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.

First, can we please put the huge quoted articles in spoiler tags to reduce the size? My finger thanks you for not having to scroll down so much on my phone.

Second, I think we all realize there are nutjobs on both sides. The problem is that, while the D nutjobs usually restrain themselves (or get restrained by others) after election, the R nutjobs don't.

And on the subject of "booing" references to God: I'd rather have the party that generally wants to keep God out of politics, instead of the party that constantly uses God to justify their politics, claims followers of certain religions shouldn't be voted for, claims the current president is just "pretending to be Christian", and so on. We're not a theocracy.

 whembly wrote:

Well done guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

So now you feel the need to lie about what I was sayin?

Um... you've been yammering variations of:

 skyth wrote:

You have to look hard for stuff that the Democratic organization did but nothing about the effects of those things and the underlying mentality of the base.

As if the Democratic organization is the party of the sensible, sane party.

That's okay to have an opinion stating such things.... but, evidence supporting such is basically nil or weak sauce.

First off, you are using false equivalencies. The stuff the Democrats have done is no where near how bad the R's are.

Second off...I have explicitly been talking about the base not the organization. You continue to lie and say I was talking about the organization. Dishonest tactics all around.

 skyth wrote:

First off, you are using false equivalencies. The stuff the Democrats have done is no where near how bad the R's are.

Again... opinion.

Second off...I have explicitly been talking about the base not the organization. You continue to lie and say I was talking about the organization. Dishonest tactics all around.

I've been trying to tell you... you hold the Republican party/organization/officials accountable to the fringe GOP voters.

Yet, you're expousing the exact opposite with the Democrat party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
First, can we please put the huge quoted articles in spoiler tags to reduce the size? My finger thanks you for not having to scroll down so much on my phone.

Oops... sorry.

Second, I think we all realize there are nutjobs on both sides. The problem is that, while the D nutjobs usually restrain themselves (or get restrained by others) after election, the R nutjobs don't.

I think it swings opposite to whomever is the incumbant.

And on the subject of "booing" references to God: I'd rather have the party that generally wants to keep God out of politics, instead of the party that constantly uses God to justify their politics, claims followers of certain religions shouldn't be voted for, claims the current president is just "pretending to be Christian", and so on. We're not a theocracy.

And that fine... I've got no qualm with that.

 whembly wrote:
I'm not excusing the guy... jeeze man.

I find it interesting that many believe his beliefs should automatically disqualify him from the office, but when he opined that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... all hell breaks loose.

My head hurts man...

Holding religious beliefs isn't a problem. Holding religious beliefs that deny basic elements of science is a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

"Everybody's free to do whatever they want. To try to impose one's religious beliefs on someone else is absolutely what we should not be doing. That goes in both directions. Someone who is an atheist doesn't have a right to tell someone who isn't an atheist what they can or cannot do or what they can or cannot say. We have to be fair but it has to be fair in both directions"

As anyone running for public office... that is something we'd want all of our elected officials to preach... right?

Yeah, as a statement without context it reads just fine. But the trick is in where people's definition of freedom begins and ends. It's an extremely complex subject, where reasonable people can disagree. But there are also people who have no reasonable view on the issue, and define religious freedom so inconsistently that they basically lose the concept entirely, and basically replace it with a very crude kind of tribalism - getting whatever their side wants on a given issue is religious freedom, giving something up to any other religious group is a loss of religious freedom.

And so consider Carson in that light. Consider this guy thinks religious freedom means that because gay marriage is against his religion, that non-christian gay people should be denied marriage. And then consider that Carson also said that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim for president, just because of their religion.

That's a guy who just goes for whatever his tribe wants. He has no real idea of religious freedom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
While I agree with the general premise here... I've been hearing this notion that it's "very difficult for the GOP to win a national election and growing increasingly" drum since 2008. That doesn't jive with the massive GOP wins in 2010 and 2014.

The GOP strategy of keeping a smaller base, but having that base really motivated and determined to vote in every election means they still hold a decent advantage in mid-terms. But even that's a strategy with a declining returns - each election cycle the demographics drift further away from them, and so to maintain competitiveness they crank the volume on their message.

And then they squeeze out a little more competitiveness through re-districting, so even if they can't win the most votes in the house, they are likely to win the most seats.

It's a strategy that will result in a slow, almost unnoticeable decline in power, until all of sudden it just drops away overnight. Once the re-districting can't protect enough seats, the swing will be brutal. Once the greater motivation can't counter-punch in the mid-terms then you're looking at a permanent minority.

