2016 US Presidential election thread

[Oberon]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/4b/5e/91/4b5e912824ce5def2cec04b84416df28.jpg

Chair/Table - 2016

[Skybird]

A wicked, mean question but - what is the alternative to Trump? Sanders? Clinton...? Me thinks these two are different from Trump - but not one bit better. Just different - but as bad.

If there ever was a solid reason for the American people to boycott elections and set ablaze congress and white house instead and chase their political "elite" :har: into the oceans, then this situaiion now is it, served on a golden plate.

And make hay while the sun shines. Get rid of those lobbyists too, once and forever.

The West has been turned into a mental asylum. Now they start to tear down the last remaining walls to the outside world.

[Oberon]

Well, there's always China. :yeah:

[vienna]

Do you have a particular pattern picked out?...


<O>

[August]

I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first heard that. I was too young to vote then, though they lowered the voting age to 18 the same year I hit 21.


Coincidentally I remember exactly where I was when they raised the drinking age from 18 to 21. Luckily I was just 20 days too old for it to apply to me. :woot:

[razark]

there is a chance the voters might actually vote for the chair over the persons running...
Is that an option?

[ReallyDedPoet]

Canada Baby :-) (https://youtu.be/sCyzdD0vYOw)
* Language warning.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/fH1nXzFl.png

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/MQkNc0U.jpg

[STEED]

http://i.imgur.com/MQkNc0U.jpg

If they copy the Professor and Mom, eyeballs will be popping out of heads. :03: :haha:

[vienna]

Is that an option?

Only if we also replace Congress with a nice selection of Barcaloungers...



<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Found this an interesting look at the future of the US Congress:https://www.yahoo.com/

https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/Z2zxqIgUAV1bRfLuy941ZA--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3E9NzU7dz02NDA7c209MTtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/http://slingstone.zenfs.com/offnetwork/c0eae3568f31d7e27010d5910ccc536e.cf.jpg

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) listens as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
speaks on Capitol Hill on Dec. 9 before Ryan signed legislation to change how the nation's public schools
are evaluated, rewriting the landmark No Child Left Behind education law of 2002. (Susan Walsh/Associated Press)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said she thinks that with the right political winds
— i.e. Hillary Clinton heading Democrats' presidential ticket in November — her party can take back
control of the House, a position they haven't held since 2010

[Onkel Neal]

Canada Baby :-) (https://youtu.be/sCyzdD0vYOw)
* Language warning.
]

Cabin Boy Monthly :har:

Hey, we have a Canadian in this election, want him back? :arrgh!:

[u crank]

Hey, we have a Canadian in this election, want him back?

No thank you. :O:

[Mr Quatro]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said she thinks that with the right political winds
— i.e. Hillary Clinton heading Democrats' presidential ticket in November — her party can take back
control of the House

She can't have it both ways ... can she?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-heaps-praise-bernie-sanders-knocking-health/story?id=36602074

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi repeatedly praised Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and his campaign Friday, days after dismissing his proposal to raise taxes to pay for a single-payer health care plan.

"I think Bernie Sanders has a very positive message," Pelosi, D-California, told reporters at a news conference wrapping up House Democrats' annual policy retreat. "It's about fairness, it's about opportunity, and we are united for opportunity."

[Penguin]

No thank you. :O:

You guys "lost" Ted's birth certificate, eh? :D

[Oberon]

She can't have it both ways ... can she?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-heaps-praise-bernie-sanders-knocking-health/story?id=36602074

She'll be lucky to have it any way.

Nah, I'd say that it'll be a Dem President but the Republicans will keep hold of at least one side of the Capitol.

[mapuc]

Ups sorry :oops::oops:

[Oberon]

And it seems like the ordinary citizens in Sweden are prevented in knowing the truth about refugees and immigrants behavior-If they want to know they have to use "hide my ip-locations" stuff.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/29/daily-mail-articles-blocked-in-sweden-over-migrant-stabbing-court-case/

Or read Swedish news paper located outside Sweden.

Markus

Or post in the correct thread.

[vienna]

No thank you. :O:

Hey, look, you gave us Celine Dion, then Justin Bieber; haven't you guys done enough harm? You gotta take 'em all back, or, at least, two of 'em; you can leave Celine; at least she's not too hard on the eyes...


<O>

[vienna]

Cover of the February 1, 2016 New Yorker magazine:

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/02_01_16-400.jpg



<O>

[Torplexed]

https://scontent.fyhz1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12647137_1055386881190481_3971800159679650585_n.jp g?oh=cd709bdbdc8d728c67c6ab676e94001d&oe=574726CD

[Betonov]

Cover of the February 1, 2016 New Yorker magazine:

<O>

I think TR would have shot and stuffed Trumps hair :)

[Oberon]

I think TR would have shot and stuffed Trumps hair :)

:har:

Spot on! :up:

[Rockstar]

I think the magazines and cartoons are on to something but its not what you think. Take a close look into the lives of the men pictured. Granted they're all politicians, but these fellas didn't get to where they are in life because of Neanderthal behavior.

IMO the reason you percieve them to be something less, is because you may be in the minority group of those having a lick of sense. Personaly I don't think politicians have changed all that much. Look into what has been said in any previous election of yesteryear. You'll see they same kind of mindless rhetoric and drama.

These highly intelligent go getters are speaking to the majority. The uneductaed voters who spend their days watching reality TV, playing video games and who also happen to be dumber than a box of rocks.

Face it, if these guys let loose the level of conversation would be so far above the head of the average voter they would soon be tuned out. If you ask me they are simply pandering to the local idiots thats also happen to be the majority of voters.

[Oberon]

It's a fair point and I recall, a while ago, someone on some show, probably the type of topical news program that appears in the evening on BBC2, who said that while we always criticise politicians for spinning the truth and lying, and newspapers and media for 'dumbing down', both of these entities are only wanting to tell us what they perceive us wanting to hear from them. So who is to blame? :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

The way I see it, I dont think you can blame any one group or person its's just the way it is. Political rhetoric and magazine covers are designed to feed the emotion more so than the brain. Its easier to divide and conquer I suppose. And voters eat it up.

[Onkel Neal]

You guys "lost" Ted's birth certificate, eh? :D

We have guys who make him a new one :)

Man, Hillary is not taking the upcoming email indictment well. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-email-excuses-are-falling-apart/2016/01/25/86e8022e-c36a-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html):dead:

Lash out as she might, Clinton’s constantly changing email story is rapidly falling apart. First, Clinton claimed there was “no classified material” on her private server — which turned out to be untrue. Then she claimed none of the intelligence on her server was “classified at the time” — which also turned out to be untrue. Now, in a National Public Radio interview last week, Clinton said there was no information that was “marked classified.”

Boys, this is the Washington Post saying this. Bloomberg, get your track shoes on.

[Oberon]

I would be surprised if she gets pulled from the election because of this, but it's certainly going to keep coming back, and if she makes president it's going to be her 'Birth Certificate' issue.

[Oberon]

Dick Nixon sizes up the candidates:
http://mashable.com/2016/01/31/dick-nixon-sizes-up-campaign-trump-cruz/?utm_cid=hp-hh-pri#aF2QRVW1Dmq8

[mapuc]

A simple question, perhaps not so simple after all.

What kind of domestic politics could the American expect if one of the Dem. candidates or the Rep. candidates wins Presidential election?

What kind of foreign policy, can we expect if one of the Dem. candidates or one of the Rep candidates win?

Markus

[vienna]

To quote Pete Townsend: "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss"...



<O>

[STEED]

A simple question, perhaps not so simple after all.

What kind of domestic politics could the American expect if one of the Dem. candidates or the Rep. candidates wins Presidential election?

What kind of foreign policy, can we expect if one of the Dem. candidates or one of the Rep candidates win?

Markus

Prepare for WW3

Start WW3




Lets hope not. :03:

[mapuc]

Prepare for WW3

Start WW3




Lets hope not. :03:

I have heard this, if Trump should win it will mean WW3, but what with the other Rep Candidate. ? Will The be more wars where USA is directly or indirectly involved ?

The same question goes for Hillary and the other Dem. Candidate.

Markus

[STEED]

The same question goes for Hillary and the other Dem. Candidate.

Markus

I was reading some where in a news paper or magazine the Democrats would like another war and Hillary is all for it! But as I recall from the article they did not in any way prove their case, which makes you think media sensation article.

[Jimbuna]

A simple question, perhaps not so simple after all.

What kind of domestic politics could the American expect if one of the Dem. candidates or the Rep. candidates wins Presidential election?

What kind of foreign policy, can we expect if one of the Dem. candidates or one of the Rep candidates win?

Markus

Far too early for that kind of speculation.

Heck.....some Americans aren't even sure what the policy of the current POTUS is.

[razark]

If our side wins, domestic policy will get slightly better, but they will try and block any real improvement. Around the world, America will be universally loved, strong and powerful, and will dominate the economic scene.

If their side wins, they will do everything to make America the worst country in the world. Everything will go to hell in a handbasket as we blindly charge down the path to total destruction and ruin. America will be reviled on the world stage, and every other country will become a major superpower, with our help.



And I know this is completely accurate, because I've heard them saying the exact same thing!

[Jimbuna]

If our side wins, domestic policy will get slightly better, but they will try and block any real improvement. Around the world, America will be universally loved, strong and powerful, and will dominate the economic scene.

If their side wins, they will do everything to make America the worst country in the world. Everything will go to hell in a handbasket as we blindly charge down the path to total destruction and ruin. America will be reviled on the world stage, and every other country will become a major superpower, with our help.



And I know this is completely accurate, because I've heard them saying the exact same thing!

LOL

[Sailor Steve]

I have heard this, if Trump should win it will mean WW3...
I remember people saying exactly the same thing about Ronald Reagan. The fact is that the President has limitations placed upon him that limit this sort of thing. Only Congress can declare war and Congress controls the money. We do manage to get involved in all sorts of "non-wars" that get a lot of our soldiers killed, but it happens no matter which side wins and it seems to have a mind of its own.

@ Razark: Very well put! And of course it goes all the way back to 1800: "If Jefferson is elected, murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood and the nation black with crimes!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

[August]

"If Jefferson is elected, murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood and the nation black with crimes!"

Do you think they could actually see the future or did they just make a lucky guess? :)

[Oberon]

Good news! Vermin Supreme is currently polling ahead of Jim Gilmore, bringing us ever closer to the day when every American will have a free pony.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaLU2n2UUAAfq7K.jpg:large

[Oberon]

Looks like O'Malley is dropping out, so that's a point to Neal, me, Bilge_rat and Becker67 at least. :up:
Carson, meanwhile, has gone back to Florida to change his pants.

So far it seems that Cruz is going to take this one, with Clinton squeaking in a narrow victory over Saunders.

EDIT: And there goes Huckabee as well.

[Dan D]

@Boss
Vot iss with Clinton and Sanders? We call it a draw here within the game? I have heard people had to throw the dice three times.

Do I get a point for Sanders? That should be fair if it is the same number of ecletic "electors".

[Bilge_Rat]

Bush and Christie should drop out soon also, you can't survive with such low results.

Looks like the next GOP nominee will be either Cruz or Rubio.

[AVGWarhawk]

Bush and Christie should drop out soon also, you can't survive with such low results.

Looks like the next GOP nominee will be either Cruz or Rubio.


Not necessarily. Iowa is not what I call representative of all. Each state has it's own demographics. Each candidate is seen differently from state to state. Much to early to call.

However, simply stating FREE, FREE, FREE, FREE, FREE and the age group 18-29 that 84% voted for Bernie(IA) tells me his campaign is going to ride that from state to state. Even the the Free State. :-) Reach as many young voters promising FREE and watch Bernie reach the WH.

[Onkel Neal]

@Boss
Vot iss with Clinton and Sanders? We call it a draw here within the game? I have heard people had to throw the dice three times.

Do I get a point for Sanders? That should be fair if it is the same number of ecletic "electors".

The Democratic Party has not officially declared a winner or tie, but news reports seem to indicate that Clinton has a couple more delegates, and about .02 more votes. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-iowa_us_56b03247e4b057d7d7c7fcfa) If that changes, the contest results will be updated.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-02-01

Hillary Clinton appeared to narrowly overtake Democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in Iowa, with all but one precinct reporting results by early Tuesday morning.

According to the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP), the former secretary of state received 699.57 state delegate equivalents, while Sanders was awarded 695.49. Results from Des Moines, the remaining precinct, were still trickling in on Tuesday, but it's not worth enough votes for Sanders to move to first place. There is no mechanism for a recount.

