[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Johnnypenso]

@Adamgp Your link says he thinks it was about Patton but it wasn't, it was about General Pershing, written in 1917 by George M. Cohan. If the guy who wrote it for Trump also wrote it for Patton, he'd be at least 90 years old.

 

[Adamgp]

@Adamgp Your link says he thinks it was about Patton but it wasn't, it was about General Pershing, written in 1917 by George M. Cohan. If the guy who wrote it for Trump also wrote it for Patton, he'd be at least 90 years old.

First off, odd I didn't get an alert for being tagged, glad I checked back here.

Second, No it doesn't.

The original "Over There" was written by Cohen from WWI, yes. The link I posted says this guy used the melody from "Over There" and wrote a song about Patton. Then, when Trump announced candidacy he changed a few words to change his Patton song to be about Trump.

Of course Cohen didn't write it about Patton, or Trump.

 

[Johnnypenso]

First off, odd I didn't get an alert for being tagged, glad I checked back here.

Second, No it doesn't.

The original "Over There" was written by Cohen from WWI, yes. The link I posted says this guy used the melody from "Over There" and wrote a song about Patton. Then, when Trump announced candidacy he changed a few words to change his Patton song to be about Trump.

Of course Cohen didn't write it about Patton, or Trump.

Popick himself wrote the lyrics for the Trump tribute song. He said it was originally written about US Army Gen. George Patton, whom he revered since he first saw the 1970 biopic, "Patton."

 

[Adamgp]

Popick himself wrote the lyrics for the Trump tribute song. He said it was originally written about US Army Gen. George Patton, whom he revered since he first saw the 1970 biopic, "Patton."

Yes, he used the tune of "Over There" and wrote the Patton song with his own lyrics, after he saw the movie. He then altered his Patton song to create the Trump song. The Trump song is a revised version of the Patton song he wrote.

The "original" song he is talking about is his Patton song, not Cohen's "Over There", which he never claims to have written.

After watching Trump's campaign-announcement speech in June, the self-described band-manager and lyricist said he was inspired to make a more contemporary alteration to the song on the fly.

"I was watching when Donald Trump announced his candidacy, and he talked about the need for a strong military. And I remember him saying that, 'We're going to find the next Gen. George Patton," Popick said. "When Donald Trump said that, I was inspired to make it even more contemporary than it already was, and make it more about Donald Trump."

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, he used the tune of "Over There" and wrote the Patton song with his own lyrics, after he saw the movie. He then altered his Patton song to create the Trump song. The Trump song is a revised version of the Patton song he wrote.

The "original" song he is talking about is his Patton song, not Cohen's "Over There", which he never claims to have written.

That makes sense now... although it's a bit pointless for him to say it's a re-write of a re-write of a song when nobody had heard the other re-write anyway. Or something.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Curious to see how the Republican candidates respond to the apparent success of Obama's deal with Iran to shut down their nuclear weapons programme.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Curious to see how the Republican candidates respond to the apparent success of Obama's deal with Iran to shut down their nuclear weapons programme.

I think that the whole "Death to America" thing while the deal was being debated in the Iranian parliament (or whatever they call it) needs to play a factor. Besides the deal is a non-issue anyways since it doesn't address the real issue of Iran keeping political prisoners, hostages for propaganda purposes, their human rights record and so on.

EDIT: Before this conversation gets side tracked, I would like to point out that we gave Iran over $1.5 Billion for basically nothing. A 24 hour advanced notice for ANY form of nuclear inspection, seriously? If this was Israel at the other end of the dagger, and it is to a certain extent, there would be no advance notice from the inspection teams, none.

 

[huskeR32]

I think that the whole "Death to America" thing while the deal was being debated in the Iranian parliament (or whatever they call it) needs to play a factor.

Why? Our lawmakers and citizens say unfavorable things about them too, so maybe we should refrain from calling the kettle black. If they are complying with disarming their nuclear program, who cares what they chant in the streets?

Besides the deal is a non-issue anyways since it doesn't address the real issue of Iran keeping political prisoners, hostages for propaganda purposes, their human rights record and so on.

Nuclear disarmament is not a "real issue" worthy of our efforts?

Before this conversation gets side tracked, I would like to point out that we gave Iran over $1.5 Billion for basically nothing.

