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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

If UK Brexit, how is it that US and UK be any "closer"?

We're like the tightest, best buds allies for quite some time now... that I don't foresee changing with or not UK stays in the EU.

Well, the next resident of 1600 might see an application to become the 51st state land on his or her desk.

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Well, the next resident of 1600 might see an application to become the 51st state land on his or her desk.

Ha!

Another New York-like state? That'll definitely pull US more liberal...

*shrugs*

We got room for you! Apply away!

Also, this really shows that while we can be partisan opponent... we can also find common ground on shared values:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/17/im-a-liberal-lawyer-clerking-for-scalia-taught-me-how-to-think-about-the-law/?postshare=6851455856239788&tid=ss_fb-bottom

I’m a liberal lawyer. Clerking for Scalia taught me how to think about the law.

I wanted the job because I was eager to learn how someone so brilliant could see the world so differently than I did.

When I was in law school, a Supreme Court clerkship was the Holy Grail. For me, it was clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia. Now that I’m a partner in a law firm that serves the notoriously progressive entertainment industry, the fact that I once clerked for Scalia often elicits looks of surprise from those sitting across from me, who ask if I’m the functional equivalent of a unicorn — a conservative in Los Angeles — a place that Scalia had amusingly warned me would “melt my brain.” I tell them, no, I’m politically liberal, but that my time working for the justice was one of the defining experiences of my life.

I’d heard all through law school that Scalia always hired one liberal clerk, though my sense is that this practice had waned in recent years. In fact, the process of applying for a Supreme Court clerkship entails applying to all nine justices — the notion being that justices choose clerks and not the other way around. But Justice Scalia was the person for whom I most wanted to work, not because we were ideologically aligned, but because we were not. It had to do with the way he was so deeply vilified — both personally, and as a jurist — by so many of my classmates. He was discussed in almost cartoonish fashion, conjuring images of twirled mustaches and barely-concealed devil horns. It was a time, just after Bush v. Gore and 9/11, when battle lines had been drawn, and it was politically correct to reject wholesale any belief that was not your own.

That approach made me uncomfortable, and I found myself becoming more and more interested in Justice Scalia’s work, eager to understand how someone so clearly brilliant could see the world so differently than I did. It’s why I took the job.

And, in some ways, the job is a strange one. To assist in the writing of opinions, clerks have to get inside a justice’s mind to think as they do and to write as they would. My role was to facilitate his, and sometimes that was easier than others. In one case I worked on writing a dissent — the position held by a minority of the court — with which I fundamentally disagreed on a moral level, but found, as I wrote, that I was drawn to Scalia’s reasoning; his emphasis on precedent, strict textual construction and judicial restraint. While I remain bound not to discuss details of the cases I worked on, I can say that Scalia’s arguments in that case conveyed a clarity not found in the majority’s opinion, which relied on legal and verbal gymnastics in order to reach the desired outcome. His approach had a logic and simplicity that resonated with me, despite my politics. I found myself able to get inside his mind in that moment, to sublimate my own views, and write confidently in his voice. I was proud when my co-clerk told me that Scalia had called it a “knock out.”

There were other days, though, where I found myself sitting on Scalia’s worn leather couch, looking up at Leroy — the mounted elk’s head that dominated the justice’s chambers — wondering how both Leroy and I had gotten there, as Scalia and my three conservative co-clerks all found common ground that I simply could not access. “You really think that?” and “That can’t be right,” were refrains I heard often in response to bench memos I prepared in advance of oral argument.

I’ll admit that I went back and forth between playing the part of contrarian and simply trying to give the justice the recommendations he was looking for. There were times I was pleased when he noted my penchant for disagreement. Once, when my co-clerk gave him a draft of an important opinion, Scalia nodded toward me, smiled and said, “Let’s give it to Mikey,” quoting the old Life cereal commercial, “She doesn’t like anything.” In those moments, I felt I had license to challenge Justice Scalia, and my arguments were always met with energetic debate and his eagerness to prove me wrong. At other times I simply wanted his approval, and for him to tell me that I was finally thinking “right” — which he meant with its full double-entendre.

