2016 US Presidential election thread

[Jimbuna]

Oh christ....Trump/Palin.

No...my mind implodes just trying to contemplate it. :dead:

LOL :)

[Oberon]

Rick Perry

https://youtu.be/8-pSg1PbPa8?t=71

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34227778?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

[razark]

Rick Perry

https://youtu.be/8-pSg1PbPa8?t=71

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34227778?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
Oops.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'd really, really, really like to see Sanders vs Trump in the election. That would be absolutely hilarious.

[Oberon]

I'd really, really, really like to see Sanders vs Trump in the election. That would be absolutely hilarious.

https://unbrandedbreadnbutter.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/tumblr_mezy08dbze1qbm00wo1_500.gif

[Torplexed]

It looks like Club for Growth is now launching an offensive against Trump. The conservative plutocrats there want him knocked out of contention in the worst way.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-against-trump (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253655-club-for-growth-launches-campaign-against-trump)

[Onkel Neal]

I wish I could watch this debate in real time, it should be entertaining. Go, Carly!:yeah:

[Bubblehead1980]

I'd really, really, really like to see Sanders vs Trump in the election. That would be absolutely hilarious.


Absolutely. I admire Bernie, he is a good man, the Ron Paul of the left.However, I could never ever vote for him, his socialist beliefs are just in conflict with everything our nation is supposed to be and just won't work without crazy high taxes. Trump went to Wharton, is actually an intelligent man but speaks plainly, does not have anything to prove to anyone and is his own man, because does not have to get money from anyone.However, he has yet to get specific.I want substance before has my vote, but I do like his take no prisoners wrecking ball style, it is refreshing, and nice.Plus his immigration stance is what is needed.

Either way, it would be a great election with them two, hope it happens.

[Aktungbby]

TRUMP: running on Hitler's oratory:"we're gonna have a military so big nobody will mess with us"... and Kennedy's hair....:shifty: No wonder they call him 'the Donald"

[AVGWarhawk]

It looks like Club for Growth is now launching an offensive against Trump. The conservative plutocrats there want him knocked out of contention in the worst way.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-against-trump (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253655-club-for-growth-launches-campaign-against-trump)

In a small room packed with lights and TV cameras at the National Press Club, Club for Growth President David McIntosh declared: “Donald Trump has the worst [economic] record in the entire field with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders.”

It made little difference in electing BO first term. They will need more substance to bury Trump.

[Mr Quatro]

If you pick someone you like now ... you probably won't like him or her later :woot:

I still like Jeb Bush ... he sure does have a long way to go though :yep:

[Oberon]

Quick question...do Republican candidates think that if they say Ronald Reagan enough times that he'll magically appear, like Bloody Mary? :hmmm:

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Nah I don't think it's that but, I wonder if it's because Reagan is the "god" of some secret conservative religion. So by evoking the name of Reagan that some how that means they'll win.:O:

[Torplexed]

It's the rut we're in. In every presidential election cycle the Democrats try to recapture the Kennedy magic and the Republicans try to raise Ronnie from the dead. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Kennedy and Reagan are among the most flattered politicians in history. :shifty:

[Oberon]

I listened to a fair bit of the debate last night, and oh dear...yeah, there was a lot of bluster, a lot of doom-mongering and fear-mongering, a lot of bickering and a fair slice of over-reaction.

So, pretty standard fare. :dead:

[Oberon]

I think Bernie nailed the mood of the night:

Trump. What a pleasant and humble person. Can't stop saying kind and generous things about his fellow Republicans.

Okay. Let's vote for Reagan. Sounds better than any of these guys.

[HunterICX]

I listened to a fair bit of the debate last night, and oh dear...yeah, there was a lot of bluster, a lot of doom-mongering and fear-mongering, a lot of bickering and a fair slice of over-reaction.

So, pretty standard fare. :dead:

Sounds like Denethor from Lord of the Rings

[August]

Quick question...do Republican candidates think that if they say Ronald Reagan enough times that he'll magically appear, like Bloody Mary? :hmmm:

Ronald Reagan comes back as a delicious morning cocktail? :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

I listened to a fair bit of the debate last night, and oh dear...yeah, there was a lot of bluster, a lot of doom-mongering and fear-mongering, a lot of bickering and a fair slice of over-reaction.



And rightly so. The country is a mess. There is no optimism any longer. The debate took place in a library dedicated to a very optimistic person who at the right time said the right things that Americans needed to hear. It was not by accident this place was selected.

We have come to a juncture at this point where the hard questions need to be answered. Foreign policy, economic policy, etc.

[Onkel Neal]

Agreed. I'd pay to watch Trump sputter through 3 hours of foreign policy questions.:shucks:

[GT182]

Bernie in Office would set us into a far worse recession than we're in now. I watched ol BS Sanders for years when I lived up in Northern NY. His not what you think he is. He'd actually be worse than the one now in the White House. Want to pay more taxes... then vote for him. He's worse than any Liberal I know of or have seen.

[vienna]

It's the rut we're in. In every presidential election cycle the Democrats try to recapture the Kennedy magic and the Republicans try to raise Ronnie from the dead. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Kennedy and Reagan are among the most flattered politicians in history. :shifty:

If you look back at the two, Reagan actually took quite a bit from the JFK playbook in order to get to the White House and used not a few of JFKs ideas while there. Middle-class tax cuts was an idea JFK was floating as President, but, of course, could not implement before his death. And who can forget Reagan's version 2.0 of JFKs Brandenburg Gate speech?...

JFK probably would have gotten a thumbs up from Reagan on some foreign policy matters: standing up to and facing down the USSR in Cuba and JFKs firm belief in the "Domino Theory" regarding communism (later altered in JFK following the experience of the early Vietnam War)...

Regan probably would have gotten a thumbs up from Kennedy for Reagan's 1986 Amnesty Act. The perception of JFK as a raging liberal and of Reagan as a raging conservative is a broad brush depiction of both men and very unfair to both. Great leaders are rarely, if ever, simple black & white figures or caricatures. Adaptability, openness to all ideas, and making tough decisions in the face of criticism from friend and foe are some of the qualities of great leadership. Some conservatives who are familiar with only the carefully crafted GOP image of Reagan are surprised when the "taint" of liberalism is shown to them in the true history of Reagan, but is it surprising given Reagan started out as a member of the Democratic Party? And some liberals are surprised when the harder conservative "taint" is shown in JFK; is it surprising given JFK came from a moneyed New England family with interests in the "Establishment's" concerns?...

http://www.creators.com/conservative/matthew-towery/jfk-and-ronald-reagan-two-quot-classic-liberals-quot-you-could-count-on.html


<O>

[Platapus]

This weekend, I was driving down I95 and I saw my first "Trump for President" Sticker.

So this is not some sort of joke?

[STEED]

Vote TRUMP for a exciting and dynamic future

http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/trump-hair.jpg

And a crazy hair style

[AVGWarhawk]

This weekend, I was driving down I95 and I saw my first "Trump for President" Sticker.

So this is not some sort of joke?

No. He is very serious. Trump has nothing to lose. He is financing his own campaign and is accept no donations. If anything, it will be a good time for Trump and a platform to say things that many are afraid to say.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Another one bites the dust.

From The New York Times
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.
Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scott-walker-said-to-be-quitting-presidential-race/ar-AAezuUi?li=AAa0dzB

[August]

He is financing his own campaign and is accept no donations.

Actually he is accepting donations big and small.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/23/politics/donald-trump-donations-no-strings-attached-2016/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/donald-trump-fundraising/

[mapuc]

Can any one tell me, what kind of domestic and foreign policy, US would have, if Trump became the next President.

Markus

[u crank]

Can any one tell me, what kind of domestic and foreign policy, US would have, if Trump became the next President.

Markus

He's building a wall. :O:

[GT182]

Of all the GOP candidates running there are only 2 I'd vote for. Trump and Ben Carson. The rest are out to for themselves, not the people. Like Clinton is with the Democrats. :yep:

One other thing. Our votes are for naught. We do not elect the President of the Unites States. And do not believe those that tell you other wise. The Electoral College does. Do a search and read about it. It's outdated and has been for over 100 years.

If not one vote was cast by the people of this country, there would still be a "winner" because of the Electoral College.

[VipertheSniper]

Of all the GOP candidates running there are only 2 I'd vote for. Trump and Ben Carson. The rest are out to for themselves, not the people. Like Clinton is with the Democrats. :yep:

One other thing. Our votes are for naught. We do not elect the President of the Unites States. And do not believe those that tell you other wise. The Electoral College does. Do a search and read about it. It's outdated and has been for over 100 years.

If not one vote was cast by the people of this country, there would still be a "winner" because of the Electoral College.

I don't know much about Carson, but how in the hell is Trump in any way electable? How is a man who calls the populace of a whole country "rapists" electable? Also if Trump is in it for anyone but Trump i'd be highly surprised. He may not have to mince his words, because he can afford to piss off possible donors, but that doesn't mean he's in it for the people.

Also, what do you expect to change with Trump at the helm, I don't know how often on this forum I've read a lecture about how much power the POTUS actually has to influence domestic policy, and it wasn't that much and for Trump it's gonna be even worse, he may have the support of the GOP-base, but I think he'd face massive opposition in Washington from both sides of the aisle, which could very well mean to get anything done he'd have to bend over backwards anyway, eventhough his donations came with no strings attached.

My Prediction:
If he gets the Nomination, the GOP will most likely loose the election, in the unlikely case he gets elected he won't get more than one term.

[August]

My Prediction:
If he gets the Nomination, the GOP will most likely loose the election, in the unlikely case he gets elected he won't get more than one term.

I think that prediction is likely accurate, at least the first part. Who knows, there's a chance he'd actually do a good job... :roll:

But I don't know what scares me more. President Donald Trump or President Hillary Clinton. It'll be a choice between a spoiled rich boy adept at wasting Daddy's money or a crooked southern lawyer with a penchant for stealing White House furniture.

[Betonov]

or a crooked southern lawyer with a penchant for stealing White House furniture.

You have to jumpstart the lumber and furniture job growth somehow.

[Platapus]

Can any one tell me, what kind of domestic and foreign policy, US would have, if Trump became the next President.

Markus

Considering that I doubt that he would have the support of either side in congress, I would imagine that his administration would be one of acquiescence to the Republican controlled congress.

The only authority he would have would be to spend the executive budget that was already allocated.

Of course he could get us into another war. Although Trump may be the first president to bring the War Powers Act to the Supreme Court.

[Platapus]

One other thing. Our votes are for naught. We do not elect the President of the Unites States. And do not believe those that tell you other wise. The Electoral College does. Do a search and read about it. It's outdated and has been for over 100 years.

If not one vote was cast by the people of this country, there would still be a "winner" because of the Electoral College.

I might respectfully recommend that you do some research on the Electoral College. The only part of your post that was accurate was that the president is directly elected by the Electoral College.

While each state has their own legislation concerning how their electoral college works, There is no way any candidate can get an absolute majority minimum of 270 votes) if, as you wrote "not one vote was cast by the people" That is not how it works.

There have been more formal requests to change/abolish the Electoral College in the Consititution than any other issue (over 700 separate proposed amendments. None of them have succeeded. While the Electoral College is imperfect, it works and works rather well. It would work better than any other option brought up.

Like most part of our governmental foundation, it was a compromise, and historically, one of the better ones.

The power to elect the president still rests with the citizenry.... should they choose to use that power.

[Oberon]

Meanwhile Boehner departs position as Speaker of the House, prompting fears of imminent House Republican meltdown.

Esquire puts a nice spin on it:

Way I figure it is this. In their private chat yesterday, Boehner explained to the pope the problems he was having with the flying monkey caucus, and Papa Francesco who, after all, heads a bureaucracy with a long history as a seething cauldron of ambition, scandal, murder and betrayal, as well as a unique tradition of crazy institutional proceedings (See: Cadaver Synod (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Cadaver-Synod)), listened to Boehner's plight and said, mildly, "Jesus H. Christ in a Fiat, my son, these people crazy. Get out while you can." That's the way I'm going to figure it, anyway.

[Bilge_Rat]

http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/83d5f40/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ff0%2F3c%2F b4df79ad4b089b05da2469d1f1b4%2Fwuerker-0925.jpg

[vienna]

Boehner is not only quitting as House Speaker, he's leaving the House altogether. This means there is one more seat open in the House for the next election in 2016, unless whoever is put in as a placeholder can manage to win their own election...

I think Boehner has had the idea of stepping down for quite some time, but was just waiting until he could finish overseeing the Papal address to Congress. The address is the crowning achievement of his political career and, now that it is done, he's able to get out and let the GOP either straight out or implode on its own. I really can't fault him for quitting it all; the machinations of the various factions of the GOP would try the patience of Job. It will be interesting to see who will be the next Speaker and watch the possible bloodbath leading up to the appointment...


<O>

[Betonov]

I think Boehner has had the idea of stepping down for quite some time, but was just waiting until he could finish overseeing the Papal address to Congress. The address is the crowning achievement of his political career


So this papal visit was done by the republicans ??
I'd be surprised since the right wing media was foaming at the mouth everytime Papa Frenk was mentioned (video) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBNs_6_FXc4)
If Boehner was involved despite the venom I'm affraid you lost a very good republican.

[Oberon]

Boehner is not only quitting as House Speaker, he's leaving the House altogether. This means there is one more seat open in the House for the next election in 2016, unless whoever is put in as a placeholder can manage to win their own election...

I think Boehner has had the idea of stepping down for quite some time, but was just waiting until he could finish overseeing the Papal address to Congress. The address is the crowning achievement of his political career and, now that it is done, he's able to get out and let the GOP either straight out or implode on its own. I really can't fault him for quitting it all; the machinations of the various factions of the GOP would try the patience of Job. It will be interesting to see who will be the next Speaker and watch the possible bloodbath leading up to the appointment...


<O>

From what I can gather on another forum I lurk on, now that Boehner has gone forward with the announcement (which he didn't even prep his staff for since his spokesperson yesterday denied categorically rumours he was standing down) then he can actually help get a clean Continuing Appropriations Bill through which should hopefully put back a government shutdown until December 11th, by which time he'll be making a killing on the lecture circuit.

Of course, the key factor is whether he can get the GOP to pass a clean CR bill without screwdrivering in something to do with Planned Parenting. :doh:


I'd be surprised since the right wing media was foaming at the mouth everytime Papa Frenk was mentioned (video) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBNs_6_FXc4)
If Boehner was involved despite the venom I'm affraid you lost a very good republican.

Yes, got to love Jeb's "But I don’t get my economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope."
Nor his science policies from scientists it would seem...

I've been no big fan of Boehner, but he's been one of the more tempered voices in the House, I believe that McCarthy (no, not Joe, Kevin) is the favourite to take over from Boehner and I don't envy his job one bit. I also don't see the 11th December CR bill getting through, so it would probably be wise to start preparing for a December government shutdown.

[mapuc]

Another question

Will politics be the same or will it be big differences, or will it be small differences, depending on which Republican candidate winning the Presidential election(if one of them should win) ?
(hope you understand my question, I had hard time writing it and google translate translated it from Danish/swedish to not-so-correct-grammar-english)

Markus

[vienna]

So this papal visit was done by the republicans ??
I'd be surprised since the right wing media was foaming at the mouth everytime Papa Frenk was mentioned (video) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBNs_6_FXc4)
If Boehner was involved despite the venom I'm affraid you lost a very good republican.

The invitation to speak was apparently Boehner's own idea and effort. Boehner is a Catholic and has been trying to arrange a Papal address for around 20 years. He extended the invitation and has been very active in the preparations. The rest of the GOP has either been very cool or, in the case of some of the more Far Right members, rather hostile to the idea. There has been a long running animus against the Catholic Church in American history; I'm old enough to remember the remember the 1960 Presidential campaign and the vitriol leveled towards JFK (a Catholic) and the assertions JFKs election would result in a Vatican takeover of the US. The assertions came from both the GOP and the Southern States DEMs, who have since, for the most part, changed party and aligned themselves with the GOP...

