In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Republican Donald Trump is pulling away from the pack in the race for the party's U.S. presidential nomination, widening his lead over his closest rivals in the past week, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Friday.
Republican voters show no signs they are growing weary of the brash real estate mogul, who has dominated political headlines and the 17-strong Republican presidential field with his tough talk about immigration and insults directed at his political rivals. The candidates are vying to be nominated to represent their party in the November 2016 general election.
Nearly 32 percent of Republicans surveyed online said they backed Trump, up from 24 percent a week earlier, the opinion poll found. Trump had nearly double the support of his closest competitor, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who got 16 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third at 8 percent.
Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week
Even when Trump was pitted directly in the poll against just his top two competitors, 44 percent backed him. Bush won about 29 percent of respondents, and Carson 25 percent.
"He's not taking any guff from anybody," Dewey Stedman, 70, a Republican from East Wenatchee, Washington, said of the publicity-loving billionaire. "If you don't have something in your brains, you're not going to have billions of dollars."
Trump has driven the debate on the campaign trail with a hard-line immigration plan that calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants, amendment of the Constitution to end automatic citizenship for all people born in the United States, and construction of a wall along the border with Mexico.
He also has feuded with Bush and other rivals while boasting he could easily beat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Trump's campaign momentum has paid off with bigger crowds on the campaign trail. On Friday night, he moved a planned rally in Mobile, Alabama, to a football stadium seating more than 40,000.
"It is an appeal to people that are just aggravated about what's going on," Republican strategist Rich Galen said, adding that Trump is a "novelty act" that voters will tire of.
Friday's results in the online rolling opinion poll are based on a survey of 501 Republicans and have a credibility interval of plus or minus 5 percent.
Separate results found Clinton leading among Democrats, though support for her dipped below 50 percent to 48.5 percent.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont came in second in the poll of 625 Democrats, followed by Vice President Joe Biden, who has not entered the race. That survey had a credibility interval of plus or minus 4.5 percent.
Looks like the GOP is about done.
But this is Jeb Bush we're talking about. He's competing for the moderate vote amongst the likes of Christie and Kasich (and maybe yesterday's Rubio). Trump's better compared against the buck-the-establishment types.
Observing and thinking about the Trump campaign over the past couple of months, I now think that he has a much better shot at winning this whole election than I originally thought. If you look around the political landscape, things are lining up fairly nicely for him.
First, he's the quintessential "outsider candidate" in an election cycle where bipartisan demand (see Bernie Sanders) is abnormally strong for such a candidate. The rampant cronyism of the past eight years following campaign promises of "hope and change" probably has quite a bit to do with it. Trump is seizing upon this anti-establishment sentiment quite nicely and is running with it as he only he can. He's the only candidate who can legitimately get into office without having to sell his/her soul to special interests for campaign funding.
Second, and looking at the economic tea leaves, it looks like an American recession is imminent. Is any candidate better positioned to hammer home an economic recovery message than Trump? I don't think so. Economic issues are by far his strongest, and they are going to be very important this election cycle.
Finally, the Democratic bench is suddenly looking very weak in light of Hillary's implosion. I honestly think that she's doomed at this point. Even if she gets the nomination, I think that she's too compromised to win nationally. And if the economy tanks over the next year, the Democrats are finished anyway. Looking beyond her, Sanders, even if he gets the nomination, is unelectable. O'Malley is registering a zero so far, but it's early. The problem for him is that the DNC is actively stifling Hillary's competition in the primary by limiting the debates. It is unclear whether he'll ever get enough exposure as a result. Finally, there's Biden. Sorry, but he is not equipped to be the party's savior.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm not saying that he is going to win the election. I'm just saying that his chances are much better than many are giving him credit for.
Republican Donald Trump is pulling away from the pack in the race for the party's U.S. presidential nomination, widening his lead over his closest rivals in the past week, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Friday.
Republican voters show no signs they are growing weary of the brash real estate mogul, who has dominated political headlines and the 17-strong Republican presidential field with his tough talk about immigration and insults directed at his political rivals. The candidates are vying to be nominated to represent their party in the November 2016 general election.
Nearly 32 percent of Republicans surveyed online said they backed Trump, up from 24 percent a week earlier, the opinion poll found. Trump had nearly double the support of his closest competitor, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who got 16 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third at 8 percent.
Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week
Even when Trump was pitted directly in the poll against just his top two competitors, 44 percent backed him. Bush won about 29 percent of respondents, and Carson 25 percent.
"He's not taking any guff from anybody," Dewey Stedman, 70, a Republican from East Wenatchee, Washington, said of the publicity-loving billionaire. "If you don't have something in your brains, you're not going to have billions of dollars."
Trump has driven the debate on the campaign trail with a hard-line immigration plan that calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants, amendment of the Constitution to end automatic citizenship for all people born in the United States, and construction of a wall along the border with Mexico.
He also has feuded with Bush and other rivals while boasting he could easily beat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Trump's campaign momentum has paid off with bigger crowds on the campaign trail. On Friday night, he moved a planned rally in Mobile, Alabama, to a football stadium seating more than 40,000.
"It is an appeal to people that are just aggravated about what's going on," Republican strategist Rich Galen said, adding that Trump is a "novelty act" that voters will tire of.
Friday's results in the online rolling opinion poll are based on a survey of 501 Republicans and have a credibility interval of plus or minus 5 percent.
Separate results found Clinton leading among Democrats, though support for her dipped below 50 percent to 48.5 percent.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont came in second in the poll of 625 Democrats, followed by Vice President Joe Biden, who has not entered the race. That survey had a credibility interval of plus or minus 4.5 percent.
But this is Jeb Bush we're talking about. He's competing for the moderate vote amongst the likes of Christie and Kasich (and maybe yesterday's Rubio). Trump's better compared against the buck-the-establishment types.
One of Ted Cruz's advisers made it clear they are playing to pick up Trump voters and Carson. Walker's campaign has all but completely fallen apart.
Unless Trump collapses, it's reasonable to expect the top tier moving forward will be Trump (outsider), Cruz ("true conservative"), and Bush/Rubio (for the establishment, depending on the next debate performance). Carson is somewhere between Cruz and Trump as a result of his strong social conservative views and his outsider status.(all imho)
I doubt there will be much that changes there until people start dropping out.
On August 15 2015 01:48 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do you think bullshit answers will carry Trump when they have never been able to carry other candidates in prior primaries (like Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich)? Again, the polls mean little more than dick right now.
On August 23 2015 04:41 xDaunt wrote: Observing and thinking about the Trump campaign over the past couple of months, I now think that he has a much better shot at winning this whole election than I originally thought. If you look around the political landscape, things are lining up fairly nicely for him.
First, he's the quintessential "outsider candidate" in an election cycle where bipartisan demand (see Bernie Sanders) is abnormally strong for such a candidate. The rampant cronyism of the past eight years following campaign promises of "hope and change" probably has quite a bit to do with it. Trump is seizing upon this anti-establishment sentiment quite nicely and is running with it as he only he can. He's the only candidate who can legitimately get into office without having to sell his/her soul to special interests for campaign funding.
Second, and looking at the economic tea leaves, it looks like an American recession is imminent. Is any candidate better positioned to hammer home an economic recovery message than Trump? I don't think so. Economic issues are by far his strongest, and they are going to be very important this election cycle.
Finally, the Democratic bench is suddenly looking very weak in light of Hillary's implosion. I honestly think that she's doomed at this point. Even if she gets the nomination, I think that she's too compromised to win nationally. And if the economy tanks over the next year, the Democrats are finished anyway. Looking beyond her, Sanders, even if he gets the nomination, is unelectable. O'Malley is registering a zero so far, but it's early. The problem for him is that the DNC is actively stifling Hillary's competition in the primary by limiting the debates. It is unclear whether he'll ever get enough exposure as a result. Finally, there's Biden. Sorry, but he is not equipped to be the party's savior.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm not saying that he is going to win the election. I'm just saying that his chances are much better than many are giving him credit for.
Well now that it is 100% confirmed that trump has absolutely ZERO chance of winning the whole election, what are your thoughts?
On August 23 2015 04:41 xDaunt wrote: Observing and thinking about the Trump campaign over the past couple of months, I now think that he has a much better shot at winning this whole election than I originally thought. If you look around the political landscape, things are lining up fairly nicely for him.
First, he's the quintessential "outsider candidate" in an election cycle where bipartisan demand (see Bernie Sanders) is abnormally strong for such a candidate. The rampant cronyism of the past eight years following campaign promises of "hope and change" probably has quite a bit to do with it. Trump is seizing upon this anti-establishment sentiment quite nicely and is running with it as he only he can. He's the only candidate who can legitimately get into office without having to sell his/her soul to special interests for campaign funding.
