Originally Posted by Kinser79

The ME262 was classified as Wunderwaffen. It was expected to be a magical breakthrew, and had Hitler had ten years to develop it, it would have been. But time wasn't on his side.

Reminded me of a song:



Pretty much expresses the futility at that point, even though they did shoot down their share of bombers:


Goering's on the phone to Freiburg
Says "Willie's done quite a job"
Hitler's on the phone from Berlin
Says "I'm gonna make you a star"

My Captain Von Ondine, here's your next patrol
A flight of English bombers across the canal
After twelve, they'll all be here
I think you know the job

They hung there dependent from the sky
Like some heavy metal fruit
These bombers, ripened, ready to tilt
Must these Englishmen live that I might die
Must they live that I might die

In a G-load disaster from the rate of climb
Sometimes I'd faint and be lost to our side
But there's no reward for failure, but death
So watch me in the mirrors, keep me on the glide path

Get me through these radars, no I cannot fail
When my great silver slugs are eager to feed
I can't fail, no not now
When twenty five bombers wait ripe

They hung there dependent from the sky
Like some heavy metal fruit
These bombers, ripened, ready to tilt
Must these Englishmen live that I might die
Must they live that I might die

Me-262 prince of turbojet, Junker's Jumo 004
Blasts from clustered R4M quartets in my snout
And see these English planes go burn
Now will you be my witness how red were the skies
When the fortresses flew, for the very last time
It was dark over Westphalia, in April of '45

They hung there dependent from the sky
Like some heavy metal fruit
These bombers, ripened, ready to tilt
Must these Englishmen live that I might die
Must they live that I might die

Must these Englishmen live that I might die
Junkers Jumo 004 (repeat many times)
Bombers at 12 o'clock high

Originally Posted by herbal tee

This is all beginning to sound a bit like that old Saturday Night Live skit where the question was asked ''Could Napoleon have won the Battle of Waterloo if he had motorized armor.''

Me, I'd much rather ''Feel the Bern.'' :

Yeah, you're right.

This is why Bernie (and even Hillary!) has a shot and why the eventual demise of the GOP as we know it -

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.boldprog...ling_PDF-1.pdf

Just a sampling -

75 percent of Americans poll support fair trade that "protects workers, the environment and jobs."
Seventy-one percent support giving all students access to a debt-free college education.
Seventy-one percent support a massive infrastructure spending program aimed at rebuilding our broken roads and bridges, and putting people back to work.
Seventy percent support expanding Social Security.
Fifty-nine percent support raising taxes on the wealthy so that millionaires pay the same amount in taxes as they did during the Reagan administration.
Fifty-eight percent support breaking up the big banks.
Fifty-five percent support a financial transaction or Robin Hood tax.
Fifty-one percent support single payer health care, and so on and so on.

The social issues will eventually burn themselves out while the economic just getting hotter and hotter.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is why Bernie (and even Hillary!) has a shot and why the eventual demise of the GOP as we know it -

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.boldprog...ling_PDF-1.pdf

Just a sampling -



The social issues will eventually burn themselves out while the economic just getting hotter and hotter.

And I'll tell you how to light the match: Re-introduce ENDA, and concomitantly introduce a "conscientious objector" bill that would protect merchants - bakers, photographers, florists, etc., - from being forced to aid and abet same-sex weddings, and explicitly protect priests, ministers, etc. from being forced to solemnize such weddings.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

And I'll tell you how to light the match: Re-introduce ENDA, and concomitantly introduce a "conscientious objector" bill that would protect merchants - bakers, photographers, florists, etc., - from being forced to aid and abet same-sex weddings, and explicitly protect priests, ministers, etc. from being forced to solemnize such weddings.

Some of the lines were quite firmly drawn during the civil rights era. If you are a church, a private club or are doing something on private property, one can exercise prejudice reasonably freely and the government can't do much about it. On the other hand, if one is providing a service to the public, such as running a Woolworth lunch counter, you must provide that service to all.

