Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 14182
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:08 am

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 99):
both Bloomberg and Sanders are Jewish and both are leftwing moonbats. What's not to like?

Uh, the fact that one's positioning his entire campaign to target the likes of the other?

No one cares about religion/ethnicity or ideology, when there's money at stake.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:35 pm

Quoting Osubuckeyes (Reply 95):
What is even more interesting though is that there is a set up for a "comeback" narrative for Sanders as SC hasn't been polled since before IA, and NV hasn't really been polled since December.

A large portion of the SC Democratic electorate is black, a constituency that hasn't shown to favor Sanders that much yet. As such, I believe Clinton will carry the state. The thing to focus on is the margin. If she gets over 60%, she's still healthy; less than 55%, you know it's that s#!t just got real.

Latinos in Nevada, however, are a different story. While Latinos still support Clinton, it may be the first group of voters to lean the other way.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:54 pm

Sanders is likely in for a rude awakening when he arrives in NV. (mainly his tax hike plans) Or maybe not

Although she lost NH Hillary is way ahead in delegate count

http://www.cnn.com/election

Who will be next GOP candidate to drop out: Fiorina or Carson (or both.) Christie will fight on until SC and maybe NV.

[Edited 2016-02-10 06:07:01]
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:25 pm

The US primaries are a bit too complicated for me, so I'll ask, is it possible for a candidate to get more and more momentum, while the leader in delegates loses wind, but in the end not enough to change the outcome ?

Then you get a designated candidate that has lost momentum and many people who'd rather have the other one ?

In France we have made the primaries similar to our elections, so they're national, with 2 turns one week apart, and only the top two at the first turn get to the second one. With a months long campaign before, in a system like that, I could see Bernie Sanders win the nomination. Especially with the nutters on the right and the fact a Democrat is an incumbent, so people wouldn't necessarily choose the "safe candidate". In France the opposite happened last time in 2011, a flamboyant man got momentum but not enough to get to the second round, then the safer candidate won over the most leftist one (Martine Aubry, mother of the 35h work week). Then another flamboyant man got a nice showing in the first round of the election, Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the Left Front, and all in all the left rallied enough people in the second round to unseat Sarkozy.

If you don't have momentum, and the right-wing candidate is not that horrible, trouble could ensue.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:34 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 103):
is it possible for a candidate to get more and more momentum, while the leader in delegates loses wind, but in the end not enough to change the outcome ?

You're witnessing it right now. Sanders is gathering enough momentum to be able to steal Clinton's lead. However, when superdelegates (delegates that are not pledged and can change support at any time) are taken into account, these will make all the difference. So Sanders can effectively win more and more states (even by a slim margin), but if superdelegates still back Clinton when the party convention comes, she'll be the nominee.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:49 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 103):
In France we have made the primaries similar to our elections, so they're national, with 2 turns one week apart, and only the top two at the first turn get to the second one. With a months long campaign before, in a system like that, I could see Bernie Sanders win the nomination. Especially with the nutters on the right and the fact a Democrat is an incumbent, so people wouldn't necessarily choose the "safe candidate". In France the opposite happened last time in 2011, a flamboyant man got momentum but not enough to get to the second round, then the safer candidate won over the most leftist one (Martine Aubry, mother of the 35h work week). Then another flamboyant man got a nice showing in the first round of the election, Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the Left Front, and all in all the left rallied enough people in the second round to unseat Sarkozy.

That's exactly what a German-American friend of mine is afraid of (she has spend about half of her life in Germany and the other half in the US). in Germany she supports the Social Democrats, so she hasn't got an ideological problem wirh Sanders, but she is really scared of the religious or populist right nutcases getting to real power (imagine Cruz with the trigger buttons for the nukes).
She is afraid that Sanders will win the nomination, but will then be painted as a communist during the real election campaign ( in Europe he would be considered a moderate left Social Democrat, far from being a communist), triggering the old red scare, and then one of the rightwings (either Trump as a populist or one of the religious right, as there don't seem to be any moderate conservative politicians around) winning the election. While she doesn't like Clinton, she sees her as the lesser evil.

Jan

[Edited 2016-02-10 07:04:01]
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6179
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:57 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 104):
superdelegates

Who invented the concept of superdelegates?  Wow! What are their purposes? To "correct" the popular vote if needed?