Second, and looking at the economic tea leaves, it looks like an American recession is imminent. Is any candidate better positioned to hammer home an economic recovery message than Trump? I don't think so. Economic issues are by far his strongest, and they are going to be very important this election cycle.
Finally, the Democratic bench is suddenly looking very weak in light of Hillary's implosion. I honestly think that she's doomed at this point. Even if she gets the nomination, I think that she's too compromised to win nationally. And if the economy tanks over the next year, the Democrats are finished anyway. Looking beyond her, Sanders, even if he gets the nomination, is unelectable. O'Malley is registering a zero so far, but it's early. The problem for him is that the DNC is actively stifling Hillary's competition in the primary by limiting the debates. It is unclear whether he'll ever get enough exposure as a result. Finally, there's Biden. Sorry, but he is not equipped to be the party's savior.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm not saying that he is going to win the election. I'm just saying that his chances are much better than many are giving him credit for.
Well now that it is 100% confirmed that trump has absolutely ZERO chance of winning the whole election, what are your thoughts?
lol "100% confirmed"? Where exactly did you come up with that?
On August 23 2015 04:41 xDaunt wrote: Observing and thinking about the Trump campaign over the past couple of months, I now think that he has a much better shot at winning this whole election than I originally thought. If you look around the political landscape, things are lining up fairly nicely for him.
First, he's the quintessential "outsider candidate" in an election cycle where bipartisan demand (see Bernie Sanders) is abnormally strong for such a candidate. The rampant cronyism of the past eight years following campaign promises of "hope and change" probably has quite a bit to do with it. Trump is seizing upon this anti-establishment sentiment quite nicely and is running with it as he only he can. He's the only candidate who can legitimately get into office without having to sell his/her soul to special interests for campaign funding.
Second, and looking at the economic tea leaves, it looks like an American recession is imminent. Is any candidate better positioned to hammer home an economic recovery message than Trump? I don't think so. Economic issues are by far his strongest, and they are going to be very important this election cycle.
Finally, the Democratic bench is suddenly looking very weak in light of Hillary's implosion. I honestly think that she's doomed at this point. Even if she gets the nomination, I think that she's too compromised to win nationally. And if the economy tanks over the next year, the Democrats are finished anyway. Looking beyond her, Sanders, even if he gets the nomination, is unelectable. O'Malley is registering a zero so far, but it's early. The problem for him is that the DNC is actively stifling Hillary's competition in the primary by limiting the debates. It is unclear whether he'll ever get enough exposure as a result. Finally, there's Biden. Sorry, but he is not equipped to be the party's savior.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm not saying that he is going to win the election. I'm just saying that his chances are much better than many are giving him credit for.
Trump's going to be about as able to bring a coherent economic message as Romney, which is to say that he won't be able to at all. The best he has is saying others will handle it. There's a reason he draws attention to other issues.
On August 23 2015 04:41 xDaunt wrote: Observing and thinking about the Trump campaign over the past couple of months, I now think that he has a much better shot at winning this whole election than I originally thought. If you look around the political landscape, things are lining up fairly nicely for him.
First, he's the quintessential "outsider candidate" in an election cycle where bipartisan demand (see Bernie Sanders) is abnormally strong for such a candidate. The rampant cronyism of the past eight years following campaign promises of "hope and change" probably has quite a bit to do with it. Trump is seizing upon this anti-establishment sentiment quite nicely and is running with it as he only he can. He's the only candidate who can legitimately get into office without having to sell his/her soul to special interests for campaign funding.
Second, and looking at the economic tea leaves, it looks like an American recession is imminent. Is any candidate better positioned to hammer home an economic recovery message than Trump? I don't think so. Economic issues are by far his strongest, and they are going to be very important this election cycle.
Finally, the Democratic bench is suddenly looking very weak in light of Hillary's implosion. I honestly think that she's doomed at this point. Even if she gets the nomination, I think that she's too compromised to win nationally. And if the economy tanks over the next year, the Democrats are finished anyway. Looking beyond her, Sanders, even if he gets the nomination, is unelectable. O'Malley is registering a zero so far, but it's early. The problem for him is that the DNC is actively stifling Hillary's competition in the primary by limiting the debates. It is unclear whether he'll ever get enough exposure as a result. Finally, there's Biden. Sorry, but he is not equipped to be the party's savior.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm not saying that he is going to win the election. I'm just saying that his chances are much better than many are giving him credit for.
