American Politics the 2016 edition

micky wrote: if you are educated enough to undesstand them Madan.. then the American voter also knows that there is a big difference between being Secretary of State.. and being President.  She worked for him and was overruled by him in many things.. thus again.. regardless of the mistakes. They belong to Obama.. who is not up for relection...not Hillary but again.. that doesn't work in an election where you as a party have no policy ideas (at least realistic sane ones) so you simply run against the other. Making things up when necessary to appeal to those who don't understand the issues or even the reality of political power.  To be honest... I think Hillary would have done a better job combating Isis.. and yes.. dealing with the Russians than Obama has. That is why I supported her in 2008.  She was the better candidate then.. and is worlds better than either Sanders or Trump in 2016.

micky wrote: exactly! And I doubt the Libyian intervention will.. that has little traction here outside of the whole Bengazi thing which begins and ends what most American voters know.. or care... about that. That topic is political roadkill.. just like her emails.  Congress ran that topic flatter than that squirrel I got yesterday... opinions are already set on that. No one is ..at this point in the game.. undecided about what they know or think they know of what went on in Libya.

It may sadly have an even larger impact than Iraq, depending on how things evolve in Europe.  If America is seen as triggering problems in the Middle East but not being helpful when Europe has to deal with the backlash, it could lead to a serious geo-political realignment.  But yeah, I get the gist as to why the voters wouldn't care. Again, I was only calling out the dishonesty of the media.  We see that here too when for instance the media downplays excessive minority a**-licking by politicians if said politicians hail from a 'liberal' party.  I am all for minority appeasement but don't take it so far that the majority itself starts feeling forsaken.  Because that can and has often had bad consequences as they then turn to right wing forces who promise to help them assert their 'true' might. 

Really...I don't think Libya and Iraq are connected.  They are similar mistakes, that much I will grant.  Pursuing a cruel dictator who did not directly pose a threat to USA and did not especially need to be overthrown.  I do remember feeling surprised at all the sudden brouhaha about Gadaffi and what had happened that had made it so urgent to get him killed.  I mean, hadn't we known about him already for a long time?  So what had changed?

Dean wrote: JJLehto wrote: So, here's a sad little article.  Here in the US, wealthiest country on Earth, in some poor communities teens sell their bodies for $ to eat. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/12/teens-america-hunger-food-poverty It's not often this direct, many times it's "transactional dating" such as girls dating older men as way to help get by. Though many times it is that direct:  "In seven of the 10 communities, teenagers told stories of girls exchanging sexual favours with strangers or stripping for money in abandoned houses, at flea markets and on the street." "Another girl in Chicago told researchers of an 11-year-old girl who dropped out of sixth grade to work in the sex trade, while boys in Los Angeles described how middle school girls put up flyers in public places to advertise their services."  Some other means of eating more regularly include going to friends houses hoping maybe they'll feed you, stealing it, selling drugs and saving school lunches till night so at least they won't go to bed hungry, or save it for the weekend. Sometimes they will not eat, so their younger siblings can.  This is actually happening in the US, and some people (and their defenders) are outraged they need to pay 20% tax on a $10 million income. Or worse, poverty is so often waved off as "an unfortunate result of the markets" and we can only throw a few scraps towards it...any more gov involvement than that and we risk hurting our efficiency! Or maybe these kids are just lazy! They could get a, non existent min wage, job or go to college (because it's just that easy!) Stories like this need to be given to every politician and American, put some humanity to all the talk of numbers, markets, dollars and cents.  Hunger is not the same as starvation so this isn't going to prick the political conscience any time soon. When raising the issue of hunger in the Western world you are faced with the paradox that it is coupled with obesity in the same demographic because they are an inseparable consequence of a poor quality diet resulting from a low-income. The idea that you can live healthily on a budget is a pernicious fallacy put about by those who pay top-dollar for free-range organic produce - Micky-D and Wendy can push all the healthy options they like, a poor person knows that if this is the only meal they'll eat today then the bun and fries in their Big Mac meal is going to fill them up more than an organic chicken salad with fresh tomato and leaves ever will. It's easy to stick our heads in the sand and blame "the other lot" and it's easier still to blame the poor for being poor, especially when politicians can point to a obese poor person who is wearing designer sports wear and holding the latest mobile phone. When 50% of the population is receiving some form of welfare payment then it's time to accept that this isn't something broken that needs fixing but is exactly how capitalism works. We've spent the past 100+ years fiddling about with bits of the system trying to fix it, make it work better or make it work differently yet it continues to get worse.  I've spent the past nine years reading the political comments on the PA learning a lot about how we view things from a political perspective, especially from y'all Americans who are more vocal than anyone else on these subjects, (hence your belief that you need a political thread all of your own to play with ), and frankly you're no different from the rest of us. In that time I've seen every argument presented from every angle and every perspective - every ideology and every political philosophy has been discussed to death here and not one of them has proven to have all the answers. Up until recently I would have argued that you cannot all be right and it's very possible that you all are wrong. However recent events (i.e. the US Presidential Elections) have led me to observe that there is another way of looking at it, and that is - in a very narrow microcosm you are all right. This is how, and why, you all strongly believe that your views, ideologies and political perspectives are the solution to all the world's ills because in an ideal static world you would be. Unfortunately this isn't an idea static world, it's an imperfect dynamic world. Central to all these debates, discussions and arguments has been the subject of taxation (either directly or indirectly). We cannot pay welfare without taxation and we cannot rely on charity and philanthropy to pick-up the slack. Taxation is a direct consequence of capitalism, and therefore so is everything that taxation pays for. One of the first statements I ever made here was in response to someone complaining about paying tax. I simply said that you are paid to pay tax, and that caused a minor uproar as if such a concept was unthinkable - "no, what I earn is mine" was the unanimous reply. Unfortunately that hasn't been true since, well, forever really, even before tax was a thing and even before money was a thing: since time immemorial we've paid to be a member of a community in one form or another and that payment has come from the result of our labours. In order to make that contribution to the community we've produced (earnt) more than we need and over time this concept has transmuted from handing over a few potatoes or wreaths of wheat to the tribe elders, the church or the feudal lord, into handing over hard cash to a government. However, now that we are a democratic society rather than a feudal one this means that no one is excused from paying "tithe" including the wealth-providers and wealth-creators.  Now we go to work to earn money, and we are paid for the work we do, a percentage of that payment we receive is then paid in tax to the government - if we didn't pay tax then we would be paid less - I know that is a difficult concept to grasp because it's always been like that (this exists today - those who get paid less than you pay less tax, some are paid so little they pay no tax, while others are paid even less than that so the government pays them). If every employee didn't pay tax then the money to run the government would be taken exclusively from the employers - since he will be facing a hefty tax bill his wage bill would be smaller by the same amount to compensate - the system is self balancing - reduce the tax bill in one area and it increases in anther. I really couldn't give a flying fart how that "tax" is paid as long as it is paid because it all goes tits up when someone arses about with the system and it has to find a new equilibrium where it all balances again. Unfortunately that new equilibrium cannot be achieved when those who mess with the system are those who also dictate the wages (and resisting paying minimum wage while avoiding corporate taxation is a classic example of that). [And, yes, we'd all like to pay less tax and that means small government, which sadly is incompatible with corporate greed].

