The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[Raw Shark]

I trust you understand that being focussed on foreign policy is not automatically the same as "...trying to be the world's cop...". That that is not the only position one can take on foreign policy while still taking the issues seriously.

The fact of the matter is that the US is a disproportionately powerful nation, so that what it does or doesn't do will have a disproportionate affect on the world. And that what happens in the rest of the world will effect us because of that funny thing called globalization. You know, how all our economies are interconnected, people can travel around the world in a day, people can communicate around the world in an instant, and alliances (and hostilities) stretch across the planet. Problems don't remain confined to the region in which they originated.

I'm not saying the US should presume to run the world. Just that a Presidential candidate cannot afford to be disengaged, even slightly, with foreign policy. Especially not with some of the things that are happening now (neo-Cold War, Middle Eastern wars, refugee crisis, North Korean insanity, etc.).

I don't expect nor want Sanders to go all-out interventionist. But I think it would benefit him to be a bit more passionate and clear about foreign policy.

I would be quite satisfied if he was passionate and clear about a foreign policy that consisted of, "Let's just not start anything or intervene in anything that we don't have to and take care of our own problems for eight years." I would very specifically like a POTUS who is focused on domestic issues, but not ignorant of foreign ones, right now. Also, a domestic focus might quell some of the anxieties of some of the anti-Semites I keep running into anecdotally who fear that a Jewish President would sell us out to Israel somehow.

[The Romulan Republic]

A genuine bigot is unlikely to be appeased by anything, and its foolish to try to appease them. They've already reached their conclusions.

For the more open-minded, the fact that Sanders supports the Iran deal should speak volumes about how willing he is to be a lackey of the Israeli government.

[Soontir C'boath]

I think you are asking for something that is not looked for by most people or presentable by the candidates especially when we don't know what Obama will do in the days before his term ends. Heck, take a look at what articles are posting about Clinton's speech on foreign policy recently and they all focus on her being a very militant action oriented interventionist ie. being the world's cop.

Looking for Sanders to say for examples, he will provide moneys/military support to Taiwan to continue to defend itself against China and be a democracy or in Central/South America or Africa to counter China's influence in the regions are probably not things anyone truly cares. It's just done in the background.

[The Romulan Republic]

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253694-sanders-goes-on-the-attack-against-clinton

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders spent his summer rejecting attempts by journalists to goad him into a fight with Hillary Clinton, saying he liked and respected his Democratic rival and wanted the campaign to be about ideas and not personalities.

But the Vermont Independent appears to be fed up with niceties after a pro-Clinton super-PAC reportedly shoveled dirt on Sanders to a reporter.

ADVERTISEMENT

In an email to campaign supporters on Tuesday, Sanders linked Clinton to three things her campaign has been trying to disassociate itself from: Wealthy donors, dirty tactics and, yes, even the biggest boogeymen in left-wing American politics — the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch.

Sanders wrote in the email, "Yesterday, one of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent Super PACs attacked our campaign pretty viciously.

"They suggested I’d be friendly with Middle East terrorist organizations, and even tried to link me to a dead communist dictator.

"It was the kind of onslaught I expected to see from the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson, and it’s the second time a billionaire Super PAC has tried to stop the momentum of the political revolution we’re building together."

The pro-Clinton super-PAC Sanders is referring to is Correct the Record — an opposition research and strategy group founded by perhaps Clinton's most aggressive operative, David Brock.

The story Sanders is referring to is a report by The Huffington Post that in part reads:
"A super PAC backing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is going negative, circulating an email that yokes her chief rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to some of the more controversial remarks made by Jeremy Corbyn, the United Kingdom's new Labour Party leader, including his praise for the late Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader who provided discounted fuel to Vermont in a deal supported by Sanders."
The Clinton campaign and Correct the Record have not responded to requests for comment.

Correct the Record is tied especially tightly to Clinton's campaign as the two groups are exploiting a loophole in election laws that apparently allows the outside super-PAC to coordinate directly with the campaign.

Sanders, who has refused to use a super-PAC, clearly sees an opening to attack Clinton, who is accepting million-dollar-plus donations to her main outside spending group Priorities USA Action while at the same time promising to reform campaign finance laws to reduce the corrupting influence of big money on the American political system.

