|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On October 16 2015 20:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Trump, Carson threaten to boycott next GOP debate Show nested quote +(CNN)Republican front-runners Donald Trump and Ben Carson are threatening to pull out of the next Republican primary debate if the hosts don't agree to their demands.
In a letter to CNBC, which is hosting the next debate, the two candidates said they would not participate in the Oct. 28 debate "if it is longer than 120 minutes including commercials and does not include opening and closing statements."
Early Friday morning, Trump tweeted that CNBC had agreed to limit the debate to two hours.
"Fantastic news for all, especially the millions of people who will be watching!" Trump said.
Thursday, in a conference call between Republican National Committee officials and top advisers to the presidential campaigns, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski had said that Trump would consider skipping the debate if his terms were not met.
Top aides to Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul also insisted that the debate feature opening and closing statements, with Paul aide Chris LaCivita saying at one point that CNBC could "go f--- themselves" if they weren't willing to agree to those terms, according to two sources on the call.
The demand for opening and closing statements reflects the candidates' interest in getting their messages out unchallenged. The demand for a two-hour debate comes in the wake of CNN's decision to extend the previous GOP debate to three hours, leaving some of the candidates visibly exhausted.
But were CNBC to agree to a two-hour broadcast, including commercials, with opening and closing statements, it would limit the actual debate time to less than 90 minutes -- a short period of time considering that 10 or more GOP hopefuls are likely to appear on stage for the main event.
One source who was on the call said it was clear from Lewandowski's remarks that Trump had no interest in participating in the CNBC debate, which will be held in Boulder, Colorado.
In a statement, CNBC said, "Our goal is to host the most substantive debate possible. Our practice in the past has been to forego opening statements to allow more time to address the critical issues that matter most to the American people. We started a dialogue yesterday with all of the campaigns involved and we will certainly take the candidates' views on the format into consideration as we finalize the debate structure."
Trump took to Twitter on Thursday to protest the terms of the debate.
"The @GOP should not agree to the ridiculous debate terms that @CNBC is asking unless there is a major benefit to the party," he wrote. ~ http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/politics/trump-carson-cnbc-republican-debate-threaten-pullout/ If they concede to Trump's demands, then he shows more power. That's a win for him. If they say Fuck you (as they should), then he doesn't have to stand on stage and make it more obvious that he's an idiot. Plus, he'll get sympathy. That's a win for him too. The demands don't seem absurdly unreasonable, but to approach the conversation with a threat is pretty unprofessional. Honestly, the best move is for the hosts to simply respond with something like "Sorry, but we don't negotiate with terrorists like this. We may make some changes to the format, but that's up for us to decide. It's your call as to whether or not you show up; we hope you'll be there. Have a great day."
To be fair we don't know how much talk there has already been about this behind the scenes.
If he started this talk with a threat then yes its a bad move but if after several talks they are unwilling to accommodate the candidates then I don't think going public like this is unreasonable.
|
On October 16 2015 19:18 corumjhaelen wrote:
Of course, Plato knew a lot about great politicians. Late Pelopponesian war was full of them. And that was in a direct democracy too ! There was also a post about countries being too big that is very reminiscent of all that. But people should read Thucydides rather than the Republic.
Fun thing is that I agree with a cLuTZ post, and with notesfromunderground. "How did we do before police ?" is a good question.
I believe I have raised this objection to modern day Nation-States and so-called "Democracy" on numerous occasions. It's also not a new thing, many of our Founders also raised this objection (notably the Anti-Federalists who were pro-Articles of Confederation and anti-Constitution). Most large nations are dysfunctional, or led by totalitarian autocrats. You can't have a country of 300-500+ million people and not have large disagreements about values, ethics, and what not, especially in a country as large as the US is today. That's why it is a pipe dream of immense proportions of most people in the US that they're ever going to "get the other side" to agree to their terms, or that some ideal Democracy non-sense will be reached. These same people who hate/loathe/despise so many of their fellow peoples (loosely here), also don't want to go their own way and advocate military use to maintain "The Union (again so-called)". It's hilarious. Screw 50 states. I say 50 nations (or more!). City States are vastly preferable to the monstrosities that are modern day Nations.
