That's why I support Cruz. Though, I hold out more hope that Trump would address some issues than I would an Establishment guy. With him there is a at least a chance he'll do some of the things he says. With an establishment guy or Democrat there is zero chance.
So apparently Romney's teasing some sort of bombshell announcement about Trump. Do we think he has one, or are we about to get Romney-rolled?
Also, Carson's announced he's skipping the next debate. He hasn't dropped out of the race, though. Not sure why, but hey, I couldn't tell you why he ran in the first place, or why he didn't drop out earlier.
Rumours Romney would run if Rubio was failing. Seems way too late for that now.
Maybe.
But there are delegates who would never support Trump who are really looking for anything at this point + still a number of primaries to go.
Most notable: there's a ton of republican money looking to go somewhere. If Romney hops in and gets Cruz and Rubio to heel to the plan (neither appear to be in the ballpark of Trump and neither would cede to the other since they do not get along; even just Rubio pulling out in favor of Romney would do the trick), then Romney is going to probably be the only guy who could bullrush this election. He's a good public speaker and has an air of civility that a lot of voters were looking for out of Rubio and Bush. So, if anyone can do it, it'd be Romney.
Given how he performed last election, I just can't see him having a real shot at winning the nomination outright. I think if he enters, it's a sign that the Establishment want to prevent Trump from getting the necessary delegates, so they can take this to the convention.
RINO (Republicans in Name Only) was a thing before the tea party. Tossing people out that didn't believe the way you did, not negotiating. These are tactics the republican party has shifted towards since the polarization of the party system.
I don't want to be that guy who just points his finger and says "tu quoque", because obviously that's no excuse for anything. But I really do think you're leaving out half the picture here. DINOs are also a thing, and the polarization has quantifiably pulled in both directions -- Democrats are voting more consistently leftward just as Republicans are voting more consistently rightward.
But that the leaders who ride those waves are especially good at playing to concerns and that regardless of who takes up that mantel to say that the leader is merely a figure head misses the point a bit. Yes, someone is going to take up that roll; but that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that they aren't in some way responsible for the conduct or methods used since they are often the instigator of action.
Depends on the leader. Hitler, for instance, bears a huge amount of personal responsibility for pushing German discontent over the Treaty of Versailles into World War II and the Holocaust. Without him, there may still have been a different demagogue, but he could easily have taken the country in a direction like still-bad-but-nowhere-near-as-abominable Francoist Spain or Peronist Argentina. In contrast, the leaders of the French Revolution seem to have been riding a wave of discontent that they didn't understand, and were eventually wiped out by it. It took Napoleon to give the French people what they really wanted -- their dignity back -- or maybe he just brought them to heel with some of the old iron fist.
Hypothesis 1 can be proved largely by looking at and examining the instigators on the right: rush/fox being primary among them. They've both been caught exaggerating truths and outright lying.
But they're also doing that to turn people against universal healthcare and Planned Parenthood, and yet Trump shows that the people don't actually care about universal healthcare and Planned Parenthood. I'm not denying what the instigators are doing. I'm saying it doesn't seem to be working. The base that so many people, including me, just assumed was getting its opinions from Fox News is turning out to have a mind of its own.
But, I don't feel like Trump is running on anti-liberal sentiment; so I think this might be a red herring. Its important to discourse and debate and solving problems, but it may not be applicable to why Trump is happening. He's capitalizing on perceived threats. He's promising salvation. "Hopey Changey Stuff".
I certainly didn't mean to imply that his punching back at liberals was the only reason for his success.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Though, I hold out more hope that Trump would address some issues than I would an Establishment guy. With an establishment guy or Democrat there is zero chance.
So you are saying none of the Democrats would address any issues, but Trump might? I think all of the candidates have already been at least talking about addressing issues. It's really not hard. Successfully dealing with is a different affair.
[quote from="gumOnShoe »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/624050-donald-trumps-presidency?comment=1035"]Hypothesis 1 can be proved largely by looking at and examining the instigators on the right: rush/fox being primary among them. They've both been caught exaggerating truths and outright lying.