We didn't "give" them anything. I assume that you're referring to the $1.7 billion settlement that was agreed to a couple of days ago? If so, that's us finally returning $400 million (plus interest) to Iran that they had given us in the 1970s to purchase arms that we never actually delivered. Shortly after they gave us that money, relations soured, and we froze the funds. Now, we're giving that money back. And it should be noted that we're paying a significantly lower interest rate on this than Iran wanted.

I'm curious, do you have similar objections to the $2.5 billion or so that Iran has returned to U.S. companies now that the sanctions are loosening?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Why? Our lawmakers and citizens say unfavorable things about them too, so maybe we should refrain from calling the kettle black. If they are complying with disarming their nuclear program, who cares what they chant in the streets?

It should make a difference. We don't go around wishing for the death of an entire country just because of their relations with one particular country (Israel). If anything, this misguided deal is actually more favorable to the Iranians just because of the things that were not addressed during negotiations.

Where this deal is a non-issue is because every Republican candidate BUT Trump is not talking about it at the present time. Trump certainly does not speak for ~75% of the republican party, and he sure as heck does not speak for me. Obviously the deal is working in Iran, and they are adhering to it in the strictest sense of the word.

We didn't "give" them anything. I assume that you're referring to the $1.7 billion settlement that was agreed to a couple of days ago? If so, that's us finally returning $400 million (plus interest) to Iran that they had given us in the 1970s to purchase arms that we never actually delivered. Shortly after they gave us that money, relations soured, and we froze the funds. Now, we're giving that money back. And it should be noted that we're paying a significantly lower interest rate on this than Iran wanted.

I'm curious, do you have similar objections to the $2.5 billion or so that Iran has returned to U.S. companies now that the sanctions are loosening?

Now I will admit that I know nothing about the history behind the payment. All that I was told was that the payment was made. Now if this stems back to the 70's, before the current regime took over the country, then obviously we should give the money back.

 

[huskeR32]

It should make a difference

Again: Why? What does this have to do, even a little bit, with the goal of nuclear disarmament?

We don't go around wishing for the death of an entire country just because of their relations with one particular country (Israel).

They aren't literally wishing for the death of every U.S. citizen - it's a phrase they use to express displeasure at our foreign policy. In fact, most official Iranian translations have it as "Down with America," rather than "Death to America." Even Ayatollah Khomeini himself, who popularized the phrase, said that the message was "death to the U.S.'s policies, death to arrogance."

While it's still not the most charming thing to have them saying, I don't think it's anything that warrants us backing away from a deal that stands to have several very positive effects.

If anything, this misguided deal is actually more favorable to the Iranians...

So far, here's how I see the score:

-Iran has complied, ahead of schedule, with demands to get rid of nuclear fuel, disable centrifuges, and to destroy a plutonium reactor

-Approximately $2.5 billion has been returned to U.S. companies

In return, we've given them back $1.7 billion of their money. I'd say we're in pretty good shape here.

...just because of the things that were not addressed during negotiations.

Such as what? I'm curious as to what things in particular you feel are important enough to derail a nuclear disarmament agreement that has already put a massive dent in Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb (which I would think would be a very good thing to someone who says "Death to America" is a threat to our safety).

Where this deal is a non-issue is because every Republican candidate BUT Trump is not talking about it at the present time

Yes they are. Every one of them are making baseless claims that this agreement is a "disaster," which many folks across the country hear and repeat until it becomes a truth among the significant proportion of the conservative base who won't listen to contradictory evidence because it's all "liberal media bias."

Obviously the deal is working in Iran, and they are adhering to it in the strictest sense of the word.

So, what's the problem?

 

[Omnis]

Curious to see how the Republican candidates respond to the apparent success of Obama's deal with Iran to shut down their nuclear weapons programme.

Me too. Of course, they would rather have had them continue their nuclear program so that the explosion would have been bigger when they started WW3. With the exception of Rand Paul, the lot of them are bloodthirsty savages. So irresponsible.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The Inspector General claims that intelligence from top secret programs was found on Hillary's private email server. This according to an unclassified letter to top lawmakers from the Inspector General, dated Jan. 14th, obtained by Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cretive-classified-programs.html?intcmp=hpbt1

So, what's the problem?

I'm not saying that there is a problem, on paper, about the deal. Iran is fulfilling their part of the deal just as much as we are fulfilling ours.

 

[huskeR32]

I'm not saying that there is a problem, on paper, about the deal. Iran is fulfilling their part of the deal just as much as we are fulfilling ours.

