Ten oz

To say that other candidates haven't made a connection is plain wrong. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and etc have all held elected office. They have all proven the ability to win the support of an electorate. Trump hasn't. Donald Trump has never won an election in his life. While the other candidates you claim haven't "explained why these issues may not be so important" have. So they must have explained something to an electorate at some point. Trump's supporters have energy and passion. That should not be confused with having numbers and electoral influence.

I agree. My point about Paul was simply that polling good doesn't always translate into primary wins. Popularity or general public support isn't what wins primaries. 125 million people voted in the general election in 2012 but only 13 million voted in the Republican primary. It is all about where voting booths are put, which neighborhoods have staffers out registering people in, and who paid off which local committees.

In 1968 George Wallace ran as a 3rd party candidate on a platform of segregation and Carried 5 states. Wallace won 13.5% of the popular vote. Lone issue candidates tapping in to anger over heritage and race is not new. History also shows us that early primary success does not always equal primary victories. Ron Paul always polled well, alway got the most applause at debates, and always fizzled when primary voting began.

Great response. I like that you have taken the conversation global. Throughout Central and South America the trend does appear to be as you have said. Center left with a fluid rotation of leadership works best. However that isn't a standard that can exist everywhere. At least not in the present. In the middle east for example strong long empowered groups seem to at least create stability. Countries like Qatar, UAE, Jordan, and etc have a very long way to go but are racing toward the center compared to many other countries in the region that aren't basically lead by monarchs. Education, infrastructure, and standards of living is better. Plus Capitalism and globalization does seem to be putting pressure on the wealthy monarchs to address migrant worker and womens rights. Meanwhile all "democracies" the west has attempted to foster in the region are only getting worse in every measurable way. Of course wars and foreign power interventions have a huge impact. Impossible to say how well any system would work in true isolation.

Center Left by Canadian standards may perhaps be further left than exist as a major party wing in the United States.

We did not have the Atomic weapons sooner and neither did Germany, the Soviets, or Japan so it is pointless speculation. If Julius Caesar had atomic weapons he probably won have used them. It is an empty statement. At the time we fire bombed Tokyo war in the Pacific was at its height. Victory was not guaranteed and the future unknown. Desperate times desperate measures. When we used the atomic weapons we were looking for how to most conveniently solicit a surrender. The war (world war) was finished. Japan was contained.

Trump's popularity is not amongst likely Republican primary voters. While about 125 million people voted in the general election in 2012 only about 18 million voted in that years Republican primary. Trump is popular amongst people who identify as independent and libertarian. Neither group are likely primary voters. Bernie Sanders has the same problems. All the independents and never voted before young people supporting him need to register as democrats to even be eligible to vote in the primary. It is an extra step the other traditional candidates don't have. It is also important to consider that delegates are won. Total votes do not alone choose a win. It is a party nomination. The party chooses their own nominee. Ron Paul was popular. Ron Paul always polled well and was seen as a great debater. Once the primaries started Ron Paul never won the nomination. Trump is in the same boat.

No, but it shows that using the bombs was not a last resort. We had options. It was a preference and not a neccessity of war. The issue was how to best obtain surrender. Victory was not was already inevitable.

Realtime documented concerns and hindsight regrets paint a pretty good picture. If you are saying that there is no way to know for sure, than yeah, that can be used to justify almost every decision ever made. Once decision A gets made decision B becomes speculation. As for who was providing Truman information; it was MacArthurs team with regards to causality estimates. The disagreement was in how Truman's administration interpreted the information. Political advisors and military leaders have different jobs.

MacArthur was responsible for organizing and planning the invasion. He team was responsible for generating the causality estimates.His opinion is rather relevant. Also I don't see how maybes and what ifs justifies the only two uses of atomic weapons on a population in history. It wasn't a last resort. It was done preemptively to avoid sending soldiers in on land. We were winning the war and had Japan contained. The issue was there surrender and not whether or not they'd invade the states. Many would argue it was done to make a statement to Russia. Or at least that was a factor. We demanded Japan surrender without conditions. Which meant losing their emperor who was a living god to many at the time. After the bombing we conceded and allowed the emperor to stay. I hardly see how trying to work out such a deal before the bombing would have hurt anything. It isnt as if Japan had a bomb themselves and we needed to beat them to using it.

