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.
Quick question, is there really anyone reading this thread that is actually enthusiastic about voting for a certain candidate? And I do me FOR someone, not enthusiastic about voting AGAINST the other person.
Serious, I'm not. I feel both candidates are horrible choices. I'm not being serious here, but would a scenario that mimics "Designated Survivor", "Eagle Eye", or "Battlestar Galactica" be a bad thing? Some massive and horrible tragedy wipes out so much of the government that virtual outsiders with no party affiliation or connections with union/corporations/special interest groups fill in all the major governmental positions. It would be like reformatting a clunky computer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 02:32:48
I'm pretty enthused for Clinton. Sure, Bernie was my first choice, just like Obama was my first choice last time, but I've always thought Hillary was a cut above the average politician in terms of competence. Damning with faint praise, I guess.
Prestor Jon wrote: I stated in my post that the Bush family started our short sighted relationship with KSA,
What? Chevron (back then it was Standard Oil of California) walked the US in to a cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. They've been your stable, oil pumping 'friend' in the region ever since.
I don't think anyone could argue that either Bush41 or Bush43 practiced good foreign policy in the ME, there's decades of mismanagement of our foreign policy in the ME that has done nothing but come back to haunt us with unintended consequences and increased instability.
Decades? There's about 80 years of US interaction with the ME at this point, and the moments of constructive engagement are almost zero. This is why I'm kind of puzzled about what your overall point is. This isn't a Bush or a Clinton thing. It certainly isn't an issue tied in any meaningful way to money for presidential libraries. It's an issue of strategic foreign policy, in what the US thought it wanted in the ME, how it tried to get it, and what it actually got in the end.
In fact it isn't even a US thing, because it's pretty much what the European powers were doing back when they had dominion over the area.
“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.
cuda1179 wrote: Quick question, is there really anyone reading this thread that is actually enthusiastic about voting for a certain candidate? And I do me FOR someone, not enthusiastic about voting AGAINST the other person.
Serious, I'm not. I feel both candidates are horrible choices. I'm not being serious here, but would a scenario that mimics "Designated Survivor", "Eagle Eye", or "Battlestar Galactica" be a bad thing? Some massive and horrible tragedy wipes out so much of the government that virtual outsiders with no party affiliation or connections with union/corporations/special interest groups fill in all the major governmental positions. It would be like reformatting a clunky computer.
I'm very much for HRC at this point.
Let me preface that by saying I donated to the Kasich campaign and consider myself an independent, with moderate GOP leaning...which by nowadays standards means I'm a communist.
Anyways, to my point of supporting HRC.
Simply put, she's the only adult in the room. Don't talk of third party at this point, it's not there yet. The Dawn is breaking on the splintering of the two party system, I believe, but for this election there's only two choices.
I firmly believe she understands her potential position in history and knows that not only will she be viewed and judged as the first woman POTUS, but also as the "other" Clinton POTUS. She'll want to score high against both benchmarks...although one being a clean slate notwithstanding.
Bubba was a very liberal young man who worked very well with a GOP controlled Legislature. He was smart and a savvy political operator. Hillary wasn't just asleep during this time. She was very involved with providing input to Bill and have to believe she learned a thing or two from the 8 years of his Presidencey. Those 8 years, btw, being some of the best this country has seen of late, IMHO. She's seen Obama and the Congress stalemate and I think the lesson of the toxicity of partisanship won't be lost on her.
Our allies trust her. She's played in the big leagues, with the big boys and has held her own. There isno choice in this election. Trying to create a "push" scenario of bad vs bad is absurd and naïve.
sebster wrote: I think the real story though was the sheer number of crazies on the fringes. Carson is totally fething bonkers, and he still commands a real audience within the base. This tells me that the culture that's more and more the voters in the Republican party just don't care about boring stuff like effectively managing the country. It's about a sending a message about whatever stupid cause they believe in - want to prove you're a true Christian then Carson is your man, want to stick it to Muslims and political correctness then you vote Trump, if you worship at the shrine of business then you pick Fiorina. It just didn't matter that none of these people had the slightest clue about what they would actually do in government.