As for Greece, while they may have been a direct democracy I doubt anyone here would advocate for their political institutions (no suffrage, only male land-owners had the vote, slavery, etc.).
|
Given Trump's history I am pretty sure this is less him caring about the debate format and more him trying to monopolize the news cycle again after falling out of it for a couple weeks. I mean, he's probably the candidate with the least to gain from opening and closing statements and the most to gain from longer debates.
|
On October 16 2015 22:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 19:18 corumjhaelen wrote:
Of course, Plato knew a lot about great politicians. Late Pelopponesian war was full of them. And that was in a direct democracy too ! There was also a post about countries being too big that is very reminiscent of all that. But people should read Thucydides rather than the Republic.
Fun thing is that I agree with a cLuTZ post, and with notesfromunderground. "How did we do before police ?" is a good question. I believe I have raised this objection to modern day Nation-States and so-called "Democracy" on numerous occasions. It's also not a new thing, many of our Founders also raised this objection (notably the Anti-Federalists who were pro-Articles of Confederation and anti-Constitution). Most large nations are dysfunctional, or led by totalitarian autocrats. You can't have a country of 300-500+ million people and not have large disagreements about values, ethics, and what not, especially in a country as large as the US is today. That's why it is a pipe dream of immense proportions of most people in the US that they're ever going to "get the other side" to agree to their terms, or that some ideal Democracy non-sense will be reached. These same people who hate/loathe/despise so many of their fellow peoples (loosely here), also don't want to go their own way and advocate military use to maintain "The Union (again so-called)". It's hilarious. Screw 50 states. I say 50 nations (or more!). City States are vastly preferable to the monstrosities that are modern day Nations. As for Greece, while they may have been a direct democracy I doubt anyone here would advocate for their political institutions (no suffrage, only male land-owners had the vote, slavery, etc.).
What do you mean by no suffrage ? (genuine english question I guess)
I think we have a lot to learn from their institutions, barring the part about slavery (which is probably not a political institution, even though it is what enabled those to function) and male only vote. Also laws on who could vote varried quite a lot in Athens history.
|
On October 16 2015 22:47 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 22:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 16 2015 19:18 corumjhaelen wrote:
Of course, Plato knew a lot about great politicians. Late Pelopponesian war was full of them. And that was in a direct democracy too ! There was also a post about countries being too big that is very reminiscent of all that. But people should read Thucydides rather than the Republic.
Fun thing is that I agree with a cLuTZ post, and with notesfromunderground. "How did we do before police ?" is a good question. I believe I have raised this objection to modern day Nation-States and so-called "Democracy" on numerous occasions. It's also not a new thing, many of our Founders also raised this objection (notably the Anti-Federalists who were pro-Articles of Confederation and anti-Constitution). Most large nations are dysfunctional, or led by totalitarian autocrats. You can't have a country of 300-500+ million people and not have large disagreements about values, ethics, and what not, especially in a country as large as the US is today. That's why it is a pipe dream of immense proportions of most people in the US that they're ever going to "get the other side" to agree to their terms, or that some ideal Democracy non-sense will be reached. These same people who hate/loathe/despise so many of their fellow peoples (loosely here), also don't want to go their own way and advocate military use to maintain "The Union (again so-called)". It's hilarious. Screw 50 states. I say 50 nations (or more!). City States are vastly preferable to the monstrosities that are modern day Nations. As for Greece, while they may have been a direct democracy I doubt anyone here would advocate for their political institutions (no suffrage, only male land-owners had the vote, slavery, etc.). What do you mean by no suffrage ? (genuine english question I guess) I think we have a lot to learn from their institutions, barring the part about slavery (which is probably not a political institution, even though it is what enabled those to function) and male only vote. Also laws on who could vote varried quite a lot in Athens history.
He means that only a very small portion of the population had the right to vote. Suffrage here means the right to vote IE the women's suffrage movement etc etc.
|
On October 16 2015 22:53 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 22:47 corumjhaelen wrote:On October 16 2015 22:33 Wegandi wrote:On October 16 2015 19:18 corumjhaelen wrote:
Of course, Plato knew a lot about great politicians. Late Pelopponesian war was full of them. And that was in a direct democracy too ! There was also a post about countries being too big that is very reminiscent of all that. But people should read Thucydides rather than the Republic.