Still, the outcome was so close that IDP Chair Andy McGuire called the results a "virtual tie." (See the latest results here.)

[AVGWarhawk]

Hanging chads! :doh:

[Oberon]

The Democratic nominations in Iowa, as sponsored by Harvey Dent:

https://media.giphy.com/media/KCiex6YqEMFDG/giphy.gif

[Onkel Neal]

No kidding, pretty wild. Supposedly she won all six coin flips. ;) Well, maybe so, but in practical terms she only managed a few delegates more than Sanders. Wow, just wait till South Carolina. I don't know how Sanders is going to wrench the black vote away from the Clintons, they own it.:arrgh!:

[Oberon]

I think the real winner in Iowa seems to be Rubio, he's come from far behind into third place. He could certainly do well to try and push for the moderate vote out of those Republicans who are scared of Cruz and Trump.
I think Jeb! and Christie will probably drop out soon, maybe next week.

[Skybird]

Saw this the first time ever on TV tonight, and all I could think was "Oh. My. God."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

Man is a hopeless case.

[AVGWarhawk]

No kidding, pretty wild. Supposedly she won all six coin flips. ;) Well, maybe so, but in practical terms she only managed a few delegates more than Sanders. Wow, just wait till South Carolina. I don't know how Sanders is going to wrench the black vote away from the Clintons, they own it.:arrgh!:

The coin came for Bills pocket and it was heads on both sides. :har:

[AVGWarhawk]

Saw this the first time ever on TV tonight, and all I could think was "Oh. My. God."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

Man is a hopeless case.


Coming out fighting!

http://carlwithak.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/apollo-creed.jpg


But I agree, that little show before the rally was silly.

[Skybird]

But I agree, that little show before the rally was silly.

Silly? Kim Yong Il couldn't have done it better.

[AVGWarhawk]

Silly? Kim Yong Il couldn't have done it better.

Well, Kim Yong Il haircut is just as silly as Trump's comb over. :har:

[Platapus]

If our side wins, domestic policy will get slightly better, but they will try and block any real improvement. Around the world, America will be universally loved, strong and powerful, and will dominate the economic scene.

If their side wins, they will do everything to make America the worst country in the world. Everything will go to hell in a handbasket as we blindly charge down the path to total destruction and ruin. America will be reviled on the world stage, and every other country will become a major superpower, with our help.



And I know this is completely accurate, because I've heard them saying the exact same thing!


Unfortunately, that is the depth of many Americans when it comes to politics.

[vienna]

Saw this the first time ever on TV tonight, and all I could think was "Oh. My. God."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

Man is a hopeless case.

Ah, yes, but if Trump wins, you can tell you grandchildren you witnessed the birth of the Trump Youth...


<O>

[Jimbuna]

The coin came for Bills pocket and it was heads on both sides. :har:

LOL :)

[Torplexed]

Saw this the first time ever on TV tonight, and all I could think was "Oh. My. God."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

Man is a hopeless case.

After that I need some David Bowie to cleanse my mind. :doh:


I've been wondering for a while about Trump and why he's in this race. I believe that Trump loves closing deals. He loves winning. He loves the thrill of the chase. I believe, however, that he hates the nitty-gritty of running a business. When he sets up every new business, he puts someone else in charge of it. He doesn't like the actual work. That's for other people. He closes the deal, and hands that sucker off, and moves on to the next deal.

He wants to win the election. It's genuine. It's the ultimate prize. President!

I don't think he's fully realized yet that if he wins this one, he can't just hand it off to someone else to run. He can delegate a lot, but still has to be present every single day.

So I can see Trump eventually walking away from the job. Not under a scandal. Not from being impeached. Just because he got tired of having to work every day. His running mate will be important. After all, Bush let Cheney run it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ah, yes, but if Trump wins, you can tell you grandchildren you witnessed the birth of the Trump Youth...


<O>


Highly unlikely a remake of Boys From Brazil will occur if Trump wins the WH.

[AVGWarhawk]

I've been wondering for a while about Trump and why he's in this race. I believe that Trump loves closing deals. He loves winning. He loves the thrill of the chase. I believe, however, that he hates the nitty-gritty of running a business. When he sets up every new business, he puts someone else in charge of it. He doesn't like the actual work. That's for other people. He closes the deal, and hands that sucker off, and moves on to the next deal.

.

Is this not what a President does?

[August]

After that I need some David Bowie to cleanse my mind. :doh:


I've been wondering for a while about Trump and why he's in this race. I believe that Trump loves closing deals. He loves winning. He loves the thrill of the chase. I believe, however, that he hates the nitty-gritty of running a business. When he sets up every new business, he puts someone else in charge of it. He doesn't like the actual work. That's for other people. He closes the deal, and hands that sucker off, and moves on to the next deal.

He wants to win the election. It's genuine. It's the ultimate prize. President!

I don't think he's fully realized yet that if he wins this one, he can't just hand it off to someone else to run. He can delegate a lot, but still has to be present every single day.

So I can see Trump eventually walking away from the job. Not under a scandal. Not from being impeached. Just because he got tired of having to work every day. His running mate will be important. After all, Bush let Cheney run it.

I think this is a very wise assessment of the man. Part of me still thinks he's a Klintonista stalking horse though.

[Onkel Neal]

Rand Paul drops out, ruining my drop pick :(
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/breaking-rand-paul-suspending-2016-presidential-campaign/

[Oberon]

http://cf.mp-cdn.net/bd/58/278e646299e40a12354942c4d321-its-not-happening.jpg

[Webster]

who knows????????????????

maybe cruz could actually win the nomination? I still think its 70/30 it trumps favor but the democrat side is more interesting in me making up my mind.,

cruz can beat the socialist sanders but im not sure if he can beat Hillary and he may have trouble even getting a slim win over sanders only as independents vote against sanders rather then "for" cruz. and he wants to repeal obama care rather then just tinker with it around the edges as others do.

I think trump can beat both sanders or Hillary but, he isn't all that conservative and will likely not support or sign any conservative legislation that goes to his desk as president, namely repealing Obama care. even though he can fix the tax situation, put smart people in charge of things they know and get rid of political hacks in jobs just because they are donors, but he likes Obama care which makes me want to throw up and NOT vote for him for that reason alone.

I like the majority of cruz's thinking on issues, mainly because he is a true conservative, but trump is more capable to do the things that need doing even though he is a moderate liberal that I disagree with most of his views on things.

my dream come true, would be Cruz as president and have Donald trump on the transitioning team where he is put in charge of fixing the tax codes, evaluating peoples ability to do the jobs they hold in government and putting the right people in those positions, and negotiating a closed border with fence with mexico so no one comes in unless its done legally.

[Bilge_Rat]

Rand Paul drops out, ruining my drop pick :(
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/breaking-rand-paul-suspending-2016-presidential-campaign/

That is why I am waiting before making my pick. :D

Rubio is moving, Sen. Scott endorsed him and now Sen. Toomey will, but he has a way to go to catch Trump.

[Webster]

That is why I am waiting before making my pick. :D

Rubio is moving, Sen. Scott endorsed him and now Sen. Toomey will, but he has a way to go to catch Trump.

my dislike of Rubio is he is just like most republicans in congress today, a rhino republican who supports more illegal immigration not less and he thinks we don't have an illegal immigration problem.

that said, he is still in it and the entire war machine of the republican party will now work hard top get this rhino elected as the only viable non conservative candidate and then he will lose just as rhino McCain and rhino Romney did

[Onkel Neal]

That is why I am waiting before making my pick. :D

Rubio is moving, Sen. Scott endorsed him and now Sen. Toomey will, but he has a way to go to catch Trump.

Yeah, that would have been smart of me but I wanted to be BOLD! :dead:

[AVGWarhawk]

Of the three:
Rubio
Trump
Cruz

Only one do I think sticks to his convictions(although some a bit crazy) with vim and viger. That would be Cruz. For me, Trump still seems to be a PR stunt. Rubio looks like he would fold like a pup tent.

Sanders has me concerned. The slogan this go around is not, "Yes We Can." The new slogan is, "Free."

[vienna]

Highly unlikely a remake of Boys From Brazil will occur if Trump wins the WH.

https://variouspontifications.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/screen-shot-2013-10-30-at-11-32-57-pm.png


"Yes, I agree, not a chance..."...

Dr. Josef Mengele: You are a clever boy. Are you not? You do not well at school, but it's because you are too clever. Too busy, thinking your own thoughts. But you are much smarter than your teachers, hah?

Bobby Wheelock: My teachers are nowhere.

Dr. Josef Mengele: You are going to be the world's greatest photographer, are you not? Have you ever felt superior to those around you? Like a prince among peasants?

Bobby Wheelock: I feel different from everyone sometimes.

Dr. Josef Mengele: You are infinite different. Infinite superior. You are born of the noblest blood in the world.



<O>

[mapuc]

I can only blame on my ignorance or my little if not huge unknowing for how this type of election is done.

I thought until a Sunday afternoon that a citizen in Ohio, who was registered went down to his or her "area" and placed his or her vote" and later people counted these votes to see who had won among the Democrats and the Republicans.

If understand correctly a person who has voted goes to a designated area to show which candidate he or she has voted on. He said a lot more about this voting system

Markus

[Webster]

I can only blame on my ignorance or my little if not huge unknowing for how this type of election is done.

I thought until a Sunday afternoon that a citizen in Ohio, who was registered went down to his or her "area" and placed his or her vote" and later people counted these votes to see who had won among the Democrats and the Republicans.

If understand correctly a person who has voted goes to a designated area to show which candidate he or she has voted on. He said a lot more about this voting system

Markus

in most "normal" states you are correct but caucuses such as they do it in iowa it is very weird in the way they work. I think someone was on drugs when they decided caucuses were the best way to pick candidates.

I am not fully aware of all the intricate processes involved but the short version is the voters gather in stadium like or town hall buildings and then anyone can get up and speak (caucus) on behalf of their choice. at the end of a selected amount of time where everyone who wishes can speak, they all take a vote and whoever comes out on top in that one caucus hall carries only one vote for one candidate. in iowa there are 99 of these districts so there are 99 possible wins and each win carries the number of voters who voted in that caucus.

so in short if your choice lost, your vote is given to the winner you did not choose as you candidate

democrats can also falsely register as republican as late as the very day of caucus just to manipulate who wins the republican caucus just to manipulate the process and to help their democrat choice face a weaker candidate in the general election. they can then reregister as democrat and go vote in the democrat general election.

[Oberon]

Out of the pram come the toys:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35486983

And I see that Sanatorium has dropped out as well.

[STEED]

Only one man can save America...Ace Rimmer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXYfnWRp1Q0

[vienna]

in most "normal" states you are correct but caucuses such as they do it in iowa it is very weird in the way they work. I think someone was on drugs when they decided caucuses were the best way to pick candidates.

I am not fully aware of all the intricate processes involved but the short version is the voters gather in stadium like or town hall buildings and then anyone can get up and speak (caucus) on behalf of their choice. at the end of a selected amount of time where everyone who wishes can speak, they all take a vote and whoever comes out on top in that one caucus hall carries only one vote for one candidate. in iowa there are 99 of these districts so there are 99 possible wins and each win carries the number of voters who voted in that caucus.

so in short if your choice lost, your vote is given to the winner you did not choose as you candidate

democrats can also falsely register as republican as late as the very day of caucus just to manipulate who wins the republican caucus just to manipulate the process and to help their democrat choice face a weaker candidate in the general election. they can then reregister as democrat and go vote in the democrat general election.

The caucus system is a remnant of the days when there were many more smaller cities and towns and the ability to all get together and vote in a single place was more difficult. It's sort of like those old western movies where all the folks in town get together at the saloon, schoolhouse, or church and pick some one to be their representative at the territorial or state capital. Although almost all states have progressed beyond that sort of "down home", cracker barrel, level of handling elections, there are still a few holdouts, here and there, mostly in rather conservative, mainly rural areas. Many states have party conventions within their own borders to determine, by party, who will be their delegates at the national party conventions. Some states use the primaries as a wind vane as to who their delegates will be voting for at the national party conventions. It really is a mixed bag, and honestly, outside of the media attention, the primaries ultimately have less import on the national conventions than many people believe; it has happened where a candidate with a strong primary showing has been cast aside for some one else after some backroom (the classic "smoke filled room") dealing by power brokers who may not even be delegates at the convention or selected at all by their state party apparatus. Remember, the primaries/caucuses are not mandated by The US Constitution or Federal law; they are whole a creation of, and administered by the individual parties. At best, the primaries are just a litmus test for the parties to see what they can or cannot get away with on various issues; at worst, they are a monumental waste of time resulting in the factionalizing and fracturing of a particular party. The primary system might be more meaningful if it were more consistent and standardized across all the states. For some states, the influence of their primaries is diluted due to their elections or caucuses being held much later in the year than other states; there are some states where state law commands their primaries be among the first, if not the first. As it is, some of the most populous or economically influential states don't even start voting until about a dozen lesser states have their elections, causing a skewed data set when analyzing the elections and their effects on the overall national party policies. Here are a few links to better explain:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Regarding the possibility of Democrats posing as Republicans in order to influence the vote, be informed and assured Republicans have done the same to influence Democratic votes. The brush is broad and paints all equally; I know for a fact the practice is bipartisan after having worked on a campaign for a GOP political advisory and campaign management firm. I am sure what I saw is equally used by all the parties and, believe me, what I saw would surprise a lot of you. It is one of the reasons I am an independent...


