|
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 July 25 2017 03:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+ Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement". On July 25 2017 01:59 Doodsmack wrote:
Time to resign, Jeff.
Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president. If by everyone you mean the Democrats. The GOP had a lot of "young" people run in 2016. There's a reason for this though. The Democratic Party is an insular weak party outside of national politics. They disproportionally rely on federal elected officials for their running tickets. If you look at the local and state electoral politics the GOP runs away from the Democrats, where "younger" people tend to hold elected office. Though, to be fair, some of my favorite candidates are old as fuck lol. For instance Mary Ruwart is 67 and Ron Paul is 81. Though Amash and Massie are pretty young, but House members aren't realistic, plus I don't really care about the Presidency, so there's that too. The Democrats have yet to figure out that most power in the US is on the local level. DNC is way too nationalistic for their own good, focusing on national politics so much.
The younger Republican presidential candidates were never "in the running" though (as in, seriously popular), which is what Simberto said, and our newest president is the oldest president ever... And is Republican.
The only candidates that had serious support after early/mid volatility were Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, and they're all old.
|
On July 25 2017 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 03:33 Wegandi wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+ Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement". Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president. If by everyone you mean the Democrats. The GOP had a lot of "young" people run in 2016. There's a reason for this though. The Democratic Party is an insular weak party outside of national politics. They disproportionally rely on federal elected officials for their running tickets. If you look at the local and state electoral politics the GOP runs away from the Democrats, where "younger" people tend to hold elected office. Though, to be fair, some of my favorite candidates are old as fuck lol. For instance Mary Ruwart is 67 and Ron Paul is 81. Though Amash and Massie are pretty young, but House members aren't realistic, plus I don't really care about the Presidency, so there's that too. The Democrats have yet to figure out that most power in the US is on the local level. DNC is way too nationalistic for their own good, focusing on national politics so much. The younger Republican presidential candidates were never "in the running" though (as in, seriously popular), which is what Simberto said, and our newest president is the oldest president ever... And is Republican. The only candidates that had serious support after early/mid volatility were Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, and they're all old.
cruz also had some serious support; and to a much lesser degree Kasich, and I think there was one other republican, Rubio?
|
On July 25 2017 03:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 03:33 Wegandi wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+ Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement". Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president. If by everyone you mean the Democrats. The GOP had a lot of "young" people run in 2016. There's a reason for this though. The Democratic Party is an insular weak party outside of national politics. They disproportionally rely on federal elected officials for their running tickets. If you look at the local and state electoral politics the GOP runs away from the Democrats, where "younger" people tend to hold elected office. Though, to be fair, some of my favorite candidates are old as fuck lol. For instance Mary Ruwart is 67 and Ron Paul is 81. Though Amash and Massie are pretty young, but House members aren't realistic, plus I don't really care about the Presidency, so there's that too. The Democrats have yet to figure out that most power in the US is on the local level. DNC is way too nationalistic for their own good, focusing on national politics so much. The younger Republican presidential candidates were never "in the running" though (as in, seriously popular), which is what Simberto said, and our newest president is the oldest president ever... And is Republican. The only candidates that had serious support after early/mid volatility were Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, and they're all old. cruz also had some serious support; and to a much lesser degree Kasich, and I think there was one other republican, Rubio?
In the early days, yeah (heck, even Carson), but everyone dropped like flies before any primary voting started, and even Rubio and Cruz were hilariously unpopular compared to Trump, when the votes were tallied iirc.