Fun thing is that I agree with a cLuTZ post, and with notesfromunderground. "How did we do before police ?" is a good question. I believe I have raised this objection to modern day Nation-States and so-called "Democracy" on numerous occasions. It's also not a new thing, many of our Founders also raised this objection (notably the Anti-Federalists who were pro-Articles of Confederation and anti-Constitution). Most large nations are dysfunctional, or led by totalitarian autocrats. You can't have a country of 300-500+ million people and not have large disagreements about values, ethics, and what not, especially in a country as large as the US is today. That's why it is a pipe dream of immense proportions of most people in the US that they're ever going to "get the other side" to agree to their terms, or that some ideal Democracy non-sense will be reached. These same people who hate/loathe/despise so many of their fellow peoples (loosely here), also don't want to go their own way and advocate military use to maintain "The Union (again so-called)". It's hilarious. Screw 50 states. I say 50 nations (or more!). City States are vastly preferable to the monstrosities that are modern day Nations. As for Greece, while they may have been a direct democracy I doubt anyone here would advocate for their political institutions (no suffrage, only male land-owners had the vote, slavery, etc.). What do you mean by no suffrage ? (genuine english question I guess) I think we have a lot to learn from their institutions, barring the part about slavery (which is probably not a political institution, even though it is what enabled those to function) and male only vote. Also laws on who could vote varried quite a lot in Athens history. He means that only a very small portion of the population had the right to vote. Suffrage here means the right to vote IE the women's suffrage movement etc etc.
Oh. Same point then I guess. Of course though, why would you let your tools or women that right ? You'd have to be crazy old uncle Plato to have such funny ideas.
Suffrage without an adjective isn't clear in French, sorry about that.
|
On October 16 2015 14:23 KwarK wrote:
The lie detector bit is odd too. Do they also have prospective officers draw Tarot cards?
No, they actually had him roll D20 dice, and said if he rolled a 1 they would taze him. If he rolled a 20 they would make him chief.
|
Does anyone like Obama's plan to leave some troops in Afghanistan? Given the current advances made by the Taliban, it seems like leaving 5,500 troops there is no where near enough to effectively stabilize the country, leaving me to wonder what the point of it all is. Either get out altogether and leave the country to its fate, or deploy a meaningful force there that can actually do something. Leaving behind a token force like this simply reeks of being a strictly political move.
|
Canada11489 Posts
On October 16 2015 22:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Given Trump's history I am pretty sure this is less him caring about the debate format and more him trying to monopolize the news cycle again after falling out of it for a couple weeks. I mean, he's probably the candidate with the least to gain from opening and closing statements and the most to gain from longer debates.
I actually think he has legitimate cause to demand an opening and closing statement. Simply in terms of messaging, it's like giving an essay without the introduction and conclusion where the candidate can hammer home their thesis, but are instead at the mercy of the moderators to finish well. Furthermore, the last 2 Republican debates have been highly contrived with YOU talk to HIM about X. Maybe that is so because in the 2011 debates, candidates straight up ignored the questions. But the debates is so micro-managed that there is no actual freedom to debate.
|
On October 16 2015 23:51 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 22:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Given Trump's history I am pretty sure this is less him caring about the debate format and more him trying to monopolize the news cycle again after falling out of it for a couple weeks. I mean, he's probably the candidate with the least to gain from opening and closing statements and the most to gain from longer debates. I actually think he has legitimate cause to demand an opening and closing statement. Simply in terms of messaging, it's like giving an essay without the introduction and conclusion where the candidate can hammer home their thesis, but are instead at the mercy of the moderators to finish well. Furthermore, the last 2 Republican debates have been highly contrived with YOU talk to HIM about X. Maybe that is so because in the 2011 debates, candidates straight up ignored the questions. But the debates is so micro-managed that there is no actual freedom to debate.
I agree with all of this. If the moderators were more "fair" with their questions, we could dispense with the opening and closing statements.
|
On October 16 2015 23:51 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 22:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Given Trump's history I am pretty sure this is less him caring about the debate format and more him trying to monopolize the news cycle again after falling out of it for a couple weeks. I mean, he's probably the candidate with the least to gain from opening and closing statements and the most to gain from longer debates. I actually think he has legitimate cause to demand an opening and closing statement. Simply in terms of messaging, it's like giving an essay without the introduction and conclusion where the candidate can hammer home their thesis, but are instead at the mercy of the moderators to finish well. Furthermore, the last 2 Republican debates have been highly contrived with YOU talk to HIM about X. Maybe that is so because in the 2011 debates, candidates straight up ignored the questions. But the debates is so micro-managed that there is no actual freedom to debate.
I completely agree that there should be opening and closing statements given how awful the debates are moderated in general, if for no other reason than it guarantees everyone a chance to talk and give a message. It helps niche candidates a lot.