<O>

[Onkel Neal]

I can only blame on my ignorance or my little if not huge unknowing for how this type of election is done.

I thought until a Sunday afternoon that a citizen in Ohio, who was registered went down to his or her "area" and placed his or her vote" and later people counted these votes to see who had won among the Democrats and the Republicans.

If understand correctly a person who has voted goes to a designated area to show which candidate he or she has voted on. He said a lot more about this voting system

Markus

Iowa, not Ohio.

Out of the pram come the toys:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35486983

And I see that Sanatorium has dropped out as well.


He may be correct, there is something fishy about the Cruz victory....

[Oberon]

He may be correct, there is something fishy about the Cruz victory....

You mean aside from Cruz himself?

No doubt there were some dodgy tactics used, but were they illegal? :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

He may be correct, there is something fishy about the Cruz victory....

All campaigns do something fishy. It is a matter of who gets caught.

[Bilge_Rat]

Rubio is up 5 points in NH since Iowa, from 10 to 15%. If he keeps going up and finishes a strong second, he will become the "establishment" candidate. According to Politico, he is ahead of Bush in Congressional endorsements.

[Onkel Neal]

You mean aside from Cruz himself?

No doubt there were some dodgy tactics used, but were they illegal? :hmmm:

I don't know, heard some discussion about it. Supposedly, Cruz campaign workers read a twitter from a CNN reporter and that set the whole thing off. Which is fair, if the report is legit, because everyone needs to scramble for every vote they can get. But if the Cruz campaign intentionally sabotaged Carson's position, that's a big problem.

As for Cruz, I don't see him as any better or worse than the others. He seems to be fixed and determined more than most politicians (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/23/the-insiders-whats-wrong-with-ted-cruz/), which is a good thing if you are a true conservative and you pay taxes.

[Oberon]

As a secularist it's the evangelical side of Cruz that spooks me, same with a few of the GOP candidates if I'm honest. Mixing religion and politics is just a recipe for disaster, we only need to look at Middle Eastern theocracies to see that. :dead:

[em2nought]

Sanders has me concerned. The slogan this go around is not, "Yes We Can." The new slogan is, "Free."

Free has been "their" slogan all along, it just keeps expanding in scope is all. :har:

[Mr Quatro]

Well in all fairness Senator Cruz reported that Carson was going to take a break after Iowa was over and
that is exactly what he did. Carson took a break and the first reason was just a joke that he wanted
to go home and change his clothes in Florida, but he went to Arizona instead.

Now he's saying it wasn't right to take his votes and of course Trump (who lost by over 7,000 votes to Cruz) is complaining too.

Now these nasty rumors that Cruz cheated are causing a problem for him in NH where it is just out that Cruz is running in third place in the polls with Rubio ahead of him.

Donald will probably come out of this one a winner ... I didn't even know that NH had red necks too, but they do.

Sanders is leading 60% to Hillary's 30%

Go Bush :up: :yep:

[Torplexed]

I think I have a rough idea what Cruz will look like after a few years in the White House.

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Twins.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

As a secularist it's the evangelical side of Cruz that spooks me, same with a few of the GOP candidates if I'm honest. Mixing religion and politics is just a recipe for disaster, we only need to look at Middle Eastern theocracies to see that. :dead:

Nah, I highly doubt the Methodists and Presbyterians will go jihad. :cool:

[August]

As a secularist it's the evangelical side of Cruz that spooks me, same with a few of the GOP candidates if I'm honest. Mixing religion and politics is just a recipe for disaster, we only need to look at Middle Eastern theocracies to see that. :dead:

Mixing anything in the wrong proportions is a recipe for disaster. Too much baking powder ruins a cake but without it the cake comes out flat.

[AVGWarhawk]

Free has been "their" slogan all along, it just keeps expanding in scope is all. :har:

Complete with banners, flyers and free handouts. :haha::o

[Webster]

Well in all fairness Senator Cruz reported that Carson was going to take a break after Iowa was over and
that is exactly what he did. Carson took a break and the first reason was just a joke that he wanted
to go home and change his clothes in Florida, but he went to Arizona instead.

Now he's saying it wasn't right to take his votes and of course Trump (who lost by over 7,000 votes to Cruz) is complaining too.

Now these nasty rumors that Cruz cheated are causing a problem for him in NH where it is just out that Cruz is running in third place in the polls with Rubio ahead of him.

Donald will probably come out of this one a winner ... I didn't even know that NH had red necks too, but they do.

Sanders is leading 60% to Hillary's 30%

Go Bush :up: :yep:

actually it was true he said that and he wasn't joking. he said in an interview about it on Hannity that he had intended to go home to florida first to grab a new set of suits and clothes before heading on to wherever he went. Hannity quipped back "you know you "can" buy clothes and nice suits anywhere, you don't have to leave the campaign to go home for a new set of clothes and people see that as a sign of concern over your heart still being in it and your intentions moving forward".

I don't think the "cheating" claim hurt cruz in NH because he never was doing well there before all this. nationally I think it bothers people because its the same media spin type stuff that the establishment politicians do and takes some of the "I'm not like them" luster off him. NH is more liberal state and that's why trump has such a lead there but his crying over iowa has hurt him with supporters. its amazing to me how trump thinks asking for a new election would not be seen in a very negative light, he is usually more media savy about such things.

[Onkel Neal]

Mid-debate, I know who I'm voting for next month.:smug:

[Oberon]

Mid-debate, I know who I'm voting for next month.:smug:

Xi Jinping?

[ikalugin]

Sanders vs Trump
Clinton vs Rubie
Which would you like more?

[STEED]

"I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding," Trump said during Saturday night's Republican debate on ABC, days before New Hampshire holds its primary for the Nov. 8 election.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-security-idUKKCN0VG08C

How did that go down with the voter? :hmmm:

[Betonov]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-security-idUKKCN0VG08C

How did that go down with the voter? :hmmm:

Very well with his usual supporters.

[STEED]

Very well with his usual supporters.

Heck. :huh:

[STEED]

I see America has hit the $19 Trillion debt mark! :o

Any of the candidates from both party's have a answer?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

[Oberon]

Bomb Iran! :yep:

[u crank]

Bomb Iran! :yep:

Don't give Donald any ideas. :O:

[STEED]

Bomb Iran! :yep:

One way to deflect people away from the debt. :har:

[Platapus]

I find it very sad that even the discussion of "whether the US should torture people" should even come up. :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

Any of the candidates from both party's have a answer?
Yep. Blame the current leader, or, if your party is in power, blame the last leader from the other party.

Hey, I didn't say it was a good answer!

Bomb Iran! :yep:
Spoof from 1979 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBGPw_LBiRA). :O:

[STEED]

Yep. Blame the current leader, or, if your party is in power, blame the last leader from the other party.

Hey, I didn't say it was a good answer!

Sounds about right. :yep:

We got the same thing here, the Conservatives won the general election in 2010 but had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats and in 2015 They won again and were able to form a small majority government. In both cases they sold the idea not only the Labour Party that lost in 2010 over spent on the public sector but also caused the world crash of 2008! I would not put it pass them to bring that one up again in 2020. :03:

Hey, I didn't say it was a good answer!

Hey it is the truth something politicians have forgotten.

[Mr Quatro]

Sanders vs Trump
Clinton vs Rubie
Which would you like more?

Sanders vs Trump
This is not going to happen ... Sanders can stir it up, but he can't win the Democratic nomination

Is US ready for its first socialist president?
http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/is-us-ready-for-its-first-socialist-president-1.1666505

I don't think so :down:

Clinton vs Rubio is not going to happen she would topple the Junior Senator from Florida with her resume alone

Clinton vs Bush is my best guess ... when the others drop out the energizer bunny will keep on trying.

After all how many of these men have a 90 year old mother knocking of doors for them lol

Go Bush and maybe Christie for vice president

Just 4 months and two weeks to the Republican convention in Ohio scheduled for July 18-21

Just 4 months and three weeks to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia from July 25 to the 28th.

I find it very sad that even the discussion of "whether the US should torture people" should even come up. :nope:

I agree this will prove to be Donalds downfall saying what he thinks ... most men running for office just say what the people want to hear, but he says what he thinks off the cuff without asking any of his advisors.

The whole world would be mad at Trump in a matter of days if not weeks of his taking office.

[Torplexed]

Meh. Some general impressions of last nights GOP debate:

Cruz-- engaging in fantasies about carpet bombing and torture. I love that he used Alberto Gonzales' definition of what torture isn't. I guess the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments mean nothing to him.

Trump-- would do more than waterboarding. Even the Khmer Rouge would back away slowly from where this guy is going.

Christie vs Rubio-- Christie destroyed Rubio last night. Christie won't benefit from it but Rubio's blabbering, robotic response might be his "Howard Dean Scream" moment that he won't recover from.

Bush and Kasich-- I always kind of liked Kasich but Bush is growing on me, mostly because he looks measured and thoughtful next to the competition. I think he's done for, but if Bush gets nominated it would be less than a runaway for Hillary.

Kasich is a little different story I think. He's got a very likable nature, almost a Bill Clinton level of charisma, someone people can like. He's also moderate enough to pull from the center. If he's nominated I think that his level-headed approach to policy and his genuine delivery will cause Hillary problems.

[Betonov]

Kasich is a little different story I think. He's got a very likable nature, almost a Bill Clinton level of charisma, someone people can like. He's also moderate enough to pull from the center. If he's nominated I think that his level-headed approach to policy and his genuine delivery will cause Hillary problems.

He's also going to be ignored by the media.
Level heads don't sell stories.

[August]

He's also going to be ignored by the media.
Level heads don't sell stories.

He wouldn't be ignored if he wins the nomination. The attention will be all negative but they'll definitely be paying him their full attention.

[Betonov]

He wouldn't be ignored if he wins the nomination. The attention will be all negative but they'll definitely be paying him their full attention.

No publicity is bad publicity.

[Torplexed]

Kasich should just switch and run in the Democratic primary. He can come in 3rd and claim a triumph. :D

If Rubio's "Marcobot" performance did nothing else last night, it will certainly encourage Kasich and Jeb! a great deal. If either gets to double digits in New Hampshire, it's hard to see either leaving the race before Florida and Ohio.

[mapuc]

An election technically questions:

From now and until some day in June there are some partial elections through the United States. I think especially of the Republican-elections. If Mr Trump wins the next-elections, does this means that the GOP chose him as their candidate? Or can they choice another candidate ?

Markus

[Oberon]

As far as I understand it, and they do try to make it very hard to understand it at times, if Trump is able to win enough votes during the Caucuses then he becomes the Republican party nomination for the presidential run to face off against whoever the Democrats elect.
It's way too early to be certain which way it'll go on either side, Cruz won an early victory, but Trump still leads in the polls, however both his and Cruzs poor performance in the latest GOP debate may cost them a few votes.
The day when we should have a better idea of how things are panning out is 'Super Tuesday' which is when a good portion of the US states do their voting, which is March 1st in this election.

[mapuc]

As far as I understand it, and they do try to make it very hard to understand it at times, if Trump is able to win enough votes during the Caucuses then he becomes the Republican party nomination for the presidential run to face off against whoever the Democrats elect.
It's way too early to be certain which way it'll go on either side, Cruz won an early victory, but Trump still leads in the polls, however both his and Cruzs poor performance in the latest GOP debate may cost them a few votes.
The day when we should have a better idea of how things are panning out is 'Super Tuesday' which is when a good portion of the US states do their voting, which is March 1st in this election.

Thank you for your answer.

