US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

Talking about people living in a news reality bubble with the same guy.

Getting all your news from MSNBC is also bad, I've pointed out - also to my sister IRL.

[Rusty Edge]

Determinations according to the New York Times

Alabama- [Sleezebag], Cruz , Rubio
Arkansas- "          "         "
Georgia-   [Sleezebag], tie between Cruz & Rubio
Massachusetts- [Sleezebag], tie between Kassich & Rubio
Minnesota- Rubio, Cruz, [Sleezebag]
Oklahoma- Cruz, [Sleezebag], Rubio
Tennessee- [Sleezebag], Cruz, Rubio
Texas-       Cruz, [Sleezebag], Rubio
Vermont- Too Close to Call with  [Sleezebag] and Kasich fighting for 1st, followed by Rubio.
Virginia- [Sleezebag], Rubio, Cruz
Alaska- No Returns

[Sleezebag] was expected to win everything but Texas. So Minnesota and Oklahoma are upsets.

Cruz's strategy was supposed to be an Evangelical win in Iowa, followed up with South Carolina and the Southern states tonight. He won Iowa, but lost South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia. [Sleezebag] as done better with Evangelicals than Cruz in most of those  contests.

Rubio's plan was to stay in for the long haul, and build his delegate count.

I think Kassich was trying to hang on for the Great Lakes states, and point out that he does well in the states needed to win a general election.

[Rusty Edge]

March 5: Kansas, Kentucky (Republican), Louisiana, Maine (Republican) and Nebraska (Democrat)

March 6: Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan; Maine (Democrat) and Puerto Rico (Republican)

March 8: Hawaii (Republican), Idaho (Republican), Michigan and Mississippi

March 9: Democratic debate in Miami

March 10: Republican debate in Miami

March 12: District of Columbia (Republican), Guam (Republican) and Northern Mariana Islands (Democrat)

March 15: Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands (Republican) and Ohio

March 19: U.S. Virgin Islands (Republican)

March 21: Republican debate in Salt Lake City

March 22: American Samoa (Republican), Arizona, Idaho (Democrat) and Utah

March 26: Alaska, Hawaii and Washington State (all three Democrat)

[binTravkin]

It worked just fine for the USA for quite some time. It certainly works better than trying to be the worlds policeman.
"Friends with all allies with none." Thomas Jefferson

You mean "worked just fine while the rest of the world almost killed itself thus depriving U.S. of important markets, which caused, e.g. the 1920.-1921. slump"?
Also, try that in the age of ballistic missiles and nukes and see how it goes.
Also, try building Silicon Valley while being encroached by hostile regimes.

So, it only "worked" and was a reality as long as there was no credible threat to US.
In mid thirties it was plentifully clear in U.S. elite that that age is over.
See various fleet/air force programs designed to deal with the new possible threats.

As I already explained, U.S. needs the rest of the world to be a stable market open for U.S. goods/services.
That or your economy is bust, especially with the current debt levels.
The price you pay for that in defense expenses may be too large, but the actions Obama is taking compared to US capabilities are disproportionally low.


That 911 thing is a good argument for intervention.
Had U.S. intervened in Afghanistan earlier, would probably not be possible and while you'd get more expenses for defense, you'd also retain more liberties and have less spending for internal forces.

Funny thing - Western Europeans are so fond of saying that the US has a center-right party and an extreme-right party, that I get pretty surprised sometimes when Central and Eastern Europeans speak up.  It's like you guys aren't all one person who thinks exactly alike.

We don't hold Western European politicians in high regard either.
E.g. in UK they have a freaking parallel justice system, based on Sharia law.
And have allowed other basic rights to be "relative" because "cultural differences".
Moral relativism and rampant PC is on the loose in at least UK, Germany & Sweden.
A (relatively) small immigrant population has changed Western Europe's face for the worst.
The most important values like "one law for all" and freedom of speech are given up in the name of "understanding cultural differences" and "not inciting ethnic tensions".

And many don't even realize it is going on, because the media would not report it (see Cologne rape vs media), they are told not to wander into ghettos and racial segregation is abundant in large cities (just see London district ethnic/religious/race statistics).
Since I am an Eastern European and have relatives that have emigrated to UK, Germany, Norway, I get quite a lot of first-hand insights, because immigrants more often than not tend to live in those same ghettos (real estate price) and see what is going on with the "multiculturalism" there.


