OK, now that Rand Paul has officially entered the race, I think it is safe to start a thread on this topic. Let's look at the candidates who have filed with the FEC and their chances.
Republicans:
Rand Paul – No chance
Ted Cruz – Slightly more than no chance. Maybe 0.1% probability. (1% if I'm feeling ten times as generous.) But I don't want no Canuck as President.
Mark Everson – No chance
Jack Fellure – No chance
Democrats:
Jeff Boss – No chance
Robby Wells – No chance
Vermin Supreme – My favorite candidate so far. Alas, he has no chance.
Other:
Terry Jones – No chance
Zoltan Istvan – As much as I would like to have a transhumanist President named Zoltan, he has no chance.
More seriously, but only slightly, the race I'd like to see would be between John Kasich and Martin O'Malley, but that ain't gonna happen.
How long until the 2016 election is labeled either A.) The most important election ever, in a generation, or some other very long measure of time, or B.) A turning point of some sort?
Thinking of the field of possible contenders for the GOP nomination (Christie, Paul, Walker et al.) conjures to mind a name for a rock band: Jeb and the Whack Jobs
I would love to see Elizabeth Warren enter the race--even though she will likely not win, she could certainly bring a lot of important issues front and center. Likely the only winners in this election will be crony capitalism, banks, defense contractors, and horrific "too big to fail" companies like Comcast, ATT, General Motors, etc.
Depending on how far they get, I wouldn't quite call Kasich or Pataki whack jobs.
It would seem troubling that Democrats are now so opposed to democracy that they appear set to simply hand the nomination to someone. Hopefully that changes. Besides, we need at least one more woman in the race so that I can perform an Arrested Development character analysis of the candidates. Hillary is clearly Lucille, but who would play the part of Lindsay? Maybe Carly I Ruined a Company, Imagine What I Can Do To The Country Fiorina.
Sorry, don't know much about them, but I reserve the right to apply the "whack job" label to climate change deniers, evolution deniers, and anti-vaxers. Christie is just plain contemptible in other ways.
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on April 07, 2015, 10:30:05 AM
Sorry, don't know much about them, but I reserve the right to apply the "whack job" label to climate change deniers, evolution deniers, and anti-vaxers.
Climate change and evolution denial is a far right Republican specialty, but anti-vaccine fools populate both major parties, so it is not inconceivable that a Democrat could utter stoopid comments on this subject on the campaign trail. I hope so. So far the biggest gaffe from Hillary has probably been her claim of poverty. We haven't really hit full blown gaffe season yet, so there is some good stuff to look forward to.
Vermin Supreme looks like the best candidate so far.
Jeb is the least objectionable choice to me so far, which is not saying a whole lot, given the depth of my objections to all the others. I'm talking people who have a chance here, Todd, not some of the actual potential non-dumbasses you brought up.
Quote from: Todd on April 07, 2015, 10:23:45 AM
Depending on how far they get, I wouldn't quite call Kasich or Pataki whack jobs.
It would seem troubling that Democrats are now so opposed to democracy that they appear set to simply hand the nomination to someone. Hopefully that changes. Besides, we need at least one more woman in the race so that I can perform an Arrested Development character analysis of the candidates. Hillary is clearly Lucille, but who would play the part of Lindsay? Maybe Carly I Ruined a Company, Imagine What I Can Do To The Country Fiorina.
Oh, c'mon, Sarah is still around... and that other crackpot from Minnesota (no, not Mn Dave, the female one)... ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 07, 2015, 10:51:11 AMOh, c'mon, Sarah is still around... and that other crackpot from Minnesota (no, not Mn Dave, the female one)... ::)
Unfortunately, neither one will run.
I am sticking to candidates who have filed for now. Some possible candidates won't even do that. The list will grow as time goes on.
Quote from: Todd on April 07, 2015, 11:00:47 AM
Unfortunately, neither one will run.
I am sticking to candidates who have filed for now. Some possible candidates won't even do that. The list will grow as time goes on.
Well, screw it then, what fun is a circus without the clowns? >:D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 07, 2015, 11:12:21 AMWell, screw it then, what fun is a circus without the clowns?
Exactly! We have to wait a bit before the jackasses start braying uncontrollably and the elephants start shitting uncontrollably on the floor.
If ever there was a year for a third party candidate (not necessarily good news depending on who it is!)
Quote from: Todd on April 07, 2015, 11:14:07 AM
Exactly! We have to wait a bit before the jackasses start braying uncontrollably and the elephants start shitting uncontrollably on the floor.
Very well, I accept your wise counsel of patience (meanwhile, making plans to move to Madagascar or some other, saner place). :)
8)
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on April 07, 2015, 10:12:22 AMI would love to see Elizabeth Warren enter the race--even though she will likely not win, she could certainly bring a lot of important issues front and center. Likely the only winners in this election will be crony capitalism, banks, defense contractors, and horrific "too big to fail" companies like Comcast, ATT, General Motors, etc.
Comcast and (especially) AT&T are a bit dated, but your basic premise has some foundation in reality. (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/wall-street-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-106070.html) From the now old article, my favorite quote is:
"If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine," one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. "We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It's Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody's worst nightmare."
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on April 07, 2015, 11:21:25 AM
If ever there was a year for a third party candidate (not necessarily good news depending on who it is!)
Only if it is this guy:
(http://www.alliancetexas.com/portals/0/Images/Ross%20Perot%20Jr.jpg)
Quote from: Todd on April 07, 2015, 10:38:54 AMSo far the biggest gaffe from Hillary has probably been her claim of poverty. We haven't really hit full blown gaffe season yet, so there is some good stuff to look forward to.
I'd say the biggest gaffe so far has been Jeb Bush publishing people's SSNs because they were in his correspondence, but that's not anywhere near as fun as somebody saying "Ubekibekistanstan" or "oops".
If Ted Cruz becomes president, I may have to reconsider moving to Japan.
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on April 07, 2015, 10:12:22 AM
I would love to see Elizabeth Warren enter the race--even though she will likely not win, she could certainly bring a lot of important issues front and center.
The political machinery of one and a half parties and the entirety of the banking/financial industry is dedicated to the proposition that Warren is the nightmare from which they would not awaken. They are right to be concerned. We got the New Deal to keep Huey Long and Norman Thomas at bay. My worry is we'll waste the Warren moment and get nothing.
I agree with Warren that while better regulation of banks is desirable, more desirable still is that they be torn to pieces.
Quote from: drogulus on April 08, 2015, 06:33:10 AM
The political machinery of one and a half parties and the entirety of the banking/financial industry is dedicated to the proposition that Warren is the nightmare from which they would not awaken. They are right to be concerned. We got the New Deal to keep Huey Long and Norman Thomas at bay. My worry is we'll waste the Warren moment and get nothing.
Warren talks a good Progressive game, but the reason she knows the one percenters are so devious and dangerous is because she is one herself. The difference between what she says and what she would be able to do in an executive position is vast. She engages in a lot of Say-Do.
Wealth doesn't put you on the wrong side if you don't want it to. The wealthy are just as capable of acting against the perceived interest of their class as poor Mississippians voting their master's ideology. The labor movement, for all its faults, provided a counterweight to the master class that hasn't been replaced. Warren would IMO tip the scales slightly towards a unified view of the economy as a system in need of balance. We need to better afford buying what we produce, and reduce the finance tax on the rest of the economy. It would good to reduce the"tax tax" as well, but only if we cut taxes on spending (low to middle income) rather than another iteration of tax cuts on dead money.
Whether Warren succeeds or not isn't the only worthwhile question. I know she's the best chance at the moment, and with O'Malley in the WH and Warren in the Senate the Democratic Party would be a different entity than it's been since before Clinton I was elected. I have no idea if the time is really right or not, only that we won't get anything but what we have with the other predictably complacent alternatives. As for the Dingbat caucus that holds a veto over the course of the Republicans, they look strong now but that could change.
Quote from: drogulus on April 08, 2015, 08:40:06 AMWealth doesn't put you on the wrong side if you don't want it to.
What does this even mean? What is the wrong side and what is the right side?
I'm less sanguine about Warren's intentions and abilities than you seem to be. Forget her predictable, heavy-handed rhetoric - the last op-ed I read from her was filled with a list of what all Democrats and Republicans "should" do and believe - and look at the tangible results of the high profile project that she worked on, namely the CFPB. Yes, it is slapping big fines on banks, and various other companies; yes, it is going after payday lenders; yes, it will even start work in small business lending. Look a little harder, though, and one sees that the banks themselves benefit from the CFPB. It is funded by the Fed, which itself has direct oversight of some banks, and the CFPB also defers to other federal regulators of banks (eg, the FDIC). It faces no restraint in dealing with non-bank entities. The practical reality is that while the CFPB can fine banks, it cannot stop them from operating. It can and does with non-bank entities. It is morphing into an ally of banks. It appears to be succumbing to regulatory capture. I find it hard to believe that Ms Warren did not know this was a real possibility. Perhaps she has some grand scheme to implement overt political control over the Fed and other independent agencies at some point in the future, but based on current reality, it looks like she helped form a government agency that sure sounds nice, but ends acting in a manner not originally envisioned.
If Warren stays in the Senate, she will be one of many. She is no Harry Reid, let alone Richard Russell.
O'Malley as President could be fun, provided he faces a Republican Congress.
Quote from: Todd on April 08, 2015, 08:57:45 AM
What does this even mean? What is the wrong side and what is the right side?
You get to decide.
Quote from: drogulus on April 08, 2015, 11:51:58 AM
You get to decide.
That's fortunate, since it seems cruel to take what you at face value.
Quote from: Ken B on April 08, 2015, 02:18:24 PM
That's fortunate, since it seems cruel to take what you at face value.
What I said was that wealth didn't make anyone wrong. What makes any position right is always a question of how wide it construes interests. If a poor person wants to feed themselves at the expense of starving the other poor that's no better than what some rich do from a bomber altitude (the higher you go, the more undeserving the beneficiaries).
In the least surprising news story of the year, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy to be President of the United States of America. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-campaign.html?_r=0) Now, will the Democrats make her fight for the candidacy, or will they simply anoint her?
voting is for the sheep
any Republican = will continue verbatim the Bush/Clinton/Obama agenda
any Democrat = will continue verbatim the Bush/Clinton/Obama agenda
any other = will have an ooops! accident if they don't continue verbatim with the Bush/Clinton/Obama agenda (21)
You rejected The LORD at Sinai... this is what you get :-X :laugh: 0:) >:D ???
snyprrr, you are too jaded. 2016 will be a very important election, with very different consequences depending on who wins. I'll put it this way: You get to choose which gets higher priority, the next-gen bomber or the sixth-gen fighter.
Quote from: snyprrr on April 12, 2015, 11:40:13 AM
voting is for the sheep
BAAAA BAAA BAAAA! Like, wouldn't it be, like, cool if, like, someone came out with like, an app that would let you vote from your iPhone!? Maybe the next iPhone, will have, like this, um
capability? Like, I think I'll get in line at the Apple store right now BAAAA BAAAA BAAAAA!
Like, the iPhone 7 comes out next month. Then when all my friends still have the old one I'm all, like, you know "
Um hullo, like April 2015 called! It wants its cellphone back, loser!"
Seriously though, it is too soon to start re-using my old More trees! Less Bush! bumper sticker?
Quote from: Todd on April 12, 2015, 11:47:20 AM
snyprrr, you are too jaded. 2016 will be a very important election, with very different consequences depending on who wins. I'll put it this way: You get to choose which gets higher priority, the next-gen bomber or the sixth-gen fighter.
One side I call The Werewolves
The other side I call The Vampires
I'M
STILL THE FOOD FOR
BOTH!!
Come on, now,... you can't be calling anyone jaded after Bush-Clinton-Obama. It's now been proven who are the 'waiting in the wings'- yea, you have the choice to vote for the ones THEY approved for you to vote for. Wow, Hillary or Jeb... wow, no, I'm the one who's jaded???? You give me these choices and tell me I'M the problem????
snyprrr's Grande Warning: If you ever... EVER... find a politician that you fall head over heels for, guess what?,... you've probably been spoon fed someone who has been groomed from birth to pull the wool over your eyes... could someone count O's lies, for instance(s)? ("this is what I believe 2006" vs "this is what I believe 2012"- oh, yea, right, he "evolved" lol) Or Bush- I don't care, you know I believe they all belong to the SAME FLIPPIN' BIRD WITH TWO FLIPPIN WINGS-
WHEN WILL YOU ALL RECOGNIZE THAT THE TWO FLIPPIN WIIIIINGS ARE FLIPPIN ATTACHED TO THE SAME FLIPPIN BIRRRRRD??!!??!!??!!??!
FUCK- when in flippin history of the universe has there EVER been a flippin GTWO HEADED BIRD??????
NEVER!!!!!!!!!!
Communo-Capalistic Thalmoodism, with a "liberal" dose of Goldsterinian fear mongering and narco-vaccino-gee-em-oh!meohmy!!-
Oh, but better "vote" for Ted Cruz, whose(correct?) wife works for which bank????
Or Rand Paul who would succumb to business-as-usual quickern' you can say Iwasagainstitbefore I was for it
eLIZ wARREN????? Really, my naughty substitute teacher???? She won't be intimidated by a glory hole criminal influences, duped like the wide eyed milf in training that she is??
PLEASE.
PLEASE.
Expose yourselves- those of you on this forum who actually believe ANY OF THESE CRITTERS OF THE LAST 20 YEARS has been anything but the ensconced families of yore (wasn't Clinton's great great great mayor of NYC or something?) who have managed to raise up generations (of the Bill and W generation- you flippin 60s hippie munbys who now control everyflippin thing) HarperBlair...etcetcetc...all the same
all lock step
Bammy has rescinded how many of W's agendas??? How many??? Zero you say??? Bammy seems to be doing exactly as Bush you say????? Got you confused, you say???? How can this be????
With the knee jerk reactionism - "if you don't love 'Murica than yer a Muzzy terrist" either/or----- Hegelian Dialectic at work since the 60s and before .....1899.....
would you vote for adolf today?
I bet y'all would
bet
thanks Todd, now in your shillery you've managed to waste a good morning----- Buuuuuueller!!!!!!-----
why do I think you believe as I that only crooks rule over us by our own manufactured consent? Birch+Chomsky=Truth???loloolololooololl
'dolfy was a socialist, right? mother hen to her chilluns? momma knows best... cue Roger Waters Rant...
So, yea, I'll "vote" for Roger Waters then.
i'M NOT EEEVEN GOING TO READ OVER THIS POST TO SEE IF IT MAKES ANY SENSE (see? I didn't even look to see if Locks were on)- I consider it your punishment for awakening me from my thousands year slumber.
Release the LaRouche!
Quotei'M NOT EEEVEN GOING TO READ OVER THIS POST TO SEE IF IT MAKES ANY SENSE
(* pretends not to check his watch *)
Looks like snyprrr's rant had an effect on Marco Rubio, who just joined the fray. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/13/marco-rubio-president-2016-announcement/21752401/) He's the first of at least two Spanish speakers likely to run this year. Angling for the Veep job, maybe? Or just a warm up for 2020, 2024, 2028, and 2032?
A lot of money flowing in for Ted Cruz. Good, bad, or indifferent for the GOP's chances?
Unsurprisingly, I agree with most of Snipper's rant. I mean; who can argue with that?
The real issue as I see it is that the entrenched interests are freaking entrenched. My voting or not voting for them ain't gonna make the slightest bit of difference. They let the People have Obama as an object lesson; point of lesson? It doesn't make a damn who you vote for, it is what we say it is and no one is going to change it.
It is actually all just one multi-headed beast, and no matter which head you vote for, you still get the same beast.
I'm not sure, but I think I just said exactly the same thing Snips said. Scary, ain't it? >:D
8)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2015, 07:14:39 AM
A lot of money flowing in for Ted Cruz. Good, bad, or indifferent for the GOP's chances?
Irrelevant. If Cruz is telling the truth that 90%+ came from small donors, then it won't matter. Bush, if he runs, will vacuum up the big donor money, and then there's the roughly $900 million that the Kochs have reportedly set aside for the election. $4 million? Literally a drop in the proverbial bucket. (And check out Hillary's numbers when they are reported.)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 13, 2015, 07:15:47 AM
I'm not sure, but I think I just said exactly the same thing Snips said. Scary, ain't it?
Then join me, won't you, in voting for a true independent candidate.
(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/282/f/5/Cthulhu_for_President_by_xalres.jpg)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 13, 2015, 07:15:47 AM
The real issue as I see it is that the entrenched interests are freaking entrenched.
Aye.
Quote from: Todd on April 13, 2015, 07:19:04 AM
Irrelevant. If Cruz is telling the truth that 90%+ came from small donors, then it won't matter. Bush, if he runs, will vacuum up the big donor money, and then there's the roughly $900 million that the Kochs have reportedly set aside for the election. $4 million? Literally a drop in the proverbial bucket. (And check out Hillary's numbers.)
The figure I saw was $31 million, but that may not much alter your point.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2015, 07:21:46 AM
The figure I saw was $31 million, but that may not much alter your point.
July is reporting period, so everyone will have a better idea of how much the candidates have raised. But what about the Super PAC money? Should we start a pool on what the 2016 election costs? $1 billion? $2 billion? $3 billion? More? Fat times for local TV stations ahead.
My youngest sister is now going to be involved in the "elect Hillary" campaign at the next Presidential election. She has a Masters in US Studies from Sydney University and has networked through the university US Studies Centre (visiting diplomats, academics and business people from the US) and is a permanent member of the university alumni. Recently she was over in the US on a small stipend (she had taken leave from her teaching position at another university) for the "G'day USA" program in California. My sister seems to think Hillary is good for America, feminism and women in general, but I remain unconvinced.
We met some charming Americans in Amsterdam a couple of weeks ago and joined them for dinner. That evening I learned in no uncertain terms what some Americans think of Hillary Clinton!!
Quote from: Phrygian on April 13, 2015, 07:31:43 AMThat evening I learned in no uncertain terms what some Americans think of Hillary Clinton!!
Mrs Clinton is an at least modestly divisive figure.
Quote from: Todd on April 13, 2015, 07:20:35 AM
Then join me, won't you, in voting for a true independent candidate.
(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/282/f/5/Cthulhu_for_President_by_xalres.jpg)
I can do that... +1
8)
Quote from: Phrygian on April 13, 2015, 07:31:43 AM
My youngest sister is now going to be involved in the "elect Hillary" campaign at the next Presidential election. She has a Masters in US Studies from Sydney University and has networked through the university US Studies Centre (visiting diplomats, academics and business people from the US) and is a permanent member of the university alumni. Recently she was over in the US on a small stipend (she had taken leave from her teaching position at another university) for the "G'day USA" program in California. My sister seems to think Hillary is good for America, feminism and women in general, but I remain unconvinced.
