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.
Honestly I don't actually have any issue with that.
Trump has been a complete ass on the subject of John McCain ever since McCain in a rather poetic moment nixed the Republican tear down of the ACA, and by "been a complete ass" I mean "has acted like a spoiled brat."
To have the White House come out now and give some puff bit about McCain would be so transparently patronizing it would be an insult, not that Trump recognizes that. He's just going to keep being a spoiled brat about that vote.
True, they could have shown some grace about it though. McCain is dead and Trump is still nursing grudges. It says more about the man himself than anything else.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
“I don’t think it bothers John one bit. If we heard something today or tomorrow from Trump, we know it’d mean less than a degree from Trump University.”
Damn, that is just brutal.
And I'm not surprised Trump would botch such an easy task. He's shown from day one that he's incapable of basic tasks of government, no matter how easy a win they're supposed to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/27 08:00:56
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.
There are criticisms that can be levied against McCain, he certainly wasn't a perfect person or politician but at various times in his life, during his military and political career when he found himself in situations that allowed him to show his character, he showed a level of integrity and courage that we should do a better job of demanding from all of our leaders. The systems we've put in place are too big to be changed by just one person regardless of the office or position they hold but when leaders decide to take a stand and fight the good fight we need to respect it and be willing to hold ourselves to a similar standard.
...
So-called superdelegates – members of the Democratic National Committee, elected officials, and other party elders who are allowed to support any presidential nominee they choose – will now be barred from voting on the first ballot to select the nominee at the 2020 Democratic convention unless a candidate has already earned enough pledged delegates through the state caucus and primary elections to secure the nomination. Superdelegates will only be allowed to weigh in on the first ballot if no candidate has earned a majority of pledged delegates and a second ballot is required to choose a nominee – though no convention has gone to multiple ballots since 1952.
The aim of the reforms, DNC Chairman Tom Perez wrote in a letter to DNC members, was to address a “perceived lack of transparency in our presidential primary process” and “perceptions of undue influence in favor of particular candidates.” He was referring to frustrations voiced by those who supported Sanders that the vast majority of superdelegates – who represented about 15 percent of the total delegates – publicly backed then-candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. They did not ultimately change the outcome of the election, but Clinton needed those delegates to clinch the nomination.
...
Well, good for them. They received criticism about this, and the perceived injustice was partly responsible for costing the Democrats the presidency.
So they try to fix the problem. Whether it's the fix needed or not remains to be seen, but I must admit I never saw the point of these superdelegates anyway, so little of value is lost either way.
Prestor Jon wrote:There are criticisms that can be levied against McCain, he certainly wasn't a perfect person or politician but at various times in his life, during his military and political career when he found himself in situations that allowed him to show his character, he showed a level of integrity and courage that we should do a better job of demanding from all of our leaders. The systems we've put in place are too big to be changed by just one person regardless of the office or position they hold but when leaders decide to take a stand and fight the good fight we need to respect it and be willing to hold ourselves to a similar standard.
I remember that - in particular I remember that Fox was very critical of McCain for saying this, even CNN was asking if it had hurt him with his base beyond recovery.
At the time I was very critical of his response, the whole implicit notion that one couldn't be of Arab decent and be a decent man (let alone president!) rubbed me the wrong way; but I can appreciate now, more than then, that he might have been courting this sentiment abstractly (much the same way Clinton did during their primary) but when confronted with it face to face he had to push back against it.
If nothing else, in that moment I see a man deciding he'd rather be a decent man than be president.
...
So-called superdelegates – members of the Democratic National Committee, elected officials, and other party elders who are allowed to support any presidential nominee they choose – will now be barred from voting on the first ballot to select the nominee at the 2020 Democratic convention unless a candidate has already earned enough pledged delegates through the state caucus and primary elections to secure the nomination. Superdelegates will only be allowed to weigh in on the first ballot if no candidate has earned a majority of pledged delegates and a second ballot is required to choose a nominee – though no convention has gone to multiple ballots since 1952.
The aim of the reforms, DNC Chairman Tom Perez wrote in a letter to DNC members, was to address a “perceived lack of transparency in our presidential primary process” and “perceptions of undue influence in favor of particular candidates.” He was referring to frustrations voiced by those who supported Sanders that the vast majority of superdelegates – who represented about 15 percent of the total delegates – publicly backed then-candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. They did not ultimately change the outcome of the election, but Clinton needed those delegates to clinch the nomination.
...
