maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:55 am
@edgarblythe,
So he can get 4 more delegates out of 1,300????
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 02:21 pm
@McGentrix,
I have long expressed my desires for a single payer healthcare system. Hopefully that hasn't been over looked.

I am opposed to Citizens United and I do not believe that corporations are people.

I do not support raising minimum wage.

I support coming to the US through legal channels and if you are here illegally, you are breaking the law and should be sent packing.

I support the Keystone Pipeline.

I support renewable energy but know Nuclear is really the way to go.

I support background checks, but once you pass, you should be allowed any non-military gun you want in any amount and for any reason. (Obviously not intending to break the law, but hunting, sport shooting, collecting, protection). I do not support sueing gun companies, they didn't do the crime. Sue the criminals.

Sexual assault is bad, mmmm-kay?

Marijuana and a large assortment of other drugs should be legalized and taxed.

Private prisons should go away. Police need to be accountable for their actions, peoples property should not be allowed to be taken by police ever.

to finish...

Pro body cameras on all police officers.

Social Security really needs to be re-vamped and re-created to serve it's original purpose. I don't think their should be an income cap where you stop paying any more SS. I also don't think SS should be used for a lot of the things it is being used for currently.

Pro Glass-Steagall or other method of keeping banks in check and "honest"

College shouldn't be an extension of High School. Not everyone needs to go to college and it shouldn't be free. Wall Street does need to be reigned in and speculative trading should be restricted. Wall Street should not ever be allowed to speculate with a single retirement acct.

TPP - Don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

ISIS needs to be eradicated with traumatic force.

There is no way of knowing who "Syrian Forces" are. Let them fight each other until a victor is declared and then if it's ISIS, see above.

We have no business saying who can and cannot fly over there.

Afghanistan... What does the Afghani govt want? Do they want US Troop support or not?

Anything else Maporsche?
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 03:49 pm
@McGentrix,
So by eye-balling your list it looks like you agree with roughly 35% of what Sanders stands for....and you disagree with some pretty big ones (like min wage, immigration, 2nd amendment, social security, college, ISIS)....yeah, I still don't see how he's your 2nd choice.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 04:19 pm
@maporsche,
Well, since you have eye-balled McGentrix's list, why don't you tell him which candidate really is his second choice.

I am sure he would love to know.
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 04:26 pm
@maxdancona,
Defensive? Or am I misreading what looks like sarcasm.

I stated earlier that I have really no understanding how someone can support whatever combination of Sanders/Trump given that they are so far apart on the issues.

I then posted some of the positions that Sanders has taken on issues.

McGentrix has taken the time to respond to which one's he supports.

That number is quite low (IMO), to which I stated "yeah, I still don't see how he's your 2nd choice".

I'm not trying to tell him anything except that I fail to understand how he can support both the most liberal candidate and the most conservative candidate.


I don't know why that appears to have ruffled your feathers so much.
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 04:34 pm
@McGentrix,
Just curious about one of your positions:
Quote:
ISIS needs to be eradicated with traumatic force.


Okay, but to accomplish this do you want to sent American ground troops over there? Because that seems to be the major point of contention.
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 04:58 pm
Looks like Mike Huckabee is the first Republican casualty of Iowa and Rick Santorum won't be far behind. They won the last 2 caucuses based on the religious extremist vote that went to Ted Cruz this time. Neither one of them has any chance of winning in New Hampshire.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 05:01 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I heard on the news last night that a large number of Sander's supporters view Trump as their second choice.

I find this shocking and completely backwards thinking.


Not if you consider that a lot of each man's supporters don't seem to really care what they say or what they have or have not done in the past.

Well, I suppose it's still might be shocking that so many people are ready willing and able to be taken in by angry populists, but populists have historically been...popular in this country, and for that matter, around the world.

I'm sure there are plenty of members of the Sanders camp who are convinced that their fellow Bernie supporters are attracted by idealism not populism, but it's hard to square that with Trump being their #2 choice. I doubt that there are many among the Trump camp who feel motivated by idealism and, in fact, find nothing to be concerned about over their man's populist appeal; quite the contrary.

To a certain degree, left and right wing populist movements are not merely opposite sides of the same coin, they overlap.

While it is not a plank in the Sanders platform, and it was the original plank in Trump's, anti-immigration, particularly in Europe, is somewhat common to both left wing and right wing populism.

Not surprisingly, academics tend to view left-wing populism as more benign that it's right-wing sibling. My personal opinion is that this is due to the fact that the majority of academics are left-wingers themselves, who still fail to view the communist regimes of Stalin and Mao with anything approaching the fear and loathing they reserve for the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, despite the fact that judged solely by the number of people killed by them, the far left dictatorships of the 20th Century, were far "worse" than their far right-wing counterparts. All grew from populist seedlings, but because far left regimes at least pay lip service to egalitarianism, left-wing academics absurdly cut them slack.

