American Politics the 2016 edition

rogerthat wrote: Arriving 2 hours before departure is a bit excessive but normal (not worth missing a flight for). Allowing 2 hours for security check is, as I said, really problematic IF that is what they expect flyers to do.

Edited by JJLehto - May 20 2016 at 02:10

micky wrote: Smurph wrote: micky wrote: Smurph wrote: Are you saying that other countries are non interventionist with us? I don't see Chinese or British military bases on American soil? it's almost like we can trade with other countries instead not to leave you hanging.. perhaps it is late... but that made no sense to me. Usually a good clue I'm up past my bed time. Hahah. I understand. I didn't mean to get heated. My thoughts is that just because we decreased our military involvement wouldn't make us isolationist. We could stand to trade even more. Trade is good. Traditionally isolationist countries like Japan had extremely limited trade as well. It wouldn't be a good threat.. or a proper political one if it wasn't passionately and more than a little heated. Just like sex... excellent point about trade. Not that I agree of course.  I wouldn't mistake  the all driving passion we Americans have for material things, for wealth and a second yacht to water ski behind for the rest of the world.  Most conflicts.. most of the baddies aren't driven by greed or money. Much less whether their citizens have access to cheap flat screen tv's or Ford vehicles. Trade isn't buying them off... the only way you deal effectively with bullies and thugs is by hitting them over the head with a 2x4 repeatably until you splatter their brains all over your Burberry's. then there are the rare ones you have to tread very carefully with... bringing it back home again... to American politics.  One thing I am really surprised about. One can argue, more than a few probably have, is that the GOP really lost its way and proceeded into the black hole of having the religious right take over the party, and focusing on social issues when it lost the Soviet Union, its threat, and its historically very strong stance on military strength. Then again it might have been when whole economic theory (ummm insanity) of trickle down economics was proven to be the sham we all (even Bush classic ) knew it to be. Give a rich man more money and what is he going to do with.  Hahaha.. and people actually thought they would pay workers more. Hell no.. they just bought bigger homes, more yachts..... bah.. Anyhow Be it MAD or at least being able one of the cornerstones of GOP politics was having, unlike the 70's,  a military strong enough to provide enough of a threat to keep the Soviets honest. A strong plank of security and a strong military. One I agreed with then, still do today, and most people outside of many liberals still do. Where has that gone today?  I suppose they are so ingrained now on focusing on fear, appealing to bigots, racists and the religously intolerant that that appears lost. One can, I know I have, argued that Russia under Putin is far more dangerous today than the Soviet Union ever was. Yet where is that realization, that seems as clear to me as the lines on my face. One of the fears, of the many of having a political hack, an amateur like Trump (or Sanders to be perfectly honest) is Putin is probably rooting for anyone but Hillary to be elected. Suspecting, knowing, they would not be up to the challenge of containing a Russia under Puttin that is expansionist and thus more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was.

rogerthat wrote: micky wrote: Smurph wrote: micky wrote: Smurph wrote: Are you saying that other countries are non interventionist with us? I don't see Chinese or British military bases on American soil? it's almost like we can trade with other countries instead not to leave you hanging.. perhaps it is late... but that made no sense to me. Usually a good clue I'm up past my bed time. Hahah. I understand. I didn't mean to get heated. My thoughts is that just because we decreased our military involvement wouldn't make us isolationist. We could stand to trade even more. Trade is good. Traditionally isolationist countries like Japan had extremely limited trade as well. It wouldn't be a good threat.. or a proper political one if it wasn't passionately and more than a little heated. Just like sex... excellent point about trade. Not that I agree of course.  I wouldn't mistake  the all driving passion we Americans have for material things, for wealth and a second yacht to water ski behind for the rest of the world.  Most conflicts.. most of the baddies aren't driven by greed or money. Much less whether their citizens have access to cheap flat screen tv's or Ford vehicles. Trade isn't buying them off... the only way you deal effectively with bullies and thugs is by hitting them over the head with a 2x4 repeatably until you splatter their brains all over your Burberry's. then there are the rare ones you have to tread very carefully with... bringing it back home again... to American politics.  One thing I am really surprised about. One can argue, more than a few probably have, is that the GOP really lost its way and proceeded into the black hole of having the religious right take over the party, and focusing on social issues when it lost the Soviet Union, its threat, and its historically very strong stance on military strength. Then again it might have been when whole economic theory (ummm insanity) of trickle down economics was proven to be the sham we all (even Bush classic ) knew it to be. Give a rich man more money and what is he going to do with.  Hahaha.. and people actually thought they would pay workers more. Hell no.. they just bought bigger homes, more yachts..... bah.. Anyhow Be it MAD or at least being able one of the cornerstones of GOP politics was having, unlike the 70's,  a military strong enough to provide enough of a threat to keep the Soviets honest. A strong plank of security and a strong military. One I agreed with then, still do today, and most people outside of many liberals still do. Where has that gone today?  I suppose they are so ingrained now on focusing on fear, appealing to bigots, racists and the religously intolerant that that appears lost. One can, I know I have, argued that Russia under Putin is far more dangerous today than the Soviet Union ever was. Yet where is that realization, that seems as clear to me as the lines on my face. One of the fears, of the many of having a political hack, an amateur like Trump (or Sanders to be perfectly honest) is Putin is probably rooting for anyone but Hillary to be elected. Suspecting, knowing, they would not be up to the challenge of containing a Russia under Puttin that is expansionist and thus more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was.   Interesting views about Putin. I too have the same view but maybe American liberals have over corrected to the point where they find the Amur tiger cuddly. Cuddly maybe but also very dangerous. When I had expressed that view of Putin, I was told I watch too much CNN. Um I am sitting here in India and we do a lot more business with Russia. And I still say Putin is dangerous. They are our traditional allies but I just wish they weren't ruled by Putin.