David
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:23 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 106):

Democrats started using them in 1968 to essentially protect the status quo. Superdelegates are party leaders and elected officials who can support any candidate they choose at the national convention. However, a large majority vote for the DC insider.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:56 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 106):
What are their purposes? To "correct" the popular vote if needed?

In the Democratic side, they constitute about 1/5 of the delegates' vote, so they are only relevant if no candidate reaches the majority in pledged delegates. This serves to both break a tie and to protect the establishment if someone like Trump were to run in the party. My guess is that if Sanders keeps his momentum and manages to win more pledged delegates, superdelegates may defect to his side (like they did back in 2008), especially if more polls show Clinton would struggle in a general election.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 107):
Democrats started using them in 1968 to essentially protect the status quo. Superdelegates are party leaders and elected officials who can support any candidate they choose at the national convention.

Let's not count out Republicans who also have superdelegates. Unlike the Democrats, theirs are limited to 3 per state, if I'm not mistaken, and all are RNC officials of the state.

The Democrats have DNC officers, current governors, senators and representatives, and other former officials as superdelegates. A state like Utah, for example, would have one or two superdelegates given the fact that barely any Democrats hold office there; a state like Hawaii, on the other hand would have at least 5 (governor, 2 senators, 2 reps).
 
ctnyc12
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:29 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:05 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 102):
Christie will fight on until SC and maybe NV.

I really don't see this happening. I think he will suspend his campaign today or tomorrow due to lack of funding because of poor showings in IA and NH; and maybe throw his support behind Kasich or Bush for the SC and NV primaries.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:57 pm

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 99):
Hmm...both Bloomberg and Sanders are Jewish and both are leftwing moonbats. What's not to like?

What have you got against Jews?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 94):
With Trump and Sanders winning, the establishment is trembling. A Loss of control, fairness, honesty for the common person? Heaven forbid!

Trump is pretty anti-establishment. Sanders is completely establishment though. Why anybody thinks he isn't is beyond me.
 
Osubuckeyes
Posts: 1901
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:05 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:12 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 110):
Sanders is completely establishment though. Why anybody thinks he isn't is beyond me.

It is completely ignorant of facts. Most people see him as anti-establishment is because HRC is soooooo establishment, or refer to the I next to his name as a Senator. His supporters hate to admit that he consistently caucused with the Dems, played the Dem fundraising game, and benefits from the DNC establishment. They also would never admit that he voted consistently with HRC 93% of the time, although one key difference that Sanders mentions every chance he gets is the Iraq War vote.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:29 pm

Quoting Osubuckeyes (Reply 111):
although one key difference that Sanders mentions every chance he gets is the Iraq War vote.

Hillary's Iraq War Vote, her private email server, now even her speaking fees are fair game...

There is a striking resemblance to George HW Bush's 1988 campaign - specifically the Dan Rather interview....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqwQw3THRvU

Seems to be deja vu again with Hillary as VP Bush and the Sanders campaign in Rather's shoes...

[Edited 2016-02-10 10:38:56]
 
User avatar
chepos
Posts: 7279
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:57 pm

I am a Democrat and will vote for HRC when my state is up, that being said I will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee come NOV. I just don't see him as electable when it comes to the national elections, the GOP will paint him red and call him a communist and there goes the white house to a nut job (Cruz, Trump or Rubio) UGH! I am not feeling the Bern, just not yet.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:36 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 112):
Hillary's Iraq War Vote, her private email server, now even her speaking fees are fair game...

I disagree with the bold part. Like she said in the debate: bringing up the Iraq War vote is not going to defeat ISIS, especially when there have been two presidents dealing with it. What is Sanders's plan to defeat ISIS?

Quoting chepos (Reply 113):
I am a Democrat and will vote for HRC when my state is up, that being said I will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee come NOV. I just don't see him as electable when it comes to the national elections, the GOP will paint him red and call him a communist and there goes the white house to a nut job (Cruz, Trump or Rubio) UGH! I am not feeling the Bern, just not yet.

Same here, though Maryland votes so late in the game that the only way my primary vote will mean something is if it's still deadlocked. Sanders will have to up his game to give Clinton a run for her money.
 
