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.

 reds8n wrote:
... Hope wikipedia's servers are ready for the rush on his page.

There are already more than 100 revisions today .
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merrick_Garland&offset=&limit=100&action=history

It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.

Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.

Yup... very savvy move by Obama to put Pressure on the Senate GOP right after Trump's Primary win.

 jasper76 wrote:

 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?

You are paying for a political message you support to be dragged out of the wilderness and put int eh spotlight, thereby moving it onto the stage of relevance and something other candidates have to talk about too. Something about moving the Overton Window? It is a big deal and worth it for people who passionately believe in what Sanders is espousing, because before him their ideas weren't even on the radar.

 djones520 wrote:
It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.

Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.

I had to contact Chuck Grassley today. I got a letter from him this morning... well, it probably wasn't a letter to me personally. Anyway, it was a fundraising letter asking him to "help stay firm against any Obama SCOTUS appointment, so he can defend my second amendment rights". Very irritating, and I am very disappointed by this no-hearings stance. If he doesn't want to vote for an appointee because they think they're too liberal or what have you, well, that's how the game works.

But no hearings, no meetings - that's not how the game works, and I really don't like this stance. Why not just keep doing it for 4 more years if Hillary wins?

So don't worry guys! I wrote a quick email so I guess that's all sorted now.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.

Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.

I had to contact Chuck Grassley today. I got a letter from him this morning... well, it probably wasn't a letter to me personally. Anyway, it was a fundraising letter asking him to "help stay firm against any Obama SCOTUS appointment, so he can defend my second amendment rights". Very irritating, and I am very disappointed by this no-hearings stance. If he doesn't want to vote for an appointee because they think they're too liberal or what have you, well, that's how the game works.

But no hearings, no meetings - that's not how the game works, and I really don't like this stance. Why not just keep doing it for 4 more years if Hillary wins?

So don't worry guys! I wrote a quick email so I guess that's all sorted now.

Ah, okay. Thanks for sorting it for us!

@Easy E: Fair enough. I understand your point, I just don't like the idea that there are probably a whole lot of people who will contribute to Sanders thinking their money will help him beat Clinton, which at this point I think it's fair to say is a lost cause.

At this point, I think it would be better for Sanders to admit to his supporters that he's going to lose, and start asking them to eat the chicken even though they can't have the steak.

I don;t think his message has to change too much. Sanders has always said he was going the distance, and his main goal was to change the political conversation. His followers probably know this all ready.

However, I suspect his defeats will hurt his fund-raising, but we will see.

 djones520 wrote:
I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly

That isn't how our Senate does things these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
His followers probably know this all ready.

Not from what I have seen or read from them. Some might but a bunch of them seem to think he can win. I would prefer him over HRC, but that isn't high bar nor does it really deal with her huge lead, as awful as she is.

 whembly wrote:
Yup... very savvy move by Obama to put Pressure on the Senate GOP right after Trump's Primary win.

I presume that is sarcasm, but actually it might be a very savvy move.

We already know the majority public opinion is that a new Judge needs to get appointed. GOP will spend the next 10 months operating "business as usual" politics to refuse to consider Obama's candidate, thus looking like utter knobs. This makes Trump look all the more attractive to anti-establishment Republican voters, so he gets the nomination. However Trump's support, though solid, is limited. As the election comes closer, more and more soft Republicans will realise what a horrible disaster Trump would be, and in the end they will vote for the Clinton-Sanders ticket to keep him out.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.

Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.

I had to contact Chuck Grassley today. I got a letter from him this morning... well, it probably wasn't a letter to me personally. Anyway, it was a fundraising letter asking him to "help stay firm against any Obama SCOTUS appointment, so he can defend my second amendment rights". Very irritating, and I am very disappointed by this no-hearings stance. If he doesn't want to vote for an appointee because they think they're too liberal or what have you, well, that's how the game works.

But no hearings, no meetings - that's not how the game works, and I really don't like this stance. Why not just keep doing it for 4 more years if Hillary wins?

So don't worry guys! I wrote a quick email so I guess that's all sorted now.

Glad you got that sorted.

And based on Garland's past cases on the Appellate Ct... he ain't no friend on the 2nd amendment.

Here's how Trump could win my vote, and probably the vote of a lot of former #NeverTrumps:

Give us a list of 3 or 4 names. Swear on all that's holy in such an absolute manner... that you'll nominate to SCOTUS only names from that list.