Anyone with little love for the Democratic Party, which should be everyone, including most Democrats, has a strong interest in a healthy, long term viable Republican Party. I mean, if we have to choose between one of two tyrants then they'll have to keep themselves somewhat honest, but if one tyrant falls over then what controls the survivor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
just florida things

Augustus Sol Invictus, Floridian former lawyer and current Libertarian candidate for Senate, once described himself as “of genius intellect,” “God’s gift to humankind where the English language is concerned,” and “everything you ever wanted to be.” Critics describe him as “a self-proclaimed fascist” and “absolute insanity.” One time, he killed a goat and drank its blood.

That is the most amazing thing. And here I was thinking this election race was getting a little dull.

 skyth wrote:
I have explicitly been talking about the base not the organization. You continue to lie and say I was talking about the organization. Dishonest tactics all around.

What you are missing, and we've tried to point out, is the tactics the organization uses are designed to work on your base. And they do. If your base was not susceptible to the tactics, your organization would not spend millions and millions on it. And lets also be clear, your base includes the unions, the environmental groups and the Acorn type organizations, your base IS a part of your party's organization in many ways. Hence why they are pandered to by the politicians.

And I've been pointing out, the tactics don't work as well on the Democratic Base because of the composition and ideology of the base.

You have negative things about a Republican and the Democrats don't like him. They see the basic humanity of the person and think that there might be nuance to why he did what he's accused of.

You have negative things about a Democrat and the Republicans hate him. They see things in black and white.

There is a huge difference. The pure hatred make it a lot more likely for the person to go out and vote.

I have been talking about the voters as the base, not the organizations. The Republicans are just full of hatred for anything different. This is part and parcel of being a conservative. That is the strength of the Republican party that they are a minority of voters that is well motivated, so they punch above their weight come election time for percentage of eligibles that vote.

Of course, I love the constant tactics of 'they did something bad, so they are just as bad as we are' when you are comparing stealing someone's wallet to gunning down a half dozen people...

Zowie...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html

All of Clinton's personal email may have been backed up to the Cloud managed by that CT company.

And... her's the whopper:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2573506/?utm_content=buffer2f752&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

If Judge deemed the clinton.com email as official records, it's the Dept of State officials who'll be reviewing the emails to determine if they're retrievable via FOIA requests...

Interesting turn of event there...

Has anybody seen Marco Rubio?
He's not on CNN.
And he's not in the Senate, either.

I find it mildly amusing that he seems to be quietly boycotting CNN because of an interview he didn't like.

I do not, however, find it amusing at all that he decided campaigning for a job he doesn't have is more important than doing the job he was actually elected to do.
Rubio: "When I miss a vote, it's not because I'm out playing golf. We're out campaigning for the future of America where I believe I can make more of a difference as president than I could as a senator." Except, you are not president, but you are a senator. If campaigning for one is more important than actually doing the other, what are you going to do if you are president?

I freely admit this problem is not unique to Rubio; he was just the one in the headlines today and this is one of the things that really irks me.

This year, is the first time what a candidate says or acts actually scares me because its so off base and the guy should know better from his credentials

Ben Carson is a scary, scary man

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


I freely admit this problem is not unique to Rubio; he was just the one in the headlines today and this is one of the things that really irks me.

Let his constituents tell him how they feel on election day.

Look at Obama's record:

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/VotingStatistics/

In 2007 he missed 137 of 213 votes
In 2008 he missed 166 of 442 votes

It seems to have worked for him. Did you criticize hime for it?

 CptJake wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


I freely admit this problem is not unique to Rubio; he was just the one in the headlines today and this is one of the things that really irks me.

Let his constituents tell him how they feel on election day.

Look at Obama's record:

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/VotingStatistics/

In 2007 he missed 137 of 213 votes
In 2008 he missed 166 of 442 votes

It seems to have worked for him. Did you criticize hime for it?

...

Did you not read what he just said?

 CptJake wrote:

It seems to have worked for him. Did you criticize hime for it?

It's bad enough for the senate critters. But house critters are even worse. They only have a two year term to begin with, and it feels like 1.5 of those years are spend campaigning.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


I freely admit this problem is not unique to Rubio; he was just the one in the headlines today and this is one of the things that really irks me.

Let his constituents tell him how they feel on election day.

Look at Obama's record:

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/VotingStatistics/

In 2007 he missed 137 of 213 votes
In 2008 he missed 166 of 442 votes

It seems to have worked for him. Did you criticize hime for it?

...

Did you not read what he just said?

Yes, I did. And many times folk say that, but in action many folk don't actually criticize "their" side.

Interesting to see Clinton come out strongly on gun control. I think she’s identified it as an issue where she can place herself to the left of Sanders, and maybe try and chip away at his base. This is especially clear since she’s based much of her gun control position on repealing a 2005 bill that gave industry protections to gun manufacturers – Clinton voted against that bill, Sanders voted for it.