We met some charming Americans in Amsterdam a couple of weeks ago and joined them for dinner. That evening I learned in no uncertain terms what some Americans think of Hillary Clinton!!
Hillary would be lousy. That makes her better than the last three democrat nominees.
Quote from: Todd on April 13, 2015, 07:38:29 AM
Mrs Clinton is an at least modestly divisive figure.
"Some 49 percent of Americans feel favorably about Clinton, but 46 percent had unfavorable views and only 4 percent felt undecided, according to a March ABC News/Washington Post poll." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0412/Do-Hillary-and-Jeb-have-an-unfavorable-problem-Yes-but-in-different-ways.-video)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 13, 2015, 09:18:28 AM
"Some 49 percent of Americans feel favorably about Clinton, but 46 percent had unfavorable views and only 4 percent felt undecided, according to a March ABC News/Washington Post poll." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0412/Do-Hillary-and-Jeb-have-an-unfavorable-problem-Yes-but-in-different-ways.-video)
The most important question here is how are 4% undecided about a prominent national and international figure who has been in the national spotlight for almost a quarter century? (And what about the unaccounted for 1%?)
Quote from: Todd on April 13, 2015, 09:33:58 AM
The most important question here is how are 4% undecided about a prominent national and international figure who has been in the national spotlight for almost a quarter century? (And what about the unaccounted for 1%?)
I have always wondered the same thing. Last election, I distinctly recall CNN or one of those, having a big panel discussion the night before the election with a bunch of 'undecideds'. Really? If you don't know who you are going to vote for by then, you need to be out of the pool of eligible voters! ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 13, 2015, 10:07:48 AM
I have always wondered the same thing. Last election, I distinctly recall CNN or one of those, having a big panel discussion the night before the election with a bunch of 'undecideds'. Really? If you don't know who you are going to vote for by then, you need to be out of the pool of eligible voters! ::)
Can you imagine having dinner with such a person?
"On the one hand, Ranch dressing is smooth and creamy; on the other hand, Thousand Island is tangy and has a nice texture. Why must life be filled with so many difficult choices?"
Quote from: Todd on April 13, 2015, 10:12:29 AM
Can you imagine having dinner with such a person?
"On the one hand, Ranch dressing is smooth and creamy; on the other hand, Thousand Island is tangy and has a nice texture. Why must life be filled with so many difficult choices?"
I dub thee 'Sir Duncely of Moronshire' ::)
I'd be suicidal after the first 5 minutes... :-\
8)
I foresee a wonderful collaboration between Hilary Clinton and Martha Nussbaum.. :)
Quote from: Henk on April 13, 2015, 11:12:59 AM
I foresee a wonderful collaboration between Hilary Clinton and Martha Nussbaum.. :)
There are elements of scariness there; not sure they haven't already been talking. Just girl talk, of course. :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 13, 2015, 11:52:23 AM
There are elements of scariness there; not sure they haven't already been talking. Just girl talk, of course. :-\
8)
You're right.
Chicago is a place for both from which they work.
I couldn't care less about who's going to succeed Obama. The last decent USA president was George Washington. ;D ;D ;D
What's wrong with professor Nussbaum? If the politicians do not become philosophers, the philosophers might have to enter politics... ;)
Quote from: Jo498 on April 14, 2015, 03:11:10 AM
What's wrong with professor Nussbaum? If the politicians do not become philosophers, the philosophers might have to enter politics... ;)
Seems a sensible lady to me, but perhaps too nutty for some of the posters here?
Quote from: Florestan on April 14, 2015, 02:17:27 AM
I couldn't care less about who's going to succeed Obama. The last decent USA president was George Washington. ;D ;D ;D
r
Seriously Andrei, you think Romanians won the cold war alone? ::)
Quote from: Jo498 on April 14, 2015, 03:11:10 AMIf the politicians do not become philosophers, the philosophers might have to enter politics...
I'd love to see an academic philosopher try to make it in contemporary retail politics in the US. That would be most entertaining.
Quote from: Todd on April 14, 2015, 05:37:34 AM
I'd love to see an academic philosopher try to make it in contemporary retail politics in the US. That would be most entertaining.
Separately . . . did I see that Rowling's title was
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but that the US publisher compelled her to change it to
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, because American children would not read a book with
philosopher in the title?
Quote from: karlhenning on April 14, 2015, 05:40:09 AM
Separately . . . did I see that Rowling's title was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but that the US publisher compelled her to change it to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, because American children would not read a book with philosopher in the title?
Yes. They probably also wanted to change 'Chamber of Secrets' to 'Hole of Secrets', 'Goblet of Fire' into 'Mug of Fire', and 'Order of Phoenix' into 'Group of Seagulls'.
Well, once the first one sold so handsomely, they must have unclenched a little. As a rule, when the letterhead people at a US publisher try using any intelligence, it's none too much, and probably misapplied.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 14, 2015, 05:48:29 AM
Well, once the first one sold so handsomely, they must have unclenched a little.
'A little' is surely an understatement.
QuoteAs a rule, when the letterhead people at a US publisher try using any intelligence, it's none too much, and probably misapplied.
One is reminded of that child critic in the Wooster & Jeeves story.
Actually, I knew that Nussbaum was at some stage involved in some developmental policy stuff (together with Amartya Sen) and as I just found out she also was an expert witness in the early 90ties in some Colorado pro/anti gay legislation where the contested translation of a word from a Plato dialogue apparently became a big issue afterwards. (The other side had enlisted catholic legal philosopher John Finnis.)
So she has been rather more involved in such things than most academic philosophers in recent times.
Which Jeeves and Wooster Story is the one with the child critic?
Quote from: Ken B on April 14, 2015, 05:22:39 AM
r
Seriously Andrei, you think Romanians won the cold war alone? ::)
Who said we won it?
Quote from: Ken B on April 14, 2015, 05:22:39 AM
Seriously Andrei, you think Romanians won the cold war alone? ::)
From the lovely comedy
A Fish Called Wanda (1988).
BTW, Otto's character is a jerk, brilliantly personified by Kevin Kline:
QuoteOtto: Don't call me stupid.
Wendy: Why on earth not?
Otto: Oh, you English are "so" superior, aren't you? Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire, that's what! So don't call me stupid, lady. Just thank me.
Wendy: Well, "thank" you for popping in and protecting us.
Otto: If it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking "German!" Singing "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles..."
Was Otto totally wrong?
:D
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!
Quote from: Jo498 on April 14, 2015, 05:53:12 AMSo she has been rather more involved in such things than most academic philosophers in recent times.
I wrote retail politics - ie, stumping for votes. Eggheads are usually reserved for policy and advisory roles.
Not yet candidate Chris Christie takes on Social Security and Medicare. (http://time.com/3821012/chris-christie-social-security-medicare/) His proposals are mainstream, and means-testing for Social Security is more than appropriate. If he threw in eliminating the maximum taxable earnings limit, he'd be offering permanent solvency. But did he effectively kill his campaign before it officially started?
Quote from: Todd on April 14, 2015, 07:54:33 AM
Not yet candidate Chris Christie takes on Social Security and Medicare. (http://time.com/3821012/chris-christie-social-security-medicare/) His proposals are mainstream, and means-testing for Social Security is more than appropriate. If he threw in eliminating the maximum taxable earnings limit, he'd be offering permanent solvency. But did he effectively kill his campaign before it officially started?
I like Christie, always have, damn the torpedoes! He does things to appease his own personal convictions, and not because of the political correctness of them. He's aggressive and abrasive, and seems to favor the middle class vs the upper; IOW, he's f******. Not a prayer. If they can't get him any other way (and they'll try all of them) they'll fall back on the health issues he will inevitably have from being a fat guy. :blank:
8)
It will be interesting to see how he walks back the GW Bridge incident.
May the best dipshit win.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 14, 2015, 08:19:54 AM
I like Christie, always have, damn the torpedoes! He does things to appease his own personal convictions, and not because of the political correctness of them. He's aggressive and abrasive, and seems to favor the middle class vs the upper; IOW, he's f******. Not a prayer. If they can't get him any other way (and they'll try all of them) they'll fall back on the health issues he will inevitably have from being a fat guy. :blank:
8)
I mostly agree. I like his bite-me personna, and the fact he's actually pretty middle of the road on most things. despite what
morons many say, the GOP picks moderates for its presidential candidates, but I just don't see him winning the nomination. My money is tentatively on Walker.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 14, 2015, 08:19:54 AMIf they can't get him any other way (and they'll try all of them) they'll fall back on the health issues he will inevitably have from being a fat guy.
That's already an issue, but would become more of an issue. I like how he handled it on Letterman (by pulling a donut out of his jacket and taking a bite). I think he has bigger issues when he campaigns. He too easily takes political bait when speaking. He's too New Jersey. He can't win.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 14, 2015, 08:22:37 AMIt will be interesting to see how he walks back the GW Bridge incident.
He escaped politically, so I doubt it would be a major issue for most voters.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 14, 2015, 08:28:15 AMMay the best dipshit win.
I understand the sentiment, but I would call them pandering weasels before calling any of them dipshits.
Quote from: Todd on April 14, 2015, 08:44:22 AM
I understand the sentiment, but I would call them pandering weasels before calling any of them dipshits.
That works.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 14, 2015, 08:45:13 AM
That works.
I also like Paul Tsongas' old characterization of Bill Clinton as a Pander Bear.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 14, 2015, 08:41:28 AM
Oh sure, compared to Hillary's email-gate - the bridge is the real concern, and I'm sure that's how the media will play it.
::)
I posted earlier about Hilary's credibility problem, or at the least, mentioned that almost half the electorate holds an unfavorable view of her. And of course, there are reasons.
Quote from: Florestan on April 14, 2015, 02:17:27 AM
I couldn't care less about who's going to succeed Obama.
Then why make a post here?
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 14, 2015, 09:45:51 AM
Then why make a post here?
So that I can follow the thread. ;D
Another well-kept secret is that the media are not a monolith . . . but the media who wish, can play up that bugbear ;)
Your point is well taken. And I know that we both understand that Fox have their own tendentious blindspots.
I do hope that part of this cycle will be a matter of holding Hilary accountable.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 14, 2015, 10:47:08 AM
Your point is well taken. And I know that we both understand that Fox have their own tendentious blindspots.
I do hope that part of this cycle will be a matter of holding Hilary accountable.
All news outlets are tendentious. That's why it's better to read multiple
bullshitters sources.
Quote from: Ken B on April 14, 2015, 11:03:22 AM
All news outlets are tendentious. That's why it's better to read multiple bullshitters sources.
That's why the only way to find truth is realize that everyone is full of it. :-X
The Republican Party is the party of innovation. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/bush-preparing-delegate-campaign-tasks-super-pac-30464016)
Quote from: Todd on April 21, 2015, 07:41:40 AM
The Republican Party is the party of innovation. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/bush-preparing-delegate-campaign-tasks-super-pac-30464016)
This country has a promising future.
Through which broker can we plebs buy shares in the candidates, too?
Quote from: karlhenning on April 21, 2015, 09:02:26 AM
Through which broker can we plebs buy shares in the candidates, too?
Good thing you asked. (https://www.gop.com/stop-hillary-matching-challenge-fund/)
In the spirit of fairness, you should consider the other side, too. (https://my.democrats.org/page/contribute/help-elect-democrats-demsdotorg) I do love this little blurb:
"Unlike our opponents, we don't take money from special interests, corporate lobbyists, and political action committees. What we have is supporters like you."
I could never hope to outspend Jeb's Super PAC, and I know better than to break myself trying. I understand that people with lots of money naturally feel that their vote should weigh more than that of the lazy unwashed, and I am past being enraged by that reflection.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 21, 2015, 09:19:15 AMI could never hope to outspend Jeb's Super PAC, and I know better than to break myself trying.
That's defeatism talking! Take out a second mortgage, then a third, and give freely to Hillary and/or the DNC. You will be richly rewarded, perhaps with a tour of the White House Groundskeeper's shed.
Quote from: Greg on April 14, 2015, 11:48:46 AMThat's why the only way to find truth is realize that everyone is full of it. :-X
Not at all. All you need is access to different sources and
memory. There are respectable outlets, there are outlets with a clear bias and then there is Fox, the BS factory which should be held accountable for dividing America and pushing Republicans into the batshit crazy mode they've been in since Obama got elected.
The only way to find truth is to make an effort to look for it. We're living in an age where the amount of bullshit grew exponentially, but it's also way easier to see through it and hold news outlets accountable.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 21, 2015, 09:28:28 AMNot at all. All you need is access to different sources and memory. There are respectable outlets, there are outlets with a clear bias and then there is Fox, the BS factory which should be held accountable for dividing America and pushing Republicans into the batshit crazy mode they've been in since Obama got elected.
The First Amendment doth say:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."What do you mean by "held accountable", and how could what you suggest be legal, at least in the US? Also, given Fox's actual viewership of only a few million, how can it have quite the sway you imply?
Quote from: Todd on April 21, 2015, 09:36:08 AMWhat do you mean by "held accountable", and how could what you suggest be legal, at least in the US?
Oh, I've probably used the wrong word. I meant 'accountable' simply as in 'I'll remember the station bullshited me on a story and take that experience into further account'.
QuoteAlso, given Fox's actual viewership of only a few million, how can it have quite the sway you imply?
That's the mystery. How could a fringe group like Tea Party sway the majority and in the end, chokehold the whole country?
"Gee, that Government Shut-Down seemed like such a good idea at the time . . . ."
Quote from: Todd on April 21, 2015, 09:24:24 AM
That's defeatism talking! Take out a second mortgage, then a third, and give freely to Hillary and/or the DNC.
Wonder if anyone has successfully mortgaged a clarinet . . . .
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 21, 2015, 09:53:38 AMThat's the mystery. How could a fringe group like Tea Party sway the majority and in the end, chokehold the whole country?
There is no real "Tea Party", of course, and "its" influence has been a bit exaggerated. Some states have no significant "Tea Party" movement, and often state governments function without the type of ineffectiveness (at times) of the federal government - there is more to the USA than the US Federal Government. A robust, even unruly, movement that purportedly opposes big government isn't necessarily a bad thing, either.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 21, 2015, 09:56:37 AM
"Gee, that Government Shut-Down seemed like such a good idea at the time . . . ."
There have been quite a good number of short-term shutdowns over the years, the most recent one being just one more example. The 90s shutdown was even more entertaining.
Quote from: Todd on April 21, 2015, 10:14:17 AM
There is no real "Tea Party", of course, and "its" influence has been a bit exaggerated.
You're probably right.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 21, 2015, 10:22:40 AM
You're probably right.
Yes. I remember when she was elected to a federal office.
People say the stupidest things about the Tea Party. One I heard a lot was that Michelle Bachman was a Tea Party favorite. Well they did several polls of self defined Tea Partiers and she finished dead last.
Frankly -- and we see it on display here -- most disdain directed at the Tea Party is class prejudice straight up.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 21, 2015, 09:59:02 AM
LOL
You have obviously been relying too heavily on biased news media if this is your impression of the US. IMO, all news media are biased, none are objective. Anytime anyone or any news outlet claims to be objective they are lying. If you cannot see the bias it only means you agree with it.
+1
Quote from: Todd on April 21, 2015, 10:14:17 AM
A robust, even unruly, movement that purportedly opposes big government isn't necessarily a bad thing, either.
Nor is a third-party candidate necessarily a bad thing. (I agree with your point.)
Quote from: Ken B on April 21, 2015, 11:28:18 AM
-- most disdain directed at the Tea Party is class prejudice straight up.
Some of the opposition is not so much
disdain directed at the Tea Party, as earnest weariness of the noun
maverick.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 21, 2015, 12:00:41 PM
earnest weariness of the noun maverick.
Huh? What's James Garner got to do with this?
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 21, 2015, 09:28:28 AM
Not at all. All you need is access to different sources and memory. There are respectable outlets, there are outlets with a clear bias and then there is Fox, the BS factory which should be held accountable for dividing America and pushing Republicans into the batshit crazy mode they've been in since Obama got elected.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 21, 2015, 09:53:38 AM
That's the mystery. How could a fringe group like Tea Party sway the majority and in the end, chokehold the whole country?
Fox bad,
Pravda good. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Todd on April 21, 2015, 10:14:17 AMA robust, even unruly, movement that purportedly opposes big government isn't necessarily a bad thing, either.
No, it's not - as long as the movement doesn't consist of Koch funded Ayn Rand fanboys ranting about death panels and 'taking America back' from the least dipshit president the country had in ages.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 22, 2015, 05:09:01 AMNo, it's not - as long as the movement doesn't consist of Koch funded Ayn Rand fanboys ranting about death panels and 'taking America back' from the least dipshit president the country had in ages.
There's value in the Kochs and Ayn Rand fans, too. Robust democratic republics have room for all types.
The phrase "in ages" of course implies a very long time. Who was the last president who qualifies as "least dipshit" or whatever other moderately flattering assessment you prefer?
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 05:26:08 AM
I can't tell you how many people have told me they wish they could take back their vote for him.
Romney would have put considerable pressure on the Kongressional Klowns to permit him to succeed. Imagine for a moment trying that "Mormon Socialist" crap on him. Having run against his own health care plan he'd have trouble pivoting back to the "new, improved" version, but he would. Enough Klowns would shit their diapers and vote yes, and Dem support would put him over the top.
I'm not up to date on Romney and foreign policy. My guess is it would depend.....would it be too much of a stretch to see him as a Scowcroftian realist? That would better suit me than the "luv the Joos, kill 'em later" Klown Kaucus.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 05:26:08 AM
I can't tell you how many people have told me they wish they could take back their vote for him.
But of course, that is sniping rather than a solution, isn't it? Do they really wish they had voted instead for M
cCain/Palin? Seriously, anybody: are you okay with "Vice President Palin"? (And I fully allow that Biden is not the dream VP.)
And I've said before: in 1Q12, Obama was as weak an incumbent as any opposition party might dream of. The race was Romney's to lose, and he rolled up his sleeves to the task. If that's how he manages a campaign, how would he manage a country?
If Hilary wins next November, the GOP will have only themselves to blame, meseems.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 05:26:08 AM
It is true that Obama is the US president who more than any has governed in a manner most pleasing to European sensibilities.
However, his most recent approval ratings (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx) in the US hover around 46-47% - which accounts for far wider disapproval among the general electorate than just the Tea Party folks. His policies, while pleasing to Europeans, have weakened the US's effectiveness and led to several foreign policy failures, not to say creating more division and unrest domestically than by any president in recent memory.
I can't tell you how many people have told me they wish they could take back their vote for him.
