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.
2016/03/31 20:43:57
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The media and the Washington chattering class are very focused on the prospect of a "brokered" Republican convention – despite the fact that, as former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour has pointed out, there are no "brokers" in smoke-filled back rooms anymore. Seriously: Who do people think the brokers are – Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Maybe a bunch of cigar-chomping scotch-drinking fat-cat lobbyists? Things don't work that way anymore, and they haven't for years. Voters wouldn't stand for it.
"Our nominee is going to be picked by the voters in the primaries and the caucuses," Barbour told MSNBC's Chris Matthews in January. "And if nobody gets a majority, those people selected by them are going to work that out."
The people who will work it out, as Barbour puts it, are the delegates to the Republican National Convention. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus isn't going to work it out, and unlike the Democrats, the GOP doesn't have unbound superdelegates who can fix any "mistakes" the primary voters make.
This spring, in states and localities all over the nation, delegates to the convention are being selected. Primaries and caucuses may decide the number of delegates each candidate receives, but the actual names of the delegates are yet to be determined. In fact, we won't know for a few more months exactly who is going to the convention. We can make some guesses, though, because in the past many of the attendees are people who tend to run for delegate every four years. They're regulars.
Over the last few election cycles, it didn't matter too much who the individual delegates were, since their candidate had won a majority of pledged delegates so everything was pretty much decided in advance.
But this time may be different. Already, there's been a tremendous amount of speculation regarding the role of the convention's Rules Committee: How many candidates will be allowed to appear on the first ballot? Will delegates be able to switch candidates after the first ballot? Can they retroactively change some states from winner-take-all to proportional? Bottom line: Can they change the rules to keep Donald Trump off the ticket?
Questions like those are the talk of the town right now in Washington. Everyone has an opinion, and it seems everyone is suddenly an expert on arcane Republican convention rules. "Republican convention rules" is getting searched on Google 100 times more in mid-March than it was in mid-January.
With all this in mind I consulted with an actual authority on these matters: Sean Spicer, the RNC's spokesman and chief strategist.
Here's what I learned: Spicer says that while the media is focused on the convention nominating a candidate for president, its real function is to pass the rules which provide the mechanism for the party to exist for four more years. "It's like going to a [Parent-Teacher Association] meeting and thinking that the primary business of the PTA is to elect a PTA president," he says.
There's also this: The GOP's convention rules are based on a modified version of the same rules used to run the House of Representatives. (In fact, traditionally the speaker of the House runs the convention, as will be the case this year.) Just as in every new session of the House, the first order of business at a GOP convention, after the call to order, is to pass a rules package. Spicer compared it to a condo board or neighborhood association meeting, where people need to know the process and how the meeting will run before they start voting on new business.
Most people think that the last convention's rules are the default – that the 2012 rules are in effect until the 2016 committee changes them – but that is not the case.The Rules Committee doesn't get to pick and choose from among the previous rules; it has to come up with a complete package from scratch every four years. "The 115th Congress cannot operate until it first passes a rules package, and we're the same way," Spicer says. Each convention passes its own new set of rules, and they can be similar to prior ones – or they can be vastly different. It depends on what the delegates want.
In terms of how much the rules can differ from year to year: "The Romney delegates wrote rules to ensure a Romney nomination; the McCain delegates wrote rules for a McCain nomination. Those rules were written by delegates whose candidates are not on the ballot this time," Spicer says. Contrary to popular belief, the 2016 rules don't exist yet – and won't until a new set is passed by the 2016 delegates. Those who talk about "changing the rules" don't really understand the process, he says. It's a blank slate: There are no rules to change yet.
That is why the remaining Republican campaigns are working hard to make sure that people friendly to their candidates are being selected as delegates, no matter who won the state. The RNC chairman selects the chair of the Rules Committee, but the rest of the committee is comprised of delegates from all 50 states and the territories, one man and one woman from each. Those delegates can write whatever rules they'd like.
"The thing so interesting about this year's process," says Spicer, "is that for the first time in 40 years, people are paying attention. And it's not because the process has changed, because it hasn't. We're not doing anything different."