There was an interest bit of history regarding the US government and the Vatican involving the building of the Washington Monument:


It was just one memorial stone that started the events that stopped the Congressional appropriation and ultimately construction altogether. In the early 1850s, Pope Puis IX contributed a block of marble. In March 1854, members of the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant American Party--better known as the "Know-Nothings"--stole the Pope's stone as a protest and supposedly threw it into the Potomac. Then, in order to make sure the Monument fit their definition of "American," the Know-Nothings conducted a fraudulent election so they could take over the entire Society.

Congress immediately rescinded its $200,000 contribution. The Know-Nothings retained control of the Society until 1858, adding 13 courses of the masonry to the Monument—all of which was of such poor quality that it was later removed. Unable to collect enough money to finish work, they increasingly lost public support. The Know-Nothings eventually gave up and returned all records to the original Society, but the stoppage in construction continued into, then after, the Civil War.

http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/62wash/62facts3.htm

...plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...


<O>

[Platapus]

"better known as the "Know-Nothings"

I am afraid that in American politics this does not exactly narrow it down. :nope:

[Oberon]

It's funny you bring up about Kennedy and the Catholic issue, I was listening to the radio the other day and heard a representative from some Muslim rights group in America draw a parallel between that and the comments from Ben Carson the other day about how a Muslim should not be allowed to run for president.

[vienna]

It's funny you bring up about Kennedy and the Catholic issue, I was listening to the radio the other day and heard a representative from some Muslim rights group in America draw a parallel between that and the comments from Ben Carson the other day about how a Muslim should not be allowed to run for president.

I have heard some of the same talk by other news and talk shows. I think the comparison is a bit facile and self-serving. I don't recall the Vatican ever calling for 'death to America' or declaring a 'jihad' on Congress. Then, again, those who opposed KFK's election on the basis of religious bias may have feared a landing of the Swiss Guard, followed by a New Inquisition and the auto-da-fé. The whole religion as a disqualifier has amused me for a long time since SCOTUS is made up of six Catholic and three Jewish Justices. There had/has been relatively little outcry about their faiths tainting their decisions. But, for all we know, they may each be privately consulting the Bible (not King James') or the Torah and asking for guidance from the Vatican or Jerusalem....


<O>

[Torplexed]

Sorry for John-boy. His situation was untenable in a Party that is increasingly divided and has lost its way. Glad he woke up in time to recognize that it was time to move on and out. Perhaps having achieved his long-time goal of getting a Papal address to Congress he felt it was time to leave on a high note.

Seems like the GOP is being stripped down to its Confederate core. Which is ironic considering where it started.

[Oberon]

Meanwhile on Craigslist:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQ0sAwYWoAETIgY.png:large

[vienna]

Meanwhile on Craigslist:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQ0sAwYWoAETIgY.png:large


Is having orange skin optional?...


<O>

[razark]

Is having orange skin optional?
Why do you need to ask?
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/ranks/dealy.jpg

[Wolferz]

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/zu30457882_main_tm1442509645.jpg

[August]

http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq193/rdsterling/Vote%20Odin_zpscpwwixbl.jpg

[Bilge_Rat]

http://www.trbimg.com/img-1444391664/turbine/la-na-tt-radicals-scare-off-mccarthy-20151008-001/750

[August]

http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq193/rdsterling/vote%20for%20conan_zpswa55k8rt.jpg

[vienna]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/f6dc35904a7701330c0d005056a9545d



http://assets.amuniversal.com/f92937f04a7701330c0d005056a9545d


<O>

[Oberon]

Joe Biden announces that he will not be running in the Democratic primaries:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34594675?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

So that's the only real competition to the Bernie/Hilary power-house out of the way. Chafee, Lessig and O'Malley stand as much chance as Huckabee, Pataki or Santorum. :dead:

[AVGWarhawk]

The door is still open. Specifically if Hillary is hung out dry concerning the email issues.

[Oberon]

The door is still open. Specifically if Hillary is hung out dry concerning the email issues.

It's definitely her Achilles heel and whoever gets the Republican primaries will go after it like a shark after chum if Hillary gets the Democratic vote. Meanwhile Bernie is getting flak from the Dems because of his gun stance, it doesn't flow with the anti-gun crowd part of the Dems but might work in his favour when it comes to a national vote.
It's certainly going to be an interesting set of primaries, probably the most interesting in several elections I think, with Bernies left wing stance and Trump polling well with the Republicans with the second favourite changing but Trump always leading. I think it's Fiorina and Carson who are trailing Trump at the moment, isn't it? Jeb might make a comeback, I hear him and Trump are fighting over 9/11 at the moment, but we'll see.
It's interesting, certainly. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Bernie is a nut case. He wants free everything. Take from the rich to pay for it all. Even the rich run out of money eventually. The US is 18 trillion in debt. Bernie wants to add another 18 trillion. Sure..why not.

Hillary, she will get the nomination. This was orchestrated 8 years ago. She stepped down so the Dems could push Obama. She was offered Sec of State to keep her in the limelight. Plus, the position added to her resume. However, she handled the position poorly and this will be her undoing. Further, the US tires of the Clintons(we can throw Jeb Bush in this tired pile as well)

Trump is going to get himself in trouble with the wild talk. Everyday it gets more and more bizarre the things he says. He is almost getting close to being a loose cannon.

Then there is Ben Carson. Soft spoken. Appears to have his head and heart in the right place. Seems to be systematically studying issues across the US. Not a bad choice at all. However, his quiet demeanor worries me on the world stage.

I do not see any others running as viable candidates.

[Platapus]

Then there is Ben Carson. Soft spoken. Appears to have his head and heart in the right place. Seems to be systematically studying issues across the US. Not a bad choice at all. However, his quiet demeanor worries me on the world stage.



Is there another Ben Carson running that I don't know about?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/05/04/3646780/ben-carson-announcement/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-police-speech-colleges_5627b787e4b02f6a900eebbb

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/15/top-10-quotes-that-prove-neurosurgeon-ben-carson-doesnt-have-the-brain-to-be-president/

These are the things the Ben Carson I know of say. What does this other Ben Carson you were writing about say?

It is so confusing when evidently there are two candidates with the same name.

[vienna]

It's definitely her Achilles heel and whoever gets the Republican primaries will go after it like a shark after chum if Hillary gets the Democratic vote. Meanwhile Bernie is getting flak from the Dems because of his gun stance, it doesn't flow with the anti-gun crowd part of the Dems but might work in his favour when it comes to a national vote.
It's certainly going to be an interesting set of primaries, probably the most interesting in several elections I think, with Bernies left wing stance and Trump polling well with the Republicans with the second favourite changing but Trump always leading. I think it's Fiorina and Carson who are trailing Trump at the moment, isn't it? Jeb might make a comeback, I hear him and Trump are fighting over 9/11 at the moment, but we'll see.
It's interesting, certainly. :yep:

Benghazi is currently proving to be more of a potential liability to the GOP Far Right and any possible GOP Presidential candidate. Thus far, there have been seven (7) separate investigations by the Congress and other government agencies, including the FBI and, thus far, all have found no 'smoking gun' or culpability on Clinton's part; the last investigation before this current one was a bi-partisan, GOP-chaired Congressional panel whose rather thorough investigation was so non-productive (in terms of a hoped for GOP-favorable conclusion), they chose to release their findings after regular Congressional work hours, on a Friday, traditionally a tactic used to minimize embarrassment by avoiding the last regular news cycle of the work week and scrutiny and/or comment by the usual high-profile network newscasts an their anchors. Since then, the current Congressional panel has so far succeeded only in shooting themselves in the ass: some months ago, they released Clinton email documents they claimed were classified only to have it pointed out by the CIA, FBI, and other concerned agencies that the specified documents had already been publicly released, non-redacted, some months earlier and were, thus, neither classified at the time of release nor at the time of presentation by the current panel. The current panel has been plagued by such missteps in the intervening time, culminating in the past week and a half with a further release of 'classified' documents also claimed to 'illegally' held on the Clinton email server and/or 'illegally' released by Clinton; the documents were show to be, as in the case of the previous documents, to be neither 'classified' nor, 'illegally' held or released by Clinton. The panel GOP leadership then tried to make an issue of a 'classified', 'illegally' held Clinton document they said 'outed' a CIA operative; again, the document, in it's original form as held on the Clinton server, was neither classified nor did it have the CIA operative identified (IIRC, his name was redacted on the original declassified document); however, the GOP panel chair, when he revealed the document in question, produced and posted the document, unredacted, on the panel's website, effectively 'outing' the selfsame CIA operative. When the serious security error was pointed out to those guardians of national security, they removed the document and posted a redacted version, but as all the world knows, save for the GOP chair and his cronies, once something is on the Web, it never goes away. Now the GOP members of the panel are trying to save face by attempting to characterize the CIA operative as a 'source' for their investigation and trying to make it seem as if they knew what they were doing and intended the situation to unfold as it did, somewhat in the fashion of a person awkwardly stumbling and fumbling, nearly falling down and then proclaiming "I intended to do that!". One would think, after the huge embarrassment of the whole Bill Clinton Whitewater/Lewinsky/impeachment debacle, the GOP would take extra pains to be sure of their footing before they publicly expose to the electorate their feet are firmly planted up to the knees in their mouths or some other orifice...

I rather fear this new panel may hobble the prospective GOP candidate if they continue to engage in their Keystone Kops sort of activities and, in turn, serve only to burnish Clinton's image...

As far as Biden is concerned, it may very well be a very wise ploy on his part not to actively seek the DEM nomination now: if Clinton should crash and burn over the Benghazi/email issue, he can easily step in as a 'reluctant' alternative to Sanders for the bulk of the DEM constituency; if Clinton survives (which increasingly seems likely), he can let Clinton and Sanders take pot shots at each other, possibly resulting in a hung nominating convention, where the delegates may turn to him as a candidate by acclaim, which he can then 'reluctantly' accept the DEM nomination. Either way, Biden won't really have to spend too much time or effort and may have a payoff in the longer run...


<O>

[vienna]

Just now found this on Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-release-benghazi-testimony-top-clinton-aide-141910315--politics.html#


<O>

[Torplexed]

Well, between Boehner stepping down and Biden not running it's been a bad year for political Joes.

[AVGWarhawk]

Is there another Ben Carson running that I don't know about?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/05/04/3646780/ben-carson-announcement/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-police-speech-colleges_5627b787e4b02f6a900eebbb

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/15/top-10-quotes-that-prove-neurosurgeon-ben-carson-doesnt-have-the-brain-to-be-president/

These are the things the Ben Carson I know of say. What does this other Ben Carson you were writing about say?

It is so confusing when evidently there are two candidates with the same name.


That is the one and same. No different than the nutty things all the candidates say from time to time. And the links noted above, do any of the candidates have what it takes to be president? They jury is still out on the one in that position now.

[mapuc]

Some days ago I read in a online news paper Trump saying if he had been President during 2001, the terror attack would never have happened.

My personal thoughts: This "statement" was low.

It is so easy to say If I had been President then this or that would not have happen.
(This post is NOT about the terror attack 2001)

Markus

[AVGWarhawk]

Some days ago I read in a online news paper Trump saying if he had been President during 2001, the terror attack would never have happened.

My personal thoughts: This "statement" was low.

It is so easy to say If I had been President then this or that would not have happen.
(This post is NOT about the terror attack 2001)

Markus

Yes, Trump said under his policies 9/11 would not have happened. The problem here is Trump has no policies that I'm aware of. :hmm2:

[Torplexed]

So at the moment, Quinnipiac now has Carson in front of Trump in Iowa, 28% to 20%. Apparently Carson got a boost from woman voters.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2291

[darius359au]

Apparently the reason Carson is in front of Trump is iowans are brain damaged from monsanto corn....well apparently it wasn't trump who tweeted that but another "intern" http://theweek.com/speedreads/584844/donald-trump-insults-iowa-voters-monsanto-blames-intern?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=overnightfacebook
I'm suprised the guys got any interns left with all the mistakes and unauthorised tweets...gotta say though he does have the knack of coming up with the stupidest comments at exactly the right time to shoot himself in the foot:up:

[Jimbuna]

I thought Clinton did very well when she testified before the House committee on Benghazi yesterday.

Full text here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/

Interesting three minute video clip at the beginning.

[AVGWarhawk]

So at the moment, Quinnipiac now has Carson in front of Trump in Iowa, 28% to 20%. Apparently Carson got a boost from woman voters.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2291

Apparently the reason Carson is in front of Trump is iowans are brain damaged from monsanto corn....well apparently it wasn't trump who tweeted that but another "intern" http://theweek.com/speedreads/584844/donald-trump-insults-iowa-voters-monsanto-blames-intern?utm_source=links&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=overnightfacebook
I'm suprised the guys got any interns left with all the mistakes and unauthorised tweets...gotta say though he does have the knack of coming up with the stupidest comments at exactly the right time to shoot himself in the foot:up:

IMO Carson will get more of the women vote because Trump has already said some derogatory things to women over the years as well as just weeks ago to Carly Fiorina.

Trumps brain needs to catch up with his mouth.

[AVGWarhawk]

I thought Clinton did very well when she testified before the House committee on Benghazi yesterday.

Full text here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/

Interesting three minute video clip at the beginning.


In my minds eye Hillary was at the helm. 9/11 was on the horizon. Heightened awareness is the order of the day if not weeks in advance. Who dropped the ball?

[vienna]

I thought Clinton did very well when she testified before the House committee on Benghazi yesterday.

Full text here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/

Interesting three minute video clip at the beginning.


Clinton is a highly skilled lawyer with an impressive CV in legal matters; most of the members of Congress are not lawyers, or if they are, are generally not of the caliber of Clinton. If you take a layperson or a mediocre or less attorney and match them against a highly skilled lawyer, the results tend not to be too good for the former. I'm not at all surprised she did well; the Congressional panel really has nothing new to present or argue and is composed of either ill-equipped GOP members out on a political agenda or DEM members given to support and/or exculpate Clinton. The GOP panel members would have been better off if they had some sort of "smoking gun" item to present and with which to corner Clinton. Since they don't and, apparently, won't have any such leverage, they will tend to come across as a group of shrill politically motivated partisans rehashing the same old discredited arguments. It is said the definition of insanity is to repeat the same failed action, with the same parameters, over and over again expecting a different result; the GOP is coming dangerously close to meeting that definition, and, in the process, damaging the prospects of any GOP Presidential candidate's campaign and, also, further elevating Clinton's standing with the electorate. The 2016 Presidential election is up to the GOP to win or lose; they are not doing themselves a favor by constantly shooting themselves en derriere. Maybe it's time for the GOP to stop wasting time on petty peripheral political posturing and to start giving the voting public straight answers on practical solutions to problems the voters really care about...


<O>

[Torplexed]

Maybe it's time for the GOP to stop wasting time on petty peripheral political posturing and to start giving the voting public straight answers on practical solutions to problems the voters really care about...


<O>

Whether they are on the left or the right, political firebrands always seem to overplay their hand. If they had just left well enough alone, the Republicans would have had their "What difference does it make?" quote from Hillary to use in the campaign commercials. As it is, by trying to squeeze something bigger out of Benghazi, it's coming across even to the most casual observer as a fishing expedition in the Libyan desert.

[Oberon]

Whether they are on the left or the right, political firebrands always seem to overplay their hand. If they had just left well enough alone, the Republicans would have had their "What difference does it make?" quote from Hillary to use in the campaign commercials. As it is, by trying to squeeze something bigger out of Benghazi, it's coming across even to the most casual observer as a fishing expedition in the Libyan desert.