Putin could be dangerous if we press the wrong buttons.

I'm actually not as scared of him as I am of Hillary Clinton. I think there is misunderstanding of Russia in the west IMO. We don't appreciate how tough they are as a nation. They suffered losses in the war barely imaginable even in a blitzed UK, and certainly in an intact USA. They lost over 24 million lives. Historically those who have made war with them have come out the other end in bad shape. Napoleon tried and failed. Hitler tried and failed and frankly I don't rate the wests chances with Russia either should the need ever rise for a confrontation; hopefully not.

Putin is a pragmatist. The Syria situation is a good example. He sees an ally under attack by gangs of militants and terrorists so in order to protect his interests in the region he steps in and starts taking down those terrorists groups. He doesn't give a sh*t that Obama has a horse in that race, because he's not frightened of Washington. He knows there is nothing they can do apart from throw silly sanctions at him, and Russia will put up with that in order to get to where it believes it needs to be. It's had to deal with far worse in the past.

My fear would be an egotist like Clinton believing she can be the one to go up against Putin in a game of nuclear chicken to see who blinks first. It won't be Putin IMO, and she could rapidly find herself out of her depth.

We're having a primary for local offices next Tuesday and it leaves me wondering why the hell we couldn't have that the same day as the freakin' presidential primary we had a few months ago.  Grrrrr!

The T wrote: Questions about Sanders I have:  He blasts the very existence of superdelegates yet he plans to try and switch them around so they, the superdelegates, give him a win in the convention. So what is it? Superdelegates are good or bad?  He says the primaries are rigged and undemocratic yet plans to try and subvert the will of the people who have so far voted in larger numbers for Hillary. So how does this democracy work for him then?  Again, it's mostly his supporters that made me start to lose my confidence in him, supporters with imbecilic ideas like "Bernie or Bust". But I'm starting to have doubts about him too. After all, like most politicians, he's also first and foremost in love with his ego.

He also joined the Democratic Party to enjoy the benefits of the fact that the only parties with real coverage are the democrat and republican parties. I don't see anything particularly wrong with using the inequalities present to your advantage, because I don't see our politics as anything close to authentic democracy.

Candidates have been demonizing each other for so long that it has become the norm. I guess it's easier to convince the voters of how bad your opponent is than to convince them of how good you are. 

Catcher10 wrote: .......... I'm a Republican, not sure who I am voting for.....all I know is November is going to be fun and entertaining, ...

dr wu23 wrote: Catcher10 wrote: .......... I'm a Republican, not sure who I am voting for.....all I know is November is going to be fun and entertaining, ... I give you a lot of credit for admitting you are a Republican on this forum.

As a non-American absolute outsider I ask: are these two the best candidates that both parties can offer?
H. Clinton and Trump, dumb and dumber, if you ask my opinion.

Norbert wrote: As a non-American absolute outsider I ask: are these two the best candidates that both parties can offer? H. Clinton and Trump, dumb and dumber, if you ask my opinion.