"I don’t have a Super PAC, Friend," Sanders says in the email. "I am not going to travel around the country begging millionaires and billionaires for money. That’s just not going to happen."

Toward the end of the email, Sanders gets to his point: "Make the Super PACs pay for attacking us by making a $3 contribution to our campaign today. Let’s send a powerful message that we have had ENOUGH of the billionaire class buying elections.

"If we stand together to fight back against these ugly attacks, we can ensure this election is about who has the best ideas, and not who has the biggest donors."

I guess this is a sign that the Clinton supporters are taking him seriously enough to slander now. Not that I expect any better. I remember Clinton's nasty campaign against Obama.

Edits: Fixed link.

Edit: Damn it, can't figure out what's wrong with it.

[Napoleon the Clown]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... st-clinton

Gotta have http:// at the front.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thanks. I tried the http but left out the //. I'll make sure to remember that from now on.

Anyway, I wonder if this will work in Sanders' favour or against it. It'll fire up his supporters, no doubt, but he's thus far avoided ugly clashes with other candidates.

[Lagmonster]

I'm just going to write here that my informal circle of interested colleagues has it as most likely being Bush 3.0 vs. Clinton 2.0, regardless of the constant gasps that this will be an "interesting campaign" full of "unexpected twists and turns".

If I'm right, I look prescient. If I'm wrong, chances are nobody will go back to this thread to rub it in my face.

[The Romulan Republic]

That was definitely a smart guess some months ago. I said pretty much the same thing.

Personally, I don't think it still holds true, however. But of course there's no way to know with certainty the outcome of an election until the votes are counted.

Anyway, anyone else watching Republican debate round two tonight on CNN? I'm quite looking forward too it (even knowing I'll loath much of what is said), having missed the last one.

[Elheru Aran]

The big question on the Republican side is just how long Trump will last. As long as the fanatic base remains loyal, he could almost literally get away with murder. It's a matter of if/when he finally says something atrocious enough that it sinks his campaign... yet on the other hand, he's already said some shit and the difference between him and other candidates is that he simply doesn't care. He'll say whatever he wants to, and if it makes bad press for him... so what? Free publicity! Other candidates: say shit, it gets thrown around the 24-hour news, enter a spiral of self-recrimination and efforts at atonement, either try to move past it with a concurrent loss of prestige or drop out of the race.

The big difference is that Trump is a businessman, not a politician. Politicians are all about appearance and prestige. If they say the wrong thing, they have to make up for it one way or another. Business goes on regardless of what people say, and publicity is always good for business unless it's shooting you in the foot. It's an interesting new tactic for political campaigns, and it seems to be working for him thus far.

As for Sanders and Clinton: That particular pissing match is going to keep going a while, I think. Long term though Clinton simply has far more name recognition and while she's the 'establishment' candidate, that does mean she has an edge on Sanders, who is presently suffering badly in the minority vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

If name recognition is the strongest argument against Sanders, I think his chances are pretty good. It is a problem that is likely to go steadily down as the campaign goes on, especially once we get into the debates and Sanders gets some primary wins.

[Raw Shark]

Yeah, if Bernie wins New Hampshire and/or Iowa, name-recognition is no longer an issue. So many people bandwagon onto those states that it'll be an automatic horse race.

[Elheru Aran]

There is definitely that. He's gaining enough momentum and does have an advantage in that in NH, at least, he's got plenty of recognition seeing that Vermont (his state) is a neighbor. Iowa is a bit more iffy. Still, it's definitely making the Democratic side of the race a little more interesting as far as it already is-- the big downside is that voters really don't have much variety to choose from. Nobody cares about anybody but Sanders and Clinton; O'Malley and Chaffee are very firmly in the also-ran category, although should Sanders get far enough along in the election it's possible he may consider them as VP candidates.

Biden is the real question when it comes to the Democrats. If he runs, that could suddenly make life interesting. He's got plenty of profile as the VP, he's run for President before and people will remember that (albeit he dropped out after an embarrassing plagiarism scandal... wonder how that's working out for Rand these days), and he's got less of a grouchy-grandpa demeanor than Sanders.