I'm still not convinced that Sanders would have been a preferable pick to Clinton, so I'm scratching my head over this one. The point of the super delegates is to give candidates with national electability the extra push so they don't end up nominating people who infatuated the party hardliners but fall flat when trying to pitch those ideas to more skeptical audiences.
And, you know, to keep national embarrassments from steamrolling the nomination process.
...
So-called superdelegates – members of the Democratic National Committee, elected officials, and other party elders who are allowed to support any presidential nominee they choose – will now be barred from voting on the first ballot to select the nominee at the 2020 Democratic convention unless a candidate has already earned enough pledged delegates through the state caucus and primary elections to secure the nomination. Superdelegates will only be allowed to weigh in on the first ballot if no candidate has earned a majority of pledged delegates and a second ballot is required to choose a nominee – though no convention has gone to multiple ballots since 1952.
The aim of the reforms, DNC Chairman Tom Perez wrote in a letter to DNC members, was to address a “perceived lack of transparency in our presidential primary process” and “perceptions of undue influence in favor of particular candidates.” He was referring to frustrations voiced by those who supported Sanders that the vast majority of superdelegates – who represented about 15 percent of the total delegates – publicly backed then-candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. They did not ultimately change the outcome of the election, but Clinton needed those delegates to clinch the nomination.
...
I'm still not convinced that Sanders would have been a preferable pick to Clinton, so I'm scratching my head over this one. The point of the super delegates is to give candidates with national electability the extra push so they don't end up nominating people who infatuated the party hardliners but fall flat when trying to pitch those ideas to more skeptical audiences.
And, you know, to keep national embarrassments from steamrolling the nomination process.
Like what happened when Trump won the primary.
We'd have an establishment pick (Jeb!) had the GOP used Super Delegates. (and would've loss his ass off against HRC).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/27 15:16:27
Seeing as how the superdelegates went with the winner of the popular vote last time, this seems like a symbolic but meaningless gesture for 99.9% of the primaries.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: Seeing as how the superdelegates went with the winner of the popular vote last time, this seems like a symbolic but meaningless gesture for 99.9% of the primaries.
Yes, even without the super delegates, Clinton won the primary. However, the DNC really didn't hand the PR well when accused of putting their thumb on the scale toward Clinton.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Seeing as how the superdelegates went with the winner of the popular vote last time, this seems like a symbolic but meaningless gesture for 99.9% of the primaries.
Except the whole voter discouragement effect that has plenty of lingering resentment after the super delegates put the vote requirements for anyone else to win at well over the popular vote.
Close as things were if they're going to echo the popular vote anyway, why bother keeping them when you lost voters to them last time?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Seeing as how the superdelegates went with the winner of the popular vote last time, this seems like a symbolic but meaningless gesture for 99.9% of the primaries.
Yep. It's also quite entertaining that Sanders was touting it as a change for "our" party when he announced he left it, again.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Seeing as how the superdelegates went with the winner of the popular vote last time, this seems like a symbolic but meaningless gesture for 99.9% of the primaries.
Except the whole voter discouragement effect that has plenty of lingering resentment after the super delegates put the vote requirements for anyone else to win at well over the popular vote.
Close as things were if they're going to echo the popular vote anyway, why bother keeping them when you lost voters to them last time?
The problem is that the voters weren't lost strictly because of that, it was because of a divisive petty little man who tried to coopt the party for his own gains.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/27 15:30:49
Prestor Jon wrote: There are criticisms that can be levied against McCain, he certainly wasn't a perfect person or politician but at various times in his life, during his military and political career when he found himself in situations that allowed him to show his character, he showed a level of integrity and courage that we should do a better job of demanding from all of our leaders. The systems we've put in place are too big to be changed by just one person regardless of the office or position they hold but when leaders decide to take a stand and fight the good fight we need to respect it and be willing to hold ourselves to a similar standard.
I don’t know if the people running his campaign got away from him, or if he got caught up in the populism that started to emerge with Palin, but the two most significant moments in his presidential campaign for me were this clip, and his concession speech. When he mentioned Obama and people booed, his face and posture said so much. I don’t know if he blamed himself, but it’s almost like he could tell the change that had started and what the future would bring. If felt like there was a real sense of sadness on his part that people were booing the future president.
Welp, that's probably not going to help Donny boy.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Also, on McCain and his death being politicized already. There are complaints that the flag at the White House is back to full mast. They day off and the day after for a Senator is the standard and follows the flag code, so there is nothing wrong with that. I wouldn’t expect Trump to go out of his way to honor him, and if he does then you end up running into the argument about which Senators are “better” than others to deserve more days.