Trump's going to be about as able to bring a coherent economic message as Romney, which is to say that he won't be able to at all. The best he has is saying others will handle it. There's a reason he draws attention to other issues.
I don't think you are considering the strategic standpoint of a campaign. When you are hugely ahead in polls, you have ZERO incentive to provide specifics. His reluctance to give a clear idea if a result of his dominance, not incompetence. He will be able to hire people to tell him what to say when he needs to say it. Acting like he's incapable of providing a plan is really unrealistic.
On August 23 2015 04:41 xDaunt wrote: Observing and thinking about the Trump campaign over the past couple of months, I now think that he has a much better shot at winning this whole election than I originally thought. If you look around the political landscape, things are lining up fairly nicely for him.
First, he's the quintessential "outsider candidate" in an election cycle where bipartisan demand (see Bernie Sanders) is abnormally strong for such a candidate. The rampant cronyism of the past eight years following campaign promises of "hope and change" probably has quite a bit to do with it. Trump is seizing upon this anti-establishment sentiment quite nicely and is running with it as he only he can. He's the only candidate who can legitimately get into office without having to sell his/her soul to special interests for campaign funding.
Second, and looking at the economic tea leaves, it looks like an American recession is imminent. Is any candidate better positioned to hammer home an economic recovery message than Trump? I don't think so. Economic issues are by far his strongest, and they are going to be very important this election cycle.
Finally, the Democratic bench is suddenly looking very weak in light of Hillary's implosion. I honestly think that she's doomed at this point. Even if she gets the nomination, I think that she's too compromised to win nationally. And if the economy tanks over the next year, the Democrats are finished anyway. Looking beyond her, Sanders, even if he gets the nomination, is unelectable. O'Malley is registering a zero so far, but it's early. The problem for him is that the DNC is actively stifling Hillary's competition in the primary by limiting the debates. It is unclear whether he'll ever get enough exposure as a result. Finally, there's Biden. Sorry, but he is not equipped to be the party's savior.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm not saying that he is going to win the election. I'm just saying that his chances are much better than many are giving him credit for.
Trump's going to be about as able to bring a coherent economic message as Romney, which is to say that he won't be able to at all. The best he has is saying others will handle it. There's a reason he draws attention to other issues.
I don't think you are considering the strategic standpoint of a campaign. When you are hugely ahead in polls, you have ZERO incentive to provide specifics. His reluctance to give a clear idea if a result of his dominance, not incompetence. He will be able to hire people to tell him what to say when he needs to say it. Acting like he's incapable of providing a plan is really unrealistic.
Agreed. I can't stand the guy (Trump) personally, but as my Father and I were discussing earlier, he seems to have a knack to know who to depend on and trust for issues outside his main arena (which I would say nowadays is entertainment). I have little doubt he will enact stage 2 of his plan when the field is much smaller and debates become more important (stage 2 being massive preparation from his chosen advisors, who I am sure he has been working with heavily for awhile now, to add an unexpected and comprehensive depth of substance to his loud entertaining delivery). He could easily shoot himself in the foot, or even head before that time comes though, as he seems a bit susceptible to trolling.. but then again, so does Hillary).
On August 22 2015 08:24 Saryph wrote: So two(?) unarmed Marines on a train in France took down a guy armed with a knife, handgun and a Kalashnikov with over 300 rounds of ammo. Is it really easy to get that stuff onto a train? Also, Marines.
A train is not a plane. There is pretty much no security to get onto a train. The harder part would be aquiring that stuff, getting it onto a train is a cakewalk. Simply put it into a bag. Then walk onto the train.
I also don't see a point in having security to get onto a train. There are public places without security pretty much everywhere. So unless you want to make your whole country a prison with security scanners everywhere, having them to access some random places is pointless.
The point would be that they are just as easy terrorist targets as planes now that pilots lock the door.
But really that is just an argument against security on planes.
I'm not sure what your point is - the difference is that planes can be hijacked and directed off course to ram them into targets, which is not the case for trains (as is eloquently explained here). Like Simberto said, trains are no different from public spaces where a terrorist can suddenly start shooting the people present (of course, trains are an enclosed space from which it is harder to escape as long as they are not stopped).