Well, from what I've heard Hillary did quite well with the advertising that the Republicans paid for her to have the other day. Eleven odd hours of it.

Meanwhile, the GOP has admitted that it lacks the votes to help pass the increase to the debt limit in order to avoid a US default with just over a week to go.

http://www.simscape.fr/images/VeryLowLevelWARN.png

[August]

Well, from what I've heard Hillary did quite well with the advertising that the Republicans paid for her to have the other day. Eleven odd hours of it.

She didn't get a bump in the polls from it though. Americans have by and large already made up their minds about her and nothing is going to change those percentages very much. I think she's toast unless the republicans manage to put up somebody actually worse than her which they are certainly capable of doing.

[vienna]

As it is, by trying to squeeze something bigger out of Benghazi, it's coming across even to the most casual observer as a fishing expedition in the Libyan desert.

Really liking that quip... :up:

Hilary may not have gotten a bump, but she didn't take a hit either, which is not good news for the GOP. Clinton still pretty much beats out all of the GOP current contenders, with the exception of the egotistical billionaire and the rather lackluster neurosurgeon, neither of whom may even survive the primaries. Even if one of them does, there are plenty of flaws in each to give pause to the voters on election day. Then again, the GOP did put non-starter Palin on their ticket and that worked out well....for the DEMS...

Bottom line, the White House is for the GOP to win or lose, and exercises like the current Benghazi hearings do little to advance their efforts, and more likely, will harm their quest...


<O>

[Oberon]

She didn't get a bump in the polls from it though. Americans have by and large already made up their minds about her and nothing is going to change those percentages very much. I think she's toast unless the republicans manage to put up somebody actually worse than her which they are certainly capable of doing.

Bump in the wallet though which she could translate into a bump in the polls, I mean she's making very gentle jibes at Bernie at the moment, primarily at his gun stance, because she knows that if she tries to get dirty it will backfire in her face as Bernie just shrugs and points at her being just another member of the establishment with the Punch and Judy politics show that has plagued America (and the UK for that matter) and that the public are fed up of. So all she can do is just pull at what she perceives to be his weakness in regards to popularity with the Dem crowd and hope that something unravels. That being said, Hillary getting Benghazi out of the way now means that she'll be able to point back to this hearing when it inevitably comes up if she makes it through the primaries and faces off against whoever the GOP picks.

[August]

Bump in the wallet though which she could translate into a bump in the polls, I mean she's making very gentle jibes at Bernie at the moment, primarily at his gun stance, because she knows that if she tries to get dirty it will backfire in her face as Bernie just shrugs and points at her being just another member of the establishment with the Punch and Judy politics show that has plagued America (and the UK for that matter) and that the public are fed up of. So all she can do is just pull at what she perceives to be his weakness in regards to popularity with the Dem crowd and hope that something unravels. That being said, Hillary getting Benghazi out of the way now means that she'll be able to point back to this hearing when it inevitably comes up if she makes it through the primaries and faces off against whoever the GOP picks.

She hasn't got Benghazi "out of the way" like the deaths of 4 Americans under her watch was just an inconvenient chore she had to get done. GoP witch hunts aside at the very least she displayed a serious degree of incompetence when she claimed that she never knew of repeated requests for more security in the days leading up to the attack.

[vienna]

She hasn't got Benghazi "out of the way" like the deaths of 4 Americans under her watch was just an inconvenient chore she had to get done. GoP witch hunts aside at the very least she displayed a serious degree of incompetence when she claimed that she never knew of repeated requests for more security in the days leading up to the attack.

The big failure of the current (and 8 prior) investigation as it pertains to to the GOP hope of unseating Clinton from her lead in the polls is the GOP inability to discover or submit even one shred of factual evidence those requests ever made it past the lower layers of the State Department's many tiered bureaucracy and actually landed on her desk. Note I said factual evidence: as much as the GOP Far Right would like, wishing and hoping will not make their desires materialize. The current hearings were doomed from the outset. They should never have been called unless the GOP members had actual, actionable material to present. As it stands now, the GOP members did little more than present Clinton with an very high visibility opportunity to strengthen her candidacy, further damage not her credibility but that of the GOP Far Right, and further implant in the electorates mind the impression of a floundering, flailing, dysfunctional, and increasingly desperate GOP...

The GOP Far Right's continued raising of the '4 American deaths' is also the height of disingenuous duplicity: where were those voices when over 4,400 Americans died as a result of a GOP administration's overt lies regarding the "need" to invade Iraq? Where were the GOP Congressional hearings, the GOP demands for accountability, the GOP public scorn over the mismanagement and mishandling of foreign affairs? The GOP should look with a bit of concern at the current feud between Trump and Jeb: their continued sniping over the record of Dubbya will only serve to remind voters of the failures of the last GOP White House administration and the horrific costs of its gross ineptitude...


<O>

[August]

Oh bull. You make a big deal about 8 investigations but how many dozens did the Democrats launch on the Bush administration when they ran congress? The number was in the 70's as I recall yet they still came up empty handed. Talk about being disingenuous...

[Wolferz]

Watching both parties digging holes is....

BORING!
:down::-?

[vienna]

Oh bull. You make a big deal about 8 investigations but how many dozens did the Democrats launch on the Bush administration when they ran congress? The number was in the 70's as I recall yet they still came up empty handed. Talk about being disingenuous...

Oh, both parties are guilty of senseless "investigations" and "hearings". But it's not really about the grand total of hearings, it's about the needless, expensive, time-consuming, flagellation of deceased equines, no matter which party is the flag-bearer. Nearly all issues brought before Congressional hearings are "one-and-done". It is rare when consecutive hearings are held on the exact, same topic; rare still when it happens eight times. Really and honestly, what did this latest hearing accomplish? It gave Clinton prime news exposure to show her abilities to react to pressure, gave her a no cost to her 'advertisement', and burnished her image before a national and international audience. It also further reinforced the impression, in regards to Benghazi and her possible culpability, that "there is no there there" and the possibility of a 'smoking gun' is even more remote or non-existent...

For the GOP, it was yet another self-inflicted derriere wound in as much as they came away with nothing except the impression they, at a substantial cost to the taxpayers, are resorting to ever more desperate means to unravel the Clinton campaign while they, themselves are in the midst of having their own party unravel, much in the same way the DEMs unraveled in the late 60s through the 70s when a vocal, extreme wing of their party exerted undue influence over party decision making. The GOP has also further reinforced the impression they are more concerned, in Congress, with the party's needs and election goals than they are with actually doing any governing business and dealing with the issues most important to the average voter: the economy, national security within our borders, immediate quality of life, etc. The GOP no longer has a single focused 'boogeyman' with which to cow the electorate to their point of view, so now they must deal with the broader, nearer-to-home issues, something they seem to be unable, or unwilling, to tackle...

I am an independent and will vote for anyone GOP or DEM who has a specific, focused, detailed solution to problems and issues and who does not deal in vague platitudes and sloganeering. During the last election, I was leaning towards Romney, particularly with Paul Ryan on the ticket. However, I lost faith when for some inexplicable reason, late into the campaign, Ryan was suddenly silent about his economic ideas, which had seemed promising. There was the fear the same, old economic hacks who had given us the Reagan/GHWBush and GWBush recessions were working to stifle Ryan and any chance of meaningful changes or reforms. Ryan has the chops (he, along with DEM leaders, passed the first bi-partisan budget agreement since the mid-80s) and would have made a good person to have a heartbeat away, but, for some reason, the kibosh was put on Ryan by the party leadership as regards his economic ideas and, again, the US voters were left with a 'lesser of two evils' situation during the 2012 elections...

I still like Ryan and wish him well with his new post a Speaker of the House; given the mess the GOP House membership is in, it's a job I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy...


<O>

[VipertheSniper]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/11924786/Fired-investigator-says-Benghazi-panel-is-biased-against-Hillary-Clinton.html

Don't know if this was posted around the time it was in the news.

I don't know from which article the following quote is, it was posted on another forum.
"Major Podliska, a lifelong Republican, holds a doctorate in political science from Texas A & M University and spent more than 15 years working at a federal defense agency, as an intelligence analyst for much of that time.

In September 2014, he began working for the Benghazi committee, on which his role was to investigate the way that various federal agencies in Washington responded to the attack, in which four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed.

But two things changed in March, Major Podliska said. First, after revelations that Mrs. Clinton relied exclusively on a private email server for her State Department correspondence, the committee became preoccupied with the State Department’s role in the controversy surrounding the Benghazi attack and less interested in a comprehensive investigation.

Second, Major Podliska informed his superiors around the same time that he would need to perform 39 days of active duty for the Air Force in Germany in a handful of intervals, beginning with the middle of that month. (The length of the leave later rose slightly.)

According to Major Podliska’s complaint, another senior staff member, Dana Chipman, who had served as the Army’s judge advocate general, questioned whether he “really needs to go to Germany.”

Major Podliska said that when he returned from active duty in late March, much of the committee staff, which had been investigating leads across numerous agencies, had been redeployed to focus primarily on Mrs. Clinton and the State Department.

Despite the change in focus, Major Podliska continued to work on his examination of the response in Washington to the attack, only to meet escalating resistance from his superiors, according to his complaint. In his view, they felt he was not focusing enough on Mrs. Clinton’s alleged mistakes, a criticism he considered odd given that his findings were far from favorable to her.

“My thing was actually related to Hillary — I just wasn’t all in on Hillary,” he said in the interview. “I was finding other officials at other agencies that bore responsibility for the post-attack piece.”

Major Podliska was fired in late June. One of his lawyers, Peter Romer-Friedman, said the PowerPoint in question was not a “hit piece,” but a presentation about the response in Washington to the Benghazi attacks. He said that an intern for the committee acting on their own had sought to supplement the PowerPoint with a video aggressively attacking the administration. When Major Podliska saw the video, he told the intern it was inappropriate, but proposed adding a separate video element to his PowerPoint."

[Nippelspanner]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/donald-trump-father-loan-1-million-dollars-215154
This guy is amazing.
In the most negative way.

What a joke.

[vienna]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/11924786/Fired-investigator-says-Benghazi-panel-is-biased-against-Hillary-Clinton.html

Don't know if this was posted around the time it was in the news.

I don't know from which article the following quote is, it was posted on another forum.

This is not at all surprising. There is a long history of partisan elements, of both parties, and other government functionaries or agencies inserting themselves into the operations of investigations for their own self-serving interests. It even extends all the way to the Oval Office; Nixon sought to steer the Congressional investigations into his criminal activities by arm-twisting some of the GOP House and Senate members into either blocking the hearings or having certain GOP members removed from the committees as Nixon deemed them hostile to his Presidency. Then there was the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" where Nixon tried to derail an independent investigation of Watergate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

The intrusion of partisan or personal interest into the finding of facts was most recently, and tragically, seen during the run-up to the Iraq Invasion. There are a number of accounts from various persons who were in the White House who have stated that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others involved with the planning of the presentation of the "facts" to be used to convince the Congress and the public of the justifications for an invasion deliberately refused to consider any facts or truths not supporting their desire to invade Iraq. This activity was noted in the bi-partisan report from a Congressional committee investigating the Iraq War. It seems truth should not get in the way of the "facts"...

The way matters are progressing now with the GOP efforts to derail Clinton, the Far-Right fiascoes may be the best thing to ever happen to Hilary. Hell, at this rate, even Sanders will be able to defeat whatever candidate the GOP chooses to run and, in the end, the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves and their submission to Far-Right idiocy...


<O>

[Oberon]

Speaking of GOP inquiries...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/us/wisconsin-governor-signs-bill-limiting-political-corruption-inquiries.html?_r=0

[August]

Speaking of GOP inquiries...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/24/us/wisconsin-governor-signs-bill-limiting-political-corruption-inquiries.html?_r=0

There's two sides to every coin, not that it would change anyones mind here.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/changes-needed-in-wisconsins-john-doe-law-b99599785z1-334650441.html

Early on Oct. 3, 2013, teams of police officers descended on the homes and offices of political activists across the state. Families, including school children, were detained by officers and warned they could be punished if they told anyone what they saw or heard. Neighbors and classmates were left to wonder what horrible crime they had committed. In fact, they had committed no crime at all.
This happened here in Wisconsin in part because the state's so-called John Doe statute, with roots in the mid-1800s, provides prosecutors extraordinary powers to conduct sweeping secret investigations on a thin showing of suspicion, with a judge as a one-sided partner. These secret investigations may go on for months or years. The accompanying gag orders may go on forever if no charges follow.
Wisconsin citizens and the media rightly fear restrictions on our open records laws and lack of transparency in the legislative process. They also should fear the lack of transparency and unaccountably that judges, prosecutors and detectives in secret John Doe investigations enjoy.
Whatever our legislators' flaws and tendencies to overreach, no legislator of either party ever has come through a citizen's door before sunup, detained the homeowners and their children for hours, and rummaged through closets and underwear drawers in search of evidence for an imaginary or uncertain crime. If transparency and accountability are important in lawmaking, they can be very important in law enforcing, too.

[vienna]

So, basically, the new law, if applied federally, would have prevented the inquiries into whatever Clinton is alleged to have done or not done and the GOP would have been powerless to do anything? As I said, the GOP seems very keen on shooting themselves in the ass, at all levels of government...


<O>

[August]

So, basically, the new law, if applied federally, would have prevented the inquiries into whatever Clinton is alleged to have done or not done and the GOP would have been powerless to do anything? As I said, the GOP seems very keen on shooting themselves in the ass, at all levels of government...


<O>

But it's not being applied Federally so your analogy is moot at best. State law is a completely different thing.

And BTW the Wisconsin law is not preventing anything. It's just ensures that prosecutions have an actual victim instead of a politically motivated prosecutors fictitious excuse to conduct repeated witch hunts like they have been doing.

[vienna]

It should also be noted the JSonline article noted in a previous post is an Opinion-Editorial piece (Op-Ed) and not an article of journalistic reportage. It is what it is: an opinion. It is neither fully factual nor fully fanciful. It is an opinion, shaded by particular sentiments, agendas, or other coloration. It would have been more persuasive if it were not a rant, but, rather, a presentation of facts supported by cited evidence, as is done in legitimate news reporting. It carries no more factual weight than any of the other non-cited postings in this thread, including mine...


<O>

[vienna]

But it's not being applied Federally so your analogy is moot at best. State law is a completely different thing.

And BTW the Wisconsin law is not preventing anything. It's just ensures that prosecutions have an actual victim instead of a politically motivated prosecutors fictitious excuse to conduct repeated witch hunts like they have been doing.

As usual, there is the convenient ignorance of the words used: I said "if", indicating a theoretical construct there by making the analogy not moot, but speculative, much like speculating a possible effect on a larger scale based on the effect seen on a smaller scale...

It is rather interesting to see the trend in Far Right GOP solutions to matters that make them vulnerable to prosecution, scrutiny, or political loss. Have a pesky corruption or ethics scandal? Don't correct or reform the problem: pass a law to make it harder to get convicted. Have a pesky investigation or probe into questionable practices or actions? Don't correct or reform the problem: change the rules so that you are immune to scrutiny. Facing a possible defeat in certain states or counties? Don't seek to serve the needs of the constituents in those areas or make your party more open to the ideas as a means of winning those elections: pass voting laws that will restrict or prevent those who will most likely vote against you from casting ballots. After all, can't let a little thing like an open democracy getting in the way of partisan interests...


<O>

[August]

As usual, there is the convenient ignorance of the words used: I said "if", indicating a theoretical construct there by making the analogy not moot, but speculative, much like speculating a possible effect on a larger scale based on the effect seen on a smaller scale...