The sad thing is I don't think the crazies are really "the fringes" anymore. The moment that stands out to me is in the republican debates, when Kasich dared to suggest that a border wall and mass deportations would cost an obscene amount of money and aren't realistic plans. The immediate response from everyone else? Accusing him of being soft on illegal immigration and letting all the Mexicans be lazy welfare parasites (and simultaneously steal all of our jobs), and emphasizing the need to build a border wall and have mass deportations. The voters don't want a sensible candidate saying "we should enact conservative policies within the bounds of what is possible", they want someone to pander to their masturbatory fantasies of how things should be. The awkward truth is that it's the "mainstream" republican party now, not the fringes, doing this stuff. And I don't really see any way to fix the problem.
This is because everything that the republican party and conservationism in general represents: Limited rights for women & the LGBT community, resentment towards minorities, hawkishness and trickle-down economics are increasingly things that have more rapidly than anyone had imagined, become unpalatable to the american public. If 15 years ago you'd asked me if we'd have a black president, mainstream acceptance of gay marriage and "income inequality" as a popular buzzword I'd have laughed my ass off and said "Maybe in 50 years, if some magic gay leprechaun douses the american public with pixie dust". I'm sure in the faily recent past conceding on those issues to the radical elements seemed like a pretty viable strategy since they weren't important enough to bump out more moderates than you gained in extremists.
It's no secret that outside the areas where they have saturation of support the general image of the republic party conjures up some mixed imagery of Mr.Burns & Yosemite Sam in much of the public eyes. The accuracy of that image aside, that perception exists.That perception has been and will continue over time being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their stances on social issues are just costing them big time, in a way I don't think they could have previously predicted.
If you're a relatively moderate person that even leans republican on many issues (obamacare, regulation, millitary spending) you're still going to be wary of aligning yourself with the republic party. That's because at thanksgiving dinner when everyone starts talking about news, you don't want your gay cousin and that family friend who married a Brazilian dude giving you funny looks.
In contrast the moderate person who maybe leans a bit democrat say on the environment and tax policy, despite their being a hardcore gun rights advocate is going to have less reservations about aligning with the democrats. I mean maybe they'll have a few uncles who go on whembly-esqe "But hillary is a liar" rants as they're waiting for the turkey, but in the end they'll just laugh you off as big naive, and you won't get any dirty looks from anyone. Unless you're cut from extremely conserative cloth, nobody you know is going to feel personally attacked by your political alignment. There's no "Thanksgiving Dinner" problem with the moderate crowd that goes democrat.
This means that the moderates really on the fence are going to be more likely to lean dem, the moderates that already lean dem are going be a stone cold lock, and even most of the republican leaning moderates are going to grit their teeth and make the choice that doesn't make them a pariah. In the end? Who do you have left? Well, these guys: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html?src=vidm and I suppose the few holdouts willing to ignore those guys because the republicans are really the only ones with anywhere close to the political firepower to challenge the elements of the democratic party they dislike and either willing to take the social hit of being associated with those guys.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/08/11 03:38:21
whembly wrote: You didn't care for the IRS scandal at all... but, yes you said the Clinton foundation ordeal has "legs".
No, I bought in to the IRS thing at first, because I (foolishly) believed the original stories that only conservative organisations had been targeted. The Clinton Foundation always smelled of 'attacking your enemy's strengths', and I've never seen an actual story with any real substance. I might be remembering something incorrectly, so if you can find the original posts it'd be interesting to read.
Yeah, this is weird because this story about those two emails is bouncing around, but it kind of feels like we've already seen them before. Anyhow, the NY Post has, quite amazingly, tried to beat up the story. The person they were looking for a job for was a Foundation staffer, not a donor. Which makes it nepotism as usual. And if a $5 million donation only manages to score a meeting with an official, well that's probably the worst spent political dollars since the Jeb Bush primary campaign.