As for Hillary, while it's true she was not the Prez and Obama ultimately must hold the responsibility for his actions, 1: as a team effort where all input she does also bare some responsibility 2: since she was for involvement with Libya even if the action can't be put on her, she did support it. Given she also supported involvement with Syria (Obama obviously didn't go with this) and her vote for the Iraq War, she deserves a share of the blame for our foreign policy debacle. Needless to say Wubya gets the lion share but hey....dude been gone 8 years now, and while we cant ever forget his f**kups...we also gotta start moving on man. 

JJLehto wrote: As for Hillary, while it's true she was not the Prez and Obama ultimately must hold the responsibility for his actions, 1: as a team effort where all input she does also bare some responsibility 2: since she was for involvement with Libya even if the action can't be put on her, she did support it. Given she also supported involvement with Syria (Obama obviously didn't go with this) and her vote for the Iraq War, she deserves a share of the blame for our foreign policy debacle. Needless to say Wubya gets the lion share but hey....dude been gone 8 years now, and while we cant ever forget his f**kups...we also gotta start moving on man.  Meaning, always acknowledge past mistakes and learn from them, but can't keep throwing back to Bush constantly while turning an eye to possible Democratic negatives. We will never learn that way.  Speaking of learning...Reagan was strike 1, now strike 2. Maybe we should finally reconsider the arming rebels thing http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/american-commandos-forced-to-run-away-from-us-backed-syrian-rebe/

mistakes are one thing.  As you undoubtably know.. we have generations of mistakes and miscalculations in the middle east. Did we learn anything about how we bungled Nasser in the 50's.  I honestly don't think we will ever learn...what we try to avoid are catastrophic and completely avoidable mistakes.  And when much of what we face today is a result of dealing with those... it is natural and completely fair to toss the blame where it belongs. 

I understand what you are saying. We are moving on.. but in the context of a situation that has no easy answers. In an election year in which the mistakes of the past are attempted to be tied to those trying to clean it UP! 

Forget Hillaries vote on Iraq.  Hindsight is 20-20 there.  Yes some of us saw the folly and outright stupidity from the start but who would have thought a sitting US President would flat out lie and mislead, the public and Congress as they did.  She like most took the President as his word. I can't and won't blame her .. or Trump.. for supporting it. 

So where does that leave us. Again with trying to clean up the mess Bush left. One could debate is there is an answer.  So there will be mistakes. We have never learned from past mistakes. Why should Obama be different and what he faced is far more challenging than any President ever has.  There is a very large difference between mistakes in which what we hoped didn't come to be... and differences born of arrogance and incompetence.  Again...  I do and suppose many give Obama a pass for mistakes made in that region.  That region is such a cock up that I don't think anyone could. At this point the best I think we can hope for.. is ..well.. competence in handling it.  While I disagree with some things he did, I don't find much fault in the logic behind what he has done. 

Papers have been turned in, and now sciencedebate.org has presented the candidates' answers to their twenty science questions.

rushfan4 wrote: How has it become more possible that there is a serious chance that Donald Trump could actually be elected president?  It feels like a practical joke gone very, very wrong.  But in this day and age where trolls can unite enough to vote in every Kansas City Royal to the MLB all-star game and John Scott to the NHL all-star game, it is way too likely for my tastes that this could actually happen.

I just saw the debate with diet pop and popcorn in hand. I was not disappointed.