It is rather interesting to see the trend in Far Right GOP solutions to matters that make them vulnerable to prosecution, scrutiny, or political loss. Have a pesky corruption or ethics scandal? Don't correct or reform the problem: pass a law to make it harder to get convicted. Have a pesky investigation or probe into questionable practices or actions? Don't correct or reform the problem: change the rules so that you are immune to scrutiny. Facing a possible defeat in certain states or counties? Don't seek to serve the needs of the constituents in those areas or make your party more open to the ideas as a means of winning those elections: pass voting laws that will restrict or prevent those who will most likely vote against you from casting ballots. After all, can't let a little thing like an open democracy getting in the way of partisan interests...


<O>

"Far Right GOP"..."FRGOP"? Are you seriously trying to claim that only Republicans can be corrupt? Don't forget that i'm from Massachusetts and have watched the Democrats in my state do that stuff and much more for decades. Partisan interests are a Bipartisan problem and it's wrong to imply otherwise.

[vienna]

"Far Right GOP"..."FRGOP"? Are you seriously trying to claim that only Republicans can be corrupt? Don't forget that i'm from Massachusetts and have watched the Democrats in my state do that stuff and much more for decades. Partisan interests are a Bipartisan problem and it's wrong to imply otherwise.

No I'm not trying to claim only the FRGOP are they only ones to engage in such action and I never have made such a claim; if you wish, you may try to prove I have, but I fear you will have as much success as the Bengahzi hearings...

I do know what state you are from (it is conveniently in your ID) and I am fully aware of the political machinations in MA; they are legendary. My real quarrel with the FRGOP is their public sanctimony over the actions of others. How many times have we seen the scowling, stern faces, the moralistic finger-wagging, the puff-chested piousness of those in the FRGOP who condemn what others not of their stripe or lockstep, including those of their party do or say while holding themselves up as paragons of virtue? I would be willing to bet if the DEMS were in power in WI and pulled the same self-serving, self-preserving actions as the WI FRGOP engaged in, the FRGOP would have been up on their hind legs howling about abuse of power, partisan manipulation, etc., loudly and to all who would hear them. The FRGOP has a very serious case of "do as I say, not as I do" that usually comes back on them very much more often as not. If the FRGOP wants morality, values, and ethics, as they so loudly and passionately claim, they should live up to their expectations rather than live down to the faults they claim in others. The list is long of the moralizing, self-righteous, and judgmental icons of the Far Right who have shown themselves to be as bad or worse than those they seek to condemn. Today we have former Speaker of the House and GOP member Dennis Hastert making a plea deal to save his sorry butt after lying to Federal investigators about his illegal money manipulations (made to provide funds to cover up sexual indiscretions while serving as a school wrestling coach). Before Hastert was Speaker, there was Speaker and GOP member Newt Gingrich who had to resign and leave the House due to his own sexual indiscretions and hints of ethical breaches; Hastert succeeded Gingrich, but not many people recall Hastert was not the GOP's first choice as replacement: GOP member Bob Livingston was made Speaker-Elect by the GOP, but he never even got to sit the chair and hold the gavel; almost as soon as he was named, he had to resign the nomination and leave the House when, surprise, surprise, Livingston found is own sexual indiscretions revealed publicly. Remember, the Gringrich to Livingston to Hastert debacle occurred in the midst of a very loud and public call by the FRGOP for a return to 'family values', religious morality, and ethics. Again, "do as I say, not as I do"...

I used Hastert because he was in the news today, but I could very easily make a very long list of Far Right 'moralists' with feet of clay. Federal, state, and local FRGOP politicians; Far Right televangelists and other religious 'paragons'; Far Right media commentators and talk show hosts; the list would be long and filled with what the FRGOP nominally condemns. There is, of course, plenty of blame to spread around, both on the Far Right and the Far Left, but in the case of the FRGOP, the old adage of "glass houses" seems very, very, apt...

This thread is about Presidential politics and one very glaring fact should be noted: no one has ever been elected President solely by the vote of only his party. No DEM candidate has ever won only and solely by a lock-step vote of the DEM voters; no GOP candidate has ever won only and solely by a lock-step vote of the GOP voter. In order to win, there has to be a crossover of voters from each opposing party; neither party has a membership size to ensure a certain victory at the polls. Don't believe me? Look up the term "Reagan Democrats". It should also be noted neither party can win without the votes of independents such as myself. Currently, self-declared independents are as much as one-third of the total voting population. As of 2012, the breakdown was 28% GOP, 35% DEM, and 33% Independent among voters expressing a party preference. Here is a link to a Pew Research Center study done on the 2012 Presidential Election:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/03/party-affiliation-and-election-polls/

Interesting reading for those who want to see why no single party membership can solely muster a win on their own. I found this little table in the study interesting:

http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/08/8-3-12-3.png


Both parties lost about 2% of their membership to each other, but suffered a greater loss to the independent affiliation. For the DEMs the loss is notable, but the GOP loss is nearly twice the rate of the DEMs. This could be an explanation of why the 'outsiders' like Trump and Carson are doing so well among GOP voters rather than the 'normal' GOP candidates. It could also be a harbinger of a further erosion of GOP ranks to the Independents if the GOP choose not to respond to the GOP voter's desires for a substantial and meaningful change in the leadership and conduct of their party. The DEMs went through the same issues in from the late 60s to the 80s; they seem to have partly righted their ship. If the GOP does not right theirs, there's going to be a lot more of us independents and we're going to be the ones to make the difference in the 2016 election...


<O>

[ikalugin]

I wonder if GOP would give birth to a NGOP so to speak, which would attract those ex GOP and DEM voters?

That would lead to the horor of a three party system in the US though.

[August]

...horor of a three party system in the US

Horror is an understatement. 3 parties could mean a winner with only 34% of the vote. That's bad news with our political system.

[Platapus]

Horror is an understatement. 3 parties could mean a winner with only 34% of the vote. That's bad news with our political system.

Especially since about only half the people vote. If the winner gets 34% of the vote that means that only 17% of the voting population wanted the candidate. Hardly a "Mandate of the People" as they like to claim.

[ikalugin]

Cant you win with 34 percent votes by abusing how colleges are distributed between the states?

[August]

Cant you win with 34 percent votes by abusing how colleges are distributed between the states?

Not sure what you are referring to here.

[Torplexed]

Not sure what you are referring to here.

He's probably referring to the electoral college.

[August]

Especially since about only half the people vote. If the winner gets 34% of the vote that means that only 17% of the voting population wanted the candidate. Hardly a "Mandate of the People" as they like to claim.

Yeah one can fool and fire up 17% of the population for just about anybody. That's just not nearly enough of a percentage to hand over the keys to the White House and all the awesome power of the US Federal Government that goes with it.

[August]

He's probably referring to the electoral college.

Yeah I got that idea too but I don't see how. I'm sure he will amplify.

[ikalugin]

Yeah I got that idea too but I don't see how. I'm sure he will amplify. Because how the electoral college ammount is not representative of the actual state's population, votes in some states value more in the others.

So by having less than 50 percent of votes (21.91 percent) you could have more than 50 percent (50.19 percent) of the electoral colleges.

But then I am not an expert on the US political system.

[vienna]

I think the 34% is referring more to the popular vote. The winner of US Presidential elections is not the person who gets a majority of the votes cast (50+ %) but, rather, the person who gets the most votes among the candidates. If there was a five way race, it is possible for a person to win with 20+ % of the vote. All you really need is to have more votes cast for yourself than any of the other candidates on the ballot. GW Bush won in 2000 with 47.87% of the vote; Nixon won in 1968 with 43.42%; Clinton won in 1992 with 43.01%; Wilson won in 1912 with 41.84%. If the requirement to win was a total vote majority, we would be faced with at least one run-off election to determine a winner, a prospect to horrendous to consider...

But all the popular votes cast are not as important as the Electoral College votes. It has happened before where a winner of the popular vote has failed to win in the Electoral College. As the results of the 2012 election were coming in, I remember seeing Dick Cheney and Carl Rove foaming at the mouth over the results. At first, I couldn't understand the degree of vehemence they exhibited; the vote was, by elections standards, quite close. But they were livid, saying there was something seriously wrong with the vote and it should not have gone the way it was going. Then I looked at the Electoral College tallies and I understood: Obama was scoring a very large percentage of the Electoral votes. Cheney, Rove and the GOP leadership had fashioned the 2012 campaign to optimize the Electoral vote count in the hope of winning there even if they did not necessarily win the popular vote. They expected a very close Electoral result; what they got was what amounted, in Electoral terms, to a blowout for the DEMs. It also begged the question, for me, of why Cheney and Rove were so certain matters would go their way; had they possibly engaged in machinations they were convinced would 'finesse' the Electoral results?...


<O>

[August]

It also begged the question, for me, of why Cheney and Rove were so certain matters would go their way; had they possibly engaged in machinations they were convinced would 'finesse' the Electoral results?...

Or maybe they suspected Democrat tampering. As for Cheney being involved I have to doubt that given that was the year he had a heart transplant.

[vienna]

Or maybe they suspected Democrat tampering. As for Cheney being involved I have to doubt that given that was the year he had a heart transplant.

As had been done in the 2008 election, Rove (and knowing how Cheney operates, probably himself, also), the strategy was to go for the states with the most Electoral votes and eke out a win, even if the popular vote went against the GOP. The finessing of Electoral votes was is a tactic that has been around a long time, but Rove had elevated it to an art. This was a key factor in the GW Bush victory in 2000 and why Florida was so essential to GWB winning. The loss in 2012 was simply a matter of Rove and the GOP relying on fall-back state-level issues to draw in GOP core voters; the expected turn-out didn't materialize and there was the added element of a changing voting public's feelings about certain issues the GOP has long relied upon to 'stir the core'. The hardcore GOP demographic is aging and the new, younger voters are not interested in or have viewpoints opposed to the hardcore segment's beliefs. This is why so many younger voters are declaring themselves as Independents. The number of young voters going DEM are not great, but the DEMs aren't losing much to the Independents. The GOP, however is seeing a significant erosion towards the Independent ranks. The problem for youthful voters is the GOP is still "your grandfather's GOP". To win the in 2016, the GOP is going to have to convince a good number of DEMs to vote for their candidate and they are going to have to convince a really significant number of us Independents to do likewise...


<O>

[August]

Doesn't address my comments.

[Betonov]

Democracy is complicated

[ikalugin]

My point was that with a tiny ammount of people's votes you could gain more than 50 percent electoral colledge votes and with the elections.

[August]

My point was that with a tiny ammount of people's votes you could gain more than 50 percent electoral colledge votes and with the elections.

No, you need more than a tiny amount. One might get 49% of the popular vote and 51% of the electoral votes but the ratios aren't going to get much wider than that.

[Platapus]

Because how the electoral college ammount is not representative of the actual state's population, votes in some states value more in the others.


The electoral College is representative of the population of the population of the state.

Each state gets two electoral votes (one for each Senator) and one electoral vote for each of the state's members in the House of Representatives.

The number of Senators a state has is fixed at two regardless of the size of the state. However, the number of representatives is based on the population of the state.

Larger population states have more representatives in the House, which makes sense. So each individual state's vote counts exactly the same as any other state's vote. But naturally larger population states have more votes.

Historically, determining how much representation each state has was a very contentious issue.

Naturally, the smaller population states wanted equal vote and the larger states wanted a more representative vote. Which side was right? The both were.

Like pretty much everything in the US Government structure, there was a compromise. In the upper house (Senate) each state gets the same number of votes and in the lower house (House of Representatives) each state gets the number of votes representative of their population.

So the number of electors that a state gets is a combination of a fixed rate (1 per Senator) and a representative number (1 for each Representative).

It is probably the best solution our founding dudes could come up with. And it works pretty well.. warts and all.

[Platapus]

My point was that with a tiny ammount of people's votes you could gain more than 50 percent electoral colledge votes and with the elections.


Possible, but unlikely

In our history we have only had 3.9 Presidents elected that did not garner the popular vote.

John Quincy Adams in 1824 was elected president despite not winning either the popular nor the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson had more popular (38,000 more) and electoral votes (99-84). So why was Andrew Jackson not the president? Because despite having 99 electoral votes, he needed 131. The Electoral College election is one of the few elections in the US that requires an actual majority instead of a plurality. Lacking a majority, the decision went to the House of Representatives and they elected Adams.

John Quincy Adams - First president elected while not getting a plurality of the popular vote.

Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 garnered the majority of Electoral votes (by a margin of one!!) but his opponent (Sam Tilden) had over 250,000 more popular votes.

Benjamin Harrison, in 1888, won the Electoral vote (233-168) but Grover Cleveland had 90,000 more popular votes.



About that .9?

Well, we may never know exactly how many popular votes George W Bush and Al Gore had in the 2000 election. What we do know is that George Bush won 271 Electoral Votes against Al Gore's 266. Current estimations show that Al Gore received about 540,000 more popular votes but the actual number may not be known as the recounts in FLA were halted.

So it is possible for a person to be elected president while not garnering the plurality of the popular vote. It was more common in the 19th century.

But then the founding dudes never intended for the president to be elected by the popular vote. Remember, it was not until 1912 (17th Amendment) that citizens could even vote for their own Senator.... and I am not sure that the 1912 change was a good idea in the long run.

[ikalugin]

Larger population states have more representatives in the House, which makes sense. So each individual state's vote counts exactly the same as any other state's vote. But naturally larger population states have more votes.The problem is that this is not true, as there is a minimal cap of 3 votes per state, which makes the people's votes in those states count for more.

Hence the theoretical threshhold of winning the elections (gaining the 50.19 percent of the electoral college votes) is 21.91 percent of people's votes.


Assuming the win of 50 percent + one vote in each state, it could go like this:
Wyoming. 0.9 percent of people's votes, 0.56 of electoral college votes.
DC. 0.1, 0.56.
Vermont. 0.1, 0.56.
North Dakota. 0.11, 0.56.
Alaska. 0.11, 0.56.
South Dakota. 0.13, 0.56.
Delaware. 0.15, 0.56.
Montana. 0.16, 0,56.
Rhode Island. 0.17, 0.74.
New Hampshire. 0.21, 0.74.
Maine. 0.21, 0,74.
Hawaii. 0.22, 0.74.
Idaho. 0.25, 0.74.
Nebraska. 0.3, 0.93.
West Virginia. 0.3, 0.93.
New Mexico. 0.33, 0.93.
Nevada. 0.44, 1.12.
Utah. 0.45, 1.12.
Kansas. 0.46, 1,12.
Arkansas. 0.46, 1.12.
Mississippi. 0.48, 1.12.
Iowa. 0.49, 1.12.
Connecticut. 0.60, 1.3.
Oklahoma. 0.61, 1.3.
Oregon. 0.62, 1.3.
ect.
You could see how the ammount of electoral college votes is not representative of population those states have.

While such min-max scenario is unlikely, it is still possible.

[Platapus]

It is far from a perfect system, I freely admit. Like I wrote, the founding fathers debated this for a long time.

But the minimum representation of one member in the House is really not going to sway an election that much.

Many other alternatives have been proposed, but none seem to be a significant improvement on the made-by-flawed-human system that we have.

Often people will suggest going with a 100% popular vote, but that would disenfranchise even more citizens than our present system.

The only fair way to elect a president is with a cage match. Many walk in, only one crawls out. Put it on pay for view and we can wipe out our national debt in a few elections. :yeah:

[August]

The problem is that this is not true

For someone who claims that he isn't an expert in the US political system you sure seem to have done a lot of studying, or is all this from one of those Russian Propaganda Farms?

[Jimbuna]

The problem is that this is not true,

I'd be interested to know how the Russian system compares.

[ikalugin]

I'd be interested to know how the Russian system compares.I would have to ask around, as I am rather apolitical in the lawmaking sense (never voted).