Read here and other places, That Mr Trump very well could win the Caucuses and Then It is those expert I see and hear on Danish and Swedish TV-who say The GOP will not/not likely choice Trump as their Republican candidate.

That's why I asked

Markus

[Oberon]

Thank you for your answer.

Read here and other places, That Mr Trump very well could win the Caucuses and Then It is those expert I see and hear on Danish and Swedish TV-who say The GOP will not/not likely choice Trump as their Republican candidate.

That's why I asked

Markus

It could well be possible, I doubt it would be as simple as whoever wins the primaries gets the seat. There could well be ways that the Republican Party could choose someone else over Trump, especially if it becomes a close race.

[GT182]

I had an amazing dream about one candidate.....

[Nippelspanner]

I really don't like Hillary...
She is creepy. She's like... the democrats Sarah Palin.

[GT182]

I really don't like Hillary...
She is creepy. She's like... the democrats Sarah Palin.

I'll take Sarah Palin over Clinton any day. At least she tells it like it is. Clinton does nothing but lie to us.... always has and always will.

[mapuc]

Earlier today I saw a link on a friends FB-wall the headline in this link made me think of our two thread in GT.

Could we be witness to a unintentional drop ?

If the FBI find enough evidence against Clinton and arrest her

Markus

[Platapus]

An election technically questions:

From now and until some day in June there are some partial elections through the United States. I think especially of the Republican-elections. If Mr Trump wins the next-elections, does this means that the GOP chose him as their candidate? Or can they choice another candidate ?

Markus


That is a very cogent question.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/a-republican-nomination-process

This is a good explanation of the process (with the proviso that the term process is used in its most .. if you pardon the pun.. liberal interpretation)

It is a confusing system that is changing.

[Nippelspanner]

I'll take Sarah Palin over Clinton any day. At least she tells it like it is. Clinton does nothing but lie to us.... always has and always will.

Riiight... that... that is probably... how it is... :hmmm:

http://i.imgur.com/Z42hBMt.png


http://i.imgur.com/A4jg4Cb.png


A few funny (sad?) examples.
Man there's even a BOOK dedicated to the lies and BS Palin spilled.

Liars and oxygen thieves are liars and oxygen thieves - their political view should be secondary.
Ever so often I have the feeling that people blindly support whoever is running for their side, no matter how crazy, delusional or - in Palin's case - 'simple' the politician is.

But hey, I agree with you.
I'd take Palin over Clinton any time as well, she is at least human... and a milf.

[vienna]

Riiight... that... that is probably... how it is... :hmmm:

http://i.imgur.com/Z42hBMt.png

http://i.imgur.com/LKzIVgV.png

http://i.imgur.com/A4jg4Cb.png


A few funny (sad?) examples.
Man there's even a BOOK dedicated to the lies and BS Palin spilled.

Liars and oxygen thieves are liars and oxygen thieves - their political view should be secondary.
Ever so often I have the feeling that people blindly support whoever is running for their side, no matter how crazy, delusional or - in Palin's case - 'simple' the politician is.

But hey, I agree with you.
I'd take Palin over Clinton any time as well, she is at least human... and a milf.


When Palin first came into the public view, she had that infamous interview that was lampooned on Saturday Night Live; the most damning thing about the lampoon was the fact they used, verbatim, Palin's statements from the original interview. As some people say, sometimes you can't write material that great from scratch...


<O>

[Onkel Neal]

Riiight... that... that is probably... how it is... :hmmm:



http://i.imgur.com/LKzIVgV.png



Hold it, Albright said that (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/albright-addresses-women-voters-617720899732), it is not a misquote, has nothing to do with Palin.

[Oberon]

When Palin first came into the public view, she had that infamous interview that was lampooned on Saturday Night Live; the most damning thing about the lampoon was the fact they used, verbatim, Palin's statements from the original interview. As some people say, sometimes you can't write material that great from scratch...


<O>

IIRC Palin took all that in her stride, heck to be honest it probably only improved her image (which speaks volumes about the American political system) and from what I've heard she was pretty cool about the SNL sketch, appearing herself alongside Tina Feys Palin for one sketch (You've got to give people who can laugh at themselves a bit of credit, heck even Dubya could do that, so at least they're not so far up their backside that they can't take a joke).

As Betonov put it, no publicity is bad publicity. The rule of thumb in politics today seems to be, it doesn't matter how crass or stupid it is, say it so it gets people talking, because the more the news outlets say your name, the more your name is pumped into the American people and seemingly the higher you'll poll.
Although it doesn't actually seem to be translating into votes when it comes to electing people...yet.

[Nippelspanner]

Hold it, Albright said that (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/albright-addresses-women-voters-617720899732), it is not a misquote, has nothing to do with Palin.
Hey good find, I'll take that one down then! :)
(I should have just linked any of her interviews, but then again... what's the point)

Edit: On a side note, Mrs. Albright doesn't seem to be that bright at all (anymore).
Why does everything today needs to be dumbed down to a race or gender debate, that is so... incredibly ridiculous!
What Albright said is just embarrassing.

[Sailor Steve]

What Albright said is just embarrassing.
Hillary seemed to enjoy it. :dead:

[u crank]

As Betonov put it, no publicity is bad publicity.

Give that man a cigar!


http://i.imgur.com/5xfEC6V.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

Hillary seemed to enjoy it. :dead:
Aren't we surprised? :D

[Betonov]

Give that man a cigar!


http://i.imgur.com/5xfEC6V.jpg (http://http://i.imgur.com/5xfEC6V.jpg)

Thanks Donald

https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/168505_189418767737315_4135672_n.jpg?oh=fbc6381586 febf690fff41cdb450f58b&oe=576521D8

[vienna]

IIRC Palin took all that in her stride, heck to be honest it probably only improved her image (which speaks volumes about the American political system) and from what I've heard she was pretty cool about the SNL sketch, appearing herself alongside Tina Feys Palin for one sketch (You've got to give people who can laugh at themselves a bit of credit, heck even Dubya could do that, so at least they're not so far up their backside that they can't take a joke).

As Betonov put it, no publicity is bad publicity. The rule of thumb in politics today seems to be, it doesn't matter how crass or stupid it is, say it so it gets people talking, because the more the news outlets say your name, the more your name is pumped into the American people and seemingly the higher you'll poll.
Although it doesn't actually seem to be translating into votes when it comes to electing people...yet.

To be totally fair, you are correct: Palin did take it well, especially since, as you pointed out, it elevated her presence in the public eye. The main, and loudest, objections came from the Far Right of the GOP who seized upon the SNL skit as a means of once again trumpeting their charges of media bias; oddly, they weren't as vociferous when the fact came out the skit used verbatim quotes from Palin and their 'Empress' was shown to have no political clothes. I guess you can't let little things like the truth and facts get in the way of a political rant...

The lack of translating of elevated public exposure or notoriety into votes is actually a rather good thing. Here in California, we have had the experience of celebrity translating into votes and have also had the experience of the detrimental effects of such "popular" voting. Both Reagan and Schwarzenegger gained footholds due to their acting celebrity and both of them, when they left office, left the state in worse conditions than when they took office. Let's just say, as politicians, they were rather mediocre actors, much as n keeping with their film careers...


<O>

[Oberon]

I think the advantage that actors have as president or politician is the gift of the gab as we call it in the UK, being able to bluff their way in situations, to spin a bad thing into a more acceptable light. Although in Ahnolds case, that doesn't work out so well as Ahnold isn't exactly known for his vocal delivery.

Meanwhile in New Hampshire it looks like Trump and Saunders have taken it. Just need Jeb! and Christie to drop out now and I'll have the full set. :yeah:

EDIT: Sorry, I stand corrected, according to Chris Hayes on MSNBC Bernie Sandwich (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ezg5VFDSs)has won the vote.

EDIT EDIT: Looks like Jeb! is going to cling on, but Christie may well throw in the towel. I played for Jeb! and Christie to fold after this, so I might still get one right.

[JU_88]

Republicans will win in the end. When ever there is an outside threat, Republican win.
I used to consider my self a progressive left, until they pretty much alienated the 'white male' demographic with their reverse sexism & racism silliness (which they deny exists) while encouraging every other group to live in a perpetual state of self victimization - i guess that's 'progressive' if you include; progressively losing the plot :haha: So yes, had quite enough of that crap. I dont really know what I am any more and I dont really care either. But if there is one thing I wont tolerate, its different standards for people based on their physical /Mental attributes. :)

[August]

I'm thinking if it turns out to be Trump vs Sanders then Sanders will win.

[Betonov]

I'm thinking if it turns out to be Trump vs Sanders then Sanders will win.
You think ??
Sanders is popular with the younger crowd, and they have a tendency not to bother come election day.

[Oberon]

I would be surprised if Sanders can get through, he's doing well but he's still got a big mountain to climb, same goes for Trump. I think Clinton vs Rubio or Clinton vs Cruz might be more likely I think.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would be surprised if Sanders can get through, he's doing well but he's still got a big mountain to climb, same goes for Trump. I think Clinton vs Rubio or Clinton vs Cruz might be more likely I think.


Bernie has the 18-29 crowd. That is evident in both IA and NH. I do not believe he will fair well in the south. This is Hillary country. It is just a matter of time for the others to drop out and Trump to get the nod. Rubio will fizzle. That started after the last debate. Cruz looks to be a flash in the pan when looking at IA. Christie is done. Carson did not spark at all. Kasich has no chance IMO. I see Clinton vs Trump.

[August]

You think ??
Sanders is popular with the younger crowd, and they have a tendency not to bother come election day.

Yeah that's true but there are a lot of people who would go to the polls just to vote against Trump, myself included.

[Platapus]

Yeah that's true but there are a lot of people who would go to the polls just to vote against Trump, myself included.


Pretty sad state of affairs when voting against someone is the motivation to get people to vote. :nope:

As I have posted way too many times -- I really want to vote for a candidate instead of always voting against one. :yep:

[Betonov]

Yeah that's true but there are a lot of people who would go to the polls just to vote against Trump, myself included.

Good point.

[Oberon]

Carly's gone, no-one had her on their list. :dead:

Come on Jeb or Christie...get on with it! :nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah that's true but there are a lot of people who would go to the polls just to vote against Trump, myself included.


This goes both ways.

[Aktungbby]

I see Clinton vs Trump.
:agree:
Yeah that's true but there are a lot of people who would go to the polls just to vote against Trump, myself included.:agree:

Pretty sad state of affairs when voting against someone is the motivation to get people to vote. :nope:

As I have posted way too many times -- I really want to vote for a candidate instead of always voting against one. :yep::sign_yeah:
@ AVGWarhawkhttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/ranks/luckyjack15.jpg per your Kool avatar: I predict 'President Hillary'!:haha: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHCfndib0Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpHCfndib0Q) ...

[Onkel Neal]

All right, the Election contest thread has been updated. Remember, as I have said a couple times already, you get one drop pick each round. If you posted 2, 3, or more, I took the first one you listed.

[Bilge_Rat]

so is the "Subsim Election Contest" over? Nevada/South Carolina are next. I was hoping we could continue until november.

As to how the contest is shaping up, Trump is in good shape, Bernie is still a long shot.

As to how a Trump vs Sanders showdown would go, well who would you vote for, a billionaire who has only ever been interested in making more money or a former hippy turned politician who actually says what he thinks and does what he says he will do. :ping:

[Onkel Neal]

so is the "Subsim Election Contest" over? Nevada/South Carolina are next. I was hoping we could continue until november.

As to how the contest is shaping up, Trump is in good shape, Bernie is still a long shot.

As to how a Trump vs Sanders showdown would go, well who would you vote for, a billionaire who has only ever been interested in making more money or a former hippy turned politician who actually says what he thinks and does what he says he will do. :ping:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2377172#post2377172

After the Iowa caucus, I will start the voting for the New Hampshire primary and you can then list the candidates you believe will win. Same with the bonus dropout candidate.

Then Nevada/South Carolina. Note, these are staggered a week apart, so I will require your selections Feb 12 - 19.

Then the Super Tuesday primary, select which candidate you think will win the most states. Not the most delegates, just winner/best showing in each state. 5 points, 13 if you get both parties right.

Last, after we finish the Mar 1 Super Tuesday, I'll ask who will be the eventual nominee of each party. You'll get 5 points for a correct selection, 13 if you pick the eventual winner of both parties.

Last, after the conventions, on Oct 13, you can select the winner of the Presidential race, worth 10 points.

When the President is announced, we will add up the scores and see who is the winner. I will send a Subsim mug and t-short to the winner. In case of a 2 way tie, they split the prizes. 3 way or more, I will tell you something nice.