So you're not going to back up your claims that this deal is "misguided," or enlighten us about the "things that were not addressed during negotiations?"

 

[A2K78]

Curious to see how the Republican candidates respond to the apparent success of Obama's deal with Iran to shut down their nuclear weapons programme.

The Republican candidates response would be no different that of Clinton e.g. bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. In fact as just the Republican candidates are still committed for a war with Iran so is Clinton...they must because its only way get AIPAC's money.

That said if you're looking for any difference you won't find one.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That said if you're looking for any difference you won't find one.

I was thinking more that the Republican response at the time the deal was brokered was negative, and that only economic sanctions would work. However, it has now been confirmed that Iran has complied with the first round of conditions, pointing to the apparent success of Obama's deal. That's why I'm curious about how the Republican candidates are responding to it. You would think that they had learned their lesson from Cuba: when doing the same thing for over fifty years doesn't produce the expected or desired response, it's time to change your approach.

Me too. Of course, they would rather have had them continue their nuclear program so that the explosion would have been bigger when they started WW3. With the exception of Rand Paul, the lot of them are bloodthirsty savages. So irresponsible.

That's the thing that has always bothered me about the dedicated right-wing. As much as they love the "tough on problem x" stance - it goes down well with the constutuents - sometimes I have to wonder how committed they are to solving the issue because solving the issue means that they cannot draw on the "tough on problem x" stance in the future.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Reports are spouting on FOX that Sarah Palin has endorsed Donald Trump for President. I just wished she stayed out of it...

 

[A2K78]

I was thinking more that the Republican response at the time the deal was brokered was negative, and that only economic sanctions would work. However, it has now been confirmed that Iran has complied with the first round of conditions, pointing to the apparent success of Obama's deal. That's why I'm curious about how the Republican candidates are responding to it. You would think that they had learned their lesson from Cuba: when doing the same thing for over fifty years doesn't produce the expected or desired response, it's time to change your approach.

First of all Democrat or Republican both parties are pro-sanctions when its politically expedient. Secondly when it come to Iran and sanctions its not just Republicans are who want more sanctions on Iran, but Clinton also want more sanctions:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/266173-clinton-calls-for-new-sanctions-on-iran

 

[Joey D]

With looking into the candidates briefly, my worse case scenario come November is a Trump vs. Clinton election since the only difference I see in them is one is a women and one isn't. Their policies, hair, pants suits, etc. are all more or less the same to me and which ever one of them wins I'd expect the outcome to be the same. Both of their foreign policies are a bit scary too.

I do like Bernie Sanders as a person since he seems to ignite interest in politics among younger people and he seems to speak out to the average person, my biggest problem with him though is that his idea to fund everything is a pipe dream. I can't for the life of me figure out how just raising taxes on 1% of the population would pay for everything he wants to do, plus run the country.

I don't know why it's so difficult to find a candidate that stays out of social issues, stop meddling in other countries' affairs, stop pushing for military actions, and geared to getting the country back on track financially. Basically I just want a candidate that's for making America great again and not in the way Trump thinks it should be. The current crop of candidates don't leave me with a ton of hope.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't know why it's so difficult to find a candidate that stays out of social issues, stop meddling in other countries' affairs, stop pushing for military actions, and geared to getting the country back on track financially.

Probably because the global geopolitical landscape demands a stance on global affairs. The campaign lifespan of any candidate who consciously stays out of it would likely be measured in minutes.

And I don't think that you could get any candidate who stayed out of social issues simply because they cannot ignore them. Ideally, you want a well-rounded candidate; there might be one or two big issues of the day, but you can't neglect everything else. We had a government that got elected on a combined platform of budgetary reform and national security - and only budgetary reform and national security - and did massive damage to health (an end to universal health care), education (massive cuts to spending and complete deregulation of the tertiary system), welfare (massive cuts to spending for the vulnerable and generous paid parental leave for the wealthy) and environmental policy (we're the only developed nation that has gone backwards on climate change policy) to try and make good on it. Had the public known their plans, they never would have elected them.

 

[Joey D]

Probably because the global geopolitical landscape demands a stance on global affairs. The campaign lifespan of any candidate who consciously stays out of it would likely be measured in minutes.