I think the way it works:
- direct proportional presidential elections.
- mixed lower house elections.
- per state direct proportional upper house elections.
Regions elect their own parlaments and sometimes governours.

For presidential elections you could run as:
- representative of the established political party.
- representative of a fringe party you need 100k signatures (with lower limits in each region).
- independent, you need 300k signatures (again with limits).

Elections are direct and proportional, all eligible (over 18 on the day of elections, those who did not have their voting rights removed) citizens could vote regardless of the region they live in (not the case in the US). If there was no clear winner, there is a second run with weaker candidates being discarded. So far this has happened once.

For the lower house of parlament, we have a mixed system where ~half is elected per region and half is elected for the entire country. Political parties receive seats in Duma if they pass a 5 percent threshhold, essentially the votes for the fringe parties are discarded, thus non fringe parties receive same ammount of seats as if there were no votes for fringe ones.

[STEED]

2016 US Presidential thread

Its all gone silent on this side of the pond, have to start reading US News sites.

[Platapus]

Its all gone silent on this side of the pond, have to start reading US News sites.

Don't. It sucks. This is one of the more depressing elections I can remember in a long time.

Even voting for the lesser of two evils is becoming hard.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather vote for the lesser of two weevils then the lesser of two evils.
http://s6.postimg.org/jx3ixeydd/vlcsnap_2013_05_14_14h00m33s42.png

[Platapus]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather vote for the lesser of two weevils then the lesser of two evils.


If Weevel were to run, it would probably get my vote. Be better than what we have today

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Weevil_September_2008-1.jpg/220px-Weevil_September_2008-1.jpg
Weevel 2016! :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/cthulhu4prezpreview_zpszvwhzfyn.png (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/cthulhu4prezpreview_zpszvwhzfyn.png.html)

[Mr Quatro]

I'm starting to think that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are of the same party, but I have no proof of that.

Didn't Donald Trump use to be a democrat and then changed over to republican for his desire to be the POTUS?

I don't see how these two can stop from running against each other based on all of these early polls.

I'm worried about Trumps travel plans in his own helicopter and jet plane. An accident is the only thing I see keeping Trump from representing the Republican party.

What happened to Jeb anyway? He was suppose to win ...

If it is Hillary and Trump I think the rednecks will win :yep:

[Aktungbby]

I'm starting to think that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are of the same party, but I have no proof of that.
1800: Forefather Thomas Jefferson: As the first peaceful transition of political power between opposing parties in U.S. history, however, the election of 1800 had far-reaching significance. Jefferson appreciated the momentous change and his inaugural address called for reconciliation by declaring that, "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." Nuthin good goes outta style BBY!:woot:
Didn't Donald Trump use to be a democrat and then changed over to republican for his desire to be the POTUS?
He's just doing a redneck version of Ronald Reagan::timeout:"Ronald Reagan started out as a registered Democrat and New Deal supporter. An F.D.R. fan, the Gipper campaigned for Helen Gahagan Douglas in her fruitless 1950 Senate race against Richard Nixon and encouraged Dwight D. Eisenhower to run for President as a Democrat in 1952. While he was working as a spokesman for General Electric, however, his views shifted right. "Under the tousled boyish haircut," he wrote Vice President Nixon of John F. Kennedy in 1960, "is still old Karl Marx." By the time it actually happened in 1962, Reagan's decision to cross over to the GOP didn't come as much of a surprise. "I didn't leave the Democratic Party," he famously said. "The party left me."

What happened to Jeb anyway? He was suppose to win ...

WE'RE listening to ol' Jessie Jackson SR. BBY! "Stay OUT the BUSHES" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHd6XYMlP4I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHd6XYMlP4I) We had George B. I; then George B. II; and now Jeb B. III???!!! political dynasties are dangerous for 'MeriKa!:huh: My mom (a lifelong League of Women Voters diehard:nope:) said it best when Bill C. got caught with Monica L..."well they're Democrats you know" and Hillary's obviously a "stand by her man gal" :stare: just what we don't need now-a husband/wife dynasty.:O: I started out as Youth for Nixon (thanks Ma!) somehow became a registered Democrat (tons of junk mail and obnoxious phone calls-thanks wife) Rule 1 and bottom line IMHO: "if ya wanna live like a Republican...vote Democrat!" and keep your mom and your wife happy...now that's politics!:dead:

[Platapus]

We had George B. I; then George B. II; and now Jeb B. III???!!!


It is too bad we had George II. Of the current bunch Jeb was probably the most sensible one there.

[Bilge_Rat]

I'd be interested to know how the Russian system compares.

what Ikalugin said .... plus just the right amount of Fraud to make sure Putin wins. :O:

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/markadomanis/2012/03/05/how-bad-was-the-fraud-in-russias-presidential-election/

[Jimbuna]

what Ikalugin said .... plus just the right amount of Fraud to make sure Putin wins. :O:

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/markadomanis/2012/03/05/how-bad-was-the-fraud-in-russias-presidential-election/

LOL I was of course alluding to the position of President, as per thread title :)

[vienna]

The current crop of candidates who have declared, from both parties, are a woeful lot and leave very much to be desired. I really fear we in the US will be left with the lesser of many evils. it rather reminds me of the lyrics in the Rolling Stones song "Salt of the Earth":

...Raise your glass to the hard working people
Let's drink to the uncounted heads
Let's think of the wavering millions
Who need leaders but get gamblers instead

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters
A choice of cancer or polio...


The people who are actually capable of and should lead don't because of the morass of partisan politics and the petty viciousness of the parties. We are left with those whose ambitions for power, overweening egos, or deluded sense of messianic self-destiny are the motivations to run for office. It will come down to a pro/con list and the candidate least likely to totally screw-up anymore than the previous office holders. A sad state, indeed...


<O>

[Betonov]

Considering there's so little media circus around Jeb, I'd say he might be the best choice for a republican candidate.

[Aktungbby]

what Ikalugin said .... plus just the right amount of Fraud to make sure Putin wins. :O:

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/markadomanis/2012/03/05/how-bad-was-the-fraud-in-russias-presidential-election/

LOL I was of course alluding to the position of President, as per thread title :)
Of course some ballot may be hanging by a 'chad' in 'Georgia' (Either Russian or 'merikan)...didn't Jeb Wannaby help the family franchise on that Florida recount...as I recollect ?!!!

[Bilge_Rat]

Of course some ballot may be hanging by a 'chad' in 'Georgia' (Either Russian or 'merikan)...didn't Jeb Wannaby help the family franchise on that Florida recount...as I recollect ?!!!


true, you have a fair share of partisan interpretation of the rules in any democracy, but there is a difference between gaming the pre-established rules, as in the U.S., or just having different sets of rules for the government and the opposition as in Russia. :ping:

[ikalugin]

what Ikalugin said .... plus just the right amount of Fraud to make sure Putin wins. :O:

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/markadomanis/2012/03/05/how-bad-was-the-fraud-in-russias-presidential-election/
Considering his popularity ratings country wide (especially outside of Moscow/SPB) there was never any real doubt that he would win.

The whole fraud/caruselle theme is overblown by the opposition, who due to their inability win any elections are trying to de-legitimise their results.

[Fr8monkey]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/t31.0-8/11224179_10153095440641697_7944662693084861604_o.j pg

[August]

Considering his popularity ratings country wide (especially outside of Moscow/SPB) there was never any real doubt that he would win.

The whole fraud/caruselle theme is overblown by the opposition, who due to their inability win any elections are trying to de-legitimise their results.

Well that and the fact that Putin assassinates or jails anyone who might threaten his Czarship.

[ikalugin]

Like who?

[August]

Like who?

Like who, Really? :roll:

How about this for a partial list?

Boris Nemtsov
Mikhail Khodorkovsky
Anna Politkovskaya
The girls from Pussy Riot
Alexander Litvinenko
Anastasia Baburova
Stanislav Markelov
Natalya Estemirova
Boris Berezovsky
Alexey Navalny
Galina Starovoitova
Sergei Yushenkov
Igor Domnikov
Sergey Novikov
Iskandar Khatloni
Sergei Ivanov
Adam Tepsurgayev
Mikhail Trepashkin
Nikolai Girenko
Paul Klebnikov
Viktor Yushchenko
Andrei Kozlov
Daniel McGrory
Paul Joyal
Sergei Magnitsky
Leonid Razvozzhaev

[Fr8monkey]

Oh, sorry. I was looking for the US Presidential thread not the Russian Presidential thread....

[ikalugin]

Oh, sorry. I was looking for the US Presidential thread not the Russian Presidential thread....
Back on topic. Watching some of the debates.

Atleast Sanders wont take your guns.

[Fr8monkey]

They said Obama was going to take your guns. He better hurry, he has only a year left to do it!

[vienna]

They said Obama was going to take your guns. He better hurry, he has only a year left to do it!

If the Far Right thought it would get them votes, they'd say Obama was going to confiscate slingshots...

The politics of fear, pure and simple...

<O>

[August]

Just because he failed doesn't mean that he wouldn't if he could get away with it. You can give it any stupid name you want but if the NRA and other gun rights organizations didn't spread the word and mobilize gun owners he just might have.

[vienna]

Whenever I hear or see the vague, dubious, and nebulously hypothetical utterances and ravings about the government taking away guns (and this tired argument comes up no matter which party is in power), I have always asked just how would this mass confiscation be done. What are the real, practical, workable logistics involved in mass confiscation; just how can it possibly be done? I have yet to hear or see any cogent, logical, and rational explanation of the exact process involved in confiscating millions of guns from millions of citizens who, for the far greater part will not turn them over willingly. Perhaps someone on this forum has an actual idea on this matter... :hmmm:

Found this article in The New Yorker regarding the Benghazi Hearings:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/02/hillarys-moment-at-the-benghazi-hearing


<O>

[Fr8monkey]

If the Far Right thought it would get them votes, they'd say Obama was going to confiscate slingshots...

The politics of fear, pure and simple...

<O>
Yup. Just throwing red meat to the followers... par for the course. This is why Trump is popular. He says what the rabid right wants to hear.

[August]

The New Yorker? You couldn't pick a more biased media source. Why not go directly to the DNC?

[GT182]

If the Far Right thought it would get them votes, they'd say Obama was going to confiscate slingshots...

The politics of fear, pure and simple...

<O>

He'll get my slingshot when they pry my cold dead fingers off it!

And yes, I do have one in my arsenal. SBD is the way to go. ;)

[vienna]

It kind of follows along the course of most panics and scare involving some sort of commodity. Remember when there was a rumor going around there was going to be a shortage of toilet paper and the public ran out in hordes to buy up all the t.p. they could find. There never was any actual possibility of a shortage, but the rumor took on a life of its own and flourished. The same has happened for other items. A couple of years ago, Sony was mulling over the idea of discontinuing production of the Walkman. Overnight, the price of the Walkman doubled and tripled. Now, I can still find them in local sores for about the same price as always...

The idea the NRA has stopped any sort of legal ownership of guns is specious. There are more guns in private hands, not because of the NRA as a bastion of the Constitution, but rather, because the NRA and the gun manufacturers exploit the fears of the public to enhance the NRA's membership, the gun manufacturer's sales, and the ever growing coffers of both. It is nothing more than marketing through fear-mongering...


<O>

[vienna]

The New Yorker? You couldn't pick a more biased media source. Why not go directly to the DNC?

You obviously didn't read the article. Right there, in the midst of the article detailing the quixotic GOP quest, is noted a more effective use of time would have been an investigation into the conduct and policies of the Obama administration regarding the conflict against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. If the article was as biased as you believe it to be sight-unseen, such an idea would not have been put forth. I am very much in favor of hearings on the anti-ISIL operations and why they are so flawed; it would mean my tax dollars were actually being put to practical use. But, then again, Obama is running any more, so, for the FRGOP, there is no politcal hay to be made. For the FRGOP are honorable men...


<O>

[August]

... is noted a more effective use of time would have been an investigation into the conduct and policies of the Obama administration regarding the conflict against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. If the article was as biased as you believe it to be sight-unseen, such an idea would not have been put forth.

ISIL, Iraq or Syria are hardly relevant to the subject of an embassy attack on another continent and would serve only as a distraction to,..... hey wait a minute! :hmmm:

[August]

Vienna, Instead of being more trusted than the Obama Administration in the minds of the American people, the NRA would be seen as the evil capitalist gang you claim they are if there were not a lot of truth to what they say. Gun bans, magazine bans, ammo bans, mandatory registration, including confiscation these schemes have all been proposed federally or supported at the state level, most of them repeatedly, by the Obama administration or his allies in Congress and they continue to be proposed by Clinton.

So if it comes down to who to believe, the NRA or the Democrats, on the subject of gun control there is just no contest. But this is for another thread...

[VipertheSniper]

So I've just read this rant about Carson and it was too good not to share

oh let's talk bout carson now since he's their new frontrunner eh


Carson is absolutely the candidate the Freedom Caucus deserves: a narcoleptic, knobheaded, supply-sided, furiously bigoted, anti-science, Theocracy-peddling crank who possesses the ability to Dunning–Kruger himself completely enough to say and believe the mindbendingly dumb**** and bigoted things you apparently have to say to attract republican primary voters these days. And he can do this while always remaining cavernously vacuous enough that special interests can come jam their hands seven leagues up his ass to pantomime him and fill his empty suit with their proctological puppetry and lurch his triazolam-soaked corpse of a mind around at their behest until he shatters every remaining inch of government competence that the Freedom Caucus loathes and seeks the end of, so that there's nothing preventing our budding plutocrats from wholly disintegrating the labor force down into a corporatist dark renaissance form of neo-serfdom. Conservatives deserve no less a potential leader.

He is an impressionable, softly whispering mirror of the absolute lunacy of today's populist anti-establishment american conservatism. He is a witless True Believer in the Church of Cruzian Mind****, well situated to have his fifteen minutes of fame in the trammeled, aging, intransigent, war-torn mental wasteland of Neoconservatism's ruin that today's republicans fight to bottom-feed from.

His mentality is truly and assiduously incurious and troubling down to the point where it is easier to describe his beliefs not in terms of policy but rather in terms of disordered thought irrationality. Now, keep in mind I can say that without even having to reference any specific individual thing, like the absolutely for real thing that happened where his family revealed that they were holding on to their son's Australian passport just in case Obama won re-election, because according to them Obama was likely to declare himself dictator for life and began hunting down his political opponents and the poor Carson family would therefore have to flee the country, which is a thing they actually believed that I am not making up. He is a tea party stem cell, perfect in his ability to feed their vigor with his party-line ingenuousness. He is worse than Trump in almost every way (outside of who would probably win in a brain surgery contest), which is why it's no real surprise that he is the first to challenge Trump's long running spree of utterly unbroken dominance of the GOP clown car. Any sane conservative in this country should look at this situation and ****ing weep that this is now what conservatism is. There is no excuse. You cannot explain this election away anymore. If you're going from Trump to Carson, it's no accident anymore.

When Carson's campaigned-upon policies and ideas are carefully observed in sum, and his legal interpretations of how things should work in the U.S. are sufficiently scrutinized, his recipe for bringing true liberty to the United States, tea-party-style, turns out to be (as it now universally seems to be among the populist conservatives), a clear and uncompromising intent to rework the United States into a Christian theocratic confederacy, with a federal government neutered into irrelevance save for the maintenance of a comically bloated military-industrial complex to continue bringing Cost-Plus Peace™ to the world, one resource-rich region at a time, and a cavalcade of Morals & Values mandates, stridently upheld to prevent the gays, women, immigrants, and heretics from doing things that upset Christ the Redeemer, be it through abortion, marrying the inappropriate gender, using birth control, building a mosque within 2,400 miles of ground zero, not letting judges park dishwasher sized monuments to the Ten Commandments in state courtrooms, not having Christian prayer in our schools, letting Muslims just be elected president like they have the right to do that or something, or using taxes in any way, shape, or form to help the poor or the sick.

