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.

**jasper76**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

He's the Republican version of Al Gore, and I doubt if America, or even the Democrats, give two hoots for Gore's thoughts, either..

If Romney attacks Trump, and Trump is probably praying that he does, then all Trump has to do is turn around and shout LOSER! And Trump's support will increase, and a tiny little bit of Ted Cruz starts crying even more.

If the Republican party had any sense, they would post Romney to an Alaskan log cabin for the duration of the election - he only makes Trump look good.

Don't know where Romney's influence on Republicans stand, but I don't think Gore is quite as reviled as you make him out to be. John Kerry is probably a more suitable comparison for Romney.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Romney's intervention will send the Republicans to the bottom of the ocean for the reasons I outline above.

For all his faults, Americans will listen to George W Bush because he's a former president and a winner. But Romney? Hell, you may as well wheel out Bob Dole.

Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan. I wonder who said that

A post-Jeb! GW Bush endorsement would be hefty. But who would he give it to? He can't stand Cruz, and Rubio's campagn may be beyond redemption barring whatever convention trickery whembley et. al. have been discussing.

**BrotherGecko**

Sometimes I look up into the night and ask if Collin Powell will deliver ous from all this.

.....everytime though I swear I can hear the faintest "no" on the breeze.

**jasper76**

BrotherGecko wrote:
Sometimes I look up into the night and ask if Collin Powell will deliver ous from all this.

.....everytime though I swear I can hear the faintest "no" on the breeze.

He could have run and won in either the Republican or Democrat primary, I think.

**TheMeanDM**

I would vote Powell.

**Ouze**

jasper76 wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
Sometimes I look up into the night and ask if Collin Powell will deliver ous from all this.

.....everytime though I swear I can hear the faintest "no" on the breeze.

He could have run and won in either the Republican or Democrat primary, I think.

No. Every opposition ad would include the photo of him holding the vial. He's inextricably tied to bad intelligence that lead up to the disastrous Iraq war.

**jasper76**

@TheMeanDM: I would strongly consider it, at least.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
Sometimes I look up into the night and ask if Collin Powell will deliver ous from all this.

.....everytime though I swear I can hear the faintest "no" on the breeze.

He could have run and won in either the Republican or Democrat primary, I think.

No. Every opposition ad would include the photo of him holding the vial. He's inextricably tied to bad intelligence that lead up to the disastrous Iraq war.

You may be right. Truth is we don't know what a Powell campaign would look like, and in all likelihood never will.

**BrotherGecko**

Ouze wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
Sometimes I look up into the night and ask if Collin Powell will deliver ous from all this.

.....everytime though I swear I can hear the faintest "no" on the breeze.

He could have run and won in either the Republican or Democrat primary, I think.

No. Every opposition ad would include the photo of him holding the vial. He's inextricably tied to bad intelligence that lead up to the disastrous Iraq war.

If the best his opposition could do is produce a photo for an event people have largely forgiven him for then his opponents would be in deep deep doodoo.

Using his experiences in the Bush Jr. and how they used him to do things he has admitted on record to have deeply hurt his sense of integrity would be the opposite of a winning strategy.

**Gordon Shumway**

Also, His two endorsements of Obama sort of puts him in good with democrats. He would be the one public figure I can possible think of who could possibly heal the partisan divide (if it is even possible)

**Ouze**

I think it's very much not established that people have forgiven the architects of the Iraq War (and hence, largely responsible the power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIL) .

In other news, Fox News is done with Rubio.

**Orlanth**

The Donald promises to be so tough on terrorism that when he is president he will order drone attacks on the ISS.

**Gordon Shumway**

Ouze wrote:
I think it's very much not established that people have forgiven the architects of the Iraq War (and hence, largely responsible the power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIL) .

In other news, Fox News is done with Rubio.