Edit: I had qualified my statement to exclude early volatility. Here were the primary results, where Trump tore everyone else apart: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
|
On July 25 2017 03:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 03:51 zlefin wrote:On July 25 2017 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 03:33 Wegandi wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+ Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement". Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president. If by everyone you mean the Democrats. The GOP had a lot of "young" people run in 2016. There's a reason for this though. The Democratic Party is an insular weak party outside of national politics. They disproportionally rely on federal elected officials for their running tickets. If you look at the local and state electoral politics the GOP runs away from the Democrats, where "younger" people tend to hold elected office. Though, to be fair, some of my favorite candidates are old as fuck lol. For instance Mary Ruwart is 67 and Ron Paul is 81. Though Amash and Massie are pretty young, but House members aren't realistic, plus I don't really care about the Presidency, so there's that too. The Democrats have yet to figure out that most power in the US is on the local level. DNC is way too nationalistic for their own good, focusing on national politics so much. The younger Republican presidential candidates were never "in the running" though (as in, seriously popular), which is what Simberto said, and our newest president is the oldest president ever... And is Republican. The only candidates that had serious support after early/mid volatility were Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, and they're all old. cruz also had some serious support; and to a much lesser degree Kasich, and I think there was one other republican, Rubio? In the early days, yeah (heck, even Carson), but everyone dropped like flies before any primary voting started, and even Rubio and Cruz were hilariously unpopular compared to Trump, when the votes were tallied iirc.
I guess we're using different standards for "serious support" then.
cruz won several states, got 25% of the total popular vote in the primary, and ~20% of the delegates.
the other 2 each got 10%+ of the vote, and a few delegates.
all 3 of them stayed in until early May, when most of hte primaries had been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
|
On July 25 2017 04:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 03:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 03:51 zlefin wrote:On July 25 2017 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 03:33 Wegandi wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+ Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement". Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president. If by everyone you mean the Democrats. The GOP had a lot of "young" people run in 2016. There's a reason for this though. The Democratic Party is an insular weak party outside of national politics. They disproportionally rely on federal elected officials for their running tickets. If you look at the local and state electoral politics the GOP runs away from the Democrats, where "younger" people tend to hold elected office. Though, to be fair, some of my favorite candidates are old as fuck lol. For instance Mary Ruwart is 67 and Ron Paul is 81. Though Amash and Massie are pretty young, but House members aren't realistic, plus I don't really care about the Presidency, so there's that too. The Democrats have yet to figure out that most power in the US is on the local level. DNC is way too nationalistic for their own good, focusing on national politics so much. The younger Republican presidential candidates were never "in the running" though (as in, seriously popular), which is what Simberto said, and our newest president is the oldest president ever... And is Republican. The only candidates that had serious support after early/mid volatility were Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, and they're all old. cruz also had some serious support; and to a much lesser degree Kasich, and I think there was one other republican, Rubio? In the early days, yeah (heck, even Carson), but everyone dropped like flies before any primary voting started, and even Rubio and Cruz were hilariously unpopular compared to Trump, when the votes were tallied iirc. I guess we're using different standards for "serious support" then. cruz won several states, got 25% of the total popular vote in the primary, and ~20% of the delegates. the other 2 each got 10%+ of the vote, and a few delegates. all 3 of them stayed in until early May, when most of hte primaries had been done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
I think either way, we could just point to Obama as a counterexample to both claims that "Recent serious presidential runners have to be old" and "Democratic presidential runners are all old", unless we're just looking at the most recent race, which is a tiny sample. But sure, I'd be happy to count Cruz as "not old" too.
|
Yeah, the early votes weren't actually too good for Trump in raw numbers; he was pulling a solid 35% support for a while, which was generally less than the combined vote share of Rubio and Cruz (delegate-wise he benefited tremendously from the Republican's bizarre delegate allocation strategies). It took Rubio's debate nosedive and Cruz/Kasich's extremely transparent "vote for the other guy" to really catapult Trump into places where he was consistently getting the majority of primary votes.
|
On July 24 2017 21:48 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +Afghanistan is an expensive disaster for America. The Pentagon has already consumed $828 billion on the war, and taxpayers will be liable for trillions more in veterans’ health-care costs for decades to come. More than 2,000 American soldiers have died there, with more than 20,000 wounded in action. For all that effort, Afghanistan is failing. The terrorist cohort consistently gains control of more territory, including key economic arteries. It’s time for President Trump to fix our approach to Afghanistan in five ways.