He buys into the utterly defunct gospel of Supply Side economics, without question, and near-perfectly encapsulates the immortal parody of Bootstrap FYGM's. He denies the value of a social safety net to break the cycles of poverty and social marginalization — in fact, he does this to the extent that he even denies any role that the numerous grants and welfare and social aid programs and financial and educational aid that he had received all throughout his childhood and education had in allowing a poor black child to become a neurosurgeon. Which means, yes, he is literally so committed to the supply side bootstraps myth (and so committed to denying the potential or real efficacy and abiding mercy of welfare) that he retcons his own ****ing childhood simply to not break his own cognitive dissonance about how the things that help him are not supposed to work, according to conservatives. He has to do this, because if he doesn't put up a cognitive wall about that to shield himself, he has to confront the fact that it is the entire reason he's a surgeon with a national audience right now. How deep, how abiding, and how cretinous is his zealotry that we get to witness him denying the truth of his own life, and denying his opportunities to others, in order to maintain the faith.

He maintains a constant, aggressive, and horrifyingly complete contempt for science and rationality. His answer to evolutionary biology, the overwhelmingly evidenced and central theory underpinning every biological science, is to declare that is is a monstrous trick by Satan to corrupt the world. He declares theories of universe formation to be completely bunk based off of the idea he has in his mind that you can't have a big bang if there's sometimes planets which aren't rotating in the same direction as every other planet, because, I don't know, some ****ing bull**** he thinks has to do with angular momentum. Instead of just being like most other garbagelord troglodytes in the GOP who simply don't believe in climate change being a man-made issue, he revealed that he was literally just too dumb to recognize what everyone was even talking about when they were talking about the climate change issue, and thought it instead meant that people were talking about that the weather was fluctuating up and down.

And now he is the man leading in the Republican primary, offering unintelligible national ten percent flat tax plans to moderators who are baffled by trying to get him to coherently explain how this wouldn't violently implode the entire country in a single decade. American conservatives now just have to deal with that I can point to this picture (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/09/16/carsontrumpshake.gif) anytime they're trying to say the other side is just as bad, and shut them up about whether my unending contempt for republicans is so necessary. I have offered my heartfelt congratulations to Ben Carson for being courageous and avant-garde enough to be the first candidate to come to a presidential debate while baked out of his ****ing mind on quaaludes, and celebrate nothing else about his entire existence.



Follow up replies

The only reason you say that is because racism.
no, this is one case where i think we can safely say that carson has achieved his astounding level of idiocy entirely on his own, without any sort of affirmative action program.


Sorry about the language... wasn't written by me

[Wolferz]

God bless us every one.:haha::haha:

[August]

So I've just read this rant about Carson and it was too good not to share

This one line dismisses his (or her) entire rant.

my unending contempt for republicans

I'm sure that Republicans have unending contempt for him (or her) too.

[AVGWarhawk]

God bless us every one.:haha::haha:


Or is it God help us every one? :06::hmmm:

[VipertheSniper]

This one line dismisses his (or her) entire rant.


I hear what you're saying, but I don't get it, but maybe I'm just a bit dense atm.

[Rockin Robbins]

So I've just read this rant about Carson and it was too good not to share



Follow up replies




Sorry about the language... wasn't written by me
Yikes, that's not a reasoned persuasion, that's projectile vomiting. Accomplished nothing and convinced no one of anything but the maniacal bloodthirsty hate of the writer. I suppose it's the style of the day, but it is just pathetic.

[Platapus]

Just because he failed doesn't mean that he wouldn't if he could get away with it.

The cogent question is: Has president Obama seriously attempted, at any time during his presidency, to confiscate privately owned firearms?

[vienna]

ISIL, Iraq or Syria are hardly relevant to the subject of an embassy attack on another continent and would serve only as a distraction to,..... hey wait a minute! :hmmm:

Actually, the subject of a very poorly handled policy and decision-making by the current administration is very relevant. The GOP is going to have to not only argue against the candidacy of whoever the DEMs nominate, they are also going to have to ague against the current record of the DEM administration in the White House. It would be better to attack the greater failing than persist in nagging away at a subject the voting public has rather much lost interest in; the FRGOP may think it is a better bet to go after Hillary solely, but they also have to consider the GOP is going to have to argue against an administration that came in to an ungodly mess left by the last GOP administration and has restored a rather high degree of order, by comparison. Also recall the failed last GOP administration was the second consecutive GOP administration to totally bollocks up the domestic economy and leave the US with external military conflicts to be later dealt with by DEM administrations, not really a bell-ringer of a track record. It is only logical the DEMs are just biding their time, letting the GOP candidates eviscerate each other (and giving the DEM nominee even more arguing points in the process) until the last GOP contender standing is nominated; that is when the DEMs can, and probably will take the GOP record to task. Reagan famously asked the question of the electorate when running for his second term "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"; the DEMs are now in the position of being able to ask "Are you better off than you were eight years ago?". The utter lack thus far of any GOP cogent, detailed economic, domestic, or foreign policy is going to be a hindrance going forward towards the election. Maybe they think the voters won"t notice the lack if the GOP just keeps holding redundant, non-productive, inane hearings. But that "would serve only as a distraction to,..... hey wait a minute! :hmmm:"....

Vienna, Instead of being more trusted than the Obama Administration in the minds of the American people, the NRA would be seen as the evil capitalist gang you claim they are if there were not a lot of truth to what they say. Gun bans, magazine bans, ammo bans, mandatory registration, including confiscation these schemes have all been proposed federally or supported at the state level, most of them repeatedly, by the Obama administration or his allies in Congress and they continue to be proposed by Clinton.

So if it comes down to who to believe, the NRA or the Democrats, on the subject of gun control there is just no contest. But this is for another thread...

I never called the NRA an " evil capitalist gang". Let's be honest about the function of such operations as the NRA. They serve only as a magnet for funds to be used not just as a means of advancing the interests of its members, but also as a funding pool for the various political interests outside of the purported purview of whatever the organizations seemingly stand for. The NRA functions in the same way as the labor unions for the Left. The unions, most notably the SEIU, speak loud and long about the workers and their needs, but take the union dues and other member contributions to advance the agendas of interests outside of the membership. The SEIU, for example, uses a substantial portion of the funds it receives to push for pro-illegal immigrant causes, up to and including, a general full amnesty. This sort of duplicitous dispensing of funds by the SEIU, and other unions being leeched by other non-union interests, has resulted in some of the more aware union members to sue or seek legislative restrictions in order to block such activity. The NRA and its membership likewise has been used by outside political interests as their "cash cows" to advance their own interests. If the NRA membership were to actually ask where there money is really going, they like the union members who woke up to what their 'leadership' was up to, they might be inclined to questions in the same manner as the suing union members. The NRA, the unions, and other sorts of such groups are little more than PACs for the interests of others...

I am not anti-gun; never have been. I believe the efforts to counter weapon restrictions are neither hindered nor enhanced by the NRA; they just make a lot of noise about the issue, make a lot a 'scare' claims and reap a very large financial benefit. More effective effort is being done by smaller groups and individuals to counter restrictions than by the NRA. The NRA just tails along to claim the 'credit', much like the someone who joins a fight after it is decided...

Confiscation, again? Again: How and by who is this going to happen, specifically? Or is just a reiteration of the "boogeyman" method of specious argument?...


<O>

[August]

Confiscation, again? Again: How and by who is this going to happen, specifically? Or is just a reiteration of the "boogeyman" method of specious argument?...

Why are you asking me? Ask Dems who propose such schemes. Clinton her evil self proposed that very thing the other day when she recommended following the Australian model of gun control. Go ask her how she intends to do it if elected President.

[Fr8monkey]

Democrats don't propose such things... The Conservatives propose the Democrats will do such things to whip up the rabid base and keep them in line.

Who is the first group to report on things like gun confiscation? Fox or MSNBC?

Guess we need more guns in the hands of people so we can have more mass shootings.

[August]

Guess we need more guns in the hands of people so we can have more mass shootings.

There were far more guns in peoples hands 100 years ago yet mass shootings are a relatively new thing. Before you make criminals out of half the country and possibly spark a nation destroying civil war maybe you ought to find out what is actually causing them.

Personally I think it has a lot more to do with the non stop glorification of graphic violence by Hollywood and in video gaming, not to mention how mass murderers are made famous by the gore addicted media, coupled with the erosion of religion in American society.

Democrats don't propose such things...

Oh yes they do and quite regularly too.

[vienna]

Quote: Democrats don't propose such things...
Oh yes they do and quite regularly too.

Really? Show me a single instance where a major, non-fringe Democratic candidate for President has ever directly proposed or openly stated an express agenda to mass confiscate guns. All we ever have is the innuendo and fear-stirring of the FRGOP in order to, as Fr8monkey put it, "to whip up the rabid base and keep them in line." The NRA profits by the increase in membership and the gun manufacturers profit by the increase in gun and ammo sales. A simple political ploy to ensure the loyalty of the base and, maybe, scare a few more votes and buck their way. It has been going of with the Far Right for a long time: put up a boogey-straw-man and try to cower the electorate into buying in without actually having to deal with the real issues and divert from the Far Rights lack of any real viable policies or solutions to issues that really, fundamentally affect the average citizen. It is the whole "Great and Mighty Oz" routine: "Pay no attention to the paucity of ideas, leadership, and solutions of the men behind the curtain!! Behold the great an fearsome spectre of [insert boogey-man of the hour - communism, evil empire, axis of evil, gun confiscation, fluoridation, etc, etc.] and follow us to yet another flawed administration!!"...

Regarding why you are being asked to explain the how of a viable gun confiscation plot, well, you keep bringing it up. Obviously you must have given the idea a good deal of thought and should be able to elaborate upon your contentions. You must, at least, know of some specific citation or reference you can give us to substantiate and detail this organized government plot to which you so often allude. Facts speak louder and more effectively than re-hashed empty rhetoric...

Your comment about asking Hillary or any DEM about their "plots" to confiscate guns is just a sad attempt at deflection. Maybe I should ask the FRGOP about their "plots" to bankrupt the middle-class, consolidate power in the hands of a very few wealthy persons and corporations and impose strict, neo-fascist "sharia" laws on the cowered American populace as part of the New World Order. A ridiculous and absurd assertion? Yes, just as ridiculous and absurd as the nebulous and unworkable "plots" and boogey-men foisted on the voters by the Far-Right. If ideas or candidates can't be sold to the voters by any other means than fear-mongering and innuendo, than what really is the value of those ideas or candidates? Empty is empty, hollow is hollow, and false is false; if your idea of effective governing is to keep putting such ideas into action or placing such candidates into office, then I would dare say we have discovered the real base problem with American democracy...


<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

There were far more guns in peoples hands 100 years ago yet mass shootings are a relatively new thing. Before you make criminals out of half the country and possibly spark a nation destroying civil war maybe you ought to find out what is actually causing them.

Personally I think it has a lot more to do with the non stop glorification of graphic violence by Hollywood and in video gaming, not to mention how mass murderers are made famous by the gore addicted media, coupled with the erosion of religion in American society.



Oh yes they do and quite regularly too.

Mass shootings are not a relatively new thing. Mass media is a relatively new thing and more people hear about it. Mass shootings pre-date 1949.

I understand your point on glorification of graphic violence but we can not rule out those that perpetrate the crime are mentally unstable for one reason or another. We consistently hear distressing things about the perp, ie home life unstable, loaner, on medication, etc. For example, at my daughters HS a new student was not received well for his first 3 weeks. The student asked to leave campus to his home as he did not feel well. The student returned an hour later. The secretary finding this odd asked to look in the students book bag. Handgun discovered. The mix of instability, bully atmosphere and accessibility of weapons is a bad mix. In my opinion, parents who are found to have let firearms accessible to kids should be found negligent and tried as such.

As far as religion and society eroding, if you look up school shootings history you will find a long list dating back to the 1800's. These are schools that prayed daily, had the 10 Commandments on the wall and said the Pledge of Allegiance everyday. The shooting still occurred.

I don't know what the answer is or pinpoint the causality. But I can say, receiving texts from my daughter who is hiding in a closet with a teach and other students because her school is lock down for a possible shooter makes me as a parent feel helpless. Much like the administrators and teachers.

[August]

Really? Show me a single instance where a major, non-fringe Democratic candidate for President has ever directly proposed or openly stated an express agenda to mass confiscate guns.

You are trying to claim that because there is no detailed published and bound plan titled "How We Will Forcibly Disarm Americans Overnight" that no such intentions exist, yet both the President and the Democratic candidates have espoused assault weapons bans. Do you think that after the ban if the police happen to find a citizen in possession of one of those evil black rifles they wouldn't confiscate it and arrest the owner? Don't you think that zealous cops won't use purchase records to target those they suspect of having them?

I don't really care if you don't like the NRA. The way I see it if it weren't for them the RKBA would have been legislated away by now.

[AVGWarhawk]

Democrats don't propose such things...

I agree with August, Dems do regularly.

[AVGWarhawk]

You are trying to claim that because there is no detailed published and bound plan titled "How We Will Forcibly Disarm Americans Overnight" that no such intentions exist, yet both the President and the Democratic candidates have espoused assault weapons bans. Do you think that after the ban if the police happen to find a citizen in possession of one of those evil black rifles they wouldn't confiscate it and arrest the owner? Don't you think that zealous cops won't use purchase records to target those they suspect of having them?

I don't really care if you don't like the NRA. The way I see it if it weren't for them the RKBA would have been legislated away by now.


Agreed. Once you start using the work "banned" the begginng of the end is at hand. The underlying idea is to ban all weapons.

[vienna]

You are trying to claim that because there is no detailed published and bound plan titled "How We Will Forcibly Disarm Americans Overnight" that no such intentions exist, yet both the President and the Democratic candidates have espoused assault weapons bans. Do you think that after the ban if the police happen to find a citizen in possession of one of those evil black rifles they wouldn't confiscate it and arrest the owner? Don't you think that zealous cops won't use purchase records to target those they suspect of having them?

I don't really care if you don't like the NRA. The way I see it if it weren't for them the RKBA would have been legislated away by now.

Oh, how you love to twist and mangle! I never asked for a "detailed published and bound plan", all I asked for was a plausible, viable scenario of the logistics involved in the thus far spurious confiscation of guns. Surely, there must be some theory or projection of the means by which the government (with either party in power) would accomplish a mass confiscation of guns, or anything else, for that matter. So far, all we get is the mantra "They're gonna take our guns!" and precious little else. Like politicians of any stripe, they rely on empty rhetoric and playing on base fears in order to stir up their bases and hide the fact they have very, very little else to offer to the nation and its people. The growing number of voters declaring themselves as independents is indicative of how the electorate is steadily moving away from the increasingly extremist-controlled established political parties. The most current tally of those declaring themselves as independent is a full third of the electorate, followed by the DEMs in second and the GOP in third and the GOP is hemorrhaging more voters to the independent camp than the DEMs. The GOP has been playing by the same game-plan and catering to the same vested interests for well over a century and have not very much to show for their efforts. The popular definition of insanity is to keep doing the same failing effort over and over again expecting a different result. Judging by the erosion of the voter base, the GOP leadership is of questionable sanity. Not that the DEMs are any great shakes, but their erosion is only half that of the GOP. The voters are tired of empty slogans and rhetoric. We don't care that the candidates "God bless America", or "America needs to be great again" and other such banal generalities. As for the 'blessing', I believe "the Lord helps those who help themselves" and there must be more done to solve problems and issues than parroting slogans invoking the Divinity; it solves nothing, and, is insulting to the Divinity, to boot. And don,t tell me "America needs to be great again"; tell us how you and your party are going to accomplish greatness; be specific and detailed with viable, rational, long-term solutions to specific problems, The first time I ever voted for a candidate not of the two major parties was when I voted for Perot in 1992. He was mocked by the major parties for his presentations, with graphs and charts, but his open, pragmatic approach to defining the problems and issues and offering detailed, workable solutions was enough to persuade 1 in 5 voters to cast their ballots for him. And the numbers of independents, like myself, has steadily grown since then and continues to grow. The Old Guard of both parties are facing a situation where they will be even more marginalized and be left to just "preaching to the choir". I will vote for any person, of any party, who will shut up with the slogans and party speak and just give me the real-life methods they will use to improve the quality of life for the majority of the citizens. There are an awful lot of like-minded voters and, together with those moderates of both parties, are going to be the ones to be convinced to vote for the candidates on the ballots; and, so far, none of the contestants is looking good...