I really don't think most people regard Powell as one of the architects of that stupidity. He warned against it from the beginning, didn't want to give his UN speech, made the researchers go back and double check their sources, and hasn't had a lot of good to say about it since. I'm not saying he was completely blameless in the whole affair. He could have resigned in protest, I just don't think a whole lot of people point the finger at him for the debacle. That honor goes to Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld, and the NeoCon peanut gallery at the National Review.

This is the newest approval rating measure I could find in the few minutes I looked, but Powells approval rating was at 70% in 2009 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/25/cnn-poll-powell-vs-cheney-and-limbaugh/

**sebster**

TheMeanDM wrote:
Wow...so quick to crown Hillary....

Fivethirtyeight is running some excellent analysis on this.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-doesnt-need-momentum-he-needs-to-win-these-states/

What they did was break down each state by demographics, ie with x% white people, x% Hispanic people, and x% black people. They then looked at each state and said ‘okay, given the demographics in each state, and the voting patterns in each demographic group, what vote percentage would Sanders need if he was to be in equal running with Clinton?

And the result of that, unfortunately for Sanders, that he hasn’t beaten that analysis in a single state. Taking Clinton so close in Iowa was reported positively, but given the demographics of the state he really needed to win there by around 19 points. He romped it in New Hampshire, winning by 22, but given the demographics he needed a win of around 32 points. Nevada was a good result, even though he lost he ran it pretty close to where he needed it to be, but it was still behind the result he would have needed if he was actually tying this.

That analysis was done before Super Tuesday, but the results that came in there just confirmed the analysis. Sanders wins where the demographics suit him but not by as much as he’d need to, and loses by a lot more than he can afford to when the demographics are against him.

If you don't/can't win the states that your party tends to dominate/represent....what is that really saying?

It's saying absolutely nothing of any meaning to the basic realities of delegate maths.

**Compel**

So, my facebook feed has been filled with posts about a very unhappy looking Chris Christie standing behind Donald Trump at a speech.

Is there any more on that, or is facebook taking a case of indigestion and calling it a crisis of conscience?

**Breotan**

Mike Rowe's post just hit my Facebook. It's a pretty funny assessment of the US political process.

Mike Rowe wrote:
Hey Mike - I can't even believe what I'm seeing on my television. If you have a moment, could you please explain what the hell is happening to our country?

Thanks,
Steve Burgess

Hi Steve. You must be referring to the new reality show sweeping the nation called “That’s Debatable!” For those not up to speed, it's a total riot! Here’s how it works.

In Round 1, our contestants enter The Shark Tank, where a pack of gameshow hosts posing as journalists ask a series of questions critical to the fate of America. But here’s the fun part - every time a contestant tries to answer, one of the Sharks rings a bell before they can finish! Is that not hysterical?! When this happens, all the other contestants must try to answer the same question at the same time!! It’s crazier than an Amish Mafia, but a really fun way to see who can make the most noise, and find The Voice.

In Round 2, hundreds of other Sharks with their own TV and radio shows analyze every nuance of each contestants performance from Round 1, and then, try to convince their audience to agree with their analysis. This too, is a really clever way to keep the viewers engaged, without asking them to think for themselves!

In Round 3, our contestants travel to Hollywood to see who can be photographed with the most number of famous people. This is called Dancing With The Stars, and it’s a super way to show the audience who could be America's Next Top Model! After that, it’s off to Hell’s Kitchen to form their own Duck Dynasty and learn Who Wants to be Millionaire!

Things really heat up in Round 4, when our Contestants must spend all their money on commercials no one watches, and then insult each other from their smartphones in 140 characters or less. This allows America to follow along without getting too confused, and gives the contestants a chance to discuss things that matter most to them - things like incontinence, flop sweat, big ears, small hands, bad hair, spray-on tans, and various Dirty Jobs.

Finally, in Round 5, a series of hastily conducted polls allows the audience to identify the most forgettable contestant for that week and say in one loud, unanimous voice - "You're Fired!" This person is deemed The Biggest Loser, and ordered to fly back to The Jersey Shore in a giant airplane, where they must watch the rest of this Amazing Race from home.