User avatar
mbmbos
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:51 pm

Quoting Okie (Reply 84):
He will most likely run as a Democrat.

Doubtful. He will have already missed the deadline for many states as a Democratic candidate.

Quoting Okie (Reply 84):
I really do not think he would waste his time and money if it did not look like HRC would be damaged goods.

I don't think his billion $$$ campaign will do him much good given he doesn't resonate with voters. I just don't see him succeeding in the role of White Knight.


The Republican and Democratic winners of the New Hampshire primary are both anti-establishment candidates, not warmly embraced by their own parties. This speaks volumes about the mood and attitude of U.S. citizens. It takes a perfect storm like this to imagine it would be even possible for an unapologetic liberal or a narcissistic authoritarian to have a real shot at the presidency. But here we are!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 13945
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:46 pm

 
LittleFokker
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:25 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:47 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 114):
What is Sanders's plan to defeat ISIS?

Let's look at it from this point of view: why does the future President need to have a plan to defeat ISIS? Haven't we learned yet that bombing and/or ground game in that area only makes them stronger? The more attention we give them, the stronger they get.

America needs to get it's own house in order - we have plenty of issues within our own borders that need resolving. If the middle east wants peace and stability, they are going to need to figure it out themselves.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22258
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:24 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 116):

Carly is out.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politi...s-out-suspends-campaign/index.html

So sad.  
Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 117):

Let's look at it from this point of view: why does the future President need to have a plan to defeat ISIS? Haven't we learned yet that bombing and/or ground game in that area only makes them stronger? The more attention we give them, the stronger they get.

The solution to ISIS is to find where their funding is coming from and stop it at the source.
 
apodino
Posts: 4092
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:52 pm

One thing I found interesting is Donald Trump got more votes in NH than Hillary Clinton....which is something considering only two candidates on the Democratic side and a boat loading the GOP side.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 14182
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:30 pm

Quoting ctnyc12 (Reply 109):
I think he will suspend his campaign today or tomorrow due to lack of funding because of poor showings in IA and NH

Called it!

He's out as of now, according to CNN.




Quoting apodino (Reply 119):
One thing I found interesting is Donald Trump got more votes in NH than Hillary Clinton....which is something considering only two candidates on the Democratic side and a boat loading the GOP side.

Hillary wasn't the winner of NH though, so what's that really got to do with anything?

That's like finding it "interesting" that Sanders got more votes than Kasich.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 13945
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:40 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 120):

Called it!

He's out as of now, according to CNN.

Well his lent checklist is taken care of.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:24 pm

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 117):
Let's look at it from this point of view: why does the future President need to have a plan to defeat ISIS? Haven't we learned yet that bombing and/or ground game in that area only makes them stronger? The more attention we give them, the stronger they get.

If that's the case, then why keep bringing up the Iraq War vote? Clearly, if we don't need to give them attention, then whatever allowed ISIS to proliferate (ie. the Iraq War) is already a done deal and should not be brought up anymore. Otherwise, to keep hammering away with the vote suggests a cause and effect: authorizing the Iraq War led to the chaos which allowed ISIS to grow.

So unless Bernie is willing to say "While Clinton voted for the Iraq War and I didn't, here's my plan to deal with the aftermath", he should either not mention the vote at all or present a plan to deal with ISIS (something beyond "we need a coalition").
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 14182
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:55 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 122):
So unless Bernie is willing to say "While Clinton voted for the Iraq War and I didn't, here's my plan to deal with the aftermath", he should either not mention the vote at all or present a plan to deal with ISIS (something beyond "we need a coalition").

Hear hear!

...finally, someone said it!
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:37 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 110):
Trump is pretty anti-establishment. Sanders is completely establishment though. Why anybody thinks he isn't is beyond me.

Sanders is a sitting US senator, so although his ideas are not exactly mainstream, he is "establishment." Same with Ted Cruz. I think its ironic how sitting senators call themselves anti-establishment, when that's just not the case.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 118):
The solution to ISIS is to find where their funding is coming from and stop it at the source.

Saudi Arabia...cough cough
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:30 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 110):
Trump is pretty anti-establishment. Sanders is completely establishment though. Why anybody thinks he isn't is beyond me.

