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.

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

Seb. Just listen to the actual words she said. Don't read the spin.

Just be honest that she was callus about it and that it was a flub.

I have listened to the actual words... I will agree with you that it was a callous remark, but it most definitely wasn't a flub. In fact, I haven't actually looked at ANY articles or "spin" to gain any more opinion on the matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
A new major reactor plant costs £18-24 billion, plus inevitable cost overrun, plus additional costs if you want to site it in a new area (surveys, etc.). We're just trying to get a project started in the UK.

Green tech can be deployed like Sky TV satellite dishes. Nearly everyone can have a few solar panels on their roof, and a windmill on their chimney.

Yep, that’s what I was saying, and thanks for adding some hard numbers, $20 billion for a new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking.

I think that the problem many people have is what I've underlined. I personally have some issue with a contract that is so easily breached. I mean, if I sign a contract for a company to design and build a fence, and they say it will cost $650, it had better not be one cent more. I would think that in an industry as regulated as power generation (whether it's a coal plant, or nuclear plant), calculating costs shouldn't be too much of an issue, especially given that most large projects build in a certain percentage of "things going wrong" into the estimate before work even begins.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
See that? That's moving the goal-post. I hope you have enough gretchins to pull it.

No, it’s putting the situation in proper context, to show the Republican con job. 50,000 jobs go from coal mining, Republican silence. Another 50,000 jobs go to automation, and Republicans continue to push for tax breaks on automation. 70,000 more jobs disappear, and more Republican silence. Then Clinton talks about coal mining jobs going and replacing them with green tech jobs, and suddenly Republicans care about coal mining jobs?

However, I draw the line when it's pushed without any goddamn consideration of such impact. You don't simply "replace jobs" 1-to-1 that these politician insinuates. These miners isn't going to suddenly mine coals one day, then get trained/skilled to work in the green sector.

A lot of the Fed money is for re-training. And much of the job protection is in subsidiary industries. When a coal mine closes there’s more jobs lost in the nearby towns, the supermarkets, auto mechanics and everyone else who was providing services and products to coal workers. If new green tech industries develop in those towns

Please don't construe this as, hurr-hurr ignore whembly 'cuz he hates anything Clinton. Just for once, acknowledge that this is a goof.

It isn’t a goof to talk about actual policy. Any time politicians give actual substance then there’ll be scare campaigns. By following your line of thinking, that means any time a politician says something with some substance behind it it’s a goof.

That probably does explain the Republican debates…

A) Biggest hurdle is getting new license.

The biggest hurdle is $20 billion dollars, for plant that won’t start generating revenue for 5+ years. Doing that in an unknown energy future is incredibly risky.

FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised that it *is* the natural gas/oil industries donating to politicians to push the coal industries out.

The trick is that you shouldn’t just speculate about stuff that’d make you feel better about your existing political biases. You should go out and actually find out. As luck would have it…
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=E01++

91% of Oil and Gas money goes to Republican candidates. 9% to Democrats. Democrats did receive about 40% back in 1990, but that’s been on a steady trend downwards for 26 years, that’s almost certainly explained by the Democrat’s acceptance of climate change.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
and even on pure numbers these green power jobs will be less than the coal jobs(because a big part of coal is the actual mining, which doesn't have an equivalent in solar, wind, etc...).

Have you ever seen numbers for the number of man hours per kwt of energy produced under various forms of tech? Or did you just make whatever guess best suits your argument? You did the latter, because of course you did.

Anyhow, now that that's sorted, green tech is actually a larger employer per kwt. This should be fairly obvious, on account of it being more expensive per kwt. That's what makes things pricier, the labour that goes in to production. It isn't simply more labour intensive to build and install solar panels and wind turbines than it is to mine and burn coal. That's what coal has had going for it all this time - it's cheaper. And it's cheaper because it uses less labour.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
That's my point. She's deluded if she thinks she can just replace those jobs overnight.

Who said overnight? Why did you just make that up? Stop fething making things up to try and invent reasons to complain a policy you haven't even read.