Dig deeper seb and check out this guy's investigation(he's the wallstreet analyst who blew the whistle on General Electric before its stock crashed in 2008):
Why did you make me read that crazy man? What did I do to deserve that? It's just blog post after blog post repeatedly claiming the Clinton Foundation is bad, with detail on everything except actual incidents of the foundation doing anything wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: The truth is, when he said "he meant for them to mobilize and vote", I believe him. I think he meant the people to whom the second amendment is important are generally republican, consistently get out and vote, and can mobilize strongly around a cause. I don't think it was the dog whistle it's getting described as. Just my 2 cents.
Nah, look at the phrasing of the comment. It's about what happens if Clinton wins, it is after the election.
He's Trump's comment, and I've added what he claimed he really meant; "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks, although the Second Amendment people - maybe there is, maybe they can mobilize and vote."
That reads as gibberish. What's the point in mobilizing after she's already won? He's hinting at something else, fairly obviously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Putting on my neutral hat and playing Devil's advocate, Trump could have won this election. I think he's way to damaged now to win, but he had a genuine chance of victory if he had done things differently.
BREXIT is conclusive evidence that in the Western world, ordinary people are fed up with the current power structures.
Trump, playing the maverick card, could have defeated Clinton, the establishment figure.
Yeah, one of the real concerns here is that Trump has shown how much can be achieved by running on something like Trump's platform. I mean, Trump's platform, to the extent that we can actually nail down what it is, is amazingly terrible, but it's also pretty popular with a lot of people who know almost nothing about how the world works.
What's scary is that Trump's fall in the polls has been largely through needless self-inflicted wounds, the sheer awfulness of his policies haven't seemed to hurt him at all. There's room for someone who's not a egocentric nincompoop to come along in four years and do what Trump has done, only better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I deplore the use of riders and would rather live in a world where Congress actually does some fething work and evaluate/vote for things line-by-line.
But, alas, that isn't the world we live in, and in order to pass things, a give-or-take must happen.
"Give and Take".... What are Republicans giving? What are Democrats taking?
Both sides, and every functioning human being, wants funding to limit the spread of Zika. Democrats have put up a straight bill, with no riders. Republicans have rejected that. The Republican bill includes riders on a bunch of their pet issues.
So in order to get $1.1 billion for emergency health funding that everybody wants, the Democrats have to give what the Republicans want to take. Otherwise it's the Democrats fault.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/08/11 04:16:49
“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.
...several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, according to a law enforcement official. At the time, DOJ declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn't sufficient evidence to open a case.
FBI ask DoJ to formally open a public integrity investigation into the Clinton Foundation...
whembly wrote: I deplore the use of riders and would rather live in a world where Congress actually does some fething work and evaluate/vote for things line-by-line.
But, alas, that isn't the world we live in, and in order to pass things, a give-or-take must happen.
"Give and Take".... What are Republicans giving? What are Democrats taking?
Both sides, and every functioning human being, wants funding to limit the spread of Zika. Democrats have put up a straight bill, with no riders. Republicans have rejected that. The Republican bill includes riders on a bunch of their pet issues.
So in order to get $1.1 billion for emergency health funding that everybody wants, the Democrats have to give what the Republicans want to take. Otherwise it's the Democrats fault.
Chongara wrote: This is because everything that the republican party and conservationism in general represents: Limited rights for women & the LGBT community, resentment towards minorities, hawkishness and trickle-down economics are increasingly things that have more rapidly than anyone had imagined, become unpalatable to the american public. If 15 years ago you'd asked me if we'd have a black president, mainstream acceptance of gay marriage and "income inequality" as a popular buzzword I'd have laughed my ass off and said "Maybe in 50 years, if some magic gay leprechaun douses the american public with pixie dust". I'm sure in the faily recent past conceding on those issues to the radical elements seemed like a pretty viable strategy since they weren't important enough to bump out more moderates than you gained in extremists.