We are all well aware of the horrendous results of right-wing populism in 20th Century Germany and so are the Germans. As a result, Germany is not in the least welcoming or even particularly tolerant of modern right-wing populism. Yet populism is a proven vehicle for successful attainment of power and true demagogues are far more practical than ideological. There is a good example of this relative to what is now called The Left Party in Germany. Prior to the name change it was called The Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), and the irony here is that this name was chosen to distance the party from its communist antecedents.

From what I understand (And perhaps Walter can provide his more insight on this) the PDS changed it's name to The Left Party , arguably, positioned nominally "closer" to the good old communist days, in part, to counteract the controversy created when its chairman, Oskar Lafontaine used the term Fremdarbeiter ( alien worker during an anti-immigrant rant. Apparently the term is associated in some way with the Nazi Party and anything in that category seems to, understandably, irritate the sensibilities of the German people.

Lafontaine wasn't a phony leftist though. He also had this to say:

Quote:
"Financial capitalism has failed. We need to democratize the economy. The workforce needs to have a far greater say in their companies than has been the case so far."


It's perhaps not as befuddling as it might first seem that a large number of people who support the populist Sanders see the populist Trump as their logical second choice, and visa versa.

This my problem with populism. It is not based so much on a set of values or principles but on basic desires and fears, and as such it can accept any number of different means to achieve the desires and drive away the fears. It appeals to base emotions not concepts, logic or aspirations. Now, to some extent all politicians are populists. They win votes by promising people they will get want they want, and that they will be safeguarded against what they don't want...in their lives, but most of them at least attempt to provide something of an aspirational vision.

Few things are all or nothing though. Trump has his vision: He's going to make America great again, by which he means he's going to make America an unapologetic winner "again." He's far more cunning than a lot of his critics accept or will ever acknowledge, and it's possible that every aspect of his campaign and his message has been well thought out and planned. However, while I'm certain he is not, despite appearances, winging a campaign of the Id, I also think he's personally obsessed with winning and views much of life in terms of wins and losses. For millions of people who feel they have been tasting a lot more defeat than victory over the last 8 to 10 years, Trumps fixation on winning is exciting.

Depending on where you live and how old you are, you may remember the classically cheesy Ball Park Franks commercial wherein Luis Tiant, having left the Boston Red Sox and joined the NY Yankees, broadly smiles into the camera and with a hot dog in his hands declares "It's great to be with a weener!"(1) Usually, this is so and Trump's supporters seeing him as a big winner, want him to take them along for the ride. (2)

Some people want things like "free" college tuition, "free" universal healthcare, a bigger chunk of their paycheck, or the freedom to own and/or carry a gun. Yes there are principles and values associated with these desires but , generally, only when the desire is to provide them to others, not oneself.

Populism is only a short distance away from demagoguery and Trump is either a baby-step away or right there, depending upon your point of view. Sanders has a greater distance to cross, but he can easily span the ground by going overboard in his demonizing the wealthy and Wall Street.

To many of their supporters, both of these guys are the middle finger personified. The fact that one is on the right hand and the other on the left doesn't matter as much as we might expect.

(1) My friends and I used to argue about whether or not Ball Park Franks hired the Cuban Tiant because with his accent, "winners" came out as "weeeners" and, of course, this sounds exactly like "weiners," another name for hot dogs. I thought it was merely a happy coincidence, but one upon which they quickly and cleverly capitalized...much the way Trump recognizes and seizes opportunities.

(2) Trumps obsession with winning could be his downfall. He's not a good loser and if his supporters detect a chink in his armor of winning, they could easily take flight and jump on board a new winner's bandwagon. If it unravels for Trump, I suspect it will be rapidly and with lots of drama.

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 05:07 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

So by eye-balling your list it looks like you agree with roughly 35% of what Sanders stands for....and you disagree with some pretty big ones (like min wage, immigration, 2nd amendment, social security, college, ISIS)....yeah, I still don't see how he's your 2nd choice.


Well, only if Cruz gets Republican nomination does Bernie get my support. Rubio, should he nominated, will make a good President as well.

The task was:
maporsche wrote:

Aside from not having big money lobbyists (yet) you wouldn't support any policy issue that Sanders has. I'd like you to name the ones you would.

And you don't strike me as someone who's against big money lobbying are you? I thought money=free speech.


I demonstrated that I do, actually, agree with many or Bernie's policy issues. Being a federalist/libertarian/republican I agree with many policy issues and disagree with many equally. I can't stand the abortion issue for example. The govt has no business deciding that. I also feel there is no place in politics for religious tests (*gasp* including Muslims!) in my political philosophy. I am very opposed to the Federal Govt being involved in what I believe to be states rights issues and wish the Fed would get back it's original job and let the states do their thing.

Bernie would be my choice because I oppose Cruz more that I disagree with Sander's.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 05:10 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Just curious about one of your positions:
Quote:
ISIS needs to be eradicated with traumatic force.


Okay, but to accomplish this do you want to sent American ground troops over there? Because that seems to be the major point of contention.


