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.
2016/02/07 16:53:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
No. The problem is, there's one set of law for us Plebes (like Manning/Snowden), and another for the connected (like Hillary and to certain extent Patreous).
*Thats* the problem.
The solution is "Don't be a pleb."
Isn't that what US, conservative ideology posits as the end goal for people?
No.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/07 17:01:35
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/07 17:02:03
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Had an amusing chat with a coworker just now about the GOP debates last night. I was wondering why Rick Santorum ran again this year, and he floating a phrase that really, really deserves to be introduced here:
You have the guys that rise and fall, you know? The Jeb Bushes, the Donald Trumps, the John McCains and the Howard Deans and the Herman Cains, who have at least a moment where they look like they can go all the way. Then you have the trough leeches - these are the guys who just run for office every few years. They know they have no chance, but they need to run so they can fundraise and book tour enough to not have to work for the next 3 years or so. They're like those sucker fish in an aquarium - they know they'll never swim up to the top, and are happy just to stay at the bottom, eating poop. Rick Santorum is a classic trough leech, just eating poop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/07 17:02:39
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
2016/02/07 17:03:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: Had an amusing chat with a coworker just now about the GOP debates last night. I was wondering why Rick Santorum ran again this year, and he floating a phrase that really, really deserves to be introduced here:
You have the guys that rise and fall, you know? The Jeb Bushes, the Donald Trumps, the John McCains and the Howard Deans and the Herman Cains, who have at least a moment where they look like they can go all the way. Then you have the trough leeches - these are the guys who just run for office every few years. They know they have no chance, but they need to run so they can fundraise and book tour enough to not have to work for the next 3 years or so. They're like those sucker fish in an aquarium - they know they'll never swim up to the top, and are happy just to stay at the bottom, eating poop. Rick Santorum is a classic trough leech, just eating poop.
Yup... and looks like Carson is on that same school...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/07 18:41:07
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Clinton is just as bad. Asking women to vote for Clinton because she's a woman, is a terrible idea for running a political campaign.
You keep saying that, but why? I don't know where you are getting this at all. Hillary Clinton's campaign has built almost nothing on her gender.
Clinton is running on "If you look into the future, you will see me looking back at you from the Oval Office. Which list of mine do you want to be on when the day comes?"
I don't know if it is her, herself, as it so much the outlining people spreading that message.
I have heard pundits scoff when a woman says they are voting for Sanders. They act like women should be voting for Clinton because, hey, they are both women after all.
The short of the article:
Hillary Clinton’s older feminist supporters have a message for young women who are not backing her candidacy: Shame on you.
While I have respect for Steinem and Albirght, feminism does not equate to blind genital allegiance.
Like I said, Clinton may not be directly saying this kind of stuff, but the outlining people are.
A president should be elected based on many things not just gender alone. I do believe Clinton has been more critiqued than a lot of other candidates, she should be elected if she is a better fit.
I will vote Clinton if Sanders does not get the nomination.
I'm back!
2016/02/07 19:07:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Is voting for a woman because she is a woman really that much worse than voting for anybody else that you don't know anything about simply because they have a D or R next to their name?
2016/02/07 19:19:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Is voting for a woman because she is a woman really that much worse than voting for anybody else that you don't know anything about simply because they have a D or R next to their name?
No, it's not. It's like voting for insert religion here because you are of that same religion.
That's why we need to educate ourselves on the candidates. Find out where they stand, and see if you are OK with their negatives despite their positives. Don't vote blindly, vote smart and well informed.
I'm back!
2016/02/07 19:21:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Is voting for a woman because she is a woman really that much worse than voting for anybody else that you don't know anything about simply because they have a D or R next to their name?
Really, it's about the same as those voters who voted Obama in in 08 because he was black (and believe me, I know a number of people who did exactly that).
I would suppose that voting for someone based on the D or R by their name could be slightly "better" because at least from a nominal sense, you'd be voting the party that better aligns with your personal beliefs?
2016/02/07 19:30:41
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Really, it's about the same as those voters who voted Obama in in 08 because he was black (and believe me, I know a number of people who did exactly that).
Should we also mention the people who didn't vote Obama specifically because he is black or wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman? Granted, most of such people wouldn't vote a Democrat anyway.
And most people who would vote for them on account of being black or a woman would vote Democrat anyway, if they voted at all. So I guess that entire line of discussions is just kind of pointless outside of having a laugh at how stupid people not 'me' are?
BTW, I think that wanting to break class ceilings is completely legitimate motivation for voting a person. Obama presidency was historical, and I'm sure it was highly inspirational to many minority kids who realised that they too could become a president. And while women are not a minority, they're still many ways treated like one. So if someone's motivation for voting Hillary is that they want to see a woman president, I'm not going to tell them that they're wrong.
Crimson wrote: BTW, I think that wanting to break class ceilings is completely legitimate motivation for voting a person. Obama presidency was historical, and I'm sure it was highly inspirational to many minority kids who realised that they too could become a president. And while women are not a minority, they're still many ways treated like one. So if someone's motivation for voting Hillary is that they want to see a woman president, I'm not going to tell them that they're wrong.
Exactly and I should have clarified that better. But I still feel it is not a wise thing to do based on that alone.
But shaming someone of the same gender/race for not supporting candidates of same gender/race is not cool.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/07 21:48:16
I'm back!
