Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[mc ukrneal]

I thought this was pretty interesting, because it focuses on the advantages/disadvantages of having a strong infrastructure in place...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/cruz-strategist-trump-has-a-math-problem-224294

[Todd]

Will this be the spew that does Trump in?  Nah.  There's more to come.

[Brian]

"Russian government hackers" got into the Democratic computer system and stole DNC research on Trump. DNC has reached out to cybersecurity firms for help; and, of course, there's rampant speculation as to what the Russian government's motive is here.

[Brian]

According to Trump's favorite media outlet, the Russians also hacked into, or attempted hacking into, Trump and Clinton campaigns and some GOP PACs, with varying success. They seem to think it's good old-fashioned espionage at work.

[Todd]

They seem to think it's good old-fashioned espionage at work.

Pfft, there's no espionage in today's world. 

[knight66]

At last, a sensible explanation: Trump is The Manchurian Candidate.

Mike

[Karl Henning]

Will this be the spew that does Trump in?  Nah.  There's more to come.

The consistent theme this season has been, how vile soever anything El Tupé says, his devoted fans will accept it.

[Brian]

Happy 70th birthday, Donald! Enjoy a well-done steak!

[Brian]

I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!

[Todd]

I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!

No Green Party?  Not that I'm complaining.

[Madiel]

I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!

Clinton for Prime Minister?

[Gurn Blanston]

I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!

I like that, it works for me. Not surprisingly, Kasich would be my member (well, that's interesting to say, isn't it? ). Especially where they have him actually lined up on the graph. I've been behind this idea for years, I just didn't know it until I saw it.   

[Dancing Divertimentian]

At last, a sensible explanation: Trump is The Manchurian Candidate.

Mike

HA!!

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't care what any of you think about Obama ("worst president in history," and other yapping), but I thought his speech tonight was outstanding. He just mopped the floor with that 70-year-old insect.

[snyprrr]

I smell kind bud in this Thread... sniff sniff...

[bhodges]

I don't care what any of you think about Obama ("worst president in history," and other yapping), but I thought his speech tonight was outstanding. He just mopped the floor with that 70-year-old insect.

Yes, I completely agree.

--Bruce

[Ken B]

I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!

I guess the height of absurdity in discussing American politics is to ignore the gerrymander. It's also ridiculous to put Trump as the right winger.

[Madiel]

I guess the height of absurdity in discussing American politics is to ignore the gerrymander. It's also ridiculous to put Trump as the right winger.

Good points. It did seem odd that they labelled him as "populist" but still placed him at the right hand end.

The other problem of course is that the United States does have a Parliament. It's called Congress. And as you say it frequently involves a gerrymander.

One of the greatest frustrations of living in Australia, where we have a Prime Minister, is that people behave more and more as if we have a presidential system like the United States and declare that they are voting for this or that leader, when in fact there is no public vote for Prime Minister at all. When we had a hung parliament after the 2010 election, people went into meltdown declaring how they'd voted for Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott as PM, when neither of those names would've been on the ballot paper in 148 electorates out of 150. Reactions in the UK were similar when they had a hung parliament. People seem to believe the process has somehow failed if no single party has a majority of seats and they therefore don't immediately know who will be the PM. People similarly can't cope here if the PM loses power because their party votes them out.

This graphic similarly seems to equate a vote for a leader with a vote for a party. And that simply isn't how a parliamentary system legally works, even if the populist view seems to be that it's how it works - a view that has, ironically, filtered in from the American system.

If the United States had a Parliament, the Prime Minister would be the leader in the House of Representatives of the party that could command a majority in that house.

[28Orot]

I don't care what any of you think about Obama ("worst president in history," and other yapping), but I thought his speech tonight was outstanding. He just mopped the floor with that 70-year-old insect.

Costs and benefits of naming the enemy.

WW2 the allies had no problem or fear to name the enemy which was an ideological one that started by the Germans but shared by many other nations, like the Hungarians, Austrians and the Ukrainians. So naming an ideology will not cause every person of a German, Hungarian and Ukrainian decent to leave their hosts countries and travel to Europe to join their fellow countrymen in the war against the allies. A person may be connected to his land under religious terms, but the ideological terms are not shared by all countrymen and that is why it was more comfortable to specifically name the enemy in ww2 without the fear of mass gatherings of the exiles back to their native lands to wage a war to defend their ancestral homeland.

The case with Radical Islam is way different and that is the reason so many are reluctant to openly identity the enemy and call it for what it is, Obama's speech was an eye opener, he said that he perfectly knows who the enemy is, but put into question the wisdom of actually naming it. If the war on terror will be less effective by naming the enemy outright, then maybe its wise to keep it blurry. Many Muslims who are not religious, or are not radicalized yet may unite under the banner of 'The United States has openly declared a war on Islam'. For us Westerners we try to play it politically correct and say 'Radical Islam' as if we are all experts in the history of Islam and its conquests, and somehow create this separation. The Muslims of the world are not stupid, they know that when we westerns say 'Radical Islam' we simply try to be polite and we mean Islam, but we can't say it, and they know that the war will be against this religion. I'm simply saying how they will view it from their perspective.

Given this is the complex situation, Obama and other progressive liberals, know the futility of identifying the enemy as 'Radical Islam' because Muslims will simply not be fooled, they will never make this separation, for them any opened and declared war on 'Radical Islam' will be interpreted as a declaration of war on 1.2 Billion people. Something that no nation, even America can do, for its beyond the realm of men or country no matter how powerful to declare a war of this magnitude, this is for something that only a Higher Power can deal with effectively.

We the republicans need to reconsider this strategy of naming the enemy, if the naming will disrupt or cripple our ability to effectively deal with the scourge of terrorism, then by all means we should drop this request. So far, besides beating our chests with pride the suggested naming of the enemy has not conjured up any real benefits in actually winning the war on terror.

Lets put it in simple terms, No Trump, No Obama, and No Clinton, and no human being can defeat 1.2 billion people, its impossible, and it will never happen unless we will lose our humanity with it together, and we'll turn into beasts with no conscience and that's a too high of a price to pay.

What is the alternative?

Faith, prayer and trying to 'manage' the problem as smartly and intelligently as possible to minimize the scourge of terrorism from our peoples, and wait for heavenly intervention cause this problem is as such where the power of men ends, and the intervention of the Heaven takes over.

Best Wishes,

Saul

[Brian]

The other problem of course is that the United States does have a Parliament. It's called Congress.
.....
If the United States had a Parliament, the Prime Minister would be the leader in the House of Representatives of the party that could command a majority in that house.

I'm glad you came 'round and I didn't have to correct you. 

BTW came here to say one thing I do appreciate about Trump: no matter what awful thing he tweets, he never deletes it. 99% of his crazy tweets are still there, because he appreciates that deleting them is just as bad PR as leaving them. (Assuming that the things he says are, in fact, bad PR, outside of his own fan base.)