But they're also doing that to turn people against universal healthcare and Planned Parenthood, and yet Trump shows that the people don't actually care about universal healthcare and Planned Parenthood. I'm not denying what the instigators are doing. I'm saying it doesn't seem to be working. The base that so many people, including me, just assumed was getting its opinions from Fox News is turning out to have a mind of its own.
Fox News influences them, but when you see Glenn Beck on a different channel and a splintering of the media itself with several other controls. There are different strains of conservativism, which shouldn't have surprised you at all. Even Rubio talks about Cubans with different types of worlds.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Though, I hold out more hope that Trump would address some issues than I would an Establishment guy. With an establishment guy or Democrat there is zero chance.
So you are saying none of the Democrats would address any issues, but Trump might? I think all of the candidates have already been at least talking about addressing issues. It's really not hard. Successfully dealing with is a different affair.
They had a super majority and they only made them worse. They have proven they won't address those issues. The Republicans gave obama the budget he wanted making things worse. They have proven to be cowards. What he is saying is a fact based in the people currently in power, not idle speculation.
Would those results include a candidate who advocates war crimes and infringing on the First Amendment?
Or did you not think things through that far?
Did you think things through at all?
And honestly, explain the wisdom of talking about how much you want results and then using that to justify voting for Trump. You think he's going to get into the White House? You think you guys aren't the laughing stocks of the world for supporting this guy? You can't even get the Republican base to get behind him - something that is absolutely a positive testimony to the integrity of many Republicans. You actually believe that the rest of the country is going to vote for him?
Results? The result is you're handing the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
The question you asked was how did the establishment get us here, and while its true that democrats have litmus tests, I've not really heard anyone being accused of being a DINO. The closest thing I can remember is the blue-dog democrats and they were still largely thought of as democrats that leaned conservative because they were from conservative districts. But even if the democratic party is making the same mistakes, I don't think it changes the fact that republicans as a party pushed far harder right than the democratic party has mushed left. To this day, the elected officials of the democratic party are still largely centrist and moderate even if the electorate is in some demographics becoming more liberal.
Huh?
Just 10 years ago Democrats were hesitant of gay marriage.
20 years ago gay marriage was not a thing. DOMA. Signed into law by Bill Clinton.
20 years ago. Not very long in the grand scheme of things.
Democrats have shifted massively to the left in recent times. And one can argue that it's accelerating. I mean.. we're trying to get bathrooms for transgenders, reportedly .2-.3% of the population as a whole. Even if we account for the probable fact that there are many more who are in the "closet", as it were, it can't be anymore than 1% of the total population.
They are a representational non-entity.
It's not that the Republicans are turning more right (they're really not). It's that the Democrats have gone so far left on many social issues that many people who normally wouldn't even be interested in politics are feeling attacked.
That's the Tea Party in a nutshell.
That's Trump's supporters in a nutshell. That's why the Republican establishment can't get a handle on them.
And let's be honest here- Their beliefs are under attack. It doesn't matter whether you believe they are in the wrong or not. People whose beliefs are under attack will not respond kindly to you.
Rumours Romney would run if Rubio was failing. Seems way too late for that now.
Maybe.
But there are delegates who would never support Trump who are really looking for anything at this point + still a number of primaries to go.
Most notable: there's a ton of republican money looking to go somewhere. If Romney hops in and gets Cruz and Rubio to heel to the plan (neither appear to be in the ballpark of Trump and neither would cede to the other since they do not get along; even just Rubio pulling out in favor of Romney would do the trick), then Romney is going to probably be the only guy who could bullrush this election. He's a good public speaker and has an air of civility that a lot of voters were looking for out of Rubio and Bush. So, if anyone can do it, it'd be Romney.
Now that is an idea. If Romney entered the race now that could be very interesting actually. I've always thought that part of the reason Trump has been so ascendant is because the other Republican candidates are just so poor. They're like children fighting in the school yard, while Romney is an actual adult. Whatever else you might think Romney is well spoken and has some charisma, and he could stand up to Trump in a debate ten times better than anyone in this group.
If Romney were to jump in and kick the other candidates to the curb, that would be something to see. Despite getting in so late, I believe he would have a better shot of winning than Rubio or Cruz who are going nowhere fast. Could he actually win? Who knows.
Romney is a weakling, who would do a disservice to his credibility (more so than losing the last election even) by jumping into this race. He's unlikely to get more support than Rubio, assuming the latter dropped out.