For me, my flag will remain at half-mast until his burial though.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Seeing as how the superdelegates went with the winner of the popular vote last time, this seems like a symbolic but meaningless gesture for 99.9% of the primaries.
Except the whole voter discouragement effect that has plenty of lingering resentment after the super delegates put the vote requirements for anyone else to win at well over the popular vote.
Close as things were if they're going to echo the popular vote anyway, why bother keeping them when you lost voters to them last time?
But where would you draw the line at the voter discouragement effect? Winning early primaries could have a discouragement effect, would you keep results secret until all 50 states voted? Its just moving the line on where the effect is. Would you publically gag the superdelegates too?
And would the superdelegates really have stuck with the loser of the popular vote? Lets not forget that Sanders' team tried to lobby after losing the popular vote.
Why bother keeping them? Exactly to prevent a Trump candidate. Is winning the general election so important that as a party you let a dangerously incompetent idiot win and run the US?
Hardly, Canada hasn't involved itself in talks so far and the incoming Mexican president has already stated he wants to make changes. The US has five days to work everything out with Canada before that happens, it took over a year so far. Its unlikely to be finished quickly enough in its current form to be passed before he takes office. Don't count your ducks and all that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/27 15:56:57
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
But where would you draw the line at the voter discouragement effect? Winning early primaries could have a discouragement effect, would you keep results secret until all 50 states voted? Its just moving the line on where the effect is. Would you publically gag the superdelegates too?
And would the superdelegates really have stuck with the loser of the popular vote? Lets not forget that Sanders' team tried to lobby after losing the popular vote.
Why bother keeping them? Exactly to prevent a Trump candidate. Is winning the general election so important that as a party you let a dangerously incompetent idiot win and run the US?
I'd be more concerned about electing an idiot if my party supported wide spread ignorance and rejection of reality. As it sits, yeah, trump is a solid argument for that kind of system, but the party that supports that stupidity is the one without a mechanism to prevent it's own stupidity.
Fixing it? Everyone votes in one day. No more election season, vote on one day, get it over with, stop pander tours to strategic places and actually win on policy. Super delegates sit around until the end of an election if they must exist at all and then at the end of it if results are close enough to be contested they're used to resolve it. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve besides declaring who the party itself supports rather than it's voters?
Toss in public holidays for primaries and election days and I'm a far happier camper than I am with the current system.
Trump is a symptom of people not feeling involved in primaries because of party politics. A wide spread of reasonable-ish candidates opposed by one raging moron because the moron managed to motivate people to vote. Why discourage people from voting and encourage more stupidity like him? Make their votes matter, engage people in politics rather than rule by the party.
But where would you draw the line at the voter discouragement effect? Winning early primaries could have a discouragement effect, would you keep results secret until all 50 states voted? Its just moving the line on where the effect is. Would you publically gag the superdelegates too?
And would the superdelegates really have stuck with the loser of the popular vote? Lets not forget that Sanders' team tried to lobby after losing the popular vote.
Why bother keeping them? Exactly to prevent a Trump candidate. Is winning the general election so important that as a party you let a dangerously incompetent idiot win and run the US?
I'd be more concerned about electing an idiot if my party supported wide spread ignorance and rejection of reality. As it sits, yeah, trump is a solid argument for that kind of system, but the party that supports that stupidity is the one without a mechanism to prevent it's own stupidity.
Fixing it? Everyone votes in one day. No more election season, vote on one day, get it over with, stop pander tours to strategic places and actually win on policy. Super delegates sit around until the end of an election if they must exist at all and then at the end of it if results are close enough to be contested they're used to resolve it. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve besides declaring who the party itself supports rather than it's voters?
Toss in public holidays for primaries and election days and I'm a far happier camper than I am with the current system.
Trump is a symptom of people not feeling involved in primaries because of party politics. A wide spread of reasonable-ish candidates opposed by one raging moron because the moron managed to motivate people to vote. Why discourage people from voting and encourage more stupidity like him? Make their votes matter, engage people in politics rather than rule by the party.
As your party does now, but could you make that guarentee in 8, 12 or 16 years? Its hard to say what the future holds. The party of stupidity lacked the mechanism, but it once was more rational, now the more rational party gets rid off the mechanism.
That would solve it, but how long would a crowded field need to campaign? The way its set up now gives some introduction period. It would probably be a better solution though, but that is already a huge change.
