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.
2016/03/05 19:10:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
hotsauceman1 wrote: I heard an interesting theory. Trump was originally a patsy meant to make the party look good, but got out of hand.
Here is something im scared about,, Bernie Supporters. Many of them hate hillary and will not vote for her is bernie does not get the election, and might hand it over to trump
Eh, if both Trump and Clinton win their respective primaries, you'll have Sanders activly campaigning for Hillary to keep Trump out.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/03/05 20:45:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
hotsauceman1 wrote: I heard an interesting theory. Trump was originally a patsy meant to make the party look good, but got out of hand.
Here is something im scared about,, Bernie Supporters. Many of them hate hillary and will not vote for her is bernie does not get the election, and might hand it over to trump
Eh, if both Trump and Clinton win their respective primaries, you'll have Sanders activly campaigning for Hillary to keep Trump out.
And I suspect there will be far more GoP voters that will refuse to vote for Trump. I wonder if the US will start to reconsider the two party system after these two. I have no problem with Clinton, but I hear many do, and it's not my govenment.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
2016/03/05 21:26:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
If you look at polling data, most democrats are perfectly satisfied with Clinton. She is at 79% approval now, which is much higher than any of the GOP's candidates are among their voters. Trump is less than 50%.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/05 21:28:20
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/03/05 21:30:38
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Cruz is honestly the most awkward looking candidate this season.
He definitely has the most punchable face.
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."
2016/03/05 22:15:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
TheMeanDM wrote: So Sanders wins 2 states and Clinton wins 1...but it's about a wash due to delegates and %.
Is this good or bad for either candidate?
Narrative wise, it's good for Sanders. Delegate/election wise it's good for Clinton. She will win more delegates due to running up the margin in the biggest delegate rich state. Right now it's probably better for Sanders as it will allow him to stay in the race longer, but in the end, it is irrelevant to who will win (Clinton).
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/03/06 04:52:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Trump now has people swear their support during his rallies...
This guy is waffling harder than a Belgian. Top that off with throwing in imagery from a certain party from a certain time peroid. An finishing with needing to directly make a point of the POTUS's ethnicity in a criticism (no racism not never)......
I think the guy might be showing some cracks.
2016/03/06 04:58:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Editor's Note: Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is a national security, intelligence and terrorism analyst for CNN. He served for 37 years in the U.S. Army, retiring as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
I have served for nearly four decades in the U.S. Army, and I have repeated the oath of office to those receiving a commission or being promoted, or the oath of enlistment to those entering our force, hundreds of times. It is a beautiful and unique oath.
Unlike with other armies of the world who pledge to defend their monarch or their homeland, our oath of service links our military to the protection and defense of the Constitution and the obedience to the President under the condition of adherence to orders.
In effect, through that oath the U.S. military defends our people's security while also defending ideas, ideals and the rule of law. Throughout a career, every soldier -- from private to general -- undergoes training in history, legal processes and values. That training complements what we do on rifle ranges or in field exercises. Soldiers have terrific skills, and they are thinking protectors of the American way of life.
I was in combat for more than three years of my career; during that time, I saw some horrible things and many of those revisit me in dreams. There is evil in man, and in battle. But in the U.S. military -- while there have been occasion where soldiers needed to be disciplined for violating the laws or the regulations -- overwhelmingly and consistently the actions of my brothers and sisters in arms has made me very proud.
That's why, during a recent presidential debate, I had such a visceral reaction to one candidate who stated that the those who serve in the U.S. military would blindly ignore their oath, their training and their conscience to follow what were clearly illegal, unethical and immoral orders. When pressed, that same candidate implied that his personal and directive and leadership prowess would prevail.
It wouldn't.
Even though that same candidate has now tempered those words with a press release and several tweets, as a professional soldier I picked up the "intent" the first time I heard it. And it scared me.
I know our soldiers, and I know our military heritage and the American way of war through study and experience. When well-led and well trained, Americans who wear our country's cloth are pure in spirit and decisive in purpose. They will go where they are sent, fight where they go, and do everything to win where they fight. And they will do it like no other soldier on the globe, because that is who we are.
The profession of arms demands much. Most of all, being a uniformed member of the military of the United States requires unmatched skills, but also a strong character, a honed intellect, an understanding that there are limits to what civilians ask us to do. When the orders we receive from a civilian authority pass legal, ethical or moral boundaries, any soldier of any rank has the right and the duty to first question those orders to receive clarification, and if necessary disobey them if they cross the line. That's what makes us different.
We expect our presidential candidates to differ in their approaches or ideas. But no matter who is the President, that person never has the authority to "order" members of the Armed Forces to violate the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, their ethos, their oath or the international law of land combat. This is just one more thing candidates must consider when determining national security policy.
Emphases mine.
2016/03/06 07:03:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Editor's Note: Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling is a national security, intelligence and terrorism analyst for CNN. He served for 37 years in the U.S. Army, retiring as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
I have served for nearly four decades in the U.S. Army, and I have repeated the oath of office to those receiving a commission or being promoted, or the oath of enlistment to those entering our force, hundreds of times. It is a beautiful and unique oath.
Unlike with other armies of the world who pledge to defend their monarch or their homeland, our oath of service links our military to the protection and defense of the Constitution and the obedience to the President under the condition of adherence to orders.
In effect, through that oath the U.S. military defends our people's security while also defending ideas, ideals and the rule of law. Throughout a career, every soldier -- from private to general -- undergoes training in history, legal processes and values. That training complements what we do on rifle ranges or in field exercises. Soldiers have terrific skills, and they are thinking protectors of the American way of life.