I think it goes beyond that though. We aren't just talking about unpopular or immoral policies, we're talking about impossible ones. Trump's border wall is utter lunacy from a financial and civil engineering point of view, no matter what your opinion of "should we close the border" is. It simply can not be done, end of discussion. But when the "moderate" candidate says, while emphasizing that he still wants to fight illegal immigration, that Trump's policies are impossible and we should look for more realistic solutions, he's treated as a traitor to the party and the mob cheers on Trump's insanity. That's not just being a racist , it's actively rejecting the idea that we should even consider caring about what is possible to achieve and what is wishful thinking.
This means that the moderates really on the fence are going to be more likely to lean dem, the moderates that already lean dem are going be a stone cold lock, and even most of the republican leaning moderates are going to grit their teeth and make the choice that doesn't make them a pariah. In the end? Who do you have left? Well, these guys: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html?src=vidm and I suppose the few holdouts willing to ignore those guys because the republicans are really the only ones with anywhere close to the political firepower to challenge the elements of the democratic party they dislike and either willing to take the social hit of being associated with those guys.
I don't think this really covers it. The percentages voting for each party have been fairly constant around a 50/50 split, we haven't seen some kind of mass defection away from the republican party. The same people, largely, are voting R. They've just moved farther and farther right, and now more and more of them are moving from "implement conservative government" into rage and insanity.
Yes, but this is not a good thing. We have a party that has decided to hold basic everyday functions of government, even ones that virtually everyone agrees on, hostage to their policy demands. It's like a kid crying and screaming about how they're not going to eat the cake they want you to give them unless you also give them a later bedtime. This is not normal or reasonable behavior.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 04:36:12
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Yes, but this is not a good thing. We have a party that has decided to hold basic everyday functions of government, even ones that virtually everyone agrees on, hostage to their policy demands. It's like a kid crying and screaming about how they're not going to eat the cake they want you to give them unless you also give them a later bedtime. This is not normal or reasonable behavior.
Again.
Don't act like this is new... it's an age-old problem with the way these parties pass bills.
Further more, ya'll are hyperventilating over the Planned Parenthood rider. Just admit to that... the other riders are a non-issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 04:42:01
Prestor Jon wrote: It's not like Biden is young, spry and never says anything stupid and he goes on lots of diplomatic missions. If we're sending the VP or First Dude instead of the PotUS or SecState then it's not a serious negotiation it's just a token appearance. For a token appearance all you have to do is smile in the photo op, shake hands and enjoy the free food and drink.
You take that back! Vice President Joe Biden's recent visit to Australia was a sign of the deep importance American places on its relationship. His attendance at a football match was a key moment in the growing cultural understanding between our two countries and I won't hear otherwise.
“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.
Yes, but this is not a good thing. We have a party that has decided to hold basic everyday functions of government, even ones that virtually everyone agrees on, hostage to their policy demands. It's like a kid crying and screaming about how they're not going to eat the cake they want you to give them unless you also give them a later bedtime. This is not normal or reasonable behavior.
Again.
Don't act like this is new... it's an age-old problem with the way these parties pass bills.
Further more, ya'll are hyperventilating over the Planned Parenthood rider. Just admit to that... the other riders are a non-issue.
The other riders are an issue. But since you want to focus on the one, that one is also unacceptable. You are talking about a rider that will not allow a medical facility to provide medically relevant information to a patient.
How would you feel about a similar rider in regards to AIDS?
Patient: "Okay, so I have AIDS. How does that effect my pregnancy/future sex partners?"
PP: "I am sorry, we cannot tell you that."
Patient: "Is that not relevant information though? This is an STD and it can be carried on to my child, correct?"
PP: "We cannot confirm nor deny that."
Do you not see how that becomes an issue of public health. You will have people leaving the PP clinic thinking that if it were to be a problem, they would have surely been told about it. But instead they think everything is fine. As a person claiming to be a medical professional, you should be the last person who defends this sort of ridiculous behavior.
