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.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Yeah... I wouldn't go that far.

Of course you wouldn't. Your position regarding the Obama Administration is about as nuanced as the one held by many reflexively anti-Republican people regarding the Bush Administration.

whembly wrote:

In a Democrat dominated state of Illinois... you're pretty much spot on.

But, on states where the legislature and Governorship are held by different parties... you damn well would have fireworks like at the federal level. Missouri is just like that. (not that I'd vote for Gov. Nixon (D) ).

Illinois frequently has governors who are at odds with the legislature for a number of reasons, not simply partisan ones.

Regardless, the main reason that governors don't have to deal with an openly hostile legislature is that the majority of people don't pay attention to state politics. This fact alone allows for greater compromise, as the lack of scrutiny lets legislators vote in a manner that isn't strictly in line with the desire of their constituents. Combine that with an overstated incumbent effect and you have a situation where combativeness is largely mollified.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Yeah... I wouldn't go that far.

Of course you wouldn't. Your position regarding the Obama Administration is about as nuanced as the one held by many reflexively anti-Republican people regarding the Bush Administration.

If it were only that simple. But, go ahead and believe what you will. It's obvious that I won't ever change your mind.

whembly wrote:

In a Democrat dominated state of Illinois... you're pretty much spot on.

But, on states where the legislature and Governorship are held by different parties... you damn well would have fireworks like at the federal level. Missouri is just like that. (not that I'd vote for Gov. Nixon (D) ).

Illinois frequently has governors who are at odds with the legislature for a number of reasons, not simply partisan ones.

Regardless, the main reason that governors don't have to deal with an openly hostile legislature is that the majority of people don't pay attention to state politics. This fact alone allows for greater compromise, as the lack of scrutiny lets legislators vote in a manner that isn't strictly in line with the desire of their constituents. Combine that with an overstated incumbent effect and you have a situation where combativeness is largely mollified.

I get what you're saying... and the degree of difficulties are different between state governors & US Presidency.

But, let's not discount the experience learned in dealing with leglisatures and operating an office in charge of the state as the executive head.

That's my fething point.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

If it were only that simple. But, go ahead and believe what you will. It's obvious that I won't ever change your mind.

It really is that simple. Much of the hate directed towards Bush was grounded in Administration policies which went against ideals held by many leftists, which in turn led to anything Bush did being characterized as bad. Pretty much the exact same thing has happened with regard to Obama, hence all the tongue in cheek remarks about how he is history's greatest monster.

whembly wrote:

But, let's not discount the experience learned in dealing with leglisatures and operating an office in charge of the state as the executive head.

That's my fething point.

The problem with your point is that there is no historical evidence to suggest that gubernatorial experience correlates with Presidential efficacy. As such we can discount that experience, at least if we're speaking generally.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

If it were only that simple. But, go ahead and believe what you will. It's obvious that I won't ever change your mind.

It really is that simple. Much of the hate directed towards Bush was grounded in Administration policies which went against ideals held by many leftists, which in turn led to anything Bush did being characterized as bad. Pretty much the exact same thing has happened with regard to Obama, hence all the tongue in cheek remarks about how he is history's greatest monster.

ie... Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)

ie... Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS)

whembly wrote:

But, let's not discount the experience learned in dealing with leglisatures and operating an office in charge of the state as the executive head.

That's my fething point.

The problem with your point is that there is no historical evidence to suggest that gubernatorial experience correlates with Presidential efficacy. As such we can discount that experience, at least if we're speaking generally.

I beg to differ...

Both Bushes, Billy Clinton, Reagan and even Jimmy Carter... having gubernatorial experience, were better Presidents than Obama.

Of course, that's my opinion.

**Ouze**

Look's like Carson's campaign is in serious trouble - both his campaign manager and communication director have quit, as well as some others (like his deputy campaign manager).

Just about done, I think.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

I beg to differ...

Both Bushes, Billy Clinton, Reagan and even Jimmy Carter... having gubernatorial experience, were better Presidents than Obama.

The first Bush was never a governor.

In fact none of the Presidents between FDR and Carter had gubernatorial experience, a group which includes Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Eisenhower.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
Look's like Carson's campaign is in serious trouble - both his campaign manager and communication director have quit, as well as some others (like his deputy campaign manager).

Just about done, I think.

I think it's safe to say that writing has been on the wall for the good doctor for quite some time and has ignored it.

But like Egyptian history, he has a hard time coming to terms with facts.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

I beg to differ...

Both Bushes, Billy Clinton, Reagan and even Jimmy Carter... having gubernatorial experience, were better Presidents than Obama.

The first Bush was never a governor.

In fact none of the Presidents between FDR and Carter had gubernatorial experience, a group which includes Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Eisenhower.

Oops... you're right about Bush H.W., however, he'd been VP for 8 years so that's like the best on-the-job-training you can get.