I am European but please count me out. I dislike Obama today just as much as I disliked him when he was
crowned King of the USA sworn in as President. Can´t comment on his domestic policies, but in the foreign affairs he´s too soft for my tastes. I like it hardcore:
The Gipper was the best hands down, followed by
George Bush sr, although the latter was kind of an appeasement guy himself. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 05:26:08 AMHis policies, while pleasing to Europeans, have weakened the US's effectiveness and led to several foreign policy failures
Aside from the bungled response to Syria, and the bungled policy in Libya, and the lawless air campaign still underway, and the continued use of potentially extra-legal murder by drone, I see a reasonably successful realist foreign policy.
Obama is letting Ukraine burn while doing just slightly more than nothing in terms of direct aid and action, and he is trying to realign regional power structures in the Middle East by dealing with Iran - which I see as a policy aimed largely at eroding Russian influence in the region. (One can also view relations with Cuba in a similar way.)
Quote from: drogulus on April 22, 2015, 05:41:32 AMI'm not up to date on Romney and foreign policy.
Romney made the outrageously silly statement during the campaign that Russia was the greatest geopolitical threat to the US, to which Obama retorted that the 80s called and wanted its foreign policy back. Romney courted some advisors of Bush I, but since he lost, any contemplations of what he might have done are as useful as soggy cornflakes.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2015, 05:44:23 AMIf Hilary wins next November, the GOP will have only themselves to blame, meseems.
I'm not quite of that viewpoint, but given recent electoral trends, a moderately robust economy (and if Al Gore proved anything, it is that Democrats can't turn a
booming economy into a slam dunk victory), and fear mongering as it pertains to those pesky foreigners, the Republicans have got a far better chance than last time around.
Quote from: Florestan on April 22, 2015, 05:52:58 AMI like it hardcore: The Gipper was the best hands down, followed by George Bush sr, although the latter was kind of an appeasement guy himself.
Reagan had it right for the Soviet Union, but Bush I followed just the right type of cold hearted realism this country should be pursuing now and into the future.
I think it is safe to say that, at least rhetorically, the next President, whoever he or she may be, will be more hawkish than Obama.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2015, 05:44:23 AM
But of course, that is sniping rather than a solution, isn't it? Do they really wish they had voted instead for McCain/Palin? Seriously, anybody: are you okay with "Vice President Palin"? (And I fully allow that Biden is not the dream VP.)
And I've said before: in 1Q12, Obama was as weak an incumbent as any opposition party might dream of. The race was Romney's to lose, and he rolled up his sleeves to the task. If that's how he manages a campaign, how would he manage a country?
If Hilary wins next November, the GOP will have only themselves to blame, meseems.
It was the second vote they regret most. But I can't see how we could be worse off had Obama never been elected. I am glad to see that you don't give Hillary strong odds. I look forward to her candidacy and think it is the best path for a Republican president.
There is some speculation (not from me, mind you, I agree he blew it) that Romney, in fact, did not exactly
lose the election considering the fraud in Chicago and other Democratic strongholds.
But, bottom-line: I don't see much difference between the two parties. Both represent business as usual.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 06:46:50 AM
Generally, I think his foreign policy has been a failure since our allies are uncertain of us and our enemies are testing us.
Alas, I think you're right.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 06:49:58 AM
It was the second vote they regret most. But I can't see how we could be worse off had Obama never been elected. I am glad to see that you don't give Hillary strong odds. I look forward to her candidacy and think it is the best path for a Republican president.
But, bottom-line: I don't see much difference between the two parties. Both represent business as usual.
Alas, I think you're right, again.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 06:46:50 AMI think the Iran "deal" is a huge problem, the first thing that happened was Russia offering Iran anti-aircraft defenses - hardly a diminishing role for them. Encouraging an Iran hegemony in the region will lead to more unrest and probable conflict. Generally, I think his foreign policy has been a failure since our allies are uncertain of us and our enemies are testing us.
Well, things don't change over night. What else would Russia do? Surely you don't expect Putin to think that a US-Iran deal is good for Russia and sit back and do nothing? I don't trust Iran, but I also don't trust Saudi Arabia. Better to have two big players in the region as quasi-allies, or at least less directly antagonistic to the US, to allow for more US maneuvering. More options are good.
Somehow, paying Iran to sign the deal does not make the US look strong. Saying that Obama is converting Iran into an ally is like saying that paying protection money to the mob is finding an investor for your business.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 07:03:19 AMSomehow, paying Iran to sign the deal does not make the US look strong. Saying that Obama is converting Iran into an ally is like saying that paying protection money to the mob is finding an investor for your business.
Iran will never be an ally in the sense that the UK is an ally, but a less overtly adversarial Iran, over time, can have benefits that outweigh continuing policies in place now. Also, I think your mobster metaphor is wrong. Better to think of Iran as one mob family being paid to fight another mob family.
The world isn't very bipolar now, so I expect intervention/isolation each will continue to rack up failure after failure. Who to save, who to kill....no rationale can cover the cases. I can only be a lukewarm warmonger, but look at how the Syria/Iraq/Iran/ISIS turmoil makes and breaks ad hoc alliances. If you think a one size fits all ideology can guide you you're probably a hopeless idealist IOW a fukin' retaahd. Make me a martini!
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 06:46:50 AM
Generally, I think his foreign policy has been a failure since our allies are uncertain of us and our enemies are testing us.
That's not exactly a new development under Obama, is it? There a number of things I wish he had done differently, but in an era where the foreign policy baseline is "did you construct false pretenses to start an unnecessary war with unclear goals and delusional expectations?" it's hard for me to rate his foreign policy as a failure.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2015, 05:44:23 AM
If Hilary wins next November, the GOP will have only themselves to blame, meseems.
I agree. It will take effort, but I fear they are up to it.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 22, 2015, 06:46:50 AM
Generally, I think his foreign policy has been a failure since our allies are uncertain of us and our enemies are testing us.
True. US has no allies more trustful and sincere in Eastern Europe than Poland and Romania --- yet should Russia move against one of them, can they be absolutely sure that the 5th article of the NATO Treatise will be activated?
Quote from: Florestan on April 22, 2015, 10:23:55 AMTrue. US has no allies more trustful and sincere in Eastern Europe than Poland and Romania --- yet should Russia move against one of them, can they be absolutely sure that the 5th article of the NATO Treatise will be activated?
It will at least be debated.
Quote from: Todd on April 22, 2015, 10:29:16 AM
It will at least be debated.
Of that I am sure. I just pray to God that it never becomes a serious issue.
Quote from: Florestan on April 22, 2015, 10:55:31 AM
Of that I am sure. I just pray to God that it never becomes a serious issue.
It is always a serious issue, and it is ALWAYS the most important issue for me in choosing a president.
Here's my gut reaction. America will probably defend France if she's attacked. She might defend South Korea, maybe. But America will go to the wall for Poland.
Quote from: Ken B on April 22, 2015, 11:12:07 AM
It is always a serious issue, and it is ALWAYS the most important issue for me in choosing a president.
Here's my gut reaction. America will probably defend France if she's attacked. She might defend South Korea, maybe. But America will go to the wall for Poland.
Will she? Or are you just being ironic?
Quote from: Florestan on April 22, 2015, 11:21:24 AM
Will she? Or are you just being ironic?
I believe America would defend Poland to the hilt. I don't believe that about all countries in the world. I don't believe it about Greece for instance.
Quote from: Ken B on April 22, 2015, 11:27:42 AM
I believe America would defend Poland to the hilt. I don't believe that about all countries in the world. I don't believe it about Greece for instance.
Greece is an older NATO member than Poland. What makes the latter more defensible than the former? All NATO members are equal, but some are more equal than others? ;D
Romania is a NATO member too. Will you be so kind to assess her defensibility, too? ;D
Quote from: Florestan on April 22, 2015, 11:37:40 AM
Greece is an older NATO member than Poland. What makes the latter more defensible than the former? All NATO members are equal, but some are more equal than others? ;D
Romania is a NATO member too. Will you be so kind to assess her defensibility, too? ;D
Personally I would defend them all, and strongly. I hope the USA would, and under some presidents am sure they would. Bill Clinton surely would. But some countries will provoke a stronger emotional response than others. Poland is one of those. Greece would defended out of treaty obligation, self interest, a moral obligation, prudence, deterrence.
While it's nice & peachy to dream about Gipper's rousing speeches (my country will always be indebted to him but that sadly doesn't make his foreign fuckups go away), Obama's approach is firmly rooted in the realities of the current century. He helped America claw its way back from the worldwide damnation it got itself into thanks to Bush and actually strenghtened its position. The allies are uncertain? That's not the recent sentiment, as far as my European bubble goes.
Anyway, given the inherited pile of shit - a country torn between two wars AND a worldwide economic crisis to boot - plus the ridiculous domestic opposition he has to endure, it's a miracle he actually accomplished stuff like the health reform. When historians look back at the Obama years, they'll wonder how on Earth did this guy manage to do such a good job*, given the circumstances.
*that obviously doesn't mean he's been all straight A's - the drone / NSA stuff is especially troubling
All hail His Majesty Barack I, King of Americans!
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 02:50:48 AM
All hail His Majesty Barack I, King of Americans!
First thing this made me think of is, when M
cCain made his concession speech and observed that Obama was now our President, a bitter heckler defying that attempt at healing unity with, "He's not MINE!"
The Adventures of Hillary and the Rich Russians Who Wanted American Uranium (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 23, 2015, 05:52:32 AM
First thing this made me think of is, when McCain made his concession speech and observed that Obama was now our President, a bitter heckler defying that attempt at healing unity with, "He's not MINE!"
There is a lot of hypocrisy implied in this whole thing "I didn´t vote him, but since he won, he is my president!"
Absolutely not! If I didn´t vote him, it means I didn´t want him as president; he might have won, but not in my name and not with my vote and I am not supposed to support him in any way.
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 07:18:32 AM
There is a lot of hypocrisy implied in this whole thing "I didn´t vote him, but since he won, he is my president!"
Absolutely not! If I didn´t vote him, it means I didn´t want him as president; he might have won, but not in my name and not with my vote and I am not supposed to support him in any way.
;D ;D ;D
I like your sense of humor! :)
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 07:18:32 AM
There is a lot of hypocrisy implied in this whole thing "I didn´t vote him, but since he won, he is my president!"
Absolutely not! If I didn´t vote him, it means I didn´t want him as president; he might have won, but not in my name and not with my vote and I am not supposed to support him in any way.
;D ;D ;D
And so because you don't like the current leader, you will obstruct in every possible way anything which he tries to accomplish, whether it is for the betterment of the country or not? Dude, you are a born Republican! Leave Romania, now! America needs you. ::)
8)
America needs a Romanian?! I blame Obama!!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 23, 2015, 07:31:25 AM
And so because you don't like the current leader, you will obstruct in every possible way anything which he tries to accomplish, whether it is for the betterment of the country or not?
If I were in the position to obstruct in every posssible way anything that the current leader tries to accomplish, whether it is for the betterment of the country or not --- I would be stronger than the leader himself, wouldn´t i? ;D ;D ;D
Quote
Dude, you are a born Republican! Leave Romania, now! America needs you. ::)
Noi Romania needs America now! ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 07:40:30 AM
You talk as if Democrats don't do the same thing. ::)
Just a question of degree. I can't remember the last time a Dem stood up in the State of the Union Address and shouted at the Republican President "YOU LIE!". If you can, please refresh my memory on that...
I could make a list, but I won't bother you with it. FYI, I am a Republican, and these bastards shame me with every word out of their mouth, so don't get me started.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 23, 2015, 07:54:53 AM
FYI, I am a Republican, and these bastards shame me with every word out of their mouth, so don't get me started.
Romania, 1886. The
Liberal Party government is under attack from every angles. The
Conservative Party is obviously the sworn enemy of the
LP. But --- there is a dissident wing of the Liberal Party which sides with the Conservative opposition. Their leader says: "You, gentlemen of the conservative persuasion, have been hurt in your citizen honour! We have been hurt in our liberal honour!"
Nihil novum sub sole! ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 07:59:58 AM
Since I view all politicians as corrupt venal assholes, the fact that they call themselves Democrats or Republicans is a trivial label signifying nothing. The main difference I see between Republicans and Democrats is that like you, Republican voters can still be shamed by the shenanigans of their elected representatives, whereas Democrats are not shamed by anything.
;)
Well, hard to argue with that! :) Actually, Romania has a lot of appeal... 0:)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 23, 2015, 08:12:39 AM
Romania has a lot of appeal... 0:)
You are most welcome, gentlemen! Please let me know the date of your arrival. :-*
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 07:59:58 AM
The main difference I see between Republicans and Democrats is that like you, Republican voters can still be shamed by the shenanigans of their elected representatives, whereas Democrats are not shamed by anything.
Twaddle
0:)
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-is-nothing-which-i-dread-so-much-as-a-division-of-the-republic-into-two-great-parties-each-john-adams-205455.jpg)
Quote from: MN Dave on April 23, 2015, 08:21:55 AM
Twaddle
A most peculiar remark, agreed. (Wonder if he's shamed to have made it?)
;)
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 08:45:56 AM
If I said +1, you woud retort "Fuck off, you´re Romanian!" ;D ;D ;D
So I say RIP John Adams. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh, I thought you were from Florida.
All that Delius he listens to . . . .
So that's why they called him "Tallahassee" Telemann!
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 08:59:13 AM
Fixed.
We agree on classical music. That's all that matters.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 23, 2015, 08:29:35 AM
0:)
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-is-nothing-which-i-dread-so-much-as-a-division-of-the-republic-into-two-great-parties-each-john-adams-205455.jpg)
God knows 0:) that Republicans know how to read selectively, if they know how to read.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 23, 2015, 05:52:32 AM
First thing this made me think of is, when McCain made his concession speech and observed that Obama was now our President, a bitter heckler defying that attempt at healing unity with, "He's not MINE!"
Echoing thousands of Bush critics. And I recall McCain chastising that heckler.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 07:40:30 AM
You talk as if Democrats don't do the same thing. ::)
+1 and thank you.
The unconscious irony in this thread is incredible.
Quote from: Ken B on April 23, 2015, 09:22:39 AM
Echoing thousands of Bush critics. And I recall McCain chastising that heckler.
I don't doubt the first point; I just don't recall "witnessing" such an occasion.
And I, too, recall the second.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 23, 2015, 02:25:02 AMlus the ridiculous domestic opposition he has to endure
I always find such complaints amusing. The US has a long history of obstruction in Congress and at the state level. It is a proud tradition. It started with threats of secession in the 1790s and has waxed and waned over the intervening years. As an opponent of efficient government, I applaud many such efforts. Nullification and secession obviously go way too far, but obstruction can be
beautiful.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 23, 2015, 07:54:53 AMJust a question of degree. I can't remember the last time a Dem stood up in the State of the Union Address and shouted at the Republican President "YOU LIE!".
I believe he remained seated. (The dastardly Republican who so offended Obama, that is.)
Quote from: MN Dave on April 23, 2015, 08:29:35 AM
0:)
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-there-is-nothing-which-i-dread-so-much-as-a-division-of-the-republic-into-two-great-parties-each-john-adams-205455.jpg)
Such a view was relatively common among many founders, but George Washington aside, all of them succumbed to partisanship, including Adams. (And even Washington was a Federalist; he just never had to do some of the dirty work.)
Quote from: Todd on April 23, 2015, 10:06:03 AM
I believe he remained seated. (The dastardly Republican who so offended Obama, that is.)
Oh, in that case, no harm, no foul... :)
8)
Lie down and be counted . . . .
Aye, none of this graceful concession rigmarole. If you want this election, you're going to have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 10:50:26 AMWhat artiicle of the US Constitution formally prohibits secession?
It is not specifically prohibited, but it can be argued that Article I, Section 10 and Article VI, Section 2 prohibit secession. In practical terms, the Civil War settled the matter.
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 11:08:48 AM
I rest my case.
In practical terms, might is right. I rest my case.
Your case is feeble. Check out Texas v. White. Also, the language of the two sections I mentioned offer more than enough leeway in interpretation, as does the fact that the entire reason that the Constitution was created in the first place was to form a better, more stable, more permanent governing solution with a more powerful central government than what was offered under the Articles of Confederation. Using Article VI, Section 2 and federal legislation specifically banning secession should also settle the matter, though I am not familiar with such a law. There is no need for one.
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 11:20:43 AMWhat article of the US Constitution formally prohibited secession in 1861?
You have changed your question. It is not 1861. That is why I suggested you read Texas v White from 1869.
In the case of the Confederacy, I think this language in the first sentence of Article I, Section 10 is pretty clear: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation." Jefferson Davis and his cohorts were plain old criminals.
I was initially responding to a more generic question regarding whether a single state could legally secede now.
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 11:43:40 AMWhat article of the US Constitution as ratified by the member states as per 1861 formally prohibited secession? Quote it word by word, please.
I already addressed this earlier, as you know.
Now, please explain how the southern states' formation of the confederacy was not a blatant violation of Article I, Section 10.
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 11:47:58 AM
What article of the US Constitution as ratified by the member states as per 1861 formally prohibited secession? Quote it word by word, please.
An intellectually lazy rejoinder.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 11:59:08 AMAny act of rebellion, by definition, rejects the law of the land they are rebelling against.
And the state can act to put down any act of rebellion. That's usually what happens.
Given the powers inherent in the federal government in the Articles cited, I'm not at all convinced that the right to self-determination is as free and easy as you imply; the prohibitions listed in Article I, Section 10, and even more so the Supremacy Clause (and other clauses in Article I), were intended to ensure the central government remained more powerful than the states on certain issues, which I hasten to add is not the same thing as overwhelming coercive power. The Constitution was not formed to create an overly powerful central state, but it was formed at least partly is response to the actual weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Shays' Rebellion showed just how weak the general government was, and leaders rightly wanted something that could offer more stability.
I'm also not sure there is a double standard. Rebelling against a hereditary monarchy is in fact and practice different than rebelling against a government formed freely by the member states, where legislation and standards both evolve over time.
Now, let's be very clear about what secession was about when South Carolina seceded in 1860. South Carolina's argument rests heavily on Article IV of the Constitution. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp) You know, the Fugitive Slave Clause. High political principles were not really involved. It was very much about continuing on with slavery. Yes, in 1789, states signed on to the document filled with some odious provisions. Time passed, laws changed, judicial decisions were rendered, factors of economic production changed, and social norms changed, too. But the document remained. The South clung to its preferred odious provisions. The North clung to its preferred (far less) odious provisions. The war came, might made right (and right made right, too, I would argue), and new amendments to the Constitution were added, eliminating or altering the South's preferred odious provisions. There will be those who use the traditional States' Rights arguments to say that the Federal Government overstepped its bounds, but no state or group of states has the right to sacrifice the territorial or political integrity of the union. That is certainly not one of the powers granted by or envisioned for the Tenth Amendment.