Now, you want to talk about the other ridiculous riders your party threw on their just to torpedo the bill?
Peregrine wrote: The sad thing is I don't think the crazies are really "the fringes" anymore.
Yeah, this is true. I don't know why I said "on the fringes". I've been rabbiting on about the radical fringe taking over the Republican party for about 10 years now, so I don't know why I let it sound like they were still on the outer of the party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: FBI ask DoJ to formally open a public integrity investigation into the Clinton Foundation...
And were told no, because there wasn't any evidence of wrong doing.
And of course, there's this quote in the article, "For there to be criminal conflict of interest there would have to be evidence showing a government employee received something of value in exchange, such as a job post-employment or money. There doesn't appear to be anything so far suggesting that in the newly released, heavily redacted emails from Judicial Watch."
Where Republicans do something utterly horrible, and then Republican supporters say 'both sides'. Yeah, that is American politics.
Remains a mystery why Republican supporters keep condoning it, though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/11 05:00:43
“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.
whembly wrote: Don't act like this is new... it's an age-old problem with the way these parties pass bills.
Except it is new. In the past both parties understood that the daily business of government has to get done, and it's possible to work with the other side on items of mutual interest. Normally this is how things work:
I want A and you don't, you want B and I don't. I agree to support B in exchange for your support on A, and we pass both bills.
I want A and you also want A. We pass A, and issue some press releases congratulating ourselves on our gracious act of bipartisanship for the good of the nation.
But it doesn't really work like that anymore. Now we have a party where petty obstructionism and artificial crises are the standard strategy and the formerly-routine business of governing the country is no longer allowed to happen. Instead we get:
I want A and you don't, you want B and I don't. No matter what I offer you in support of B (or anything else you want) you refuse to support A, simply because I want it and you refuse to let me get anything I want.
I want A and you also want A. You refuse to support A unless I also give you B, C and D (none of which have anything to do with A), not because you have anything against A, but simply because you see an opportunity to make more demands.
We saw this with the debt ceiling crisis. Suddenly a routine increase in the ceiling, as every congress and president in the past had done regardless of party, was a crisis and an opportunity to make demands. Did the republican party sincerely oppose the increase? Of course not, the exact same people had happily voted to increase it in the past. But they saw an opportunity in the fact that the democrats would be reluctant to risk the consequences of failing to pay our debts and came up with a list of demands that had to be met before they'd support an increase. And it worked, much like a screaming child can get concessions from a parent because they'll do anything for some peace and quiet. But it's not the kind of behavior that you expect from mature adults.
Further more, ya'll are hyperventilating over the Planned Parenthood rider. Just admit to that... the other riders are a non-issue.
I really don't see what your point here is. Do you honestly feel like "you're objecting to this awful thing my party did more than these other awful things my party did" is a good argument?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Don't act like this is new... it's an age-old problem with the way these parties pass bills.
No, the age old way to pass a bill is, as you said earlier, 'give and take'. I get something I want, and you get something you want. But there is no give and take here. Everyone wants the funding for Zika. But Republicans are conditioning their support on getting a bunch of other stuff. This is Republicans saying that in order for them to 'give' and support the Zika funding, they get to take a bunch of stuff on their pet issues.
Further more, ya'll are hyperventilating over the Planned Parenthood rider. Just admit to that... the other riders are a non-issue.
I'm bothered by the existence of any riders being included in a bill for a health emergency. You shouldn't have to bribe one half of politics just to get them to provide funding for the health of babies.
“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.
Republicans care about babies when it comes to planned parenthood and abortion, but suddenly don't care and try to sink the bill when it comes to a life ruining disease.
Is that the jist of what I'm reading right now?
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
Crazyterran wrote: Republicans care about babies when it comes to planned parenthood and abortion, but suddenly don't care and try to sink the bill when it comes to a life ruining disease.
Is that the jist of what I'm reading right now?
As George Carlin put it, Republicans only care about babies either before they're born, or when they're old enough to join the military. In between that, they're screwed.
