Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Personally? Because I am terrified of who a Republican President would put on to the United States Supreme Court. There are going to be several vacancies in the next few years, and they already have the stable of extremist jurists sitting in Court of Appeals waiting for their chance to push the law to the right for the next 30 years. I don't think Bernie Sanders is electable nationwide. If he gets the Democratic nomination, he's going to get the Goldwater/McGovern treatment in the general election. I'm pretty much the same with you. I'm going to vote Democrat in a presidential election for the rest of my life simply because of the Supreme Court. Conservatives screwed around for 40 years, but all future Supreme Court nominees are going to look like Alito - supremely educated, lacking the eccentricities of Scalia and Thomas, and ideologically rigid without the "scary" rhetorical flourishes we have seen in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Iraq War 3? I've been pointing out for years now to many here (Who continue to not understand), that it takes both sides to make peace. The war has not stopped, we're just in retreat right now and Iraq was just a campaign within this war. What's the "other side" in this war? Genuine question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Because I am terrified of who a Republican President would put on to the United States Supreme Court. There are going to be several vacancies in the next few years, and they already have the stable of extremist jurists sitting in Court of Appeals waiting for their chance to push the law to the right for the next 30 years. I don't think Hillary is electable nationwide. Should be a fun election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I don't think Hillary is electable nationwide. Should be a fun election. You might be right. She has a lot of negative baggage. But at least she isn't a self-identified Socialist in a country where half the population instinctively thinks Josef Stalin whenever the word "socialist" is heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I don't think Hillary is electable nationwide. Should be a fun election. I don't frankly understand this conversation. What does "national" mean? I feel like barring a cataclysmic change in voting patterns, the Democratic nominee for president wakes up on election day with 240 electoral votes and the Republican with around 200. It really comes down ultimately to Ohio and Florida. So is Hillary electable in Ohio and Florida is the question, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 So why not support the guy trying to reform the system? Well, as I said earlier, I'll believe it when I see it. Sanders is not the first person to made strong declarations about how he won't be like that early on the campaign. Everyone else has eventually given up and played ball, or fallen out of contention. If he manages to be a viable option and stick to his declarations about being a different kind of candidate, then he'll win a lot of respect from me. But I'm not going to get my hopes up in June of 2015. Sorry. Let's see him get over that hurdle and be relevant in August of 2016. If he is, then I'll put more thought into it. Until then it's just lip service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I don't frankly understand this conversation. What does "national" mean? I feel like barring a cataclysmic change in voting patterns, the Democratic nominee for president wakes up on election day with 240 electoral votes and the Republican with around 200. It really comes down ultimately to Ohio and Florida. So is Hillary electable in Ohio and Florida is the question, I think. This is the best argument for Jeb He wins florida And then it's a campaign for 2 states. Ohio and Virginia. 2012 is the low water mark for GOP candidates. I don't see how any of them do worse than mitt did. So the election comes down to this question- how many of obamas voters show up for Hillary. I don't think there is more than a handful of Obama voters who will SWITCH, But if they don't show up, the result will be the same as if they awitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 This is the best argument for Jeb He wins florida And then it's a campaign for 2 states. Ohio and Virginia. 2012 is the low water mark for GOP candidates. I don't see how any of them do worse than mitt did. So the election comes down to this question- how many of obamas voters show up for Hillary. I don't think there is more than a handful of Obama voters who will SWITCH, But if they don't show up, the result will be the same as if they awitch Also a good argument for Rubio. I actually think he wins Florida too and is more likely to win Virginia Colorado, Nevada and Ohio than Jeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 This is the best argument for Jeb He wins florida And then it's a campaign for 2 states. Ohio and Virginia. 2012 is the low water mark for GOP candidates. I don't see how any of them do worse than mitt did. So the election comes down to this question- how many of obamas voters show up for Hillary. I don't think there is more than a handful of Obama voters who will SWITCH, But if they don't show up, the result will be the same as if they awitch I agree with the first part of this. Florida is a huge selling point for Jeb. Ohio would be a huge selling point for Kasich too. I'm not sure about the last paragraph. Hillary might well energize women voters. Also, the economy is quite a bit better now that it was a few years ago. People might not be quite as anti-government as they were then. Overall, there are a lot more Democratic voters than Republican voters. The GOP voters might not be as energized either. It's hard to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I don't frankly understand this conversation. What does "national" mean? I feel like barring a cataclysmic change in voting patterns, the Democratic nominee for president wakes up on election day with 240 electoral votes and the Republican with around 200. It really comes down ultimately to Ohio and Florida. So is Hillary electable in Ohio and Florida is the question, I think. Hillary is closer to Kerry and Romney than obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Hillary is closer to Kerry and Romney than obama So you hope. Polling data doesn't really support that, but that's ok. It's early. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/hillary-clinton-presidential-election-poll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 So you hope. Polling data doesn't really support that, but that's ok. It's early. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/hillary-clinton-presidential-election-poll Because one side is having a race, the other has anointed a heir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Because one side is having a race, the other has anointed a heir. Treason! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Hillary is closer to Kerry and Romney than Obama And if Kerry had won Florida or Ohio, he would have been president. So....I'm exactly right like I always am. This is the best argument for Jeb He wins florida And then it's a campaign for 2 states. Ohio and Virginia. 2012 is the low water mark for GOP candidates. I don't see how any of them do worse than mitt did. So the election comes down to this question- how many of obamas voters show up for Hillary. I don't think there is more than a handful of Obama voters who will SWITCH, But if they don't show up, the result will be the same as if they awitch Jeb would be formidable assuming that people can separate him from his brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Because one side is having a race, the other has anointed a heir. Unless Jeb takes it in which case, both sides will have their heir apparent. More, for the Repubs the line of succession will be intact. Everyone knew after W finished his term it would be McCain's turn. After that, everyone knew that the second place Romney would get his shot. Next time around, unless the Republicans win it whoever comes in second will be the Republican candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeesburgSkinFan Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/23/jeb-bush-i-would-fire-opm-director-over-hack-attack/ Jeb got this one right. The Director of OPM and her CIO are responsible for the largest breach of Personally Identifiable Information in United States history. If President Obama does not fire both of them, it's sending a message to all federal employees that doing wrong is OK. It opens the door to grievance filings by employees that get into trouble. They can simply refer to these two federal employees and the historic level of gross negligence and say - they got off with nothing - why are you picking on me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Unless Jeb takes it in which case, both sides will have their heir apparent. More, for the Repubs the line of succession will be intact. Everyone knew after W finished his term it would be McCain's turn. After that, everyone knew that the second place Romney would get his shot. Next time around, unless the Republicans win it whoever comes in second will be the Republican candidate. But atleast there was a vetting process. The DNC gives zero ****s what the people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Really? They lost more information than, say, Home Depot or Target (or any other company who hasn't revealed that they've been hacked)? And CIOs are personally responsible for preventing intrusion by foreign GOVERNMENTS? Although I also somewhat agree with you. Sure would be nice, if somebody actually was punished when something bad happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Disagree Leesburg. Coming from a vendor perspective in the cyber security world, I can honestly say that hackers are winning at the moment. You can't make an example out of everyone, particularly when dealing with things beyond their control. "Create a stronger firewall..." What does that even mean? If for instance the OPM director and CIO received unlimited funding for security and chose not to use it, then sure, fire them. But in my experience, IT depts do what they can with the resources they have. But it's not enough, and it's going to have to change. Across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 The DNC gives zero ****s what the people think. Bunch o Ivory Tower Eggheads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 The DNC gives zero ****s what the people think. That's one of the things I admire about ES. The number of people who are authorities about the inner thought processes of organizations I've never even seen the inside of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeesburgSkinFan Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Disagree Leesburg. Coming from a vendor perspective in the cyber security world, I can honestly say that hackers are winning at the moment. You can't make an example out of everyone, particularly when dealing with things beyond their control. "Create a stronger firewall..." What does that even mean? If for instance the OPM director and CIO received unlimited funding for security and chose not to use it, then sure, fire them. But in my experience, IT depts do what they can with the resources they have. But it's not enough, and it's going to have to change. Across the board. I get that preventing all intrusions is impossible, but OPM didn't even encrypt the Social Security Numbers of the 4.2 million (reports as high as 18 million at present) people hacked. I don't see how that's remotely defensible. Heads should roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Just idle speculation, here. But I wonder if Obama's proposal to normalize relations with Cuba, affects the balance in Florida. n Note for outsiders: Florida is a different state from pretty much the rest of the US. In the rest of the US, "Hispanic" mostly means "Mexican", and they vote Democrat. in Florida, "Hispanic" often means "Cuban", and they vote Republican. (Last I read, Hispanics vote Republican 70%, in Florida.) And the Cubans hate the Mexicans, and their #1 legislative agenda is to never lift the embargo with Cuba. Which Obama is proposing to do. Does this action cause Florida to shift? Maybe from "tossup" to "leans Republican"? (Or were the Cubans already voting R, anyway?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 It's amazing how many predictions there are about who is better for winning what state and why candidate X will do better just because. We still have 17 months until the election. This process sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 Obama had something more important attached to his name in 2012, Incumbent. In recent history; only Ford, Carter and Bush I lost reelection. Well, in Ford's case it was an election to his own full term. I don't find this persuasive. A few things:1. Obama basically had the word "socialist" attached to his name in 2012. He was elected anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.