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.

 Crimson wrote:

Duty to Rescue is a thing that exist in many countries (apparently not in USA, though.) It is a legal requirement to render assistance in a medical (or possibly other) emergency, as long as it doesn't cause danger to the person helping.

When I lived in Germany I was told by the "head start" trainers (whose job it is to give Americans a sort of quick/dirty version of "what you need to know" kind of stuff. It included getting a local driving license, the differences in buying a handy, getting cable/internet, tipping practices, the bus system, etc.) that the law in Germany regarding "duty to rescue" went something like

-You have a "duty" to stop and render aid only if the risk to yourself/property is minimal or non-existent.
-If you are able to safely stop and render aid, you are protected from litigation (the US style Good Sam law) in the event of injury caused from rendering aid.

But they did say that the first part, the "duty" was really much more of a "strong suggestion" as there was no punitive component for not stopping to give aid.



@jasper... great piece from the Sun Sentinel.

I think they hit Rubio kind of on the nail: he NEEDS big money, which means they get to fill out his Madlib cards with the positions he takes (and is a big part of why I have called him an empty suit in this thread)

SANDERS WINS MICHIGAN!!!

 TheMeanDM wrote:
SANDERS WINS MICHIGAN!!!

But overall today has been a loss for him right? Won by 10 delegates there, lost by 27 delegates in Mississippi. So it's a net loss today as Hillary gained 17 delegates further lead...right? If we ignore momentum, story, narrative, etc. In straight numbers it wasn't a good day? Or am I misunderstanding how delegates work.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the differences in buying a handy

Wait what?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the differences in buying a handy

Wait what?

Apparently when invented, the Germans could not conceive of a proper german word for "mobile telephone" so they came up with the term 'handy." As of when I was there from 09-12, the word is still kind of the standard, but I'd say upwards of around 40% of the time, you may also see the more british "mobile" being used.

It will/should help him in Ohio and Florida.

If he can win both of those....that would be super huge.

Although Hillary was up 20%+ according to polls....Sanders won the state.

So really...anything can happen!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
the differences in buying a handy

Wait what?

Apparently when invented, the Germans could not conceive of a proper german word for "mobile telephone" so they came up with the term 'handy." As of when I was there from 09-12, the word is still kind of the standard, but I'd say upwards of around 40% of the time, you may also see the more british "mobile" being used.

That is both a relief and not nearly as interesting. I don't think mobile phones where a big thing yet when my Brother was stationed in Germany so it didn't come up much. Of course we are old. So very old.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
It will/should help him in Ohio and Florida.

If he can win both of those....that would be super huge.

Although Hillary was up 20%+ according to polls....Sanders won the state.

So really...anything can happen!

Only in the sense that when when I buy a powerball ticket, I can win.

 Ahtman wrote:
I also said I was exaggerating. I could have, and should have, been more clear.

Nah, my bad. I read that and knew what you meant, and after that I was just trying to clarify what we'd been saying, and it ended up more like I was nitpicking. Again, my bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Do not swallow the pablum spewed by the propaganda machine known as the Main Stream Media.

Please don't use gibberish like 'Main Stream Media'. It makes you sound like a Republican in the 90s. We all know where that path took their party.

Anyhow, Clinton's likely win has nothing to do with anything in any conventional media. Instead it's a simple reading of the results so far and the expected results ahead. In each case you look at the demographics in the state, and ask how well Sanders will need to do to be on an even run with Clinton, and in every state Sanders has been behind that standard.

That’s it. It’s simple delegate maths – the states he’s won he hasn’t won by enough, and the states he’s lost he’s typically lost by a lot more than he can accept.

Even with the surprise win in Michigan, the surprise win in Mississippi meant Clinton went further ahead in delegates. That’s Sanders problem – he’s winning some states just, and losing big elsewhere.

The one thing Sanders can take forward is that he probably gained a lot of ground in Michigan in the last few days, after the debate. If that’s true then it’s likely his position attacking Clinton on trade agreements might be his best way forward.

I mean, the position is utter gibberish, but this is politics, you don’t win by saying things that make sense, you win by saying things that win votes.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support

It’s a good article in one sense. It does a very good job of rejecting the very dismissive charge of racism that many people have used. Looking at Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric, and seeing how that will appeal to people with a lot of economic insecurity is good work.

But from there, the author really screws it up in the last third of the article. He mentions the poor efforts to explain the value of trade, but does nothing to recognise how difficult those explanations can be, especially to the people who are most at risk of being negatively affected. And then after barely touching on that, he lurches in to just assuming that trade must be bad, that following trade policies meant turning your back on working class people. It’s the kind of sleight of hand you see too often in The Guardian, and it’s frustrating because it so often ruins what would otherwise be really good work.

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't worry, in an enlightened HRC administration, her friends on WS will be taken care of.