And I don't think that you could get any candidate who stayed out of social issues simply because they cannot ignore them. Ideally, you want a well-rounded candidate; there might be one or two big issues of the day, but you can't neglect everything else. We had a government that got elected on a combined platform of budgetary reform and national security - and only budgetary reform and national security - and did massive damage to health (an end to universal health care), education (massive cuts to spending and complete deregulation of the tertiary system), welfare (massive cuts to spending for the vulnerable and generous paid parental leave for the wealthy) and environmental policy (we're the only developed nation that has gone backwards on climate change policy) to try and make good on it. Had the public known their plans, they never would have elected them.

Taking a stance on something is one thing, rushing off to throw bombs, drones, and troops at the issue is another thing.

And with social issues, I suppose I don't see the point of trying to ban same-sex marriages, outlaw abortions, fight to put prayer in school, try and ban the teaching of evolution, etc. It's a monumental waste of tax dollars that shouldn't happen, especially when we have to have the Supreme Court rule on it. With something like same-sex marriage, if opposite-sex marriage has been deemed to be Constitutional I don't seem why same-sex marriage should be any different. That's more along the lines of what I'm saying social issues.

With things like welfare, the environment, healthcare, etc. I believe all of those things fall into running the country. Sorry, I didn't make a very good distinction at that.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Reports are spouting on FOX that Sarah Palin has endorsed Donald Trump for President. I just wished she stayed out of it...

This does not surprise me at all.

 

[GTPorsche]

Sarah Palin has also proclaimed that Trump is "not an elitist".

This is the same Trump that goes around letting everyone know just how rich he is...

But hey... the last presidential candidate that had Palin by his side.. that worked out well for him, right.. right?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Palin is little more than a punch line these days.

 

[Omnis]

Sarah Palin has also proclaimed that Trump is "not an elitist".

This is the same Trump that goes around letting everyone know just how rich he is...

But hey... the last presidential candidate that had Palin by his side.. that worked out well for him, right.. right?

It's just an endorsement, dude.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to consider demoting General David Patraeus. While the move is not considered political in nature (as Patraeus did admit to giving classified material to his mistress), it does highlight a hypocrisy that Hillary made Sunday that, "no one is too big to go to jail."

If Patraeus is indeed demoted, his government retirement of $220,000 would be reduced to $170,000 (as Army regulations require that a demoted person be reduced in rank to the last rank he performed satisfactory, in this case Lieutenant General), and he will be required to pay back the difference.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/18/exclusive-pentagon-may-demote-david-petraeus.html

Palin is little more than a punch line these days.

She is still highly respected among the Tea Party. However, with this move, I doubt that will be the case for long.

 

[DK]

IIRC, there was an "anti-Washington" element to the Tea Party back in its heyday. I don't see Palin taking a hit by declaring her support for Trump - at the very least, she's now back in the headlines.

 

[Sanji Himura]

IIRC, there was an "anti-Washington" element to the Tea Party back in its heyday. I don't see Palin taking a hit by declaring her support for Trump - at the very least, she's now back in the headlines.

That is factually inaccurate. The Tea Party, as a whole, supported limited Federal government, not the absolute abolishment of Washington. That is why you saw the Republicans gain both houses after the 2010 midterms and have steadily expanded their power in Congress ever since.

But let's point out one thing, the Washington establishment hates the Tea Party, and its current mouthpiece Ted Cruz. Cruz is the only Senator that has fulfilled his campaign promises, and Washington hates that. There is a point being made around the talk radio circuit that the establishment themselves are willing to throw their support behind Trump just to spite Cruz.

 

[Dotini]

There is a point being made around the talk radio circuit that the establishment themselves are willing to throw their support behind Trump just to spite Cruz.

Interesting, but is this more than a rumor?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Interesting, but is this more than a rumor?

Here is a National Review article that addresses that very topic:

http://www.nationalreview.com/postmodern-conservative/429950/gop-establishment-prefers-trump-cruz

And here is a Washington Post editorial that basically states that to "Save the Republican Party", Cruz and Trump must lose:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...b394160_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines

 

[DK]

That is factually inaccurate. The Tea Party, as a whole, supported limited Federal government, not the absolute abolishment of Washington.
[...]
But let's point out one thing, the Washington establishment hates the Tea Party, and its current mouthpiece Ted Cruz.

Sorry, when I was talking about the "anti-Washington" element of the Tea Party, I should have added on "establishment" to that. I didn't mean that they wanted to abolish the federal government.