[mapuc]

Heard something interesting on the news yesterday(it's over midnight here)

Those who voted Trump or Sanders are tired of the political Establishment

In sequence they showed a clip with Jeb Bush talking about Trump and his followers/voters

The Danish Expert on American politics said, this is not good, talking down on those who have or are going to vote for Trump.

For me, American politics looks more like "what kind of person the candidate is" and not "What kind of politics the person is going to use"


Edit. Found this opinion from CNN by historiean Timothy Stanley

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/10/opinions/donald-trump-republican-party-stanley/index.html?sr=fbCNN021116donald-trump-republican-party-stanley1211AMVODtopLink&linkId=21170351

Markus

[Torplexed]

Heard something interesting on the news yesterday(it's over midnight here)

Those who voted Trump or Sanders are tired of the political Establishment


There's no political center here anymore and the middle class is fraying away too. So I guess it should be no surprise that we are looking at extremes of right and left coming up winners.

[Oberon]

Yanis Varoufakis, of brief Greek finance ministry fame, had a good point in that 'the geometry of American politics is no longer constant, that anything is possible' and 'that might not necessarily be a good thing as awful things are possible as well'.

There is definitely a swing towards anti-establishment figures, but this tends to happen in times of economic uncertainty. The swings between the left and right in Europe and America in the aftermath of WWI and the 1929 crash shows this.

[Aktungbby]

I see it now-a vision!:o https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/02/10/National-Politics/Images/Botsford_TRUMP_NH_16_02_09_06111455075011.jpg Trump'$ agonna sell the movie rights...to http://media1.onsugar.com/files/2013/08/01/870/n/1922283/c8d2d0147d9b8859_o-ROBERT-REDFORD-facebook.preview.jpg (http://www.buzzsugar.com/All-Lost-Trailer-31075771)Who will just reprise his role in 1972's: The Candidate :"What do we do now?":woot: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4e/Candidateposter.jpg/220px-Candidateposter.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Candidateposter.jpg)

[August]

Pretty sad state of affairs when voting against someone is the motivation to get people to vote. :nope:

As I have posted way too many times -- I really want to vote for a candidate instead of always voting against one. :yep:

Yeah but what can one do when all the candidates are unacceptable?

In my list of candidates that I would just hate to see get elected Hitlery tops the list, followed by Trump and then Bernie and all for different reasons.

[AVGWarhawk]

Heard something interesting on the news yesterday(it's over midnight here)

Those who voted Trump or Sanders are tired of the political Establishment

In sequence they showed a clip with Jeb Bush talking about Trump and his followers/voters

The Danish Expert on American politics said, this is not good, talking down on those who have or are going to vote for Trump.

For me, American politics looks more like "what kind of person the candidate is" and not "What kind of politics the person is going to use"


Edit. Found this opinion from CNN by historiean Timothy Stanley

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/10/opinions/donald-trump-republican-party-stanley/index.html?sr=fbCNN021116donald-trump-republican-party-stanley1211AMVODtopLink&linkId=21170351

Markus


Markus,

For me, this is true. I'm finished with frat house we call Congress. Being a politician is a career. When it becomes a career as a politician the focus is keep the career and not being a part of running the country.

Case and point, NJ Gov Christie was voted in to govern the state of New Jersey. He is paid to do so. He is paid to be at his post daily. Where do we find Christie? Off campaigning for President!!! The focus is furthering his career. That should not be. If you are actively in the service for your state as a Gov, Rep or Senator you do not campaign. Why should you need to campaign? If your record is good the citizens will re-elect you. There is a reason for terms so bad can be voted out.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah but what can one do when all the candidates are unacceptable?




Write-in vote for Mickey Mouse!

[August]

Case and point, NJ Gov Christie was voted in to govern the state of New Jersey. He is paid to do so. He is paid to be at his post daily. Where do we find Christie? Off campaigning for President!!! The focus is furthering his career. That should not be. If you are actively in the service for your state as a Gov, Rep or Senator you do not campaign. Why should you need to campaign? If your record is good the citizens will re-elect you. There is a reason for terms so bad can be voted out.

Totally agree. I think politicians should be barred from running for another office until they have left the office they are presently holding.

[vienna]

... Why should you need to campaign? If your record is good the citizens will re-elect you. There is a reason for terms so bad can be voted out.

Unfortunately, this is not the reality of how politics is played in today's world. I'll give you and example on a small scale: Here in California, there was a Superior Court Judge who was extremely well-respected by all the members of the legal community, was highly regarded by both defense lawyers and prosecutors, and was deemed one of the most fair and evenhanded jurors ever to sit on the court. Superior Court judges do have terms of office and must stand for re-election every so often. There used to be a tradition among the judges and those seeking election of it not being dignified or proper to actively campaign for office as is done for other elected posts. This all changed in California several years back when the restrictions imposed by the State Bar Association (who internally 'police' the legal profession and its practitioners) were lifted after court challenges to the imposition of restrictions. As I recall, the main argument was one of restriction of free speech. Well, the aforementioned judge's term was expiring and she filed for reelection. She was opposed by a lawyer, of dubious accomplishments, who had spent most of the previous decade running a bagel shop. The opponent went on an aggressive media campaign, putting her name and image out in the public eye and, allegedly, playing a sort of 'nationality card' based on the foreign-sounding name of the incumbent. The incumbent, sticking with tradition, did not actively campaign and lost the election. The outrage in the legal community and the general community was swift and loud. Fortunately, there was a vacant seat open on the Superior Court the Governor could fill by direct appointment and the defeated judge was reinstated...

This is a Los Angeles Times Op-Ed piece outlining the situation:

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007/12/thats-all-for-j.html

This is a news piece from The Los Angeles News-Enterprise, a local newspaper serving the local legal community. It gives a more detailed backstory on the situation and gives an inside glimpse to the machinations occurring behind the scenes in some elections:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/judielec050112.htm

Bottom line, being highly competent, highly regarded by all parties, and performing above high expectations does not make one immune when pitted against deviousness, flashy media presentations, innuendo, and all the tools used by those who seek to win at any cost or by any means...


<O>

[Betonov]

Election campaigns should be a plain A4 paper per party per household with party policies, candidate biographies and an internet adress where one can see if that candidate is or was prosecuted for any crime and any connections with corporations/organisations.
The paper would be distributed on the last thursday before the elections, friday and saturday will be spent with voters brooding over it and having some bar room politics and sunday is election day.

[Onkel Neal]

Bernie will have a tough time in the states with large black populations. They wiull vote for whomever their leaders direct them to, which is Hillary.

Despite all the excitement from Bernie tying in Iowa and crushing Hillary by 20% in NH, the Dems have rigged it. One more reason for supporting the non-establishment candidate.

Delegates
Hillary Clinton 394
Bernie Sanders 44

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-delegates-bernie-sanders/story?id=36865232

The DNC will never allow Bernie to win the nom. And yes, the US has a really screwed up system.

[razark]

Election campaigns should be a plain A4 paper per party per household with party policies, candidate biographies and an internet adress where one can see if that candidate is or was prosecuted for any crime and any connections with corporations/organisations.
The paper would be distributed on the last thursday before the elections, friday and saturday will be spent with voters brooding over it and having some bar room politics and sunday is election day.
Can we make that Friday a holiday, as well?

[mapuc]

It's a non-mainstream media article so I wonder if it's true or a "detour" of what is true

After have read Neal's latest post I can see the article my American FB-friend had posted on his wall was true after all

Markus

[Platapus]

Bernie will have a tough time in the states with large black populations. They wiull vote for whomever their leaders direct them to, which is Hillary.

That's a rather insulting generalization. :down:

[August]

That's a rather insulting generalization. :down:


I'd expect that he'd like to be proven wrong.

[Onkel Neal]

That's a rather insulting generalization. :down:

When the truth is insulting, people believe fiction.

[nikimcbee]

http://canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/laurie060415.jpg

Stop resisting Neal, you'll only make it worse!

[nikimcbee]

http://45.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvpupfEKWa1qklopeo1_500.gif

[Betonov]

Same generalisation can go with religious whites voting for whoever the preacher says and the lord ain't got no love for the moderates

[Bilge_Rat]

Bernie will have a tough time in the states with large black populations. They wiull vote for whomever their leaders direct them to, which is Hillary.

Despite all the excitement from Bernie tying in Iowa and crushing Hillary by 20% in NH, the Dems have rigged it. One more reason for supporting the non-establishment candidate.

Delegates
Hillary Clinton 394
Bernie Sanders 44

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-delegates-bernie-sanders/story?id=36865232

The DNC will never allow Bernie to win the nom. And yes, the US has a really screwed up system.

those are the superdelegates, in feb. 2008 they were also all lined up behind Clinton and could have given her the nomination, but eventually decided they had to follow the voting results and not block Obama.

If Bernie manages to win the most delegates, but the superdelegates give the nom to Clinton, it will cause quite a stink.

[Onkel Neal]

Same generalisation can go with religious whites voting for whoever the preacher says and the lord ain't got no love for the moderates

That's true.

When the Congressional Black Caucus, the National Association of Colored Peoples, black reverends and community organizers direct their people to vote for someone, they do. Union leaders have the same effect on their members, same with the Catholic church. Not every single member goes along, but the majority. Certainly enough to give the generalization plenty of weight.

[Betonov]

That's true.

When the Congressional Black Caucus, the National Association of Colored Peoples, black reverends and community organizers direct their people to vote for someone, they do. Union leaders have the same effect on their members, same with the Catholic church. Not every single member goes along, but the majority. Certainly enough to give the generalization plenty of weight.

Generalisation on this issue is not something I'll oppose to after what I saw after this year gay marriage referendum in Slovenia :nope:
My god, people actually said in front of cameras they'll be against because the priest told them so :/\\!!

That's why I say that an election campaign should be as short as possible.
Some will follow with the first line, most will need to be convinced thinking by themselves is dangerous to the interests of the party. And that takes days.

And party candidates being openly scrutinised for the public to see which organisations (churches, unions, etc) and corporations they affiliate themselves with.

[AVGWarhawk]

That's a rather insulting generalization. :down:

I do not believe so. Bernie knows this thus spending time and walking the streets of Harlem with Al Sharpton. A prominent member of many marches and advancement of people of color said he's never seen Bernie at any rally or marches since Martin Luther King. However, he said he has seen Hillary and Bill plus met them both. That speaks volumes! Hillary will win in the south. You do not get the moniker of "First Black President" without really being there and working to make life better for the blacks in the south and in general. I'm not much of a Hillary supporter but I do think both she and Bill do care.

[AVGWarhawk]

That's true.

When the Congressional Black Caucus, the National Association of Colored Peoples, black reverends and community organizers direct their people to vote for someone, they do. Union leaders have the same effect on their members, same with the Catholic church. Not every single member goes along, but the majority. Certainly enough to give the generalization plenty of weight.

Very definitely the pulpit is used to push political agendas. However, not all churches do as then general consensus on a candidate is one that believes what the parishioners believe. It is unspoken but known. As a result nothing but the Good Book is the sermon for the day. Politics at the coffee and donuts after the service. Either way, it is a means to sway people politically.

[Bilge_Rat]

You do not get the moniker of "First Black President" without really being there and working to make life better for the blacks in the south and in general. I'm not much of a Hillary supporter but I do think both she and Bill do care.

we'll see. Again go back to early feb. 2008 and many African-American leaders were lined up behind Clinton using the same argument, that the Clintons had done a lot for the community and that Obama was a newcomer.

John Lewis who said he never saw Sanders in the 60s also supported Clinton in the S.C. primary in 2008 against Obama.

[AVGWarhawk]

we'll see. Again go back to early feb. 2008 and many African-American leaders were lined up behind Clinton using the same argument, that the Clintons had done a lot for the community and that Obama was a newcomer.

John Lewis who said he never saw Sanders in the 60s also supported Clinton in the S.C. primary in 2008 against Obama.


I have posted this before, Obama's campaign in 2008 was expertly orchestrated. IMO Hillary was asked to take a backseat but offered a State Depart position to keep her in the news and viable for "her turn." She did not press on looking to win.

The difference here is Sanders is not Obama. Bernie is doing his best to turn this into a "history making" event as Hillary has with being a woman. Just as BO was a history making event. Bernies has said a few times that he will be the first Jewish President.

Let's really make history and have the elected official actually do what they said they would do.

[Mittelwaechter]

You think there will be an elected official?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=125&v=RawGr83DxpE

It seems, there is a mechanism to avoid popular candidates, but to make sure the right one will get the chance.