I'm pretty sure the lines drawn in the 1960s for racial prejudice are apt to hold now. Legislatures will have a hard time changing it.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

And I'll tell you how to light the match: Re-introduce ENDA, and concomitantly introduce a "conscientious objector" bill that would protect merchants - bakers, photographers, florists, etc., - from being forced to aid and abet same-sex weddings, and explicitly protect priests, ministers, etc. from being forced to solemnize such weddings.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Some of the lines were quite firmly drawn during the civil rights era. If you are a church, a private club or are doing something on private property, one can exercise prejudice reasonably freely and the government can't do much about it. On the other hand, if one is providing a service to the public, such as running a Woolworth lunch counter, you must provide that service to all.

I'm pretty sure the lines drawn in the 1960s for racial prejudice are apt to hold now. Legislatures will have a hard time changing it.

Pretty much what Butler said. I have no problem including provisions for religious liberty (if people want to go to racist or homophobic churches that's their business, religion itself is both stupid and destructive). That being said if one is in the business of selling wedding cakes I should be able to buy a wedding cake from that person should I ever marry my bf. Otherwise we may as well reintroduce segregation and all other forms of Jim Crow.

Bern baby Bern!!
Bernie rocked the debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXR1...ature=youtu.be
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamo...te-on-twitter/
http://time.com/4071956/democratic-d...-poll-who-won/

CNN showed a poll @ the end of the debate showing 80% of the viewers thought Bernie won the debate. Yep last nite the country was definitely feeling the Bern. But, to get back to the question in my op, can he turn these numbers into votes?

Originally Posted by marypoza

Bern baby Bern!!
Bernie rocked the debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXR1...ature=youtu.be
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamo...te-on-twitter/
http://time.com/4071956/democratic-d...-poll-who-won/

CNN showed a poll @ the end of the debate showing 80% of the viewers thought Bernie won the debate. Yep last nite the country was definitely feeling the Bern. But, to get back to the question in my op, can he turn these numbers into votes?

Only if you are a liberal-progressive which most people are not. Although Hillary is supremely unlikeable and...hey did you know she is a WOman BY THEY WAY!....


It was interesting to see a more old school conservative democrat in Webb(not a chance in hell he should probably be in the GOP) He probably would have been the front running Dem 1968.

As crazy as the GOP field is I find the democratic field to be pretty weak, not much there that will inspire anything outside the base.

Id be watching for Biden to drop in but seriously...Biden? the guy that the Whitehouse tries to hide? Uncle Joe?

I find Sanders interesting. He is one of the few (maybe only?) credible candidates who is willing to question the Globalist Fukuyaman "religion." That takes guts. As we know, anyone questioning it loses lots of Wall Street and other big money donors.

Bernie did well @ the debate, once again most ppl who watched (most polls around 80%, altho 1 poll was as high as 93%) said he won this debate too. He also picked up the Postal Workers endorsement & that of former Sen Nina Turner. That last is especially important since she was thought to be in the bag for Hillary. Is Bernie's campaign starting to be taken seriously?

Originally Posted by marypoza

Bernie did well @ the debate, once again most ppl who watched (most polls around 80%, altho 1 poll was as high as 93%) said he won this debate too. He also picked up the Postal Workers endorsement & that of former Sen Nina Turner. That last is especially important since she was thought to be in the bag for Hillary. Is Bernie's campaign starting to be taken seriously?

I agree he did well at the debate; we'll see!

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

I'd like to see Cynthia Mckinney run again, but Bernie Sanders will do!

You are the last supporter Bernie needs, hopefully if he becomes President we will able to remove cancers such as you to the gulag.