Yes, it was a gaff on her part. 100%

The fact that you disagree with a policy for poorly thought through reasons doesn't make it a gaff.

Anyone remember when all the conservatives, including those on dakka, were complaining about 'gotcha journalism'? It was back when people were just pointing out the extraordinarily stupid stuff that Sarah Palin was saying. Now we've gone to a period of conservatives trying to convince themselves they scored a 'gotcha' on Clinton, when she just stated a policy. Funny how it works.

**Ustrello**

The Illinois democratic race is very close, hillary is only leading by about 2 percent with a 91 percent reporting rate. Kinda funny since the tribune was reporting a percentage in the 60 40 range in favor of hillary a few days ago

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:
I think the closer fight would be Clinton vs Trump, because she has all the same problems as Trump does, but with some additional ones all of her own - she would substantially increase GOP turnout while. My gutsy feeling is that she would win, but man, it would be very close and I certainly would not put money on it.

Maybe, but the thing to remember is that the Republicans have been working on Clinton since 1992. Whatever they've got has already been thrown. Whereas Sanders has skated through pretty much unscathed, Clinton has barely attacked him because she's been leading by enough that she's more concerned about wooing his voters for the general. And Republicans haven't attacked him because they've assumed Clinton would be the candidate.

Do you remember how rosy Obama looked, until a few upset primary wins meant Clinton turned on him, and then later the Republicans turned. By the end of that Republicans voted against him in large numbers, despite the basic reality that he's centre left at most, Republicans built a narrative that the guy was some kind of crazy radical posing a massive threat to the country. Given Sanders actual policy positions Republicans will have a much easier time convincing themselves to be very scared about him.

I'm not saying that will definitely happen in Sanders is nominated. I'm just saying we shouldn't mistake Sanders current brand and low fear factor among Republicans, will what it will be by November, if he won the primary.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
It was to illustrate how minimum wage hikes, especially the recent ones which had huge spikes, won't actually benefit all those minimum wage fast food employees. Instead of giving them higher salaries its just going to cause their jobs to go away, which obviously harms them.

While quantitative studies are fairly rare, what studies there have been have showed very few job losses compared to what theoretical models predicted. And even those model predictions were far less than what you suggest.

But by all means, just keep making up stuff you'd like to believe.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
And, furthermore, Green Energy are notoriously cost prohibitive to implement in a large scale right now. Hence why Coal/Natural gas power plants are thing.

Once again, the scale thing is a mistake. Green tech doesn't need to operate in massive plants, the tech doesn't require it.

Once Green Energy can compete on it's own, all things being equal, then we'd see more efforts to adopt these technologies and move away from the legacy power plants.

We're seeing it now. While the $/kw isn't there, the smaller scale and adaptability of green tech is making them a preferred solution in many situations. It's somewhat akin to steel manufacturing, where minimills have much poorer $/ton figures, but have expanded while large consolidated mills have declined, because the latter needs vast scale and loads of supporting infrastructure.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
And Rubio is out of the campaign.

This guy was put on Time magazine as the face that'd rebuild the party. This is the guy that Republican insiders liked so much that they convinced themselves 3rd place in the Iowa primary was really a win.

And now he ends his campaign, unable to get voters to pick him over Trump or Cruz.

All a bit of a farce, really.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
What do you guys think the likelihood of trump getting the most votes, but not the 1237 or whatever he needs? Because that could be interesting.

It's looking like the most likely outcome.

538 made the interesting point that Ohio kind of works for and against Cruz. It denied Trump 66 delegates that could have been decisive, but it also means Kasich will stay in the race, which could cost Cruz in future primaries.

Also, you guys might like this.

Spoiler:

Brilliant.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Seb. Just listen to the actual words she said. Don't read the spin.

I haven't read any spin, I've read nothing outside of what you posted, and then I just applied what I already knew about coal mining job losses to date.

Just be honest that she was callus about it and that it was a flub.