Like us all, you folks are tricked to believe you have a say.

[Oberon]

Meanwhile Justice Scalia has died, which could open up the way for Obama to break the conservative block in the Supreme Court. :doh:

[Onkel Neal]

The issue of his replacement is virtually certain to a major political story during a presidential election year. ABC-7 managing editor and political director Eric Huseby said, "Republican senators will be under enormous pressure from their donors and electoral base to refuse to confirm an appointment from President Obama that would tip the balance of the Court to a 5-4 majority of Democratic appointees. And the President will surely do all he can to make that position as politically unpalatable and costly as possible."
http://www.kvia.com/news/breaking-surpreme-court-justice-scalia-dies-during-hunting-trip-in-marfa/37981652


This is going to get really ugly.

[Oberon]

Oh yeah, and in an election year too, by the time this is over, the US is going to be neck deep in the dung that both sides are going to throw at each other.


To be fair, one could make the arguement that it's already there... :hmmm:

[August]

I fear for our right to keep and bear arms. If the liberals take control of the SC they will do everything they can to strip our freedom from us.

[nikimcbee]

I fear for our right to keep and bear arms. If the liberals take control of the SC they will do everything they can to strip our freedom from us.

I guess there is still some hope. Even in a one party state like Ore-gone, our unelected neo-socialist guv can't get more anti gun legislation through.

[Mr Quatro]

I hope Obama elects a Christian this time.

Just Catholics and Jews and atheist :o

[mapuc]

I hope for the Americans, that they choose a judge who ain't bound to political or religious causes.

Markus

[Oberon]

I fear for our right to keep and bear arms. If the liberals take control of the SC they will do everything they can to strip our freedom from us.

Has either side considered a national referendum on the issue?

[razark]

Has either side considered a national referendum on the issue?
Even suggesting the possibility of considering that one is thinking about bringing up the subject of talking about the issue is bad for a politician's career.

[Oberon]

Even suggesting the possibility of considering that one is thinking about bringing up the subject of talking about the issue is bad for a politician's career.

Good point, it is political dynamite, makes a big bang and is liable to result in injuries to the owner as much as the target. :dead:

[August]

Has either side considered a national referendum on the issue?

The argument is all about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. No need for national referendums or more accurately expensive and difficult constitutional conventions if one can just redefine a freedom to mean something else.

[Betonov]

I hope Obama elects a Christian this time.

Just Catholics and Jews and atheist :o

:06:

[Oberon]

The argument is all about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. No need for national referendums or more accurately expensive and difficult constitutional conventions if one can just redefine a freedom to mean something else.

Surely though a constitution should be defined by the people that it represents? :hmmm:

[Platapus]

The good news is that at least the Senate won't be taking any of their numerous vacations until after Jan 2017.

Who knows, they might end up doing something.

Hey, it could happen!!

[August]

Surely though a constitution should be defined by the people that it represents? :hmmm:

You mean tyranny by the majority when anything goes as long as it is the apparent will of a majority of the people at a particular moment in time? Maybe that's how it works in your country but that is precisely what our Constitution was designed to prevent. There is a defined and codified method for debating and changing it and it's not by cleverly worded opinion polls.

Back in the 1960's should they have held a referendum to determine whether Martin Luther Kings civil rights movement should be allowed the right to march through the south? (another right that is presently under attack by the Democrats BTW (http://triblive.com/opinion/georgewill/9959364-74/corporations-government-speech)). How do you think that would have turned out?

[Platapus]

Surely though a constitution should be defined by the people that it represents? :hmmm:

This is one of the more interesting problems with governments.

On the surface, majority rule sounds like the way go. Countries are made up of people and what the majority of people want, should be law.

But people have not always made the right decisions. Most people do not have the time, experience, knowledge, ability to understand the nuances of running a country. We all have our personal opinions on major issues, but often don't understand how issues inter-relate. Professionally, I have been a national and international policy analyst for over 30 years and have my doctorate in that field and there is still much I simply can't understand. I doubt there is a single person that can understand the complexities of even our national policy.

This is why we have a representative system. The theory and intent is that if we elect people with the experience and knowledge, and give the the time to interact with other knowledgeable people (Senate/House) that a better, more thought out, nuanced decision would be made.

The inherent weakness of a representative system is that it requires inexpert people (citizens) to elect expert people (representatives). Hence our political current state of affairs.

The very nature of a representative system is that the representative does NOT simply pass through the majority opinion, but instead makes a judgement decision on what the representative thinks is in the best interest of the people. (insert snarky wording on party before country)

Sir Edmund Burk (1729-1792), representative in the British House of Commons, summed it up nicely.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

For an interesting read, I can highly recommend the book

"How democratic is the American Constitution? by Robert A. Dahl

Despite first impressions of the title, it is actually a pro American and pro constitution thesis.

This and other sources support the opinion that the last thing you ever want is a pure democracy.

Strange as it may appear, a democracy only works when it is insulated from public opinion.

[Oberon]

You mean tyranny by the majority when anything goes as long as it is the apparent will of a majority of the people at a particular moment in time? Maybe that's how it works in your country but that is precisely what our Constitution was designed to prevent. There is a defined and codified method for debating and changing it and it's not by cleverly worded opinion polls.

Back in the 1960's should they have held a referendum to determine whether Martin Luther Kings civil rights movement should be allowed the right to march through the south? (another right that is presently under attack by the Democrats BTW (http://triblive.com/opinion/georgewill/9959364-74/corporations-government-speech)). How do you think that would have turned out?

This is one of the more interesting problems with governments.

On the surface, majority rule sounds like the way go. Countries are made up of people and what the majority of people want, should be law.

But people have not always made the right decisions. Most people do not have the time, experience, knowledge, ability to understand the nuances of running a country. We all have our personal opinions on major issues, but often don't understand how issues inter-relate. Professionally, I have been a national and international policy analyst for over 30 years and have my doctorate in that field and there is still much I simply can't understand. I doubt there is a single person that can understand the complexities of even our national policy.

This is why we have a representative system. The theory and intent is that if we elect people with the experience and knowledge, and give the the time to interact with other knowledgeable people (Senate/House) that a better, more thought out, nuanced decision would be made.

The inherent weakness of a representative system is that it requires inexpert people (citizens) to elect expert people (representatives). Hence our political current state of affairs.

The very nature of a representative system is that the representative does NOT simply pass through the majority opinion, but instead makes a judgement decision on what the representative thinks is in the best interest of the people. (insert snarky wording on party before country)

Sir Edmund Burk (1729-1792), representative in the British House of Commons, summed it up nicely.



For an interesting read, I can highly recommend the book

"How democratic is the American Constitution? by Robert A. Dahl

Despite first impressions of the title, it is actually a pro American and pro constitution thesis.

This and other sources support the opinion that the last thing you ever want is a pure democracy.

Strange as it may appear, a democracy only works when it is insulated from public opinion.

Interesting responses, which does bring into question just what democracy is. If a government does not represent majority opinion and its people then who does it represent?
By the way, I don't hold my country as an shining example of democracy, it is probably about the same as the US in terms of elected officials, with the exception of the House of Lords of course which is a system which both works and doesn't work at the same time.
I can see what you mean about the correct way to undertake things with regards to having all the information to hand, and indeed I agree that the general public are a bit too easily lead by focus groups and media manipulation to be fully trusted with major decisions, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
I guess supermajority rules help in some respect with this problem, but it is true that without the foreknowledge of what history will eventually judge to be the right decision it's impossible to know what is a good minority and what is a bad one, particularly in a situation such as firearms rights in which the argument for and against has been made on numerous occasions. I mean, let's face it, once upon a time liquor was a prohibited substance under the US constitution but that decision is now retroactively looked upon as a mistake by a fair majority, admittedly that is the only example of an Amendment to the US constitution which was subsequently repealed, so it's not as if it's a common occurrence.

Still, as I've stated before, I can see both sides of the argument, and ultimately it's up to the people of the US to see if they can broker some sort of deal to help please both parties, because it's something that I can't see going away and both sides are just going to get more entrenched, and more vocal about it, until someone makes a big mistake somewhere and America goes somewhere that it can't get out of without a lot of trouble.

I guess history will judge us all in the end, it's just one of those annoying quirks of linear time that we don't know the answer before-hand. :haha:

[Platapus]

...I mean, let's face it, once upon a time liquor was a prohibited substance under the US constitution but that decision is now retroactively looked upon as a mistake by a fair majority, admittedly that is the only example of an Amendment to the US constitution which was subsequently repealed, so it's not as if it's a common occurrence.


The 18th Amendment also illustrates a misuse of the constitution.

Constitutions limit the power of governments
Laws limit the power of the citizens

The two are not interchangeable.

We had the Volstead Act (PL 66-66) which placed limitations/prohibitions on what the citizens could do. That's what laws do. The intent behind the 18th amendment was to prohibit future legislators from overturning the Volstead act.

The framers of the Volstead Act knew it was an unpopular law and wanted a mechanism to make the law permanent. This is not what the constitution is for.

In effect, the supporters got the required votes to get passed what they wanted passed and they wanted to prevent future legislation from taking away what they felt strongly about.

We have to be very careful not to restrict future legislative actions based on a current like or dislike for something. This is why laws can be changed, or selectively (within the laws) enforced.

This is why we must not allow amendments to the constitution address things like respect to the flag or the abortion issue, just to name a few. These are better addressed by law.

Anytime a politician (or anyone else) proposes a constitutional amendment that restricts what a citizen can do, one has to ask, "why would not passing a law be more appropriate?"

Constitutions restrict governments. That's why they are supposed to be difficult to change.

[Oberon]

That's a good point and very well put forward, thank you Platapus. I must admit I didn't really consider that constitutional laws are for restricting governmental power, and looking at them I can understand it a bit clearer now, and how it is a difficult process to change or remove a constitutional amendment, and I agree that this is a good thing, after all if you start with the 2nd, what's stopping the removal of the 1st, 4th, 6th and so on.
That being said, one could argue that certain elements of the 1st have been infringed by some laws passed over the years which has made the expression of certain views to be 'aiding and abetting the enemy', such as the 'Espionage act of 1917' which sometimes had quite broad views on what 'inciting or attempting to incite any mutiny, desertion, or refusal of duty in the armed forces' was. :doh: Thankfully the worst part of that act (the extension given by the 'Sedition Act of 1918' was repealed after WWI had ended, but the original law, although modified, is still in place today.

[Oberon]

Coming back to the topic at hand, I watched...well...listened while playing CK2, about half of the GOP debate last night, and I'm doing the same to the rest now. Carson has just about given up hasn't he? I think he's turned into an internet promoter "Just go to my website..."
Meanwhile while Trump, Cruz and Jeb! were throwing punches on stage, Kaisch seemed to be the only one wanting to bring a bit of peace and civility to the occasion, and Rubio was content to sit back and snipe away.
It's a pity that Kaisch isn't going to make it to the final furlough because he's probably the most level headed amongst them. Heck, he's got Dick Nixons vote. :haha:

[vienna]

Saw this as part of a PBS documentary on Sen. Hubert Humphrey. The video quality is appalling, but the audio is listenable. Here is HH on the Preamble to the Constitution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFarE88aQaw



<O>

[mapuc]

Saw a clip from the GOP debate and some "expert" said that Trump had
"defecating in his own nest" by make the statement that former President Bush was behind 9/11.

I can't say if this is going to affect the polls-Mr Trumps polls that is.

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

Man, polls show Trump leading in SC :dead: Hope they are wrong.

[AVGWarhawk]

Man, polls show Trump leading in SC :dead: Hope they are wrong.


Trump appears to be striking the correct chords.

[AVGWarhawk]

Saw a clip from the GOP debate and some "expert" said that Trump had
"defecating in his own nest" by make the statement that former President Bush was behind 9/11.

I can't say if this is going to affect the polls-Mr Trumps polls that is.

Markus


Many believe there was government involvement leading up to 9/11. Do I think the government had directly orchestrated 9/11? No sir. However, the government ignored the signs. The signs were evident during the Clinton administration. Bin Laden was known at that time and what he was perpetrating. However, the government did not know to what scale.

[Mr Quatro]

Man, polls show Trump leading in SC :dead: Hope they are wrong.

Trump was leading in Iowa too and lost due to the caucus system :yep:

Guess how SC decides who wins? By caucus :yep:

The latest rumor is that Trump is sounding more like the Democrates than a republican by trash talking George Bush (Jeb's brother) and blaming 9/11 on him.

