Here is where you and I differ.  The social issues mean very little to me.  I wish the Republican party would stop talking so much about Planned Parenthood because even though the issue is important, it's NOT the THE issue that most (sane) people are worried about.

 

I didn't hear anything about DHS or NSA stuff during the debate.

It was mid-debate. Sanders in particular blasted the NSA's warrantless recording and indefinite saving of virtually every phone call made in this country, and blasted the private sector's harvesting, saving and exploiting of personal information as well. His end point was that consideration has to be given to national security, but national security should not override our Constitutional rights. I was sold at that point, because it's exactly what Rand Paul would say.

 

Social issues are a secondary concern for me as well. My issue with them isn't so much that people think differently from me and feel passionate about those issues, it's that GOP candidates are talking about how they're going to waste inordinate amounts of time and resources trying to overturn every Supreme Court verdict since Van Staphorst v. Maryland during their debates instead of talking about the issues. The Democratic stage was more or less interested in just leaving things alone. I'm sure that's influenced a great deal by the fact that the "liberal" point of view has been owning the day with this "conservative" Court and they don't feel a need to change anything, but it is nice to see a 2.5 hour debate with five minutes total spent on abortion, rather than a 2.5 hour debate with each candidate making a five-minute speech of their own on abortion (Huckabee taking twice as long). Amazingly enough, I don't agree with everything that the Supreme Court handed down last year, but I think there are more important things to worry about. That's kind of why I like Kasich. He acknowledges that decisions he disagrees with were made, but he isn't interested in spending a ton of time and effort trying to force "overturn" cases through or wasting everyone's time on attempted Constitutional amendments.

 

Tell that to the families of the service members killed in Chattanooga.

 

#1 security threat is our porous southern border.  Next in line is a nuclear enabled regime in an unstable part of the world.

1. I would. Know why? Because it's the truth. You're four times more likely to die from a lightning strike than you are to die from terrorism. The fact that anyone dies in terrorist attacks is horrible and disgusting, but the attacks in Chattanooga, Charleston, Oregon, all of those are factored into the numbers, and the numbers indicate that a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest probably won't walk into your office tomorrow and take out the entire block.

 

2. The Mexican border? Really? No way. The biggest security threat facing America is increasing polarization of the Middle East. Every nation that falls under ISIS control has to be considered a very real threat to Americans in the Middle East and, possibly in time, Americans at home.

 

Edited my post.  It is not the most important issue at all.  If Sanders and Clinton directly addressed the NSA it must have been at the end.  I've heard enough of all of their nonsense not to mention how CNN was putting the focus clearly on Hillary and Sanders with very little opportunity for the other candidates to share their views.  It was pretty clear that they didn't like Jim Webb.

Sanders and Webb appeared to get along pretty well, actually, and frequently complemented each other. Chaffee kind of sat on the end waiting his turn, O'Malley took every opportunity to stop appearing to be a fool by opening his mouth and removing all doubt, and Hillary, well, aside from endorsing Bernie Sanders after his response about her email scandal, seemed to generally dislike anyone not named "Hillary Clinton".

 

I should note regarding my change of heart on Hillary's emails: I still think that what she did was a huge mistake, and I have no respect for her decision to cover it up rather than publicly admit that she screwed up. I essentially stopped caring after Kevin McCarthy's well-publicized comments (that didn't have a thread here, hmm) about using the Benghazi committee to damage Hillary's campaign. At that point, any and all public attacks on Hillary Clinton became partisan white noise for me, little more than abuse of the press (and the DOJ) by a Republican Party desperate to slow down a juggernaut. I would still not consider voting for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance, but the "charge her with treason" bullcrap lost all credibility when Republican leadership admitted that the whole thing was a witch trial.

---

It was mid-debate. Sanders in particular blasted the NSA's warrantless recording and indefinite saving of virtually every phone call made in this country, and blasted the private sector's harvesting, saving and exploiting of personal information as well. His end point was that consideration has to be given to national security, but national security should not override our Constitutional rights. I was sold at that point, because it's exactly what Rand Paul would say.