She was honest that there will be job losses. Because of course there will. The opposite statement, something like "this industry that's gone through three decades of consistent job losses and now employs less than a third of its peak employment will suddenly became a job creator" wouldn't just be spin, it'd be delusional nonsense. Politicians don't want to talk about reality, and they can't say something as silly as pretend there'll be new jobs in coal, so instead they just... don't talk about.

Clinton actually did talk about it. She stated that ongoing job losses were a reality, and tried to counter that with a policy about new green jobs in the region. And the response from you and other Republicans has been to play gotcha. It explains why so many politicians say nothing of substance.

And it also shows why I have so little sympathy when people complain that politicians never talk honestly. Because when they do people like you line up to use that honesty as a points scoring exercise.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that the problem many people have is what I've underlined. I personally have some issue with a contract that is so easily breached. I mean, if I sign a contract for a company to design and build a fence, and they say it will cost $650, it had better not be one cent more. I would think that in an industry as regulated as power generation (whether it's a coal plant, or nuclear plant), calculating costs shouldn't be too much of an issue, especially given that most large projects build in a certain percentage of "things going wrong" into the estimate before work even begins.

I know what you're saying, it is frustrating that the contracting party almost never makes a loss, over-runs always come out of the taxpayer's purse. But I understand why those over-runs happen, there's a difference between a fence and a multi-stage, five year construction, the latter includes a lot of estimates that are close to unknowable by the time they'll actually be needed.

And then the reality is that if a contractor was responsible for those unknowns, the risk factor they'd price in to their costings would be much higher. If there's a 10% chance they might face a billion $ loss then they're going to bump their price up $500 million, just to make the risk worthwhile. Government is better able to absorb those losses, so for a cheaper initial price it accepts over-runs.

The sticking point is where you get the line between cost over-runs and bad contract management, what is what, and so who has to pay. Believe me, I've sat in that many meetings with our infrastructure guys and there's, everyone bashing out which party is responsible for this thing or that. And the unfortunate reality is that in most cases their infrastructure guys are better than our infrastructure guys.

**LordofHats**

Wish I could exalt that more XD

sebster wrote:
All a bit of a farce, really.

Honestly, is there anything about the primary that hasn't been a farce for months now? It's really easy most of the time to poke fun at the Republican party for the sheer amount of ludicrous nonsense it and its base so readily embrace, but the past few months in particular have been kind of mind blowing. I remember that thread we had "the other side is not dumb" and it was nice talking about how sometimes differences really are just differences, but Jesus Christ have the past few months just gakked all over that XD

**motyak**

So Clinton with 326 to Sanders with 220 so far today, with them both gaining 50% (give or take a few) of the Missouri delegates to come.

So, does that jive with what the Sanders supporters here expected/wanted today? Ahead of the projections? Behind the projections? Where do you sit.

**Gordon Shumway**

Its way behind where he needed to be if he wants a real shot at winning. He would basically need to start blowing Clinton out in the upcoming elections 70-30 in big states to have any sort of shot at this point because of the proportional delegate allocation. That won't happen as most of the rest of the big states are closed primaries (independents can't vote). He will stay in til the end since he will have the cash and will win some more states, but he is pretty much relegated to being an issue candidate, not a serious threat to win at this point. He started today further behind where Clinton was to Obama at this time in 2008 and ended even further behind.

**TheMeanDM**

I won't say itbis inevitable...but Clinton will most likely win the Democratic nomination *grrr*

Opinions on if the GOP in the Congress will pull the same gak they did with Obama and be obstructionist twit waffles?

**BlaxicanX**

They don't have anything left to do. The GOP is too stupid to understand why they're in the political mess that they're in, so if Hillary becomes President they're going to do what they always do and try to wreck her term(s) while catering to far-right loonies as much as possible in preparation for the next election.

**Ensis Ferrae**

TheMeanDM wrote:

Opinions on if the GOP in the Congress will pull the same gak they did with Obama and be obstructionist twit waffles?