Thanx Gen Mung Beans for ressurrecting my thread. Lessee, since I last posted Bernie has received endorsements from the CWA, the WFA, & the DFA, to name the biggest ones, has raised $33 million this last quarter(all from small donors) had a march in his name in cities across the country, & is (finally!) getting SS protection. Things are getting very serious! But can he turn all of this support into votes? I guess we'll find out tomorrow

Hmmmmm...... well apparantly only 1/2 of the Iowians were feeling the Bern last nite.The pundits think that's just great but I dunno. It's not bad but.. it's more like lukewarm. He's gotta turn more of those crowds into votes. Maybe he'll get better results as primary season unfolds. Iowa's only 1 state afterall. Guess we'll see

Originally Posted by marypoza

Hmmmmm...... well apparantly only 1/2 of the Iowians were feeling the Bern last nite.The pundits think that's just great but I dunno. It's not bad but.. it's more like lukewarm. He's gotta turn more of those crowds into votes. Maybe he'll get better results as primary season unfolds. Iowa's only 1 state sfterall. Guess we'll see

Getting to coin tosses when outspent 5 / 1 and out gunned immensely in terms of people walking precincts .... that is an immense victory for Sanders.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Getting to coin tosses when outspent 5 / 1 and out gunned immensely in terms of people walking precincts .... that is an immense victory for Sanders.

Pictures of Bernie and his crowd seems to suggest that his supporters are mostly young folks. Interesting and maybe uplifting?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Getting to coin tosses when outspent 5 / 1 and out gunned immensely in terms of people walking precincts .... that is an immense victory for Sanders.

-- yeah I heard about those coin tosses. Hillary wins each & every one of them? I wanna see both sides of that coin. I agree, Bernie did good- he went toe to toe with Hillary & stood his ground, as Ring of Fire said. But I was thinking in terms of what I asked in my OP- can he turn his crowds into votes? IOW, how many of these ppl who give him these landslide victories in online polls will get up off their butts, walk out their doors, & go vote for him where it counts. We shall see, the voting is just geting started, & Iowa, I understand is a wierd state. I've read articles that say it does not necessarily predict the nominee, NH is a better indicator of that. So we shall see.

Meantime--Bern baby Bern!!

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- yeah I heard about those coin tosses. Hillary wins each & every one of them? I wanna see both sides of that coin. I agree, Bernie did good- he went toe to toe with Hillary & stood his ground, as Ring of Fire said. But I was thinking in terms of what I asked in my OP- can he turn his crowds into votes? IOW, how many of these ppl who give him these landslide victories in online polls will get up off their butts, walk out their doors, & go vote for him where it counts. We shall see, the voting is just geting started, & Iowa, I understand is a wierd state. I've read articles that say it does not necessarily predict the nominee, NH is a better indicator of that. So we shall see.

Meantime--Bern baby Bern!!

You do know that the 6 coin toss causing HC to win is a myth?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...nown/79708740/

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016...ss-story-right

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...to-coin-flips/


I'm trying to do enough myth busting now so that maybe I don't have to be such a President Bernie apologist later - it got pretty boring playing that role for all the frustrated '08 Obamatrons - you all are so fickle!

Originally Posted by playwrite

You do know that the 6 coin toss causing HC to win is a myth?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...nown/79708740/

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016...ss-story-right

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...to-coin-flips/


I'm trying to do enough myth busting now so that maybe I don't have to be such a President Bernie apologist later - it got pretty boring playing that role for all the frustrated '08 Obamatrons - you all are so fickle!

What I fail to understand is the weight given to some locations in comparison to others. In fact, the failure to simply count noses and be done with it seems odd in the extreme. We elect Presidents on a state-by-state basis (except for Nebraska), and the primary tally should be managed in that way. The delegates can be apportioned or winner-take-all, but a vote in Dubuque is the same as one on a farm near Sioux City.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What I fail to understand is the weight given to some locations in comparison to others. In fact, the failure to simply count noses and be done with it seems odd in the extreme. We elect Presidents on a state-by-state basis (except for Nebraska), and the primary tally should be managed in that way. The delegates can be apportioned or winner-take-all, but a vote in Dubuque is the same as one on a farm near Sioux City.

-- yeah, like I was told Iowa ia a wierd state re: its caucuses.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What I fail to understand is the weight given to some locations in comparison to others. In fact, the failure to simply count noses and be done with it seems odd in the extreme. We elect Presidents on a state-by-state basis (except for Nebraska), and the primary tally should be managed in that way. The delegates can be apportioned or winner-take-all, but a vote in Dubuque is the same as one on a farm near Sioux City.