Post 9/11 the door is locked and reinforced. Such an attack is nearly impossible unless a majority of passengers on a flight are terrorists and there is nowhere for the pilots to land the plane within 20-30 minutes. Even in such a situation, any competent pilot would scuttle the craft. 9/11 was not a security failure it was a training failure and an exploit of the public's misunderstanding of thier goals.
Could you tell me against who/what you are arguing? I don't get how your posts are relevant to what Saryph and Simberto were saying.
On August 23 2015 04:41 xDaunt wrote: Observing and thinking about the Trump campaign over the past couple of months, I now think that he has a much better shot at winning this whole election than I originally thought. If you look around the political landscape, things are lining up fairly nicely for him.
First, he's the quintessential "outsider candidate" in an election cycle where bipartisan demand (see Bernie Sanders) is abnormally strong for such a candidate. The rampant cronyism of the past eight years following campaign promises of "hope and change" probably has quite a bit to do with it. Trump is seizing upon this anti-establishment sentiment quite nicely and is running with it as he only he can. He's the only candidate who can legitimately get into office without having to sell his/her soul to special interests for campaign funding.
Second, and looking at the economic tea leaves, it looks like an American recession is imminent. Is any candidate better positioned to hammer home an economic recovery message than Trump? I don't think so. Economic issues are by far his strongest, and they are going to be very important this election cycle.
Finally, the Democratic bench is suddenly looking very weak in light of Hillary's implosion. I honestly think that she's doomed at this point. Even if she gets the nomination, I think that she's too compromised to win nationally. And if the economy tanks over the next year, the Democrats are finished anyway. Looking beyond her, Sanders, even if he gets the nomination, is unelectable. O'Malley is registering a zero so far, but it's early. The problem for him is that the DNC is actively stifling Hillary's competition in the primary by limiting the debates. It is unclear whether he'll ever get enough exposure as a result. Finally, there's Biden. Sorry, but he is not equipped to be the party's savior.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm not saying that he is going to win the election. I'm just saying that his chances are much better than many are giving him credit for.
Trump's going to be about as able to bring a coherent economic message as Romney, which is to say that he won't be able to at all. The best he has is saying others will handle it. There's a reason he draws attention to other issues.
I don't think you are considering the strategic standpoint of a campaign. When you are hugely ahead in polls, you have ZERO incentive to provide specifics. His reluctance to give a clear idea if a result of his dominance, not incompetence. He will be able to hire people to tell him what to say when he needs to say it. Acting like he's incapable of providing a plan is really unrealistic.
Actually this is the perfect time to release another plan-before any of the other candidates and with no next debate on the horizon. That's why he released his immigration plan-it turns the narrative into him beating people again.
But he won't do so for an economic one, because he'll never be able to form a coherent one and he's not a dolt.
Edit: Note that no other "high tier" Republican candidate can form a coherent economic policy either so he's not alone there. But saying that the economy will be Trump's field is just silly.
On August 22 2015 08:24 Saryph wrote: So two(?) unarmed Marines on a train in France took down a guy armed with a knife, handgun and a Kalashnikov with over 300 rounds of ammo. Is it really easy to get that stuff onto a train? Also, Marines.
A train is not a plane. There is pretty much no security to get onto a train. The harder part would be aquiring that stuff, getting it onto a train is a cakewalk. Simply put it into a bag. Then walk onto the train.
I also don't see a point in having security to get onto a train. There are public places without security pretty much everywhere. So unless you want to make your whole country a prison with security scanners everywhere, having them to access some random places is pointless.
The point would be that they are just as easy terrorist targets as planes now that pilots lock the door.
But really that is just an argument against security on planes.
I'm not sure what your point is - the difference is that planes can be hijacked and directed off course to ram them into targets, which is not the case for trains (as is eloquently explained here). Like Simberto said, trains are no different from public spaces where a terrorist can suddenly start shooting the people present (of course, trains are an enclosed space from which it is harder to escape as long as they are not stopped).
Post 9/11 the door is locked and reinforced. Such an attack is nearly impossible unless a majority of passengers on a flight are terrorists and there is nowhere for the pilots to land the plane within 20-30 minutes. Even in such a situation, any competent pilot would scuttle the craft. 9/11 was not a security failure it was a training failure and an exploit of the public's misunderstanding of thier goals.
Could you tell me against who/what you are arguing? I don't get how your posts are relevant to what Saryph and Simberto were saying.
You, simberto, and the general post 9/11 "security" regime.