If all of them are constitutional conservatives, in the mold of, say, Thomas, I'll vote for him.

Otherwise, I don't know whether I'll order the gak sandwich with mustard, or the gak sandwich with pickles.

That'll what it'll be if it's Trump vs. Clinton.

 Ahtman wrote:


Not from what I have seen or read from them. Some might but a bunch of them seem to think he can win. I would prefer him over HRC, but that isn't high bar nor does it really deal with her huge lead, as awful as she is.

I don't get how she is winning personally, but of the two, I'd rather it be him as well. He may be crazy, but at least he is honest.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It would make him the oldest appointee of the current bunch, but based on pictures he seems to be aging pretty well.

Quick reading seems that he's not a horrible choice. I for one hope that the Senate will play this smartly, and not burn political capital for cheap victories.

I had to contact Chuck Grassley today. I got a letter from him this morning... well, it probably wasn't a letter to me personally. Anyway, it was a fundraising letter asking him to "help stay firm against any Obama SCOTUS appointment, so he can defend my second amendment rights". Very irritating, and I am very disappointed by this no-hearings stance. If he doesn't want to vote for an appointee because they think they're too liberal or what have you, well, that's how the game works.

But no hearings, no meetings - that's not how the game works, and I really don't like this stance. Why not just keep doing it for 4 more years if Hillary wins?

So don't worry guys! I wrote a quick email so I guess that's all sorted now.

HashtagWotNoTweet?

 djones520 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


Not from what I have seen or read from them. Some might but a bunch of them seem to think he can win. I would prefer him over HRC, but that isn't high bar nor does it really deal with her huge lead, as awful as she is.

I don't get how she is winning personally, but of the two, I'd rather it be him as well. He may be crazy, but at least he is honest.

Sanders has a misguided heart of Gold.

Clinton is an influence peddler...

Trump is an influence buyer...

It's no wonder that Sander is enjoying some support.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


Not from what I have seen or read from them. Some might but a bunch of them seem to think he can win. I would prefer him over HRC, but that isn't high bar nor does it really deal with her huge lead, as awful as she is.

I don't get how she is winning personally, but of the two, I'd rather it be him as well. He may be crazy, but at least he is honest.

She basically has the minority vote locked up. Sanders can't penetrate this voting block in any meaningful way. I'm not sure if this is the total story of why Sanders isn't Winning, but it is certainly a big part.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Wait, really?

He said he was suspending his campaign during his FL concession speech. It was his best speech of his entire candidacy. Not being flip here, it was a good speech and suggested he could have been a strong general election candidate.

Just watched this. I agree it was a decent speech. After seeing it, you might even allow yourself to forget that it was Rubio who turned the Republican Primary into a literal D-measuring competition.

 CptJake wrote:

'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."

You just said "we" create the jobs, contradicting yourself.

Interesting article on some of the reasons behind Trump's success in the polls, specifically relating to which of his policies people support.

Basically, among those republicans polled (I think at the voting stations) between 64-73% of them support the proposed ban on muslims entering the country. In Florida, 60% of those that supported the ban voted for Trump, whilst only 24% that opposed it voted for him.

 whembly wrote:

Why have you not answered my question?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Why have you not answered my question?

Don't spam the forum

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However Trump's support, though solid, is limited. As the election comes closer, more and more soft Republicans will realise what a horrible disaster Trump would be, and in the end they will vote for the Clinton-Sanders ticket to keep him out.

I'd suggest that the idea that Trump has limited support could be on the verge of wishful thinking. If news outlets are to be believed, he is drawing from Republicans, Democrats, and brand new voters.

 jasper76 wrote:

She basically has the minority vote locked up. Sanders can't penetrate this voting block in any meaningful way. I'm not sure if this is the total story of why Sanders isn't Winning, but it is certainly a big part.

Bernie has had no real traction with minorities or southern voters. She also has a huge advantage in funding.

 jmurph wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

She basically has the minority vote locked up. Sanders can't penetrate this voting block in any meaningful way. I'm not sure if this is the total story of why Sanders isn't Winning, but it is certainly a big part.

Bernie has had no real traction with minorities or southern voters. She also has a huge advantage in funding.

 jasper76 wrote:

Just watched this. I agree it was a decent speech. After seeing it, you might even allow yourself to forget that it was Rubio who turned the Republican Primary into a literal D-measuring competition.