It Truman were alive today? Truman died in 1972. Truman had time to call it a mistake and never did. As a matter of fact in 1963 Truman wrote to the Chicago Sun-times that he had no regrets and would do it again. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/flip_books/index.php?tldate=1963-07-30&groupid=3707&titleid=&pagenumber=1&collectionid=ihow The Eisenhower quote previously posted is from 1953. Eight years later and not 20 or 30 years later. May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." I won't fill this page with quotes. The information is easily searched if you are legitimately interested. The comments made by Generals, Admirals, and former Presidents are hardly death bed confessions from decades after the fact. It is not reasonable to demand documented opposition from before the fact. Had anyone come forward and told the press that we had such a weapon and were about t use it they would have spent the rest of their life in prison. The project was beyond top secret. In the middle of a war soldiers follow orders whether they like them or not. It is ridiculously to imply that by going along with commands they somehow are equally responsible as those giving the commands. The justification has always been that American casualties would have been too high had there been an invasion. I have already provide links showing that the top Navy Admirals felt no invasion was needed and that Blockades and continued air strike alone were enough. MacArthur was placed in charge of planning the invasion. He disputed the casualty estimates being provided to Truman. That is documented.

Not a contradiction. They are on the record in real time saying Japan was already beaten and that casualties from an invasion wouldnt be high as Truman feared. There is nothing (released anyway) showing how they felt about using Atomic Bombs or how they initially reacted. Their feels about the bombs specifically is what's addressed in the previous quotes. Planning the invasion was not nearly as top secret. So there are more memorandums and reports for review regarding those discussions. Hindsight is 20/20 but the 2 things about that are it doesn't mean what becomes known couldn't have been known all along or that no one knew to begin with. I am sure you are familiar with the hindsight political question often asked about Iraq: "knowing what you know no would you". The question poses more as a passive defense for the choices made than an honest question. In truth many knew then what everyone acknowledges today. Passion trumped data and those who played along look back and pretend they were misinformed rather than admitting they were stubborn.

@ MigL, I wish we had more parties. I wish there were at least 4 parties. I don't think here is also huge differences between Democrats and Republicans on everything. However small difference expanded out over time and distance wind up being huge. The difference between 10 mph and 10.5 mph isn't much but if a couple of people travel at those speeds for several hours they will wind up in different locations completely out of sight from one another. I once believed the two parties were basically the same. In 2000 I supported Gore but was thrilled at the success Nadar was having. I also feel Bush would be an okay President. His old man had been pragmatic. I figured Bush was a moderate. I learned my lesson. Elections do matter and the parties are not the same. Perhaps on a day to day level when all is well there is little day light between them but when things happen and the pendulum begins to swings they are differences and those differences have real effects on peoples lives. The patriot act, funneling military equipment to local police departments, the tax cuts, the "fixes" to medicare that weren't paid for, and etc were terrible policy. Of cousre that is all small stuff compared to the destablization of the middle east. Over a million people killed, millions of refugees crossing borders, the intentional undermining of leaders throughout the region. Bush was terrible and that isn't just partisan talk. That isn't just Dem vs GOP bickering. Bush hurt my country, the interior Middle East, and did harm to the whole worlds economy. Perhaps he was just a bad apple. I have no doubt that McCain would have been different had he beat Bush in the 2000 primary. Doesn't matter. Point is whom one supports and what policies they espouse matters. Simply saying they are all the same sort of washes ones hands of responsibility. We (U.S. citizens) are all responsible for the things we allow our leaders to do. We elect them.

Setting the bar at what members of the Dept of Defense said in real time is not reasonable. Generals, Admirals, and etc do not speak out against their own chain of command in the middle of ongoing operations. It is always after the fact we find out how they felt and what advice they provided. In real time various Admirals and generals debated a variety of issues surround the invasion of Japan. Official records released do reflect that Admirals Leahy and King believe blockades and continued airstrikes alone would've been enough to finish the war. They also reflect the General Macarthur rejected the casuality estimates Gen. Marshal was providing the President. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html Of course these are military men. They would not have made out right objections against policy or the President. They do as they are ordered and make what recommendations they are permitted. Anything they privately communicated off the record is obviously not availible for review. However I see no reason to assume that Dwight Eisenhower, William Leahy, Ernst King, and etc are not telling the truth. Eisenhower claims he communicated his grave misgivings. As a general speaking to the Sec of War (his boss) what else would there have been for him to do?