First, he should consolidate authority in Afghanistan with one person: an American viceroy who would lead all U.S. government and coalition efforts—including command, budget, policy, promotion and contracting—and report directly to the president. As it is, there are too many cooks in the kitchen—and the cooks change shift annually. The coalition has had 17 different military commanders in the past 15 years, which means none of them had time to develop or be held responsible for a coherent strategy.
A better approach would resemble Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s leadership of postwar Japan. Given clear multiyear authority, MacArthur made bold moves like repealing restrictive speech laws and granting property rights. Those directives moved Japan ahead by centuries. In Afghanistan, the viceroy approach would reduce rampant fraud by focusing spending on initiatives that further the central strategy, rather than handing cash to every outstretched hand from a U.S. system bereft of institutional memory.
Second, Mr. Trump should authorize his viceroy to set rules of engagement in collaboration with the elected Afghan government to make better decisions, faster. Troops fighting for their lives should not have to ask a lawyer sitting in air conditioning 500 miles away for permission to drop a bomb. Our plodding, hand wringing and overcaution have prolonged the war—and the suffering it bears upon the Afghan population. Give the leadership on the ground the authority and responsibility to finish the job.[...] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-macarthur-model-for-afghanistan-1496269058Article continues further but I don't have a subscription
Remember, only crazy radicals think we could afford free public college and healthcare for everyone. It's the sane centrists who know we can only afford hundreds of billions on pointless conflicts that feed the fictional MIC.
Oh yeah and they are also confident THE MOST POPULAR ACTIVE POLITICIAN IN THE COUNTRY has no support.
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty wrong with Bernie, but he's far and away the best candidate Democrats could run in 2020 at this point, though Nina and Tulsi could overtake him at any time.
|
Trump is going to make a statement on healthcare soon. I expect nothing but good things to come of this
|
|
|
Off to a great start I see.
|
I liked Bernie but the man will be 78 by 2020. I'm not worried he'll suddenly become unfit or suddenly die, that's easy enough to deal with. It's the slower deterioration of faculties that worries me, because often you keep saying to yourself, "sure, he's not quite where he was last year, but he still has it together" until something goes horribly wrong and you realize that things are far worse than you ever knew.
(Speaking as someone whose grandparents are going through the above).
|
No one is going to care about what Trump said, everyone is going to be far more interested in what the hell is going on with the upside down Nike eyebrows and knock-off Paul Ryan
On July 25 2017 04:46 Seuss wrote:
I liked Bernie but the man will be 78 by 2020. I'm not worried he'll suddenly become unfit or suddenly die, that's easy enough to deal with. It's the slower deterioration of faculties that worries me, because often you keep saying to yourself, "sure, he's not quite where he was last year, but he still has it together" until something goes horribly wrong and you realize that things are far worse than you ever knew.
(Speaking as someone whose grandparents are going through the above).
Yeah, Bernie appears to be healthier than most of the people within a decade of his age though. I'd be cool with congress passing something that required the cognitive abilities of the president (and Congress, specifically the senate, though they wouldn't pass it for themselves) to be monitored for such a deterioration. Not because of Bernie specifically, but because that's a legitimate issue regardless of age (though age obviously increases the likelihood).
To be clear it's not to say one would need to "pass" some test, just that it would monitor whether there was any deterioration and be publicly available. Just spitballing though.
Also Bernie shouldn't be the best candidate option they have, but regardless of his problems, he's still by far the best option.
|
On July 25 2017 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
No one is going to care about what Trump said, everyone is going to be far more interested in what the hell is going on with the upside down Nike eyebrows and knock-off Paul Ryan
Oh god I can not see anything else!!!
|
Bernie Sanders to blast GOP healthcare bill at NAACP convention
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to rail against the GOP's healthcare bill while speaking at the NAACP national convention in Baltimore on Monday afternoon, according to a press release from his office.
The former Democratic presidential candidate will lay out the consequences people will face under the GOP ObamaCare repeal-and-replace plan, which he says will lead to thousands of Americans dying annually.
“We have got to stop worrying about [President] Trump's tweets, and pay attention to the actual legislation he is supporting,” he said in the statement from his office. “This legislation would result in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Americans every single year.”