One final thought: In addition to writing the rules, the delegates will also be writing the party platform and voting on it. And while we've seen platform fights in the past – mostly on hot-button social issues – this year, the Platform Committee will likely be negotiating on a wider range of issues such as immigration, free trade and foreign policy. If Donald Trump becomes the nominee, will the Republican Party platform really call for building a wall with Mexico, imposing a 35 percent tax on goods made by companies that have left the United States and temporarily banning all Muslims?
Stay tuned.
So, for 2016, the RNC convention rules doesn't exist yet. So, all this hemming/hawwing over convention rules is nothing more than vaporware.
Hence, why Kasich is still "running"...
Hence, why Rubio is "suspended", but keeping his delegate wins...
As far as I've been led to understand, it's within the RNC's power to make a rule saying "Donald Trump cannot be the Republican nominee.". Is that your understanding as well, or do I have the wrong end of the stick on this?
I guess theoretically, they could. But, they won't.
I just find it interesting that "there are no rules" now... and yet, Kasich/Cruz/Trump are pushing old rules from previous conventions...
I don't think they would either, but since Trump isn't running on a Republican platform, I wouldn't blame them if they did. I'd be like, "Take your followers and go start your own party, dude" if I was a True Believer in traditional GOP positions.
2016/03/31 22:03:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yeah, I think previous composition rules required Trump to field at least a core of Republicans troops, but with these new vague allies rules, it looks like he just loaded up on cultists. Need to get a new edition or errata quick.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/31 22:03:38
-James
2016/03/31 22:05:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: Yeah, I think previous composition rules required Trump to field at least a core of Republicans troops, but with these new vague allies rules, it looks like he just loaded up on cultists. Need to get a new edition or errata quick.
Have an Exalt for that
2016/03/31 23:15:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: So, no-one here's a politician. No-one here has to worry about what their voters think.
Let's hear it.
For the record I think abortions should be illegal after the 2nd trimester, unless doctors state its a matter of life and death for the mother. I'm tempted to want to ban them after the first trimester but definitely after the second. Late term abortion is murder in my opinion.
Other than that, have at. Kill as many fetuses as you want.
But education and abstinence/contraception are clearly choice number one.
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
= Epic First Post.
2016/03/31 23:28:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think we as a society should all agree that swearing an oath is BS these days and if we need someone to be held to their word then a financial surety is the way to go.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/03/31 23:49:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Maybe we should make every oath cost a finger, so you can only make 10 per life.
Not sure if I like the idea of being operated on by a nine-fingered surgeon.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/03/31 23:55:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
KK I am going to go over the Oath of Enlistment. The Officer will come in on your left my right and stand behind the podium. He is going to call you to "At Ease". Applicants, You, are in the position of "Attention". The officer...I think its Commander Smith is going to give you a pep talk and all that. I do want to point out that 90% of Americans cannot make it to where you are now because they are unwilling. The remainder 10% who do process through 9% of them will fail the physical and background checks. Welcome to the One Percenters. You heard me,. Only one percent of the US population can make it to where you are. Congrats.
So you more likely going to hear from him again. Alright He going to call you to attention. Ask you to raise your right arm and Administer the Oath of Enlistment. Trust me he is not going to recite the entire Oath in one shot and have you repeat it back at him. Not going to happen. He will pause after each phrase and you repeat it back to him.
So "I (State your Name), do solemnly Swear or Affirm.
First do not be nervous. We had one individual who was nervous enough to say out loud "State Your Name" instead of his actual name. So please...say your name. First, last or entirely. Say it...not "State Your Name"...your name out loud.
Okay...now you see Swear and Affirm. Its up to you which one you want to say. Example.
I, Bullet Catcher, do solemnly Swear
or
I, Lead Allergy, do solemnly Affirm
You have a choice of two words. Pick one not both please. Entirely up to you
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,
according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God."
KK see that last sentence. Its entirely up to you if you want to say it or not. No one going to force you, there will be no reprecussion, there will be no negative actions on you if you don't say it.
I'm a follower of Bacchus. Yes you heard me. I worship the Roman God of Wine and Sex. Since I have no problem with God or anything I will go ahead and say. I don't care. Everyone understand? Good.
Good Luck People and stay mentally tough.
The Only Oath I ever took Seriously. The next is my Creed
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2016/04/01 02:11:50
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Jihadin wrote: KK see that last sentence. Its entirely up to you if you want to say it or not. No one going to force you, there will be no reprecussion, there will be no negative actions on you if you don't say it.