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 12:31:51 PM
Stalin said the same about the kulaks. He also starved millions of Ukrainians to death on the same account.
Hitler said the same about the Jews. He sent millions of Jews to death on the same account.
Page 10. Godwin's Law stands. Thank you.
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 01:12:47 PM
Might is right. I rest my case.
You have made no case.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 23, 2015, 07:54:53 AM
Just a question of degree. I can't remember the last time a Dem stood up in the State of the Union Address and shouted at the Republican President "YOU LIE!". If you can, please refresh my memory on that...
8)
Well, I can remember dem congressmen telling the truth. Though maybe not during the SOTU.
But to echo/anticipate Todd, I'm all for a little blunt honesty, and a little less respect for presidents. decorum is a fine thing, but a little fit of truthful umbrage is not such a great crime.
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 01:15:42 PM
What article of the US Constitution as ratified by the member states as per 1861 formally prohibited secession? Quote it word by word, please.
I will not cease posting this question until it gets a straight answer. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
There was none. If there had been one, there would have been no Civil War. Or perhaps a war fought with a much different dynamic.
Simply put, the South used a good thing to defend evil. Which resulted in the good thing being trampled underfoot in order to extirpate the evil.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 23, 2015, 01:58:48 PM
There was none. If there had been one, there would have been no Civil War. Or perhaps a war fought with a much different dynamic.
Simply put, the South used a good thing to defend evil. Which resulted in the good thing being trampled underfoot in order to extirpate the evil.
The constitution DID provide a mechanism for secession. Amendment.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 02:18:09 PM
It is probably true that smaller states are better or at least more easily governed, and the citizens of smaller states enjoy more overall liberty as a result. There is a big difference in the nation that created the constitution and the one we have today, with 50 states, and nearly 400 million people. The Federal government has done nothing but assume more and more power over the states, which were originally supposed to be where most of the power to govern was to devolve.
While the focus of rebellion was the Fugitive Slave Act, the principle was states rights: i.e. which government, the state or the federal, would hold the trump card when there was a disagreement over how a state would decide issues that primarily effected only their own citizens.
I am no fan of slavery and will not defend the institution, but the North benefited from it economically along with the South. And slavery was not the call to arms until midway through the war when Lincoln saw that his army needed a more emotionally charged reason to fight than preserving the union.
It is my belief that slavery would have ended eventually, and the I would have preferred it if the south would have simply been allowed to leave the union, saving millions of lives in the process.
I will answer only the point about benefitting from slavery, as it important. Slave holders benefitted. Some others did too. But the country as a whole did not, even just in terms of wealth. Free labour is more productive and if all the slaves had been free and not subject to racist laws (like Jim Crow) the polity in toto would have been better off, to say nothing of the slaves.
Quote from: Florestan on April 23, 2015, 01:09:45 PM
What article of the US Constitution as ratified by the member states as per 1861 formally prohibited secession? Quote it word by word, please.
I will not cease posting this question until it gets a straight answer. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
What article mandated judicial review per Marbury? That was a purely structural argument, and a sound one.
Which article mentions wiretaps, the subject of a recent ruling?
If you want though, I'll play. Cite a verse of the Bible mandating any right for anyone, except a right to command or punish? Cite a passage prohibiting slavery? Cite a passage mandating the Nicene creed? Legal theory is not the only subject where indirect arguments get used ...
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 02:44:29 PM
From the beginning of the white settlement of America, huge land masses were granted to individuals by colonial powers with the plan being to develop the land and resources. Slavery, as an institution, was part of the equation that went into the creation of the United States and every colonial power had a hand in the slave trade. Without slave labor, these large areas could not have been developed. It is disingenuous to say the country did not benefit from it; it did until it became intolerable for moral reasons. And I think a combination of those reasons as well as others would have caused the South to abandon slavery sooner or later.
I am not arguing that slavery should have continued, only that it was hypocritical for the North to assume a stance of moral superiority merely because the slaves were located in the South, while Northern industries received the fruit of their labor at very low cost.
No-one denies that those who stole the slaves' labor benefitted from doing so. Theft pays if you can get away with it. But it is not socially productive. I am pointing out that each slave would have produced more had he been allowed to control his own life and labor. And of course the costs of invigilation could have been more productively used.
Put N people in an economy. They will produce more wealth free than as a slave state. So the country did benefit from the labor of the slaves, but not from the
slavery.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 02:18:09 PMWhile the focus of rebellion was the Fugitive Slave Act, the principle was states rights: i.e. which government, the state or the federal, would hold the trump card when there was a disagreement over how a state would decide issues that primarily effected only their own citizens.
Well, this is actually something of a neat trick, in addition to being a hollow argument. The Southern states were unambiguously ignoring issues that directly and negatively affected the lives of slaves. But then, slaves weren't
citizens. See, that's the trick. When a vast swath of people can simply be ignored, it allows for false arguments of high principle. Then there is also the problem of interstate trade between slave states in both goods and services, along with slaves. The Constitution is very clear about which level of government has the power to regulate interstate trade.
The argument also strikes me as selective. Southern states were generally adamant about enforcement of fugitive slave laws. Should not a true advocate of States' Rights also argue that Northern States had every right to not enforce fugitive slave laws because they violated or otherwise negatively affected the citizens of Northern States? If there is a dispute between states, which entity settles such a dispute?
Here I'll be blunt: States' Rights is a crock. Always has been, always will be. The actual history of States' Rights has been one of oppression. Slavery, Jim Crow in the South, other legalized forms of segregation in the North, etc. I cannot ignore the actual facts, the actual history. Whatever bright spots in the history of States' Rights one can point to are far more than offset by the brutish facts.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 02:18:09 PMAnd slavery was not the call to arms until midway through the war when Lincoln saw that his army needed a more emotionally charged reason to fight than preserving the union.
Preservation of slavery was a call to arms for the South from day one - ie, December 20, 1860.
Quote from: sanantonio on April 23, 2015, 02:18:09 PMIt is my belief that slavery would have ended eventually, and the I would have preferred it if the south would have simply been allowed to leave the union, saving millions of lives in the process.
This is both contrafactual, and thereby of inherently limited value, and factually erroneous. First, millions did not die during the Civil War. About 620,000 did.
Second, the argument that slavery would have ended eventually is dubious. How long would it have taken? Ten years? Thirty years? Fifty years? The beauty of contrafactual arguments is that you can make up any number you want and say it is reasonable. The ambitions of some slaveowners – exploring the possibility of expanding into the Carribean, for instance – indicates that some had no desire to ever see it end, and would take steps to expand it. They may or may not have succeeded, but they would have tried – they did try.
Let me ask this contrafactual question: Had slavery continued for <
insert the number of years you estimate it would have survived>, how many millions of slaves would have lived and died in bondage? Would the lives of those slaves had been worth less in some way than the 620,000 people who died during the war?
Quote from: Ken B on April 23, 2015, 02:38:09 PMWhat article mandated judicial review per Marbury?
Also, what provision of the Constitution allowed for the Louisiana Purchase? Even Jefferson (supposedly) agonized over this one. So did others. Yet the Treasury still cut the check.
I have cleaned up my mess. Todd, I apologize.
I could leave this on several threads, but this one seems relevant. Hillary Clinton taking bribes to let the Russians buy uranium.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=3 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=3)
The corruption goes far beyond just the Clintons.
Here's a brief summary of the highlights as they regard Clinton.
https://ricochet.com/hillarys-day-of-wrath/ (https://ricochet.com/hillarys-day-of-wrath/)
There seems to have been Canadian government involvement too. I hope that will come out so we can see just what was done.
Quote from: Todd on April 23, 2015, 03:03:10 PM
Well, this is actually something of a neat trick, in addition to being a hollow argument. The Southern states were unambiguously ignoring issues that directly and negatively affected the lives of slaves. But then, slaves weren't citizens. See, that's the trick. When a vast swath of people can simply be ignored, it allows for false arguments of high principle. Then there is also the problem of interstate trade between slave states in both goods and services, along with slaves. The Constitution is very clear about which level of government has the power to regulate interstate trade.
The argument also strikes me as selective. Southern states were generally adamant about enforcement of fugitive slave laws. Should not a true advocate of States' Rights also argue that Northern States had every right to not enforce fugitive slave laws because they violated or otherwise negatively affected the citizens of Northern States? If there is a dispute between states, which entity settles such a dispute?
Here I'll be blunt: States' Rights is a crock. Always has been, always will be. The actual history of States' Rights has been one of oppression. Slavery, Jim Crow in the South, other legalized forms of segregation in the North, etc. I cannot ignore the actual facts, the actual history. Whatever bright spots in the history of States' Rights one can point to are far more than offset by the brutish facts.
Preservation of slavery was a call to arms for the South from day one - ie, December 20, 1860.
This is both contrafactual, and thereby of inherently limited value, and factually erroneous. First, millions did not die during the Civil War. About 620,000 did.
Second, the argument that slavery would have ended eventually is dubious. How long would it have taken? Ten years? Thirty years? Fifty years? The beauty of contrafactual arguments is that you can make up any number you want and say it is reasonable. The ambitions of some slaveowners – exploring the possibility of expanding into the Carribean, for instance – indicates that some had no desire to ever see it end, and would take steps to expand it. They may or may not have succeeded, but they would have tried – they did try.
Let me ask this contrafactual question: Had slavery continued for <insert the number of years you estimate it would have survived>, how many millions of slaves would have lived and died in bondage? Would the lives of those slaves had been worth less in some way than the 620,000 people who died during the war?
Also, what provision of the Constitution allowed for the Louisiana Purchase? Even Jefferson (supposedly) agonized over this one. So did others. Yet the Treasury still cut the check.
Excellent post Todd. Danke sehr.
In it to win it! (http://time.com/3841236/vermont-senator-bernie-sanders-announces-2016-run/)
Quote from: Todd on April 29, 2015, 06:48:11 PM
In it to win it! (http://time.com/3841236/vermont-senator-bernie-sanders-announces-2016-run/)
I'll check him out. :)
Quote from: MN Dave on April 30, 2015, 04:46:18 AMI'll check him out.
My Helmet of Prognostication gives Mr Sanders a 0% chance of winning the nomination.
Quote from: Todd on April 30, 2015, 05:23:21 AM
My Helmet of Prognostication gives Mr Sanders a 0% chance of winning the nomination.
Of course. :'(
Quote from: Todd on April 30, 2015, 05:23:21 AM
My Helmet of Prognostication gives Mr Sanders a 0% chance of winning the nomination.
I think your helmet accurately evaluates the effect of the Juggernaut.
Quote from: Todd on April 30, 2015, 05:23:21 AM
My Helmet of Prognostication gives Mr Sanders a 0% chance of winning the nomination.
Insure that thing. A Helmet that reliable is valuable.
The Darnhelm!
Two more Republicans officially join the fray. (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/may/04/carly-fiorina-ben-carlson-presidential-candidates-live-updates)
Ben Carson is unique in that his chances of winning are actually less than zero. He boosts all other candidates' chances by running.
Failed, but well compensated, former executive Carly Fiorina has also entered the race. She has a slightly greater chance of winning the election than I do. Maybe she wants to be Secretary of Commerce, or something. No way she'd get one of the big three cabinet posts.
I even just enjoy the headline at the online
Washington Post:
Quote9 best moments from Carson's bizarre launch/concert
Quote from: Todd on May 04, 2015, 06:21:37 AM
Failed, but well compensated, former executive Carly Fiorina has also entered the race. She has a slightly greater chance of winning the election than I do.
I can hardly wait for the youtube hijinks this time.
Mike Huckabee is in. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/politics/mike-huckabee-2016-presidential-announcement/) I forgot, is he peddling a book or a TV show? Sorry, he's a serious candidate, to be taken seriously.
Of course, he's a serious candidate! More Evangelicals in the primaries, please!
Quote from: Todd on May 05, 2015, 06:25:37 PM
Mike Huckabee is in. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/politics/mike-huckabee-2016-presidential-announcement/) I forgot, is he peddling a book or a TV show? Sorry, he's a serious candidate, to be taken seriously.
That guy's a dick.
Better be careful what you say GMGers. Or the US might 'invade' your state too! :) Would love to hear what our Texans have to say about that whole 'situation'.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 06, 2015, 05:24:42 AM
Better be careful what you say GMGers. Or the US might 'invade' your state too! :) Would love to hear what our Texans have to say about that whole 'situation'.
It's totally f***** silly. Our governor appears to be even stupider than the last 2 we had (Rick Perry and George W. Bush). It is a sort of sport here to find the stupidest people we can and elect them governor, so we all have someone to laugh and point at.
Satisfactory?
8)
I actually like our governor. :)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 06, 2015, 05:40:03 AM
It's totally f***** silly. Our governor appears to be even stupider than the last 2 we had (Rick Perry and George W. Bush). It is a sort of sport here to find the stupidest people we can and elect them governor, so we all have someone to laugh and point at.
Satisfactory?
8)
Make the pie higher, as they say...
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/comic-riffs/StandingArt/culdesacpiehigher.jpg?uuid=R9WxjIHIEeCUB9pYzQeqDA)
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
By God, that's inspirational!
Quote from: karlhenning on May 06, 2015, 06:34:15 AM
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
By God, that's inspirational!
So is
Vulcanize society!(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5a/Spock_vulcan-salute.png/200px-Spock_vulcan-salute.png)
Highly illogical.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 06, 2015, 05:40:03 AM
It's totally f***** silly. Our governor appears to be even stupider than the last 2 we had (Rick Perry and George W. Bush). It is a sort of sport here to find the stupidest people we can and elect them governor, so we all have someone to laugh and point at.
Satisfactory?
8)
I guess. With the zombie apocalypse to soon decend upon us, I suppose it won't matter in the end! :)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 06, 2015, 05:40:03 AM
It's totally f***** silly. Our governor appears to be even stupider than the last 2 we had (Rick Perry and George W. Bush). It is a sort of sport here to find the stupidest people we can and elect them governor, so we all have someone to laugh and point at.
Well, you did have Ann Richards, so perhaps there was hope for your state at one time. But I protest the idea that anyone could be stupider than W.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 06, 2015, 05:40:03 AM
Elect them governor, so we all have someone to laugh and point at.
Mock the Governor of Texas? We Canadians are less fussy. We'll point and laugh at just about
anyone from Texas.
;) >:D :laugh:
Chalk one up for the integrity and objectivity of the press during the campaign. (http://www.npr.org/2015/05/14/406768348/george-stephanopoulous-discloses-donations-to-clinton-foundation)
Another Bush against another Clinton... ???
I (really) feel sorry for you guys.... ::)
Q
Quote from: Que on May 15, 2015, 07:14:59 AM
Another Bush against another Clinton... ???
I (really) feel sorry for you guys.... ::)
Q
Believe me, we feel sorry for us too. And for the rest of the world.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 06, 2015, 05:19:16 PM
Well, you did have Ann Richards, so perhaps there was hope for your state at one time. But I protest the idea that anyone could be stupider than W.
At a gubernatorial level, Shrub was very good. He didn't have Cheney driving his brain for him. Perry and Abbott couldn't even pass THAT test! ::)
8)
Rick Santorum is running for president!
lolz.
Quote from: Brian on May 27, 2015, 09:56:56 AM
Rick Santorum is running for president!
lolz.
Could be worse.
He could have a snowball's chance for instance.
Quote from: Ken B on May 27, 2015, 12:18:20 PM
Could be worse. He could have a snowball's chance for instance.
His chances are not that good. The only way he has that much of a chance is if Republicans decide they definitely want to lose the general election.
Quote from: Todd on May 27, 2015, 12:26:59 PM
His chances are not that good. The only way he has that much of a chance is if Republicans decide they definitely want to lose the general election.
I think they made that choice already... :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 15, 2015, 08:32:30 AM
At a gubernatorial level, Shrub was very good. He didn't have Cheney driving his brain for him.
I missed this when you posted it but I think it's worth a post to agree. And not just Cheney, but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Poindexter (!!!)... His governorship wasn't like that.
Quote from: Pat B on May 27, 2015, 03:17:30 PM
I missed this when you posted it but I think it's worth a post to agree. And not just Cheney, but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Poindexter (!!!)... His governorship wasn't like that.
Exactly. Not sure what happened there, it seems he sold his soul to the devil. Well, clearly he did, now I examine Cheyney in a good light. >:D
8)
Quote from: Todd on May 27, 2015, 12:26:59 PM
His chances are not that good.
I wouldn't be so sure. He won Iowa in 2012 and came in second to Romney.
Quote from: Pat B on May 27, 2015, 03:17:30 PM
I missed this when you posted it but I think it's worth a post to agree. And not just Cheney, but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Poindexter (!!!)... His governorship wasn't like that.
First let me say I am more favorable to Bush than most here. But I rather agree with this. I recall in 2000 a friend telling me Bush seemed like a guy with no big ideas, just a decent enough guy who'd be a caretaker do-little president. That I agreed was why he was my preference! That was what I wanted! Didn't get it.
Quote from: Ken B on May 27, 2015, 05:26:00 PM
First let me say I am more favorable to Bush than most here. But I rather agree with this. I recall in 2000 a friend telling me Bush seemed like a guy with no big ideas, just a decent enough guy who'd be a caretaker do-little president. That I agreed was why he was my preference! That was what I wanted! Didn't get it.
That seems like a fair assessment. However, he, like all of us, was overtaken by unforeseen circumstances and thus his caretakership went a little crazy. Enter; Darth Cheney! (cue the d minor T & F)... :-\
I met George a couple of times back then, once when we were at a ball game in Arlington when he owned the Rangers, and then, in 1999, when he came to give my workplace an award for which I was the designated recipient. Both times he seemed like he would be great to hang out with and have a beer or three... :D Maybe not presidential, but cool.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 27, 2015, 06:02:20 PM
That seems like a fair assessment. However, he, like all of us, was overtaken by unforeseen circumstances and thus his caretakership went a little crazy. Enter; Darth Cheney! (cue the d minor T & F)... :-\
I met George a couple of times back then, once when we were at a ball game in Arlington when he owned the Rangers, and then, in 1999, when he came to give my workplace an award for which I was the designated recipient. Both times he seemed like he would be great to hang out with and have a beer or three... :D Maybe not presidential, but cool.
8)
Better than Gore though. :blank: "Dark forces." ::)
Bush was the luckiest politician of his generation! I think he could have been beaten in 2004 had the dems picked a better candidate. I thought placid, dull Dick Gephardt would have won soundly. Any moderate, even Biden.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 27, 2015, 06:02:20 PM
That seems like a fair assessment. However, he, like all of us, was overtaken by unforeseen circumstances and thus his caretakership went a little crazy. Enter; Darth Cheney! (cue the d minor T & F)... :-\
"Overtaken by unforeseen circumstances?" I think that's an extremely generous characterization. Some of those advisors never had any intention of him being a "caretaker" president, despite the image he had cultivated as governor.