One of Rubio's strengths was that he could articulate reasonable positions. Rubio was at his worst when he got in the mud. It cost him dearly.

Apparently another GOP debate won't happen after Trump said no:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/03/16/donald-trump-says-he-will-skip-mondays-gop-debate-in-utah/

Oh, and Kasich said no too, so that probably had a huge impact.

So Trump is at 652/1237 with Cruz holding 406 and Rubio potentially putting 169 delegates into play. With Rubio out, I would guess most of those would be voters go Cruz or Kasich in the next round of states. I would also guess Kasich could play spoiler in some of the moderate states. And Trump has struggled some in western states, though his numbers rose, on average, this round. It is looking like Trump is going to struggle to get to 1237 before the convention.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

It will be a struggle, but the upcoming primaries are going to be winner take all. Trump needs about 55% of the remaining delegates to get the magic number. With Cruz and Kasich still splitting the anti Trump vote, he could do it with a plurality, not a majority. Also, he is the only one to have cleared a basic rule the GOP has for their nominee: winning a majority of at least 8 primary's delegates. It won't be easy, by any means, but I think last night and the calendar made it easier for him.

I just want to point out that plurality doesn't matter.

If he can't get to 1237 delegates (50%+1 majority) in the first round, then, everyone get's a mulligan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Is anyone surprised by this Trump ad?

Thinking of all the jobs opening that would come from building the wall. South and North
ICE is going to plus up being we removed the extra Brigades per division....more jobs
USCIS hiring on Vet's more then Peace Corp
Trump going to find legal loop hole to get the US out of debt...

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

It will be a struggle, but the upcoming primaries are going to be winner take all. Trump needs about 55% of the remaining delegates to get the magic number. With Cruz and Kasich still splitting the anti Trump vote, he could do it with a plurality, not a majority. Also, he is the only one to have cleared a basic rule the GOP has for their nominee: winning a majority of at least 8 primary's delegates. It won't be easy, by any means, but I think last night and the calendar made it easier for him.

I just want to point out that plurality doesn't matter.

If he can't get to 1237 delegates (50%+1 majority) in the first round, then, everyone get's a mulligan.

I think you are misunderstanding me here (I could have been more clear, but it wasn't a gaffe ). He can get pluralities in the primaries of winner take all states and still win all of the delegates of those states. Yes, he needs a majority overall, but he can get that with pluralities in individual primaries.

As to your earlier post about what it would take for you to back Trump: really, just a list of Supreme Court nominees? You don't strike me as a one issue voter. What about nearly every other issue on which Trump has graced us with his well developed thoughts? His ideas of ordering American troops to commit war crimes? His nonsensical idea to round up millions of people and send them packing? His pie in the sky notion that somehow he will magically get Mexico to pay for a huuuuge beautiful wall across the southern border? His idea of increasing tariffs of goods coming from China to 45% (regardless of how much that will cost consumers of said products) is fine? His economic plan that the CBO says will increase the deficit by 10 trillion dollars in the next ten years is fine? The very idea of allowing this man to have his short stubby finger on the nuclear button doesn't automatically make you say "no way, no how"?

Edit: made some grammatical fixes and added a few question on trumps ridiculous ideas.

 whembly wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Is anyone surprised by this Trump ad?

Seems like a dumb move to try and make the argument about foreign policy. This is one of Trumps biggest downsides...no foreign policy experience.

Also, his admiration for Putin is unbecoming a potential US President. It's one thing to get all giddy over the dude in private, but does anyone seriously believe Putin would not use this to his advantage in US-Russia relations?

I would have thought that the fact that Drumpf has the emotional maturity of a seven year old would preclude rational voters from considering him.

Trump is now inciting his supporters to riot if he doesn't automatically get the nomination.

HTTP://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-brokered-convention/index.html

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

As to your earlier post about what it would take for you to back Trump: really, just a list of Supreme Court nominees?

If he were to *court* my vote, yeah...

Because... let's face it... it's likely between Trump vs Clinton.

So, that's a gak sammich with pickle vs gak sammich with mustard.

Pick one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Trump is now inciting his supporters to riot if he doesn't automatically get the nomination.

HTTP://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-brokered-convention/index.html

He has already walked that back... as he should.

But, it's a gawddamnend disgrace that he even said it in the first place.

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

'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."

You just said "we" create the jobs, contradicting yourself.

You missed the word don't between we and create.