I'm a follower of Bacchus. Yes you heard me. I worship the Roman God of Wine and Sex. Since I have no problem with God or anything I will go ahead and say. I don't care. Everyone understand? Good.
Good Luck People and stay mentally tough.
The Only Oath I ever took Seriously. The next is my Creed
The 2 or 3 times I took The Oath, the briefer always said that you had to say the last line... It was the last word specifically that was optional.
2016/04/01 02:31:14
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Its change. Being the "So help me." still rang with "So help me God" in a Spiritual sense. So they gave a choice to the applicants on the last sentence as a whole.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2016/04/01 02:35:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Traditio wrote: Contrary to the general mindset of the modern liberal, I agree with Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. in thinking that temperance (i.e., that virtue whereby the desires for food, drink and sex are moderated by right reason) is a virtue, whereas the opposite is a vice. I further agree with these venerable men in asserting that any act which is opposed to a virtue is itself an act of vice (though not necessarily an act which proceeds from vice) and constitutes a moral offense.
And in another thread I just made fun of someone for posting attitudes from another decade. Here we have someone posting from another millenia.
The people dakka can find can truly amazing, sometimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: For some reason, a democrat version of Chris Christie is scarier to me than a republican version.
Because he's stand a hope in hell of actually getting elected? A populist Democrat could sail through the primary and be a strong general election candidate. A populist Republican will do as well in a Republican primary as Christie did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: You know, since this is a politics thread and all, I have a topic of political discussion, something that perplexes me:
Why is it that every time there is a school shooting, Obama gets on tv and whines and complains about guns...
...
...
But no matter how many people get murdered and raped by Muslims, he nonetheless sees no problem with letting in Muslim refugees?
While I can’t read Obama’s mind, I’m going to make two guesses as to what might influence Obama’s thinking.
It’s highly likely that Obama knows how numbers work, and probably has a strong understanding of which numbers are bigger than others. In the last decade an average of 10 Americans died each year in terror attacks. Over the same period an average of more than 6,000 Americans were killed in homicides using guns.
Obama might even have advanced object recognition and differentiation skills. He is probably capable of knowing the difference between an inanimate object and a human being. If he’s really advanced, he might even know that human beings are actually very complex, and not able to be defined by anything as crude as a religion, even if it’s a religion that everyone is really scared about right now.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/01 03:04:58
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/01 03:09:06
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Hillary Clinton blew up at an activist who asked the former Secretary of State to pledge to turn down money from the fossil fuel industry.
“Regarding climate change, can we have your word that you’ll reject fossil fuel money in the future for your campaign?” The activist asked.
“I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton retorted. “I am so sick, I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it.”
owever, nearly all of the lobbyists hired by the Clinton campaign bundle campaign contributions that come from the fossil fuel industry, as noted by the Huffington Post. Greenpeace estimates that the Clinton campaign has bundled over $1.2 million with help from industry-affiliated lobbyists.
urthermore, fossil fuel interests have donated about $3.25 million to the Priorities USA Action PAC, which supports Hillary Clinton. All told, Greenpeace estimates the total contributions from fossil fuel interests at $4.5 million.
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2016/04/01 03:13:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadwinter wrote: Nah man, that is just what the liberal media wants you to think. It is all her fault. She shouldn't have pressed charges like a citizen of this country has the right to do.
Once again... she doesn't press charges. She makes a complaint, police and prosecution judge the merit and substance of that complaint, and decide to press charges. So the effort to blame her for the charge on him is doubly crazy, because it's not even her decision.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/01 03:26:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dreadwinter wrote: Nah man, that is just what the liberal media wants you to think. It is all her fault. She shouldn't have pressed charges like a citizen of this country has the right to do.
Once again... she doesn't press charges. She makes a complaint, police and prosecution judge the merit and substance of that complaint, and decide to press charges. So the effort to blame her for the charge on him is doubly crazy, because it's not even her decision.
Try re-reading dreads post
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/01 03:26:32
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2016/04/01 03:28:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: IE, most Orthopedics MDs *have* admitting privileges and most of their procedures are largely done in ambulatory setting. In fact, *having* admitting privileges in whichever discipline is common.
Common, sure, but not required by law.
If this was about requiring greater health standards, then the law that was passed would have required admitting privileges in any place undertaking reasonably complex or problematic procedure. Any dentist that used a general would certainly have been required. And yet the scope of the bill never even considered that. And the reason why is very obvious.
Yes, thankyou, I know he was being sarcastic about Tradito's very silly argument. My point was that he wasn't mocking Traditio enough, because he still accepted the silliest part of Traditio's argument.
Read my post again. It'll become clear to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SickSix wrote: He was asked if something was illegal should the violator be punished, he said yes. The POTUS takes an oath swearing them to uphold the law.
That actually makes his answer worse, it becomes ill-informed in addition to being callous. Because you can make an act illegal without everyone involved being criminalised. There are laws in lots of placed that make prostitution illegal, but only for the pimp and the john, not the prostitute herself. In many cases the seller of drugs is committing an illegal act, while the buyer is facing a misdemeanour at worst.
And I don’t believe there is a single pro-life group that is chasing laws that would punish the woman who receives the abortion.
Trump was oblivious to all that, because he is oblivious to very large parts of American politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: So Sanders needs 57% of delegates left to overtake Clinton.
I am curious to see if amyone has broke the % down by state.
In order to get Sanders the delegates needed to catch up they had to get really funky. Like 'something incredible has to happen in the campaign and even then this is still unlikely' kind of territory. For instance, 538 thinks a Sanders win will probably need him winning NY by +4, even though he trails there by margins in excess of 20 points.
Something major could happen to make Sanders run at the presidency possible, but we're at the point where something major would have to happen to make a Sanders win possible. We're talking Clinton gets outed as a robot under the control of the deep ones kind of scandal, and even then it'd be touch and go.
More than 80% of oil and gas money goes to Republicans. This is part of a continuing trend starting in the early 80s when the parties first started to split on climate change.
Trying to tarnish Clinton on this issue, when the Republicans continue to exist is just beyond weird.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/04/01 04:33:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/04/01 08:14:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Oh. Oh my. Has anyone notified the Church of Satan yet? I await what will, undoubtedly, be a most glorious response from them.
I'm looking at the bill... and, this has *got* to be an early April's Fools Joke*.
Put your big girl panties back on. Its just a measure to provide protection to church security teams in case they have to defend themselves. It ranks them the same as the PoPo in terms of legal defenses.
Most large churches have security teams, often made up of police.
But I would look forward to a nice Church of the Eagle Warrior having a spat with the local Mexican Catholic Church.
Battle of Otumba II, this time its personal!
I'm sure the mosque security teams will be greatly appreciative.
Especially next time those -- armed -- protesters turn up outside to yell at them.
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,
2016/04/01 08:54:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yes, thankyou, I know he was being sarcastic about Tradito's very silly argument. My point was that he wasn't mocking Traditio enough, because he still accepted the silliest part of Traditio's argument.
Read my post again. It'll become clear to you.
Yeah, I have brought up that she doesn't have a whole lot of say in this. I even posted a fun anecdote about somebody I worked with going through it and how said person couldn't drop charges because the DA decided to go through with it anyways.
I feel like I have made it clear that I do not accept any part of his silly argument in the slightest, based on my responses to him.
2016/04/01 11:15:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
More than 80% of oil and gas money goes to Republicans. This is part of a continuing trend starting in the early 80s when the parties first started to split on climate change.
Trying to tarnish Clinton on this issue, when the Republicans continue to exist is just beyond weird.
Unfortunately she is not running against republicans at the moment, so that is pretty much irrelevant.
And even your own link puts her at fifth place!
2016/04/01 12:18:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Oh. Oh my. Has anyone notified the Church of Satan yet? I await what will, undoubtedly, be a most glorious response from them.
I'm looking at the bill... and, this has *got* to be an early April's Fools Joke*.
Put your big girl panties back on. Its just a measure to provide protection to church security teams in case they have to defend themselves. It ranks them the same as the PoPo in terms of legal defenses.
Most large churches have security teams, often made up of police.
But I would look forward to a nice Church of the Eagle Warrior having a spat with the local Mexican Catholic Church.
Battle of Otumba II, this time its personal!
I'm sure the mosque security teams will be greatly appreciative.
Especially next time those -- armed -- protesters turn up outside to yell at them.
They should appreciate it. This gives them the same rights as police officers in being able to defend themselves.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