Pfft... you don't have to be Nostradamus, have a Magic 8 Ball or read entrails to know that gak is going to continue with Clinton in office.

I personally think one of two things will eventually happen: moderate or far-right "republicans" will get sick of the other part of their party's gak, and there will be a total melt-down resulting in a right of center party (Dems), moderately further right of center ("republicans"), and REALLY far right (tea party, libertarians, fascists, whatever). OR, the party antics will continue to a point where people get sick of it, vote out the clowns and return to sense, OR the party comes to near meltdown, but is saved in the end by a single "sensible" person.

**Grey Templar**

BlaxicanX wrote:
They don't have anything left to do. The GOP is too stupid to understand why they're in the political mess that they're in, so if Hillary becomes President they're going to do what they always do and try to wreck her term(s) while catering to far-right loonies as much as possible in preparation for the next election.

We can only hope. Hillary will be a disaster if she isn't checked. She'll probably be a disaster anyway.

**Ouze**

I think there is only so far obstructionism goes. I think a good example of this is the blockade, sight unseen, of any SCOTUS nominee that Obama picks. The last poll I saw showed this being pretty unpopular with a general sample of registered voters. It's one thing to not vote for the nominee - that's the game. Not even holding hearings is new, and people being elected and paid salaries at taxpayer expense to not do their job isn't something that I think is going to resonate well. 2 out of 3 people polled didn't support Kim Davis, regardless of where they fell on the political spectrum.

I mean, I could be wrong, but I feel like this is a losing stance. The last time they fully embraced obstructionism was Waterloo, the next one could be a senate loss.

**sebster**

LordofHats wrote:
Honestly, is there anything about the primary that hasn't been a farce for months now? It's really easy most of the time to poke fun at the Republican party for the sheer amount of ludicrous nonsense it and its base so readily embrace, but the past few months in particular have been kind of mind blowing. I remember that thread we had "the other side is not dumb" and it was nice talking about how sometimes differences really are just differences, but Jesus Christ have the past few months just gakked all over that XD

I’ve been waiting for the Republican party to hit rock bottom and start returning to sanity since around 2004. They have not only managed to find new depths each time, they appear to be actually accelerating.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Its way behind where he needed to be if he wants a real shot at winning.

Yeah, all at once Sanders is ahead of expectations, but well behind in where he needs to be to win.

He will stay in til the end since he will have the cash and will win some more states, but he is pretty much relegated to being an issue candidate, not a serious threat to win at this point.

It's worth remembering Sanders entered this race to drag Clinton and the debate in general further to the left. He's well and truly achieved that goal.

That’s what I was trying to say to the Sanders supporters like 50 pages ago – don’t get excited hoping for a win that’s basically not going to happen, because then the Sanders campaign might seem like a failure. Look at what’s been done in terms of the national conversation on equality, trade and other issues, and use that to build on future campaigns.

**BlaxicanX**

Grey Templar wrote:
We can only hope.

Indeed we can. Every time the GOP acts out it just makes it easier to keep a Democrat in office.

**sebster**

TheMeanDM wrote:
Opinions on if the GOP in the Congress will pull the same gak they did with Obama and be obstructionist twit waffles?

If Clinton, or anyone other than a Republican wins office, the Republicans in congress will obstruct. The alternative to obstruction is dealing with the other side, and that means compromise, giving something to get something. But the Republicans can’t give to get, because there’s no coherent set of policies they actually want to get. The platform is basically ‘grr bad Democrats’ + ‘tax cuts’. Anything else comes and goes to suit the political needs of the moment, none of it means anything.

Tax cuts aren’t viable, especially the Republican tax cuts that are almost all at the top end. So there’s nothing else. So they obstruct.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Seb. Just listen to the actual words she said. Don't read the spin.

Unless it's yours?

whembly wrote:

Just be honest that she was callus about it and that it was a flub.

Callous, not callus. One can have a callus but one cannot be a callus. Words have meanings, and you just gaffed because of your lack of understanding.

**Ouze**

Now, that's the proper use of "gaffe".