2016/02/07 22:04:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So there are now allegations that Sanders was shorted deligates in Iowa. According to the article below, some are confused about the process and other outright irate, claiming the delegates awarded did not match the results of the vote.
Was it by error? Or by intent? Or were the delegates awarded accurately after all? If not, will they reapportion the delegates after final totals?
I only put one part of the article into quotes, that part relating to Knoxville No. 3.
Jennifer Jacobs wrote:Iowans claim instances when Sanders was shorted delegates
Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.
A total of 110 people were present for the final vote, and the count was 58 people for Sanders and 52 people for Clinton — which amounted to five county delegates for Sanders and four for Clinton, said Lonnie McCombs, a 59-year-old Knoxville Democrat who is retired from careers in the military and in manufacturing.
“That’s how it was recorded,” said McCombs, a Sanders backer.
But when the Knoxville Journal Express newspaper posted the Democratic Party’s official results, it showed Knoxville No. 3 results as Clinton with five county delegates and Sanders with four.
“It cost Bernie a (county) delegate,” said McCombs, who took to Facebook to report his concerns.
Steve Eck, who was Clinton’s precinct captain for Knoxville No. 3, confirmed: “Somebody transposed those numbers.”
Eck, a 61-year-old nurse anesthesiologist, said the problem was reported to party officials.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/07 22:05:17
2016/02/08 03:41:03
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Any way you cut it, this is nothing less than a tax on middle and low-income families, who pays a disproportionate share of their income on energy. This will be fodder for the General Election...
You're right that a program like this can be a tough sell, but other than that... hoo boy.
I'm getting really, really bored with this faux concern over middle class pockets that only appears when a environmental tariff is suggested. Its an impact that's so easily controlled with adjustments to tax rates and transfer payments. But you'd never hear that because special interests are trying to tank programs like this.
So yes, a scare campaign is easy and good politics, but anyone who wants decent policy selection should be contemptuous of any kind of scare campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I'm also in favor of more nuclear energy but it's definitely a difficult sell, as far as NIMBY's go.
What's often missed is that investment in nuclear has a whole set of risks that make it unattractivd, despite its decent price per unit.
A nuclear station is a massive investment, unlike say solar where single stations can be a couple of panels. If a solar investment turns out to be non-viable then you're out 5 thousand. A nuclear plant doesn't work out and you've blown 500 hundred million.
The other risk is lead in time. You can have solar installed in a day, while nuclear can be years in development. In an uncertain, rapidly changing energy market those years can make investors can project even when the numbers look great on paper.
I'm not saying solar is better, its cost per unit is nothing like nuclear, and it can't produce the steady baseload nuclear can. I'm just pointing out there's bigger reasons than nimby that nuclear investment has stagnated in recent years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/08 03:51:42
“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.
2016/02/08 05:13:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Is voting for a woman because she is a woman really that much worse than voting for anybody else that you don't know anything about simply because they have a D or R next to their name?
No, it's not. It's like voting for insert religion here because you are of that same religion.
But, according to Albright, "...there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other...”
Fox News posited, in essence, if Albright's unilateral support of women would include Carly Fiorina, the other woman running this election.
2016/02/08 06:08:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The quote isn't "There is a special place in hell for women who don't support other women..." The assumption here is that Carly Fiorna is helping other women, which Albright would probably disagree with.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2016/02/08 15:59:44
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
LordofHats wrote: I'm confused. Why is he standing there the whole time XD And why did Trump join him XD
He obviously knew he was supposed to go out, but didn't hear his name called.
Would his name be Gerald Ford by any chance?
God, I love American presidential campaigns
"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
2016/02/08 17:53:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Crimson wrote: BTW, I think that wanting to break class ceilings is completely legitimate motivation for voting a person. Obama presidency was historical, and I'm sure it was highly inspirational to many minority kids who realised that they too could become a president. And while women are not a minority, they're still many ways treated like one. So if someone's motivation for voting Hillary is that they want to see a woman president, I'm not going to tell them that they're wrong.
The real question is, would she also warrant a Nobel Prize simply for getting elected, or was that a one-time thing?
2016/02/08 18:12:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So, some say Rubio ended up having his resurgence destroyed by Christie in the last R debate. Will Rubio's gaffe have any lasting impact at this point? Thoughts?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2016/02/08 18:45:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The real question is, would she also warrant a Nobel Prize simply for getting elected, or was that a one-time thing?
Well, that was just bs. Really damaged the prestige of the prize.
It isn't like Pres. Obama asked for it or nominated himself. People still want to be bitchy about it but they are looking at the wrong people, but I suppose any port in a storm.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2016/02/08 20:09:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The real question is, would she also warrant a Nobel Prize simply for getting elected, or was that a one-time thing?
Well, that was just bs. Really damaged the prestige of the prize.
It isn't like Pres. Obama asked for it or nominated himself. People still want to be bitchy about it but they are looking at the wrong people, but I suppose any port in a storm.
It's not his fault... but you can't deny that it was used as a bully pulpit for awhile afterwards.
It lost it's significance since his handling over Iraq/Afganistan/Droning/etc..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/08 20:35:00
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/08 20:09:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It isn't like Pres. Obama asked for it or nominated himself. People still want to be bitchy about it but they are looking at the wrong people, but I suppose any port in a storm.
(more)
(building)
(less)