That’s when Jeb Bush hit back. Monday, on the campaign trail, he told a crowd that he thought it was Michael Moore he was debating on Saturday.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/seth-meyers-warns-trump-if-you-fck-with-the-bushes-then-cheney-might-shoot-you/

My boss told me that Hillary and Trump were the same, but I couldn't ask him why he said that due to he is one of those uppity untouchables lol

[mapuc]

I was thinking correctly

Saw and heard what the Pope said about Trump earlier today on the News

"This will give the opposite effect. You just don't "talk down" about an American candidate or some other politicians that way"

Some hours ago I saw a Danish journalist in USA saying

If someone had hope the Popes statement would decrease Trumps polls you may think twice, even more Republican will vote Trump on Saturday.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

Good news is not bad news:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-lead-slashed-south-carolina-poll-n521101


Donald Trump is now leading Saturday's South Carolina Republican primary by 5 points — down from his 16-point lead in the state a month ago.


A shake up is going on and Mr Trump is going to be one mad energizer bunny :yep:

If Donald Trump was your friend would you dare tell him that he is two faced?

[AVGWarhawk]

I was thinking correctly

Saw and heard what the Pope said about Trump earlier today on the News

"This will give the opposite effect. You just don't "talk down" about an American candidate or some other politicians that way"

Some hours ago I saw a Danish journalist in USA saying

If someone had hope the Popes statement would decrease Trumps polls you may think twice, even more Republican will vote Trump on Saturday.

Markus


As we have discussed in this very thread the power of the pulpit to sway a vote. Personally I believe the Pope should not use his position in such a manner as he did concerning Trump.

[Jimbuna]

As we have discussed in this very thread the power of the pulpit to sway a vote. Personally I believe the Pope should not use his position in such a manner as he did concerning Trump.

Agreed....politics and religion can be a very volatile mix.

[August]

If Donald Trump was your friend would you dare tell him that he is two faced?

If he were my friend i'd tell him that at every opportunity. If you can't be honest with your friends you can't be honest with anyone.

[STEED]

What is all this about Trump vs The Pope?

Holly Cow the The Pope..Trump must have some big balls or is plain nuts.

[AVGWarhawk]

What is all this about Trump vs The Pope?

Holly Cow the The Pope..Trump must have some big balls or is plain nuts.


I rest my case concerning the pulpit and politics.

[Onkel Neal]

What is all this about Trump vs The Pope?

Holly Cow the The Pope..Trump must have some big balls or is plain nuts.

The pope is a hypocrite, the biggest walls are around his palace in the Vatican. How many refugees has the Vatican taken in?

http://universalfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/60-vatican-city-walls.jpg

[Oberon]

Two families of Syrian refugees so far I believe.

[u crank]

Heard this on the radio today.

Does Donald Trump read the Bible.

No.

Why?

Cause he's not in it.

:D

[STEED]

Heard this on the radio today.

Does Donald Trump read the Bible.

No.

Why?

Cause he's not in it.

:D

:har: :har: :har: :har:

[Platapus]

The pope is a hypocrite, the biggest walls are around his palace in the Vatican. How many refugees has the Vatican taken in?



Considering if you add up all the territory of the Holy See you would be hard pressed to even make 5 sq miles, there is not a lot of room for refuges.

However, the Holy See is helping coordinate refugee efforts among several countries.

[Platapus]

Heard this on the radio today.

Does Donald Trump read the Bible.

No.

Why?

Cause he's not in it.

:D


Donald does not like to write about himself. :D

[Oberon]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Donald_August_19_(cropped).jpg

"Jesus is a hero because he died for our sins. I like people who weren't crucified!"

[ReallyDedPoet]

Agreed....politics and religion can be a very volatile mix.

The Popes comments are a drop in the bucket when you consider the sway that some religious groups have over politics in the US. The two go hand in hand.

So hypocrites abound when it comes to the two subjects, on all sides.

[Onkel Neal]

Considering if you add up all the territory of the Holy See you would be hard pressed to even make 5 sq miles, there is not a lot of room for refuges.

However, the Holy See is helping coordinate refugee efforts among several countries.

5 sq miles is enough room for 100 families, plus all the churches they own and lands they own could hold many more. Still, they should take down the wall and let people come and go as they please. People should not be hindered from going where they wish.:cool:

[Oberon]

http://www.trbimg.com/img-54504488/turbine/chi-white-house-fence-sec-wre0023186854-20141023/650/650x366

In other news it looks like Clinton has got it for the Democratic run in Nevada. Another hour before we get the news from SC.


EDIT: Looks like Trump has taken it...well, that's screwed my points...You had one job, Cruz...one job!!

[Onkel Neal]

Trump is leading, no one has dropped yet,

[Oberon]

Got to admit, I'm surprised, I was under the impression that SC was a very evangelical state so I thought that Cruz would have pulled the majority given his very evangelical leanings, but Trump is more business than he is religion.
I guess Cruz still has some residual connections to 'The Establishment' which has soured some of his religious vote base towards Trump. :hmmm:

Now comes the argument amongst the rest of the Republicans who is going to drop out to allow the others to consolidate and try to stop the Trump.

The GOP puts on a good show, I'll give them that, this has been quite interesting, more so than the two horse, few points in it, Hillary/Sanders race.

EDIT: Jeb! is out. Looks like Aktungbby is going to make a clean sweep on this one.

[Oberon]

http://www.trbimg.com/img-56c44400/turbine/la-na-tt-campaign-reality-show-20160217-001/1150/1150x647

[Aktungbby]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/4fa7b750b9710133409c005056a9545d

[Platapus]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/21/politics/south-carolina-nevada-state-of-the-union/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton, coming off a hard-fought victory in the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, acknowledged she has work to do in convincing independent voters and others that she's trustworthy.

I think there's an underlying question that maybe is really in the back of people's minds and that is, 'Is she in it for us or is she in it for herself?'

And I'm going to demonstrate that I've always been the same person, I've always been fighting for the same values, fighting to make a difference in people's lives, long before I was in elected office, even before my husband was in the presidency,"

But what values are those? Hillary Clinton is in the Hillary Clinton party and her values are what is best for Hillary Clinton.

Yup, she will be the same Hillary Clinton we have had all these years. She said it herself.

[STEED]

Sod it bloody Clinton I lost a point. :/\\!!

Thanks Trump. :)

[mapuc]

I had Trump and Sanders as drop I had Bush.

The "competition" was closed after 18 Feb. Day before the Dem Election I heard an expert on American politics saying something about the mentality of the people living there and dedicated Clinton voters

Made me think-I should not have followed the polls I should have listen to some of these experts.

Polls say one thing these expert may sometimes say something different.

Markus

[HunterICX]

Trump doesn't make a bad Games of Thrones character:

''Winter is Trumping''
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tE6T-ecmg

:D

[Mr Quatro]

Got to admit, I'm surprised, I was under the impression that SC was a very evangelical state so I thought that Cruz would have pulled the majority given his very evangelical leanings, but Trump is more business than he is religion.
I guess Cruz still has some residual connections to 'The Establishment' which has soured some of his religious vote base towards Trump. :hmmm:

Now comes the argument amongst the rest of the Republicans who is going to drop out to allow the others to consolidate and try to stop the Trump.

The GOP puts on a good show, I'll give them that, this has been quite interesting, more so than the two horse, few points in it, Hillary/Sanders race.

EDIT: Jeb! is out. Looks like Aktungbby is going to make a clean sweep on this one.

Trump and Cruz were tied for 30% of the evangelical vote, but Trump won anyway, by a big margin too. Now they are saying that Trump can't be stopped.

Rubio barely took 2nd place over Cruz and even if they joined together, with lets say a coin flip to decide which one would be the 45th President, even then they couldn't beat Trump. He's a train wreck for America on his way to winning the GOP.

Can he beat Hillary? After I've been wrong so many times ... I'll would have to go back to being a democrat to be for Hillary, but I'm sure thinking about it.

Way to go Aktungbby you ran the table ... good for you. :yeah:

What's next after Trump wins in Nevada tomorrow?

[u crank]

http://i.imgur.com/wY3DyYz.jpg

[Peter Cremer]

What gets me is why people can't figure out why Trump leads the politicians in the polls. They come up with all kinds of reasons. It's simple; he's not a politician. It's how the American voters are demonstrating to the political establishment just how much they are disgusted with 'politics as usual' with all the usual suspects. What's the difference between politicians and criminals? The politicians are paid better.

[Onkel Neal]

Trump doesn't make a bad Games of Thrones character:

''Winter is Trumping''
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tE6T-ecmg

:D

Haha, I would totally watch that.

Man, I just don't know what to say about American politics anymore. :wah:

[Schroeder]

Man, I just don't know what to say about American politics anymore. :wah:
Don't worry, neither do we.:D

On the other hand it would be interesting to see how "President Trump" would deal with Merkel, Putin & co. Could be:har: or :wah: or :dead:. I would put money on the latter two.

[AndyJWest]

What gets me is why people can't figure out why Trump leads the politicians in the polls. They come up with all kinds of reasons. It's simple; he's not a politician. It's how the American voters are demonstrating to the political establishment just how much they are disgusted with 'politics as usual' with all the usual suspects. What's the difference between politicians and criminals? The politicians are paid better.

Trump is seeking nomination from one of only two significant political parties in the United States. If his supporters see that as anything but seeking entry to the 'political establishment', I can't help thinking that (in the unlikely event that he won the presidency) they are in for a rude awakening.

[Platapus]

I don't understand why some people feel that the President is an entry level position. I don't want an outsider as POTUS. I want someone with experience in government. This fantasy that an "outsider" would somehow be better at understanding the complexities and nuances of running a government is mind-boggling.

I have often posted that the number one qualification of a person for President is the ability to "make the deal" with congress.

A POTUS is very limited in what he or she can do unless they have the support of congress (from both parties). We have seen what happens when we don't. And in making the deal with congress, the POTUS asks congress. The POTUS does not tell congress anything.

Any candidate that claims that they will make congress do anything is clearly ignorant of how our government works.

We need a Washington Insider as president. We just need a good insider.

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't understand why some people feel that the President is an entry level position. I don't want an outsider as POTUS. I want someone with experience in government. This fantasy that an "outsider" would somehow be better at understanding the complexities and nuances of running a government is mind-boggling.



Yes, a Jr. Senator is much better.

The government is a business. It takes a business mind to run it. Community organizer not so much.

[AVGWarhawk]

What gets me is why people can't figure out why Trump leads the politicians in the polls. They come up with all kinds of reasons. It's simple; he's not a politician. It's how the American voters are demonstrating to the political establishment just how much they are disgusted with 'politics as usual' with all the usual suspects. What's the difference between politicians and criminals? The politicians are paid better.


Trump leads much like the conservatives that ran for the House/Senate in recent elections that moved the power to the Republicans. It appears that the voting public is getting fed up with the current state of the country. Nothing will get done while BO is President. Nothing will get done if Hillary or Bernie is elected. Do the voting folks really want to continue on the path that is going nowhere? All indications with support for Trump would indicate split House/Senate/President make it impossible to run a country. Everything is simply forces up the chute.

[AVGWarhawk]

Haha, I would totally watch that.

Man, I just don't know what to say about American politics anymore. :wah:

The two party system needs to go. Career politicians need to go. Many say that Presidents should have been in an elected office already. It provides experience. That is true. However, if the President is loaded with experience why have an appointed cabinet? Further, the majority of the experience is learning how to buck the system, work on getting elected again, enjoying the benefits of healthcare and retirement until one dies, have their egos fed/stroked and making a frat party of one entire career. None of these would one find on a resume' for position of President. One would find embellishment, lies and back patting to promote one's self. We witness this at every debate. When a "fact check" is completed after every debate...this should indicate the BS run's deep and the lot of them do not know much of anything. Anyone should qualify.

[Oberon]

Trump and Cruz were tied for 30% of the evangelical vote, but Trump won anyway, by a big margin too. Now they are saying that Trump can't be stopped.

Rubio barely took 2nd place over Cruz and even if they joined together, with lets say a coin flip to decide which one would be the 45th President, even then they couldn't beat Trump. He's a train wreck for America on his way to winning the GOP.

Can he beat Hillary? After I've been wrong so many times ... I'll would have to go back to being a democrat to be for Hillary, but I'm sure thinking about it.

Way to go Aktungbby you ran the table ... good for you. :yeah:

What's next after Trump wins in Nevada tomorrow?