One of them (Wolfowitz, the one who might be even crazier than Cheney) is now on Jeb's foreign policy team.
Quote
I met George a couple of times back then, once when we were at a ball game in Arlington when he owned the Rangers, and then, in 1999, when he came to give my workplace an award for which I was the designated recipient. Both times he seemed like he would be great to hang out with and have a beer or three... :D Maybe not presidential, but cool.
Yes, I have generally heard that he is very charming in person (or was when he was governor).
Quote from: Ken B on May 27, 2015, 07:09:44 PM
Better than Gore though. :blank: "Dark forces." ::)
Bush was the luckiest politician of his generation! I think he could have been beaten in 2004 had the dems picked a better candidate. I thought placid, dull Dick Gephardt would have won soundly. Any moderate, even Biden.
I don't know about that. Bush's presidential campaigns (including the 2000 primary against McCain) were ruthless, and the fear machine was still running strong in 2004. Kerry made a blunder with "for it before I was against it," a shockingly dumb way to describe two votes on, IIRC, two
different versions of a bill, and the Republicans then branded him a "flip flopper." (And now, 11 years later, candidates are afraid to admit that they ever changed their mind on anything, lest they too be labelled "flip floppers.") Biden would have said something dumb -- I imagine we can agree on that ;) -- and the Bush campaign would have pounced on that too.
BTW my current hunch is that Cruz will be the nominee this year.
Quote from: Pat B on May 27, 2015, 08:04:45 PM
I don't know about that. Bush's presidential campaigns (including the 2000 primary against McCain) were ruthless, and the fear machine was still running strong in 2004. Kerry made a blunder with "for it before I was against it," a shockingly dumb way to describe two votes on, IIRC, two different versions of a bill, and the Republicans then branded him a "flip flopper." (And now, 11 years later, candidates are afraid to admit that they ever changed their mind on anything, lest they too be labelled "flip floppers.") Biden would have said something dumb -- I imagine we can agree on that ;) -- and the Bush campaign would have pounced on that too.
BTW my current hunch is that Cruz will be the nominee this year.
My hunch (and hope) is that it is Scott Walker.
Btw, the reason I woukd have voted for anyone over Kerry, and I mean Palin for rxample, is that I feared his approach in Iraq and to militant Islam in general would have led to something like Isis. That's why I prefered McCain and woukd have even prefered Palin to Obama :blank: too. I told friends in 2008 this is a blunder that could in the long run cost tens of thousands or even millions of lives. (Bill Clinton would have got it right.)
I don't think there's anything *wrong* with Rick Santorum; an okay guy but for whatever reason doesn't have the right stuff to even get the nomination. I think the Reps have three viable candidates, but which none have officially announced, yet: Scott Walker; Chris Christie and Jeb Bush.
Of these, I don't know enough about Walker; but know too much about Bush and am currently most interested in Christie.
A blast from the past: George Pataki Launches 2016 Bid (http://news.yahoo.com/former-ny-governor-pataki-launches-2016-republican-presidential-114339521.html)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 28, 2015, 04:37:23 AM
A blast from the past: George Pataki Launches 2016 Bid (http://news.yahoo.com/former-ny-governor-pataki-launches-2016-republican-presidential-114339521.html)
I saw that right after I had posted. I like what he said in his announcement video. Be interesting to see how his campaign goes; certainly qualified; charisma factor questionable.
Quote from: sanantonio on May 28, 2015, 04:47:38 AM
I saw that right after I had posted. I like what he said in his announcement video. Be interesting to see how his campaign goes; certainly qualified; charisma factor questionable.
I expect he is too moderate to appeal to 'the Base'. IOW, he would be a good candidate, but won't have a chance during the wingnut portion of the program. ::) ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2015, 04:53:26 AM
I expect he is too moderate to appeal to 'the Base'. IOW, he would be a good candidate, but won't have a chance during the wingnut portion of the program. ::) ::)
8)
He has three strikes against him from the GOP/conservative base (at least based on past history - no idea if his views are different now): pro-gay rights, pro-environment, and pro-gun control (including signed legislation). There may be a fourth on health care, but I don't remember any more all the details. On the other hand, pro-lower taxes. REPthat won in DEM state, and considered strong on crime. That's in a nutshell.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 28, 2015, 05:24:06 AM
He has three strikes against him from the GOP/conservative base (at least based on past history - no idea if his views are different now): pro-gay rights, pro-environment, and pro-gun control (including signed legislation). There may be a fourth on health care, but I don't remember any more all the details. On the other hand, pro-lower taxes. REP that won in DEM state, and considered strong on crime. That's in a nutshell.
Yup, just what I meant; moderate. I like what he did in NY (he was governor during 9/11), but generally speaking, New Yorkers are realists with an interest in getting stuff done. That would never fly with the National Party machine. They would rather make political points than actually govern. :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2015, 05:50:51 AMhat would never fly with the National Party machine. They would rather make political points than actually govern.
I'm not so sure. First, Romney managed to get the nomination in 2012, and it's fair and accurate to say that he is not on the far right of the party, so it can be done. It usually is done. Second, and more important, the RNC has limited the number of primary debates this cycle to avoid the long slugfest from last time around. The Republicans want a less damaged candidate when the general election rolls around.
If Pataki were better known and younger and a bit more conservative he'd stand a better chance. I wonder if he's angling for a cabinet position or perhaps a stint at St James or something.
It's still early, of course, but it looks like Bush III, Rubio, and Walker are the frontrunners. I can stomach two of those.
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2015, 06:38:41 AM
I'm not so sure. First, Romney managed to get the nomination in 2012, and it's fair and accurate to say that he is not on the far right of the party, so it can be done. It usually is done. Second, and more important, the RNC has limited the number of primary debates this cycle to avoid the long slugfest from last time around. The Republicans want a less damaged candidate when the general election rolls around.
If Pataki were better known and younger and a bit more conservative he'd stand a better chance. I wonder if he's angling for a cabinet position or perhaps a stint at St James or something.
It's still early, of course, but it looks like Bush III, Rubio, and Walker are the frontrunners. I can stomach two of those.
It seemed to me as though they finally settled on Romney more as the 'last man standing' after they effectively slaughtered each other off. Obama didn't really need to do a lot to win.
I like Christie, but I doubt he will survive the cull, his straight talking style will undoubtedly screw him up sooner rather than later. Plus, he actually spoke to Obama once, after the Superstorm Sandy thing, and he didn't knock him down and jump on him (surely that would have been fatal) or turn around and immediately stab him in the back, so he burned some major bridges with the Party Faithful already.
Hilary appears to be Non-Stick, so if the GOP want to win this time, they better damn well get their shit in a pile. Soon. Don't forget this about Santorum; he will be first in line to institute Evangelical Sharia Law when the proposition gets raised. Other political considerations are secondary for him.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2015, 07:00:32 AMI like Christie, but I doubt he will survive the cull, his straight talking style will undoubtedly screw him up sooner rather than later.
I like Christie - as a governor. His mouth has gotten him in trouble, and will continue to do so. His schtick grows tiresome over time, and while I know he acts differently when situations warrant, he would be the chief diplomat of the USA, and I'm not convinced he wouldn't revert to his standard approach when the cameras are rolling even in a more delicate situation. He just can't win it.
I think you can rest easy about Santorum. As was pointed out earlier, he won Iowa in 2012 and was the next to last candidate for the Republicans, and he will have his sugar daddy's help again, but he's old news. Cruz is on the scene now to steal the crazy vote.
It looks like John Kasich will announce later this summer. He's got the right experience - Congressional budget and national security experience and a governorship - is not prone to saying too many crazy things, and is pragmatic. I could live without the faith-based talk, but that's comparatively minor. Alas, he's a RINO to many, he doesn't have great name recognition, and I don't know if he can raise the necessary money. I guess I could give money to his campaign, but I am principled, and I will not violate my personal lifetime ban on political contributions.
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2015, 07:18:37 AMI guess I could give money to his campaign, but I am principled, and I will not violate my personal lifetime ban on political contributions.
The only time I ever made a political donation, (a) I was younger and more naive, and (b) I ultimately voted against the candidate in question.
Embarrassing note: when George Pataki announced this morning, I actually forgot what political party he was in.
Quote from: Brian on May 28, 2015, 07:33:51 AM
Embarrassing note: when George Pataki announced this morning, I actually forgot what political party he was in.
Actually, I think that is a good thing. I wish all candidates would have that effect. :)
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2015, 06:38:41 AM
I'm not so sure. First, Romney managed to get the nomination in 2012, and it's fair and accurate to say that he is not on the far right of the party, so it can be done. It usually is done. Second, and more important, the RNC has limited the number of primary debates this cycle to avoid the long slugfest from last time around. The Republicans want a less damaged candidate when the general election rolls around.
If Pataki were better known and younger and a bit more conservative he'd stand a better chance. I wonder if he's angling for a cabinet position or perhaps a stint at St James or something.
It's still early, of course, but it looks like Bush III, Rubio, and Walker are the frontrunners. I can stomach two of those.
Yes. Despite the extremism of some of the gop, they have nominated their moderates for president: Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush 1. (I even see Reagan as a closet moderate.) Noe of these was on the party's right wing, especially Romney and Dole.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 07:57:12 AM
Yes. Despite the extremism of some of the gop, they have nominated their moderates for president: Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush 1. (I even see Reagan as a closet moderate.) Noe of these was on the party's right wing, especially Romney and Dole.
Yes, all true. But if one watches the 2 year run-up, it is the loonies who are steering the ship o the last moment. And I might just add, it is in Congress where the loonies tend to congregate and screw things up in between elections. Not that the Dems don't have their share, it is just that somehow the Rep loonies seem more... dangerous. :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2015, 08:27:13 AM
Yes, all true. But if one watches the 2 year run-up, it is the loonies who are steering the ship o the last moment. And I might just add, it is in Congress where the loonies tend to congregate and screw things up in between elections. Not that the Dems don't have their share, it is just that somehow the Rep loonies seem more... dangerous. :-\
8)
Oh no. I disagree there. Both parties are too much controlled by their loonies but I think the dem loonies are the more dangerous. The gop loonies want irksome stuff like creationism, prayer in school, unimplementable restrictions on abortion, a rollback on gay marriage. They won't actually get any of this, they'll just stir the pot a lot trying. The dem loonies want an end to free trade, censorship, and dangerous retreats in foreign policy. Who would defend Poland or Romania for example? The dem loonies are far more likely to get their way, and their way is generally more harmful when gotten.
BOTH parties support the war on drugs, which is a huge problem. NEITHER has a good record as a steward of prudent fiscal policy (but Bill Clinton was the best recent president on that).
But in politics you never have good choices. I can pick from 100 Beethoven symphony sets, but two candidates. The best I ever hope for is the lesser evil.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 08:55:25 AMBut in politics you never have good choices. I can pick from 100 Beethoven symphony sets, but two candidates. The best I ever hope for is the lesser evil.
The glory of the two-party democracy of USA. In Finland, there are half a dozen bad choices.
I'll probably do my usual thing and vote 3rd party. I long ago gave up on the two slightly differing branches of the Corporatist Party.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 08:55:25 AM
Who would defend Poland or Romania for example?
Here's a radical idea: how about Poland and Romania?
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 28, 2015, 09:40:30 AM
Here's a radical idea: how about Poland and Romania?
Well, when they had the opportunity they did. Poland did her best against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Romania decided that her best option was to ally herself with the former against the latter. Too bad you were born too late to counsel Churchill: WWII might have never happened. ;D ;D ;D
A WW2 analogy of dubious relevance to the present day...what a surprise :D
But since you brought up
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2015, 11:36:28 AM
Poland
it serves as an object lesson in the folly of putting your faith in foreign powers to come to the rescue (in Poland's case, those British and French "security guarantees").
Meanwhile, to get back to the topic at hand, the first candidate who promises to close down our bases in Europe and Asia and concentrate on solving our own domestic problems will get my vote. (Like that'll ever happen...)
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 28, 2015, 12:13:50 PM
A WW2 analogy of dubious relevance to the present day...what a surprise :D
But since you brought up
it serves as an object lesson in the folly of putting your faith in foreign powers to come to the rescue (in Poland's case, those British and French "security guarantees").
Meanwhile, to get back to the topic at hand, the first candidate who promises to close down our bases in Europe and Asia and concentrate on solving our own domestic problems will get my vote. (Like that'll ever happen...)
And Charles Lindergh would have agreed.
(http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/files/9814/2368/4933/Russia_Map.jpg)
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 12:20:29 PM
And Charles Lindergh would have agreed.
Not to mention John Quincy Adams:
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.Those old guys, they knew a thing or two.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 28, 2015, 09:40:30 AM
I'll probably do my usual thing and vote 3rd party. I long ago gave up on the two slightly differing branches of the Corporatist Party.
Here's a radical idea: how about Poland and Romania?
Worked so well in 1939.
But you said something else interesting. What was Poland's alternative to trusting in allies? They could never stand up to Germany alone. And they did resist, rather fiercely, but were over-matched. (Personally I am less impressed by their folly than the folly of the other western powers in 36 and 38. )
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 12:35:46 PM
But you said something else interesting. What was Poland's alternative to trusting in allies? They could never stand up to Germany alone.
Good question. I don't know. It's worth pointing out however that Polish diplomacy in the interwar period was not very rational or successful; in particular, they had bad relations with two immediate neighbors who could have been valuable allies (Czechoslovakia and Lithuania), due to territorial disputes which look rather petty in hindsight.
But my larger gripe is that to some people (neocons, etc.), it's always 1938, the enemy of the moment is always Hitler, and we must always intervene. And unfortunately, these people are deeply entrenched in the upper reaches of both parties, despite a track record consisting of one disaster after another. Come on folks, WW2 was a singular event; it's time to dispense with the brain-dead Hitler analogies.
Here Ken, you may enjoy this:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/61-times-kristol-reminded-of-hitler-churchill.html
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 28, 2015, 12:57:39 PMCome on folks, WW2 was a singular event; it's time to dispense with the brain-dead Hitler analogies.
QFT.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 28, 2015, 12:57:39 PM
But my larger gripe is that to some people (neocons, etc.), it's always 1938, the enemy of the moment is always Hitler, and we must always intervene. And unfortunately, these people are deeply entrenched in the upper reaches of both parties, despite a track record consisting of one disaster after another. Come on folks, WW2 was a singular event; it's time to dispense with the brain-dead Hitler analogies.
Yup, pretty freakin' tiresome. That's an interesting link. Our politicians and journalists have gotten so used to making that analogy they do it as a knee jerk to anything they are against. They always want us to remember history, unless they want us to forget it.
Thing is, it is so easy to be right in hindsight. Hell, I manage it every time, standing on my head. It is a far more astute man who can judge the future accurately. No, I'm not talking about knowing the future here, rather, being able to gauge a situation based on THIS set of circumstances, not making analogies based on past successes or failures.
FWIW, I am in favor of Obama's policies so far in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. They may end up being mistakes in the long run, or resounding successes, but at least he got out of the big freaking circular trench which American foreign policy has been marching in and tried to move things forward. Can you imagine the depth of the stupidity of our Cuba policy? People would actually not look at Rubio as a moron after his scathing indictment of Obama for changing it? US Army still in Western Europe since 1945? Still in South Korea since 1950? Will we occupy the whole world eventually? I would like to own Romania some day... ::)
8)
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 07:57:12 AM
Yes. Despite the extremism of some of the gop, they have nominated their moderates for president: Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush 1. (I even see Reagan as a closet moderate.) Noe of these was on the party's right wing, especially Romney and Dole.
Maybe, but most of them didn't have viable challengers from their right, and the party has shifted further away from the center since 2000. Romney won the nomination practically by default.
As for Walker, he has not governed as a moderate, and now that he's running for president, he is no longer branding himself as a moderate. But he has a truckload of other problems (not directly related to ideology) that I think will prevent him from being the nominee, if he doesn't pull a Perry first.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2015, 01:17:09 PMUS Army still in Western Europe since 1945?
To be fair, if any peoples have shown themselves to be more foolhardy and warlike than Americans when it comes to foreign policy, it is Europeans.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2015, 01:17:09 PMWill we occupy the whole world eventually?
With the reach of US naval and air power, we effectively do now. What other country can deploy, if need be, to Kazakhstan and Argentina and Malaysia all at once in less than a day?
Driving home from work I listened to an interview on All Things considered with the Presidential Spokesperson about the US policy towards ISIS (or ISIL as the administration says, why?) and for once I completely support Obama's policy, which is: no more US combat troops. The US will offer support and help to the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, but no more US blood and treasure put into Iraq to (again) do what the Iraqis are obligated to do for themselves.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2015, 01:17:09 PMUS Army still in Western Europe since 1945?
Worked out well for me...I loved the Cold War ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Pat B on May 28, 2015, 01:25:14 PMAs for Walker, he has not governed as a moderate, and now that he's running for president, he is no longer branding himself as a moderate. But he has a truckload of other problems (not directly related to ideology) that I think will prevent him from being the nominee, if he doesn't pull a Perry first.
Scott Walker is a meat puppet. If he gets the nod, I will have to write in a candidate. My vote doesn't matter anyway; Oregon will go for the Democrat even if it's a mannequin in a wig.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2015, 01:17:09 PM
Yup, pretty freakin' tiresome. That's an interesting link. Our politicians and journalists have gotten so used to making that analogy they do it as a knee jerk to anything they are against. They always want us to remember history, unless they want us to forget it.
Thing is, it is so easy to be right in hindsight. Hell, I manage it every time, standing on my head. It is a far more astute man who can judge the future accurately. No, I'm not talking about knowing the future here, rather, being able to gauge a situation based on THIS set of circumstances, not making analogies based on past successes or failures.
FWIW, I am in favor of Obama's policies so far in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. They may end up being mistakes in the long run, or resounding successes, but at least he got out of the big freaking circular trench which American foreign policy has been marching in and tried to move things forward. Can you imagine the depth of the stupidity of our Cuba policy? People would actually not look at Rubio as a moron after his scathing indictment of Obama for changing it? US Army still in Western Europe since 1945? Still in South Korea since 1950? Will we occupy the whole world eventually? I would like to own Romania some day... ::)
8)
As for SK. I wonder, because I am utterly ruthless, if perhaps we should pull out of SK because then I expect NK to attack. I believe the world needs an object lesson in the folly of American isolationism.