Trump is saying what people fed up with the system want to hear. He has said he knows the system and has used it often enough to gather wealth and success. 95% establishment. Sanders in this campaign is certainly not advocating the status quo. Far from it. Sanders 95 % anti-establishment in this campaign. He has certainly not gathered great wealth from the establishment as has Clinton and many others.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22258
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:36 am

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 124):

Saudi Arabia...cough cough

Ya think?
 
LittleFokker
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:25 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:07 am

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 124):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 118):
The solution to ISIS is to find where their funding is coming from and stop it at the source.

Saudi Arabia...cough cough

  

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 122):
If that's the case, then why keep bringing up the Iraq War vote? Clearly, if we don't need to give them attention, then whatever allowed ISIS to proliferate (ie. the Iraq War) is already a done deal and should not be brought up anymore. Otherwise, to keep hammering away with the vote suggests a cause and effect: authorizing the Iraq War led to the chaos which allowed ISIS to grow.

So unless Bernie is willing to say "While Clinton voted for the Iraq War and I didn't, here's my plan to deal with the aftermath", he should either not mention the vote at all or present a plan to deal with ISIS (something beyond "we need a coalition").

I think you're conflating two separate ideas here, and I don't see how it's improper to bring up the Iraq war vote. There was never unanimous support for the Iraqi war, and there were many plausible reasons to vote against it. ISIS was not a known threat at the time of the vote, and it's very likely that had we not invaded, ISIS would not exist today. I think it's fair game that if Sanders is going to run on being a more isolationist candidate than Clinton, the Iraq war vote further demonstrates as evidence where each candidate stands on foreign policy.

Many of us in this country are fully aware that ISIS is a non-winnable situation, and our nation would be best served by getting out of the area ASAP and start focusing our resources on our own country.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:27 am

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 127):
There was never unanimous support for the Iraqi war, and there were many plausible reasons to vote against it.

I agree with you, but here's one key thing: her vote didn't make or break the war authorization. Had she voted no, the war would still be going on, ISIS would still be spreading, and Sanders would be left without one of his main differences from Clinton and without a plan to deal with it.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 127):
ISIS was not a known threat at the time of the vote

Which is why many voted for the war resolution (we now know that was a big screw up). At the time, lawmakers from both parties went with the intelligence presented at the time.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 127):
and it's very likely that had we not invaded, ISIS would not exist today.

So which one is it? Is ISIS something we need to pay attention to or not? Because if not, why are we discussing it in the first place?

You say it's fair game to bring up Clinton's Iraq War vote. Fine.
-"Why?"
-"Oh because ISIS is now growing in the area...but let's not pay attention to ISIS."

So why bring up the cause of ISIS in the first place?

I get the sense that it's a sort of deflection: "Clinton helped ISIS rise with her Iraq War vote!" But when asked how to deal with the aftermath (which is still ongoing, no matter which party wins in November), Clinton has something while all Sanders has to back up is "Clinton voted for Iraq...we need a coalition".

My guess is that trying to portray Clinton as a war hawk, while true, is gonna be met with backlash. A secretary of state that traveled to places once deemed unimaginable in previous administrations is not exactly signs of a war hawk. The argument could be made that she may resort to war quicker that Sanders...but where's the evidence?

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 127):
Many of us in this country are fully aware that ISIS is a non-winnable situation, and our nation would be best served by getting out of the area ASAP and start focusing our resources on our own country.

Everyone is aware and I think, after 10 years in Iraq and 15 (and counting) in Afghanistan, Americans are ready to embrace isolationism for a while and deal with problems back home. That being said, I believe they'd want to be sure that ISIS is dealt with for good. A job well done is a job worth doing.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16024
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:15 am

One interesting point looking at Sanders' funding data on Open Secrets: 25% of his contributions are coming from California. IF the race stays relatively tight until June, that's when CA goes up for grabs with 546 delegates. Around 65% of his contributions are from 'other' states, when location is identified.

The metropolitan breakdown has the vast majority of his contributions coming from the SF Bay Area, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Boston - basically where all the high income liberals with advanced degrees are.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 128):
That being said, I believe they'd want to be sure that ISIS is dealt with for good. A job well done is a job worth doing.