I missed the mark a few times when I made assumptions about what Justice Scalia would think, based on his political leanings. In one particular criminal case, I tried to anticipate his reaction and gave him the analysis I thought he wanted. But when I suggested he might want to follow the more conventionally conservative line of thinking, he looked at me incredulously and said, “We can’t do that.” There was another case, where we were tasked with writing the majority opinion, when I saw him struggle and ultimately change his mind after realizing that the text of the statute would not support the position he initially wanted to take. That was the one time the Justice — who was very respectful of personal time and valued his own — called me on a weekend and asked me to come into chambers. As we worked through the case together, the power went out in our wing of the Court. Rather than taking a break, we moved our chairs and books into the hallway, using the natural light that came through the courtyard. This prompted Justice David Souter (who was famously averse to using modern technology, including, seemingly, the light bulb) to poke fun at our inability to read in dim light.

[If Republicans block Obama’s SCOTUS nomination, he wins anyway]

If there was a true surprise during my year clerking for Scalia, it was how little reference he made to political outcomes. What he cared about was the law, and where the words on the page took him. More than any one opinion, this will be his lasting contribution to legal thought. Whatever our beliefs, he forced lawyers and scholars to engage on his terms — textual analysis and original meaning. He forced us all to acknowledge that words cannot mean anything we want them to mean; that we have to impose a degree of discipline on our thinking. A discipline I value to this day.

Justice Scalia treated me with enormous respect and always seemed to value my opinion — a heady experience for someone just a year out of law school. I never felt as though he looked at me differently than my conservative counterparts; his trust felt implicit, which is, perhaps, why I struggled so much between wanting to challenge him and wanting to please. He was also, hands down, the smartest person I’ve ever known. What would take me weeks to understand would take him minutes to process. I’ll never forget my first experience handing him an opinion and watching him, in a matter of minutes, type a few lines into his typewriter (yes, a typewriter, even in 2004), and instantly cut to the heart of the issue in a way that I’d simply been unable to do. When I read his new draft, I realized that I’d tried too hard to bridge the difference between his opinion and that of another justice in order to hold our majority. His changes strengthened the argument but also, I feared, risked putting us in the dissent. But Justice Scalia didn’t compromise his principles, even on the smallest issues.

He knew his own mind, and taught me the importance of knowing my own.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:

So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority?

Possibly because we expect better from the party that tries to claim its family values and religious morals are better than everybody else? It's like I said before, if you want to be the better man, you actually have to be the better man.

Just as the Senate voters in 2014 matters.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the entire Senate wasn't elected in 2014.

What I strongly dislike about this whole process in how the Senate conducts its business, is that is essentially creates an executive branch within the Senate. The few at the top basically get to decide what the Senate as a whole gets to decide on. That's not right. (and before you go again, no, it wasn't right when the Ds did it, either).

**whembly**

Tannhauser42 wrote:

What I strongly dislike about this whole process in how the Senate conducts its business, is that is essentially creates an executive branch within the Senate. The few at the top basically get to decide what the Senate as a whole gets to decide on. That's not right. (and before you go again, no, it wasn't right when the Ds did it, either).

That's an odd way of looking at it.

Keep in mind that the Senate *is* a co-equal Branch to the Executive. Each branch has some measure of oversight to keep it's side in check (if they so desire).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:

So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority?

Possibly because we expect better from the party that tries to claim its family values and religious morals are better than everybody else? It's like I said before, if you want to be the better man, you actually have to be the better man.

And be willing to be taken to the woodshed?

That's not how politics works unfortunately.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:

What I strongly dislike about this whole process in how the Senate conducts its business, is that is essentially creates an executive branch within the Senate. The few at the top basically get to decide what the Senate as a whole gets to decide on. That's not right. (and before you go again, no, it wasn't right when the Ds did it, either).

That's an odd way of looking at it.

Keep in mind that the Senate *is* a co-equal Branch to the Executive. Each branch has some measure of oversight to keep it's side in check (if they so desire).

Minor correction: the Senate AND the House (combined) are a co-equal branch to the Executive. But the problem I have is that the Senate has it's own little executive branch within itself, that allows for a "tyranny of the majority" by preventing the minority from even getting to vote.

**oldravenman3025**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:

So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority?

Possibly because we expect better from the party that tries to claim its family values and religious morals are better than everybody else? It's like I said before, if you want to be the better man, you actually have to be the better man.