 

Social issues are a secondary concern for me as well. My issue with them isn't so much that people think differently from me and feel passionate about those issues, it's that GOP candidates are talking about how they're going to waste inordinate amounts of time and resources trying to overturn every Supreme Court verdict since Van Staphorst v. Maryland during their debates instead of talking about the issues. The Democratic stage was more or less interested in just leaving things alone. I'm sure that's influenced a great deal by the fact that the "liberal" point of view has been owning the day with this "conservative" Court and they don't feel a need to change anything, but it is nice to see a 2.5 hour debate with five minutes total spent on abortion, rather than a 2.5 hour debate with each candidate making a five-minute speech of their own on abortion (Huckabee taking twice as long). Amazingly enough, I don't agree with everything that the Supreme Court handed down last year, but I think there are more important things to worry about. That's kind of why I like Kasich. He acknowledges that decisions he disagrees with were made, but he isn't interested in spending a ton of time and effort trying to force "overturn" cases through or wasting everyone's time on attempted Constitutional amendments.

 

1. I would. Know why? Because it's the truth. You're four times more likely to die from a lightning strike than you are to die from terrorism. The fact that anyone dies in terrorist attacks is horrible and disgusting, but the attacks in Chattanooga, Charleston, Oregon, all of those are factored into the numbers, and the numbers indicate that a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest probably won't walk into your office tomorrow and take out the entire block.

 

2. The Mexican border? Really? No way. The biggest security threat facing America is increasing polarization of the Middle East. Every nation that falls under ISIS control has to be considered a very real threat to Americans in the Middle East and, possibly in time, Americans at home.

 

Sanders and Webb appeared to get along pretty well, actually, and frequently complemented each other. Chaffee kind of sat on the end waiting his turn, O'Malley took every opportunity to stop appearing to be a fool by opening his mouth and removing all doubt, and Hillary, well, aside from endorsing Bernie Sanders after his response about her email scandal, seemed to generally dislike anyone not named "Hillary Clinton".

 

I should note regarding my change of heart on Hillary's emails: I still think that what she did was a huge mistake, and I have no respect for her decision to cover it up rather than publicly admit that she screwed up. I essentially stopped caring after Kevin McCarthy's well-publicized comments (that didn't have a thread here, hmm) about using the Benghazi committee to damage Hillary's campaign. At that point, any and all public attacks on Hillary Clinton became partisan white noise for me, little more than abuse of the press (and the DOJ) by a Republican Party desperate to slow down a juggernaut. I would still not consider voting for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance, but the "charge her with treason" [BAD WORD REMOVED] lost all credibility when Republican leadership admitted that the whole thing was a witch trial.

It's crazy how stark the two debates were. I wonder if next GOP one either looks a lot like the dem debate and calms down trying to look better to people who were not already voting for them or they just go absolutely nutter butters. 

 

This is pretty much how progressives that already dislike her and her shady ways feel as well. 

---

It's crazy how stark the two debates were. I wonder if next GOP one either looks a lot like the dem debate and calms down trying to look better to people who were not already voting for them or they just go absolutely nutter butters. 

Trump will be there.

---

Trump will be there.

There are 31 other people on stage with him. They could stop leading from behind. 

 

Did I do that right? :teehee:

---

boudreauw, do you think climate change is our country's greatest national security threat?

---

boudreauw, do you think climate change is our country's greatest national security threat?

I think it's serious sure but not the greatest, no. IMO the greatest national security threat is a combination of total chaos in the middle East and no plan in place for true long term energy independence with an emphasis on the former.

---

I think it's serious sure but not the greatest, no. IMO the greatest national security threat is a combination of total chaos in the middle East and no plan in place for true long term energy independence with an emphasis on the former.

 

When I rank the greatest national security threats, I have to rank them as short term, medium term, and long term. 

 

Short term:  all out cyber attack/ attempt to bring down the internet.

Medium term: nuclear proliferation

Long term: climate change

 

Edit: Somewhere in there I need to put the federal budget deficit and total national debt leading to either federal government bankruptcy or runaway inflation as we try to print our way out of debt. 

---

When I rank the greatest national security threats, I have to rank them as short term, medium term, and long term.


Short term: all out cyber attack/ attempt to bring down the internet.

Medium term: nuclear proliferation

Long term: climate change


Edit: Somewhere in there I need to put the federal budget deficit and total national debt leading to either federal government bankruptcy or runaway inflation as we try to print our way out of debt.

I think our power grid is of a greater concern than the internet being brought down. Since that would take the net with it also.

---

Trump will be there.