Anyway, it seems Hillary isn't the only one with VIP guest list problems.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
sebster wrote: I think the real story though was the sheer number of crazies on the fringes. Carson is totally fething bonkers, and he still commands a real audience within the base. This tells me that the culture that's more and more the voters in the Republican party just don't care about boring stuff like effectively managing the country. It's about a sending a message about whatever stupid cause they believe in - want to prove you're a true Christian then Carson is your man, want to stick it to Muslims and political correctness then you vote Trump, if you worship at the shrine of business then you pick Fiorina. It just didn't matter that none of these people had the slightest clue about what they would actually do in government.
The sad thing is I don't think the crazies are really "the fringes" anymore. The moment that stands out to me is in the republican debates, when Kasich dared to suggest that a border wall and mass deportations would cost an obscene amount of money and aren't realistic plans. The immediate response from everyone else? Accusing him of being soft on illegal immigration and letting all the Mexicans be lazy welfare parasites (and simultaneously steal all of our jobs), and emphasizing the need to build a border wall and have mass deportations. The voters don't want a sensible candidate saying "we should enact conservative policies within the bounds of what is possible", they want someone to pander to their masturbatory fantasies of how things should be. The awkward truth is that it's the "mainstream" republican party now, not the fringes, doing this stuff. And I don't really see any way to fix the problem.
This is because everything that the republican party and conservationism in general represents: Limited rights for women & the LGBT community, resentment towards minorities, hawkishness and trickle-down economics are increasingly things that have more rapidly than anyone had imagined, become unpalatable to the american public. If 15 years ago you'd asked me if we'd have a black president, mainstream acceptance of gay marriage and "income inequality" as a popular buzzword I'd have laughed my ass off and said "Maybe in 50 years, if some magic gay leprechaun douses the american public with pixie dust". I'm sure in the faily recent past conceding on those issues to the radical elements seemed like a pretty viable strategy since they weren't important enough to bump out more moderates than you gained in extremists.
It's no secret that outside the areas where they have saturation of support the general image of the republic party conjures up some mixed imagery of Mr.Burns & Yosemite Sam in much of the public eyes. The accuracy of that image aside, that perception exists.That perception has been and will continue over time being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their stances on social issues are just costing them big time, in a way I don't think they could have previously predicted.
If you're a relatively moderate person that even leans republican on many issues (obamacare, regulation, millitary spending) you're still going to be wary of aligning yourself with the republic party. That's because at thanksgiving dinner when everyone starts talking about news, you don't want your gay cousin and that family friend who married a Brazilian dude giving you funny looks.
In contrast the moderate person who maybe leans a bit democrat say on the environment and tax policy, despite their being a hardcore gun rights advocate is going to have less reservations about aligning with the democrats. I mean maybe they'll have a few uncles who go on whembly-esqe "But hillary is a liar" rants as they're waiting for the turkey, but in the end they'll just laugh you off as big naive, and you won't get any dirty looks from anyone. Unless you're cut from extremely conserative cloth, nobody you know is going to feel personally attacked by your political alignment. There's no "Thanksgiving Dinner" problem with the moderate crowd that goes democrat.
This means that the moderates really on the fence are going to be more likely to lean dem, the moderates that already lean dem are going be a stone cold lock, and even most of the republican leaning moderates are going to grit their teeth and make the choice that doesn't make them a pariah. In the end? Who do you have left? Well, these guys: http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html?src=vidm and I suppose the few holdouts willing to ignore those guys because the republicans are really the only ones with anywhere close to the political firepower to challenge the elements of the democratic party they dislike and either willing to take the social hit of being associated with those guys.
This is probably one of the best summaries I have read of the impact of the extremism on a personal level.
Crazyterran wrote: Republicans care about babies when it comes to planned parenthood and abortion, but suddenly don't care and try to sink the bill when it comes to a life ruining disease.
Is that the jist of what I'm reading right now?