And that is why you and the others are wrong about 1938. There are always self interested reasons for standing back, as the world did in 1938. There is always a prudential argument for letting monsters alone. But you want to present it as a moral argument. And there are no good moral arguments for letting monsters alone. Isis are monsters. There is no good moral argument for letting Isis terrorize Yazidi, or Shiites, or liberal Muslims, or anyone else; as there was none for letting Hitler terrorize Europe's Jews.
Hey Ken, lemme ax you sumpin'.
Are you pleased with the results of US military interventions of the last few decades? Do you think Libya is better off now than it was under Qaddafi? Is Iraq better now than under Saddam? How about Afghanistan - things are going great there? Or Somalia - did that intervention in the 90s do a lot of good?
As for me, I think South Korea is a rich industrial country with an army of its own, which can take care of its own problems.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 02:27:55 PM
As for SK. I wonder, because I am utterly ruthless, if perhaps we should pull out of SK because then I expect NK to attack. I believe the world needs an object lesson in the folly of American isolationism.
And that is why you and the others are wrong about 1938. There are always self interested reasons for standing back, as the world did in 1938. There is always a prudential argument for letting monsters alone. But you want to present it as a moral argument. And there are no good moral arguments for letting monsters alone. Isis are monsters. There is no good moral argument for letting Isis terrorize Yazidi, or Shiites, or liberal Muslims, or anyone else; as there was none for letting Hitler terrorize Europe's Jews.
Don't confuse me with moralists. I am saying that every freaking situation that arises
since WWII is NOT freaking Hitler reincarnated and Chamberlain appeasing. I'm saying let's take all that history under advisement and deal with things on a case-by-case basis. I'm not even saying let's be isolationists. I am saying that Obama's decision IN THIS CASE to withdraw from Iraq after 12 years of war instead of making a permanent occupation out of it is a pleasant change from past practice.
If you think 'we' should still be there, you can always go occupy it yourself, instead of my nephew doing it. You don't need to characterize or mischaracterize anything I'm saying here, I can speak as plainly (or more plainly) as you can stand to hear.
That said. ISIS does need to be dealt with. Whether it is incumbent upon us to be the dealers is another question. I've lost a couple of dozens of friends and family in wars we have got into just since my late adolescence. All I want is some justification more compelling than 'if England hadn't appeased Hitler...'.
8)
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 28, 2015, 02:34:35 PM
Hey Ken, lemme ax you sumpin'.
Are you pleased with the results of US military interventions of the last few decades? Do you think Libya is better off now than it was under Qaddafi? Is Iraq better now than under Saddam? How about Afghanistan - things are going great there? Or Somalia - did that intervention in the 90s do a lot of good?
As for me, I think South Korea is a rich industrial country with an army of its own, which can take care of its own problems.
How is that analogous to honoring treaties, defending peaceful allies, or rolling back aggressors such as in the first gulf war? or collective defence in general?
Yes btw better in Fghanistan than under the Taliban. Iraq was better in 2010 than now after the witdrawal. That is a pertinent question too isn't it? Kuwait is better off than under Saddam.
But of course your questions are all based on the false assumption that only American actions have any effect. I think Egypt was better off under Mubarak, and we didn't overthrow him. Didn't conquer Sudan recently that I can recall. Things can go to hell anyway, right?
I don't know if it this post was ignored because it was on the bottom of the previous page and overlooked when someone posted immediately after mine, or it was ignored because of its intrinsic worthlessness ;) but since it seems somewhat in line with the latest conversation I am reposting it:
Quote from: sanantonio on May 28, 2015, 01:31:03 PM
Driving home from work I listened to an interview on All Things considered with the Presidential Spokesperson about the US policy towards ISIS (or ISIL as the administration says, why?) and for once I completely support Obama's policy, which is: no more US combat troops. The US will offer support and help to the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, but no more US blood and treasure put into Iraq to (again) do what the Iraqis are obligated to do for themselves.
Quote from: sanantonio on May 28, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
I don't know if it this post was ignored because it was on the bottom of the previous page and overlooked when someone posted immediately after mine, or it was ignored because of its intrinsic worthlessness ;) but since it seems somewhat in line with the latest conversation I am reposting it:
Support without treasure? Please elucidate.
I agree we should help Iraq and the other countries fight Isis. I agree they have to do the bulk of it. I agree it has to be seen as an indigenous operation. But I am quite happy to supply a lot of bombs, and don't see why air support should be ruled out.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 03:00:39 PM
Support without treasure? Please elucidate.
I agree we should help Iraq and the other countries fight Isis. I agree they have to do the bulk of it. I agree it has to be seen as an indigenous operation. But I am quite happy to supply a lot of bombs, and don't see why air support should be ruled out.
I don't know all of the detail of the administration's policy other than the 3,000 troops there mainly training and advising (whatever that means), and limited bombing but no escalation of US troops. This is Iraq's fight. If they cannot or will not defend their country today, the US going in and beating back ISIS and then handing it over to them just to see them let it go again is not a recipe for anything other than more US casualties for no reason.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 02:27:55 PMAs for SK. I wonder, because I am utterly ruthless, if perhaps we should pull out of SK because then I expect NK to attack. I believe the world needs an object lesson in the folly of American isolationism.
There it is, the false dichotomy. Anyone who suggests more militarily restrained foreign policy is an
isolationist. Rubbish.
There are no moral arguments for letting evil people do evil things. Moral arguments, however, are of limited value when discussing foreign policy. Security and strategy and economic value are of more importance. The US faced no security or strategic or economic risk from the genocide in Rwanda, so it did nothing. Same thing in Congo. (OK, the US didn't do nothing there, it just didn't help.) I have seen no compelling arguments that ISIL presents a security or strategic threat significant enough to warrant larger scale US involvement. We may be doing too much right now. Arm people, switch sides, make arrangements - non-
treaty arrangements - with some countries, and then switch sides again as needed. Taking a more cold hearted view, it is simple to address your rhetorical questions. Afghanistan represented a real security threat to the US since it harbored known enemies of the US, so the Taliban had to be removed. Iraq in 1990 also presented a threat. It did not represent a specific threat to the security of the US, but it did pose a strategic threat in a region in which the US has significant strategic and economic interests, so Saddam had to be ousted from Kuwait. Iraq in 2003 did not represent any similar kind of threat. The war was a mistake, and the aftermath has contributed to instability ever since. Whether or not the people of Iraq are "better off", or were "better off" in 2010 or some other magical year, is basically irrelevant. (And you really need to ask about which people.) The US is worse off.
US actions since the collapse of the Soviet Union have more to do with aggressive expansion of influence than defending peaceful allies or collective defense. The expansion of NATO to include countries right on Russia's borders was unmistakably aggressive and does absolutely nothing to enhance the security of the United States, or to improve its strategic position. It puts the US in a position of having to defend countries that it cannot defend (http://www.praguepost.com/eu-news/48001-russian-annexation-of-baltics-would-take-two-days), except by the use of nuclear weapons. That is a mistake. NATO should have been, at most, expanded to include unified Germany, and better yet, it should have been dissolved and replaced with a new arrangement. Since I am not running for office I can just say this: Poland, and Romania, and the Baltics are not worth the life of one American soldier, and they are worth very limited amounts of American money. It is not the job of the United States to defend all nations, nor is it the job of the US to "make the world safe for democracy." The US should start negotiating new treaties, reducing its obligations, and it should instead start working toward true collective security through international institutions, existing or new. (Oh, before anyone brings up the platitude: it is true that democracies do not fight wars against each other. They are usually busy clobbering non-democracies.)
Constantly bringing up 1938 is blatantly and fundamentally false. The US - the world - does
not face expansionist, militaristic threats from the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the most advanced military as it did way back then. If the contention is that the world does face such a challenge, which country fits that bill now?
Quote from: sanantonio on May 28, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
I don't know if it this post was ignored because it was on the bottom of the previous page and overlooked when someone posted immediately after mine, or it was ignored because of its intrinsic worthlessness ;) but since it seems somewhat in line with the latest conversation I am reposting it:
QuoteQuote from: sanantonio on Today at 04:31:03 PM
Driving home from work I listened to an interview on All Things considered with the Presidential Spokesperson about the US policy towards ISIS (or ISIL as the administration says, why?) and for once I completely support Obama's policy, which is: no more US combat troops. The US will offer support and help to the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, but no more US blood and treasure put into Iraq to (again) do what the Iraqis are obligated to do for themselves.
I agree with that too.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 03:00:39 PM
I agree we should help Iraq and the other countries fight Isis. I agree they have to do the bulk of it. I agree it has to be seen as an indigenous operation. But I am quite happy to supply a lot of bombs, and don't see why air support should be ruled out.
I agree with this, too. My major objection is to the perpetual occupation and 'Americanization' of countries that don't need or want it.
8)
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2015, 03:42:39 PM
There it is, the false dichotomy. Anyone who suggests more militarily restrained foreign policy is an isolationist. Rubbish.
There are no moral arguments for letting evil people do evil things. Moral arguments, however, are of limited value when discussing foreign policy. Security and strategy and economic value are of more importance. The US faced no security or strategic or economic risk from the genocide in Rwanda, so it did nothing. Same thing in Congo. (OK, the US didn't do nothing there, it just didn't help.) I have seen no compelling arguments that ISIL presents a security or strategic threat significant enough to warrant larger scale US involvement. We may be doing too much right now. Arm people, switch sides, make arrangements - non-treaty arrangements - with some countries, and then switch sides again as needed. Taking a more cold hearted view, it is simple to address your rhetorical questions. Afghanistan represented a real security threat to the US since it harbored known enemies of the US, so the Taliban had to be removed. Iraq in 1990 also presented a threat. It did not represent a specific threat to the security of the US, but it did pose a strategic threat in a region in which the US has significant strategic and economic interests, so Saddam had to be ousted from Kuwait. Iraq in 2003 did not represent any similar kind of threat. The war was a mistake, and the aftermath has contributed to instability ever since. Whether or not the people of Iraq are "better off", or were "better off" in 2010 or some other magical year, is basically irrelevant. (And you really need to ask about which people.) The US is worse off.
US actions since the collapse of the Soviet Union have more to do with aggressive expansion of influence than defending peaceful allies or collective defense. The expansion of NATO to include countries right on Russia's borders was unmistakably aggressive and does absolutely nothing to enhance the security of the United States, or to improve its strategic position. It puts the US in a position of having to defend countries that it cannot defend (http://www.praguepost.com/eu-news/48001-russian-annexation-of-baltics-would-take-two-days), except by the use of nuclear weapons. That is a mistake. NATO should have been, at most, expanded to include unified Germany, and better yet, it should have been dissolved and replaced with a new arrangement. Since I am not running for office I can just say this: Poland, and Romania, and the Baltics are not worth the life of one American soldier, and they are worth very limited amounts of American money. It is not the job of the United States to defend all nations, nor is it the job of the US to "make the world safe for democracy." The US should start negotiating new treaties, reducing its obligations, and it should instead start working toward true collective security through international institutions, existing or new. (Oh, before anyone brings up the platitude: it is true that democracies do not fight wars against each other. They are usually busy clobbering non-democracies.)
Constantly bringing up 1938 is blatantly and fundamentally false. The US - the world - does not face expansionist, militaristic threats from the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the most advanced military as it did way back then. If the contention is that the world does face such a challenge, which country fits that bill now?
Todd, suggesting we should leave Poland on its own if it is attacked, despite treaty obligations, is isolationism straight up. So there is no false dichotomy here. There are perhaps comments that do not pertain to you.
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2015, 03:42:39 PM
There it is, the false dichotomy. Anyone who suggests more militarily restrained foreign policy is an isolationist. Rubbish.
There are no moral arguments for letting evil people do evil things. Moral arguments, however, are of limited value when discussing foreign policy. Security and strategy and economic value are of more importance. The US faced no security or strategic or economic risk from the genocide in Rwanda, so it did nothing. Same thing in Congo. (OK, the US didn't do nothing there, it just didn't help.) I have seen no compelling arguments that ISIL presents a security or strategic threat significant enough to warrant larger scale US involvement. We may be doing too much right now. Arm people, switch sides, make arrangements - non-treaty arrangements - with some countries, and then switch sides again as needed. Taking a more cold hearted view, it is simple to address your rhetorical questions. Afghanistan represented a real security threat to the US since it harbored known enemies of the US, so the Taliban had to be removed. Iraq in 1990 also presented a threat. It did not represent a specific threat to the security of the US, but it did pose a strategic threat in a region in which the US has significant strategic and economic interests, so Saddam had to be ousted from Kuwait. Iraq in 2003 did not represent any similar kind of threat. The war was a mistake, and the aftermath has contributed to instability ever since. Whether or not the people of Iraq are "better off", or were "better off" in 2010 or some other magical year, is basically irrelevant. (And you really need to ask about which people.) The US is worse off.
US actions since the collapse of the Soviet Union have more to do with aggressive expansion of influence than defending peaceful allies or collective defense. The expansion of NATO to include countries right on Russia's borders was unmistakably aggressive and does absolutely nothing to enhance the security of the United States, or to improve its strategic position. It puts the US in a position of having to defend countries that it cannot defend (http://www.praguepost.com/eu-news/48001-russian-annexation-of-baltics-would-take-two-days), except by the use of nuclear weapons. That is a mistake. NATO should have been, at most, expanded to include unified Germany, and better yet, it should have been dissolved and replaced with a new arrangement. Since I am not running for office I can just say this: Poland, and Romania, and the Baltics are not worth the life of one American soldier, and they are worth very limited amounts of American money. It is not the job of the United States to defend all nations, nor is it the job of the US to "make the world safe for democracy." The US should start negotiating new treaties, reducing its obligations, and it should instead start working toward true collective security through international institutions, existing or new. (Oh, before anyone brings up the platitude: it is true that democracies do not fight wars against each other. They are usually busy clobbering non-democracies.)
Constantly bringing up 1938 is blatantly and fundamentally false. The US - the world - does not face expansionist, militaristic threats from the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the most advanced military as it did way back then. If the contention is that the world does face such a challenge, which country fits that bill now?
Ditto.
(well, there is nothing I disagree with here, and well said, too.)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2015, 04:05:30 PM
Ditto.
(well, there is nothing I disagree with here, and well said, too.)
8)
Ditto? Poland, having been invaded and occupied by Russia many times, when free asks to join a defence alliance. It is allowed to. And this is
aggression?
I don't want to be testy but WTF are you two smoking?
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2015, 03:42:39 PMConstantly bringing up 1938 is blatantly and fundamentally false. The US - the world - does not face expansionist, militaristic threats from the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the most advanced military as it did way back then. If the contention is that the world does face such a challenge, which country fits that bill now?
The Chinese have a reasonable claim for more
lebensraum. Perhaps they should buy Canada.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 04:09:41 PM
Ditto? Poland, having been invaded and occupied by Russia many times, when free asks to join a defence alliance. It is allowed to. And this is aggression?
I don't want to be testy but WTF are you two smoking?
Well, we really need to go in a occupy the border with Russia. At least until Putin dies...
8)
Quote from: North Star on May 28, 2015, 04:20:22 PM
The Chinese have a reasonable claim for more lebensraum. Perhaps they should buy Canada.
There WAS talk about a war with Denmark a few years ago! :laugh: Sneaky Danes tried to claim Toronto, or some island, or the North Pole or something. My attitude was, they can have Joni Mitchell, but anything else we're fightin' for.
Btw, my last name traces back eventually to Danish. So I had a foot in both camps. ;)
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 04:05:25 PMTodd, suggesting we should leave Poland on its own if it is attacked, despite treaty obligations, is isolationism straight up. So there is no false dichotomy here. There are perhaps comments that do not pertain to you.
No, it is not isolationism. It is cold calculation. To put it as bluntly as possible: Poland is expendable. You have offered a false dichotomy.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 04:09:41 PM
Ditto? Poland, having been invaded and occupied by Russia many times, when free asks to join a defence alliance. It is allowed to. And this is aggression?
I don't want to be testy but WTF are you two smoking?
Perhaps I was unclear - but I am confident I was not - but it is the United States that aggressively expanded its influence by recklessly pushing for the expansion of NATO to the east, not Poland. Your response is disingenuous.
Quote from: North Star on May 28, 2015, 04:20:22 PM
The Chinese have a reasonable claim for more lebensraum. Perhaps they should buy Canada.
Canada is a majority owned subsidiary of the United States. The Chinese will have better results expanding into Siberia.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 04:05:25 PM
Todd, suggesting we should leave Poland on its own if it is attacked, despite treaty obligations, is isolationism straight up. So there is no false dichotomy here. There are perhaps comments that do not pertain to you.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 04:09:41 PM
Ditto? Poland, having been invaded and occupied by Russia many times, when free asks to join a defence alliance. It is allowed to. And this is aggression?
To clarify:
Yes, we have treaty obligations with a number of countries. However, it is my firm belief that NATO should have been closed down after the Cold War. The security of Europe should be the primary task of Europeans.
The Baltic States (so they tell us) are afraid of Russia. They're so scared, in fact, that they're not even willing to pay the 2% of the state budget for the military that NATO countries are supposed to pay. Meanwhile, implying that they can rely on a Big Brother from across the ocean to take care of them sets up a false sense of security, and risks embroiling the USA in potentially disastrous conflicts it can't win.
Second, Poland or any country is of course allowed to ask to join NATO or any other alliance. The existing members of such an alliance are however under no obligation to accept anyone who wants to join.
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2015, 04:09:41 PM
I don't want to be testy but WTF are you two smoking?
I have restrained myself from calling you out lately (I mean, really, Palin a better option? I don't think so. They don't come much nuttier). But as I was thinking the exact same thing, I think they must be smoking something pretty strong. Perhaps we agree for all the wrong reasons, but it must be a miracle! :)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 29, 2015, 04:46:55 AM
I have restrained myself from calling you out lately (I mean, really, Palin a better option? I don't think so. They don't come much nuttier). But as I was thinking the exact same thing, I think they must be smoking something pretty strong. Perhaps we agree for all the wrong reasons, but it must be a miracle! :)
It is not unusual for neocons and liberal interventionists (ie, Reckless Interventionists) to find common cause when it comes to warmongering and imperialism. It is dressed up in the most beautiful political language imaginable - promoting democracy, ensuring "human rights", variants of defending our allies or the helpless, etc - but it requires naïve beliefs in both the beneficence and effectiveness of US power.
Reckless Interventionists can take solace in the extremely high probability (near 100%) that the next President, be it Hillary or any Republican, will be far more aggressive in foreign policy matters than the current President.
Well, some gentlemen here have taught me a lesson or two, viz:
1. To rely on international treatises and to expect the signatory parts to abide by them is folly.
2. Poland and Romania should defend themselves, but to recall the last time they did just that, one way or another, is a false historical analogy.