It’s an interesting development. It shows Sanders is not going away, and that Clinton has to do something about him. The question now is whether she’s moving too late, and if whether this an any other positions she takes in the future will risk hurting her in the general, should she get there.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I do not, however, find it amusing at all that he decided campaigning for a job he doesn't have is more important than doing the job he was actually elected to do.

Then you will continue to be unamused for as long as US politics exist.

Is there are a pairing arrangement in US politics? Over here the whips of the two major parties will get together and arrange to pair off all the voters who can’t attend a vote, generally for reasons of illness or needing to attend government business. If one side has more absent members than the other then they’ll arrange for members to be absent to even up the score.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Has anybody seen Marco Rubio?
He's not on CNN.
And he's not in the Senate, either.

I find it mildly amusing that he seems to be quietly boycotting CNN because of an interview he didn't like.

Good for him.

But, it'll hurt him...

I do not, however, find it amusing at all that he decided campaigning for a job he doesn't have is more important than doing the job he was actually elected to do.
Rubio: "When I miss a vote, it's not because I'm out playing golf. We're out campaigning for the future of America where I believe I can make more of a difference as president than I could as a senator." Except, you are not president, but you are a senator. If campaigning for one is more important than actually doing the other, what are you going to do if you are president?

I freely admit this problem is not unique to Rubio; he was just the one in the headlines today and this is one of the things that really irks me.

You do know that Obama was damn new absent about 70% of the time during his tenure... right?

 whembly wrote:
You do know that Obama was damn new absent about 70% of the time during his tenure... right?

In 2007 when, you know, he was running for President.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You do know that Obama was damn new absent about 70% of the time during his tenure... right?

In 2007 when, you know, he was running for President.

Erm... Rubio's not?

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


I freely admit this problem is not unique to Rubio; he was just the one in the headlines today and this is one of the things that really irks me.

Let his constituents tell him how they feel on election day.

Look at Obama's record:
The
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/VotingStatistics/

In 2007 he missed 137 of 213 votes
In 2008 he missed 166 of 442 votes

It seems to have worked for him. Did you criticize hime for it?

...

Did you not read what he just said?

Yes, I did. And many times folk say that, but in action many folk don't actually criticize "their" side.

No, you and Whembly quite clearly DID NOT read what I said. I said BOTH SIDES do it AND that it "irks me". Do I need to go through congressional voting records and call out every single politician by name who missed a vote for any reason other than medical or other personal emergencies to hammer the point through? I don't like that Obama did it, I don't like that Rubio is doing it, etc., etc. But, I shouldn't have to do that because it should have been damned obvious what I meant!

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You do know that Obama was damn new absent about 70% of the time during his tenure... right?

In 2007 when, you know, he was running for President.

Erm... Rubio's not?

You're arguing at the wrong person, Whembly.

I didn't say anything about Rubio and his time spent in Congress, nor do I really care. I'm just pointing out that this statement:

 whembly wrote:
You do know that Obama was damn new absent about 70% of the time during his tenure... right?

Is not a true statement.

Carry on.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


I freely admit this problem is not unique to Rubio; he was just the one in the headlines today and this is one of the things that really irks me.

Let his constituents tell him how they feel on election day.

Look at Obama's record:
The
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/VotingStatistics/

In 2007 he missed 137 of 213 votes
In 2008 he missed 166 of 442 votes

It seems to have worked for him. Did you criticize hime for it?

...

Did you not read what he just said?

Yes, I did. And many times folk say that, but in action many folk don't actually criticize "their" side.

No, you and Whembly quite clearly DID NOT read what I said. I said BOTH SIDES do it AND that it "irks me". Do I need to go through congressional voting records and call out every single politician by name who missed a vote for any reason other than medical or other personal emergencies to hammer the point through? I don't like that Obama did it, I don't like that Rubio is doing it, etc., etc. But, I shouldn't have to do that because it should have been damned obvious what I meant!

Nah... wasn't trying to give you a hard time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I didn't say anything about Rubio and his time spent in Congress, nor do I really care. I'm just pointing out that this statement:

 whembly wrote:
You do know that Obama was damn near absent about 70% of the time during his tenure... right?

Is not a true statement.

Carry on.

You're right... it was much worst:

Time Period Votes Eligible Missed Votes
2008 Apr-Jun 77 65 84.4%
2008 Jul-Sep 47 41 87.2%

Kinda busy wasn't he?

 whembly wrote:
You're right... it was much worst:

Time Period Votes Eligible Missed Votes
2008 Apr-Jun 77 65 84.4%
2008 Jul-Sep 47 41 87.2%

Kinda busy wasn't he?

Yeah, running for President, like I've already mentioned.

In case you forgot, you said he was absent over 70% of the time for his tenure. Which for the third time now, is a false statement. Over his tenure as Senator, he missed 314 of 1,300 roll call votes, which is 24.2% (with a most of those missed votes occurring during his campaign). Granted, that isn't that great, it sure as hell isn't "absent damn near 70% of the time."