Your point was contradicted by me. And the point that trains need more or less security than planes is what I argued with simberto about.
The whole point is that any attack available against planes in 2015 would work on trains and buses, so there is no logical rationale for disparate security.
On August 23 2015 04:41 xDaunt wrote: Observing and thinking about the Trump campaign over the past couple of months, I now think that he has a much better shot at winning this whole election than I originally thought. If you look around the political landscape, things are lining up fairly nicely for him.
First, he's the quintessential "outsider candidate" in an election cycle where bipartisan demand (see Bernie Sanders) is abnormally strong for such a candidate. The rampant cronyism of the past eight years following campaign promises of "hope and change" probably has quite a bit to do with it. Trump is seizing upon this anti-establishment sentiment quite nicely and is running with it as he only he can. He's the only candidate who can legitimately get into office without having to sell his/her soul to special interests for campaign funding.
Second, and looking at the economic tea leaves, it looks like an American recession is imminent. Is any candidate better positioned to hammer home an economic recovery message than Trump? I don't think so. Economic issues are by far his strongest, and they are going to be very important this election cycle.
Finally, the Democratic bench is suddenly looking very weak in light of Hillary's implosion. I honestly think that she's doomed at this point. Even if she gets the nomination, I think that she's too compromised to win nationally. And if the economy tanks over the next year, the Democrats are finished anyway. Looking beyond her, Sanders, even if he gets the nomination, is unelectable. O'Malley is registering a zero so far, but it's early. The problem for him is that the DNC is actively stifling Hillary's competition in the primary by limiting the debates. It is unclear whether he'll ever get enough exposure as a result. Finally, there's Biden. Sorry, but he is not equipped to be the party's savior.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm not saying that he is going to win the election. I'm just saying that his chances are much better than many are giving him credit for.
Well now that it is 100% confirmed that trump has absolutely ZERO chance of winning the whole election, what are your thoughts?
It's not 0% chance of winning, but it's not too much higher than that. Then again, if Trump somehow gets elected President, the United States people would thoroughly deserve a Trump administration. You are only as good as the leaders you elect.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden left the seclusion of the Delaware home where he's been weighing a presidential run to meet Saturday with Elizabeth Warren — another influential Democrat who has faced calls to enter the 2016 race.
The unusual weekend huddle with Warren, a Massachusetts senator, took place at the Naval Observatory, the vice president's official residence, said an individual familiar with the meeting. An Obama administration official said Biden had traveled at the last minute to Washington for a private meeting and planned to return to Delaware the same day. Both of the individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the meeting publicly.
Biden's meeting with Warren was the latest sign that the vice president is seriously considering entering the race, and that he's increasingly discussing it with Democratic leaders outside of his small cadre of longtime advisers.
A rising star in the party, Warren was the subject of an intense lobbying campaign by a group called Draft Warren that sought to persuade her to enter the race. Warren ruled out running in 2016, and a super PAC similarly named Draft Biden later emerged and has been laying the groundwork for a potential Biden candidacy.
Warren, a vocal advocate for economic fairness and Wall Street reform, has notably refrained from endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders or the other candidates. She retains the vocal support of many in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, making her endorsement one of the most highly sought in the primary.
Biden's quick trip to Washington wasn't on his official public schedule, which listed him as remaining in Delaware through Sunday. He's spent the past several days at his home in a secluded, wooded suburb of Wilmington spending time with family — but also meeting with his longtime political aides to assess what it would take to launch a viable presidential campaign against well-funded Democratic opponents with a huge head start.
Trump needs to focus his message on the illegals, and illegal -> anchor baby. Going after legal immigrant -> anchor baby is too crazy, and it'll put Trump into the Hillary plant territory...
Emergency officials extended evacuation orders on Friday to additional towns threatened by a deadly array of wildfires in north-central Washington State as dozens of blazes swirled across the drought-parched Pacific Northwest and surrounding regions.
President Barack Obama signed a federal declaration of emergency for Washington State on Friday, authorizing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate relief efforts in 11 counties and several American Indian reservations hard hit by wildfires.
Authorities late on Thursday ordered the population of Tonasket, a riverfront hamlet of about 1,000 residents just 25 miles south of the Canadian border, to flee their homes as flames closed in.
About 25 miles farther south along the same river, emergency officials early on Friday issued additional evacuation orders for parts of Okanogan, a larger town at the western edge of the Colville Indian Reservation, urging evacuees in a Facebook posting "not to wait for door-to-door notification."