I've been a card carrying Republican since I got out of high school back in the 1980's in a rural county full of populist "Yellow Dogs", and run by an old school Democratic Party machine that was rife with corruption/cronyism that would have made Boss Tweed proud. A legacy of the days when the "party of the working man" fought to maintain segregation here in the South.

I lean hard right when it comes to politics, military affairs, international affairs, and economics. I tend to be a strict constructionist, rejecting the idea of a "living" Constitution.

On the flipside, I'm also socially liberal to a degree, with a libertarian bent. Particularly when it comes to pot legalization, homosexuality, free speech, privacy, religious freedom, etc.

The point is that not all of us who are members of the Republican Party march in lock-step on everything. It's actually a fairly diverse party as far as views of it's members goes.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Keep in mind that the Senate *is* a co-equal Branch to the Executive. Each branch has some measure of oversight to keep it's side in check (if they so desire).

Well, not really. The Executive doesn't have a whole lot of authority over the Legislature, it pretty much only has veto power and the ability to circumvent it entirely by way of EOs, memorandums, and informal agreements. All three of those latter things are of dubious legality, but pretty much necessary for the US to have a foreign policy because the Senate reflexively chooses to avoid signing treaties.

whembly wrote:

And be willing to be taken to the woodshed?

No, simply be willing to reconsider their positions. As I said up thread, many of the ideas produced by the Republican Party are simply bad. Ted Cruz's flat tax plan, in which he simultaneously says the IRS will be abolished and that it will still need to exist, discriminates against against unmarried families and families that choose to have only 1 child, and states that the corporate income tax will be eliminated only to be replaced by another corporate income tax, is a fantastic example.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
I'll tell you why, it's about power and shaping the court to a desired ideology.

Yes it is, isn't it? And all this stuff about letting the people decide is total nonsense and everyone knows that - this is about power and shaping the court, by trying to wait until there's a Republican president to make the nomination.

Meanwhile any notion of process or governance can go and get fethed, because the balance of the court is at stake. Which is my point exactly.

The Democrats had it. If you want to talk about extremely dangerous precedent, look no further than Reid invoking the nuke option to do away with the filibuster rules.

Exactly. And if you follow that through I think you'll start to get the problem.

The Repubicans were very obstructionist, and this gave Reid the political justification for removing long held senate rules, which were then used for political ends. So we see how a Republican strategy resulted in a Democratic response, leading to an end result that was entirely unlike what Republicans expected.

And now we have the grand daddy of all obstructionist tactics. No-one can honestly claim they know where this will end up. That's what makes it inherently dangerous.

So... forgive me that my "give a feth o meter" is non existent here.

Because you keep looking at it as blue vs red. Look at the actual governance of your country, how it should be run and how it is run, and your give a feth meter should be full.

But, your fearmongering over the idea that if Clinton or Sanders win the Presidency

You're editing my post to make it easier to dismiss than it is. Note that I also suggested a scenario where a Republican won the presidency, leading to Democrats blocking for four years in retaliation, to prevent Democrats nominating the position they rightly thought they should have been able to claim.

And once again, I'm not saying that will happen. I'm not even saying Republicans will hold out for a year. I'm saying that when you walk away from accepted process, you don't know what you're going to end up with.

So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority?

I think it's a very fantastical view to think that there'd be no call for Democrats to rise above partisanship, if they had announced a plan to block a SC nomination for a full year.

As regular Republican voters have seen, whenever the Republican party tries to take that "higher ground", they lose.

Well that's an issue the GOP is better off addressing through a root and branch assessment of their broadly insane and largely unpopular platform, than in trying to play negtive and obstructionist politics. The latter strategy is, as I've already mentioned, the platform of a permanent minority.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

This referendum is a big deal in Britain. The ruling party, the conservatives (republicans) are pretty split on this, and there could be a political 'civil war' that goes on for years.

The British public is evenly divided as well. Many believe that the UK should free itself from the EU and forge a new role for itself in the wider world, whilst others want closer ties to Europe.

This question cuts at the heart of British identity since we lost the Empire. Should be push closer to the USA or should we push closer to Europe?

We've tried to be both over the years, and it never really worked. Now it'll be decided one way or another.