The level of unreality in political debate is sometimes beyond satire.

This is how much Wall Street loves Clinton and the Obama administration's financial reforms. This is how much they think they'll get out of her, compared to a Republican opponent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Then you have people like me. i'm all for Sander's policies. However, I realize that there is no way he'll get any traction on them if elected. I'd rather go with Hillary who will move things towards that goal based on what can be achieved. Plus Hillary has the political ability to get things done. I'm not sure Sanders would have that ability.

Yeah, and I think that's the kind of grizzled realpolitik you see among a lot of Clinton voters. It's not the kind of attitude that gets people along to rallies, but they still vote and so far they've voted in greater numbers for Clinton than Sanders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I've spent sometime in Aghanistan and spent a lot of time there talking to Afghanis. My buddy is pen pals with most of the Afghans we worked with an keeps me up to date on how their lives are going. I'm not blind or oblivious to what they have and are going through. However, I wasn't actually referring specifically to the Taliban and should of made that more clear. There was a lot of assumption that all of the Afghans cultural practices were due to the Taliban imposing it upon them amongst liberal elites in the US and Europe. They assumed that once the Taliban lost power the Afghanis would rush head long into the greatness of a secular liberal democracy. They never considered that maybe the Afghans like Islam and like their culture (pre-Taliban) largely as it was.

Ah, I see your point now, and it’s a very good one. Sorry if I came off as rude.

This isn't to support cultural relativism which is probably an over sensitive reaction to the fear of appearing racist. Somethings in a culture are bad an absolutely should be pushed for their abolishment, though with the people behind it not a foreign force doing it for them.

Sometimes. There are successful examples of nation building. There’s lots of screw ups as well, and a lot that sit somewhere in-between.

I think the issue is that we often ask the wrong question – people debate whether it is right or wrong to change another culture, and typically the debate is won by people arguing we must attempt the change (all you need is a few stories of human rights abuses, esp to children).

But the much, much better question is whether we are capable of changing another culture. Whether we are willing to spend the lives and money for the decades it will take to make lasting change. The answer to that is almost always no, but because it’s never the question we ask…


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet the Democratic position also actively supports open borders, which eliminates the safety net of jobs for millions of citizens who want to work.

Trade also creates jobs. Its amazing how cyclical economic nonsense is. We're seeing this wave of populist anti-trade rhetoric that's almost exactly mirroring the wave that grew up in the depression.

It's exactly as wrong now as it was then, but hey, easy answers.

Compare HRC policies to Trump policies. They are almost identical.

Except for trade, healthcare, tax plans, climate change, financial regulations, foreign policy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im not sure how I feel about the government enforcing ethic and morals.

You will probably just need to get used to it, because government is a function of society, and every society that's ever existed has mutually agreed ethics and morals that it enforces. That's pretty much what makes it a society.

Everyone will accept, of course, that murder is wrong and needs punishment, and use government to enforce that moral. The only question is exactly what morals are enforced, and whether somethings are better left alone.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Or, do you believe that 'the people' is distinct and separate from 'the government'?

The government acts on behalf of the people. That's what democracy is.

From here I'm guessing you want to argue that it doesn't reflect the people's interests as well as it should, at which point I'll direct you to a certain Churchill quote, and then we can call it a night

I think I heard somewhere that the US is not a democracy...

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I think I heard somewhere that the US is not a democracy...

Let's do that one again!

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I think I heard somewhere that the US is not a democracy...

Technically, it's a constitutional republic or something, and not a 'true' democracy in the purest sense, due to the checks and balances built in.

Not my words, but the words of somebody on dakka (can't remember who) many months ago

[user]A pure democracy is like ancient Athens where all the adult male citizens would go to the agora, listen to speeches, then vote on a law. Of course there were only a few thousand of them, and the state was a lot simpler than a modern country, needing less 'governing' so this was practical.

The USA is a representative democracy in which you vote to select a representative per 100,000 or whatever number of citizens. Your reps then consider and vote on laws.

This does not make "the government" an alien occupying force.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
[user]A pure democracy is like ancient Athens where all the adult male citizens would go to the agora, listen to speeches, then vote on a law. Of course there were only a few thousand of them, and the state was a lot simpler than a modern country, needing less 'governing' so this was practical.

The USA is a representative democracy in which you vote to select a representative per 100,000 or whatever number of citizens. Your reps then consider and vote on laws.

This does not make "the government" an alien occupying force.

I agree. The point I was making about it not being a 'pure' democracy concerns the presidential election.

When it comes down to the vote in November, why isn't it a straight forward popular vote?

Why do electoral colleges have to get involved?

Yes, a popular vote would have given us President Gore in 2000

but leaving aside that nightmare scenario

I still think that every vote should count, and it should be a straight forward contest.