You have to go to one of these caucuses, particularly one of the small ones. There's lots of them and absolute ties in voting are going to happen, but each HAS to decide a certain number of delegates - they're like babies, hard to cut in half unless you're Solomon.

In actuality, Bernie got 6 coin toss and Hillary got 7 - which is not only what one would expect from tossing 13 times but also about as close as you can divide 13 and come close to what the Iowa vote split was. Also 13 out of 52 total Dem delegates also puts it into a better perspective.

In Iowa and elsewhere, this whole blow-up is best referred to as "grasping at straws."

I think Iowans giving up their caucus districts would be like asking another state to vote all their Congressional reps as "at-large." It is what it is.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You have to go to one of these caucuses, particularly one of the small ones. There's lots of them and absolute ties in voting are going to happen, but each HAS to decide a certain number of delegates - they're like babies, hard to cut in half unless you're Solomon.

In actuality, Bernie got 6 coin toss and Hillary got 7 - which is not only what one would expect from tossing 13 times but also about as close as you can divide 13 and come close to what the Iowa vote split was. Also 13 out of 52 total Dem delegates also puts it into a better perspective.

In Iowa and elsewhere, this whole blow-up is best referred to as "grasping at straws."

I think Iowans giving up their caucus districts would be like asking another state to vote all their Congressional reps as "at-large." It is what it is.

We may need to consider using at-large Congressional voting if the balance between urban and rural gets any more biased. When Virginia sends 10 Reps and 2 Dems to Congress, even though the total vote for House seats trends Dem, there is something wrong. I put Iowa and its caucus nonsense in the same category.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Poor white people have heavily gone Republican.

But this year, thanks to Donald Trump, for the first time since 1996, many of them may be back in play.

Among Asians (especially Japanese-Americans) is much intermarriage with middle-class whites. The cultural assimilation can go either way; the white spouse might adopt much of the Asian culture as his or hers. Among middle-class non-black Latinos one sees much the same. But as a rule the two people intermarrying probably have much in common to begin with -- like similar levels of education (probably even the same college), attitudes toward learning, politics, and cultural tastes. But where do the political loyalties go?

Anything hostile to the non-white spouse's group is likely to offend the white spouse. For middle-class Hispanics and practically all Asian-American groups, anti-intellectualism characteristic of the current GOP can only hurt among white spouses of Asians or white Anglo spouses of Latinos.

Good point! And for several generations, interestingly, one of the places where intermarried Asian-White families are concentrated has been in military families. Ever since it became legal to do so during the Korean War (remember James A. Michener's Sayonara?) American GIs and seamen and airmen have been bringing back Korean and Japanese (and after the Vietnamese War, Vietnamese and Thai) wives. The only reason this did not happen with locals in Afghanistan and Iraq was that the barriers between locals and Americans were just too great (Muslims are the enemy! Arabs and Afghans lock up their daughters! Too much danger of GIs getting killed fraternising with locals!). It was soldiers who first broke down the laws against "miscegenation"--the one group of people Southern whites could not say no to easily.
Bernie could appeal to this segment of the electorate (and perhaps put the South into play in the General Election, since the South has so many military installations) by making Jim Webb his running mate. The Republicans take the military family vote for granted. They shouldn't. Especially since what Republicans (Trump excluded) seem to be offering is never-ending back to back deployments in the Middle East that eventually take their toll. And inadequate care for disabled veterans.

I don't know about that. Silicon Valley is heavily Democratic. Most college cities are heavily Democratic. Southeastern Kentucky is heavily Republican. Unless a huge realignment of the Parties occurs, the idea that people becoming more economically successful becoming more Republican is no longer common wisdom. If anything, people may become more connected to Democratic politics if they find themselves connected to institutions (especially labor unions) as their economic positions improve. On the other side, Republicans will surely seek to exploit resentment against people who 'fail' to play by the rule "if you aren't white, remain in poverty".