**Kilkrazy**

I read an interesting article in The Spectator (UK political and current affairs magazine.) To precis it, Trump is picking up a lot of votes because there is a wide-spread feeling among lower and middle class Americans than the country is in the gak; their wages are static or falling, their jobs are insecure, the economy is in the crapper, infrastructure is dilapidated and getting worse, and abroad American power and prestige has fallen around the world.

A lot of this is based on fact. Some of it channels into worries about immigration and Islamic terrorism, but above all, it channels into a generalised anger at politics as usual. Trump is the candidate of not politics as usual, plus he's anti-immigration and anti-Islam, so he's attracting a lot of these voters.

To go on to the Green Energy tangent again...

The new UK reactor is projected to cost about £20 billion = about $30 billion US.

The project is in trouble because the Chinese and French government owned companies selected to build the reactor are not sure they can raise the money. The UK government does't want to pay for it because of national debt. The eventual income stream is based on the UK government guaranteeing to buy electricity from the reactor at double the market price for 30 years.

The trouble is, this kind of long term project simply cannot be accurately costed, because there are too many variables over too long a time period. Who knows the price of concrete and steel in five years from now? Obviously companies will try to hedge it by buying futures, but this often can go wrong. Who knows if the French and Chinese governments will be able and willing to support their end of the deal? Who knows if electricy demand will require the power from this reactor in 10 or 20 years? Electricity use has been dropping in the UK, partly due to green tech and partly due to more heavy industry closing (steel plants, etc.) What about cost of skilled labour? Where are they going to come from?

It's all a bit of a gamble, and it's a bit of a very big gamble because it's such a big project.

**Ahtman**

sebster wrote:
The platform is basically ‘grr bad Democrats’ + ‘tax cuts’.

Add "Something something Baby Jesus" and I think you got it. To many want to legislate religion on that side at the moment.

**jasper76**

motyak wrote:
So Clinton with 326 to Sanders with 220 so far today, with them both gaining 50% (give or take a few) of the Missouri delegates to come.

So, does that jive with what the Sanders supporters here expected/wanted today? Ahead of the projections? Behind the projections? Where do you sit.

He's certainly done alot better than I would have thought before people started voting. However, it's clear he's not going to win the nomination. I don't know what the right thing to do here for Sanders is. All things being equal, I would like him to stay in and stay on message. But the downside of funding his campaign the way he is, is that he'd be taking "regular" people's money for basically no reason other than getting his message out, which he already has something of podium to do so with his Senate seat.

Now watch him go on to win all the remaining states and prove me wrong.

**A Town Called Malus**

jasper76 wrote:
motyak wrote:
So Clinton with 326 to Sanders with 220 so far today, with them both gaining 50% (give or take a few) of the Missouri delegates to come.

So, does that jive with what the Sanders supporters here expected/wanted today? Ahead of the projections? Behind the projections? Where do you sit.

He's certainly done alot better than I would have thought before people started voting. However, it's clear he's not going to win the nomination. I don't know what the right thing to do here for Sanders is. All things being equal, I would like him to stay in and stay on message. But the downside of funding his campaign the way he is, is that he'd be taking "regular" people's money for basically no reason other than getting his message out, which he already has something of podium to do so with his Senate seat.

Now watch him go on to win all the remaining states and prove me wrong.

I don't think you can really compare the coverage he gets as a presidential candidate to that of a member of the Senate.

In the senate he has to compete with a lot more other people vying for attention, giving him less airtime. When it comes down to it, the media is going to run a story about the senator who is calling for a governmental shutdown over the senator calling for free education because the former gets them more ad revenue.

As a presidential candidate, he doesn't have to worry about that. Sure, the media will still cover the idiot with the weird hair but they will also give him some coverage, whereas they would only run a single "Senator says something" story.

**CptJake**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
CptJake wrote:

The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.