Eventually, everyone is Chopped but the loudest, angriest, and most ruthless contestant. This is our Survivor, who is declared an American Idol, and moved to a large White House filled with helpful Apprentices. There, in spite of an Extreme Home Makeover and a 24-hour marathon of Let's Make a Deal, absolutely nothing will happen.

Check back in four years for Season 2 of "That's Debatable - The Celebrity Edition!" when Kanye West joins the cast, and Alec Baldwin finally moves to Canada!

Mike

PS. If you’re interested in a much shorter program with no devastating consequences to the free world, check out The Way I Heard It, with Mike Rowe. It’s a five minute podcast guaranteed to offend no one. http://mikerowe.com/podcast/

(I'm Mike Rowe and I approve this post. Paid for by The Committee to promote The Way I Heard It with Mike Rowe.)

**sebster**

Easy E wrote:
I know, i know. I just like to rub it in a bit that the establishment R's are getting killed, and the Socialist isn't getting killed. It is the end of the GOP as we know it, and now onto the new GOP!

Fair enough

And I think you might be right. Might not, of course. We’ll see, but even if Trump is beaten, I suspect he could signal a wave of candidates attempting a more populist version of Republicanism, less concerned about maintaining the ‘pure conservative credentials’ as they are currently defined by the gatekeepers of the Republican party.

**Ensis Ferrae**

sebster wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I know, i know. I just like to rub it in a bit that the establishment R's are getting killed, and the Socialist isn't getting killed. It is the end of the GOP as we know it, and now onto the new GOP!

Fair enough

And I think you might be right. Might not, of course. We’ll see, but even if Trump is beaten, I suspect he could signal a wave of candidates attempting a more populist version of Republicanism, less concerned about maintaining the ‘pure conservative credentials’ as they are currently defined by the gatekeepers of the Republican party.

I think by the same token, Sanders' run may open the door some for future democratic socialists, and perhaps even "true" socialists. I for one wouldn't mind seeing more of the former, but I do think that true socialism wouldn't be accepted by most in the US.

**Breotan**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
sebster wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I know, i know. I just like to rub it in a bit that the establishment R's are getting killed, and the Socialist isn't getting killed. It is the end of the GOP as we know it, and now onto the new GOP!

Fair enough

And I think you might be right. Might not, of course. We’ll see, but even if Trump is beaten, I suspect he could signal a wave of candidates attempting a more populist version of Republicanism, less concerned about maintaining the ‘pure conservative credentials’ as they are currently defined by the gatekeepers of the Republican party.

I think by the same token, Sanders' run may open the door some for future democratic socialists, and perhaps even "true" socialists. I for one wouldn't mind seeing more of the former, but I do think that true socialism wouldn't be accepted by most in the US.

I don't know about that. Here in Seattle, we have a bonafide member of the revolutionary Socialist Alternative party sitting on the City Council. She was heavily involved in the whole $15 minimum wage issue out here and is likely to continue to be re-elected for as many terms as she legally can be. This is the future of America's left wing. What starts on the West Coast usually moves East.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Breotan wrote:

I don't know about that. Here in Seattle, we have a bonafide member of the revolutionary Socialist Alternative party sitting on the City Council. She was heavily involved in the whole $15 minimum wage issue out here and is likely to continue to be re-elected for as many terms as she legally can be. This is the future of America's left wing. What starts on the West Coast usually moves East.

While I do know about her, I am not so certain of your assessment. IMO, what starts on both coasts generally moves inland. There are a number of instances where if New York passes a law, a number of other states will follow suit (see when NY made Pinball machines illegal under their anti-gambling/games of chance laws. IIRC, 10 states followed suit outright, while numerous other cities followed as well, and a number of states didn't make it illegal, but basically made it very difficult to purchase pinball machines within their boundaries)

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Rubio finally won a state in MN! There's a thought that Rubio's strength will manifest itself on 3/15 where FL is in play.