Curious that Trump should get such a share of the evangelical vote, he really doesn't strike me as the religious type, more business than anything.
I guess the anti-establishment side of things wins over when it comes to voting for Trump over Cruz. He really does look unstoppable, and I think we can kiss goodbye to the Republican party for a while, it's probably the most spectacular implosion since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Never mind God Bless America...God Help America. :doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

Curious that Trump should get such a share of the evangelical vote, he really doesn't strike me as the religious type, more business than anything.
I guess the anti-establishment side of things wins over when it comes to voting for Trump over Cruz. He really does look unstoppable, and I think we can kiss goodbye to the Republican party for a while, it's probably the most spectacular implosion since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Never mind God Bless America...God Help America. :doh:


Trump is more business than anything. It's what he does. As far as religion, Trump appears to me as being the Christmas and Easter church goer. However, having celebrity type status one does not roll into any church on a Sunday. But, how is Trump in general? Crass, vulgar at times, looks down on people of certain race and religion. These certainly lead many into believing Trump is anything but religious. Then again, perhaps the political correctness is something Trump will just not embrace. Beyond all of that, it is IMO that many are angry and tired of being railroaded by the government, issues of immigration constantly ignored, lack/focus of an economic country strengthening path and complete uncertainty of the future of this country. Trump is speaking their language. Trump is hitting key issues that have been ignored and danced around.

The Republican party can go bye bye. They earned it.

Never mind God Bless America...God Help America

The same thing said when BO was elected. A Jr. Senator with sketchy background. Many think BO is just fabulous and his wife just awesome. I don't see it myself. At this point, in my mind, what do we have to lose with Trump, Carson or Mickey Mouse? The entire system has become a sham.

[August]

At this point, in my mind, what do we have to lose with Trump, Carson or Mickey Mouse?

President Clinton (v2.0) for one thing.

My prediction now is that Tump will go on to win the repub nomination then by word and deed he'll throw the general election in favor of the woman and the party that he has long supported. Watch for an October meltdown that keeps conservatives home and drives everyone else into the arms of the Democrats.

[AVGWarhawk]

President Clinton (v2.0) for one thing.

My prediction now is that Tump will go on to win the repub nomination then by word and deed he'll throw the general election in favor of the woman and the party that he has long supported. Watch for an October meltdown that keeps conservatives home and drives everyone else into the arms of the Democrats.


If Hillary is Bill V2.0, is that such a bad thing? Other than the Oval Office extra curricular activity, blue dress and crappy NFTA, he left with a surplus. Bill will be the armchair President for Hillary. I'm not so sure Trump's words will do much more than what words have done previously. What more could Trump possibly say to offend? I think he has touched on all races, religions and gender. Trump is speaking every conservatives language. Walls, isolationism, re-examine the free trade agreement, immigration issues. All the others will simply vote anyone with a D behind their name anyway. Trump needs to mobilize the conservatives to vote. I think he has done that. His biggest ace in the hole is not being bought by special interests who fund a campaign. Voters are starting to understand this part of a defunct system of elections.

[Bilge_Rat]

remember it aint over til its over...


White House political strategists have concluded—regretfully—that Ronald Reagan is fading and will have little chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. Why the regrets? Because Carter's aides are convinced that the conservative, 68-year-old former California governor is an easy target. (April 2, 1979)



http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/04/16/historic-whispers-ronald-reagan-had-little-chance-of-winning-the-primary

There is always a chance that the many Republicans who consider Reagan too conservative and simply too old to win the presidency will coalesce behind an alternative candidate. That could be Bush, Senate minority Leader Howard Baker, 54, or even ex-President Gerald Ford, 66, who appears sorely tempted to enter the race in an attempt to head off Reagan, his old nemesis from 1976.

-Time, march 10, 1980

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9603/06/index.shtml

[August]

If Hillary is Bill V2.0, is that such a bad thing? Other than the Oval Office extra curricular activity, blue dress and crappy NFTA, he left with a surplus.

No it won't be Bill V2.0. If it were maybe it wouldn't be so bad but this time the really evil half of that team will be in charge. It's amazing to me that anyone would vote for a criminal like her but the repubs seem to be managing to put forward a candidate who actually makes her look like the better of a bad choice.

Bill will be the armchair President for Hillary.

I seriously doubt that. Once she is in the oval office and doesn't need him anymore he'll become just a liability to her. After all a leopard doesn't change his spots and it won't be long before he'll be caught at his old ways. I expect her to dump him at that point to score points with the radical feminists.

I'm not so sure Trump's words will do much more than what words have done previously. What more could Trump possibly say to offend? I think he has touched on all races, religions and gender. Trump is speaking every conservatives language. Walls, isolationism, re-examine the free trade agreement, immigration issues.

Not every conservatives language, maybe 30-40% if the polls are to be believed and there is plenty of people he can still alienate before November.

Trump needs to mobilize the conservatives to vote. I think he has done that.

No I disagree. Every one of his present positions are a complete flip flop from those he has claimed previously and it's only fooled the above mentioned 30%. The only thing that would motivate the other 70% in November is their dislike of Hitlery but I think he'll do what he can to mitigate that and they're mostly just going to stay home if he's the name on the ballot.

His biggest ace in the hole is not being bought by special interests who fund a campaign. Voters are starting to understand this part of a defunct system of elections.

So what is worse, a candidate who is beholden to special interests for funding their campaign or a candidate who IS himself a special interest with the donation history to prove it?

[August]

remember it aint over til its over...



http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/04/16/historic-whispers-ronald-reagan-had-little-chance-of-winning-the-primary


You do realize that those White House Strategists they're talking about were Democrats right? Would you believe anything that the Obama White House says about any of the present gop candidates? How about what the Bush White House might have said about potential dem candidates in 2004?

You just can't believe anything one party says about the other and that most definitely includes the viability of opposition candidates.

[Bilge_Rat]

You do realize that those White House Strategists they're talking about were Democrats right? Would you believe anything that the Obama White House says about any of the present gop candidates? How about what the Bush White House might have said about potential dem candidates in 2004?

You just can't believe anything one party says about the other and that most definitely includes the viability of opposition candidates.

actually my point is that pretty much everyone in 79-80 was discounting Reagan as a viable candidate: too conservative, too old, too wacky and look what happened? Now everyone sees him as a conservative icon.

The Donald has a very good shot at becoming ...President Trump.

[August]

Now everyone sees him as a conservative icon.

Not everyone as I have mentioned. Only around 25% of the republican party could be considered his supporters, the other 75% hate him only slightly less than they hate hitlery but maybe not enough to motivate them to come to the polls in november.


The Donald has a very good shot at becoming ...President Trump." We'll see but I still think winning is not his goal here.

[AVGWarhawk]

No it won't be Bill V2.0. If it were maybe it wouldn't be so bad but this time the really evil half of that team will be in charge. It's amazing to me that anyone would vote for a criminal like her but the repubs seem to be managing to put forward a candidate who actually makes her look like the better of a bad choice.

My belief if she takes the WH it sill be a Bill V2.0. He certainly will be asked for input when he is not chasing skirt. And it amazes me as well Hillary has not been indicted. She just still might be. Joe Biden will step in because the nomination will not be handed over to Bernie. As far as the Repubs, they have no choice in the matter. The candidates are the hand that was dealt.



I seriously doubt that. Once she is in the oval office and doesn't need him anymore he'll become just a liability to her. After all a leopard doesn't change his spots and it won't be long before he'll be caught at his old ways. I expect her to dump him at that point to score points with the radical feminists. IMO Bill will be a help and not a hinderance. She will not dump Bill. It would make very little sense to do so.


Not every conservatives language, maybe 30-40% if the polls are to be believed and there is plenty of people he can still alienate before November.But enough conservatives. That is all Trump needs. I do not think Trump can say much more abrasive statements to alienate people. He has a book full already yet marches on.



No I disagree. Every one of his present positions are a complete flip flop from those he has claimed previously and it's only fooled the above mentioned 30%. The only thing that would motivate the other 70% in November is their dislike of Hitlery but I think he'll do what he can to mitigate that and they're mostly just going to stay home if he's the name on the ballot.The entire lot flip/flops and fact check is always required after each debate. All are full of it. It boils down to who is full of less.



So what is worse, a candidate who is beholden to special interests for funding their campaign or a candidate who IS himself a special interest with the donation history to prove it?Obviously a candidate who is beholden to special interests. Bought and sold like a common stock. We have not had a candidate in recent history that has paid his way and made remarks that are against the grain. Well, maybe Perot who would do it all for free!

[AVGWarhawk]

We'll see but I still think winning is not his goal here.

I'm skeptical as well. Some days it just appears to be a PR stunt.

[Peter Cremer]

I don't understand why some people feel that the President is an entry level position. I don't want an outsider as POTUS. I want someone with experience in government. This fantasy that an "outsider" would somehow be better at understanding the complexities and nuances of running a government is mind-boggling.

I have often posted that the number one qualification of a person for President is the ability to "make the deal" with congress.

A POTUS is very limited in what he or she can do unless they have the support of congress (from both parties). We have seen what happens when we don't. And in making the deal with congress, the POTUS asks congress. The POTUS does not tell congress anything.

Any candidate that claims that they will make congress do anything is clearly ignorant of how our government works.

We need a Washington Insider as president. We just need a good insider.

That definitely is not Hillary. I would rather vote for Charles Manson.

[Oberon]

The answers in this thread seem to highlight a valid flaw in the statement that a lot of Republicans will vote Democrat if Trump gets the nomination. If Clinton gets the Democrat nomination and it's a choice between Trump and Clinton, I think most Republicans will just stay at home rather than vote for either, or will vote Trump just to keep Clinton out. We've had months of being told that Clinton is up there with Adolf Hitler in terms of pure undiluted evil, so I don't see that many Republicans will vote for her even if it's a case of voting against Trump.

[AVGWarhawk]

The answers in this thread seem to highlight a valid flaw in the statement that a lot of Republicans will vote Democrat if Trump gets the nomination. If Clinton gets the Democrat nomination and it's a choice between Trump and Clinton, I think most Republicans will just stay at home rather than vote for either, or will vote Trump just to keep Clinton out. We've had months of being told that Clinton is up there with Adolf Hitler in terms of pure undiluted evil, so I don't see that many Republicans will vote for her even if it's a case of voting against Trump.

Repubs will vote anyone with a R behind their names just as quickly as Dems will vote anyone with a D behind their name. If it is undecided for the voter most vote the party of their choice. I have been their myself.

[U505995]

As long as that snake in the grass Hillary doesn't take the oval office I think I'll be ok.

[August]

IMO Bill will be a help and not a hinderance. She will not dump Bill. It would make very little sense to do so.

What exactly does President Clinton need from Bill once she is elected? Other than knowing where her bodies are buried I see him being of little value to her and potentially a lot of harm.

[eddie]

That definitely is not Hillary. I would rather vote for Charles Manson.

Charlie would be so proud!:88)

[mapuc]

I had to make my choices in the "US Election contest"- thread from the polls.

For a while I had Sanders as the winner of the Dem in SC. I changed my mind, ´cause Clinton is in front, even though Sanders is gaining ground each day.

And for a split second I saw Rubio dropping-I cleared my mind as fast as I could saying no-way. I made a 50/50 chance on the two with the lowest percentage in the latest polls.

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

I think Rubio may have a chance in Nevada. I decided to go with Trump, seems like he is on a roll.

As for SC, I don't think Bernie can win any part of the majority vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/02/22/daily-202-bernie-sanders-is-running-into-a-demographics-buzz-saw-in-south-carolina/56ca76f2981b92a22d329d68/

[Oberon]

Carson seems determined to stay on as long as he can, which is why I've gone for Kaisch this time round...you watch Carson drop out, you just bloody watch it happen. :O:

[Torplexed]

Now that South Carolina republican primary has sent Jeb Bush packing the struggle is on to see who inherits his exclamation point.

Marco Rubio thinks it's him because he's the closest candidate to Ronald Reagan. Ted Cruz thinks it's him because he's the closest candidate to Ronald Reagan.

Who's right? Let me see. Ronald Reagan was 69 when he won the nomination. Who else in the race is 69? Donald Trump, of course.

Reagan was a professional performer and a member of the Screen Actors Guild. Who else is a professional performer and a member of the Screen Actors Guild? Once again it's Trump.

Ronald Reagan was also physically imposing, standing over 6 feet and had an amazing head of hair for his age. Hmmm. What candidate also meets that description?

"Let's put this thing away," Trump said Sunday. I get the feeling he is about to do just that. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. :doh:

[Aktungbby]

Carson seems determined to stay on as long as he can, which is why I've gone for Kaisch this time round...you watch Carson drop out, you just bloody watch it happen. :O:

CHICKEN: I picked 'em both to drop!