1. "They" don't create jobs, "we" do. As has already been mentioned, it is those who actually spend money who create more jobs. There is literally ZERO way for Mark Cuban to buy enough McD's to "create" jobs, unless he's literally giving them away. It's been proven time and time again that it is the middle class and the poor who create jobs, we're the sorry saps who spend money all the damn time.

2. There is a fine line between outright greed, and good business sense. Like I said, the Waltons can "give up" a billion dollars, contrary to what they may believe. Look at the CEO of Costco. He's made it a long term business practice to break the "business rules" in that he pays decent wages to all workers, and keeps prices low. Surely he could be raking in as much dough as the Waltons do, but he doesn't. I know by your logic, he doesn't practice "smart business," but at the same time, it is pretty much the most successful grocery chain in the US (not to mention the most plentiful pizza chain)

I'm not asking all the billionaires to suddenly give away millions/billions every year, the way Bill Gates does (and I know that sometimes this is a bit dubious), I'm asking/demanding that those CEOs realize who the feth pays their bills, and who keeps the nation's economy running, because it isn't them. The whole idea of trickle down, and "I can't raise wages because then I'll have to raise prices" is bull gak. The ONLY people who can really make that excuse, are the little mom and pop shops.

Further, someone up thread mentioned property taxes for businesses like McD's and the like... Well, most of them don't. As in, they do not pay taxes to the state, much less federal government. Of the retail stores, Walmart again tends to be among the worst for this. One location in Oregon owes over $2 million per year in property taxes for the location it sits on, and hasn't paid a dime in over ten years. Add in the many other hundreds and thousands of locations around the country where undoubtedly the same thing is happening, and you get an idea of the ridiculous tax burden you are shouldering for "Low Prices." This doesn't even take into account how 84% of people on Welfare programs nationwide are working at least one job.

'We' don't create jobs. 'We' create demand. Someone has to pony up the capital to start a business to generate product/services to meet the demand. That business provides/creates the jobs. Yes, if demand dries up, the business and the jobs go away. But there is plenty of demand NOT creating jobs, because the demand can't be met while generating enough profit for it to be worth someone dumping in capital and starting the business needed (and providing the jobs) to meet the demand. Inner city 'food deserts' are a good example. There is demand not being met, regardless of the available consumers, and jobs that don't exist to meet that demand regardless of the available consumers. Why? Because for a variety of reasons the profit motive is not great enough for someone to invest in business (which provide jobs...) which leaves the demand unmet.

**jasper76**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
motyak wrote:
So Clinton with 326 to Sanders with 220 so far today, with them both gaining 50% (give or take a few) of the Missouri delegates to come.

So, does that jive with what the Sanders supporters here expected/wanted today? Ahead of the projections? Behind the projections? Where do you sit.

He's certainly done alot better than I would have thought before people started voting. However, it's clear he's not going to win the nomination. I don't know what the right thing to do here for Sanders is. All things being equal, I would like him to stay in and stay on message. But the downside of funding his campaign the way he is, is that he'd be taking "regular" people's money for basically no reason other than getting his message out, which he already has something of podium to do so with his Senate seat.

Now watch him go on to win all the remaining states and prove me wrong.

I don't think you can really compare the coverage he gets as a presidential candidate to that of a member of the Senate.

In the senate he has to compete with a lot more other people vying for attention, giving him less airtime. When it comes down to it, the media is going to run a story about the senator who is calling for a governmental shutdown over the senator calling for free education because the former gets them more ad revenue.

As a presidential candidate, he doesn't have to worry about that. Sure, the media will still cover the idiot with the weird hair but they will also give him some coverage, whereas they would only run a single "Senator says something" story.

Yeah, I agree tha there's no comparison in coverage between a presidential candidate and a sitting senator. So the question in my mind is now that it's becoming more and more certain that Sanders won't be able to beat Clinton, since Sanders has admirably put his money where his mouth is and is totally dependent on small private contributions, what are his contributors getting or their money other than more airtime for Bernie, and is that in and of itself a reason to continue to solicit money from them?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Clinton Vs. Trump for the White House...

How did it come to this?