I think this is quite interesting.... On the one hand, you are literally arguing about the Westphalian model, which members of the EU voluntarily give up pieces of their own sovereignty to do... On the other hand, with the way US politics has gone, the Westphalian model has all but disappeared, and the Corporate interests seem to be given greater weight (see, TPP)

It really is a sticky situation, but I can see why the US would "want" to have the UK as a member state of the EU, as you are pretty much the only native English speaking country in there, combined with our intelligence sharing deals and whatnot, it really is advantageous for the US to have your voice in that body of politics.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Voters have "spoken" in 2014 when the GOP took the majority.

We can play this game all day guys.

Yes they did. And so by electing a Republican majority senate alongside the already elected Democratic president, the people said that any justice who stood down should be replaced by someone nominated by the Democratic president, with advice and consent granted by the the Republican majority senate.

Which means, of course, Republicans are free to refuse consent on any specific candidate Obama nominates. And if they can find good enough reason to reject every candidate Obama puts up until Obama's term ends, then hey, that's the game.

But to simply refuse to consider any candidate proposed is a whole different thing entirely.

**Crimson**

dogma wrote:

No, simply be willing to reconsider their positions. As I said up thread, many of the ideas produced by the Republican Party are simply bad. Ted Cruz's flat tax plan, in which he simultaneously says the IRS will be abolished and that it will still need to exist, discriminates against against unmarried families and families that choose to have only 1 child, and states that the corporate income tax will be eliminated only to be replaced by another corporate income tax, is a fantastic example.

Not to mention his idea of returning to the gold standard, which would be hilarious were it not a serious suggestion from a person who has a realistic chance of becoming the US president. Sure, this is not a first time Ted Cruz has threatened to destroy the world economy, but this time he doesn't even seem to realise he is doing that. No one whose grasp of economics is this tenuous should be let anywhere near the big chair.

**d-usa**

sebster wrote:

Which means, of course, Republicans are free to refuse consent on any specific candidate Obama nominates. And if they can find good enough reason to reject every candidate Obama puts up until Obama's term ends, then hey, that's the game.

But to simply refuse to consider any candidate proposed is a whole different thing entirely.

And that's the point that a lot of people simply aren't getting, or are simply refusing to get.

**sebster**

oldravenman3025 wrote:
I lean hard right when it comes to politics, military affairs, international affairs, and economics. I tend to be a strict constructionist, rejecting the idea of a "living" Constitution.

On the flipside, I'm also socially liberal to a degree, with a libertarian bent. Particularly when it comes to pot legalization, homosexuality, free speech, privacy, religious freedom, etc.

The point is that not all of us who are members of the Republican Party march in lock-step on everything. It's actually a fairly diverse party as far as views of it's members goes.

Um, I don't mean to be dismissive of your politics or anything, in fact I thank you for posting them because it's always good to see where a poster is coming from. But your position is hardly evidence of diversity within the Republican party. You're basically a libertarian, a group that's probably the majority among young movement conservatives.

**Dreadwinter**

d-usa wrote:
sebster wrote:

Which means, of course, Republicans are free to refuse consent on any specific candidate Obama nominates. And if they can find good enough reason to reject every candidate Obama puts up until Obama's term ends, then hey, that's the game.

But to simply refuse to consider any candidate proposed is a whole different thing entirely.

And that's the point that a lot of people simply aren't getting, or are simply refusing to get.

I don't think Whembly refuses to get it. I think he just looks at politics as literally being a game. He doesn't really see it as Governance and how decisions like this have long lasting impacts on people all across the country. He just sees an open seat his team needs and he is all in to get it.

**sebster**

Crimson wrote:
Not to mention his idea of returning to the gold standard, which would be hilarious were it not a serious suggestion from a person who has a realistic chance of becoming the US president. Sure, this is not a first time Ted Cruz has threatened to destroy the world economy, but this time he doesn't even seem to realise he is doing that. No one whose grasp of economics is this tenuous should be let anywhere near the big chair.

Reagan believed in the Laffer curve, and the US not only survived the 80s, it flourished. Though Reagan did have to reverse some of his tax cuts when they didn't work anything like Laffer's model projected. GW Bush believed his tax cuts wouldn't hurt revenue because of Laffer magic as well. The US didn't flourish in the 00s, though. And nor did Bush backtrack on his taxcuts, even when revenue refused to act like Laffer predicted.

