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.

 Scrabb wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Why? Because that assumes the behaviors will remain static.

Have you become more likely to vote for liberals? Democrats?

Wut. You're not making any sense.

He's providing an example of behavior remaining static (your voting preferences) to present the argument that things remaining static is often correctly assumed.

Ah. Thanks.

It's wrong to think like that with respect to taxation policies.

I mean, just look at the so-called "sin taxes" and what the revenues are "projected" to be used for in states budgets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news...

Hillary says that her biggest enemy is the Republican Party. Yep, let's put her in charge of the IRS. That'll end well...

 whembly wrote:

I'm stating his "plan" isn't as clear. You can some it up by saying "he's going to tax the rich more". Well... yeah... but, how.

You're stating that now, but you weren't stating that before.

 whembly wrote:

Wut. You're not making any sense.

Has your electoral behavior changed?

 whembly wrote:

They are NOT mutually exclusive.

No, they are not, and I did not imply otherwise.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm stating his "plan" isn't as clear. You can some it up by saying "he's going to tax the rich more". Well... yeah... but, how.

You're stating that now, but you weren't stating that before.

Point still stands... you're being pedantic.

 whembly wrote:

Wut. You're not making any sense.

Has your electoral behavior changed?

You're going to equivocate electoral behaviors to tax mitigation?

o.O

 whembly wrote:

They are NOT mutually exclusive.

No, they are not, and I did not imply otherwise.

It was a strong implication.

People/businesses don't like paying taxes, so will spend quite a bit of energy to mitigate that... ergo, their day-to-day profits get larger.

 whembly wrote:
I'm still laughing at:

Chaffee: “We need a president with ethics”
Anderson: “Sec Clinton, would you like to respond?”
Hillary: “No”.

After this... Biden has to be really be thinking now... right?

You clearly were not watching the same debate everyone else was. Based on the initial reaction, most people saw it as a joke (one of the rare funny ones she has pulled off in years). Many are even calling it her best moment https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/winners-and-losers-from-the-1st-democratic-presidential-debate/

And pretty much all of the mainstream press and pundits are saying she had a strong night overall. My guess is Biden was watching the whole night with a sinking feeling (too bad, I really wanted him to get in). Watch Clinton get a small bump in the polls in the next week or so until her testimony at the Benghazi hearings turn media and voters attention elsewhere again.

And what was with the weird moment when Webb smiled fondly while remembering killing an enemy in Vietnam?

No really disagreement from me... She’s the only candidate on that stage who can win both the Democratic primary and the general election.

With Sanders & O'Malley to the left of her, she stood out.

Chafee and Webb didn't really help their chances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

And what was with the weird moment when Webb smiled fondly while remembering killing an enemy in Vietnam?

Yeah... bizarre.

 whembly wrote:

Point still stands... you're being pedantic.

I am trying to clarify your point.

 whembly wrote:

People/businesses don't like paying taxes, so will spend quiet a bit of energy to mitigate that... ergo, their day-to-day profits get larger.

So the people who don't like spending money...spend money?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:


And what was with the weird moment when Webb smiled fondly while remembering killing an enemy in Vietnam?

It was quite bizarre in an otherwise mediocre performance. I think obviously his word choice was poor, but also.... I would think that even he'd realize that that wasn't really answering the question (perhaps the way I heard the question and the way he heard the question are completely different), as I felt the question was asking about the candidates' "political" enemies, not... well, the enemy he was given when he was actively a Marine.

 whembly wrote:
She’s the only candidate on that stage who can win both the Democratic primary and the general election.

I don't know, I think Sanders could win, depending on how things go. If he wins the primary I would expect it to be a repeat of the 2008 election, where all the talk of "Hillary voters won't support Obama" turned out to be pretty significantly exaggerated. I think a lot of people who are saying no to him at a safe distance from election day with nothing at stake yet will realize that even a less-than-ideal democrat is a lot more appealing than whatever raving lunatic the republican party nominates. And let's not forget what 2008 showed us about the value of enthusiastic younger voters, a group that Sanders is very popular with.

Ok...so now I'm back to thinking Clinton is inevitable. I doubt Biden runs, and barring the entry of some auto-win figure like Bill Gates (which won't happen) or Colin Powell (also won't happen), I just don't see any significant opponents.