Would those results include a candidate who advocates war crimes and infringing on the First Amendment?
Or did you not think things through that far?
Did you think things through at all?
And honestly, explain the wisdom of talking about how much you want results and then using that to justify voting for Trump. You think he's going to get into the White House? You think you guys aren't the laughing stocks of the world for supporting this guy? You can't even get the Republican base to get behind him - something that is absolutely a positive testimony to the integrity of many Republicans. You actually believe that the rest of the country is going to vote for him?
Results? The result is you're handing the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
It's called a stakeholder position. Also what war crimes are you talking about? If it is turning the middle east into a glass parking lot I am fine with that. Finally hillary would be no different than any establishment republican in my eyes. Cruz would be ok in my eyes but he puts the wrong issues first. I want a good paying job, also banning abortions is not going to stop them. Girls are just going to get into car accidents to cause abortions. The death count is going to go up. We need to get rid of stigma around teenage and out of wedlock pregnancy. That will stop abortions.
The question you asked was how did the establishment get us here, and while its true that democrats have litmus tests, I've not really heard anyone being accused of being a DINO. The closest thing I can remember is the blue-dog democrats and they were still largely thought of as democrats that leaned conservative because they were from conservative districts. But even if the democratic party is making the same mistakes, I don't think it changes the fact that republicans as a party pushed far harder right than the democratic party has mushed left. To this day, the elected officials of the democratic party are still largely centrist and moderate even if the electorate is in some demographics becoming more liberal.
Huh?
Just 10 years ago Democrats were hesitant of gay marriage.
20 years ago gay marriage was not a thing. DOMA. Signed into law by Bill Clinton.
20 years ago. Not very long in the grand scheme of things.
Democrats have shifted massively to the left in recent times. And one can argue that it's accelerating. I mean.. we're trying to get bathrooms for transgenders, reportedly .2-.3% of the population as a whole. Even if we account for the probable fact that there are many more who are in the "closet", as it were, it can't be anymore than 1% of the total population.
They are a representational non-entity.
It's not that the Republicans are turning more right (they're really not). It's that the Democrats have gone so far left on many social issues that many people who normally wouldn't even be interested in politics are feeling attacked.
That's the Tea Party in a nutshell.
That's Trump's supporters in a nutshell. That's why the Republican establishment can't get a handle on them.
And let's be honest here- Their beliefs are under attack. It doesn't matter whether you believe they are in the wrong or not. People whose beliefs are under attack will not respond kindly to you.
The funny thing is in much of the world most democrats would be the right wing party. Hell, even sandersisn't wildly left of actual-centre in australia. (well, maybe centre-left).
It's called a stakeholder position. Also what war crimes are you talking about? If it is turning the middle east into a glass parking lot I am fine with that.
Well, first things first: When designing your parking lot, I strongly recommend against glass; it is rather brittle and likely to puncture tires once it shatters.
Secondly..if you are ok with that you're a dreadful person.
Thirdly: War crimes like threatening to torture prisoners, like promising to go after the families of combatants, etc etc. It's actually pretty frequent.
I think at some point you have to realize there is good and evil in this world. I'm pretty ok with enhanced interrogation when it comes to people that strap bombs to women and children and send them running to their death in order to murder other civilians.
I think at some point you have to realize there is good and evil in this world. I'm pretty ok with enhanced interrogation when it comes to people that strap bombs to women and children and send them running to their death in order to murder other civilians.
"Enhanced Interrogation" (read: torture, as it is defined by international law) is ineffective at recovering reliable intelligence and is used as a propaganda tool against us drawing in more people to fight against us. So for the low, low price of breaking international law we receive no useful intel and increased resistance potentially harming more American soldiers and civilians.
I think at some point you have to realize there is good and evil in this world. I'm pretty ok with enhanced interrogation when it comes to people that strap bombs to women and children and send them running to their death in order to murder other civilians.
Torture has revealed zero actionable intelligence to the CIA. Why are you okay with cruelty that serves no purpose?