Yup. Can't abort a foetus but it is perfectly okay to let children be born who will be dead within two years because their parents couldn't get medical information and help which would only cost a measly billion dollars.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Donald Trump on Wednesday repeatedly called President Barack Obama the "founder" of ISIS and labeled Hillary Clinton the "co-founder."
At a rally in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Trump also said that ISIS "honors" Obama -- who the GOP nominee referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama."
After lamenting the "mistake" the US made by going to war in Iraq -- a conflict he repeatedly says that he opposed, despite evidence to the contrary -- Trump then criticized Obama's attempts to "clean up."
"Normally you want to clean up; he made a bigger mess out of it. He made such a mess. And then you had Hillary with Libya, so sad," Trump said.
"In fact, in many respects, you know they honor president Obama. ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS, OK? He's the founder. He founded ISIS."
He then said that the "co-founder" of ISIS was Clinton.
On CNBC Thursday morning, Trump doubled down on his comments.
"He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely," Trump said. "The way he removed our troops -- you shouldn't have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it."
"That mistake was made. It was a horrible mistake -- one of the worst mistakes in the history of our country. We destabilized the Middle East and we've been paying the price for it for years. He was the founder -- absolutely, the founder. In fact, in sports they have awards, he gets the most valuable player award. Him and Hillary. I mean she gets it, too. I gave them co-founder if you really looked at the speech."
What the what? So Obama "founded" Isis because he withdrew troops that Trump says should never have been there in the first place (even though he apparently told Howard Stern in 2002 that he did)? Troops that Bush sent in. Oh, but his middle name is "Hussein" so that explains it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 14:53:46
Well, one could give Trump the benefit of the doubt and say he doesn't seem to understand the definition of basic English words, like "founder" and "co-founder."
I miss the days when we had presidents like Jackson who would respond by challenging such insults to a duel in appropriate manly fashion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 15:01:39
-"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!
Frazzled wrote: Well, one could give Trump the benefit of the doubt and say he doesn't seem to understand the definition of basic English words, like "founder" and "co-founder."
I miss the days when we had presidents like Jackson who would respond by challenging such insults to a duel in appropriate manly fashion.
Say what you want about his policies, no one can challenge the fact that Jackson was a bad ass.
Frazzled wrote: Well, one could give Trump the benefit of the doubt and say he doesn't seem to understand the definition of basic English words, like "founder" and "co-founder."
I miss the days when we had presidents like Jackson who would respond by challenging such insults to a duel in appropriate manly fashion.
I would pay to see this. It would be the best duel ever. It would be yuge.
Frazzled wrote: Well, one could give Trump the benefit of the doubt and say he doesn't seem to understand the definition of basic English words, like "founder" and "co-founder."
I miss the days when we had presidents like Jackson who would respond by challenging such insults to a duel in appropriate manly fashion.
Say what you want about his policies, no one can challenge the fact that Jackson was a bad ass.
Frazzled wrote: Well, one could give Trump the benefit of the doubt and say he doesn't seem to understand the definition of basic English words, like "founder" and "co-founder."
I miss the days when we had presidents like Jackson who would respond by challenging such insults to a duel in appropriate manly fashion.
I would pay to see this. It would be the best duel ever. It would be yuge.
I see what you did there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 15:12:29
-"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!
I really don't see what your point here is. Do you honestly feel like "you're objecting to this awful thing my party did more than these other awful things my party did" is a good argument?
No.
I'm asking you to own up to the fact that Planned Parenthood would NOT be the recipient of federal tax dollars in this bill, is such a horrible thing, that you're supporting the Democrats to deep-six this bill.
This is new money allocated to a program....
This bill does NOT, in any way, endanger the very existence of Planned Parenthood, but because they are a major constituent of the Democratic Party... not being able to have access to the money trough is too simply too much.
Donald Trump on Wednesday repeatedly called President Barack Obama the "founder" of ISIS and labeled Hillary Clinton the "co-founder." At a rally in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Trump also said that ISIS "honors" Obama -- who the GOP nominee referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama."