I know that means jack gak to you because you don't let pesky facts get in your way, but maybe, just maybe, you should actually look into some things before you say them instead of just throwing gak to the wall and seeing what sticks.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You're right... it was much worst:

Time Period Votes Eligible Missed Votes
2008 Apr-Jun 77 65 84.4%
2008 Jul-Sep 47 41 87.2%

Kinda busy wasn't he?

Yeah, running for President, like I've already mentioned.

In case you forgot, you said he was absent over 70% of the time for his tenure. Which for the third time now, is a false statement. Over his tenure as Senator, he missed 314 of 1,300 roll call votes, which is 24.2% (with a most of those missed votes occurring during his campaign). Granted, that isn't that great, it sure as hell isn't "absent damn near 70% of the time."

I know that means jack gak to you because you don't let pesky facts get in your way, but maybe, just maybe, you should actually look into some things before you say them instead of just throwing gak to the wall and seeing what sticks.

Hey, I flubbed that one... when I was writing that, I was thinking of his tenure as Senator while he was campaigining for President. Obviously not the every year he was in the Senate. Point being, I was being snarky to Tanner as he forgot literally the last guy who did that, who's the sitting President.

I think the idea that you can track a politicians work performance by how many votes they physically turn up to say yay or nay to is pretty foolish, to be honest. I mean, consider there's a senior Democrat and a senior Republican, and they're in a meeting hashing out a deal to avoid shutdown, and the clock hits 2.00 and they both drop everything and go dashing across Capitol Hill, just in time to be present for the vote. One votes yay, one votes nay, and then they turn around and run back to their meeting room.

Was democracy better served than if they'd both remained in that meeting, hashing out a deal on shutdown?

Or to put it another way, if it turns out Rubio had made sure he was present for every single vote while a senator, would that change anyone's opinion of the guy? If Obama had made every vote, would that change anyone's opinion?

I'm not saying that elected representative don't have to show up to vote, but just looking at total votes is pretty nonsensical. If someone can pick out some stats for important, close votes that were missed, then that would have some substance.

And so it begins.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/barry-diller-says-he-ll-leave-the-country-if-donald-trump-wins-the-white-house

I remember threats like this from both sides of the isle as far back as 96. Canada even went so far as to put out a notice that they wouldn't be accepting immigration applications from people fleeing North because their guy didn't get into the Oval Office.

Personally, I think it's immature. I also think it's just the beginning. Again.

It's only immature of they don't actually follow though on it. Otherwise, yes, if you're the kind of person whose personal life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is dependant on who is the head of state, then you should move to a country that meets your needs better.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
This year, is the first time what a candidate says or acts actually scares me because its so off base and the guy should know better from his credentials

Ben Carson is a scary, scary man

Most surgeons are scary. They get paid to cut people up.

If I were Rubio or any Republican I'd never go on CNN, ever.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
This year, is the first time what a candidate says or acts actually scares me because its so off base and the guy should know better from his credentials

Ben Carson is a scary, scary man

Most surgeons are scary. They get paid to cut people up.

My nickname for any surgeons are "cutters".

Weirdly enough, most surgeons took that as a badge of honor.

If I were Rubio or any Republican I'd never go on CNN, ever.

Eh... it might bite him in the ass... but, it's interesting that it hasn't happened yet.

Duran was part of a tide of conservative elected officials nationwide who won political points by focusing on possible violations of voter ID laws.

Duran faces 64 charges related to fraud, embezzlement and money laundering. The attorney general's office alleged that she frequented casinos across the state, withdrawing $430,000 between 2013 and 2014 from her personal accounts while also depositing campaign funds into her personal accounts.

A 65th charge, identity theft, was added Friday after Kidd's interview with an investigator. Duran's attorney could not be reached for comment Saturday.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na--ff-new-mexico-secretary-20151004-story.html

TBF least she's speaking from experience then

Dianna Duran

... somehow not born in the 80s ! Astonishing.

Hoooboy... methinks HRC isn't the only one in deep doo-doo...
http://freebeacon.com/politics/fbi-seizes-four-state-department-servers-in-clinton-email-probe/

The FBI has seized four State Department computer servers as part of its probe into how classified information was compromised on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email system, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The four servers, which were located at the State Department’s headquarters building, were seized by the FBI several weeks ago. They are being checked by technical forensic analysts charged with determining how Top Secret material was sent to Clinton’s private email by State Department aides during her tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, said two people familiar with the probe. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because it is an ongoing investigation.
...

Yes, it's already been long established that the mishandling of classified material was rather widespread and not limited solely to Hillary. This is not new news that lots of people will be in trouble.