Here is a Pew Research breakdown of party affiliations:

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

Not really looking good for either the DEMs or the GOP...


<O>

[August]

Oh, how you love to twist and mangle! I never asked for a "detailed published and bound plan", all I asked for was a plausible, viable scenario of the logistics involved in the thus far spurious confiscation of guns.

No, your last post demanded a narrow list of who has espoused the idea, now you demand a workable plan for them to do it. Like I told you several posts back, if you want details then ask the people who advocate it.

If the NRA is fear mongering like you say then it's the Democrats who keep giving them the grist for their mill.

[vienna]

Agreed. Once you start using the work "banned" the begginng of the end is at hand. The underlying idea is to ban all weapons.

The big problem is the idea of banning weapons. The argument that weapons will be legislated away is flawed. The right to own guns is Constitutional: the only way to repeal that right is a Constitutional amendment, which is pretty much never going to happen. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, as sacrosanct to the secular government as the ten Commandments is to Judaeo/Christianity. You can as much repeal the 2nd Amendment as you can repeal free speech, protection from self-incrimination or anything else set forth. I defy anyone to give me a reasonable scenario in which either political party would dare to repeal any one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights; it's just not gonna happen, people; no one can take your guns...

As far as legislation is concerned, the right can not be legislated away: there's that pesky matter of a law having to be Constitutional to be enforceable. If it can't pass the Constitutional sniff test, it is overturned and the laws cited as 'banning' guns have thus far so been overturned. This is the way it goes:

1. Some local, state, or federal law gets passed infringing on the 2nd Amendment;

2. Some person or entity challenges the law in court and secures an injunction against enforcement until the case is decided;

3. The challenge case is tried and is either found to be 'Constitutional' or not;

4. Either way the decision goes in the lower court, the challenge goes up the appeal chain to SCOTUS;

5. SCOTUS rules on the specifics of the case and invariably rules against un-Constitutional laws, sustaining the challenge;

6. During the whole process, no guns are actually banned nor are they mass confiscated: all remains as at the start;

All that is really accomplished is the FRGOP is able to extract a few more dollars and votes for having 'defended' the gun owners when there really was nothing to 'defend' and the DEMs are able to extract a few more dollars and votes for having given it the old college try when they knew at the beginning they couldn't win. Nothing has changed except some enriched politicians and their parties...

But, hey, I better be careful: I heard the GOP is going to take over the entire Web and communications when they get in power... :O:



<O>

[vienna]

No, your last post demanded a narrow list of who has espoused the idea, now you demand a workable plan for them to do it. Like I told you several posts back, if you want details then ask the people who advocate it.

If the NRA is fear mongering like you say then it's the Democrats who keep giving them the grist for their mill.


So, then, you still have nothing on your own; very telling...


<O>

[August]

So, then, you still have nothing on your own; very telling...


<O>


Yeah whatever. If that's your takeaway then your bias has blinded you.

[Fr8monkey]

I say anyone can own a firearm as per the second amendment... provided they all are muzzle-loaders as were in the 1780's when the law was first provided.

That will shut up the right wingers and cut down on all the mass shootings.

[Platapus]

I say anyone can own a firearm as per the second amendment... provided they all are muzzle-loaders as were in the 1780's when the law was first provided.

That will shut up the right wingers and cut down on all the mass shootings.

Ok, then the only free speech will be via newspapers and public speaking blocks. Because that's what they had when the law was first passed.

The freedom to petition the government has to be via a paper petition or you can wait to make an appointment to visit the government official.. because that's what they had when the law was passed.

Do you see the illogic of your position?

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Constitution that links any right to a technology level. A moment's reflection should show that it would be silly to even write a constitution that establishes such a technological link to a right.

[AVGWarhawk]

The big problem is the idea of banning weapons. The argument that weapons will be legislated away is flawed. The right to own guns is Constitutional: the only way to repeal that right is a Constitutional amendment, which is pretty much never going to happen. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, as sacrosanct to the secular government as the ten Commandments is to Judaeo/Christianity. You can as much repeal the 2nd Amendment as you can repeal free speech, protection from self-incrimination or anything else set forth. I defy anyone to give me a reasonable scenario in which either political party would dare to repeal any one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights; it's just not gonna happen, people; no one can take your guns...

As far as legislation is concerned, the right can not be legislated away: there's that pesky matter of a law having to be Constitutional to be enforceable. If it can't pass the Constitutional sniff test, it is overturned and the laws cited as 'banning' guns have thus far so been overturned. This is the way it goes:

1. Some local, state, or federal law gets passed infringing on the 2nd Amendment;

2. Some person or entity challenges the law in court and secures an injunction against enforcement until the case is decided;

3. The challenge case is tried and is either found to be 'Constitutional' or not;

4. Either way the decision goes in the lower court, the challenge goes up the appeal chain to SCOTUS;

5. SCOTUS rules on the specifics of the case and invariably rules against un-Constitutional laws, sustaining the challenge;

6. During the whole process, no guns are actually banned nor are they mass confiscated: all remains as at the start;

All that is really accomplished is the FRGOP is able to extract a few more dollars and votes for having 'defended' the gun owners when there really was nothing to 'defend' and the DEMs are able to extract a few more dollars and votes for having given it the old college try when they knew at the beginning they couldn't win. Nothing has changed except some enriched politicians and their parties...

But, hey, I better be careful: I heard the GOP is going to take over the entire Web and communications when they get in power... :O:



<O>

I agree at this time of our civilization weapons will not be outlawed and 2nd Amendment stricken from the Constitution. Several centuries from I would venture weapons(if our civilization continues as is)will find that weapons are outlawed.

[vienna]

Yeah whatever. If that's your takeaway then your bias has blinded you.

It seems it's pot and kettles, then...

...i mean, since you are obviously not biased...


<O>

[Betonov]

''Trump is loosing votes in the religious group. No American that reads the bible will vote for someone that looks like a golden calf'' ~Stephen Colbert

[vienna]

Catching up on my reading, I came across this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425863/hillary-clinton-2016-election-winner

Seems like I'm not the only person with certain views about the GOP's mishandling of its campaigns...


<O>

[Oberon]

Trump takes advantage of Paris attack, gets put in his place by the French ambassador to the US:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTvA5mpWwAExx-8.jpg:large

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

^ Trump is just doing the same thing a ton of people on Facebook are doing. I mean the very first comment I read about this was something like "How can this happen in country that bans guns?". :nope:

Of course this is one of the biggest arguments some of the pro-gun persons out there and every time I hear or read something like this is I always think, "We have laws to which make it illegal to drink and drive but there are still drunk drivers, we have laws which make theft a crime, yet people still steal, there are laws which under certain circumstances that make killing another person a crime and there are still murders. No law in the history of forever has ever stopped someone from committing a crime."

[August]

I've said it once and i'll say it again. Trump just has to be a Stalking Horse for the Clintonistas. He is like a real life version of the Colbert Report.

[Oberon]

Apparently that tweet from Trump was from the January attacks, so there's that.

[Tchocky]

I've said it once and i'll say it again. Trump just has to be a Stalking Horse for the Clintonistas. He is like a real life version of the Colbert Report.

I can see why that appeals, in a way.

Seriously doubt it's true - everything we know about his character suggests that the blustering, truth-averse, engage-mouth-before-brain personality is really and truly his.

Couple that with what I think is fairly obvious about Clinton - that she is not particularly trustful and relies on a close circle of long-time advisers.

I don't see her taking this kind of ludicrously risky chance when she's a strong enough candidate in the first place.

[vienna]

I can see why that appeals, in a way.

Seriously doubt it's true - everything we know about his character suggests that the blustering, truth-averse, engage-mouth-before-brain personality is really and truly his.

Couple that with what I think is fairly obvious about Clinton - that she is not particularly trustful and relies on a close circle of long-time advisers.

I don't see her taking this kind of ludicrously risky chance when she's a strong enough candidate in the first place.

Logical argument wins every time. Also given how, in the modern Net/social media/"trust no one" world not a thing a person in the political spotlight does is immune to very invasive scrutiny and/or discovery, old style decoy politics is way beyond risky; only a fool would take such a gamble and, when it comes to politics, Clinton is no fool. "Stalking horse" theories are merely a deflection from the sad, true reality the traditional GOP power structure is coming apart at the seams and the GOP establishment is unwilling to acknowledge their ship is taking on water. It is easier for them to blame outside influences rather than look in the mirror, acknowledge the decay, and take viable steps to right their ship. A sad state for a once great party; where is an Ike when he's needed?...


<O>




<O>

[Tchocky]

All good points.


Trump as a plant would make sense if Ben Carson wasn't beating him in the polls.

[Oberon]

Carson is almost as scary as Trump...I mean evolution as the work of the devil...really? Carbon dating being an invalid source because "really doesn't mean anything to a God who has the ability to create anything at any point in time" and the Big Bang being bogus because "Here you have all these highfalutin scientists and they’re saying it was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order ... I mean, you want to talk about fairy tales, that is amazing." :doh:

[vienna]

I guess it comes down to a preference in "fairy tales"...


<O>

[mapuc]

I guess it comes down to a preference in "fairy tales"...


<O>

Which some American believe and rush to their local voting station and vote for this Politician who has told them this fairy tale

Markus

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/XAZ7pnL.jpg

[August]

All good points.


Trump as a plant would make sense if Ben Carson wasn't beating him in the polls.


The proof will be if he runs as an independent after he looses the nomination. He'll take just .enough votes to ensure a hitlery victory

[Oberon]

He'll take ju

A Ju-87? Would explain if he takes a dive in the polls.

https://rymimg.com/lk/l/w/1b92c7a50bea2ab0185c31b661cf1950/3286953.jpg

[Platapus]

I hold out hope that Trump is just pretending to run and this is all just so he can write a book.

[Torplexed]

I hold out hope that Trump is just pretending to run and this is all just so he can write a book.

Some of Trump's recent rants make me wonder if he is mentally stable.

What I found interesting about the latest Trump rant is that he sounded so angry at not being on the top. It was an interesting study in narcissism. He chastised people who would support Carson over him. And it was so annoying to him he went on for 90 minutes to a clearly bored audience.

[August]

Calling voters stupid is never a good idea.

[Betonov]

.enough votes to ensure a hitlery victory

OK, this one is good :haha:

[ikalugin]

Trump is not scary. The only scary person (in my opinion) in those elections is Carson, because everyone else is understandable and predictable because they are sane.

[Platapus]

Calling voters stupid is never a good idea.

It is a novel campaign strategy. That's for sure.:nope:

[Tchocky]

The proof will be if he runs as an independent after he looses the nomination. He'll take just .enough votes to ensure a hitlery victory

How is that proof?

Is this just another sign that usually reasonable people check their IQ at the door when discussing politics?


hitlery
Never mind.

[Torplexed]

Trump is not scary. The only scary person (in my opinion) in those elections is Carson, because everyone else is understandable and predictable because they are sane.

At least we know who is Ben's running mate. The question is does the running mate know?

http://verysmartbrothas.com/images/2015/11/carson-and-jesus.jpg

[Betonov]

Jesus take the football

[Torplexed]

Jesus take the football

https://juettj.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/jesus-thumbs-up21.jpg

[August]

Is this just another sign that usually reasonable people check their IQ at the door when discussing politics?

Keep your personal insults to yourself.

[eddie]

First it was Kanye West making an announcement he would run for President in 2020, now he has to face a new challenge from Lindsey Lohan, who has aid she might run in 2020 also!!:har: Its so stupid, you just can't make this stuff up!!:haha:

http://www.ibtimes.com/lindsay-lohan-announces-shes-running-president-2020-wants-take-care-suffering-2145242

[CaptainRamius]

First it was Kanye West making an announcement he would run for President in 2020, now he has to face a new challenge from Lindsey Lohan, who has aid she might run in 2020 also!!:har: Its so stupid, you just can't make this stuff up!!:haha:

http://www.ibtimes.com/lindsay-lohan-announces-shes-running-president-2020-wants-take-care-suffering-2145242

I swear, if Kanye West wins the election.....:D

[Betonov]

I swear, if Kanye West wins the election.....:D

You think the Saudi fashion police is bad.
Wait for the Kardashian fashion police to take over the US.


Since we're talking about tragicomedy, any news what Trump is blowing about the Russian jet ??

[Platapus]

First it was Kanye West making an announcement he would run for President in 2020, now he has to face a new challenge from Lindsey Lohan, who has aid she might run in 2020 also!!:har: Its so stupid, you just can't make this stuff up!!:haha:

http://www.ibtimes.com/lindsay-lohan-announces-shes-running-president-2020-wants-take-care-suffering-2145242

Perhaps Ms Lohan needs to start reading the Constitution. She would not have reached the minimum age by the inauguration date in 2021.

Inauguration is 20 Jan 21 and she was born in July 86

[Oberon]

You think the Saudi fashion police is bad.
Wait for the Kardashian fashion police to take over the US.

https://rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/garak.jpg




Since we're talking about tragicomedy, any news what Trump is blowing about the Russian jet ??

I don't think I've heard anything about the jet, but it might be because he's too busy insulting disabled reporters:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34930042

[vienna]

https://rindastartrekds9.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/garak.jpg






I don't think I've heard anything about the jet, but it might be because he's too busy insulting disabled reporters:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34930042

I forget; is this Kim or Kourtney?...

Actually, I'm being unfair comparing the Kardashians to the Cardassians. One is group is known for wanting to inflict their particular will and presence of entire civilizations, for being power mad, for being overly vain and ambitious, and for having a degree of rapaciousness beyond all belief...

...and the other group are characters on "Star Trek"...

Regarding Trump, the GOP establishment is in turmoil over a guy the once saw as amusing:

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/can-trump-be-stopped-171010062.html



<O>

[Oberon]

I like this picture of Trump, it really captures his inner self...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVqmxZzWwAEYLhs.png:large

[Nippelspanner]

Out of curiosity. Are there people on Subsim who consider voting for Trump?

[Sailor Steve]

I consider voting for Trump...










...to be an act of insanity. :O:

[August]

I like this picture of Trump, it really captures his inner self...

And you guys laugh at me when I say he's a stalking horse for Hillary. :yep:

[Oberon]

I will admit that he's doing the Democrats a whole world of favours, but then again some of the other GOP candidates have also opened their mouths and created new Democrats.

Perhaps the bigger question should be, if Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary, then why has he been so popular in the GOP polls? Why wasn't he just laughed out of the race like he should have been?
That's probably the most troubling question in the room.

[Nippelspanner]

I consider voting for Trump...