ISIS would need to formalize into something before it can be eradicated. I actually agree with Obama's surgical drone strikes on ISIS leadership until such time as we can say for sure who is in ISIS. They don't wear a uniform, they fight for no flag and they have no real sense of community. You can't eradicate an idea unless you have a better idea to replace it with.

So, make it worth their while to not fight for ISIS instead.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 07:30 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
You can't eradicate an idea unless you have a better idea to replace it with.

So, make it worth their while to not fight for ISIS instead
.

Every now and then, you say something I agree with.


Except drones, if they didn't mess up so much and kill innocents, I would support it more.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 07:46 pm
@maporsche,
I was just poking fun at you Ma.

McGentrix told you who he favors as presidential candidates. I find it funny that you are actually telling him he is wrong. In my opinion McGentrix is the best judge of his own preferences.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 07:52 pm
@maxdancona,
I agree. We all have our subjective preference for most things.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 06:46 am
Iowa Democratic Party: No Recount; Sanders Agrees

0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 02:36 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote: "Is this the beginning of the decline and fall of Trump?"

The most reliable polls prior to the Iowa caucus showed Trump with a comfortable margin over Cruz, and Rubio a distant third. Instead, Cruz won by a comfortable margin over Trump and Rubio nearly came in second, right on Trump's heels.

The problem with these polls is that they do not include a category for "undecided" -- at least not in the poll results commonly presented on cable news and other popular media.

According to last night's O'Reilly Factor, about a third of Iowa's GOP voters had polled undecided. O'Reilly reported the results of an exit poll of previously undecided voters leaving the Iowa GOP caucus. I seem to recall that about 33% of those voted for Rubio, about 25% voted for Cruz, and just 14% voted for Trump. The rest were split between other candidates.

This would explain the actual caucus results pretty handily: Rubio's surprise overperformance due to a large chunk of previously undecided voters settling for him; and Cruz closing the margin then adding a winning margin, but not as big of a jump as Rubio.

As for New Hampshire, recent news items indicate that among Republicans, undecideds number about 7%. But a third of independents (who are expected to be about 40 percent of primary voters there) are undecided, which means another 13 percent or so in terms of the overall voter population. But only a portion of these self-identify as Republicans, so the percentage of those undecided, Republican leaning voters is smaller still; but they strongly lean towards candidates like Bush and Kasich. Or rather, they did five days ago:

https://www.wbur.org/2016/01/28/new-hampshires-undecided-independent-voters

But now, after Rubio's strong showing in Iowa, these moderate leaning Republican-identifying independents might consolidate their vote in Rubio.

Put together, the undecided Republicans and undecided Republican-leaning independents probably introduce 10-15 % uncertainty. But then you have the possibility of further shifts among weakly decided voters whose candidates did poorly in Iowa but who might be open to Rubio. Plus there is the possibility of a larger than expected voter turnout that includes more moderate leaning independents than expected.

So while it looks like a shoe-in for Trump, it may not be.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of undecided and weakly decided voters may be the most significant but underreported topic in political news coverage. This may be why some candidates who consistently show low in the polls nevertheless continue to doggedly hang on.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 10:30 pm
I thought I heard Sanders on TV this morning in a live interview saying his campaign was still considering what to do in Iowa.

Not sure what the hullabaloo is all about.

As it stands now Clinton only won by 0.3% Hardly a crushing victory. I realize she get's to say she won, and she doesn't have to face nationwide headlines blaring "Hillary loses in Iowa...Again!" but it seems to me an illusory triumph for her.

She avoided disaster by only 0.3% thanks to the literally incredible feat of winning 6 of 7 coin flips.

Only Hillford Wives and Husbands can be truly celebrating this "win" in any way other than in relief from not seeing those aforementioned headlines.

The rest of the world knows that Bernie Sanders won and that he has the momentum, certainly the people likely to vote in the Dem primaries do.

And so do these Taiwanese animators who are more in tune with our politics than most Americans

http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/02/03/single-greatest-recap-iowa-caucus/
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 10:45 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

She avoided disaster by only 0.3% thanks to the literally incredible feat of winning 6 of 7 coin flips.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/

Quote:
Who won these coin flips?

Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well.


So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2016 04:05 am
The coin toss story is a good example of how Clinton cheated . Iowa is the stupidest system of "voting" known to man and designed to be manipulated.

There are no physical votes to count. No records to prove who won what. It's he said, she said. The people at the caucuses reported what happened. Hillarys team suspiciously won all the coin tosses. Hillary's paid employees, many, were precinct captains. Prepared with fake coins in case of a coin toss.

They know everyone is on to it, so they're lying about it. They can lie because there's no record.

http://www.snopes.com/iowa-caucus-coin-toss/
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2016 04:08 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn, your version is correct. Clinton and her media are lying about it now. The MSM is running against him harder than the Clinton campaign.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2016 05:50 am
Oh dear! Trump is also accusing Cruz of fraud!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » IOWA!
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/14/2022 at 07:42:58