I was in combat for more than three years of my career; during that time, I saw some horrible things and many of those revisit me in dreams. There is evil in man, and in battle. But in the U.S. military -- while there have been occasion where soldiers needed to be disciplined for violating the laws or the regulations -- overwhelmingly and consistently the actions of my brothers and sisters in arms has made me very proud.
That's why, during a recent presidential debate, I had such a visceral reaction to one candidate who stated that the those who serve in the U.S. military would blindly ignore their oath, their training and their conscience to follow what were clearly illegal, unethical and immoral orders. When pressed, that same candidate implied that his personal and directive and leadership prowess would prevail.
It wouldn't.
Even though that same candidate has now tempered those words with a press release and several tweets, as a professional soldier I picked up the "intent" the first time I heard it. And it scared me.
I know our soldiers, and I know our military heritage and the American way of war through study and experience. When well-led and well trained, Americans who wear our country's cloth are pure in spirit and decisive in purpose. They will go where they are sent, fight where they go, and do everything to win where they fight. And they will do it like no other soldier on the globe, because that is who we are.
The profession of arms demands much. Most of all, being a uniformed member of the military of the United States requires unmatched skills, but also a strong character, a honed intellect, an understanding that there are limits to what civilians ask us to do. When the orders we receive from a civilian authority pass legal, ethical or moral boundaries, any soldier of any rank has the right and the duty to first question those orders to receive clarification, and if necessary disobey them if they cross the line. That's what makes us different.
We expect our presidential candidates to differ in their approaches or ideas. But no matter who is the President, that person never has the authority to "order" members of the Armed Forces to violate the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, their ethos, their oath or the international law of land combat. This is just one more thing candidates must consider when determining national security policy.
Emphases mine.
Asking for the opinion of soldiers from a LT. GEN retired is about as accurate as asking a civilian for a soldier's opinion. He has a very romantic veiw of what soldiers are. Most of my conservative friends that either have served or are serving are Trump all the way. No matter what you point out.
The military officers would have to hold the line because enlisted are often not thinking about precisely what the big picture is about. This isn't to say enlisted are dumb (I was one) but rather they are going to follow orders* because that is their role in the grand scheme.
*unless they are a specialist, in which case most orders become unlawful based on mood and time of day lol.
2016/03/06 07:06:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I'm puzzled as to why you like Rubio. The dude is basically Cuban Mitt Romney.
He can talk my ears off and can be inspiring.
In the General Election, I always thought he'd the best person to increase the size of the tent and get new voters.
Cruz, by contrast, can only rally the righties. His strength isn't to convince new voters. So, in my opinion... compared to Rubio, Cruz is going to have a hell of a time rallying the troops and fend of the Clinton attacks.
FWIW: I thought Mitt Romney would have been an excellent 'moderate' President.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/06 07:06:50
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/06 07:22:48
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I reckon Cruz is nearly as scary as Trump. He's a psycho who is a bit power mad. I don't like Clinton much, but would prefer her over Trump just barely. I have the same opinion of Cruz. But he's bad news as far as I'm concerned.
I wonder is the Republican Party gonna have to do some soul searching after this debacle? They hate Trump, but they also hate Cruz. Having these two be frontrunners must be concerning for party strategists. I wonder if they regret polarizing politics so much and spewing so much disingenuous crap over the past 8 years.
Da Boss wrote: I reckon Cruz is nearly as scary as Trump. He's a psycho who is a bit power mad. I don't like Clinton much, but would prefer her over Trump just barely. I have the same opinion of Cruz. But he's bad news as far as I'm concerned.
I wonder is the Republican Party gonna have to do some soul searching after this debacle? They hate Trump, but they also hate Cruz. Having these two be frontrunners must be concerning for party strategists. I wonder if they regret polarizing politics so much and spewing so much disingenuous crap over the past 8 years.
Nah...
Cruz is like that 'Gentleman Criminal' that you'd free from the SuperMax to take on the SuperVillian in Trump.
If Cruz win the nomination, which isn't a for sure thing as both Cruz and Trump are essentially tied, I can see the GOP party pull together to support Cruz.
Trump? He's a wildcard.... and a destructive one.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/06 07:40:11
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I have heard that the GOP needs to do some soul searching for years but nothing has amounted to much. Having two ass clowns like Cruz and Trump as front-runners probably won't change that either. Intellectual conservatives thought about this long ago but they are outnumbered by the less gifted party members/voters so I doubt we'll see much change.
Of course the Dems are having their own problems with someone people like versus someone the elite of the party want, but this isn't the first time Super-delagates have been an issue and nothing has come of that either.
Either way I imagine this election is only going to be good for political strategists and people who study politics professionally in the USA, and not just arm chair blokes who think they study politics.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2016/03/06 08:58:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Trump voter on Fox News says he likes that Trump doesn’t give specific policy ideas because otherwise other candidates might steal them.
TBF that is an almost foolproof defence.
Gonna shamelessly steal that idea for general day to day usage.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/06 09:45:58
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/03/06 09:42:11
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Da Boss wrote: and spewing so much disingenuous crap over the past 8 years.
Doubt it, worked for Democrats just fine last term.
What is the democrat equivalent to the tea party then? The closest you could get I guess is the occupy movement, but that was not affiliated to politics and the party in the same was as the groups on the right have been. The American "left" (which is hardly what the rest of the world calls left) has not had anything on the partisan attitude of the right.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