3. WWII (ie, the one historical event from which the actual world order stemmed) is not relevant today, but the rhetoric of an early 19th century statesman (John Quincy Adams) is.
4. Countries formerly belonging to USSR (by forceful annexation) attacked by Russia either directly, or by proxies, or both (in chronological order): Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine. Attacked by USA: none. Countries formerly belonging to the USSR-led Communist camp (by Red Army invasion and occupation) verbally threatened by various Russian officials or non-officials: Poland, Latvia, Romania. Verbally threatened by USA: none. Yet when it comes to it, USA is the aggressor.
5. The best, surest and most effective way of ensuring international peace and order (relatively, as all human affairs are) is by simultaneously (1) immediate USA withdrawal from all her international engagements, miltary or diplomatic, and (2) enforcing existing, or creating new, international organizations.
And, saving the best for last:
6. People who are more or less succesful in managing their own lives know exactly what should have been / should be done in order for the whole world to suddenly become better, brighter and more just.
Points well taken. thank you, sirs!
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 05:35:47 AM
Well, some gentlemen here have taught me a lesson or two, viz:
1. To rely on international treatises and to expect the signatory parts to abide by them is folly.
2. Poland and Romania should defend themselves, but to recall the last time they did just that, one way or another, is a false historical analogy.
3. WWII (ie, the one historical event from which the actual world order stemmed) is not relevant today, but the rhetoric of an early 19th century statesman (John Quincy Adams) is.
4. Countries formerly belonging to USSR (by forceful annexation) attacked by Russia either directly, or by proxies, or both (in chronological order): Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine. Attacked by USA: none. Countries formerly belonging to the USSR-led Communist camp (by Red Army invasion and occupation) verbally threatened by various Russian officials or non-officials: Poland, Latvia, Romania. Verbally threatened by USA: none. Yet when it comes to it, USA is the aggressor.
5. The best, surest and most effective way of ensuring international peace and order (relatively, as all human affairs are) is by simultaneously (1) immediate USA withdrawal from all her international engagements, miltary or diplomatic, and (2) enforcing existing, or creating new, international organizations.
And, saving the best for last:
6. People who are more or less succesful in managing their own lives know exactly what should have been / should be done in order for the whole world to suddenly become better, brighter and more just.
Points well taken. thank you, sirs!
Sometimes it is necessary to talk about what is the best thing for OUR country, which may very well not be what is the best thing for yours. Since it is an intellectual exercise and not a change of policy, there is no need to fret. If the Poles and Romanians go down the tubes, it would probably be a good thing for the world if they would take us along with them; it would be morally correct, yes? :)
8)
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 05:35:47 AM
Well, some gentlemen here have taught me a lesson or two, viz:
1. To rely on international treatises and to expect the signatory parts to abide by them is folly.
Yes. A treaty is just a piece of paper unless you have the will and the means to back it up. That's the real world.
Quote2. Poland and Romania should defend themselves, but to recall the last time they did just that, one way or another, is a false historical analogy.
Why is "the last time they did just that" any more relevant than any other time "they did just that"? Argument by analogy is lazy.
Quote3. WWII (ie, the one historical event from which the actual world order stemmed) is not relevant today, but the rhetoric of an early 19th century statesman (John Quincy Adams) is.
The rhetoric of John Quincy Adams on this matter is very similar to the rhetoric of Washington, Madison, Jefferson et al. on this matter. As these gentlemen played a major role in creating the United States of America, their views on how it should conduct its international affairs remain relevant within that polity.
Designating
one particular historical event as
the single event that determined the world order is a very arbitrary way to argue. Why not World War I, or the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the War of Jenkins' Ear? This pick-&-choose approach to historical argumentation is characteristic of ideologues.
Quote4. Countries formerly belonging to USSR (by forceful annexation) attacked by Russia either directly, or by proxies, or both (in chronological order): Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine. Attacked by USA: none. Countries formerly belonging to the USSR-led Communist camp (by Red Army invasion and occupation) verbally threatened by various Russian officials or non-officials: Poland, Latvia, Romania. Verbally threatened by USA: none. Yet when it comes to it, USA is the aggressor.
None of the instances you have cited obligate the USA to take sides in any particular conflict concerning the above-named states.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 29, 2015, 05:56:51 AM
If the Poles and Romanians go down the tubes, it would probably be a good thing for the world if they would take us along with them; it would be morally correct, yes? :)
Out of love for Haydn I will refrain from replying to this. ;D ;D ;D
I've stopped counting the times I've heard complaints of the type, "I hate the US they go swaggering around like cowboys, interjecting themselves wherever they please and acting like the policemen of the world!"
But when we say, oh, we'll help how we can, but it's your fight and stay out, well, then we are abandoning our obligations ...
Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 29, 2015, 04:46:55 AM
I have restrained myself from calling you out lately (I mean, really, Palin a better option? I don't think so. They don't come much nuttier). But as I was thinking the exact same thing, I think they must be smoking something pretty strong. Perhaps we agree for all the wrong reasons, but it must be a miracle! :)
:) Well, I did pick Palin as an extreme example of course, for emphasis.
Actually I think Palin is quite sharp, people are wrong to underestimate her, and she is quite good at being a "media personality": provocative, etc. I gather she was a decent governor, who fought corruption in her own party. I don't think she has the judgment to be a president, and have never seen evidence that she either understands her shortcomings or felt much need to improve them.
Quote from: sanantonio on May 29, 2015, 06:03:25 AM
I've stopped counting the times I've heard complaints of the type, "I hate the US they go swaggering around like cowboys, interjecting themselves wherever they please and acting like the policemen of the world!"
But when we say, oh, we'll help how we can, but it's your fight and stay out, well, then we are abandoning our obligations ...
Indeed. It's an illustration of Ken's Third Law:
Resentment explains much of life. Much being the parts not explained by stupidity or greed. 8)
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 29, 2015, 05:58:56 AM
Yes. A treaty is just a piece of paper unless you have the will and the means to back it up. That's the real world.
Germany maintained exactly this position in both world wars yet she was demonized. Why?
Quote
Why is "the last time they did just that" any more relevant than any other time "they did just that"?
Actually, you´re right. "[T]he last time they did just that" is like most of any other time they did just that in the last 2 centuries: each time they had to deal with one aggressor which (in slightly different, barely disguised clothes) is still active in threatening them. No, it´s not Turkey, sorry.
Quote
The rhetoric of John Quincy Adams on this matter is very similar to the rhetoric of Washington, Madison, Jefferson et al. on this matter. As these gentlemen played a major role in creating the United States of America, their views on how it should conduct its international affairs remain relevant within that polity.
Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams et al. are long since outdated when it comes to the US foreign policy. At least since the Mexican War, probably since 1898, most definitely since WWI and irreversible since WWII.
Quote
Designating one particular historical event as the single event that determined the world order is a very arbitrary way to argue. Why not World War I, or the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the War of Jenkins' Ear? This pick-&-choose approach to historical argumentation is characteristic of ideologues.
I was just reasoning
ad usum Delphini; American politicians and voters are not especially famous for their historical knowledge. You seem to be an exception so I concede your point: actually, it all started in the Garden of Eden.
Quote
None of the instances you have cited obligate the USA to take sides in any particular conflict concerning the above-named states.
Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine probably not. Poland, Latvia and Romania are NATO members, though; much to your chagrin, the USA pledged their signature, trust and honor on that treatise. If you mean to say that they are worth nothing, okay --- after all, it´s not you who decide.
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 06:34:16 AM
. Poland, Latvia and Romania are NATO members, though; much to your chagrin, the USA pledged their signature, trust and honor on that treatise.
Yes, you are correct about that. In a previous post, I stated that NATO should have been dissolved after the Cold War. I was thinking along those lines - we do have those obligations, but I don't think we should.
But here's what it comes down to. Some people (apparently you among them) want this "Team America - World Police" stance to continue. I don't. I think it's ruining this country.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 29, 2015, 06:44:16 AM
Yes, you are correct about that. In a previous post, I stated that NATO should have been dissolved after the Cold War. I was thinking along those lines - we do have those obligations, but I don't think we should.
Write to your congressman. ;D
QuoteSome people (apparently you among them) want this "Team America - World Police" stance to continue. I don't. I think it's ruining this country.
Have you read
Theodor Mommsen´s
Roman History?
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 06:53:38 AM
Write to your congressman. ;D
I did :)
QuoteHave you read Theodor Mommsen´s Roman History?
No. I've read some of Gibbon, though.
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 05:35:47 AM4. Countries formerly belonging to USSR (by forceful annexation) attacked by Russia either directly, or by proxies, or both (in chronological order): Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine. Attacked by USA: none. Countries formerly belonging to the USSR-led Communist camp (by Red Army invasion and occupation) verbally threatened by various Russian officials or non-officials: Poland, Latvia, Romania. Verbally threatened by USA: none. Yet when it comes to it, USA is the aggressor.
You might want to take a less Eurocentric view. I'll just stick to the post-war world since to explore US foreign policy up to that point would be an example of land grabs and opportunistic wars and gunboat diplomacy. I'm not sure some people of Southeast Asia would share the view that the US is more peaceful or less threatening. It is also possible that some people today across North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia might see the US differently than you do. Of course, some of these same people, or at least their leaders, might want US protection from even more loathsome neighbors and are therefore willing to let bygones be bygones. At least for now.
And it is, in historical fact, possible to be outright aggressive without immediately starting a war by firing the first shot. Look at the Mexican American War. James Polk sent Zachary Taylor to the border of Mexico. That was a provocation. It worked. It sparked a war. A war that no less a figure than Ulysses Grant labeled wicked. (On second thought, an example from the pre-war era is useful.) Since 1991, the US has actively pushed for an expansion of NATO right up to the borders of Russia. That is unambiguously a provocation. This is a war we do not want to spark.
The easternmost members of NATO offer no security benefits to the US or to more westerly European countries. They offer the risk of war. Given that some NATO members do not even meet their treaty obligations as it pertains to defense spending, I see NATO as basically a US subsidy for the defense of Europe, and one that could cause harm with no real benefit.
Let me ask this of those who favor muscular US foreign policy, who favor recklessly heeding NATO obligations: if Russia takes over the Baltic nations, how will it affect 1.) my life directly (market swoons nothwithstanding), and 2.) make the US less safe?
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 05:35:47 AM5. The best, surest and most effective way of ensuring international peace and order (relatively, as all human affairs are) is by simultaneously (1) immediate USA withdrawal from all her international engagements, miltary or diplomatic, and (2) enforcing existing, or creating new, international organizations.
The US should not withdraw from all international engagements, not at all. I don't recall anyone arguing that. It should, however, reduce its
military obligations in various parts of the world, Europe above all, and deploy limited resources and focus where more important issues exist – the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the Strait of Malacca come to mind. This is not to say that the US should start establishing new military bases in the region, though it already has, but rather that it needs to address different issues.
I'd very much like to see the establishment of meaningful international security. I hold a dark view of human motivation and the conduct of nations, but that does not preclude the establishment of some type organization or groups of organizations from fulfilling this need. The post-war framework is weakening and eroding. It does not reflect the political realities of today quite like it did in 1945. When the facts change, so should the institutions and policies.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 29, 2015, 06:57:07 AM
I did :)
Write again! And again and again! Your are the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, the voice of the people cannot go unheard for long... ;D ;D ;D
Quote
No. I've read some of Gibbon, though.
USA is not yet in Gibbon phase. Mommsen, though, explains exactly why Washington, Jefferson and Adams were abandoned. :D :D :D
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 07:09:25 AMUSA is not yet in Gibbon phase.
Wait, this implies that the US is an empire. That cannot be!
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 06:58:34 AM
Let me ask this of those who favor muscular US foreign policy, who favor recklessly heeding NATO obligations: if Russia takes over the Baltic nations, how will it affect 1.) my life directly (market swoons nothwithstanding), and 2.) make the US less safe?
How did the WWI up until 1917 directly affected the life of the Americans (market swoons nothwithstanding)? How did it make the US less safe?
How did Germany´s taking over most of Europe up until 1942 directly affected the life of the Americans (market swoons nothwithstanding)? How did it make the US less safe?
These are not rhetorical questions. I am one of those guys who sincerely believe that a German victory both in WWI and WWII would have been better than the actual result, which would have probably been very different were it not for the US intervention.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 06:58:34 AM
Let me ask this of those who favor muscular US foreign policy, who favor recklessly heeding NATO obligations: if Russia takes over the Baltic nations, how will it affect 1.) my life directly (market swoons nothwithstanding), and 2.) make the US less safe?
Also absent from pro-NATO rhetoric is any consideration of practicality. Let's say Russia took over Estonia, which it could probably do in a couple of days. What would be our response?:
1. Nuke 'em (yeah right)
2. Engage in a pitched land battle with Russian forces, right on their doorstep, incurring heavy losses (yeah right)
3. Sanctions (like that makes any difference)
4. Strongly worded messages of disapproval
Given the realities of the situation, the only realistic option is #4. What's the point of expanding NATO again?
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 07:09:25 AM
Write again! And again and again! Your are the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, the voice of the people cannot go unheard for long... ;D ;D ;D
I only did it as a way to blow off steam. The Best Congress Money Can Buy doesn't pay much attention to us peons. Although every once in a while there is an exception, as with the Syria situation a while back.
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 07:20:22 AMHow did the WWI up until 1917 directly affected the life of the Americans (market swoons nothwithstanding)? How did it make the US less safe?
How did Germany´s taking over most of Europe up until 1942 directly affected the life of the Americans (market swoons nothwithstanding)? How did it make the US less safe?
To the former, it did not make the US itself less safe. The people in the US who were primarily affected were financiers and exporters who conducted business with Europe. The standard presentation of history in US secondary schools, and to a slightly lesser extent in tertiary schools, continues to present the Germans as bad guys in WWI. That doesn't make it so. Lenin was right: it was a war between empires. The US could have sat out the Great War.
To the latter, which was of course only possible because of the former, I will say that the Nazis represented a more significant threat. Imperial Germany was more or less a variant of other European empires common at the time. National Socialism, and Bolshevism, represented something more. They were ideologies led by ideologues. Carving up countries and splitting loot were not enough.
Now, how would a
return to Russian domination of the Baltics affect the security of the US?
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 29, 2015, 07:21:05 AM
Also absent from pro-NATO rhetoric is any consideration of practicality. Let's say Russia took over Estonia, which it could probably do in a couple of days. What would be our response?:
1. Nuke 'em (yeah right)
2. Engage in a pitched land battle with Russian forces, right on their doorstep, incurring heavy losses (yeah right)
3. Sanctions (like that makes any difference)
4. Strongly worded messages of disapproval
Given the realities of the situation, the only realistic option is #4. What's the point of expanding NATO again?
I only did it as a way to blow off steam. The Best Congress Money Can Buy doesn't pay much attention to us peons. Although every once in a while there is an exception, as with the Syria situation a while back.
You should have Option #5: Strongly worded messages of disapproval paired with a meaningless "show of force", where the US and its allies, meaning the US, moves a few ships around, threatens to deploy more missile shields, and so on, but not quite enough to risk actual war.
I'm not convinced that US restraint in Syria has as much to do with popular disapproval at home as it does with concerns of allies in the region and on-going negotiations with other players in the region. Given that the US is currently engaged in acts of war in multiple countries ranging from northwest Africa to South Asia without so much as a pesky AUMF leads me to think that military policy in the region is conducted with basically no regard to public opinion, to the extent the public even cares.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 07:53:40 AM
You should have Option #5: Strongly worded messages of disapproval paired with a meaningless "show of force", where the US and its allies, meaning the US, moves a few ships around, threatens to deploy more missile shields, and so on, but not quite enough to risk actual war.
I'm not convinced that US restraint in Syria has as much to do with popular disapproval at home as it does with concerns of allies in the region and on-going negotiations with other players in the region. Given that the US is currently engaged in acts of war in multiple countries ranging from northwest Africa to South Asia without so much as a pesky AUMF leads me to think that military policy in the region is conducted with basically no regard to public opinion, to the extent the public even cares.
I know you didn't just discover this. :)
You should never let it too far out of your sight when considering these matters; many in Congress and most of the public are idiots. I know, we like to all move forward together when possible. But 'the consent of the governed' was a much more viable proposition back in the days when the governed were in manageable numbers and it was culturally acceptable to actually be informed and to think before reaching a decision on some course of action. Since that is all passé these days, well, you have to do the prudent thing before Edward Snowden has time to tell WikiLeaks about it and the bad guys are waiting at the border. ::)
8)
Canada. Explain.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 07:53:40 AM
You should have Option #5: Strongly worded messages of disapproval paired with a meaningless "show of force", where the US and its allies, meaning the US, moves a few ships around, threatens to deploy more missile shields, and so on, but not quite enough to risk actual war.
Also: we can rename vodka "freedom liquor," rename Russian dressing "freedom dressing," rename Russian roulette "freedom roulette," and expel owners of Borzois and Siberian huskies from the American Kennel Club.
QuoteI'm not convinced that US restraint in Syria has as much to do with popular disapproval at home as it does with concerns of allies in the region and on-going negotiations with other players in the region.
You may be right. But I would like to believe that the calls and letters to Congress, running over 90% against, made some dim impression in the minds of our representatives.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 29, 2015, 08:04:49 AMSince that is all passé these days, well, you have to do the prudent thing before Edward Snowden has time to tell WikiLeaks about it and the bad guys are waiting at the border.
Prudent measures are fine, but is the US limiting itself to prudential actions?
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 29, 2015, 08:12:31 AMYou may be right. But I would like to believe that the calls and letters to Congress, running over 90% against, made some dim impression in the minds of our representatives.
I'm sure they did, particularly in districts where incumbents face potentially tough reelections (not many) and where foreign policy is an important factor for voters (not many).
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 07:34:42 AM
To the former, it did not make the US itself less safe. The people in the US who were primarily affected were financiers and exporters who conducted business with Europe. The standard presentation of history in US secondary schools, and to a slightly lesser extent in tertiary schools, continues to present the Germans as bad guys in WWI. That doesn't make it so. Lenin was right: it was a war between empires. The US could have sat out the Great War.
Why did they intervene, then? Do you personally believe that momentous decision was right?
Quote
To the latter, which is of course only possible because of the former
Well, exactly. Hitler is a direct result of Germany´s humiliation (not defeat, mind you --- HUMILIATION) at the end of WWI. Imagine that Germany and Austro-Hungary had won the war --- and then imagine NSDAP and Hitler gaining momentum in a victorious Germany. Boggles the mind, ain´t it?
QuoteI will say that the Nazis represented a more significant threat. [...]National Socialism,and Bolshevism represented something more. They were ideologies led by ideologues. Carving up countries and splitting loot were not enough.