This is based off of voting positions recorded in congress. What you can see is that beginning in the middle of the bush years the far right began to gut its moderates in the senate (they were already gone from the house). Meanwhile, the moderates have had to shift over into the democratic party. If you want to know what a populist liberal looks like, you need to look at Bernie Sanders, he's part of the far left, and it's a very narrow portion of the democratic party. When you actually look at the makeup up the two parties you can see that the republican party has made itself extremely monotone. I'd love to see this graph extended for 4 more years, but that'd be up to Randall Monroe.
I don't know how to interpret this without looking at the actual voting positions/issues they're talking about.
Otherwise this is just a blob of red and blue to me.
This also ignores the fact that DOMA passed almost almost unanimously in 1996. Imagine a Democrat today saying "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I will vote for legislating protecting that!"
As far as purely social issues are concerned, Democrats have moved certainly to the left. As far as economic and socio-economic issues, Democrats and Republicans have been sparring over the same issue for much of the past half-century and probably will remain doing so unless something new and amazing occurs.
If we did a a major review of all issues I'd be more interested. Transgender bathrooms is a hot topic social media issue, not, imo, a political one; but maybe it is for the right. I'm relatively unconcerned (as a self defined liberal) about any of it./quote]
The entire fact that transgender bathrooms is a hot topic social media issue is what bothers conservatives.
Social awareness directly translates into political ones. Conservatives/Republicans try to pass legislation that force transgenders to stay in the bathroom that matches their biological sex. BOOM. Political issue.
And now liberals/Democrats will probably say that conservatives are are discriminating against transgenders or some such.
[quote from="gumOnShoe »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/624050-donald-trumps-presidency?comment=1061"]
So I think that gets back to what I was talking about. There are these perceived threats, and the legitimately create this anger. And they legitimately cause these political view points. But, and this is not meant to be insulting, a lot of this is perception and in this case I don't think perception meets reality. I think the root cause of this is largely due to fearmongering and people stoking the anger above and beyond what a rational person might feel in their own mind when considering what's going on in this country.
Dude. Gay marriage went from a political no-no to the Supreme Court effectively legalizing it (in a cleanly divided vote, unfortunately) in just 20 years.
Folks in their 40s-50s see this perfectly clear. The attack is REAL to them.
Heck, I'm pretty sure illegal immigration stance from the Democrats went from moderately negative back in the 90s to what appears to be an almost glossing over it today.
The same is true for abortion. I'm pretty sure the platform back in the 90s talked about finding ways to PREVENT abortion from happening.
As far as socio-economic/pure economic issues are concerned, there's not that much of a difference.
But when it delves into the social issues, you'll notice a significant shift in tone.
I haven't looked into the Republican platforms, but I'm willing to bet on a corresponding shift in tone.
Many folks on the right do engage in fear-mongering. ********s like Glenn Beck and his ilk clearly do engage in fear-mongering. And it seems likely that all this fear-mongering gave rise to the conservative populism we see today.
But all the fear-mongering had to start from somewhere.
I think at some point you have to realize there is good and evil in this world. I'm pretty ok with enhanced interrogation when it comes to people that strap bombs to women and children and send them running to their death in order to murder other civilians.
Torture has revealed zero actionable intelligence to the CIA. Why are you okay with cruelty that serves no purpose?
While the initial intelligence is often not actionable it gives you a string to pull on. Once you unravel enough it gets you a target or their location. Even if they spill all the beans it wouldn't get you actionable intelligence. These guys design their system in such a way to cover the butts of everyone else if someone is compromised. However we did get useful intelligence from enhanced interrogation. Specifically it lead us to the driver which lead us to bin laden. While it took 6 years to pull that thread we would still be spinning our wheels without it. If these guys were so dumb as to design their system in such a simple way that one guy talking exposed everyone we would have been able to flatten the extremists in weeks. These people genocidal religious fanatics, that doesn't mean they are devoid of brains.
The question you asked was how did the establishment get us here, and while its true that democrats have litmus tests, I've not really heard anyone being accused of being a DINO. The closest thing I can remember is the blue-dog democrats and they were still largely thought of as democrats that leaned conservative because they were from conservative districts. But even if the democratic party is making the same mistakes, I don't think it changes the fact that republicans as a party pushed far harder right than the democratic party has mushed left. To this day, the elected officials of the democratic party are still largely centrist and moderate even if the electorate is in some demographics becoming more liberal.