I might have thought Sanders at one point, but he stumbled through many answers, and it seemed clear he was pretty unprepared for attacks against his very long record in politics. If he can't give good answers to Anderson Coopers team,I doubt he would do much better against Team GOP.

The Republicans have no one who can beat Clinton in a debate. In part, this is because any overly hostile attacks against Clinton will fit right into the Republican War on Women narrative. In part, because the crop of GOP candidates is so poor.

At this point, I think it's going to come down to Clinton vs. either Bush or Rubio, with Clinton winning in either case, but I think Rubio would make a better showing than Bush in defeat.

 jasper76 wrote:
Ok...so now I'm back to thinking Clinton is inevitable. I doubt Biden runs, and barring the entry of some auto-win figure like Bill Gates (which won't happen) or Colin Powell (also won't happen), I just don't see any significant opponents.

Ughhhhhhh, a man can only dream to get some one with integrity in the oval office. Unfortunately he is too moderate for the Republican party and too moderate for the Democratic party. Also he is completely turned off American politics at this point.

Did anyone else think that Lincoln Chafee did a horrible job in that debate? One of his answers to Anderson Cooper on his voting record was just awful.

But yea Clinton very clearly won the debate.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Did anyone else think that Lincoln Chafee did a horrible job in that debate? One of his answers to Anderson Cooper on his voting record was just awful.

But yea Clinton very clearly won the debate.

Yeah, I think Chafee sunk himself with that one....


As for Clinton? I disagree, and from what I've seen, it really depends on where you look to see who "won"... many focus groups and pollster type places say Sanders won, while "mainstream" media claims victory for Clinton. Regardless, I don't think either one really hurt themselves in the debate.


Also, one of the post debate comments about Webb was rather spot on, and sad... a CNN commentator said, "ya know, Webb said a lot of nice things, he sounded great, For a Republican." And I actually agree with it. Webb is much more centrist Republican than he is a Democrat. Unfortunately, he comes from VA where there's pretty much only "Tea party" or "right leaning democrat" as options.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Did anyone else think that Lincoln Chafee did a horrible job in that debate? One of his answers to Anderson Cooper on his voting record was just awful.

But yea Clinton very clearly won the debate.

Yeah, I think Chafee sunk himself with that one....


As for Clinton? I disagree, and from what I've seen, it really depends on where you look to see who "won"... many focus groups and pollster type places say Sanders won, while "mainstream" media claims victory for Clinton. Regardless, I don't think either one really hurt themselves in the debate.


Also, one of the post debate comments about Webb was rather spot on, and sad... a CNN commentator said, "ya know, Webb said a lot of nice things, he sounded great, For a Republican." And I actually agree with it. Webb is much more centrist Republican than he is a Democrat. Unfortunately, he comes from VA where there's pretty much only "Tea party" or "right leaning democrat" as options.

Personally watching the whole thing I think Clinton overall won. Sanders kinda stumped a few times in the beginning but mainly I think it is because Clinton's opponents had a real opportunity face to face say take swipes at her over all the scandals and instead Sanders defended her, which I think personally is a win overall for Clinton. Sanders and Clinton both did very well in the debate.

Edit: Also I would say that the democratic debate was loads better than the circus over at the Reagan library.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Did anyone else think that Lincoln Chafee did a horrible job in that debate? One of his answers to Anderson Cooper on his voting record was just awful.

But yea Clinton very clearly won the debate.

Yeah, I think Chafee sunk himself with that one....

Agreed. Throw O'Malley in that bucket too...

As for Clinton? I disagree, and from what I've seen, it really depends on where you look to see who "won"... many focus groups and pollster type places say Sanders won, while "mainstream" media claims victory for Clinton. Regardless, I don't think either one really hurt themselves in the debate.

The punditry was having orgasms of the "Clinton Comeback"... which is strange since Clinton was always the front runner.

I think that her comment as Republicans being one of her "enemies" is going to hurt her... ala, Romney's 47% comment.

Also, one of the post debate comments about Webb was rather spot on, and sad... a CNN commentator said, "ya know, Webb said a lot of nice things, he sounded great, For a Republican." And I actually agree with it. Webb is much more centrist Republican than he is a Democrat. Unfortunately, he comes from VA where there's pretty much only "Tea party" or "right leaning democrat" as options.