Again, between FDR to Carter, those are different eras.

**d-usa**

O'Malley failed to get the 1000 signatures required to get on the ballot in Ohio.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

I beg to differ...

Both Bushes, Billy Clinton, Reagan and even Jimmy Carter... having gubernatorial experience, were better Presidents than Obama.

The first Bush was never a governor.

In fact none of the Presidents between FDR and Carter had gubernatorial experience, a group which includes Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Eisenhower.

Oops... you're right about Bush H.W., however, he'd been VP for 8 years so that's like the best on-the-job-training you can get.

Again, between FDR to Carter, those are different eras.

Sooooo, Biden gets your support?

But, yeah, it seems like the era between WWII and up to and through Vietnam was a somewhat simpler time, politically. We knew who our enemies were ("better dead than red" and all that). Today, our politicians have to create enemies, instead.

**Breotan**

whembly wrote:
Oops... you're right about Bush H.W., however, he'd been VP for 8 years so that's like the best on-the-job-training you can get.

Wasn't he also in Congress and Director of the CIA before that?

d-usa wrote:
O'Malley failed to get the 1000 signatures required to get on the ballot in Ohio.

Insert .gif of the kitten giggling here _________________

**Ouze**

Honestly I feel like 100 signatures might have been too high a bar for him to vault.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Oops... you're right about Bush H.W., however, he'd been VP for 8 years so that's like the best on-the-job-training you can get.

Eh, not really. The qualities that make for a particularly good VP are very different from those that make for a particularly good President. Most notably VPs don't really need to be charismatic.

whembly wrote:

Again, between FDR to Carter, those are different eras.

Ok. When did the current era begin, to your mind?

**Ensis Ferrae**

dogma wrote:

In fact none of the Presidents between FDR and Carter had gubernatorial experience, a group which includes Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Eisenhower.

However, between those guys, Ike was a 5 star General (and that is nothing to do with Chrysler's 5-star service

), which I think for the level of responsibility someone with that many stars has, is as close to gubernatorial experience as you can get without being elected.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
dogma wrote:

In fact none of the Presidents between FDR and Carter had gubernatorial experience, a group which includes Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, and Eisenhower.

However, between those guys, Ike was a 5 star General (and that is nothing to do with Chrysler's 5-star service ), which I think for the level of responsibility someone with that many stars has, is as close to gubernatorial experience as you can get without being elected.

Pretty sure being the Supreme Allied Commander in Western Europe is more experience than many Presidents have had TBH.

**Tannhauser42**

dogma wrote:

whembly wrote:

Again, between FDR to Carter, those are different eras.

Ok. When did the current era begin, to your mind?

I'll offer my opinion, might be interesting to see how it compares to Whembly's.
I'd say somewhere in the Reagan years. Basically, the Cold War ceased to rule our daily lives, the "commies" weren't the big bad they used to be anymore, and personal technology really became widespread (personal computers, video game consoles, portable music players, etc.). At some point, our politicians had to start creating enemies in order to further their political goals/power, as the Cold War essentially gave way to the "War on [insert any one of them here]" becoming the political expedient of the day.

It was a lot simpler to govern when you could point across the ocean to say "that's our enemy". But when you now start pointing that finger somewhere within our own country, that's when the divisions started

**AlmightyWalrus**

You know how Trump wasn't featured in any recruitment videos? Well, he is now, albeit not by IS.

Al Qaeda’s branch in Somalia released a recruitment video on Friday that criticized racism and anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States and contained footage of the Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump announcing his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country.

The video, released by the militant group Shabab, appeared to be the first time that Mr. Trump was featured in jihadist recruitment material. During a Democratic presidential debate last month, Hillary Clinton said that Mr. Trump had been used in a recruitment video for the Islamic State, a claim that was later debunked.

Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are rival jihadist groups that compete for recruits and money among radicalized Muslims.

Representatives for the Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

The video was part of a series dedicated to Somali-American jihadists from Minnesota and one Canadian who died on the battlefield in Somalia. The video was authenticated by the SITE Intelligence Group, which studies jihadist propaganda, and it appeared to be aimed at the African-American community.

Citing “historical injustices” against African-Americans, including police brutality and racial profiling, the video urged them to convert to Islam and engage in jihad at home or abroad.

In addition to footage of Mr. Trump, the video, which is 51 minutes long, included excerpts from speeches by Malcolm X and unnamed white supremacists, as well as footage of white police officers, African-Americans protesting police brutality and African-American men in prison. Some appeared to be performing Islamic prayers.

Using footage of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American member of a Qaeda affiliate who was killed in an American drone attack in 2011, the video also said the United States was gripped by a “malignant hatred” of Islam. It warned American Muslims that “there are ominous clouds gathering in your horizon.”