But Trump as the poll leader with a not-quite-cohesive narrative for America benefits from that change the least of anybody, which is why this is more getting publicity than actually caring in my estimation. Maybe I'm just cynical that way, but pretty much every move his campaign has made has been calculated to maximize exposure above everything else.
Moderating the Republican "debates" of 8 people talking about each other's and Obama's scandals and failures is a nightmare though, I don't envy those people.
|
United States43899 Posts
On October 16 2015 23:46 xDaunt wrote:
Does anyone like Obama's plan to leave some troops in Afghanistan? Given the current advances made by the Taliban, it seems like leaving 5,500 troops there is no where near enough to effectively stabilize the country, leaving me to wonder what the point of it all is. Either get out altogether and leave the country to its fate, or deploy a meaningful force there that can actually do something. Leaving behind a token force like this simply reeks of being a strictly political move.
I think it's probably safe to say it'll end badly but at this point what won't. Other than raising taxes and preparing the American public for a long term mission in the Middle East with associated costs in both money and American lives.
|
On October 17 2015 00:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 23:51 Falling wrote:On October 16 2015 22:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Given Trump's history I am pretty sure this is less him caring about the debate format and more him trying to monopolize the news cycle again after falling out of it for a couple weeks. I mean, he's probably the candidate with the least to gain from opening and closing statements and the most to gain from longer debates. I actually think he has legitimate cause to demand an opening and closing statement. Simply in terms of messaging, it's like giving an essay without the introduction and conclusion where the candidate can hammer home their thesis, but are instead at the mercy of the moderators to finish well. Furthermore, the last 2 Republican debates have been highly contrived with YOU talk to HIM about X. Maybe that is so because in the 2011 debates, candidates straight up ignored the questions. But the debates is so micro-managed that there is no actual freedom to debate. I completely agree that there should be opening and closing statements given how awful the debates are moderated in general, if for no other reason than it guarantees everyone a chance to talk and give a message. It helps niche candidates a lot. But Trump as the poll leader with a not-quite-cohesive narrative for America benefits from that change the least of anybody, which is why this is more getting publicity than actually caring in my estimation. Maybe I'm just cynical that way, but pretty much every move his campaign has made has been calculated to maximize exposure above everything else. Moderating the Republican "debates" of 8 people talking about each other's and Obama's scandals and failures is a nightmare though, I don't envy those people.
Perhaps the easier solution would be to not have a dozen candidates on stage. The Republican primary has becomes a reality show. Most of the candidates don't have a snowballs chance in hell and they know it yet they are running for whatever reason anyway (I'm not talking about for example Carson but about people like Huckabee who use the primary as a soap box to spread their personal brand). And yet these people are put on stage causing such a large gathering that any attempt at a meaningful debate is wasted.
|
Before things went awry, Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii had been planning to be in Las Vegas for her party’s first presidential debate. Gabbard is one of five vice chairs of the Democratic National Committee; of course she would be there. But instead of talking up her party’s prospects on the Strip earlier this week, Gabbard was in Honolulu. Her presence in Sin City was strictly virtual, and anything but boosterish: She spent debate day giving cable-news interviews via satellite, claiming that, as retribution for loudly calling for more Democratic debates than the DNC currently envisions, she was deemed unwelcome in Vegas by the committee’s chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz—who Gabbard suggested is an enemy of free speech, as well as a liar.
For most debate viewers and Democratic voters, the Gabbard flap, if it registered at all, was little more than a sideshow. But among Democratic officials and strategists, the dust-up was an embarrassing public spectacle—a boiling-over of long-simmering frustrations and resentments within the party hierarchy at a highly inopportune moment.
Of two dozen Democratic insiders with whom I spoke this week, including several DNC vice chairs, not one defended Wasserman Schultz’s treatment of Gabbard. Most called it ridiculous, outrageous, or worse. Many argued, further, that the debate plan enacted by the chairwoman is badly flawed—an assessment shared by many party activists, left-bent supporters of Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, and those candidates themselves, all of whom see it as a naked effort to aid and comfort Hillary Clinton. And they maintained that the plan was a clear reflection of Wasserman Schultz’s management style, which many of them see as endangering Democratic prospects in 2016 and beyond.