Webb is an example of how far left the Democratic party is shifting.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Personally watching the whole thing I think Clinton overall won. Sanders kinda stumped a few times in the beginning but mainly I think it is because Clinton's opponents had a real opportunity face to face say take swipes at her over all the scandals and instead Sanders defended her, which I think personally is a win overall for Clinton. Sanders and Clinton both did very well in the debate.

I know that CNN at least is calling Sanders' response to "attacks" on his gun control voting a stumble... but I think if you really look at his entire voting history, he never votes blindly. Clearly, if he votes for one piece of gun legislation, and not another, it's because there's something in it he didnt agree with.


Unlike someone else who wants America to believe that daddy dying is an excuse for voting for something terrible, and then tries to say, "well the vote was like 93 to 5" as if that's another good bandaid to what he already done fethed up on.


I can see where Sanders' defense of Clinton over the emails can be seen as a victory for her, but I think ultimately that it is a victory for the Democrat party. They have a sort of unity of purpose that the Republicans don't really seem to have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

I think that her comment as Republicans being one of her "enemies" is going to hurt her... ala, Romney's 47% comment.

Webb is an example of how far left the Democratic party is shifting.

I can see that... My guess would be that Rs will attempt to turn it into a "she hates republicans, so she hates Americans, and wants to put them into FEMA Death Camps" (maybe a bit extreme, then again, maybe not)


Webb is, at the same time, an example of how far right the Republican party is shifting as well.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I can see where Sanders' defense of Clinton over the emails can be seen as a victory for her, but I think ultimately that it is a victory for the Democrat party. They have a sort of unity of purpose that the Republicans don't really seem to have.

Agreed. The republicans are anything but unified at this point.

At this point, Sanders should focus on winning, not 'unity'. Obama mercilessly hammered Clinton's Iraq vote for example. If Sanders really feels he wants to be Pres and is a better choice for D primary voters and the general election voters, using the email scandal as a way to hit his opponent, especially when directly asked about it, should have been a no brainer.

As it was, not sure if it counts as a 'win' for Clinton as much as a lost opportunity for Sanders.

Disagree. WAAC behavior is counter-productive when you're in the pre-GE phase. Any attacks on your fellow candidates during the primary can and will have repercussions later on down the road if one of those candidates ends up winning the primary instead of you. Unless you're 100% certain that you're going to win the primary and go on to the general election (and Sanders the Socialist would be a fool to be that confident), you have to hedge your bets.

The GOP doesn't really seem to understand this, to their own detriment.

If I correctly remember what I read somewhere, historically Sanders has made a point of not attacking his opponents, but instead campaigning solely on his own political record. Not sure the exact details of that, though.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
If I correctly remember what I read somewhere, historically Sanders has made a point of not attacking his opponents, but instead campaigning solely on his own political record. Not sure the exact details of that, though.

He has been running the cleanest campaign I have ever seen.

He also won that debate last night, almost 80% but WaPo is trying to spin it as a Hilary Victory as she is their chosen to be crowned one. Bernie was top notch and classy. Yes he seemed to be a little less prepared for some of the attacks on his complex stance on guns and such, but he is less rabid than the others about it. Webb also less freaking out over the gun issues.

Sanders also has an odd trait of integrity for a politician.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Webb is, at the same time, an example of how far right the Republican party is shifting as well.

Of course... check out this site's ideological scores. See how evenly distributed that is:
https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis#ideology

The man's a decorated war hero... served under Reagan's administration... Democrat Senator... extremely vocal anti-Bush during Dubya's tenure. In any other election cycle, he'd be a formidable candidate.

Webb was even with O' Malley, despite being given less talk time than the rest

 CptJake wrote:
At this point, Sanders should focus on winning, not 'unity'. Obama mercilessly hammered Clinton's Iraq vote for example. If Sanders really feels he wants to be Pres and is a better choice for D primary voters and the general election voters, using the email scandal as a way to hit his opponent, especially when directly asked about it, should have been a no brainer.

Yeah, but nobody on the left cares about the email "scandal". Attacking Hillary over it doesn't gain him anything, and he's better off saying "I don't care about it either" to show the voters that he's on their side. The only people who would be impressed by an attack over the email "scandal" are already voting republican.

To me, In my observation, it seems the republican party is trying to up eachother saying who is more christian, who is more this and even more insane stuff.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
At this point, Sanders should focus on winning, not 'unity'. Obama mercilessly hammered Clinton's Iraq vote for example. If Sanders really feels he wants to be Pres and is a better choice for D primary voters and the general election voters, using the email scandal as a way to hit his opponent, especially when directly asked about it, should have been a no brainer.