I could see a Biden-Sanders ticket happening...

[Napoleon the Clown]

The big question on the Republican side is just how long Trump will last. As long as the fanatic base remains loyal, he could almost literally get away with murder. It's a matter of if/when he finally says something atrocious enough that it sinks his campaign... yet on the other hand, he's already said some shit and the difference between him and other candidates is that he simply doesn't care. He'll say whatever he wants to, and if it makes bad press for him... so what? Free publicity! Other candidates: say shit, it gets thrown around the 24-hour news, enter a spiral of self-recrimination and efforts at atonement, either try to move past it with a concurrent loss of prestige or drop out of the race.

The big difference is that Trump is a businessman, not a politician. Politicians are all about appearance and prestige. If they say the wrong thing, they have to make up for it one way or another. Business goes on regardless of what people say, and publicity is always good for business unless it's shooting you in the foot. It's an interesting new tactic for political campaigns, and it seems to be working for him thus far.

As for Sanders and Clinton: That particular pissing match is going to keep going a while, I think. Long term though Clinton simply has far more name recognition and while she's the 'establishment' candidate, that does mean she has an edge on Sanders, who is presently suffering badly in the minority vote.

Most of Trump's supporters are the absolute worst the Republican base has to offer. He's been overtly racist, overtly sexist, attacked a POW/veteran, he has called for building an iron curtain wall between the US and Mexico... His supporters are abhorrent human beings that agree with rancid, toxic ideas. His supporters want an all-white America, where the only religion is Christianity. Trump could embrace slavery without losing all of his supporters. I'm sure there are many that would consider slavery "not cool" but he's currently appealing to the shittiest people that rally under the elephant.

There's a damn good reason he's simultaneously the most supported and the most hated candidate in the GOP Clown Car right now.

[Mr Bean]

Watching the Republican Debate Kid's table part 2

Now we are down to four on the kids table Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki.
Everyone is introducing themselves, nothing of note yet except Bobby Jindal claims he has the bandwidth.

Special note CNN let the crowd in unlike FOX which gives these guys a much better appearance.

Very first question:Why you picking on Trump

[Mr Bean]

Second, third and four questions
Trump...Trump...Trump...
*Edit
George Pataki called them out! Why all these questions about Trump CNN.

[Mr Bean]

I love you Lindsey Graham your taking the shit out of Rick Santorum and it's so enjoyable.
Also best line of the night, I don't speak English so well but hey learn English it's great
Shit Second best line of the night, Strong Thurmin had four kids after he was seventy, unless the rest of you are willing to do that we need immigration to America.

[Mr Bean]

Oh god Santorum can't answer the clock question, they bring up the fact the school overacted. And Santorum can't answer the simple question.

[Mr Bean]

Santorum is defending the gay haters hardcore. She's a hero you clerk for failing to do your job.

[Mr Bean]

Pataki and Santorum are having an excellent DEBATE, yes a DEBATE at the Republican Debate about the gay Marriage issue and if a clerk. Pataki is sadly mostly alone on the stage except... FROM THE OUTSIDE HERE COMES LINDSY WITH THE BACKUP!

[Mr Bean]

Yeah in the "sanity corner" is Pataki with the occasional outside assist from Lindsey Graham, in the insanity corner is Santorum and Jindal.
In the utterly insane corner is Lindsey Graham if he was not so terrified of Islamic terrorism I'd call him most likable.

[Mr Bean]

And Bengazi got a mention
Also 20/20/20 Santorum plan all taxes are 20% never mind the math.

[Mr Bean]

Santorum is standing up for minimum wage workers, he's embracing economic populism at this late stage shame he's already dead.

[Mr Bean]

Time to bomb Iran question, Lindsey Graham I'd totally bomb Iran
Pataki I'd not like to bomb Iran but damn no way I'm going to lay down for Hillary Clinton.
Santorum:MORE NUKES

[Mr Bean]

Bobby Jindal asking Lindsey Graham to use the nuclear option, he refuses to do so for valid tactical votes.

[Mr Bean]

Okay Kids table debate done, Lindsey Graham MVP of the debate mostly because of one liners.