I expect he'll go on to elucidate that it's not an overnight job, and the coalition building is going to involve tough choices about who our friends are (based on who his foreign policy advisors are reported to be).

A couple other clues here:

Sen. SANDERS: This nation is the most powerful military in the world. We're spending over $600 billion a year on the military and yet, significantly less than 10% of that money is used to be fighting international terrorism. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars maintaining 5,000 nuclear weapons. I think we need major reform in the military, making it more cost effective, but also focusing on the real crisis that faces us. The Cold War is over. And our focus has got to be on intelligence, increased manpower

Q: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you think you've isolated an important terrorist? That continues?
SANDERS: Yes. And look, we all know, that there are people as of this moment plotting against the United States. We have got to be vigorous in protecting our country, no question about it.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:18 am

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 112):
Hillary's Iraq War Vote, her private email server, now even her speaking fees are fair game...

Its not really surprising that HRC gets more money for talking in front of polite company.
( the (German) SPD candidate, Peer Steinbrück, a rather acomplished talker,
in the last elections was harassed for the same thing.)

For the job targeted it is more of a thumb up than down property imho.

Again IMHO most of the GOP candidates disqualify themselves by what
though processes they expose in public.
 
Osubuckeyes
Posts: 1901
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:05 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:33 pm

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 127):
ISIS was not a known threat at the time of the vote, and it's very likely that had we not invaded, ISIS would not exist today.

That is really hard to say. That would assume Saddam would have still been in power today. The guy was 65 so not exactly a young leader. It is very possible that his regime would have toppled anyways and left a similar power vacuum. You don't have to look too far from Iraq to see a similar situation in Syria, Libya, or somewhat in Egypt. Maybe ISIS doesn't exist how it does today, but a world with a power vacuum in Iraq is not hard to imagine with or without the invasion. The funny thing about some of these things is that they have a sort of long term inevitability as Iraq with it's current "boundaries" shouldn't exist that way in the first place.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16024
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:36 pm

Quoting Osubuckeyes (Reply 131):
Maybe ISIS doesn't exist how it does today, but a world with a power vacuum in Iraq is not hard to imagine with or without the invasion. The funny thing about some of these things is that they have a sort of long term inevitability as Iraq with it's current "boundaries" shouldn't exist that way in the first place.

The situation only gets worse now with oil prices bottoming out in the region and Iran coming on with sanctions lifted, also able to bring oil to market. The fledgling Iraqi government soon won't have the oil revenue to cover salaries of government workers. The ME is not improving anytime soon...
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:19 pm

Bernie beats Hillary by almost 2 to 1....but yet, they walk away with the same # of delegates, 15 each....WTF?
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:47 pm

May be wrong on this but I'm thinking Bernie's supporters and political pundits aren't seeing the whole picture on his plans.

They are only focused on getting him elected but aren't looking at the strategy needed to take back control of Congress to pass his plans...   
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:27 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 125):
Sanders in this campaign is certainly not advocating the status quo. Far from it. Sanders 95 % anti-establishment in this campaign.

Well clearly his attempts to market himself as one are fooling a lot of people. Amazing what you can achieve just by putting an "I" next to your name. Being "establishment" is the opposite of being an "outsider", and you can't be an outsider if you've spent your entire life in politics.

Does he advocate the status quo? Of course not- when has a candidate ever said "everything's fine, so I'm not going to do anything"? Some of his policies are extreme, but he knows as well as anybody that he'll never be able to actually enact any of them, so he can say what he likes. His support is dependent on people who don't understand how the American political system works, and crucially why it works the way it does.
 
1g
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:43 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:51 pm

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 133):

That's counting Superdelegates, aka unpledged delegates. 15% of the Democrat delegates are unpledged and aren't selected with votes.

Bernie Sanders won 15 pledged delegates ('normal delegates') and Hillary Clinton won 9 pledged delegates with the NH primary.

Right now Hillary has the support of something like 400 superdelegates out of 712 superdelegates, Bernie Sanders around 15 and the rest remain uncommitted. But if Bernie Sanders were to get a majority of the primary votes at the end of this primary race, I doubt the Superdelegates would pull off a coup and make Hillary their nominee, they would probably sway their vote to Sanders in that scenario.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:50 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 134):
They are only focused on getting him elected but aren't looking at the strategy needed to take back control of Congress to pass his plans...  