After lamenting the "mistake" the US made by going to war in Iraq -- a conflict he repeatedly says that he opposed, despite evidence to the contrary -- Trump then criticized Obama's attempts to "clean up."
"Normally you want to clean up; he made a bigger mess out of it. He made such a mess. And then you had Hillary with Libya, so sad," Trump said.
"In fact, in many respects, you know they honor president Obama. ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS, OK? He's the founder. He founded ISIS."
He then said that the "co-founder" of ISIS was Clinton.
On CNBC Thursday morning, Trump doubled down on his comments.
"He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely," Trump said. "The way he removed our troops -- you shouldn't have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it."
"That mistake was made. It was a horrible mistake -- one of the worst mistakes in the history of our country. We destabilized the Middle East and we've been paying the price for it for years. He was the founder -- absolutely, the founder. In fact, in sports they have awards, he gets the most valuable player award. Him and Hillary. I mean she gets it, too. I gave them co-founder if you really looked at the speech."
What the what? So Obama "founded" Isis because he withdrew troops that Trump says should never have been there in the first place (even though he apparently told Howard Stern in 2002 that he did)? Troops that Bush sent in. Oh, but his middle name is "Hussein" so that explains it.
No... it's an old complaint from the Obama critics...
By pulling American troops out of Iraq to keep his campaign promise before the 2012 election, Obama's actions left a power vacuum that made it easy for ISIS to grow and thrive.
That's indisputable.
EDIT: I'll concede trump seems to be implying 'willful' creation, which is fething nutso.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/11 15:49:15
I really don't see what your point here is. Do you honestly feel like "you're objecting to this awful thing my party did more than these other awful things my party did" is a good argument?
No.
I'm asking you to own up to the fact that Planned Parenthood would NOT be the recipient of federal tax dollars in this bill, is such a horrible thing, that you're supporting the Democrats to deep-six this bill.
This is new money allocated to a program....
This bill does NOT, in any way, endanger the very existence of Planned Parenthood, but because they are a major constituent of the Democratic Party... not being able to have access to the money trough is too simply too much.
Donald Trump on Wednesday repeatedly called President Barack Obama the "founder" of ISIS and labeled Hillary Clinton the "co-founder."
At a rally in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Trump also said that ISIS "honors" Obama -- who the GOP nominee referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama."
After lamenting the "mistake" the US made by going to war in Iraq -- a conflict he repeatedly says that he opposed, despite evidence to the contrary -- Trump then criticized Obama's attempts to "clean up."
"Normally you want to clean up; he made a bigger mess out of it. He made such a mess. And then you had Hillary with Libya, so sad," Trump said.
"In fact, in many respects, you know they honor president Obama. ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS, OK? He's the founder. He founded ISIS."
He then said that the "co-founder" of ISIS was Clinton.
On CNBC Thursday morning, Trump doubled down on his comments.
"He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely," Trump said. "The way he removed our troops -- you shouldn't have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it."
"That mistake was made. It was a horrible mistake -- one of the worst mistakes in the history of our country. We destabilized the Middle East and we've been paying the price for it for years. He was the founder -- absolutely, the founder. In fact, in sports they have awards, he gets the most valuable player award. Him and Hillary. I mean she gets it, too. I gave them co-founder if you really looked at the speech."
What the what? So Obama "founded" Isis because he withdrew troops that Trump says should never have been there in the first place (even though he apparently told Howard Stern in 2002 that he did)? Troops that Bush sent in. Oh, but his middle name is "Hussein" so that explains it.
No... it's an old complaint from the Obama critics...
By pulling American troops out of Iraq to keep his campaign promise before the 2012 election, Obama's actions left a power vacuum that made it easy for ISIS to grow and thrive.
That's indisputable.
EDIT: I'll concede trump seems to be implying 'willful' creation, which is fething nutso.
And going to war in iraq started it all that is indisputable
, it's actively rejecting the idea that we should even consider caring about what is possible to achieve and what is wishful thinking.