 

This may get interesting. It sounds like Trump is starting to think "I may actually be able to get the nomination". I think he was just having fun before. Then - bam! - national phenomenon! Now you read quotes of him saying he could be a little more politically correct, etc.

 

It'll be fun to see if he starts playing the game a little more. It's a fine line - he doesn't want to lose the yahoos but he seems to now want to come across as more "responsible and reasonable".

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

This may get interesting. It sounds like Trump is starting to think "I may actually be able to get the nomination". I think he was just having fun before. Then - bam! - national phenomenon! Now you read quotes of him saying he could be a little more politically correct, etc.

 

It'll be fun to see if he starts playing the game a little more. It's a fine line - he doesn't want to lose the yahoos but he seems to now want to come across as more "responsible and reasonable".

Trump will fall by the wayside soon enough, imo. He has a penchant for opening his mouth and letting whatever happens to dribble out come from it. I doubt he'll have a "Dukakis on the tank" moment, but eventually the weight of things like his comments about Megyn Kelly, his off-the-cuff "we're looking into a lot of things" response to a question about deporting Muslims and his appearance of considering this whole process to be a big game will turn Republicans off to him.

 

My expectation remains that the Republicans will, for all their far-right bluster, end up coming to their senses and running Rubio, and Rubio would stand a good chance against Clinton or Sanders because he has moderate appeal.

---

I think it's serious sure but not the greatest, no. IMO the greatest national security threat is a combination of total chaos in the middle East and no plan in place for true long term energy independence with an emphasis on the former.

 

So no. Gotcha.

---

So no. Gotcha.

I said no. 

 

What was the purpose of your question?

---

I said no. 

 

What was the purpose of your question?

 

To see if you agree with Bernie Sanders that climate change is our county's greatest national security threat.

 

We both agree that it isn't.

---

To see if you agree with Bernie Sanders that climate change is our county's greatest national security threat.


We both agree that it isn't.

It's most definitely the biggest security concern. That doesn't mean sometime over the next four years the weather is going to attack us. It simply means we need to address the problem now before it's too late.

---

To see if you agree with Bernie Sanders that climate change is our county's greatest national security threat.

 

We both agree that it isn't.

ok cool. 

---

It's most definitely the biggest security concern. That doesn't mean sometime over the next four years the weather is going to attack us. It simply means we need to address the problem now before it's too late.

 

Tell boudreau that.

---

Trump will fall by the wayside soon enough, imo. He has a penchant for opening his mouth and letting whatever happens to dribble out come from it. I doubt he'll have a "Dukakis on the tank" moment, but eventually the weight of things like his comments about Megyn Kelly, his off-the-cuff "we're looking into a lot of things" response to a question about deporting Muslims and his appearance of considering this whole process to be a big game will turn Republicans off to him.

 

My expectation remains that the Republicans will, for all their far-right bluster, end up coming to their senses and running Rubio, and Rubio would stand a good chance against Clinton or Sanders because he has moderate appeal.

 

People we're saying this 4 months ago and it was going to happen any day. Everyone seems confident that as contenders fall out their support will go to Rubio or Bush. I don't believe the majority of Carson, Cruz, and Paul supporters would touch Rubio or Bush with a 10-foot pole, and that makes up a pretty large chunk of the current constituency. Trump has toned down a bit, released a lot of quality policy papers, and just revealed to have one of the smartest business women in America controlling his campaign. He may even up with Carson, who is also a good candidate, but I don't see Trump falling anytime soon. Especially not to an establishment candidate like Rubio, Bush, or Fiorina.

---

It's most definitely the biggest security concern. That doesn't mean sometime over the next four years the weather is going to attack us. It simply means we need to address the problem now before it's too late.

I have a hard time seeing weather as a "national security" concern. Climate change, global warming, whatever you want to call it is happening and it is going to have devastating effects over time, but you'd have to have a pretty loose definition of "national security" to lump it into that discussion. It's along the same lines of how I would not call Iran's efforts to become a nuclear power an environmental concern just because a detonated nuke wrecks the environment around it.

---

Normally I wouldn't post something like this, but I did a quick fact check and it is, in fact, accurate. So much for an unbiased media.

 

---

 

Normally I wouldn't post something like this, but I did a quick fact check and it is, in fact, accurate. So much for an unbiased media.

 

duh

---