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.
2016/01/31 07:47:36
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: It's still skeezy d... and yes, both parties does this as it smacks of peer pressure.
But peer pressure isn't going to just disappear. Hell, one of the bedrocks of advertising on social networks is peer pressure; the same goes for pretty much anything that involves some level of socialization. Gyms are probably the worst offenders because they combine positive and negative reinforcement.
Sure... that's understood.
But, I think it's a whole different ball of wax when a political candidate does this.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/01/31 09:34:28
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
But, I think it's a whole different ball of wax when a political candidate does this.
I'm on the fence about that because, at the end of the day, deceptive GOTV operations have less of an effect on people's lives than deceptive marketing.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/01/31 09:55:11
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Bush needs to do the party a favor and gtfo now - same with at least half of the others.
Please no. I'm all for Fiorina, Carson, and all the 'undercard candidates' doipping out, but Bush, Kasich, and Christie need to stay in to at least give the voters a chance to vote for someone with actual governing experience.
It doesn't do the Republican Party any favors to hand it over to Trump or Cruz. That's pretty much the destruction of the Republican Party as we've known it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/31 15:20:29
2016/01/31 15:58:23
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ames, Iowa (CNN)Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Saturday urged Republicans to do something that he claimed had never been done before: nominate a Republican who supported Ronald Reagan for president in the 1980 primaries.
"Let me give you an amazing statistic," Cruz told a packed house at the Gateway Hotel in Ames, Iowa. "Do you know if you define as a Reaganite anyone who supported Ronald Reagan in the 1980 primary, do you know that the Republican Party has never once nominated a Reaganite to be president since 1984? Every single nominee since 1984 opposed Ronald Reagan in the 1980 primary. "
The pitch was clear: GOP voters now have the first chance since Ronald Reagan to nominate someone in the mold of Ronald Reagan. "I'm 45 years old," he said. "I have never once had the opportunity to go to a general election ballot and vote for a Reaganite on the ballot. We are inches away from doing that right here."
Is it really true that all of the other Republican nominees since Reagan's reelection contest in 1984 were not only Johnny-come-latelys to the Reagan Revolution, but opposed Reagan in those primaries?
"It's an outright lie," Arizona Sen. John McCain told CNN in a phone interview, adding that he firmly considers himself a Reaganite since his return from Vietnam. "Reagan had an emotional attachment to the (prisoners of war), so not only did we support him, we worshipped him."
The 2008 Republican nominee fondly remembered that Reagan held parties for the POWs upon their return to the U.S. from captivity in Vietnam, including festivities in Sacramento and San Francisco. "He wore a POW bracelet," McCain recalled. "It was very clear as early as 1973 that we appreciated his support and supported him -- all the POWs, including me."
McCain did not formally retire from the U.S. Navy until 1981, so he acknowledges he did not publicly and formally endorse any candidate for office until after then, because he was not permitted to do so under military regulations.
McCain "wasn't a public supporter" of Reagan, Cruz spokesman Jason Miller responded. "So the statement is accurate."
McCain ran for Congress in 1982 as an ardent supporter of Reagan and continued to work hard for the Reagan agenda once there.
"I was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution," McCain told CNN. Even if his support wasn't public because of Navy regulations, "I supported him when he ran for president in 1976, and, of course, in 1980. To say otherwise is ludicrous."
Romney could not be reached for comment.
Other Republican nominees since 1980 include George H.W. Bush -- who challenged Reagan in those primaries -- and his son, George W. Bush, so they don't qualify as early Reagan supporters during that process. And 1996 Republican presidential nominee Senator Bob Dole also ran in the 1980 primaries, disqualifying him as well from this Cruz litmus test.
McCain and Cruz have clashed before. The Arizona senator once described Cruz and his allies as the Senate's "wacko birds," and earlier this month, he said questions about Cruz's eligibility to be president -- the Texan was born in Canada -- were "worth looking into."
What was that someone got caught on video some years ago saying something about the stupidity of the American voter? That is exactly what Ted Cruz is relying on with stuff like this.
Anyway, I had a bit of a personal shock yesterday. CNN.com had a quick little survey to see which candidate matches me best. My results? Bernie 1st, Hillary 2nd,....and Ted Cruz 3rd. How does THAT happen?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/31 17:16:13
"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
2016/01/31 18:48:43
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
99.9% of people on dakka know that none of these candidates, be they Reublican or Democrat, could be trusted to organise a funeral in a graveyard, never mind run a global superpower. I'd go further and say that about the vast majority of Western politicians.
I hope I live to see the day when the American people say feth it, we're not voting for anybody this time, they all suck.
"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
2016/01/31 22:49:43
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
LordofHats wrote: Most electoral systems as far as I know have provisions for what to do in case of a tie. 0 and 0 is still a tie
True, but even if no one votes in the popular vote, the electors will still get cast their votes.
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."
2016/02/01 00:57:32
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
"It's an outright lie," Arizona Sen. John McCain told CNN in a phone interview...