Barack Obama, in the unlikely event you're reading this, do your country one last service:

Come January, take off your tie, wrap it round your forehead Jimi Hendrix style, stock up on DVD boxsets and canned food, lock the White house doors, turn your speakers to 11, and refuse to leave!

**BrotherGecko**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Clinton Vs. Trump for the White House...

How did it come to this?

Barack Obama, in the unlikely event you're reading this, do your country one last service:

Come January, take off your tie, wrap it round your forehead Jimi Hendrix style, stock up on DVD boxsets and canned food, lock the White house doors, turn your speakers to 11, and refuse to leave!

That is actually what many Trump supporters think Obama is going to do. Lets see, Jade Helm 15 was Obama prepping for his 3rd term, the Trump rally protests are being started by Obama to prevent Trump from running so he can get his 3rd term, Obama is going to turn the country over to his Muslim brothers..etc etc. Obama should just have Airforce One drop him and his family off somewhere calm, quiet and warm bedore America getting weird.

So with Rubio dropping out last night, who thinks it wasn't from the race but from politics? Its going to be pretty damn hard to politically recover from the embarassment Trump has given Rubio.

**reds8n**

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/donald-trump-volunteer-contract-nda-non-disparagement-clause/

" In addition to forbidding volunteers from disparaging Trump, the contract also includes a sentence that demands volunteers prevent their employees from criticizing Trump, thus making volunteers responsible for the free speech of others for an indeterminate amount of time."

As the linked article says no way this could be enforced in court right ?

**Kilkrazy**

In contract law, there is no contract without consideration being exchanged. In this contract, the volunteer gives Trump his time and work, and in exchange Trump gives him... nothing.

Therefore there is no contract and the terms and conditions are not enforceable.

**jmurph**

Would vary by state.

**Ouze**

So, looks like we have a SCOTUS pick:

Obama to nominate Merrick Garland to Supreme Court
By Kevin Liptak, Ariane de Vogue and Manu Raju, CNN
Updated 10:40 AM ET, Wed March 16, 2016

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, multiple congressional sources tell CNN, setting up a dramatic political fight with Senate Republicans who have vowed to block any replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Garland, 63, the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has been on short lists before. An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Garland is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School. As a Justice Department lawyer, he supervised investigations in the Unabomber case as well as the Oklahoma City bombing.

Senate Republicans do not plan to vet or have hearings on the nominee, and say the next President should be able to choose Scalia's replacement. Obama and Democrats argue that with 10 months left in his term, there is plenty of time for the Senate to take up and confirm a new justice.

Obama will formally unveil his pick at 11 a.m. ET in the White House Rose Garden, he told supporters in an email Wednesday.

"I've devoted a considerable amount of time and deliberation to this decision," Obama wrote. "I've consulted with legal experts and people across the political spectrum, both inside and outside government. And we've reached out to every member of the Senate, who each have a responsibility to do their job and take this nomination just as seriously."

Obama's announcement amplifies the ongoing political battle over the precedent and propriety of considering a Supreme Court nomination amid a heated presidential election.

The announcement comes after a big night in the 2016 election, with both party's front-runners -- Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump -- emerging with sweeping victories as they march toward their respective nominations. Some believed Obama would time his pick so it wouldn't get lost in a news cycle dominated by election results. But the timing seems suited to directly insert the selection into the political conversation.

Fueling the argument is the potential for the first shift in the court's ideological leaning in two decades. If confirmed, Obama's nominee will likely offer a vastly different legal outlook that Scalia, who was considered one of the court's most conservative members.

At 63, Garland is much older than the other contenders on the short list such as Judges Sri Srinivasan, Paul Watford and Jane Kelly. Garland's supporters argue he is the nominee that the senators couldn't refuse even in a contentious environment. "He's the establishment of the establishment," one backer said.

Obama has said his goal was to find a "consensus candidate."

"It is my intention to nominate somebody who has impeccable credentials, somebody who should be a consensus candidate," Obama told CNN en Español anchor Juan Carlos Lopez in an interview last week.