The whole Syria thing could be solved by EU too.
But they did nothing and when [poop] hit the fan, Merkel merrily invited all refugees to Germany.
She did not consult either Germans themselves nor services who would have to take care of them.
Result - massive extra costs for Germany (not sure how/when extra working hands the immigrants provide are going to return this investment), massive reduction in own popularity, massive dissent in other EU countries, who were not given a voice, but immigrants either move through them in their way (Greece, Hungary, Slovenia) or are "spilling over" (Sweden, Denmark, France, UK), massively increased chance of Brexit (was 40/60, now 50/50) and with it, collapse of EU, countries mulling suspension of Shengen, etc.

This also fed hugely into rise of the right in EU, which was happening anyway, because the right mostly correctly warned about the things that DID happen in the end:
1. Most of so called "refugees" are not. Donald Tusk, EU, admitted that only around 30% could rightly be considered refugees and many of those come from Turkey where they have been granted asylum, housing, etc, so they are technically/legally "economic migrants" (migrating towards better accommodation in rich Europe).
https://euobserver.com/migration/131363

2. There are radicals/jihadists among them. Now confirmed that some of the latest attacks and attempts came from people who used immigration flow to immigrate without having to pass any checks.
http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-attacker-syrian-migrant-2015-11

3. The facilities are not ready to indiscriminately take in everybody:
http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/we-cant-take-any-more-germany-closes-border-stops-all-trains.html/

4. Crime will increase and police is not ready to cope with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

5. Assimilation/integration is failing even with the previous, slow immigration, multiculturalism is a failure.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-germany-multiculturalism-failures
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1061340.html <-- look at the date of this article, warning 10 yrs ago and it's exactly what has happened

Etc, etc.
Basically most warnings except the most radical have come true.

[vonbach]

Also, try that in the age of ballistic missiles and nukes and see how it goes.

It works just fine actually. Certainly better than empire building.
Empires always come at the expense of the native countries then end up with the
country falling apart. What has the Pax Americana actually gained for average Americans?
Endless wars and higher taxes? The simple fact is we cant afford our empire anymore.

So, it only "worked" and was a reality as long as there was no credible threat to US.
In mid thirties it was plentifully clear in U.S. elite that that age is over.
See various fleet/air force programs designed to deal with the new possible threats.

What threat might that be? No power on earth could've been a credible threat to continental US even then.
Right up to the start of WW2 the whole country was solidly pro isolationist it took a president months away
from getting impeached and blatantly trying to provoke both Germany and Japan to get us in that war.
Neither power was even close to a match to the USA.

That 911 thing is a good argument for intervention.

If it weren't for our Pro Israel policies we wouldn't have enemies in the middle east.

5. Assimilation/integration is failing even with the previous, slow immigration, multiculturalism is a failure.

Of course its a failure its why empires fail in the first place. Sooner or later the state looses the power to police the disparate peoples and then the
whole thing comes apart.

[binTravkin]

It works just fine actually.

Cuba, 1962. - the year and place people across the world understood that isolationism cannot possibly work anymore and there's no bringing it back unless you want somebody to carry "the big stick" to your front door and then "speak softly" with you.
And we're in 2016.

Certainly better than empire building.
Empires always come at the expense of the native countries then end up with the
country falling apart.

U.S. is not an empire.

What has the Pax Americana actually gained for average Americans?

I explained it already, although it should be plentifully obvious, given some perspective of human history until Pax Americana.

Endless wars and higher taxes?

Your taxes are low, relative to world, both relative to individual earnings and relative to GDP:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/how-low-are-us-taxes-compared-to-other-countries/267148/
One of the reasons your taxes are low is because you have what you call "an empire".
For historical precedent of similar proportion see Britain, 19th century.

The simple fact is we cant afford our empire anymore.

No, it's the other way around.
You can't afford losing your global markets and influence abroad.
Should that happen, an economic collapse of epic proportions would ensue.
To give you an idea why, see U.S. National wealth vs U.S. GDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_wealth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
As you can see, U.S. national wealth is 4 times China's while U.S. GDP is <2 times China's
Obviously, that ratio difference is not buried underground somewhere in U.S.
Most of it is either invested abroad or is part of global assets of global companies that are based in U.S.

What threat might that be? No power on earth could've been a credible threat to continental US even then.
Right up to the start of WW2 the whole country was solidly pro isolationist it took a president months away
from getting impeached and blatantly trying to provoke both Germany and Japan to get us in that war.
Neither power was even close to a match to the USA.

Credible threat does not mean "match".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans
And you seem to be misinformed about U.S. military capabilities in 20s and 30s.
Most of the capability was built starting in late 30s, partly as part of the mentioned war plans and peaked in 44/45.
Until late 30s your fleet was only somewhat bigger than Japan's (see London Naval Treaty and related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Naval_Treaty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States#1920s:_Naval_disarmament), airforce was small and underfunded/partly obsolete and army was virtually non-existant.



As you can see, military spending of U.S. is also on a long-term declining trend if compared relatively to GDP.

If it weren't for our Pro Israel policies we wouldn't have enemies in the middle east.

Pro Israel policies are a side-show or decoy.
The story is about oil.
And you are mistaken about enemies.
There are enemies that hate you not because what you did, but who you are.
Hate freedom, equal rights (particularly for women), education, etc.
And radical islamists are not the only ones.

Of course its a failure its why empires fail in the first place. Sooner or later the state looses the power to police the disparate peoples and then the
whole thing comes apart.

There were no empires mentioned in that quote.
It was about immigration and incompetent politicians.

[Buster's Uncle]

Rusty, how's the third party talk coming along after last night?

[Buster's Uncle]

I've heard it argued -and I think there's more than a little truth to it- that the US emerged from WWII with something of an 'empire' and has always been uncomfortable with it, refusing to even admit that's what it was.  It's antithetical to the ideas of democracy, having an empire, but what else were US 'possessions' like the Marshall Islands?

For the Romans, something like leadership of NATO would have been the first step towards straight up annexing Western Europe.  -They treated alliances like roach motels -you could ask Rome for help, but you couldn't ask them to leave afterwards- and grew their empire that way as much as by direct violent conquest.

So that American discomfort with empire is definitely a good thing for the rest of the world, at least those interested in running their own countries.  (One of the triumphs of our post-WWII administration of occupied territory was that we ever let them rule themselves again at all.  Thank those democratic ideals for that.)

However, the discomfort could go away - I cannot recommend depending on US support too much; Rome was a 'democracy' (oligarchy, actually, but still a democracy for the ruling class) the first few hundred years after it started expanding.  It is not a coincidence that I bring this up in a time I think American democracy is in a lot of trouble, thanks to our own developing oligarchy of bossmen and their dupes...

[Buster's Uncle]

After Super Tuesday, Bernie Sanders says he’s taking the fight to every state
Liz Goodwin  Senior National Affairs Reporter  March 01, 2016



BURLINGTON, Vt. — Bernie Sanders may be facing tough delegate math against his rival Hillary Clinton, but the progressive candidate told a crowd of his strongest supporters that he would fight for the nomination in every state.

“At the end of tonight, 15 states will have voted. Thirty-five states remain,” Sanders told a Vermont crowd of thousands. “Let me assure you that we are going to take our fight for economic justice, for social justice, for environmental sanity, for a world of peace to every one of those states.”

The Vermont senator assured his supporters that he will still pick up delegates in states he loses on Super Tuesday.

“This is not a general election, it’s not winner-take-all. If you get 52 percent or 48 percent, you end up with roughly the same amount of delegates,” he said.

The senator is right that he is picking up delegates even in states he loses, but Super Tuesday has seriously dented his chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. Though he did better than some expected — winning his home state of Vermont in a landslide, plus Oklahoma, Colorado and Minnesota — Sanders was falling short of making up for Clinton’s very strong showing in the South, where she won six states, and in delegate-rich Massachusetts. (Superdelegates, who are chosen by the party and not allocated based on the popular vote, also overwhelmingly support Clinton.) On this course, Sanders is likely to find himself in a delegate hole he cannot dig out of.

But this pessimism has not reached Vermont, the campaign or the Sanders supporters who contributed $42 million to his campaign last month, outdoing Clinton’s fundraising machine. The hometown crowd gave Sanders a rock star’s reception, cheering for a full minute when he arrived on stage with his wife, Jane. Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and other campaign surrogates introduced Sanders as the “next president of the United States” to the cheering crowd.

Sanders appears to have the money and the will to go all the way. And he doesn’t have to worry about big-time donors deciding it’s time for him to pull the plug if he can’t catch up with Clinton.

“We think we’re going to have the resources to go all the way,” Sanders’ senior adviser, Tad Devine, said. “In the past, campaigns ended because the bundlers said, ‘We aren’t going to bundle anymore.’ We don’t have any bundlers. The people who are investing in this campaign are doing so not because it’s a smart money calculation, but because they believe in Bernie Sanders.”

Devine said the campaign is looking forward to upcoming races in Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Louisiana and Michigan. “We’re going to compete and win in as many states as possible,” he said.

Devine dismissed the possibility that Sanders supporters will lose some of their enthusiasm as they see their candidate’s chances dim.

“You know, I think our supporters are enthusiastic about Bernie and his message, not enthusiastic about his delegate totals,” he said.

Sanders has from the beginning been a candidate of ideas, when he entered the race nearly a year ago with almost zero name recognition to take on a candidate most Democrats saw as inevitable. His surprising popularity pushed Clinton to the left on many issues, from the Keystone Pipeline to economic inequality, and has changed the race forever. The money that keeps pouring into this campaign means he can continue to deliver this message, even if he doesn’t have a shot at the nomination.

“What I have said is that this campaign is not just about electing a president, it is about making a political revolution,” Sanders said at his victory rally.

One thing the campaign says won’t happen, no matter the outcome? Sharper attacks on Clinton.

“I’ve worked with Bernie for 20 years. We’ve never run a negative ad, and I predict we never will,” Devine said.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/after-super-tuesday-bernie-sanders-says-hes-031241686.html

[Buster's Uncle]

About free trade-

A rising tide lifts all boats.  I get it; I believe it.

HowEVER - I already told the story in this thread of temping in a textile mill the day the management called all the full-time employees to a meeting to have the gall to ask them to vote for NAFTA-friendly candidates, and the woman who rhetorically said to me "Sure, I'll vote to send my job to Mexico."  Textiles (and furniture, somewhat) were the basis of this region's economy.

That mill is closed, now, -most mills around here are- and I wonder what that woman is doing to make ends meet since her job went to Mexico.

I've worked -briefly, thank god- in a lot of factories, and I've been migrant labor for several years.  You are welcome to guess what radicalized me on labor issues.  (Protip: me saying the Bosses want to make us all slaves may have been based on having been treated like one.  A lot.)

The Bossmen Love Free Trade - and it's a lot more complicated than that rising tide argument to people and regions out of work while the economy adjusts.  I don't know what the best answer is, but it isn't simple.

[Buster's Uncle]

I'm seeing that I'm far from the only one really put out with Mr. Christie for that stupid endorsement.  He's catching some serious, SERIOUS bounce-back.

There is not enough justice in the world, but it's not fallen to zero quite yet.

[Rusty Edge]

I'm seeing that I'm far from the only one really put out with Mr. Christie for that stupid endorsement.  He's catching some serious, SERIOUS bounce-back.

There is not enough justice in the world, but it's not fallen to zero quite yet.

I gotta go do stuff. I think Paul Ryan, Cruz, and Rubio have all gone on record saying they'd support the nominee.

I'm keeping a list of [Sleezebag] endorsers...
Palin
Coulter
Christie
Limbaugh and Hannity, too, no matter how much they try to finesse it.
Ben Carson
Ted Nugent
Lou Dobbs
Pat Buchanan
Phyllis Schlafly
Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Jerry Falwell Jr.

[vonbach]

I've worked -briefly, thank god- in a lot of factories, and I've been migrant labor for several years.  You are welcome to guess what radicalized me on labor issues.  (Protip: me saying the Bosses want to make us all slaves may have been based on having been treated like one.  A lot.)

The Bossmen Love Free Trade - and it's a lot more complicated than that rising tide argument to people and regions out of work while the economy adjusts.  I don't know what the best answer is, but it isn't simple.

The answer is simple close the borders and deport the illegals, go after the employers who employ them, and then reinstitute tariffs.
Then watch the economy fix itself.

U.S. is not an empire.

Yes it is. Or is American imperialism just my imagination.
Your taxes are low, relative to world, both relative to individual earnings and relative to GDP:

Cough cough lol. We pay more in taxes than a medieval peasant did. They they were expected to give a third of what they produce .
We pay about three quarters of our income. We have an economy based on looting the middle class and accounting fraud how long do you think that will last?

There were no empires mentioned in that quote.

Well there is Rome and  Parthia for a start. The Ottoman empire and the Soviet union (just take a look at Yugoslavia).

[Buster's Uncle]

I agree that that answer is very simple.

[vonbach]

I agree that that answer is very simple.

Please don't insult me. At least try to follow your own forum rules.