example, ballot access.
Cruz can get himself on ballots and get signatures collected. He can make a play through the SEC primary better than many of the other candidates can. He captures the conservative outsider angst while also being a more credible candidate long term than any of the other outsiders. Cruz has, after all, won an election and has a professional campaign team.
While conservatives will gravitate rapidly to Cruz, the more establishment oriented people who recognize the party still needs a fresh face and chage will likely go to Marco Rubio. Already I’m hearing that both Walker and Bush donors are looking at Rubio as their next pick. Rubio has the highest positives of any of the candidates and is, in fact, the one Republican that the Democrats desperately fear because of his perceived ability to attract women, young voters, and Hispanics.
Likewise, Rubio has an experienced team that will be able to navigate ballot access laws, has consistently high polling in a volatile (and inaccurate) polling year, and did I mention just how positively people view him. Rubio also is running a tighter campaign with a slower burn rate than some of the others.
Being liked is a pretty big indicator of where people will head as their candidates start to fade. Rubio also has a pretty solid fundraising ability magnifying his nimble campaign’s ability to get out there the closer we get to the primaries.
I think over the coming weeks, the campaign vultures will circle the Scott Walker campaign, looking to see if he has a pulse and, if they find none, will begin in earnest to pull voters and donors away from him. I suspect we’ll see the more conservative elements head to Cruz and the more establishment elements head to Rubio.
Next month’s debate performance could rupture it. There’s still a lot that could change. But right now to me it looks like we are headed toward a Cruz vs. Rubio primary and, given how well the outsiders are doing currently, Cruz has a slight advantage.
I agree that I'm not convinced that Trump, Fiorina and Carson has staying power...
Plus, throw in the fact that Jeb and Walker isn't do so well... that it probably will be between Rubio vs. Cruz.
If that's the case, I'd be in Rubio's corner because he'd have the best chance to take on HRC in the General election.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/21 19:44:19
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I used to think that American politics was interesting, but compared to Britain, you guys are rookies
While you guys are obsessing with Trump's toupee and Clinton's emails,
we have army generals threatening to mutiny, and allegations that the Prime Minister may have performed a sex act on a dead pig when he was at college
Try and beat that America!
"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
2015/09/21 20:32:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/09/21 20:47:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yeah, can't say I'm sorry to see Walker out of the race. Nothing of value was lost.
Though, same could be said of almost all the candidates...
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2015/09/21 21:43:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The sharp and rapid rise of Carly Fiorina is, for me at least, another indicator that polling right now is volatile and flawed. I actually think if primary season started tomorrow, we’d find the last men standing would be Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, with Cruz having a slight advantage — for now at least.
Polling has been largely wrong since 2010 and has been increasingly wrong after 2014. From showing many races in this country as too close to call to even missing the Tory blowout in Britain, something is wrong methodologically with polling. Likewise, the sharp spikes and declines, also too easy to predict, are too easily caught in flash polling. It does not make a lot of sense.
What does make sense and I think what remains are traditional campaign outlooks. I think Trump will fade, Fiorina will fade, and Carson is already fading. They are doing so because their momentum is based more on name identification and not on records or ground games.
If we look at traditional campaign data, which under the smoke and veneer of Campaign 2016 still matters, what we will find is that Ted Cruz is laying down a hell of a ground game and has tons of cash with not nearly the burn rate that even Jeb Bush has. Cruz stands to profit the most from the collapse of Carson, Fiorina, and Trump — all of whom are playing on the outsider advantages right now. Those advantages will start to go away as more traditional and necessary campaign tactics and strategies kick in like, for example, ballot access.
Cruz can get himself on ballots and get signatures collected. He can make a play through the SEC primary better than many of the other candidates can. He captures the conservative outsider angst while also being a more credible candidate long term than any of the other outsiders. Cruz has, after all, won an election and has a professional campaign team.
While conservatives will gravitate rapidly to Cruz, the more establishment oriented people who recognize the party still needs a fresh face and chage will likely go to Marco Rubio. Already I’m hearing that both Walker and Bush donors are looking at Rubio as their next pick. Rubio has the highest positives of any of the candidates and is, in fact, the one Republican that the Democrats desperately fear because of his perceived ability to attract women, young voters, and Hispanics.
Likewise, Rubio has an experienced team that will be able to navigate ballot access laws, has consistently high polling in a volatile (and inaccurate) polling year, and did I mention just how positively people view him. Rubio also is running a tighter campaign with a slower burn rate than some of the others.
Being liked is a pretty big indicator of where people will head as their candidates start to fade. Rubio also has a pretty solid fundraising ability magnifying his nimble campaign’s ability to get out there the closer we get to the primaries.
I think over the coming weeks, the campaign vultures will circle the Scott Walker campaign, looking to see if he has a pulse and, if they find none, will begin in earnest to pull voters and donors away from him. I suspect we’ll see the more conservative elements head to Cruz and the more establishment elements head to Rubio.