Yeah, but nobody on the left cares about the email "scandal". Attacking Hillary over it doesn't gain him anything, and he's better off saying "I don't care about it either" to show the voters that he's on their side. The only people who would be impressed by an attack over the email "scandal" are already voting republican.

Eh... only those who support HRC is tired of it.

I live in St. Louis with plenty of family and friends who works for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) department. More than a handful of them are the older generations (baby boomers) who were Clinton supporters (huge Democratic voters in general). Over this email fiasco?

Turns them off. Not sure they wouldn't vote for her, but their enthusiasm is definitely waning.

The millennials simply don't like Clinton... hence, favors Bernie. Not sure if the millennials voters would be motivated to vote for Clinton either.

However, if Clinton can escape the Oct. 22nd Benghazi testimony largely unscathed... she'll have the nomination in the bag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To me, In my observation, it seems the republican party is trying to up eachother saying who is more christian, who is more this and even more insane stuff.

Last night, the Democratic candidates tried to out-socialist each other. (except Webb)

Pretty telling...

 whembly wrote:

Last night, the Democratic candidates tried to out-socialist each other. (except Webb)

Pretty telling...

Again, we must have been watching different debates. When asked by Cooper if anybody would like to chime in on the socialism question directed at Sanders, Clinton response was

"When I think about capitalism, I think about all the small businesses that were started because we have the opportunity and the freedom in our country for people to do that and to make a good living for themselves and their families.

And I don't think we should confuse what we have to do every so often in America, which is save capitalism from itself. And I think what Senator Sanders is saying certainly makes sense in the terms of the inequality that we have.

But we are not Denmark. I love Denmark. We are the United States of America. And it's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn't run amok and doesn't cause the kind of inequities we're seeing in our economic system."

Yup, sure sounds like a socialist to me. But hey, if you keep saying it, maybe you can make it true

 whembly wrote:
Eh... only those who support HRC is tired of it.

No, I think a lot of people who don't want Hillary as their top pick are tired of it. I'd much rather have Sanders, but I don't really care about whether or not she followed good security practices or the letter of the law in keeping records. I want to know what she's going to do about the economy, our crumbling infrastructure, etc. And the more I see people attacking her over the email scandal instead of addressing more significant policy issues the more I think they care too much about winning the election and too little about representing my interests.

Love it that Bernie Sanders (who all things considered is not a true socialist) is moving everyone to the left.

It''s a real shame that even the suggestion that countries such as Norway and Sweden might be doing some things better than the US raises so much hackles, even with Clinton, it would seem. Learning from other people's successes is a strength, and not a weakness, in my book. In fact, it might fall under the "common sense" category that most people have learned by the time they hit high school.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Eh... only those who support HRC is tired of it.

No, I think a lot of people who don't want Hillary as their top pick are tired of it. I'd much rather have Sanders, but I don't really care about whether or not she followed good security practices or the letter of the law in keeping records. I want to know what she's going to do about the economy, our crumbling infrastructure, etc. And the more I see people attacking her over the email scandal instead of addressing more significant policy issues the more I think they care too much about winning the election and too little about representing my interests.

I'm not a Clinton supporter, and I am so friggin tired of this email stuff. No scandal could be more boring than an email scandal. Wake me up if the FBI finds that she was culpable of anything, and I'll take a look. Clinton and Sanders were correct in the debate...let the FBI do their job, and in the mean time, let the candidates talk about their plans for the country, not email security.

I've actually started wondering if any crimes were committed by the Benghazi committee. It seems like we had another instance of powerful politicians in the GOP leveraging taxpayer money and the power of government to destroy political opponents, and I've become curious since Kevin McCarthy's admission that the Benghazi Committee was created with the intent to destroy Clinton's political career whether any criminal and/or ethical investigations are underway to determine just how valid his slipped claim might be.

 whembly wrote:
Eh... only those who support HRC is tired of it.

Hardly. I don't and have never given a single feth about this "scandal", and I'd take Webb, Sanders or O'malley over Hillary any day of the week as POTUS.

I would very much rather Hillary lose (liking the Bernie is defying my expectations and hanging on to the momentum), and I never once cared about the email scandal. It's fething emails for Christ sake. Unless they contained nuclear launch codes, I truly do not care.