I'm not saying it's okay to have economic lunatics in the presidency. I don't really know what I'm saying. I guess I'm saying that the US is quite resilient, enough that even completely loopy nonsense like the Laffer curve won't tank the country. It'll cause harm of course. And some of the stuff put out by Cruz like the gold standard stuff is admittedly a lot crazier than the Laffer curve, but even if he won office, well the US will survive. Lots of people will suffer, of course, but the country will survive.

Part of me even wonders if the final kick the Republican crazy train needs before it all falls over is to win the presidency again. If any one of the people currently campaigning for the Republican nomination wins the presidency and gets even part of their agenda up, I really don't see how the GOP would continue to function as a legitimate major party.

*Or even worse Rubio, some of policy positions are like reading from the desk of an overly enthusiastic Heritage intern.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't think Whembly refuses to get it. I think he just looks at politics as literally being a game. He doesn't really see it as Governance and how decisions like this have long lasting impacts on people all across the country. He just sees an open seat his team needs and he is all in to get it.

I think it's more that once you get deep enough in the siege mentality it's pretty easy to justify anything. Right now he believes that there is a great tide of Democratic advantages and wins, and if Republicans don't fight them in every way possible then the war will be lost forever.

To some extent Democrats had it too, during the Bush presidency. Nowhere near as bad. Well, some liberals had it worse than whembly does now, but across the whole it's way more intense in the Republican party.

What everyone caught up in that mentality fails to understand is that politics is about winning one day, and losing the next. When you win you get some stuff, when you lose the other side gets some stuff. Of course you try as you can from opposition to limit how much the majority can get, but you always keep in mind that they're just daily battles. And hey, losing a battle today will build enthusiasm in your base, while making the other side complacent.

What matters more than any of it is that the system continues to function. That you don't dismantle a long running, accepted and functioning democracy because you really, really want to win today's fight.

**Tannhauser42**

sebster wrote:

What everyone caught up in that mentality fails to understand is that politics is about winning one day, and losing the next. When you win you get some stuff, when you lose the other side gets some stuff. Of course you try as you can from opposition to limit how much the majority can get, but you always keep in mind that they're just daily battles. And hey, losing a battle today will build enthusiasm in your base, while making the other side complacent.

What matters more than any of it is that the system continues to function. That you don't dismantle a long running, accepted and functioning democracy because you really, really want to win today's fight.

Why, dearie me, that almost sounds like, *gasp*, compromise. Giving some to get some. Who woulda thunk it?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

This referendum is a big deal in Britain. The ruling party, the conservatives (republicans) are pretty split on this, and there could be a political 'civil war' that goes on for years.

The British public is evenly divided as well. Many believe that the UK should free itself from the EU and forge a new role for itself in the wider world, whilst others want closer ties to Europe.

This question cuts at the heart of British identity since we lost the Empire. Should be push closer to the USA or should we push closer to Europe?

We've tried to be both over the years, and it never really worked. Now it'll be decided one way or another.

I think this is quite interesting.... On the one hand, you are literally arguing about the Westphalian model, which members of the EU voluntarily give up pieces of their own sovereignty to do... On the other hand, with the way US politics has gone, the Westphalian model has all but disappeared, and the Corporate interests seem to be given greater weight (see, TPP)

It really is a sticky situation, but I can see why the US would "want" to have the UK as a member state of the EU, as you are pretty much the only native English speaking country in there, combined with our intelligence sharing deals and whatnot, it really is advantageous for the US to have your voice in that body of politics.

One of the reasons why De Gaulle opposed Britain's membership was he feared that Britain would be a Trojan Horse for the Americans.

In many respects, he was right - our heart has never really been in the European project.

It's very curious British trait that we love going into other people's countries, but don't like it when they come into ours, especially if they're European

On the other hand, if Britain leaves the EU, the European project could collapse and that would be a headache for any American President.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

On the other hand, if Britain leaves the EU, the European project could collapse and that would be a headache for any American President.

I suspect this collapse would be very likely. From what little I see in the media, it would seem that aside from the UK, Germany feels that it is bearing all the weight and responsibility of the EU. If the UK goes, they will probably feel even more like that, and seek to get out of that situation.

If Germany leaves the EU, I think the whole thing would collapse, because I can't see France wanting to, or being able to support the organization.