Well that is their purpose, the same could be said about the electors on the national level, what is their point if they just rubberstamp the popular vote? Why even have superdelegates if you can just give it to whoever got slighlty more regular delegates now? Its symbolic because in the case neither side gets a majority you're going to run into the same perception of bias and disillusionment voters feel when their candidate gets eliminated by them even though the other candidate didn't 'win'. Realistically what does it change when you already know who the pick of the superdelegates will be and the media will give some estimate? If it had been a tie someone would have had to be a pretty big dreamer to imagine the supers would have pulled Sanders over the line.
Trump isn't a symptom of that, if Trump was a symptom of people not feeling involved then why did they not go for Sanders? Is the feeling of being involved there any less? If anything the Republican party has been much heavier influenced by the regular people involved in the last 8 years. Its just that their regular people want Trump after being led there for the last 3 decades.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: Hardly, Canada hasn't involved itself in talks so far and the incoming Mexican president has already stated he wants to make changes. The US has five days to work everything out with Canada before that happens, it took over a year so far. Its unlikely to be finished quickly enough in its current form to be passed before he takes office. Don't count your ducks and all that.
Keep thinking change isn't coming. Note the date and time, and we'll check back in a year.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Hardly, Canada hasn't involved itself in talks so far and the incoming Mexican president has already stated he wants to make changes. The US has five days to work everything out with Canada before that happens, it took over a year so far. Its unlikely to be finished quickly enough in its current form to be passed before he takes office. Don't count your ducks and all that.
Keep thinking change isn't coming. Note the date and time, and we'll check back in a year.
So if we keep it as vague as possible we can count it as change? NAFTA was change, NAFTA 2 is change, I fail to see how exactly NAFTA 2 is any better than 1, except for it being more updated to the economy a few decades later. The US hasn't even gotten Mexico to agree to the parts the US really wants yet, the general part is always the easiest. Saying change is coming is just an empty slogan unless you actually have something to back up the fact that this time the US supposedly isn't getting "ripped off".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/27 16:25:42
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Shaking hands and saying you have a deal doesn’t mean you have a deal. But then again shaking hands and declaring he got a deal is one of Trump’s favorite lies.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Hardly, Canada hasn't involved itself in talks so far and the incoming Mexican president has already stated he wants to make changes. The US has five days to work everything out with Canada before that happens, it took over a year so far. Its unlikely to be finished quickly enough in its current form to be passed before he takes office. Don't count your ducks and all that.
Keep thinking change isn't coming. Note the date and time, and we'll check back in a year.
Nobody is saying that change wont possibly be coming. Just don't count on it being necessarily imminent, and certainly don't count on it being the great capitulation (or as some branded it on this board last year, "bending the knee") or economic time machine that many who seem particularly excited about NAFTA changes expect them to be.
Canada and Mexico have changes they woud like to see to the system, and I expect we'll most likely see some administrative and regulatory updates, some jiggering of rules to account for internet stuff and other techonologies that were in their infancies in the early 90's, but I think anyone expecting significant reversal of the previous 20 years trends and events will be disappointed. Car parts factories in Mexico are probably not going to move back to the US for instance.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
LordofHats wrote: Shaking hands and saying you have a deal doesn’t mean you have a deal. But then again shaking hands and declaring he got a deal is one of Trump’s favorite lies.
True... still needs to be ratified by Congress, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
LordofHats wrote: Shaking hands and saying you have a deal doesn’t mean you have a deal. But then again shaking hands and declaring he got a deal is one of Trump’s favorite lies.
To be fair he might actually believe that is how it works, seeing as he doesn't read - shaking hand and putting down a nice signature is probably the only involvement Trump has ever had in closing deals
LordofHats wrote: Shaking hands and saying you have a deal doesn’t mean you have a deal. But then again shaking hands and declaring he got a deal is one of Trump’s favorite lies.
True... still needs to be ratified by Congress, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
And Trump wants it to sunset every five years unless agreed upon by Canada, Mexico and the US each time, its a complete clusterfeth for a trade deal.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/27 16:37:51
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
LordofHats wrote: Shaking hands and saying you have a deal doesn’t mean you have a deal. But then again shaking hands and declaring he got a deal is one of Trump’s favorite lies.
True... still needs to be ratified by Congress, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
And Trump wants it to sunset every five years unless agreed upon by Canada, Mexico and the US each time, its a complete clusterfeth for a trade deal.
That's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too short. You need to have long term certainty here... sunsetting it every 10-12 is more reasonable.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