This election, for the first time, class and income are trumping (pun not intended!) race. We have seen for the second time, an African American conservative Republican running for President and this time, he did well enough, I believe, to walk away from Iowa with a few delegates (unlike Herman Cain). Poor whites are more then ever, perceiving themselves as being in the same boat as African Americans, with high heroin addiction and suicide rates. And this time around, we are not seeing Establishment spinmeisters being terribly successful at "hollering N**r", either overtly or by dog whistling (though Rubio surely tries). Instead, there is a real perception out there that the Clinton policies of the 1990s ("tough on crime, welfare deform) that were aimed at African-Americans have hurt a huge segment of the white population just as much. Whites are more open to a common solution to poverty and inequality more than they have been in a generation. Maybe since the 1890s.

The trick was that the Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats very rarely met, at least before the era of superhighways. Klan and blacks? By the 1930s northern blacks drifted into the New Deal Coalition; southern blacks did not vote. As for the Klan -- the dangerous 1915 Klan (1) was associated with the Republican Party in the North, and (2) practically died in the late 1920s.

The Klan basically evolved into the "Dixie Mafia" and "cornbread Mafia". As terrorists are wont to do, they drifted into organised crime.

*Race is an invented concept and as such is quite flexible.

Historically, that is correct. Romans made slavery a matter of economics. Islam made slavery a matter of economics and religion. Race consciousness per se seems to have evolved out of the Spanish concept of "limpieza de sangre" (purity of blood) that evolved against Spanish Jews in the 14th and 15th Century--the idea that Jews were to be kept down even when they converted to Catholicism.
On the other side today, we have seen first Zionism and now nationalism conflated into racism (which historically has never been the case) and separatism conflated with supremism (the two are very different), as racism has become a club to beat ideological opponents over the head with. The distinction between these beliefs seems to be totally lost on Millennials.

Ask Rachel Dolezal about that.[/QUOTE

]
The Clintons have played the same game Rachel Dolezal played for years. Remember how Bill Clinton attempted to brand himself the "blackest white man" in the 2008 election? Being accepted as honorary African-Americans (ironic after the Clintons threw African-Americans under the bus in the 90s) is the Clinton's stock in trade. Which hopefully, Bernie can make go down.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What I fail to understand is the weight given to some locations in comparison to others. In fact, the failure to simply count noses and be done with it seems odd in the extreme. We elect Presidents on a state-by-state basis (except for Nebraska), and the primary tally should be managed in that way. The delegates can be apportioned or winner-take-all, but a vote in Dubuque is the same as one on a farm near Sioux City.

I can understand the rationale. It's based on weighting delegates according to areas (and maybe even states) that Democrats have carried in the past. In it's extreme, it amounts to simply accepting the conventional wisdom that turning out one's base is more important than converting swing voters. Which can be a recipe for perpetually divided rule between a Democratic President and a Republican Congress--something that Wall Street is most comfortable with.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We may need to consider using at-large Congressional voting if the balance between urban and rural gets any more biased. When Virginia sends 10 Reps and 2 Dems to Congress, even though the total vote for House seats trends Dem, there is something wrong. I put Iowa and its caucus nonsense in the same category.

Or at the very least, automatic runoffs for Congressional and State legislature and other offices (even Senate seats). Which could be implemented state by state by initiated constitutional amendments. Automatic runoffs would boost the power of third parties and independents because (this is in Australia) voters rank candidates in order of preference. And nobody gets elected with less than a majority of at least preferences. In Australia, candidates for the major parties depend on being the second choice of voters for minor parties. Aussies don't care if it takes several days to determine winners of parliamentary seats and thus who forms the government. Aussies chose this over "first past the post" in the UK and US when they became independent in 1901. And this (along with fines for not voting) makes Australia a far more democratic and fair country than either the US or the UK.
The real question regarding automatic runoff would be whether a conservative Supreme Court would shut it down by finding a reason to rule it unconstitutional if it started to catch on. Though if the Court started ruling basically that the US was founded as and should remain an oligarchy, this would truly create impetus for a new constitutional convention.