General Dwight D. Eisenhower: "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/topic_display.cfm?tcid=63 William Daniel Leahy United States' first de facto Chairman of the Joint chief of staff 1942-1949: "Once it had been tested, President Truman faced the decision as to whether to use it. He did not like the idea, but he was persuaded that it would shorten the war against Japan and save American lives. It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."[6] In 1985 Richard Nixon recalled discussing the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with MacArthur (General Douglas MacArthur): MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy the bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants... MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him.[84] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Truman%27s_relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur#Nuclear_weapons I could qoute many more admirals and Generals but I will stop there. The 3 above represent the most celebrated military minds of world world II and they all felt the use of Atomic weapons against Japan was unethical and/or out right unneccessary. How does the view that there was a tactical purpose that saved American lives persisit in the face of clear historical evidence to the contrary?

"In 1911, the year he turned 27, Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman." "(Uncle Will) does hate Chinese and Japs," Truman continued. "So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America." http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19911103&slug=1314805 I don't think Turman and various others during his time cared too much about whether or not the Japenese people killed were combatants or not. Anti Japanese atitudes and outright racism were a very real thing at the time and played a much bigger role in the decision making process that most today admit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment

If only a single weapon existed whomever had it would always be in a powerful bargaining position. Many having many reduces the leverage and forces other considerations. Basically in a world where even one exists there is a need for many to exist. At least that is the argument. There is no point in having something you can never use simply so you can threaten to use it. Nuclear weapons can not be used to save any countries way of life. If ever the day comes that nuclear weapons are launched clearly the society launching them will have all ready collasped, failed, or been destoryed. They are an example of how cynical humans are. They stand as a selfish charge that "if I go we all go". They encourage leaders to pretend they are crazy enough to use them. Or worse, they provide leaders who aren't prentend a politically functional platform.

I am referencing current advocated policies. Politician A says we must do blank to help the economy while politician B says blank won't work. What examples can we use to evalute how those ideas have worked in the past. That is the question I am asking. I use Conservative and Republican interchangably because for voting purposes they are but do understand the two aren't equal. As a party both traditionally and currently many members of the Republican party are arguably as moderate on most issues as the bulk of Democrats. However the strength of their support is in extremely conservative pockets that force candidates/issues to the right. The Tea Party movement which gained congressional seats and ousted traditional Republicans is an example. If conservatives truly started their own party, Tea Party as a third party, Republicans would be finished nationally. They would not control the House, Senate, or courts and would have no shot at the White House. With that in mind my question is not Republican vs Deomocrat. I honestly do not believe on a personal level there is not much difference between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. What is difference is the pressure placed on them by wings within their party. The same is not true for Democrats. If the liberal wing left the brand overall would survive. The Party is not as strongly influenced by support from left of center. So may question is directed at the conservative wing which for better or worse currently drives the Republican Party platform though are not idealogically on par with all party members.

My ideology is showing a bit? I am asking for examples and you are responding in platitudes. I have never said one system is perfect or even better. I simply asked for examples of the policies advocated for by conservatives being successful. I suppose I have defined successful as being good for the majority of the governed population but I do not feel that is a terrible high bar to set for messuring a government policy. This is not a "bait topic". This is a standard review. For example If i were on a committee commissioned to build a rail system in a congested city first step would be to look at other cities that have rail systems and figure out what has worked, what hasn't worked, why what has work did well, and what caused the ones that struggled to not succeed. There is something to learn from what has already been tried. If you start a thread asking for examples of progressive ideals that have been successful do you honestly think I or others would challange your thread and call it a "bait topic".

What are the examples of success? For example Democrats advocate making pre-school and 2yr colleges free. Successful examples of that positively impacting a countries population exist throughout Western Europe. What are the advocated policy positions from Conservatives that have successful examples?