AMEN! They're not looking at the bigger picture, where you need to have a friendly Congress to pass your agenda. Assuming that Democrats DO take the Senate (the House is locked for the GOP until 2020 or 2018 if a deeply unpopular GOP candidate is elected), you still have the 2018 vulnerable incumbents that will be unwilling to support bills that will otherwise put them at odds with their red state electorate.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:05 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 135):
Does he advocate the status quo? Of course not- when has a candidate ever said "everything's fine, so I'm not going to do anything"? Some of his policies are extreme, but he knows as well as anybody that he'll never be able to actually enact any of them, so he can say what he likes. His support is dependent on people who don't understand how the American political system works, and crucially why it works the way it does

Such is politics. I am sure you meant to say all are guilty of this, both Democrat and Republican.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16024
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:17 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 135):
Some of his policies are extreme, but he knows as well as anybody that he'll never be able to actually enact any of them, so he can say what he likes. His support is dependent on people who don't understand how the American political system works, and crucially why it works the way it does.

Both Sanders and Trump are eliciting the same realizations from citizens, some who understand how the system works and some who are not all the way there - they are just going about it in different ways. And it is a major discussion worth having at the national level.

When Sanders talks about 'the people having a fair shake' and 'political revolution', he's talking about holding Congress responsible for ignoring voters and doing only big donors' bidding - just using more populist themes. The usual refrain is 'vote the bastards out' - but who are the alternatives? People funded by the same big donors. Nobody is interested in 'campaign finance reform' as an actual topic because it is too wonkish. Populism is the only way to address 'how the system actually works' - and both campaigns are deftly doing just that.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:24 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 139):
Both Sanders and Trump are eliciting the same realizations from citizens, some who understand how the system works and some who are not all the way there - they are just going about it in different ways. And it is a major discussion worth having at the national level.

When Sanders talks about 'the people having a fair shake' and 'political revolution', he's talking about holding Congress responsible for ignoring voters and doing only big donors' bidding - just using more populist themes. The usual refrain is 'vote the bastards out' - but who are the alternatives? People funded by the same big donors. Nobody is interested in 'campaign finance reform' as an actual topic because it is too wonkish. Populism is the only way to address 'how the system actually works' - and both campaigns are deftly doing just that.

Not too often we completely agree on certain things, but on this I most certainly agree. In a nutshell you are dealing realistically with the problems we face in this pathetic country these days. Time to bring it out in the open. Trump and Sanders are the only two even discussing it realistically. We are being screwed over.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6179
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:43 am

I've just read about Bill Clinton's presidential pardons on his last day in office. He pardoned people who were dear to his family, for example somebody who refused to testify in the Whitewater affair (probably to his advantage), and she was then put into prison for several months.

Or that he pardoned one of his half-brothers (drug offense). And a businessman connected to Hillary Clinton, who, without a pardon, could not do business in certain US states. And then his billionaire friend.

 

Or that he lied under oath when questioned about the act that reminds me of aerial refuelling.

Reading this stuff made my respect for his achievements vanish, e.g. the Oslo peace accords. I have no reason to believe Slick Hilly would act otherwise. Sorry, Mrs. Clinton, you would have to distance yourself credibly from the presidency of your husband.


David

[Edited 2016-02-12 02:45:21]
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:04 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 141):

Did he only pardon "personal interests"?
Could be useful to get access to the official list of pardons
and see if that jibes with partisan communications.

lie:
IMU the way the question was formulated it did not include Fellatio.

Think about how much effort some people spend to conjur up a certain picture.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6179
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:25 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 142):
Did he only pardon "personal interests"?

By far he did not only pardon personal interests. But pardoning "personal interests" is in poor taste anyway. For example Marc Rich was living a cozy life in Switzerland, and he could continue to do so without any problems - and I don't think a *president* should pardon somebody who evaded taxes. And concerning the pardon of his half-brother who long served his sentence for drug offences - this does not justice to the several *thousands* of people that are incarcerated each year because of harming themselves by consuming drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton - sadly, this list is not complete. He pardoned 467 people in total, a few presidents pardoned more than that.