Sanders said the Republican bill will throw 22 million people off health insurance, cut Medicaid and Planned Parenthood funding and make it difficult for people who have pre-existing conditions to obtain healthcare.
He called the Republican bill “the most destructive and irresponsible piece of legislation brought to the U.S. Senate in the modern history of our country.”
Sanders will continue to push for a national, Medicare-for-all single-payer healthcare system, which was one of his main platform points in his 2016 bid for president.
The Senate is scheduled to vote on the healthcare bill this week, though Republicans currently do not have the support they need to pass it, with several GOP lawmakers already expressing their opposition.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/343463-bernie-sanders-to-blast-gop-healthcare-bill-at-naacp-national-convention
Apparently Trump declined to speak to the NAACP too?
|
|
|
On July 25 2017 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 03:33 Wegandi wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+ Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement". Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president. If by everyone you mean the Democrats. The GOP had a lot of "young" people run in 2016. There's a reason for this though. The Democratic Party is an insular weak party outside of national politics. They disproportionally rely on federal elected officials for their running tickets. If you look at the local and state electoral politics the GOP runs away from the Democrats, where "younger" people tend to hold elected office. Though, to be fair, some of my favorite candidates are old as fuck lol. For instance Mary Ruwart is 67 and Ron Paul is 81. Though Amash and Massie are pretty young, but House members aren't realistic, plus I don't really care about the Presidency, so there's that too. The Democrats have yet to figure out that most power in the US is on the local level. DNC is way too nationalistic for their own good, focusing on national politics so much. The younger Republican presidential candidates were never "in the running" though (as in, seriously popular), which is what Simberto said, and our newest president is the oldest president ever... And is Republican. The only candidates that had serious support after early/mid volatility were Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, and they're all old.
You're delusional. Cruz is 46 and Rubio is 46 as well. If by not in the running you mean the 2nd and 3rd placing candidates then yeah sure, the only guy who ran then was Trump. I expect nothing less from you. You're hyper-partisan.
|
If senators are to the point of blaming each other, and Trump is giving statements like this, I have a hard time believing this bill has a future.
|
On July 25 2017 05:04 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 03:33 Wegandi wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+ Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement". Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president. If by everyone you mean the Democrats. The GOP had a lot of "young" people run in 2016. There's a reason for this though. The Democratic Party is an insular weak party outside of national politics. They disproportionally rely on federal elected officials for their running tickets. If you look at the local and state electoral politics the GOP runs away from the Democrats, where "younger" people tend to hold elected office. Though, to be fair, some of my favorite candidates are old as fuck lol. For instance Mary Ruwart is 67 and Ron Paul is 81. Though Amash and Massie are pretty young, but House members aren't realistic, plus I don't really care about the Presidency, so there's that too. The Democrats have yet to figure out that most power in the US is on the local level. DNC is way too nationalistic for their own good, focusing on national politics so much. The younger Republican presidential candidates were never "in the running" though (as in, seriously popular), which is what Simberto said, and our newest president is the oldest president ever... And is Republican. The only candidates that had serious support after early/mid volatility were Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, and they're all old. You're delusional. Cruz is 46 and Rubio is 46 as well. If by not in the running you mean the 2nd and 3rd placing candidates then yeah sure, the only guy who ran then was Trump. I expect nothing less from you. You're hyper-partisan.
You should probably read all the posts and try again. Read up on what zlefin and I were talking about, for more context. Zlefin knows how to have a dialogue, which is something you seem to struggle with.
By the way, getting in second or third place doesn't automatically mean the race was close. Hint: If a two-person race leans 90% one way and only 10% another way, would you really say that the second person was close? I suppose it could be subjective, but context matters more than just being "2nd and 3rd placing candidates". Case in point: the third placing candidate for the Democratic primary- I guess it was Martin O'Malley?- was not ever in the running. He had no chance of actually winning.
Also, calling someone "hyper-partisan" when they list old and not-old candidates from both parties just makes you look silly. You're the one claiming that age and political affiliation have a connection, not me.
|
|
|
What does being in the west wing mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