Huh?
Just 10 years ago Democrats were hesitant of gay marriage.
20 years ago gay marriage was not a thing. DOMA. Signed into law by Bill Clinton.
20 years ago. Not very long in the grand scheme of things.
Democrats have shifted massively to the left in recent times. And one can argue that it's accelerating. I mean.. we're trying to get bathrooms for transgenders, reportedly .2-.3% of the population as a whole. Even if we account for the probable fact that there are many more who are in the "closet", as it were, it can't be anymore than 1% of the total population.
They are a representational non-entity.
It's not that the Republicans are turning more right (they're really not). It's that the Democrats have gone so far left on many social issues that many people who normally wouldn't even be interested in politics are feeling attacked.
That's the Tea Party in a nutshell.
That's Trump's supporters in a nutshell. That's why the Republican establishment can't get a handle on them.
And let's be honest here- Their beliefs are under attack. It doesn't matter whether you believe they are in the wrong or not. People whose beliefs are under attack will not respond kindly to you.
The funny thing is in much of the world most democrats would be the right wing party. Hell, even sandersisn't wildly left of actual-centre in australia. (well, maybe centre-left).
It's called a stakeholder position. Also what war crimes are you talking about? If it is turning the middle east into a glass parking lot I am fine with that.
Well, first things first: When designing your parking lot, I strongly recommend against glass; it is rather brittle and likely to puncture tires once it shatters.
Secondly..if you are ok with that you're a dreadful person.
Thirdly: War crimes like threatening to torture prisoners, like promising to go after the families of combatants, etc etc. It's actually pretty frequent.
They threaten to kill my family. I am going to be honest, I have zero problems actually killing their family. Does that make me an evil person, probably does. That being said I will sleep like baby if this what it takes to eradicate these people. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
While the initial intelligence is often not actionable it gives you a string to pull on. Once you unravel enough it gets you a target or their location. Even if they spill all the beans it wouldn't get you actionable intelligence. These guys design their system in such a way to cover the butts of everyone else if someone is compromised. However we did get useful intelligence from enhanced interrogation. Specifically it lead us to the driver which lead us to bin laden. While it took 6 years to pull that thread we would still be spinning our wheels without it. If these guys were so dumb as to design their system in such a simple way that one guy talking exposed everyone we would have been able to flatten the extremists in weeks. These people genocidal religious fanatics, that doesn't mean they are devoid of brains.
Citation that torture lead to the death of Bin Laden please? To be clear no one has any issue with intelligence gathering, but actual torture gets no results. People are more likely to give false intel than anything useful and I must repeat that continuing to engage in torture has a rallying effect on the extremists we are fighting. Additionally killing civilians will achieve a similar negative effect on our goals. People need to see past their own feelings and realize that having actual morals does support our cause and diminishes the cause of the extremists.
As far as socio-economic/pure economic issues are concerned, there's not that much of a difference.
But when it delves into the social issues, you'll notice a significant shift in tone.
I haven't looked into the Republican platforms, but I'm willing to bet on a corresponding shift in tone.
Many folks on the right do engage in fear-mongering. ********s like Glenn Beck and his ilk clearly do engage in fear-mongering. And it seems likely that all this fear-mongering gave rise to the conservative populism we see today.
But all the fear-mongering had to start from somewhere.
Over the timeframe you're talking about, the proportion of Christians in the USA decreased, and the proportion of agnostics/atheists increased. Would that explain a shift away from social (but not necessarily fiscal) conservatism in the political landscape?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
While the initial intelligence is often not actionable it gives you a string to pull on. Once you unravel enough it gets you a target or their location. Even if they spill all the beans it wouldn't get you actionable intelligence. These guys design their system in such a way to cover the butts of everyone else if someone is compromised. However we did get useful intelligence from enhanced interrogation. Specifically it lead us to the driver which lead us to bin laden. While it took 6 years to pull that thread we would still be spinning our wheels without it. If these guys were so dumb as to design their system in such a simple way that one guy talking exposed everyone we would have been able to flatten the extremists in weeks. These people genocidal religious fanatics, that doesn't mean they are devoid of brains.
