US General Election 2016

Regarding the debate format, I would go so far as to say what Fox did was a model for future debates.  Not perhaps all of them, for there is a place for open ended less personal questions, but Fox's format went right to what most voters wanted to hear and what the candidates would otherwise avoid.  It was an impressive performance on the part of the moderators and built some respect for Fox News.

I hope that the number of people on stage goes down as the primary campaign winds on so that we can see more interaction between the candidates. However, for the first debate with such a wide open field, I think this approach made sense.

Eldorion wrote:If Trump got more attention from the moderators it's because he's the frontrunner.

Wait.. what?

Say what you like about the Trumpster, I'm loving the disdain he's showing for the power of the Republican Party machine.
 I'd love it if, after using the Republican Party PR machine to get his name in the headlines and humiliate the whole Republican field, he went ahead and ran as an independent.
That's where he's always belonged really.

Finally got round to watching the end of the debate- I found the answers to the God question absolutely terrifying.
Not just for the worrying thought these people would make decisions based on religious grounds and not rational ones, but because in their association and claiming of god as essentially an American, someone even said God sees America as a force for good in the world and wants it to succeed- this from the mouths of people who earlier were trying to outdo each other over who would start the most wars and a day after the world remembered the atrocity of America dropping nukes onto civilian populations just to make a point to Russia!
It was both nauseating and troubling all at once.

Oh calm your sporran Petty. Don't be jumping on the bandwagon that religious beliefs magically nullify one's ability to function in the real world in terms of "rationality".

Well, I missed that part of the debate actually, maybe it was worrying. I'm going to go watch and get back to you maybe.

Don't be jumping on the bandwagon that religious beliefs magically nullify one's ability to function in the real world in terms of "rationality"._ Forest

I don't but I don't believe that politics is a place for religion either. No decision should be made with any basis in what a possibly non-existent superbeing might want.
We've been there recently with Bush and Blair, both of whom believed that they were doing what God wanted for a better world and between them they murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents. Belief should not colour real world decision making.
If a UK politician standing for leadership of their party had said what any of those candidates said, it would be the end of their political bid. Blair only got away with it by keeping it secret, his spin-master famously saying "Labour didn't do religion." And they kept it secret because they knew the electorate would be very, very uncomfortable with how much his religion influenced his decision making.
Europe remembers well enough what having religious power ruling is like, and we are not having that back again, ever.

And when I hear US politicians calling up God every speech, when I hear your President evoking it, when I hear in this debate Go being citied as if he is on Team America, I see no difference than I do when I see and hear it from Muslim countries saying and claiming the same, its just the same shit in a different flavour.

The only difference is that religion and politics are one and the same thing in a Muslim country and they are supposed to be separate things in America- but I don't see any evidence that is actually true. Quite the opposite. And I don't see it changing any-time soon- your constitution puts you under Gods rule and your people will not elect a non-Chrisitian and they have to say "God Bless America" all the time.

Its weird to me that your country which deliberately separated church and state has a way, way more overtly religious political system than the UK which has a Monarch who sits as Head of the Church of the State, and whose members sit in a government chamber. Yet somehow America is the one with religion entwined in its politics.

About half of Americans and a large majority of Republicans trust God more than any man. So they find it comforting that a candidate would say they make their decisions based on God.

I'm still pissed they switched off that question before it reached Trump. That would have been quite a show.

they find it comforting that a candidate would say they make their decisions based on God.- Halfy

That's the bit that seems like a contradiction to me- your constitution strictly separates state and religion, yet you expect your leader to take advice from the Christian God. How is that a separation of state and religion? It looks very much like the joining of state and religion in one person. And for that matter why does your constitution advocate such a separation yet open by putting you under the dominance of a God and religion? That's weird too.

Separation of state and religion means that the government can't interfere with the practice of religion, establish an official religion, or make membership of a religion a requirement to hold public office.  It doesn't mean that religious people can't hold office or have to hide their faith if elected.  I get pretty uncomfortable listening to people talk about god guiding their policy decisions too but the only way to stop that would be to ban overtly religious people from running for President, and THAT would be highly unconstitutional (not to mention wrong by generally accepted political principles, regardless of what the constitution says).

That was originally just political deal-making. Our constitution wasn't originally intended to say any such thing.

"Establishment of Religion" were just 3 words added to the First Amendment as an afterthought, which was part of a package of add-ons to convince the the State legislatures to ratify the Federal Constitution(now called the Bill of Rights).  For a long time states were allowed to have their own official state religions. This was just a way of keeping the Feds out of it.

I suppose the difference here Eldo is not that people think leaders cant be religious- the Tory leader always goes to Church of a Sunday it makes for good press shots for his base, who tend like Republican voters to be more traditional and religious than the average. All party leaders attend state religious ceremonies headed by the Queen, such as Remembrance Day. The Monarch is crowned in an Abbey in a religious ceremony they attend.
But those thing are not considered politics.
And the British population as a whole is more secular, so whilst it doesn't mind a bit of religion in a leaders life, any overt signs its having a direct influence on judgement, or hearing declarations such as those made in the Republican debate, sets immediate alarm bells ringing in the minds of the UK electorate.


"Our constitution wasn't originally intended to say any such thing.... For a long time states were allowed to have their own official state religions. This was just a way of keeping the Feds out of it." - David

Thanks Dave, interesting.