He's trailing Trump in Florida, but it's way too close to call right now.

It's interesting to think back to Cruz's comments from just before Super Tuesday, when he said a candidate that couldn't win their home state should just back out. At the time people thought he might be imploring Texans to get out, realise how important the race was for his legitimacy. But maybe he was looking ahead to Rubio in Florida? Thinking that if Rubio lost Florida

Pre-Super Tuesday, Trump was polled/estimated that he'd win all states except for TX. He lost 4, and barely squeaked by in 4 other states by less than 3%... So, in this regard, he kinda under performed and the likelihood of a 'Contested Convention' seems to grow.

Whether people came in above or below polls makes for nice storytelling, but all that really matters is the delegate maths. Trump didn’t dominate like it was feared, but he still did enough. And what’s worse is that performances elsewhere were mixed – Cruz showed strength in the South, Rubio in the North, so it’s unclear exactly who is going to challenge him. The strategy seems to be forming around a contested convention, and that should tell everyone that things are grim, or people have no idea how much fallout a contested convention is likely to produce. Possibly both.

But that said, if Trumps misses in Florida and Ohio, both winner take all states, then Trump’s march to 50% is not clear at all. If he misses both a contested convention might be inevitable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
No. Every opposition ad would include the photo of him holding the vial. He's inextricably tied to bad intelligence that lead up to the disastrous Iraq war.

Yeah, I think there's been a pretty successful effort among the Republican base to look past the screw ups of the Bush administration. But when push comes to shove that collective fantasy just isn't strong enough to see them going back to the Bush years. It was the major driver of Jeb Bush's failed run, I think.

Powell would have an even stronger drag, because he was a direct actor in all of that mess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think by the same token, Sanders' run may open the door some for future democratic socialists, and perhaps even "true" socialists. I for one wouldn't mind seeing more of the former, but I do think that true socialism wouldn't be accepted by most in the US.

Hardline Republicanism isn't accepted by most US citizens either. By hardline Republicanism I guess I mean some combination of the most extreme ends of the social conservative wing and the economic "death to New Deal" wing. But while their views may be too hardline for most of the country, building up those wings draws support, energy and money to the party, and maybe even helps move the window of accepted political opinions, to help normalise more right wing positions.

I could see something similar within the Democrats. More activist groups talking about equality, cheaper college and healthcare taking up positions in the Democratic party. Pushing the Democrats from a pro-business party with a coalition special interests, in to a genuine centre left party with a coalition of special interests.

**reds8n**

http://www.weeklystandard.com/putins-rasputin-endorses-trump/article/2001344

Aleksandr Dugin, otherwise known as “Putin's Rasputin," has endorsed Donald Trump for president of the United States.

Aleksandr Dugin is a key theorist of the ideological underpinnings of Putinism. His "Eurasianism" seeks to provide a basis for uniting not only Russia, but all the world's anti freedom forces, under Moscow's banner against the West.

What Russia needs, says Dugin, is a "genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism." On the other hand, "Liberalism, is an absolute evil. . . .Only a global crusade against the U.S., the West, globalization, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response. . . . The American empire should be destroyed."

Now, in an article entitled "Trump is the Real America" published on the website of the Kremlin-backed Katehon think tank, Dugin says "Trump...is a sensation. … The Republicans, as well as the Democrats, are the representatives of the US ruling elites. It is a special part of society, being quite far from the ordinary Americans. …The American elite is not even American. Thus, there is Donald Trump, who is tough, rough, says what he thinks, rude, emotional and, apparently, candid. The fact that he is a billionaire doesn't matter. He is different. He is an extremely successful ordinary American. …

"Maybe, that redhead rude Yankee from the saloon will get back to the problems inside the country and will leave humanity alone, which is tired of American hegemony and its destructive policy of chaos, bloody rivers and color revolutions? Trump is a leader…

"Vote for Trump, and see what will happen."