I think that is because historically it would have been impossible to organise a popular election for President and complete it within any reasonable amount of time, given the space and communication problems in the late 18th century. Therefore instead of electing the president, you elected representatives to do it for you.

 Ouze wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
It will/should help him in Ohio and Florida.

If he can win both of those....that would be super huge.

Although Hillary was up 20%+ according to polls....Sanders won the state.

So really...anything can happen!

Only in the sense that when when I buy a powerball ticket, I can win.

Can't win if you don't play!

Hillary has been up double-digit %'s in a number of states and Sanders has come through to win or virtually tie.

Unfortunately, I think that points more to Clinton's weaknesses than Bernie's strengths. She's not a very good campaigner.

Still, cheering to see a real socialist like Bernie getting somewhere in the US! And normalizing relationships all over the place. Wonderful stuff, I guess the Cold War really is finally over!

The impression I get of Hilary is that she is a smart operator and very experienced, but she doesn't have the reality distortion charisma field that her husband has got.

Of course, if she got the nomination, she can then deploy Clinton as the potential first First Husband, which will surely have an impact on the campaign..

 Da Boss wrote:
Unfortunately, I think that points more to Clinton's weaknesses than Bernie's strengths. She's not a very good campaigner.

The big concern for Clinton is that if Sanders can win in blue states running on a populist message, perhaps Trump can, as well.

Stay classy GOP !

Ummm.....wow. And she has done a better job for veterans than Kirk ever has

Edit just in case for those who don't know, but Tammy lost her legs in a helicopter crash in Iraq.

 reds8n wrote:


Stay classy GOP !

This would be Tammy Duckworth, the wheelchair-bound Veteran? That physically cannot stand up?

Wow, that's an incredibly low and tastless statement.

There was a long interview with her on Radio 4 a few years ago. She is awesome.

I presume the tweet from the Republicans is a clever fake designed to smear them.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Unfortunately, I think that points more to Clinton's weaknesses than Bernie's strengths. She's not a very good campaigner.

The big concern for Clinton is that if Sanders can win in blue states running on a populist message, perhaps Trump can, as well.

I've seen some polls showing that Trump is drawing from the Democrats, while Clinton is drawing from Republicans, in a head to head. It's sad that the two "front running" candidates are that despised by their own party. Makes you wonder wtf is going on.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Technically, it's a constitutional republic or something, and not a 'true' democracy in the purest sense, due to the checks and balances built in.

Not my words, but the words of somebody on dakka (can't remember who) many months ago

And we're doing it again.

Anyhow, yeah, you probably did hear that from someone on dakka. People on dakka say it from time to time, it's kind of become a running joke. Thing is, it's wrong, and pointing out its wrong, time after time, it still keeps getting posted.

The US is both a republic, and a democracy. Republic just means you don't have a herefitary ruler as your formal head of state, it might be an elected president, it might be a dicator, as long as there's no king or queen to pass their position down to their children, it's a republic.

Democracy means that the ultimate power rests with the people and is exercised through a vote. This could mean through some form direct democracy (everyone votes individual issues) or representative democracy (people elect leaders, who decide and vote on issues).

So yes, the US is a republic. It's also a democracy. This whole thread, 326 pages of it, is about US elections. Elections. Democracy. Is what it is.

What is interesting me is that Sanders is winning the state's that go Democratic in the general, while Hilary is winning states that typically go Republican in the general. I am not sure what this says about Clinton as a candidate in the General, but it is interesting to me.

If the Democrats are not careful, they could have a similar crisis in the party as the Republicans are having now. Maybe in a the next decade to a generation (25 years). They need to start thinking about how they are going to change with their base, and move the mainstream narrative with it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I presume the tweet from the Republicans is a clever fake designed to smear them.

It's from the verified National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose job is to get Republicans elected to the U.S. Senate.

Since deleted, but no apology.

.. go figure !?


In other news today Trump has claimed it's a great honour to be endorsed by Carl Gallups.

He's a pastor and radio host.

He also claims that Sandy Hook was faked, and the people interviewed/shown are in fact actors.

There's also the usual stuff about secret muslim, saudi plant etc etc but is anyone really surprised by this now ?


Good luck America.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Can't win if you don't play!

Hillary has been up double-digit %'s in a number of states and Sanders has come through to win or virtually tie.

And that's kind of the point. No-one is saying Sanders or his base should stop playing, but there's a big difference between keeping your ticket to give yourself a chance, and putting all your savings in to one big hope of winning the powerball.

There needs to an endgame meaning to what Sanders is doing other than winning the nomination. Because most likely won't happen, and it'd be really wasteful to let his surprise campaign lead to nothing in the future. The real left has been in the wilderness for so long, they really need to be looking to build something lasting.

Democratic People's Republic of America.

Has a nice ring to it!