Next month’s debate performance could rupture it. There’s still a lot that could change. But right now to me it looks like we are headed toward a Cruz vs. Rubio primary and, given how well the outsiders are doing currently, Cruz has a slight advantage.
I agree that I'm not convinced that Trump, Fiorina and Carson has staying power...
Plus, throw in the fact that Jeb and Walker isn't do so well... that it probably will be between Rubio vs. Cruz.
If that's the case, I'd be in Rubio's corner because he'd have the best chance to take on HRC in the General election.
Ugh, anyone but Cruz. I utterly loathe and detest that hypocritical excuse for a human being. Cruz would be a poison pill that would cost the GOP a lot of votes, even if he was just on the ballot as VP. Palin cost them in 2008 (I would have voted for McCain, but never with her on the ballot), and I would bet money that Cruz would get the same result. Besides, the GOP leadership aren't going to be very accepting of him given his constant attempts to piss them off along with everyone else. And there are still a few people out there who remember his role in the government shutdown.
"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
2015/09/21 23:40:17
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ugh, anyone but Cruz. I utterly loathe and detest that hypocritical excuse for a human being. Cruz would be a poison pill that would cost the GOP a lot of votes, even if he was just on the ballot as VP. Palin cost them in 2008 (I would have voted for McCain, but never with her on the ballot), and I would bet money that Cruz would get the same result.
I think what made Palin even worse is that McCain is pretty old and there was a very realistic chance that he might croak during his term and put Palin in the hot seat. You REALLY had to consider the potential of Palin becoming president, more than you normally would for a VP candidate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/21 23:40:56
2015/09/22 02:20:02
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: [No, I did expect better from CNN, a lot better. I have no 'political gains' either way, and I'm not prone to lying and was not feigning anything. So unless you have some insight as to my actual thoughts, you can quit attempting to translate them into what ever political point you are attempting to make.
If I had to pick between "I honestly expected better from CNN" and "OK, I am just pretending that because I want to claim bias".... Those are both pretty terrible camps. I mean, you saw when they reported on a missing airplane for like a year nonstop, right?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/09/22 02:24:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Would that not be more the fault of the viewers? CNN, like any other news network, lives and dies by the ratings numbers. Gotta give the people what they want...
"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
2015/09/22 03:34:38
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
dogma wrote: If I had to guess I would say that he doesn't want to deal with a repeat of the 2008 campaign.
Fair point. Hillary lost that won, and it didn't stop Obama from going on to win the general, but against that is the fact that Biden isn't Obama, and 2016 isn't 2008.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: No, I did expect better from CNN, a lot better. I have no 'political gains' either way, and I'm not prone to lying and was not feigning anything. So unless you have some insight as to my actual thoughts, you can quit attempting to translate them into what ever political point you are attempting to make.
Had you seen CNN before? The debate was pretty run of the mill CNN stupidity.
This is a bit like saying 'oh my gosh I can't believe a college is making such a big deal out of someone using the n-word, the college must have a secret agenda for punishing that student'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Would that not be more the fault of the viewers? CNN, like any other news network, lives and dies by the ratings numbers. Gotta give the people what they want...
Jackass just gave people what they wanted as well. And if they ran a primary debate I wouldn't have been surprised if lacked substance.
I agree that I'm not convinced that Trump, Fiorina and Carson has staying power...
Plus, throw in the fact that Jeb and Walker isn't do so well... that it probably will be between Rubio vs. Cruz.
If that's the case, I'd be in Rubio's corner because he'd have the best chance to take on HRC in the General election.
That was a pretty good article, cheers for posting it. I really hope the article is wrong about Cruz, but it makes sense.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/09/22 03:43:29
“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.
2015/09/22 23:44:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.
And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.
I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.
"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
2015/09/22 13:09:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.
And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.
I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.
To be fair... sharia is incompatible to US laws.
Unless you're okay with Jizya, honor killing and all that...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/22 13:09:35
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.
And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.
I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.
I've said it before on other threads, that if America starts treating its Muslim citizens as a fifth column, then there will be nothing but trouble and strife in the future. Carson should know better than to spout garbage like that.
"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
2015/09/22 13:10:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Tannhauser42 wrote: And now Carson is saying that Muslims who want to run for president should denounce sharia law. Great idea, they can do that as soon as you're ready to denounce biblical law.
And, with the pope coming, there are already some politicians stating they pope needs to stay out of politics because he's a religious leader (the real truth is that they just don't agree with him, if they did agree, they would instead be fully supporting him). That's another good idea, and that should start as soon as you keep your religion out of politics, too. You're political leaders, not religious leaders, after all.
I'm gonna need some extra strength waders this week, I think.
To be fair... sharia is incompatible to US laws.
Unless you're okay with Jizya, honor killing and all that...
I've said it before on other threads, that if America starts treating its Muslim citizens as a fifth column, then there will be nothing but trouble and strife in the future. Carson should know better than to spout garbage like that.
IIRC Islam is the worlds fastest growing religion. Although in the US it's Atheism/no religion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/22 13:11:28
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