Dugin's endorsement of Trump is noteworthy, particularly in view of the fact that he has been given the role or organizing Eurasianist fifth columns supporting the Putin regime in western countries. In May 2014, as Putin was ramping up his war against Ukraine, Dugin held a secret meeting in Vienna with leaders of most of the ultranationalist parties of continental Europe, ranging from small fringe groups to the powerful French National Front, to organize support for the invasion. This subversive effort has been bearing fruit, as evidenced by the fact, reported by the February 19 Moscow Times that French National Front leader Marine Le Pen, who received $13 million from the Kremlin in 2014, is currently negotiating with Putin for another $30 million (equivalent in France to about $200 million in U.S. political terms) to finance future support.

Trump and Marine Le Pen offer similar political profiles, combining xenophobic demagoguery, anti-Atlanticism, socialistic and protectionist policies, and open admiration and apologetics for Vladimir Putin. The founder of the French National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen, recently endorsed Trump. Marine Le Pen supported the Russian takeover of Crimea, and is being openly bankrolled out of Moscow. Trump supports Russia's actions in Syria, and has reportedly had many questionable business dealings with elements of Russian organized crime.

Trump has been praised by Putin, and rather than reject such praise, has returned it, calling the Russian dictator "a real leader" and dismissing his many murders of political opponents at home and abroad as "unproven." Last month, a British court found that Putin had ordered the murder by Polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB agent who revealed that the 1999 apartment buildings bombings in Moscow that Putin used to seize dictatorial power were the work of Putin's FSB itself. Apparently the billionaire is fine with that too.

... is there any chance that Trump's campaign is in fact just a really elaborate marketing campaign for Batman versus Superman later this month ?

He'll pull the wig off and Luthor shall stand revealed kind of thing ?

**Goliath**

Quite a worrying/hilarious/deeply depressing article on the BBC website at the moment:

The day after Super Tuesday, Google searches increased by 350% for people searching for "How can I move to Canada?"

**jasper76**

I doubt Canada will take any of us after Drumpf makes them pay for the Great Northern Wall.

**Da Boss**

I hope it's made of ice and fell enchantment. It's the only thing that can hold the Others at bay.

**Dreadclaw69**

Goliath wrote:
Quite a worrying/hilarious/deeply depressing article on the BBC website at the moment:

The day after Super Tuesday, Google searches increased by 350% for people searching for "How can I move to Canada?"

Isn't this an election staple that people threaten to move to Canada if their candidate/party doesn't win? Even in the OT we have people throw the head and threaten to leave for good, most times they come back - hollow threats are hollow.

**Troy**

Crimson wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
He still gets my vote for even providing more entertainment. He cracks me up in debates.

Yeah, no matter if he buddies up with KKK or crashes the world economy by starting a trade war with China, as long as you are entertained!

Well WWIII would both engender full employment, get the economy going, and stop imports from China...

oh...crap...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I read in the newspapers today, that a lot of senior Republicans are lining up to attack Trump. I can't think of anything that will do more to increase Trump's support and entrench his power base.

Rightly or wrongly, people are fed up with the elites, the corporate interests, lecturing them on what's good for them.

Right now in Britain, we have the same vested interests looking down their noses at ordinary people, because ordinary people want to pull out of the European Union, and the corporate interests are worried about losing money.

I don't rate Trump at all, but I can see why people are supporting him, because frankly, people are fed up with this ruling elite lecturing the rest of us.

**Goliath**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Quite a worrying/hilarious/deeply depressing article on the BBC website at the moment:

The day after Super Tuesday, Google searches increased by 350% for people searching for "How can I move to Canada?"

Isn't this an election staple that people threaten to move to Canada if their candidate/party doesn't win? Even in the OT we have people throw the head and threaten to leave for good, most times they come back - hollow threats are hollow.