I think you're confusing the movie Zero Dark Thirty with real life. In the movie, torture gets them the identity of a courier. They already knew who Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti was in real life before they started torturing anyone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's why I support Cruz. Though, I hold out more hope that Trump would address some issues than I would an Establishment guy. With him there is a at least a chance he'll do some of the things he says. With an establishment guy or Democrat there is zero chance.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Also, Carson's announced he's skipping the next debate. He hasn't dropped out of the race, though. Not sure why, but hey, I couldn't tell you why he ran in the first place, or why he didn't drop out earlier.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Maybe.
But there are delegates who would never support Trump who are really looking for anything at this point + still a number of primaries to go.
Most notable: there's a ton of republican money looking to go somewhere. If Romney hops in and gets Cruz and Rubio to heel to the plan (neither appear to be in the ballpark of Trump and neither would cede to the other since they do not get along; even just Rubio pulling out in favor of Romney would do the trick), then Romney is going to probably be the only guy who could bullrush this election. He's a good public speaker and has an air of civility that a lot of voters were looking for out of Rubio and Bush. So, if anyone can do it, it'd be Romney.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Depends on the leader. Hitler, for instance, bears a huge amount of personal responsibility for pushing German discontent over the Treaty of Versailles into World War II and the Holocaust. Without him, there may still have been a different demagogue, but he could easily have taken the country in a direction like still-bad-but-nowhere-near-as-abominable Francoist Spain or Peronist Argentina. In contrast, the leaders of the French Revolution seem to have been riding a wave of discontent that they didn't understand, and were eventually wiped out by it. It took Napoleon to give the French people what they really wanted -- their dignity back -- or maybe he just brought them to heel with some of the old iron fist.
But they're also doing that to turn people against universal healthcare and Planned Parenthood, and yet Trump shows that the people don't actually care about universal healthcare and Planned Parenthood. I'm not denying what the instigators are doing. I'm saying it doesn't seem to be working. The base that so many people, including me, just assumed was getting its opinions from Fox News is turning out to have a mind of its own.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that his punching back at liberals was the only reason for his success.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So you are saying none of the Democrats would address any issues, but Trump might? I think all of the candidates have already been at least talking about addressing issues. It's really not hard. Successfully dealing with is a different affair.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Fox News influences them, but when you see Glenn Beck on a different channel and a splintering of the media itself with several other controls. There are different strains of conservativism, which shouldn't have surprised you at all. Even Rubio talks about Cubans with different types of worlds.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
That's exactly what I'm saying. They are as likely to address debt and deficits as Labour and Turnbull.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
They had a super majority and they only made them worse. They have proven they won't address those issues. The Republicans gave obama the budget he wanted making things worse. They have proven to be cowards. What he is saying is a fact based in the people currently in power, not idle speculation.
Or did you not think things through that far?
Did you think things through at all?
And honestly, explain the wisdom of talking about how much you want results and then using that to justify voting for Trump. You think he's going to get into the White House? You think you guys aren't the laughing stocks of the world for supporting this guy? You can't even get the Republican base to get behind him - something that is absolutely a positive testimony to the integrity of many Republicans. You actually believe that the rest of the country is going to vote for him?
Results? The result is you're handing the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Huh?
Just 10 years ago Democrats were hesitant of gay marriage.
20 years ago gay marriage was not a thing. DOMA. Signed into law by Bill Clinton.
20 years ago. Not very long in the grand scheme of things.
Democrats have shifted massively to the left in recent times. And one can argue that it's accelerating. I mean.. we're trying to get bathrooms for transgenders, reportedly .2-.3% of the population as a whole. Even if we account for the probable fact that there are many more who are in the "closet", as it were, it can't be anymore than 1% of the total population.
They are a representational non-entity.
It's not that the Republicans are turning more right (they're really not). It's that the Democrats have gone so far left on many social issues that many people who normally wouldn't even be interested in politics are feeling attacked.
That's the Tea Party in a nutshell.
That's Trump's supporters in a nutshell. That's why the Republican establishment can't get a handle on them.
And let's be honest here- Their beliefs are under attack. It doesn't matter whether you believe they are in the wrong or not. People whose beliefs are under attack will not respond kindly to you.