IMHO, a president should pardon people when there is a injustice to be reversed (e.g. Patty Hearst, whose sentence was regarded as too harsh), or if the criminal later achieved civic honor, e.g. saving the life of somebody. A presidential pardon should be a honor at any rate.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 142):
IMU the way the question was formulated it did not include Fellatio.

Wookiepedia: In his Paula Jones deposition, he swore, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her."

That's what he said. In my view. If my refuelling boom gets into any receptacle of an other person, I would say it's a sexual relation. And anyway, it does not matter how I understand the words - it matters more how the receivers of a communication understand the words.


David
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:18 pm

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 143):

Felatio is a service relation and not a sexual relation ( for a pointed definition)
Sexual relation would require a potentially successful insemination.

I still find the judgement span on Clinton and Bush flabbergasting.

Bush43 and his minions trashed a range of countries under a conjured
up pretext ... for nothing.
While Clinton for a US president had a rather good run including leaving
a balanced budget.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:00 pm

Cruz pulls ad after learning actress did porn

OOPS  Wow!http://www.yahoo.com/politics/ted-cr...er-learning-actress-155723591.html
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 13945
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:59 pm

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 145):
Cruz pulls ad after learning actress did porn

OOPS http://www.yahoo.com/politics/ted-cr...er-learning-actress-155723591.html

I wonder if he learned ........ the hard way....... pulls out sunglasses .......YEAHHHHHHH
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 7:00 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 138):
Such is politics. I am sure you meant to say all are guilty of this, both Democrat and Republican.

No, all are certainly not guilty of this. Some candidates have sensible and realistic policies and some do not.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 139):
When Sanders talks about 'the people having a fair shake' and 'political revolution', he's talking about holding Congress responsible for ignoring voters and doing only big donors' bidding - just using more populist themes.

And to that aim he says he will only appoint Supreme Court judges who make it a priority to overturn Citizens United. Well guess what, that's not how the Supreme Court works. And even if it did, doesn't the premise of conditionally appointing Supreme Court justices strike you as a little bit worrying? I think Citizens United is one of the ten worst Supreme Court decisions in history, but that policy still strikes me as concerning. It's the same deal with ignoring the will of the people's elected representatives (i.e. Congress). He may very well be right that they're all in the pockets of lobbyists (he isn't), but dismissing their views purely as "doing big donors' bidding" sets a very dangerous precedent.

This is the mentality of Sanders and his supporters. All his policies are viewed as "common sense". If people disagree with them, they're "the establishment", and wishes of "the establishment" can safely be ignored. That works great right up until you are on the receiving end of it. When you're labeled as "the establishment" yourself you just get railroaded.

To be clear, I support almost every single one of Sanders' aims (though I'm skeptical about his ability to pay for them). I am ideologically closer to him than any of the other candidates, that's for sure. It's not the policies I disagree with, it's the way he and his supporters have conducted themselves in this campaign which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 140):
Trump and Sanders are the only two even discussing it realistically.

The critical word there is "realistically". If you think Sanders will be able to enact any of his proposals in any shape or form you're living in a dream world (not that he can possibly win on the national stage).

I'd say the same about Trump, but he is so vague about what his policies actually are, that it's impossible to say. The only one we really know about is the Mexican wall, which is obviously ludicrous, but I suspect he's just saying that to appease his idiot supporters. If he actually gets in I don't think any of us really know what he'll do.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6179
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 7:25 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 144):
I still find the judgement span on Clinton and Bush flabbergasting.

Because I like Democrats more, I find it sensible to be more critical of Democrats. Bush's presidency is stained enough, there is nothing more to criticize. The George W. Bush impact crater has been cordoned off by the National Guard, and FEMA has relocated the people who previously lived there.

Pardoning 140 of 467 people on the last day in office... it diminishes the respect towards the office of the President.


David
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

USA Election Thread - Part 1

Fri Feb 12, 2016 7:33 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 146):
I wonder if he learned ........ the hard way....... pulls out sunglasses .......YEAHHHHHHH

 
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 141):
Or that he lied under oath when questioned about the act that reminds me of aerial refuelling.

I agree with you about the pardons, but I'd go further; I don't think the president should be able to pardon anybody, no matter how worthy the cause.

Where he put his cock I could not care less about though.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: scbriml and 56 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos