2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

This isn't an issue with early voting though. This is entirely different.

It's not entirely different. The argument in favor of early voting is always "Republicans want to suppress the vote."

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I guess the big issue I have with that is......... the way politics works, they can make an argument that just about anything is relevant. So it seems like it would be open season.

I think that ship has sailed.

 

[GoIrish41]

What did they "go after" Hillary for?

- Billing Records at her law firm
- Whitewater
- Cattle future investments
- Watergate legal defense
- Covering up Bill's "transgressions" as governor

all happened before the election in 1992. After the election, the list is long, long, long

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Important detail: With less than 1% of the vote reporting. The polls had literally just closed. Still called it for HRC.

Arizona primary: Just after midnight, after 5-hour wait, final voter casts ballot in downtown Phoenix

There were 60 polling places for all of Maricopa County. There are 1.25 million voters there. That breaks down to about 21,000 per polling site. Of course there were absurd lines. I heard that there were closer to 200 sites last election.

By comparison, Pima County (where Tucson is) had 130 polling locations for 300,000 voters.

 

[kmoose]

- Billing Records at her law firm
- Whitewater
- Cattle future investments
- Watergate legal defense
- Covering up Bill's "transgressions" as governor

all happened before the election in 1992. After the election, the list is long, long, long

Right............. you can totally see the parallel between whether a potential First Lady has broken ethics laws all over God's Green Earth, and a potential First Lady who posed for some tasteful nude photos.

Got it.

 

[kmoose]

I think that ship has sailed.

Not with wives and children it hasn't............. yet. But it sure looks like someone just threw off the lines and the tugs are all in place.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

It's not entirely different. The argument in favor of early voting is always "Republicans want to suppress the vote."

The voting, in general, in AZ is fucked. I'll agree to that. It hurt both parties (except for the winners, obviously).

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Arizona primary: Just after midnight, after 5-hour wait, final voter casts ballot in downtown Phoenix

There were 60 polling places for all of Maricopa County. There are 1.25 million voters there. That breaks down to about 21,000 per polling site. Of course there were absurd lines. I heard that there were closer to 200 sites last election.

By comparison, Pima County (where Tucson is) had 130 polling locations for 300,000 voters.

Yeah they dropped the ball on that big time. Blatantly obvious in Latino communities where some had one, others had none.

In Helen Purcell’s mad dash to consolidate polling locations across Maricopa County, she somehow forgot to have polling places open in densely-populated Latino communities on the day of the primary. This is a glaring oversight given that 40.8 percent of Phoenix’s 1.5 million residents are Latino. State Senator Martin Quezada told AZCentral.com that the lack of available polling locations for the Latino community was problematic.

“In my district, there is only one polling place,’’ Sen. Quezada said. “In my neighboring district, LD 30, there are no polling places.”

“It is no coincidence many poor and predominantly Latino areas didn’t get a polling place,” AZCentral.com editorial columnist Elvia Diaz wrote Tuesday night.

 

[irishfan]

Poll: John Kasich, Ted Cruz voters prefer Donald Trump as second choice - POLITICO

Trump's ceiling would keep climbing when other contenders drop out? Who knew?

 

[Legacy]

Why are Americans so angry? (from BBC)

Americans are generally known for having a positive outlook on life, but with the countdown for November's presidential election now well under way, polls show voters are angry. This may explain the success of non-mainstream candidates such as Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders. But what is fuelling the frustration?

A CNN/ORC poll carried out in December 2015 suggests 69% of Americans are either "very angry" or "somewhat angry" about "the way things are going" in the US.

And the same proportion - 69% - are angry because the political system "seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington," according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from November.

Many people are not only angry, they are angrier than they were a year ago, according to an NBC/Esquire survey last month - particularly Republicans (61%) and white people (54%) but also 42% ofWhy are Americans so angry? Democrats, 43% of Latinos and 33% of African Americans.

Candidates have sensed the mood and are adopting the rhetoric. Donald Trump, who has arguably tapped into voters' frustration better than any other candidate, says he is "very, very angry" and will "gladly accept the mantle of anger" while rival Republican Ben Carson says he has encountered "many Americans who are discouraged and angry as they watch the American dream slipping away".

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders says: "I am angry and millions of Americans are angry," while Hillary Clinton says she "understands why people get angry".

Here are five reasons why some voters feel the American dream is in tatters.

(See article)

 

[pkt77242]

Ted Cruz: Police need to 'patrol' Muslim neighborhoods - CNNPolitics.com

Cruz defends comments about Muslim patrols

On one hand he compares it to increasing patrols in gang neighborhoods and on the other hand he says stuff like this:

"We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized."

My problems with his statements are
1. That what he is calling for isn't the same as patrolling gang neighborhoods, it is more like patrolling a middle class black neighborhood because many gang members are black.

2. Preemptive law enforcement brings up lots of issues. Can we single out people because of religion? Does it make Muslims feel distanced from us (and threatened) and thus more likely to become radicalized? Should we instead be trying to draw them more into American culture, to prevent the risk of radicalization? Are these things that Cruz is calling for more likely to cause us issues than to help prevent them?

3. If we suspect people of becoming radicalized of course we should step up surveillance of them but that isn't what he seems to be talking about and we already do this.

How do others feel about this?

 

[Irish#1]

I wouldn't go that far. I think it's fair for people, especially evangelicals, to not want their first lady to be someone that has posed nude for magazine.

If Trumps elected, every time he makes a speech with his wife there, everyone will be focusing on her with their minds wondering. No one will have a clue what Trump just spoke about. lol

 

[IrishJayhawk]

2. Preemptive law enforcement brings up lots of issues. Can we single out people because of religion? Does it make Muslims feel distanced from us (and threatened) and thus more likely to become radicalized? Should we instead be trying to draw them more into American culture, to prevent the risk of radicalization? Are these things that Cruz is calling for more likely to cause us issues than to help prevent them?

Name one...

 

[kmoose]

I don't see it that way. Kids, cousins, moms, etc aren't involving themselves in policy.

I didn't mean open season as in any member of the family, no matter how distant, would be subjected to scrutiny. What I meant was that any possible misstep in a spouse's past could be spun as relevant to some role they might fill as the First Lady. So the next thing you know............ Who is Mrs. SoandSo to lead the President's Childhood obesity task force, when she was a 5'1", 220lb High School Senior.

 

[woolybug25]

I didn't mean open season as in any member of the family, no matter how distant, would be subjected to scrutiny. What I meant was that any possible misstep in a spouse's past could be spun as relevant to some role they might fill as the First Lady. So the next thing you know............ Who is Mrs. SoandSo to lead the President's Childhood obesity task force, when she was a 5'1", 220lb High School Senior.

I don't think a First Lady's weight in high school is relevant, as I said, there should be some level of decorum. I don't think that is a good analogy.

But let's say that a first lady went to prison for tax fraud. You don't think that is relevant in regards to her husband running for President?

Again... the only reason the First Lady's looks are relevant in this case, if because she has posed nude. Which to a great deal of the Republican constituency, directly discredits any future "family value" platform considerations. It's relevant.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ted Cruz: Police need to 'patrol' Muslim neighborhoods - CNNPolitics.com

Cruz defends comments about Muslim patrols

On one hand he compares it to increasing patrols in gang neighborhoods and on the other hand he says stuff like this:

My problems with his statements are
1. That what he is calling for isn't the same as patrolling gang neighborhoods, it is more like patrolling a middle class black neighborhood because many gang members are black.

2. Preemptive law enforcement brings up lots of issues. Can we single out people because of religion? Does it make Muslims feel distanced from us (and threatened) and thus more likely to become radicalized? Should we instead be trying to draw them more into American culture, to prevent the risk of radicalization? Are these things that Cruz is calling for more likely to cause us issues than to help prevent them?

3. If we suspect people of becoming radicalized of course we should step up surveillance of them but that isn't what he seems to be talking about and we already do this.

How do others feel about this?

I think Cruz's comments are as insulting, unAmerican and crazy as anything Trump has proposed -- maybe worse. These neighborhoods he is talking about are places that American citizens live. As you said, this is only going to push them to a place in which radicalization is a greater possibility. I don't like where either of these candidates are trying to take this country. Not one bit.

 

[kmoose]

I don't think a First Lady's weight in high school is relevant, as I said, there should be some level of decorum. I don't think that is a good analogy.

But let's say that a first lady went to prison for tax fraud. You don't think that is relevant in regards to her husband running for President?

Again... the only reason the First Lady's looks are relevant in this case, if because she has posed nude. Which to a great deal of the Republican constituency, directly discredits any future "family value" platform considerations. It's relevant.

But is it really relevant, if the candidate is not running on a "Family Values" platform? And I would contend that her pic(s) are not relevant, because she did not show anything that was indecent. But I readily admit that I am very liberal about sexual issues.

 

[wizards8507]

Ted Cruz: Police need to 'patrol' Muslim neighborhoods - CNNPolitics.com

Cruz defends comments about Muslim patrols

On one hand he compares it to increasing patrols in gang neighborhoods and on the other hand he says stuff like this:

My problems with his statements are
1. That what he is calling for isn't the same as patrolling gang neighborhoods, it is more like patrolling a middle class black neighborhood because many gang members are black.

2. Preemptive law enforcement brings up lots of issues. Can we single out people because of religion? Does it make Muslims feel distanced from us (and threatened) and thus more likely to become radicalized? Should we instead be trying to draw them more into American culture, to prevent the risk of radicalization? Are these things that Cruz is calling for more likely to cause us issues than to help prevent them?

3. If we suspect people of becoming radicalized of course we should step up surveillance of them but that isn't what he seems to be talking about and we already do this.

How do others feel about this?

I don't consider it preemptive law enforcement but rather preventative law enforcement. I think the gang analogy is a good one. You don't send police into gang ridden neighborhoods to start rounding people up willy-nilly. You send police into gang ridden neighborhoods to keep an eye on things. This serves the twofold purpose of building relationships with the communities to foster cooperation, as well as being in close physical proximity to respond quickly to any imminent threats.

I disagree with the premise that this would lead to further radicalization. Groups on the fringe of mainstream society are more likely to integrate if they feel connected rather than abandoned. The so-called "moderate Muslims" don't want to be blown up any more than the rest of us.

 

[gkIrish]

It's not like First Ladies ever run for President. Why is this an issue?

 

[woolybug25]

But is it really relevant, if the candidate is not running on a "Family Values" platform? And I would contend that her pic(s) are not relevant, because she did not show anything that was indecent. But I readily admit that I am very liberal about sexual issues.

It's not relevant to me or to you, but if you are an evangelical christian, then your First Lady posing nude is a big deal. It's not my place or yours to say their values aren't important because we do not share them.

 

[woolybug25]

It's not like First Ladies ever run for President. Why is this an issue?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

It's not like First Ladies ever run for President. Why is this an issue?

Foreshadowing:

 

[GATTACA!]

I don't consider it preemptive law enforcement but rather preventative law enforcement. I think the gang analogy is a good one. You don't send police into gang ridden neighborhoods to start rounding people up willy-nilly. You send police into gang ridden neighborhoods to keep an eye on things. This serves the twofold purpose of building relationships with the communities to foster cooperation, as well as being in close physical proximity to respond quickly to any imminent threats.

I disagree with the premise that this would lead to further radicalization. Groups on the fringe of mainstream society are more likely to integrate if they feel connected rather than abandoned. The so-called "moderate Muslims" don't want to be blown up any more than the rest of us.

No, it's not. You have to think about what types of crimes you are trying to prevent. What preemptive measures are a beat cop going to take to prevent terrorist attacks? The reason cops are sent into gang ridden neighborhoods is because of things like gang violence and other crimes that are committed in public. How is sending cops through a neighborhood going to stop the tiny tiny tiny number of muslims that are planning a terrorist attack? Makes zero sense.

 

[IrishInFl]

https://youtu.be/Pji_IX-UacM

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

No, it's not. You have to think about what types of crimes you are trying to prevent. What preemptive measures are a beat cop going to take to prevent terrorist attacks? The reason cops are sent into gang ridden neighborhoods is because of things like gang violence and other crimes that are committed in public. How is sending cops through a neighborhood going to stop the tiny tiny tiny number of muslims that are planning a terrorist attack? Makes zero sense.

Cops trying to prevent terrorist attacks, via patrolling, is an absolute waste of time and money.

However, it could benefit the candidates, because American's don't look into the effectiveness rates for these type of actions, they, subconsciously, just need the illusion of protection. And that's what the candidates are doing, they're suggesting the use of psychological protection.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't consider it preemptive law enforcement but rather preventative law enforcement. I think the gang analogy is a good one. You don't send police into gang ridden neighborhoods to start rounding people up willy-nilly. You send police into gang ridden neighborhoods to keep an eye on things. This serves the twofold purpose of building relationships with the communities to foster cooperation, as well as being in close physical proximity to respond quickly to any imminent threats.

I disagree with the premise that this would lead to further radicalization. Groups on the fringe of mainstream society are more likely to integrate if they feel connected rather than abandoned. The so-called "moderate Muslims" don't want to be blown up any more than the rest of us.

The gang analogy sucks. Here is why

1. The nature of the crimes are different. For example a gang member wanting to rob people is more likely to not commit the crime if there is a cop close by because he does not want to be seen (and thus more likely to be caught). While a terrorist doesn't really care about being seen or identified when they are committing their crime.

2. Gang members usually commit their crimes close to their neighborhood or area. So patrolling their area can lead to a decrease in crime. How often do terrorists blow up their own neighborhood in the U.S.? Lets look at an example, If gang members live in area A and commit crimes in area A we increase enforcement in area A to prevent the crime. Now if gang members lived in area A but committed crimes in area B, we would increase enforcement of area B to prevent the crimes. So why would we increase patrols in Muslim neighborhoods to prevent terrorist attacks? Why wouldn't you increase security at their targets (airports, other transportation, sporting events, etc.)?


Lastly when it comes to radicalization don't you think that us patrolling their neighborhoods because we are suspicious of them (because they are Muslim) is going to push them away not bring them closer? Trump and Cruz are basically saying that we should be suspicious of all Muslims, don't you think that is more likely to push them to the fringe?

 

[wizards8507]

No, it's not. You have to think about what types of crimes you are trying to prevent. What preemptive measures are a beat cop going to take to prevent terrorist attacks? The reason cops are sent into gang ridden neighborhoods is because of things like gang violence and other crimes that are committed in public. How is sending cops through a neighborhood going to stop the tiny tiny tiny number of muslims that are planning a terrorist attack? Makes zero sense.

Being physically present makes a difference. The neighbors of the San Bernardino couple saw sketchy activity going on in one of the houses but didn't report anything. There's nothing outrageous about suggesting the police take a stroll by just to see "what's up" every once in awhile.

 

[pkt77242]

Being physically present makes a difference. The neighbors of the San Bernardino couple saw sketchy activity going on in one of the houses but didn't report everything. There's nothing outrageous about suggesting the police take a stroll by just to see "what's up" every once in awhile.

Um, I take it you haven't been to San Bernardino, right? There is always shady shit happening there. Where is ACAMP when I need him.

 

[phgreek]

Well, Utah had problems with voting as well...primarily the automation. I won't yet claim any chicanery...just typical incompetence by people who have a technological "solution" to peddle and their government counterparts who are ill-equipped to guide technology insertion. Never heard that one before have we?

 

[wizards8507]

Trump and Cruz are basically saying that we should be suspicious of all Muslims, don't you think that is more likely to push them to the fringe?

I'm so sick of this argument. Blame everyone for terrorism except the people who are actually out their blowing themselves up and others along with them. Terrorism is the fault of the terrorists, not anyone who "pushed them to the fringe."