Source
|
|
|
My joking prediction that Trump will actually win the general election through a series of negotiations is coming true!
|
Because it'll be over faster. It's not like the next debate will actually have substance for once. It'll just be 2 hours worth of mudslinging instead of 3.
|
Presidential campaigns released their fundraising totals for the third quarter of 2015 on Thursday. The results included a few surprises, as the pace of the 2016 presidential primary gets ready to pick up in the fall. Most notable were the stunning take from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly low-budget campaign of Donald Trump and the continuing financial advantage that top Democratic candidates had over their Republican rivals.
The two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Sanders, each out-raised all of their Republican rivals. Clinton raised $29.4m, edging Sanders who had $26.2m. Both far outpaced Ben Carson, the top GOP fundraiser at $20.8m, in the past quarter and were even further ahead of other top Republicans as well.
Unsurprisingly the two Democratic candidates raised this in entirely different ways. An eye-popping 77% of Sanders’ contributions come from small donors and the frugal socialist’s campaign ended the quarter with $27.1m cash on hand. Sanders had more than 650,000 donors of whom only 270 have given the maximum amount of $2,700. Further, his campaign said it was keeping up its frenetic fundraising pace. Sanders has received 97,800 contributions totaling some $3.2m since the first Democratic debate on Tuesday.
The only candidate to end with more cash available than Sanders was Clinton, who had nearly $33m available. However the former secretary of state relied heavily on high-dollar donations with more than 80% of her donors giving over $200, the reverse of the ratio for Sanders.
Among their Democratic rivals, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley raised $1.28m – a disappointing total for a candidate with a professional campaign organization who was long pegged as a rising star on the left. In contrast former Virginia senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee posted numbers that jibed with their anemic campaign effort. Webb, who boasted of killing an enemy soldier in combat in Thursday’s debate, raised $696,972.18 and Chafee, a self-proclaimed “block of granite”, raised a laughable $15,457.90 including $4,121 that he gave his own campaign. In addition, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is running a campaign based on the promise to promptly resign after enacting campaign finance reform, raised just over $1m.
Source
|
On October 17 2015 02:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Presidential campaigns released their fundraising totals for the third quarter of 2015 on Thursday. The results included a few surprises, as the pace of the 2016 presidential primary gets ready to pick up in the fall. Most notable were the stunning take from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the surprisingly low-budget campaign of Donald Trump and the continuing financial advantage that top Democratic candidates had over their Republican rivals.
The two Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Sanders, each out-raised all of their Republican rivals. Clinton raised $29.4m, edging Sanders who had $26.2m. Both far outpaced Ben Carson, the top GOP fundraiser at $20.8m, in the past quarter and were even further ahead of other top Republicans as well.
Unsurprisingly the two Democratic candidates raised this in entirely different ways. An eye-popping 77% of Sanders’ contributions come from small donors and the frugal socialist’s campaign ended the quarter with $27.1m cash on hand. Sanders had more than 650,000 donors of whom only 270 have given the maximum amount of $2,700. Further, his campaign said it was keeping up its frenetic fundraising pace. Sanders has received 97,800 contributions totaling some $3.2m since the first Democratic debate on Tuesday.
The only candidate to end with more cash available than Sanders was Clinton, who had nearly $33m available. However the former secretary of state relied heavily on high-dollar donations with more than 80% of her donors giving over $200, the reverse of the ratio for Sanders.
Among their Democratic rivals, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley raised $1.28m – a disappointing total for a candidate with a professional campaign organization who was long pegged as a rising star on the left. In contrast former Virginia senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee posted numbers that jibed with their anemic campaign effort. Webb, who boasted of killing an enemy soldier in combat in Thursday’s debate, raised $696,972.18 and Chafee, a self-proclaimed “block of granite”, raised a laughable $15,457.90 including $4,121 that he gave his own campaign. In addition, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, who is running a campaign based on the promise to promptly resign after enacting campaign finance reform, raised just over $1m. Source
Sanders is running the most cost effective campaign of any candidate. Hillary has already spent more than Sanders has raised.
Hillary has doubled Bernie's fundraising but tripled his spending. It's important to note 99.9% of Bernie's supporters can legally give more while ~63% of Hillary's donors are already maxed out.
To give an idea as to why Jeb is driving around instead of flying, over 80% of Jeb's donors are already maxed out.
It appears that Republicans and Hillary were planning on advertising (citizens united) being far more effective than it seems to be this election.
|
United States43899 Posts
This was a fun read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
According to a 2014 report by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, a survey of law-enforcement officials and agencies across the United States concluded that the movement was the single greatest threat to their communities, ranking above Islamic terrorists and jihadists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