“Yesterday, America was a land of slavery, segregation, lynching and Ku Klux Klan, and tomorrow, it will be a land of religious discrimination and concentration camps,” Mr. Awlaki said in the previously recorded footage.

The video includes footage of Mr. Trump in front of a poster with his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

“So remember this, so listen, Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Awlaki then reappeared on the video.

“The West will eventually turn against its Muslim citizens,” he said, jabbing his finger toward the camera. Only two choices remained for Muslims in the United States, he said.

“You either leave or you fight,” he said. “You leave and live among Muslims, or you stay behind and follow the example of Nidal Hasan and others who fulfilled their duty of fighting for Allah’s cause.”

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was an Army psychiatrist who staged a one-man attack at Fort Hood in Killeen, Tex., in November 2009, killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 others. He once attended a mosque in Virginia where Mr. Awlaki had preached and exchanged messages with him before committing his attack.

Al Qaeda is in many ways the parent organization of the Islamic State, which split from the group over differences in strategy in the war in Syria. The two groups now compete for influence among radicalized Muslims, a competition that the Islamic State has dominated in recent years.

That contest has played out in acts of spectacular violence around the world. Analysts have said that recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Mali have been partly driven by the desire of one group to outdo the other.

**whembly**

Let's not play this game...

Prominent members will always be depicted as such.

I can find NUMEROUS cases of Obama, Bill/Hillary Clinton, our Malls, western culture used in those videos.

**Jihadin**

Well....Hillary did give them the idea.....

**Tannhauser42**

Maybe they don't actually need to make any recruitment videos at all? Just tell potential recruits to watch American news networks and that will accomplish the same thing.

**Co'tor Shas**

I was listening to the R response on the radio today, and apparently the first thing the house is going to vote on is a bill that would defund PP and repeal the individual mandate. Good to know that congress is going to be just as productive as last year.

**Jihadin**

See. Now that's why I'm voting for Trump besides the major fact he makes me laugh. He's a wild card that so not politician that he might actually get something done. He might actually get Congress, SCOTUS, EPA, DOJ, USCIS, DoS etc etc to work for him instead of with him

What politician has experience more then Trump with debt eh

**Ouze**

I definitely think electing a guy who both sides hate is the best way to get your agenda pushed forward, because in the real world, the President operates in a total vacuum of power.

**Tannhauser42**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I was listening to the R response on the radio today, and apparently the first thing the house is going to vote on is a bill that would defund PP and repeal the individual mandate. Good to know that congress is going to be just as productive as last year.

To be fair, the Ds would do their own version of "no-chance-in-hell-of-passing-legislation" given the chance. It's all just the usual politics. Because now they can say they tried, but they need more R butts in Congress (and the White House) so vote R in 2016!
Really, the ACA has been more successful (politically) for the Republicans than it has for the Democrats.

**Ouze**

We'll see - I think it's possible the Democrats could re-take the senate in 2016.

**Co'tor Shas**

They do generaly dio better on election years...

**Jihadin**

We elect those individuals...or Electoral votes win the election. We deserve the government we voted in. So if Trump gets the nomination for the GOP the candidates that lost are not going to back him? Pretty much suicide there being its the people who voted for him so if they don't work with him I can see their political career getting determined by the people who voted them in in the next cycle of elections.

Also everyone here who is so against Trump and think mean things about him....you know damn well you be waiting on Trump/Hillary debate in the General election

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I definitely think electing a guy who both sides hate is the best way to get your agenda pushed forward, because in the real world, the President operates in a total vacuum of power.

Seems like President Cruz would fit that bill...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
We'll see - I think it's possible the Democrats could re-take the senate in 2016.

Yup... that's what it's looking like in 2016.

R-House
D-Senate
D-WH

**whembly**

Interesting article on 538 about how national polls are negative indicators for Iowa and New Hampshire.

However... here's a NYT editorial about how Trump is pulling in some traditional Democrats and if he's the nominee (shudders), he's in play for New York.

Given that Trump actually polls extremely well in Florida, and in a hypothetical matchup against Hillary... if Trump secures both NY and Florida... does he have a chance?

<--- just got some heebeejeebees for typing that.

Anyhoo... for those Dakkaroos who lives (or had) in New York (Ouze? Co'tors?), is Trump popular enough to carry New York?

**BrotherGecko**

Didn't see if this was brought up.

With Putin declaring the US a threat against Russian national security (apparently) and with Putin declaring he would 'totes' be bros with Trump (apparently) is Putin trying to influence the US election?

We all know Trump's foreign policy (lol) is to hug it out with anybody that wants to throw their weight around. Trump having said that he and Putin would be great together, has Putin returned the favor by adding to Trump's PR machine?

I could see Putin hoping for a nice weak malleable mook to be POTUS and make favorable decisions towards Russia.

I know a lot of Putinofiles (sp?) were very happy with his nod to their new hero Trump.

Eh, you never know.