**Easy E**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Voters have "spoken" in 2014 when the GOP took the majority.

We can play this game all day guys.

Yes they did. And so by electing a Republican majority senate alongside the already elected Democratic president, the people said that any justice who stood down should be replaced by someone nominated by the Democratic president, with advice and consent granted by the the Republican majority senate.

Which means, of course, Republicans are free to refuse consent on any specific candidate Obama nominates. And if they can find good enough reason to reject every candidate Obama puts up until Obama's term ends, then hey, that's the game.

But to simply refuse to consider any candidate proposed is a whole different thing entirely.

Exalted! You ninja'd me, but I am glad I reread the thread before posting.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

On the other hand, if Britain leaves the EU, the European project could collapse and that would be a headache for any American President.

I suspect this collapse would be very likely. From what little I see in the media, it would seem that aside from the UK, Germany feels that it is bearing all the weight and responsibility of the EU. If the UK goes, they will probably feel even more like that, and seek to get out of that situation.

If Germany leaves the EU, I think the whole thing would collapse, because I can't see France wanting to, or being able to support the organization.

This is just my opinion, but here's what I think is the American view towards Europe.

The world is changing. Influence is shifting from West to east, and with the rise of China, America has decided to tilt towards the pacific to protect its interests and allies.

Europe is peaceful and prosperous, and if there is any trouble with the Russians, then Britain, France, and Germany can handle it. American interests are secure.

But if Britain pulls out of the EU, and the European project collapses, and the blowback from the Middle East crisis or Ukraine spills into Europe, and the EU can't handle it, and America's NATO obligations kick in....

Well, it might get interesting.

There is a potential pain in the ass awaiting the next American president, and I'm not talking about a new supreme court judge

**Ahtman**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Europe is peaceful and prosperous

That sounds just awful.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ahtman wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Europe is peaceful and prosperous

That sounds just awful.

We don't need no damn Yankees turning up with their 101st airborne and General Patton in order to solve Europe's problems

Those days are gone.

We've got democracy 2.0

**Sigvatr**

welt.de, a German news portal, just reported that Clinton prett much won pre-elections in Nevada vs. Sanders.

Not really sure how to feel given that one candidates biggest trait is being a woman and the other one's being ultra socialist.

**Kilkrazy**

That's pretty sexist.

**Ahtman**

Sigvatr wrote:
candidates biggest trait is being a woman

I'm not a fan but she does have more going for her than just being a woman.

Sigvatr wrote:
and the other one's being ultra socialist.

He is socialist but "ultra socialist" is a bit of a stretch, especially compared to European socialists.

**Breotan**

Sigvatr wrote:
welt.de, a German news portal, just reported that Clinton prett much won pre-elections in Nevada vs. Sanders.

Not really sure how to feel given that one candidates biggest trait is being a woman and the other one's being ultra socialist.

I've seen a report that participation dropped as much as 1/3 from 2008. I'm sure that's a factor. It'll definitely be a factor in the general election, too.

**Tannhauser42**

And Jeb has dropped out, and most of the remaining sanity in the Republican race went with him. At least the current numbers put Rubio just ahead of Cruz.

It's still amazing, though. Sanders lost, sure, but not by much.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ahtman wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
candidates biggest trait is being a woman

I'm not a fan but she does have more going for her than just being a woman.

Perhaps... but it definitely is the one trait/card she plays most often in all public appearances.

**RivenSkull**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
candidates biggest trait is being a woman

I'm not a fan but she does have more going for her than just being a woman.

Perhaps... but it definitely is the one trait/card she plays most often in all public appearances.

I think that was his point.

With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.

And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.

It's incredibly frustrating.

**Ensis Ferrae**

RivenSkull wrote:

I think that was his point.

With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.

And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.

It's incredibly frustrating.

Agreed... I don't think she really can run on any platform except for the first woman thing. Even her policies that she does talk about in debates and whatnot feel more like her saying "this is my policy.... right now"

And it's not like she hasn't been given an opportunity to do as Obama did, when opponents brought out video of him supporting "traditional marriage," IIRC, he responded by saying, "that video was taken years ago, I have met more people, talked with people, etc. and those people have shown me that my views were in error and that people should be free and legally able to marry the person they love"

She may have done that, but if she did, I don't recall it, nor even the debate it would have happened in.