Of course any sincerely held religious beliefs are going to have an influence on a person's judgement, just as any sincerely held non-religious moral convictions would. It's hard to gauge exactly how many Americans are sincerely religious versus being more "cultural Christians", but I don't think it's surprising that people for whom religion is a central part of their life would find candidates who feel (or claim to feel) similarly to be attractive.

There are of course plenty of Americans who feel otherwise, but unfortunately publicly talking about non-belief will still lead a lot of people to look down on or mistrust you. (Here's one recent-ish poll on the subject, there are plenty of other sources that can be found through Google.) So politicians with national electoral ambitions don't have much of a choice but to play along, regardless of their true beliefs.

These people are fucking disgusting.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/250667-protesters-interrupt-bernie-sanders-rally

George Soros funds Black Lives Matter.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

George Soros supports Hillary Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/02/02/george-soros-wal-mart-heiress-flood-hillary-clinton-super-pac-with-cash/

1 + 1 = 2

This is not the first time they've interrupted a Sanders campaign speech. Hillary Clinton does not have my vote. I'll vote for Trump before I even consider voting for her.

I dunno how significant the George Soros connection is. I know he's the subject of numerous conspiracy theories (not trying to say that's necessarily what you're doing though, bungo), but just because he donates doesn't mean the activists themselves are trying to support Soros or his other interests.  Besides, there are other fairly obvious reasons for the Black Lives Matter crowd to disapprove of the Clintons.  One example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector

I don't necessarily agree with everything the protestors have said during their recent interruptions of campaign events, but there is some truth to the point that economic reforms alone aren't sufficient to solve racial inequities.  I do think there are other issues beyond police shootings that are deserving of attention, including many issues that are relevant to the black community, but it is of course easier for me to say that being white and and living in an area without heavy or militarized police presence.

I really don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but they've only been interrupting Sanders or O'Malley. And the way they acted in that video, forcing themselves on people, physically pushing them away with their bodies (where if the reverse happened, they would surely cry in protest). If they're going to act like children throwing a tantrum then I have absolutely no interest in listening to what they have to say.

Fair point about them not interrupting Clinton events.  I really don't have an explanation for that.  I think disruptive protests can be an effective tool whether one agrees with the aim or not, but in this case I'm not totally clear on what the protesters' aim is.  My best guess from what I've watched and read is that it's a reaction against tokenism (there are plenty on the liberal side who arguably take black voters for granted since they're such a reliable bloc for the Democrats) and perhaps because they think their message has at least a chance of being heard by the people who watch these rallies.  But it does seem like they bypassed less confrontational methods of reaching out to candidates without really testing their effectiveness, and that combined with the single-issue focus is probably going to hurt them more than it helps.

First GOP poll I've seen since the debate.

http://politicalwire.com/2015/08/09/trump-remains-frontrunner-after-debate/

Trump 23%
Cruz 13%
Carson 11%
Fiorina 8%
Rubio 8%
Bush 7%
Walker 7%

Quite the hit for Bush. He definitely needs to stand out more going forward. Looks like the buzz about Fiorina got to people, even though few watched the JV debate. Not terribly surprised Trump held on but I didn't think Carson did all that well. Clearly a lot of people disagree.

I watched the JV debate, and Fiorina really didn't stand out to me. Nor did Carson IMO. I'm not interested in seeing Bush do any better, so I hope his downward trend continues. Go Trump!

I don't agree with the vast majority of her positions but watching that, she definitely did a better job than most of the participants in the primetime debate. I'd have to say her bump in the polls is well-deserved. Still don't want her anywhere near the Oval Office, though.

I generally try to avoid things that do nothing but upset me, but I do think politics is important due to the impact it has on everyone, so you're more than welcome to post your thoughts (even if it's just why you're feeling fed up) here if you want to, Forest.

Anyway, to jump back to an earlier point, Bernie Sanders has announced a new racial justice plank in his platform and appointed a Black Lives Matter activist as his new press secretary.  Will be interesting to see if the faction of BLM protesters will continue with the disruptions or if this was their aim (greater visibility and making a major candidate talk about their concerns).  If it was, then they'll have managed to avoid the pitfalls I had worried about, at least as far as Sanders is concerned.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/10/3689728/after-repeated-protests-bernie-sanders-releases-racial-justice-platform/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/politics/bernie-sanders-nurses-endorsement-2016/index.html

I kind of like the presidential race, it's fun to keep track of what's going on, like a very long hose race. But I will get sick of it eventually and get totally burned out on politics. Usually happens during the primary or the conventions when the party establishments throw their weight/money around even more. I like this early stage where it feels like anything is possible.

Eldorion wrote:I generally try to avoid things that do nothing but upset me, but I do think politics is important due to the impact it has on everyone, so you're more than welcome to post your thoughts (even if it's just why you're feeling fed up) here if you want to, Forest.

Anyway, to jump back to an earlier point, Bernie Sanders has announced a new racial justice plank in his platform and appointed a Black Lives Matter activist as his new press secretary.  Will be interesting to see if the faction of BLM protesters will continue with the disruptions or if this was their aim (greater visibility and making a major candidate talk about their concerns).  If it was, then they'll have managed to avoid the pitfalls I had worried about, at least as far as Sanders is concerned.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/10/3689728/after-repeated-protests-bernie-sanders-releases-racial-justice-platform/

Sanders has been a strong advocate for the civil rights movement, organizing and getting arrested during a sit-in in college. It's like these BLM people didn't even care about that. If I were Bernie I would not want people who have behaved inappropriately at my and others campaign events to be part of my campaign.