Both communities were in the path of flames from a cluster of wildfires dubbed the Okanogan Complex, which has doubled in size since Thursday to scorch some 161,000 acres of brush and dry timber about 115 miles northeast of Seattle.
The Okanogan Complex includes the so-called Twisp River fire, which forced the evacuation of some 4,000 households in the towns of Twisp and Winthrop about 30 miles west of Okanogan in the foothills of the Cascades.
Further evacuations were ordered on Friday around Nespelem, a tiny settlement in the interior of the Colville Reservation, where homes and businesses were threatened by a separate blaze that has blackened some 88,000 acres of tribal lands.
At least 70 large wildfires have been raging since last week through several bone-dry Western states, the bulk of them in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California and Montana, the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise reported.
Emergency officials extended evacuation orders on Friday to additional towns threatened by a deadly array of wildfires in north-central Washington State as dozens of blazes swirled across the drought-parched Pacific Northwest and surrounding regions.
President Barack Obama signed a federal declaration of emergency for Washington State on Friday, authorizing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate relief efforts in 11 counties and several American Indian reservations hard hit by wildfires.
Authorities late on Thursday ordered the population of Tonasket, a riverfront hamlet of about 1,000 residents just 25 miles south of the Canadian border, to flee their homes as flames closed in.
About 25 miles farther south along the same river, emergency officials early on Friday issued additional evacuation orders for parts of Okanogan, a larger town at the western edge of the Colville Indian Reservation, urging evacuees in a Facebook posting "not to wait for door-to-door notification."
Both communities were in the path of flames from a cluster of wildfires dubbed the Okanogan Complex, which has doubled in size since Thursday to scorch some 161,000 acres of brush and dry timber about 115 miles northeast of Seattle.
The Okanogan Complex includes the so-called Twisp River fire, which forced the evacuation of some 4,000 households in the towns of Twisp and Winthrop about 30 miles west of Okanogan in the foothills of the Cascades.
Further evacuations were ordered on Friday around Nespelem, a tiny settlement in the interior of the Colville Reservation, where homes and businesses were threatened by a separate blaze that has blackened some 88,000 acres of tribal lands.
At least 70 large wildfires have been raging since last week through several bone-dry Western states, the bulk of them in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California and Montana, the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise reported.
On August 22 2015 08:24 Saryph wrote: So two(?) unarmed Marines on a train in France took down a guy armed with a knife, handgun and a Kalashnikov with over 300 rounds of ammo. Is it really easy to get that stuff onto a train? Also, Marines.
A train is not a plane. There is pretty much no security to get onto a train. The harder part would be aquiring that stuff, getting it onto a train is a cakewalk. Simply put it into a bag. Then walk onto the train.
I also don't see a point in having security to get onto a train. There are public places without security pretty much everywhere. So unless you want to make your whole country a prison with security scanners everywhere, having them to access some random places is pointless.
The point would be that they are just as easy terrorist targets as planes now that pilots lock the door.
But really that is just an argument against security on planes.
I'm not sure what your point is - the difference is that planes can be hijacked and directed off course to ram them into targets, which is not the case for trains (as is eloquently explained here). Like Simberto said, trains are no different from public spaces where a terrorist can suddenly start shooting the people present (of course, trains are an enclosed space from which it is harder to escape as long as they are not stopped).
Post 9/11 the door is locked and reinforced. Such an attack is nearly impossible unless a majority of passengers on a flight are terrorists and there is nowhere for the pilots to land the plane within 20-30 minutes. Even in such a situation, any competent pilot would scuttle the craft. 9/11 was not a security failure it was a training failure and an exploit of the public's misunderstanding of thier goals.
Could you tell me against who/what you are arguing? I don't get how your posts are relevant to what Saryph and Simberto were saying.
You, simberto, and the general post 9/11 "security" regime.
Your point was contradicted by me. And the point that trains need more or less security than planes is what I argued with simberto about.
The whole point is that any attack available against planes in 2015 would work on trains and buses, so there is no logical rationale for disparate security.