Now that is an idea. If Romney entered the race now that could be very interesting actually. I've always thought that part of the reason Trump has been so ascendant is because the other Republican candidates are just so poor. They're like children fighting in the school yard, while Romney is an actual adult. Whatever else you might think Romney is well spoken and has some charisma, and he could stand up to Trump in a debate ten times better than anyone in this group.
If Romney were to jump in and kick the other candidates to the curb, that would be something to see. Despite getting in so late, I believe he would have a better shot of winning than Rubio or Cruz who are going nowhere fast. Could he actually win? Who knows.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
It's called a stakeholder position. Also what war crimes are you talking about? If it is turning the middle east into a glass parking lot I am fine with that. Finally hillary would be no different than any establishment republican in my eyes. Cruz would be ok in my eyes but he puts the wrong issues first. I want a good paying job, also banning abortions is not going to stop them. Girls are just going to get into car accidents to cause abortions. The death count is going to go up. We need to get rid of stigma around teenage and out of wedlock pregnancy. That will stop abortions.
The funny thing is in much of the world most democrats would be the right wing party. Hell, even sandersisn't wildly left of actual-centre in australia. (well, maybe centre-left).
Also,
Well, first things first: When designing your parking lot, I strongly recommend against glass; it is rather brittle and likely to puncture tires once it shatters.
Secondly..if you are ok with that you're a dreadful person.
Thirdly: War crimes like threatening to torture prisoners, like promising to go after the families of combatants, etc etc. It's actually pretty frequent.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Does it still seem like a good idea?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I don't know how to interpret this without looking at the actual voting positions/issues they're talking about.
Otherwise this is just a blob of red and blue to me.
This also ignores the fact that DOMA passed almost almost unanimously in 1996. Imagine a Democrat today saying "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I will vote for legislating protecting that!"
As far as purely social issues are concerned, Democrats have moved certainly to the left. As far as economic and socio-economic issues, Democrats and Republicans have been sparring over the same issue for much of the past half-century and probably will remain doing so unless something new and amazing occurs.
Dude. Gay marriage went from a political no-no to the Supreme Court effectively legalizing it (in a cleanly divided vote, unfortunately) in just 20 years.
Folks in their 40s-50s see this perfectly clear. The attack is REAL to them.
Heck, I'm pretty sure illegal immigration stance from the Democrats went from moderately negative back in the 90s to what appears to be an almost glossing over it today.
The same is true for abortion. I'm pretty sure the platform back in the 90s talked about finding ways to PREVENT abortion from happening.
Here's the Democratic party's talking points during Clinton's 2nd administration (1996)-
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29611
Here's the Democratic Party's talking points during Obama's 2nd administration (2012)-
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
As far as socio-economic/pure economic issues are concerned, there's not that much of a difference.
But when it delves into the social issues, you'll notice a significant shift in tone.
I haven't looked into the Republican platforms, but I'm willing to bet on a corresponding shift in tone.
Many folks on the right do engage in fear-mongering. ********s like Glenn Beck and his ilk clearly do engage in fear-mongering. And it seems likely that all this fear-mongering gave rise to the conservative populism we see today.
But all the fear-mongering had to start from somewhere.
While the initial intelligence is often not actionable it gives you a string to pull on. Once you unravel enough it gets you a target or their location. Even if they spill all the beans it wouldn't get you actionable intelligence. These guys design their system in such a way to cover the butts of everyone else if someone is compromised. However we did get useful intelligence from enhanced interrogation. Specifically it lead us to the driver which lead us to bin laden. While it took 6 years to pull that thread we would still be spinning our wheels without it. If these guys were so dumb as to design their system in such a simple way that one guy talking exposed everyone we would have been able to flatten the extremists in weeks. These people genocidal religious fanatics, that doesn't mean they are devoid of brains.
They threaten to kill my family. I am going to be honest, I have zero problems actually killing their family. Does that make me an evil person, probably does. That being said I will sleep like baby if this what it takes to eradicate these people. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
Over the timeframe you're talking about, the proportion of Christians in the USA decreased, and the proportion of agnostics/atheists increased. Would that explain a shift away from social (but not necessarily fiscal) conservatism in the political landscape?
I think you're confusing the movie Zero Dark Thirty with real life. In the movie, torture gets them the identity of a courier. They already knew who Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti was in real life before they started torturing anyone.