This is Obama's third nomination to the high court. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed in 2009 and 2010, respectively. But those confirmation hearings and votes occurred when Democrats were firmly in control of the Senate.

All eyes on Senate Republicans

Since Scalia's death and for the foreseeable future, the court has operated with eight justices, four appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the GOP chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley of Iowa, have both expressed little leeway in their determination to forgo hearings for Obama's nominee.

"We think the people should choose as we've said repeatedly," McConnell said Wednesday morning after word of Garland's selection was made public.

There have been dissenters on the Republican side, particularly from moderate Republicans. But their ability to force hearings before the full judiciary panel appear slim.

CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said it will be difficult for them to change tactics now.

"I don't see how at this point they can go back on this promise," not to move on the nominee, Toobin said Wednesday morning.

A McConnell aide said noted the Kentucky senator voted against Garland when he was confirmed to the appeals court in 1997 and argued Obama's choice is a recognition that this pick not getting through -- otherwise the President would have picked a younger nominee who would serve longer.

Democrats, meanwhile, have already begun a campaign to pressure Republicans into considering Obama's nomination. In their sights: vulnerable senators up for reelection, some of whom are already facing backlash from opponents for refusing to consider even a hypothetical Obama nominee.

The White House launched a Twitter account, @SCOTUSnom, designed to promote the nomination as well.

Polls show most Americans support giving a nominee a congressional hearing. A CNN/ORC survey taken late last month indicated sizable majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents want Senate Republican leaders to hold hearings on the nominee.

Grassley last week said the Senate retained a prerogative to forgo hearings for Obama's selection.

"It isn't any different if the President of the United States notifies Congress well in advance of a piece of legislation that he's going to veto it," Grassley said at a Judiciary panel hearing, citing criticism from Republicans over the role of the high court.

"Whether it's today or tomorrow or whether it's for the next seven or eight months, this is a very important debate that we ought to have about the Constitution and about not only who's going to be a replacement for Justice Scalia but about the role of the Supreme Court," he added. "At the grassroots of America, there's a real feeling of 'Is the Supreme Court doing what the Constitution requires?'"

Trump said he agrees with the stance of the Hill Republicans. "I think the next president should make the pick. And I think they shouldn't go forward. And I believe I'm pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo Wednesday on "New Day."

The announcement comes 32 days after Scalia's death, only slightly longer than it took him to name his two previous appointments to the high court. Unlike his nominations of Sotomayor and Kagan, the vacancy this time wasn't expected. White House officials have said they weren't anticipating another Supreme Court nomination during Obama's term ahead of Scalia's death.

Obama oversaw a team led by his counsel Neil Eggleston, chief of staff Denis McDonough, and his senior adviser Brian Deese to select and vet a group of potential nominees. After conducting interviews last week, Obama narrowed his list to include Merrick, Watford and Srinivasan, each of them considered "consensus" candidates for their history in gaining confirmation support from Republicans.

Any replacement of Scalia has the power to tilt the ideological balance of the court for decades, something conservatives are using to move their base to hold the line.

"This seat could be transformational to the court because Justice Scalia's fidelity to the Constitution was a real anchor for the court. If he were replaced by an Obama nominee that would give the court a solid five votes for enacting an extremely liberal agenda that the American people will not be comfortable with," Carrie Severino, of Judicial Crisis Network , a conservative group opposed to any candidate getting a hearing until after the election. It would shift the court --that is somewhat balanced --to a liberal stronghold. She is a former clerk of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Since Scalia's death, justices have been considering several major cases, including a challenge to public sector unions, a race-conscious admissions plan at the University of Texas, the first big abortion case since 2007, challenges to voting rights, the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate and a challenge to Obama's executive actions on immigration. Scalia's death means not only the loss of the court's main conservative voice but also increases the likelihood of a 4-4 split on controversial issues. If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court.

Pretty old for a pick - sacrificial lamb probably.

**reds8n**

... Hope wikipedia's servers are ready for the rush on his page.