...to be an act of insanity. :O:
For a short moment, the world as I knew it... ceased.
Got me good this time! :)

[Schroeder]

Perhaps the bigger question should be, if Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary, then why has he been so popular in the GOP polls? Why wasn't he just laughed out of the race like he should have been?
That's probably the most troubling question in the room.
That's actually not troubling but nothing short of terrifying. He's leading the polls by light years: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Why is it that the GOP always fields such fruit cakes and is even successful with it?:dead:

[Oberon]

That's actually not troubling but nothing short of terrifying. He's leading the polls by light years: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Why is it that the GOP always fields such fruit cakes and is even successful with it?:dead:

This year seems particularly worse for it, I mean Mitt Romney wasn't that bad in comparison to this years front runners, even Newt Grigrich and Rick Santorum weren't quite as gaff-prone as the top two in this one.

[AVGWarhawk]

That's actually not troubling but nothing short of terrifying. He's leading the polls by light years: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Why is it that the GOP always fields such fruit cakes and is even successful with it?:dead:


I truly believe Trump does not want to win the nomination or become president at all. The crazy talk he puts forth everyday will bury any chances he has. He knows it. Months ago Trump stated if he does not get the nod from the GOP he will not run. He was giving himself an exit with this statement at that time. As he generated momentum and things really started to look good for his nomination the off the wall crazy talk started. IMO Trump has used this campaign as nothing but a stump to say the things that are not said or need to be said. For me, Cruz is less of a lunatic at this juncture.

I like Ben Carson. However, Mr. Carson says odd things as well. At any rate, Mr. Carson needs to get a bit of fire in his belly.


Whatever the case, when a Jr Senator is voted in not once but twice I begin to wonder.

[ikalugin]

Out of curiosity. Are there people on Subsim who consider voting for Trump?
I would. But then some men would just like to see the world burn :P

[Nippelspanner]

Jesus Christ guys, I asked genuinely, stop trolling me! :har:

[mapuc]

My first thought was not "Mr Trump do know how to put him self in "Funny" situations" NO

It was after I heard that other Democrats had rejected his opinions I thought

How many of these Democrats and others are saying this, due to fear of being labeled as racist or fear of not being political correct.

I believe that far more Americans, more or less agree with Mr Trump than what they dare to admit

Would I vote on Mr Trump if I was an American ??

NO! I don't like to put every foreigners into one bag-there are good people and bad people everywhere.

Markus

[AVGWarhawk]

My first thought was not "Mr Trump do know how to put him self in "Funny" situations" NO

It was after I heard that other Democrats had rejected his opinions I thought

How many of these Democrats and others are saying this, due to fear of being labeled as racist or fear of not being political correct.

I believe that far more Americans, more or less agree with Mr Trump than what they dare to admit

Would I vote on Mr Trump if I was an American ??

NO! I don't like to put every foreigners into one bag-there are good people and bad people everywhere.

Markus


I do believe Trump does say a lot of things that most are thinking but will not say.

[Nippelspanner]

I do believe Trump does say a lot of things that most are thinking but will not say.
If this is true, America should elect the president it deserves and experience the consequences.

Though, I do not think that is true.
There are a lot of shallow, narrow minded idiots who would seriously consider voting this racist piece of crap. But the stuff he says isn't even "not pc", it is simply unfounded garbage and mostly lies. And I believe most people see through that, are better than that.

[Oberon]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/12347840_1028367733871590_1419011509527015182_n.pn g?oh=cf090d5a05fdb276469c2e2d4b876498&oe=5720C542

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12316436_1028367730538257_1975615151836104366_n.pn g?oh=7d1b57eb957476b427d59358f619d2ab&oe=571F3F09

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/59002720.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CL1yVzKWIAAPlBe.png

[AVGWarhawk]

If this is true, America should elect the president it deserves and experience the consequences.

Though, I do not think that is true.
There are a lot of shallow, narrow minded idiots who would seriously consider voting this racist piece of crap. But the stuff he says isn't even "not pc", it is simply unfounded garbage and mostly lies. And I believe most people see through that, are better than that.

Why do you think there would be consequences? We are experiencing the consequences of those that say anything to get a vote. Martin O'Malley is the worst for pandering for a vote. The type that would say anything to get a vote whether true or not. Either way, what O'malley will say is always heartwarming and caring. The guy only cares about his career. I dealt with him here in MD as my gov. He does not care about his voters.


Pick your poison.


As time goes on I really see Trump as a loose cannon who best to stay in the real estate industry.

[Oberon]

White House says that Trump has disqualified himself from running for president and urges Republicans to reject him immediately:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-donald-trump-disqualified_566720a3e4b08e945ff123cc

[AVGWarhawk]

White House says that Trump has disqualified himself from running for president and urges Republicans to reject him immediately:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-donald-trump-disqualified_566720a3e4b08e945ff123cc


I guess this is Trumps birth certificate-gate.

Earnest noted first that every president must take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the U.S. Constitution, and thus, he said, Trump would not qualify.He has not taken an oath for the office he has not won yet. What a waste of time for all involved in this "news" for today.

[Oberon]

Aye, I think a lot of people are going to be getting excited and then disappointed at the thought of Trump being bounced out of the race. This isn't a red card, this is just as 'Please...GOP...do something about this idiot.' from the White House. :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

Aye, I think a lot of people are going to be getting excited and then disappointed at the thought of Trump being bounced out of the race. This isn't a red card, this is just as 'Please...GOP...do something about this idiot.' from the White House. :haha:


The GOP is clueless as to what they represent. With exception of their own careers. Funny....Trump is now being attached from all fronts...it appears then that many in DC are getting concerned...

[vienna]

Trump is no stalking horse. He is not a product of anything else other than his own vanity, hunger for power, hunger for attention and the apparent willingness of a surprising number of voters to feed his mania. Neither Hillary or the DEMs had to create him or fuel his efforts. In a very substantial way, Trump is perhaps the fulfillment, the epitome of the Far Right's efforts in terms of American politics; he is wish made flesh. This is very much as what happened in the Far Left when their efforts resulted in the elevation of candidates such as McCarty and McGovern, etc. This is the political version of "be careful what you wish for..." and the rest of the GOP is reaping the fallout from the efforts of the Far Right, much as the DEMs suffered the fallout of the Far left. Trump is the Far Right's Frankenstein Monster and, now, they can't control him...

On the plus side for the GOP, any one they do run, no matter how off-putting, is going to seem sane and reasonable in comparison...

This whole Trump brouhaha has put me in mind of the Peter O'Toole film, "The Ruling Class", where a mad British heir to a peerage, believing himself to be Christ, does and says the most outrageous things and, ultimately, becomes a member of the House of Lords. In one of the scenes, O'Toole enters a fox hunting lodge and begins to spout off about what is wrong with Britain and gets much approbation from the other rich, conservative, members in the room, no mater how outrageous his utterances:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWdxezzDHKo

The "politics of fear", indeed. I once saw an interview with the director of the film where he described this scene. The scene was shot at an actual upper-class fox hunting lodge. While waiting for the crew to finish unloading equipment, O'Toole, in costume and character, entered the lodge, which at the time was filled with actual wealthy hunters and their families and friends, who were not expecting him to enter. He went into his speech and, to the surprise of the director and O'Toole, met an enthusiastic response, with may shouts of "Yes!", "Hear, Hear!" and "Quite Right!". The hunters, et al, actually had no idea O'Toole was merely reciting lines from the script and that what he was saying were not his actual beliefs. O'Toole, surprised and emboldened by the response, then amplified on the original speech by making some of the most racist, elitist, and generally politically incorrect (even forty-plus years ago) statements he could think of at the moment. When he finished, there was an outburst of applause and cheers...

Unfortunately for the US, this election is not a scripted film and Trump is not an actor merely playing a role. The mere fact Trump can elicit such a response from a sizable portion of the electorate is cause for concern and a cold-water wake-up call for the more reasonable, sane portion of the GOP. The way it stands now, the 2016 Presidential election may not be won by the DEMs, but, rather, lost by the GOP and their acquiescence to the very loud, but very small, portion of their party. They lost the last two elections by heeding the fringe and tripped over their own feet; they should tread carefully now and try to avoid tripping over the pattern on the rug...


<O>

[Platapus]

When even Dick Cheney thinks you are a wacko, that's gotta tell you something

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dick-cheney-donald-trump-muslims_5666345ae4b079b2818fe17c

[AVGWarhawk]

When even Dick Cheney thinks you are a wacko, that's gotta tell you something

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dick-cheney-donald-trump-muslims_5666345ae4b079b2818fe17c


Dick is still looking for WMD.

[Platapus]

Of course when Ann Coulter likes you, that says something too.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ann-coulter-on-paris-attack-donald-trump-was-elected-president-tonight/

[AVGWarhawk]

I consider voting for Trump...










...to be an act of insanity. :O:


And why is that?

[August]

I don't like Trump but I hate Hitlery. Is my choice really going to be between a fool and a criminal? :nope:

[nikimcbee]

I don't like Trump but I hate Hitlery. Is my choice really going to be between a fool and a criminal? :nope:


This.:/\\k::agree:

[AVGWarhawk]

Like him or not....Trump can not be bought. It appears the status quo on both sides of the isle is getting rattled as a result. I do think Trump is out there. Way out there. However, I do like to see the system shaken up a bit.

I still like Crazy Ben. Ben is the only contestant on the President is Right that has visited Syria. Visited the great wall(that is not so great) between Mexico and the USA. He is truly a hard luck story that did well for himself. He needs more fire in his desire to win.

[nikimcbee]

As a politician, here's my bi-partisan idea. DNC dumps HRC, we'll dump Trump. Deal?

[Oberon]

This.:/\\k::agree:
It's a pretty bad situation the GOP has got itself into, and yet Trump remains so popular amongst the GOP base which begs the question, what is the GOP base?

[August]

It's a pretty bad situation the GOP has got itself into, and yet Trump remains so popular amongst the GOP base which begs the question, what is the GOP base?

Just remember that so far this is all about media popularity contests not votes. Who the GOP base will actually nominate remains to be seen. Maybe i'm just being optimistic.

[Betonov]

http://i.imgur.com/llYxhPW.jpg

[Oberon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35052505

:haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

It's a pretty bad situation the GOP has got itself into, and yet Trump remains so popular amongst the GOP base which begs the question, what is the GOP base?

Oh you know...the ones clinging to guns and religion.

No one really knows who the base comprises of because the GOP have no clue who they are or stand for.

[Bilge_Rat]

just remember that on dec. 8, 2011, this is what the GOP polls showed:

Newt Gingrich - 37%
Mitt Romney - 23%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Part y_2012_presidential_primaries


still early days.

[Onkel Neal]

Oh you know...the ones clinging to guns and religion.

No one really knows who the base comprises of because the GOP have no clue who they are or stand for.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d-8ue5VN_4s/UONwAkHf9rI/AAAAAAAApj0/zZsY9cyhoCY/s1600/clingwrap.jpg

Not these guys, I suppose? :hmmm:

[Bilge_Rat]

and I like this one from november 29, 2011 on a possible matchup:

Newt Gingrich - 45%

Barack Obama - 43%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_p residential_election,_2012

[AVGWarhawk]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d-8ue5VN_4s/UONwAkHf9rI/AAAAAAAApj0/zZsY9cyhoCY/s1600/clingwrap.jpg

Not these guys, I suppose? :hmmm:

:haha:

I don't think BO was talking about them either while campaigning 7 years ago.

[August]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35052505

:haha:


So what happens if he wins the White House? Is our special relationship finally over at that point?

[AVGWarhawk]

So what happens if he wins the White House? Is our special relationship finally over at that point?


Good question. However, I do not believe Trump wants to win. His rhetoric will get more bizarre IMO. This will will give him an out.

[Oberon]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d-8ue5VN_4s/UONwAkHf9rI/AAAAAAAApj0/zZsY9cyhoCY/s1600/clingwrap.jpg

Not these guys, I suppose? :hmmm:

Well, considering that Trumps rhetoric helps those guys out a helluva lot then I guess, yes.

[vienna]

No one really knows who the base comprises of because the GOP have no clue who they are or stand for.

Precisely the position and condition the DEMs found themselves in during the late 60s into the 80s when their extreme fringe on the Far Left had de facto control of the party. Perhaps that old saw about those who do not learn from history should be repeated to the GOP leadership, if they really have any...

It is still very early to be too very concerned about the possible final GOP nominee, but I would like to see Paul Ryan floated as a possible candidate. The more I read and see about him, the more impressed I am in his handling of situations. His sort of "put up or shut up" showdown with the GOP's Far Right fringe in the House was masterful and put the kibosh on the fringe's attempt to dictate the party's direction. Add to this a sound work ethic and a firm grounding in economic matters and he is far and beyond the caliber of the current crop of GOP wannabe candidates. He also has a solid sense of the importance of family. The only thing I fear is he might be too good to be true and may ultimately fall to a petty scandal like so many other politicians, but I kind of sense this isn't going to happen. I say the GOP should draft Ryan at the Convention and make the next election a real race...


<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

Precisely the position and condition the DEMs found themselves in during the late 60s into the 80s when their extreme fringe on the Far Left had de facto control of the party. Perhaps that old saw about those who do not learn from history should be repeated to the GOP leadership, if they really have any...

It is still very early to be too very concerned about the possible final GOP nominee, but I would like to see Paul Ryan floated as a possible candidate. The more I read and see about him, the more impressed I am in his handling of situations. His sort of "put up or shut up" showdown with the GOP's Far Right fringe in the House was masterful and put the kibosh on the fringe's attempt to dictate the party's direction. Add to this a sound work ethic and a firm grounding in economic matters and he is far and beyond the caliber of the current crop of GOP wannabe candidates. He also has a solid sense of the importance of family. The only thing I fear is he might be too good to be true and may ultimately fall to a petty scandal like so many other politicians, but I kind of sense this isn't going to happen. I say the GOP should draft Ryan at the Convention and make the next election a real race...


<O>

Paul needs to shave and clean himself up for the position he was appointed.

Other than that....he will fold up like a pup-tent the rest of them.

[vienna]

Paul needs to shave and clean himself up for the position he was appointed.

Other than that....he will fold up like a pup-tent the rest of them.

So, you're saying Ryan is a "damn hippie"? :haha:

Something not taken too much note of, but is very important to the election process, is SCOTUS taking an active interest in 14th Amendment issues regarding congressional districts and the processes used to determine how they are drawn. Here are two of the most recent actions by SCOTUS:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1207/Supreme-Court-takes-up-one-person-one-vote-case

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-scotus-redistricting-20151208-story.html

The issue of redistricting has become a forefront issue and does have an impact, if not on the upcoming 2016 Presidential election, most certainly on future Presidential and Congressional elections, and ultimately, affecting the Electoral College voting. It will be interesting to see which way the votes will fall in SCOTUS and if it results in a standardized, unified mode of determining districts nationwide...


<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

So, you're saying Ryan is a "damn hippie"? :haha:

Something not taken too much note of, but is very important to the election process, is SCOTUS taking an active interest in 14th Amendment issues regarding congressional districts and the processes used to determine how they are drawn. Here are two of the most recent actions by SCOTUS:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1207/Supreme-Court-takes-up-one-person-one-vote-case

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-scotus-redistricting-20151208-story.html

The issue of redistricting has become a forefront issue and does have an impact, if not on the upcoming 2016 Presidential election, most certainly on future Presidential and Congressional elections, and ultimately, affecting the Electoral College voting. It will be interesting to see which way the votes will fall in SCOTUS and if it results in a standardized, unified mode of determining districts nationwide...


<O>

As it should. I see you linked Maryland. O'Malley(who is busy pandering for a position as president or at least a VP for Hillary) did single handed change the districts to of course...his favor(Dems). But, MD has always been as blue as blue can get. Currently, however, our gov is a republican. :hmmm:

[Betonov]

https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12342835_10153756285216800_1103509613085234621_n.j pg?oh=e1be2f1945c0e0e7ccd66df7ccf64e9f&oe=5720DD03