We need someone to give an angry quote rejecting this… better get McCain on the phone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 99.9% of people on dakka know that none of these candidates, be they Reublican or Democrat, could be trusted to organise a funeral in a graveyard, never mind run a global superpower. I'd go further and say that about the vast majority of Western politicians.
I hope I live to see the day when the American people say feth it, we're not voting for anybody this time, they all suck.
It’s so easy and so self-satisfying to declare the whole thing completely broke. Because it can be very hard to figure out the difference between dangerous or nasty ideologies and pragmatic policy. Just decide they’re all awful and you get to avoid thinking and get to feel self-righteous!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 01:08:42
“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.
2016/02/01 01:43:56
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Without votes we don't get electors though.
Sure we do. The states would choose a different way to select electors, most likely through their state legislatures. There is no federal law saying electors have to be selected in a popular election.
Do all the states have ways of deciding ties for the election of electors?
Yes. The Constitution says the state legislatures will decide.
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."
2016/02/01 12:49:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Here's a video sort of showcasing just how far things have come
I must say, those were a couple of sharply dressed Democrats in that video.
"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
2016/02/01 12:52:29
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It’s so easy and so self-satisfying to declare the whole thing completely broke. Because it can be very hard to figure out the difference between dangerous or nasty ideologies and pragmatic policy. Just decide they’re all awful and you get to avoid thinking and get to feel self-righteous!
The system is broke, though. In the western world, most political parties look, speak, and sound the same, with the ideological differences between them non-existent.
Politics seems to be in thrall to economics and big business. You turn on any news channel and what's the first thing you hear? How are the markets doing? Etc etc.
Trade deals get done behind closed doors, and democracy goes out the window all too often. Sebster, look at your own nation. A prime minister gets thrown out by political deals behind closed doors, and a bemused Australian public wonders if they're ever going to get a say on their new leader. And so it goes on.
In the USA, we have politicians in thrall to corporate interests, a SCOTUS that ruled that corporations have the same rights as an individual. a Republican party in thrall to a right wing gun lobby, a dangerous idiot with a big mouth running for President (Trump) and another well known politician who is economical with the truth, has proven herself to be a security liability, and has questions to answer over her finances (H.Clinton)
Some choice for the American people, who now have to decide which of these idiots will do the least damage to the country.
And yet, people query why some people are dissatisfied with politics!
"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
2016/02/01 13:27:45
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
.. so how exactly is no one in prison/on trial for this Flint water fiasco ?
No idea. It's completely horrendous what happened there.
I was on board when Kilpatrick went to jail but compaired to what Synder has done, its chump change. Synder has ruined children's lives (I think over 100), they will struggle for the rest of their lives because of his cost cutting. Synder needs to be in jail as far as I'm concerned.
The GOP should be acting on thier moral 'rightness' by firmly throwing Synder's career under the bus and burning its body.
Synder would be smart to resign and lay low because the anger and resentment is still building in MI.
2016/02/01 19:08:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Democrats: Clinton wins by 5, a bit better than current polls suggest.
GOP: Trump wins in a squeaker to Cruz by 2 points. Rubio does worse than expected >15% due to Carson doing better than expected. Voter turnout is average 133,000.
Trump:33
Cruz: 31
Rubio: 12
Carson :11
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/01 21:07:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I hope not. It seems like one of those things where Bernie has the popular support overall but Clinton has the higher ups in the party, which is probably what you want/need.
Trumps is better than it looks on the surface. He has a lot of personnel and offices and he has a large polling lead. I think it will shrink when the voters get in the booth, but it could win it for him. Cruz might pull the upset. I'm not saying I want the results, just what I think will happen tonight. Rubio doesn't look good going into tonight. He has no shot of winning, but if he somehow pulls out a second place, the narrative will be about him and it will be a Rubio vs Trump fight.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/01 22:00:17
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think Rubio ought to be hoping for a strong 3rd place instead of the distant 3rd polling seems to suggest we will see. That 'may' be enough for the establishment money and support to swing decisively his way.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/02/01 22:23:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
CptJake wrote: I think Rubio ought to be hoping for a strong 3rd place instead of the distant 3rd polling seems to suggest we will see. That 'may' be enough for the establishment money and support to swing decisively his way.
I would bet even if Rubios numbers hit 14-15 it will be played as a win in the narrative. The establishment needs a candidate that can run in the general, and the media wants one too to make a sellable narrative.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/02 02:07:46
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Went to the caucus today, first time I've done that. I had to change my party registration from "no party", which I had previously rocked for nearly 20 years. Anyway, crowd was 60/40 Bernie/Hillary, with Martin O'Malley fielding a respectable zero supporters. Its cool, the Bernie camp was able to use the extra seats.
At least at my.. precinct? Whatever; it's one delegate for Bernie and one for Hillary, you need 75% to send them both for one candidate. Don't know how the GOP did here. My friend went for Rand so I'll ask him shortly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/02 02:08:32
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
2016/02/02 02:38:45
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition