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.
Ahtman wrote: It is almost like the popular vote and the party elite are having issues with each other and their choices.
It's almost like a minority of the popular vote is upset that the actual popular vote is going to the candidate the party elite supports.
Well some is, some isn't. If it were that simple Bernie wouldn't have won any states but he has won quite a few. I don't really have a dog in this hunt but that seems to be the problem on the Democratic side at the moment is the perception that something fishy is going on between voters and higher ups in the party.
I do not envy Democrat voters this election cycle.
Rosebuddy wrote: In this particular case it seems to be more that they kicked out a bunch of delegates and then proclaimed the vote went to Clinton.
Yep... apparently they "investigated" and stripped credentials from some 67 delegates that were known to support Bernie. Yet zero of Clinton's known delegates were investigated, much less stripped of credentials...
Personally, I think that BOTH parties are in for a real shake up. It's quite clear that both have been "bought" by a minority of people in the US, and do not really have any kind of idea what the average person wants.
Edit: fixed quote blocks
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/16 01:09:30
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
I keep wondering if Clinton wins and it does turn into a full on criminal case against her, are we going to have two years(to pick a time frame) of her doing nothing but defending herself followed by a resignation similar to Nixon with Watergate.
Lol.... since the "Trending" function of FB was a thread a while back, thought I'd share a gem that just came up on mine:
The Boston Globe is reporting that everyone's favorite orangutan has called Sen. Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" during an interview he was giving for NYT.
I keep wondering if Clinton wins and it does turn into a full on criminal case against her, are we going to have two years(to pick a time frame) of her doing nothing but defending herself followed by a resignation similar to Nixon with Watergate.
That really depends on whether or not a sitting President can be indicted, which is far from a settled matter. It gets even murkier if Hillary is indicted, and then takes office...though I'm inclined to believe the process would continue with numerous House Republicans chomping at the bit to headline the impeachment motion.
Of course that raises a separate matter: can she be impeached for this? Sure, she was in office when the email thing went down, but it wasn't the office of the Presidency. Can a person be impeached for something they did in office X, while holding office Y?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: Of course that raises a separate matter: can she be impeached for this? Sure, she was in office when the email thing went down, but it wasn't the office of the Presidency. Can a person be impeached for something they did in office X, while holding office Y?
Hypothetically speaking, lets say she does get elected under these circumstances, couldn't Obama, on his way out the door just sign a presidential pardon and be done with it?
dogma wrote: Can a person be impeached for something they did in office X, while holding office Y?
At least in terms of the President, of course. An impeachable offense is anything that 218 congressmen can agree upon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Hypothetically speaking, lets say she does get elected under these circumstances, couldn't Obama, on his way out the door just sign a presidential pardon and be done with it?
Technically, sure - realistically, no. Practically speaking, Hillary Clinton would be done as a candidate if indicted. It pretty much sunk Rick Perry, and that was over what was pretty overtly politically generated nonsense to people on both sides of the political divide.
If Hillary were indicted and did not drop, then you'd see record turnouts, pro-GOP and negative-Dem. I have to imagine in virtually any scenario she would quit the race though,
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/16 04:59:25
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Rosebuddy wrote: In this particular case it seems to be more that they kicked out a bunch of delegates and then proclaimed the vote went to Clinton.
Yep... apparently they "investigated" and stripped credentials from some 67 delegates that were known to support Bernie. Yet zero of Clinton's known delegates were investigated, much less stripped of credentials...
Personally, I think that BOTH parties are in for a real shake up. It's quite clear that both have been "bought" by a minority of people in the US, and do not really have any kind of idea what the average person wants.
Edit: fixed quote blocks
My understanding is that a significant amount of Bernie delegates re-registered as Independents after the primary, and thus were not eligible to participate in the actual Democratic Party function being depicted here. Thus, they were not properly credentialed.
Additionally, a lot of the 'chaos' came about from Bernie people not understanding how to actually make motions on the floor and just getting up to say gak their people agreed with, but gak that turned out not to be actually actionable per the convention rules.
All of which is great. Some of my wife's relatives are lefties, and they're losing their minds on Facebook. I think we might be seeing the birth of the left's version of the Tea Party.
At least in terms of the President, of course. An impeachable offense is anything that 218 congressmen can agree upon.
The impeachable offense still needs to be committed in office, the question regards whether or not it needs to be the office the person presently holds.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I've been thinking some more about the Republican Primary, and exactly what went wrong. People kept talking about no-one taking on Trump, or doing it much too late. But it seems to me the real failure was that the efforts to fight Trump were just full of the same empty bluster that Trump was using. Why was there no effort to call him directly on his endless lies? At the very least, why did almost no-one call Trump on claim that he opposed Iraq? Was there some greater strategy that was mishandled, or did no-one in the GOP bother to go back and see what Trump said at the time?
Were all the parties resources dedicated towards finding out who Clinton defended when she was a lawyer 30 years ago? Honest and truly, how could Trump have claimed such an obvious lie, and then watch the party just take him at face value?
In other news, Trump the outsider who's going to flip the board and make everything different... has gone and employed Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore. These two are the intellectual cred smeared over each Republican presidential candidate, when they announce their amazing new tax plan to cut taxes on the rich and pretend it won't reduce tax revenue.
I kind of think that maybe the two things are related. Through the various non-think tanks like Heritage, the GOP has kept a lot of fundamentally lazy, dishonest pseudo-academics in work for a long time. Has this rotted the party out from the inside? Were they so used to doing little more than trotting out half-baked nonsense, that it never even occurred to anyone to do some real work and actually see if anything Trump said lined up with the real world?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: For the TL;DR crowd: basically, Clinton has received some 20+ million bucks from "Wall Street" and has campaign promises to end such huge sums of money in political donations, but why should we believe her?
Her voting record? She voted in favour of McCain Feingold, and has never backed away from that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If the Libertarian party gets 5% of the vote, then I believe they'd qualify for federal funding in 2020, which could be a meaningful start.
Watching the Libertarian party aim for 5% so they can get federal funding without any sense of irony at all is my absolute new favourite thing in this election.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/16 06:01:38
“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.
Seaward wrote: Some of my wife's relatives are lefties, and they're losing their minds on Facebook.
I got relatives like that. Thank God FB lets me ignore/hide the stories they forward so I don't have to unfriend people I genuinely care about just because they're caught up in all this hysteria.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/16 06:09:16
TheMeanDM wrote: Futile or not, it is awakening more every-day people to the rigged system of delegates and superdelegates.
Oh for feth's sake how can you still fething believe this? Clinton has more votes, and that's led to more pledged delegates. Direct proportional allocation leading to a straight forward result. Truly what an outrage.
The only one talking about using super-delegates to flip the popular vote is Sanders. And yet Sanders supporters continue to play this ridiculous game where they pretend the system is rigged against their guy because Clinton has the super-delegates... and at the same time they happily accept their trying to flip those superdelegates to support their guy and overturn their defeat in the popular vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: So really...polls mean not very much, in my opinion.
**all poll research fiund at realclearpolitics.com
That's what lots of people say when they don't like the poll numbers. It never works out very well.
Anyhow, polls for primaries are not that reliable, the % of the population that votes on the day is much smaller than the general, and there are nowhere near as many polls as you get during the primary so the error rate can't be reduced with combined polls. So it is normal to see the result expected from polls miss the final result by 5 points or thereabouts. And it means every so often you will see a Michigan style result. But we're now at the stage where Sanders needs probably half the remaining polls to produce crazy, once in a generation Michigan type misses. There are good reasons he's shutting his campaign down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Also, heard on radio that almost half of the Sander voters won't vote for HRC.
That's a hella swing and ought to be a concern for team Clinton...
Meh. Right now there's a lot of Sanders' supporters who are working through the stages of realising their guy has lost. They're pissed, but that's normal. But November is a long time away.
Similarly, there's a whole lot of people who are shocked and dismayed that their party has picked Trump as their nominee. NeverTrump is powerful, and even the party leadership is making lots of noise about how bad Trump is. But November is a long time away. Already Paul Ryan is going through the political theatre of pretending that Trump is being brought in to line. That'll work for some voters, and the rest will be brought in with some other piece of theater here or there.
This kind of thing happens every political season this time of year. But come November the Republicans vote Republican, and the Democrats vote Democrat.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/16 06:36:35
“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.
dogma wrote: The impeachable offense still needs to be committed in office, the question regards whether or not it needs to be the office the person presently holds.
I don't think that's specified in Article 2, Section 4. I think it's left intentionally vague just for these sorts of "unknown unknowns". Does it matter, anyway - I mean, who is going to check Congress if they decided to impeach? No one has the authority to - it seems like an academic question.
Are you saying can she be retroactively impeached as Secretary of State? Since the only remedy is removal of office, and she doesn't hold that office, it doesn't seem likely to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/16 06:50:59
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And that is the problem that we're seeing... major media outlets aren't showing the huge numbers he's drawing, and the votes he's pulling, because delegates are still going to Clinton because, as we've discussed a lot, the system is rigged.
As soon as they start assigning delegates to whoever holds the biggest rally, I'm sure you'll see people give a gak. But until that happy day, delegates are awarded based on vote totals. And the vote totals tell a simple story - Clinton 12,524,845, Sanders 9,426,517. How in the actual feth anyone can conclude a system is rigged because each candidate gets a number of deledgates in line with their share of the primary vote is completely beyond me.
“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.
Breotan wrote: I got relatives like that. Thank God FB lets me ignore/hide the stories they forward so I don't have to unfriend people I genuinely care about just because they're caught up in all this hysteria.
Yes, some of the Bernie bros have become increasingly... strident and Alex Jonesy. I'm sorry that Bernie isn't winning the nomination, but it's not because of a vast, left wing conspiracy.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
sebster wrote: How in the actual feth anyone can conclude a system is rigged because each candidate gets a number of deledgates in line with their share of the primary vote is completely beyond me.
All you have to do is believe the system is rigged to give someone more delegates. I understand and agree with the overall point but I don't agree that believing a system is rigged is hard for some to believe.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
kronk wrote: They don't have enough people to audit everyone that needs auditing as it is. Now they're supposed to do the whole thing?
I'd honestly like to hear how this will be conducted.
Right now the IRS collects most of the information used in tax returns, then it asks you to fill out that information again, and then it does some audits on some people to check if that info is consistent.
The idea behind Warren's reform would be that the IRS should just use the information it already has - it knows how much your employer paid you during the year. It knows how much interest revenue you earned. So it would just prefill that data and send it to you, and you would audit their work.
A similar reform has happened here in Australia. There are limits (it can't determine your deductions, or anything complex like a rental property) but its excellent for simple tax returns.
“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.
Are you saying can she be retroactively impeached as Secretary of State? Since the only remedy is removal of office, and she doesn't hold that office, it doesn't seem likely to me.
Yes, that is the question I'm asking.
Issues out of office, though not explicitly nominated by the Constitution, create lots of problems for everyone if they are subject to impeachment proceedings.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/16 07:28:09
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Are you saying can she be retroactively impeached as Secretary of State? Since the only remedy is removal of office, and she doesn't hold that office, it doesn't seem likely to me.
Yes, that is the question I'm asking.
Issues out of office, though not explicitly nominated by the Constitution, create lots of problems for everyone if they are subject to impeachment proceedings.
whembly wrote: I don't know if most of the Trump voters are angling for that "Eisenhower conservatism, with big government and secure employment"... Maybe we do, but I'm unconvinced at the moment...
I think it remains the best and most complete explanation. Far right economic positions (flat taxes, attacks on welfare, school vouchers etc) have never actually held much of a voter base - they appeal to a fairly closed circle closely tied to the Republican leadership, and pretty much no-one else. Republicans have sidestepped that problem for a long time by focusing on social conservative issues, generally with a healthy dose of race baiting thrown in. Sprinkled over the top was a bunch of crazy conspiracy nonsense - ACA death panels, Obama as a secret muslim kenyan, black helicopters and FEMA death camps.
It was always a pretty unstable game, but then it always had to be when you had a major party committed mostly to economic policies that the electorate didn't like. I guess it was inevitable that sooner or later someone was going to come along and go straight at the race and conspiracy stuff, while dropping the neo-liberal economic stuff as a dead weight. Whether Trump has changed the Republican platform long term remains to be seen, but right now it's hard to see how someone in the mold of the old style Republican candidate, like Romney or GW Bush, can win another primary. Time will tell.
“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.