First of all, nowhere did I defend the "post 9/11 "security" regime", so you're not arguing against me on that. Second, my point was not in any way contradicted by you. My point was that airplanes can be hijacked to be used as weapons against specific targets, and that trains cannot. Unless you have very different definitions of "trains" and "airplanes" than everyone else, you can hardly disagree with this basic fact (sure, security measures have made such hijackings harder, but that's irrelevant to the fact that planes can be moved off course while trains cannot). Finally, Simberto's point was based on this distinction, since he argued that trains are more similar to general public spaces than airplanes since airplanes can be used as weapons and not trains. The rationale for disparate security is based on this and is completely sound.
On August 22 2015 08:24 Saryph wrote: So two(?) unarmed Marines on a train in France took down a guy armed with a knife, handgun and a Kalashnikov with over 300 rounds of ammo. Is it really easy to get that stuff onto a train? Also, Marines.
A train is not a plane. There is pretty much no security to get onto a train. The harder part would be aquiring that stuff, getting it onto a train is a cakewalk. Simply put it into a bag. Then walk onto the train.
I also don't see a point in having security to get onto a train. There are public places without security pretty much everywhere. So unless you want to make your whole country a prison with security scanners everywhere, having them to access some random places is pointless.
The point would be that they are just as easy terrorist targets as planes now that pilots lock the door.
But really that is just an argument against security on planes.
I'm not sure what your point is - the difference is that planes can be hijacked and directed off course to ram them into targets, which is not the case for trains (as is eloquently explained here). Like Simberto said, trains are no different from public spaces where a terrorist can suddenly start shooting the people present (of course, trains are an enclosed space from which it is harder to escape as long as they are not stopped).
Post 9/11 the door is locked and reinforced. Such an attack is nearly impossible unless a majority of passengers on a flight are terrorists and there is nowhere for the pilots to land the plane within 20-30 minutes. Even in such a situation, any competent pilot would scuttle the craft. 9/11 was not a security failure it was a training failure and an exploit of the public's misunderstanding of thier goals.
Could you tell me against who/what you are arguing? I don't get how your posts are relevant to what Saryph and Simberto were saying.
You, simberto, and the general post 9/11 "security" regime.
Your point was contradicted by me. And the point that trains need more or less security than planes is what I argued with simberto about.
The whole point is that any attack available against planes in 2015 would work on trains and buses, so there is no logical rationale for disparate security.
First of all, nowhere did I defend the "post 9/11 "security" regime", so you're not arguing against me on that. Second, my point was not in any way contradicted by you. My point was that airplanes can be hijacked to be used as weapons against specific targets, and that trains cannot. Unless you have very different definitions of "trains" and "airplanes" than everyone else, you can hardly disagree with this basic fact (sure, security measures have made such hijackings harder, but that's irrelevant to the fact that planes can be moved off course while trains cannot). Finally, Simberto's point was based on this distinction, since he argued that trains are more similar to general public spaces than airplanes since airplanes can be used as weapons and not trains. The rationale for disparate security is based on this and is completely sound.
No it isn't. None of the solutions to your problem have to do with passenger screening, and the problem is already dealt with to a high degree of certainty using other, less invasive, and more effective, method.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden left the seclusion of the Delaware home where he's been weighing a presidential run to meet Saturday with Elizabeth Warren — another influential Democrat who has faced calls to enter the 2016 race.
The unusual weekend huddle with Warren, a Massachusetts senator, took place at the Naval Observatory, the vice president's official residence, said an individual familiar with the meeting. An Obama administration official said Biden had traveled at the last minute to Washington for a private meeting and planned to return to Delaware the same day. Both of the individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the meeting publicly.
Biden's meeting with Warren was the latest sign that the vice president is seriously considering entering the race, and that he's increasingly discussing it with Democratic leaders outside of his small cadre of longtime advisers.
A rising star in the party, Warren was the subject of an intense lobbying campaign by a group called Draft Warren that sought to persuade her to enter the race. Warren ruled out running in 2016, and a super PAC similarly named Draft Biden later emerged and has been laying the groundwork for a potential Biden candidacy.
Warren, a vocal advocate for economic fairness and Wall Street reform, has notably refrained from endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders or the other candidates. She retains the vocal support of many in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, making her endorsement one of the most highly sought in the primary.
Biden's quick trip to Washington wasn't on his official public schedule, which listed him as remaining in Delaware through Sunday. He's spent the past several days at his home in a secluded, wooded suburb of Wilmington spending time with family — but also meeting with his longtime political aides to assess what it would take to launch a viable presidential campaign against well-funded Democratic opponents with a huge head start.
EPT