I'd say there's a difference between threatening to do something as a public statement, and searching how to do something without telling anyone though.

Bear in mind that the government website where one could apply to immigrate to Canada is currently not working properly due to the number of people attempting to use it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I read in the newspapers today, that a lot of senior Republicans are lining up to attack Trump. I can't think of anything that will do more to increase Trump's support and entrench his power base.

Rightly or wrongly, people are fed up with the elites, the corporate interests, lecturing them on what's good for them.

Right now in Britain, we have the same vested interests looking down their noses at ordinary people, because ordinary people want to pull out of the European Union, and the corporate interests are worried about losing money.

I don't rate Trump at all, but I can see why people are supporting him, because frankly, people are fed up with this ruling elite lecturing the rest of us.

Today I learned that I am not an ordinary person, but Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan-Smith are.

**BrotherGecko**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I read in the newspapers today, that a lot of senior Republicans are lining up to attack Trump. I can't think of anything that will do more to increase Trump's support and entrench his power base.

Rightly or wrongly, people are fed up with the elites, the corporate interests, lecturing them on what's good for them.

Right now in Britain, we have the same vested interests looking down their noses at ordinary people, because ordinary people want to pull out of the European Union, and the corporate interests are worried about losing money.

I don't rate Trump at all, but I can see why people are supporting him, because frankly, people are fed up with this ruling elite lecturing the rest of us.

Is that why they jumped on board with the first "elite" that told them they are pretty and smart and that he will take care of them? If anything all these people have proven is that politicians don't need policies or a cohesive message to get elected, they just need to repeatedly talk about themselves, used mountains of adjectives and tell their supporters how great they are.

Now I feel like Americans ahould have to take a government, economics and geography test and get at least an 80% score to be allowed to vote. Then they need to pass a test on their candidate to vote for them.

......thanks O̶b̶a̶m̶a̶ Trump..

**ulgurstasta**

BrotherGecko wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I read in the newspapers today, that a lot of senior Republicans are lining up to attack Trump. I can't think of anything that will do more to increase Trump's support and entrench his power base.

Rightly or wrongly, people are fed up with the elites, the corporate interests, lecturing them on what's good for them.

Right now in Britain, we have the same vested interests looking down their noses at ordinary people, because ordinary people want to pull out of the European Union, and the corporate interests are worried about losing money.

I don't rate Trump at all, but I can see why people are supporting him, because frankly, people are fed up with this ruling elite lecturing the rest of us.

Is that why they jumped on board with the first "elite" that told them they are pretty and smart and that he will take care of them?

It´s neither new or strange for populists or anti-establishment politicians to be part of the elite themselves. It´s quite common for them to be "blue-blooded", look at FDR for example.

If anything all these people have proven is that politicians don't need policies or a cohesive message to get elected, they just need to repeatedly talk about themselves, used mountains of adjectives and tell their supporters how great they are.

Why should people bother with politicians who have these "cohesive messages" if they are inevitably gonna renege on them as soon as they get in to office? Trump is doing so great because there seems to be a big anti-establishment sentiment right now and he knows how to ride it.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I'm well aware of Trump's background, and I'm sure most of his supporters are as well, but I honestly believe that people are so fed up with the system, and those who support it, that'll they support somebody like Trump.

I've been saying for months that Hilary Clinton is a shoe-in for the presidency, but that doesn't mean to say I like the prospect of another Clinton administration.

We have a person who's main campaign message seems to be vote for me because I'm a woman. A person who has been economical with the truth on a number of issues, has question marks over her money, was a disaster as Secretary of State, and is firmly in bed with big business and other vested interests that rule America.

A Clinton presidency will probably be more disastrous foreign adventures, and the same old same old blind eye being turned to Wall Street.

If I were an average American struggling to keep a roof over my head, I'd probably vote Trump as well.