Capitalism is not evil. I don't think any major political brand in the westernized world advocates against capitalism. It is the taxation, regulation, and management of key markets that divide the political parties. This thread is asking for examples of success when using the model advocated be Conservatves. We are all well aware of examples of various amount of socialism being successful. Where you live in Canada there is socialist medicine. What are the examples where low taxation, major roll backs on regulations, and purely profit driven solutions for education, medicine, pensions, and etc have successfully helped the majority of a countries residents?

With the Republican primaries kicking into full throttle this week with debates I thought this thread could by re-addressed. The candidates will tout various conservative proposals to limit government regulation, reduce taxation, scale back enviromental protection, ban abortion, block immigration, arm more individuals, and push free market (for profit) solutions for: education, healthcare, law enforcement, and etc. So asked in the OP what are the examples of that approach working for the better of a population?

Protesters need a permit to practrice there right to speech, Police can cover your face full of pepper spray if you parctice free speech when they are dealing with you, defendents (innocent until proven guilty) have been bound and gagged in court, and etc are all examples of restrictions to ones right to free speech. I don't even have time to list the many ways the press has been limited. Of course your question was rhetorictal mostly meant to point out the contradiction. The Constitution is like the Bible depending on ones faith they read into what they want. The Founding Fathers themselves envisioned a world very different than the one we have. So much so that much of what is in the constitution is null and void because the concepts addressed no long exist. The Founders wrote that all men were created equal while owning slaves and they preached no taxation without representation but made it so only land owners could vote and slave could be considered 3/5 a person for districting purposes. It seems to me that the rights presented in the Constitution were primarily meant for themselves. They were all peers and that is whom "we" and "the people" covered. Not unlike in religion when "brother", "sister", "child of god", and etc only covers followers of that sect. All people or the people didn't every one. It meant everyone in ear shot. Everyone putting ink on the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was never about guns. There was not suppose to be standing armies or police forces. States and counties were suppose to be armed as to police and defend themselves independently without federal bureaucracy. To ensure that the powers in PA wouldn't be telling people is SC what to do. It provided independent armed authority. Meant to ensure the ability of communities raise armies and combat war. As standing armies have become impractical to be without and police forces a popular staple within our culture the 2nd amendment has been re-branded as a gun rights protection act. Less about independent community government enforcement & protection and entirely about individuals owning guns specifically. As written the 2nd Amendment is null and void in many aspects. The conditions it was designied for no longer exist. If the gun lobby wants a individual rights to gun protection act they should get their supporting politicians to write and pass one. Otherwise, if they want to treat the 2nd Amendment honestly they would support militias made of any groups of people in a community the right to have all the arms desired to effectively raise an army to rival our standing federal military.

"This is the reason almost half of voters don't bother to vote. they've been lied to and disappointed so often", half of all eligible voters never voted to begin with. They have never been let as they have never supported any candidate or party. In my opinion there are many in political circles that look to keep it this way and promote the idea that politicians can not be trusted. Apathy can be a useful tool. The less eyes watching allows for more freedom. In truth we don't need to trust politicians. That is the beauty of our system. Everything our politicians do is a matter of public record. If we truly care to know we can look and see who did or did not do what.Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Bernie Sanders, and everyone else running for president has an enormous public record we are all able to review if we are interested in how they might govern. Also I think most politicians do tell it like it is with regards to how they would go out doing the people's business. When certian politicians talk tough on foriegn policy I don't think it is just fluff. I think if elected they would be tough and lead us into more wars. Of course when describing the policies of others, their competitors, they're prone to exaggeration and distortion but under those circumstances who isn't? That is the nature of competition across the board in business, sports, dating, and etc. I personally believe that the apathy of eligible voters who choose to tune out and just enjoy the spoils of living in such a wealthy nation without bothering to understand its operations is a bigger problem than the trustworthiness politicians.

The more jobs that can be done by machines the more we humans are freed to do other things. I am glad for all the automation we have today and hope we develop more in the future. Without the vast majority of all employment would labor. The human body(and mind) did not evolve to merely be assembly line peices. As for software that can assist with more intellectual work, terrific. Some things would simply take too long for a human to calculate. Again, have machines do it for us frees us to do other things. It is a net positive.