Well, it´s interesting that you (correctly) lump together National Socialism and Bolshevism --- but that´s not how the US officially dealt with them. Bolshevism was in full-power-ahead operating mode for a whole 15 years prior to Hitler and the NSDAP getting into power, yet the US never declared war on them --- on the contrary, US bankers, financiers and businessmen operated unhindered in, in the interest of, and on behalf of, the USSR.
To the Nazis, now. What point in the NSDAP program did pose a direct and clear threat to the existence of the US and the safety of her citizens? When did Hitler ever denied the right of the US to exist? Did Hitler declared war on the US prior to Pearl Harbour?
And yet, the US allied themselves with Stalin, whose ideology painted America as the Empire of Evil, soon to be wiped off the map, against Hitler, who did not even for a second think. of going to war, let alone destroying, the US.
Why?
Quote
Now, how would a return to Russian domination of the Baltics affect the security of the US?
I ask you again: how did a German domination of Poland, Czechoslovakia and half of Western Europe affect the security of the US?
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 08:25:03 AMDo you personally believe that momentous decision was right?
No.
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 08:25:03 AMI ask you again: how did a German domination of Poland, Czechoslovakia and half of Western Europe affect the security of the US?
You can go on about the 1930s all you like. I'm more interested in the 2030s. If Russia dominates the Baltics, or Poland, or Romania, or all of Ukraine, how will it affect the security of the US?
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 29, 2015, 07:21:05 AM
Also absent from pro-NATO rhetoric is any consideration of practicality. Let's say Russia took over Estonia, which it could probably do in a couple of days. What would be our response?:
1. Nuke 'em (yeah right)
2. Engage in a pitched land battle with Russian forces, right on their doorstep, incurring heavy losses (yeah right)
3. Sanctions (like that makes any difference)
4. Strongly worded messages of disapproval
Given the realities of the situation, the only realistic option is #4. What's the point of expanding NATO again?
Interesting. I'd say a brief land battle with NATO involvement is actually a very realistic option, and as the whole world would turn against Russia (not to mention the so-so state of the Russian army (http://www.cfr.org/russian-federation/russian-military/p33758)), they wouldn't be able to sustain the invasion for long. I'm more of a peacenik, but if Russia tried to take a NATO country, I wouldn't hesitate to enlist. Solidarity and the common urge to fight back a hated aggressor aren't to be underestimated.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 08:38:51 AM
No.
Finally we agree on something.
Quote
You can go on about the 1930s all you like. I'm more interested in the 2030s.
The latter is related to the former.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 29, 2015, 08:51:09 AMInteresting. I'd say a brief land battle with NATO involvement is actually a very realistic option, and as the whole world would turn against Russia (not to mention the so-so state of the Russian army (http://www.cfr.org/russian-federation/russian-military/p33758)), they wouldn't be able to sustain the invasion for long. I'm more of a peacenik, but if Russia tried to take a NATO country, I wouldn't hesitate to enlist. Solidarity and the common urge to fight back a hated aggressor aren't to be underestimated.
I love the enthusiasm here, and the patently unrealistic proclamation that the "whole world" would turn against Russia. Can you point out to me some scholarly or even popular articles that support such a contention?
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 08:55:47 AMThe latter is related to the former.
You are stuck in a rut, and you have still not answered the question.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 09:00:51 AM
You are stuck in a rut,
So are you.
Quote
and you have still not answered the question.
Neither have you.
Quote from: Florestan on May 29, 2015, 09:03:04 AM
So are you.
and you have still not answered the question.
Neither have you.
Sigh.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 29, 2015, 08:51:09 AM
Interesting. I'd say a brief land battle with NATO involvement is actually a very realistic option, and as the whole world would turn against Russia (not to mention the so-so state of the Russian army (http://www.cfr.org/russian-federation/russian-military/p33758)), they wouldn't be able to sustain the invasion for long. I'm more of a peacenik, but if Russia tried to take a NATO country, I wouldn't hesitate to enlist. Solidarity and the common urge to fight back a hated aggressor aren't to be underestimated.
I do not think Russia would try to take a NATO country. They only do not want the NATO ever closer to their doorstep (Ukraine, Belarus). And even in a really bad crisis I have no idea what China would do (the only relevant "player" besides NATO and Russia), so I guess the rest of the world (incl. China) would probably not do very much. I do not see China invading Siberia to relieve Latvia. This isn't "Risk"...
As the US/EU mess up in third-world countries I would not be very optimistic in any case but the sorry state of the Russian army (if true) would maybe reason for hope that such a crisis would not escalate in first place.
But if it did I would not put any money on US/NATO/EU seriously defending e.g. Latvia. They are at the mercy of Russia anyway.
For me as a German in the 1980s the terrible truth was that Germany would probably have been nuked if Soviet tanks had advanced across the inner-German border because supposedly the Soviet Union was far superior in conventional forces (although I never figured out if this was really true or only a pretext for more Pershings) and nukes would have been the only way to hinder them. Now the nuking would take place in Poland or the Baltic States but I seriously doubt any nuking would happen.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 29, 2015, 09:14:13 AMI do not see China invading Siberia to relieve Latvia.
China's reaction to events in Ukraine gives the best indication of how China would react to Russian aggression in the Baltics, at least in the near and middle term. (If the Chinese ever invade Siberia, it will be for land and control of the oil fields, though some other pretext could be handy.)
It seems to me that if Putin wants to destabilize more countries, he would not be so foolish as to invade. There are other ways to weaken and break up smaller neighboring countries.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 09:00:51 AMI love the enthusiasm here, and the patently unrealistic proclamation that the "whole world" would turn against Russia. Can you point out to me some scholarly or even popular articles that support such a contention?
No, I cannot. I base my opinion on the worldwide reaction to the Crimean crisis and the universal hatred of Putin throughout Europe. A direct attack on Estonia for example would bring all that to boil.
Quotet seems to me that if Putin wants to destabilize more countries, he would not be so foolish as to invade. There are other ways to weaken and break up smaller neighboring countries.
Exactly. And it's happening already, through economic means. Russians buying up businesses / property all over the place are considered a security threat by many European intelligence agencies.
Quote from: Jo498 on May 29, 2015, 09:14:13 AMBut if it did I would not put any money on US/NATO/EU seriously defending e.g. Latvia.
I would. Even if NATO would show reluctancy in defending a member of the Alliance (which I seriously doubt), the public outcry all over Europe would force the politicians to act.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 29, 2015, 11:55:28 AMI base my opinion on the worldwide reaction to the Crimean crisis and the universal hatred of Putin throughout Europe. A direct attack on Estonia for example would bring all that to boil.
What "worldwide reaction"? A good number of Americans and Europeans got all hot and bothered, possibly or probably a majority, but that's hardly a worldwide reaction. I don't recall a particularly strong response from the Chinese government. I recall the Chinese abstained from a Security Council vote on the matter. India was the first nation to recognize the annexation of Crimea. Many non-Western nations issued boilerplate responses. There is no worldwide consensus on Russian actions. Europe is not the center of the world.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 12:21:16 PM
I don't recall a particularly strong response from the Chinese government. I recall the Chinese abstained from a Security Council vote on the matter. India was the first nation to recognize the annexation of Crimea. Many non-Western nations issued boilerplate responses.
Hardly a surprise. Russia and India have been close for a long time; Russia and China are close and getting closer, with big energy deals in the works.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 29, 2015, 12:40:04 PMHardly a surprise. Russia and India have been close for a long time; Russia and China are close and getting closer, with big energy deals in the works.
No, it's not surprising, but it points out that there is no "worldwide reaction". Western views and values (and policies) are not universal.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 12:47:18 PM
Western views and values (and policies) are not universal.
A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping this. The acronym WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) has recently been floated. It's basically Western Europe and its colonial offshoots. WEIRDoes tend to think of their values as universal, but they make up probably around 10-15% of the world population.
I concede to your arguments, gentlemen.
That said, I still believe Russia going bonkers and attacking a NATO country would spur a major conflict, with no country of relevance siding with the Russians.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 29, 2015, 08:51:09 AM
Interesting. I'd say a brief land battle with NATO involvement is actually a very realistic option, and as the whole world would turn against Russia (not to mention the so-so state of the Russian army (http://www.cfr.org/russian-federation/russian-military/p33758)), they wouldn't be able to sustain the invasion for long. I'm more of a peacenik, but if Russia tried to take a NATO country, I wouldn't hesitate to enlist. Solidarity and the common urge to fight back a hated aggressor aren't to be underestimated.
The last thing I expected was to be giving Rinaldo a soild plus 1 on this topic. Glad to be shown to be wrong! And your last point is spot on too. Decency is an underestimated force.
+1
Quote from: Ken B on May 29, 2015, 03:56:26 PMAnd your last point is spot on too.
How can the post you quote and his last one both be accurate? In the first, he mentions a "brief land battle" that cannot be sustained, and in the latter he mentions the possibility of "a major conflict." I guess the takeaway is that you fancy wild inconsistency in defense of reckless foreign policy.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 04:01:00 PM
How can the post you quote and his last one both be accurate? In the first, he mentions a "brief land battle" that cannot be sustained, and in the latter he mentions the possibility of "a major conflict." I guess the takeaway is that you fancy wild inconsistency in defense of reckless foreign policy.
You quite sure that's the last point in the bit I quoted? Quite sure? Because I think it was about the willingness to fight a hated aggressor, and I indicated that with my comment. Please check. I'd hate to have misquoted. ::)
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 04:01:00 PMHow can the post you quote and his last one both be accurate? In the first, he mentions a "brief land battle" that cannot be sustained, and in the latter he mentions the possibility of "a major conflict."
Poor choice of words on my side: I meant the same thing. Even a 'brief land battle' would obviously be a major brouhaha, if it involved NATO troops.
Seems relevant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/29/if-i-understand-the-history-correctly/
I am no fan of Clinton as a person. I think he abused his powers as governor and president. I think he's a world class grafter. But overall I think his policies the best we've had in a while, and I hope either party can find a choice as capable and in that general part of the spectrum.
I am not holding my breath.
Quote from: Ken B on May 29, 2015, 04:05:09 PMBecause I think it was about the willingness to fight a hated aggressor
No, you most certainly were not misquoted. That written, you most certainly did not mention anything like in the prior post. I thought you were referring to how any war would be brief and that the whole world would turn against Russia. (That is incorrect.) You had to clarify yourself. Now it seems that you are a warmonger overly swayed by emotion. That's the only thing one can conclude when you expressly endorse and use language like "hated aggressor". And do not try to argue that the language is reasonable. Hatred is an emotion, pure and simple.
Is that really what you meant? I want to be clear.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 29, 2015, 04:08:47 PMPoor choice of words on my side: I meant the same thing. Even a 'brief land battle' would obviously be a major brouhaha, if it involved NATO troops.
An exceptionally poor choice of words. Any war between Russia and the US - and let's be very clear about which nation would do most of the fighting in a war between NATO and Russia - is the very definition of serious. Avoiding such a war is, or at least should be, one of the paramount goals of US foreign policy.
QuoteAvoiding such a war is, or at least should be, one of the paramount goals of US foreign policy.
And European as well. But we were talking about a hypothetical Russian
attack on a NATO country and I was elaborating on the kind of response I'd expect (and support) from the Alliance.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 04:29:38 PM
No, you most certainly were not misquoted. That written, you most certainly did not mention anything like in the prior post. I thought you were referring to how any war would be brief and that the whole world would turn against Russia. (That is incorrect.) You had to clarify yourself. Now it seems that you are a warmonger overly swayed by emotion. That's the only thing one can conclude when you expressly endorse and use language like "hated aggressor". And do not try to argue that the language is reasonable. Hatred is an emotion, pure and simple.
Is that really what you meant? I want to be clear.
An exceptionally poor choice of words. Any war between Russia and the US - and let's be very clear about which nation would do most of the fighting in a war between NATO and Russia - is the very definition of serious. Avoiding such a war is, or at least should be, one of the paramount goals of US foreign policy.
Geez Todd. I say I would hate to have misquoted and you think I said I'd hate to be misquoted?
Quote from: Ken B on May 29, 2015, 04:38:00 PM
Geez Todd. I say I would hate to have misquoted and you think I said I'd hate to be misquoted?
I'm just trying clarify what you meant in your first response to Rinaldo. I'm still not sure. I'll just go with your support of emotional warmongering. That does fit with prior posts.
Quote from: Todd on May 29, 2015, 04:44:28 PM
I'm just trying clarify what you meant in your first response to Rinaldo. I'm still not sure. I'll just go with your support of emotional warmongering. That does fit with prior posts.
I regret ever thinking you worth discussing things with. You cannot, simply cannot, avoid attacking character and impugning motive. I have complained about that several times.
Now it is clear you have misread. I quoted in toto the points of Rinaldo I was seconding. You misread that as referring to some other damn post of his entirely.
Anyway, we are done. I do not respect you enough to reply to you ever again.
What's curious is the reluctance to address how disastrous and embarrassing the Iraq war has been for the U.S by both parties. In retrospect, Saddam's regime, which, despite being horrendous in some ways, was secular and protective of Christians, seems like a godsend compared to the chaos and ugliness Saddam's removal has unleashed on that region. Somehow or other the people who urged the country towards that disastrous war are still confident and 95% of the Republican contenders are groveling in front of Zionist billionaires who for some reason or other appear eager about the U.S being endlessly hostile to countries Israel doesn't like. Chris Mathews has been on fire the past few weeks and has been calling out Neocon shamelessness.
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/fmr-cia-deputy-director-grilled-on-iraq-war-447888451643
Quote from: -abe- on May 29, 2015, 09:44:04 PM
What's curious is the reluctance to address how disastrous and embarrassing the Iraq war has been for the U.S by both parties. In retrospect, Saddam's regime, which, despite being horrendous in some ways, was secular and protective of Christians, seems like a godsend compared to the chaos and ugliness Saddam's removal has unleashed on that region. Somehow or other the people who urged the country towards that disastrous war are still confident and 95% of the Republican contenders are groveling in front of Zionist billionaires who for some reason or other appear eager about the U.S being endlessly hostile to countries Israel doesn't like. Chris Mathews has been on fire the past few weeks and has been calling out Neocon shamelessness.
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/fmr-cia-deputy-director-grilled-on-iraq-war-447888451643
Zionist billionaires controlling the world again huh? ::)
Quote from: Ken B on May 30, 2015, 05:31:56 AM
Zionist billionaires controlling the world again huh? ::)
The spectacle of the republican race so far has been these contenders groveling in front of Sheldon Adelson, who promised to do anything to block Rand Paul from winning (because Paul doesn't grovel to the Zionists.)
Quote from: Ken B on May 29, 2015, 07:32:35 PMAnyway, we are done. I do not respect you enough to reply to you ever again.
Yep, it sure is hard for you to keep your emotions in check.
Anyway, back to the real purpose of the thread: Another commoner dares to challenge Her Majesty. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/30/politics/martin-omalley-2016-presidential-announcement/index.html)
Quote from: -abe- on May 30, 2015, 09:52:18 AM
The spectacle of the republican race so far has been these contenders groveling in front of Sheldon Adelson, who promised to do anything to block Rand Paul from winning (because Paul doesn't grovel to the Zionists.)
Another Jewish World Conspiracy exposed!
As for Paul. I expect to support the gop nominee, and I rather dread president Hillary. But I will
campaign for Hillary if Paul is the nominee.
Quote from: Ken B on May 30, 2015, 11:10:02 AM
Another Jewish World Conspiracy exposed!
As for Paul. I expect to support the gop nominee, and I rather dread president Hillary. But I will campaign for Hillary if Paul is the nominee.
It's a shame really, because there are a couple things where I really agree with him (and none of the other candidates support - like the recent filibuster), but there are just so many other ideas that are awful.
Quote from: Ken B on May 30, 2015, 11:10:02 AM
Another Jewish World Conspiracy exposed!
So this will always be your response to charges that the Neocons (who are overwhelmingly of the Hebraic persuasion) are motivated in part by a desire to protect and further Israel's interests?
I guess Philip Weiss must be a loony anti-semite too nevermind that he's a Jew himself.
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/facing-neocon-captivity
Quote from: -abe- on May 30, 2015, 11:25:10 AM
So this will always be your response to charges that the Neocons (who are overwhelmingly of the Hebraic persuasion) are motivated in part by a desire to protect and further Israel's interests?
Hey, at least you're not Neville Chamberlain.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 30, 2015, 11:15:31 AM
It's a shame really, because there are a couple things where I really agree with him (and none of the other candidates support - like the recent filibuster), but there are just so many other ideas that are awful.
This might worry you as much as it does me, but I agree. ;) He's also the only one who seems solidly anti-drug war. He's pro gay rights. He's good on a lot of issues.
Quote from: -abe- on May 30, 2015, 11:25:10 AM
So this will always be your response to charges that the Neocons (who are overwhelmingly of the Hebraic persuasion) are motivated in part by a desire to protect and further Israel's interests?
Well since your charge goes way beyond that, this seems an odd question. You talked about republicans in general, and now you silently amed to neo-cons.
But yes you will always get a dismissive response from me to "it's the Jewzzzzzzz".
Quote from: Ken B on May 30, 2015, 07:42:14 PM
Well since your charge goes way beyond that, this seems an odd question. You talked about republicans in general, and now you silently amed to neo-cons.
But yes you will always get a dismissive response from me to "it's the Jewzzzzzzz".
When I hear Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham et al (and Romney last election) talk foreign policy, the groveling to Sheldon Adelson is pretty plain. Here is Chris Mathews talking about the "piggish" money pushing hawkish foreign policy positions. Guess what...he's talking about Jewish billionares like Sheldon Adelson and Norman Breman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us/billionaire-lifts-marco-rubio-politically-and-personally.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYyZBSOsg1E
Yea Mathews dare not name names but who else could he possibly be talking about?
Quote from: -abe- on May 30, 2015, 08:06:43 PM
When I hear Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham et al (and Romney last election) talk foreign policy, the groveling to Sheldon Adelson is pretty plain. Here is Chris Mathews talking about the "piggish" money pushing hawkish foreign policy positions. Guess what...he's talking about Jewish billionares like Sheldon Adelson and Norman Breman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us/billionaire-lifts-marco-rubio-politically-and-personally.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYyZBSOsg1E
Yea Mathews dare not name names but who else could he possibly be talking about?
"Pssst, if you decode Chris Mathews you learn the real truth" must set some sort of new record for unlikely.
Hey Ken B, do you think Sheldon Adelson and Norman Breman are a pernicious influence or do you think their encouragement and sponsorship of hawkish republicans is something that's benign?
https://mobile.twitter.com/exjon/status/605138666416041984 (https://mobile.twitter.com/exjon/status/605138666416041984)
Just in case anyone thought either party had principles here.
The explanation is simple enough. The data might help the president avoid an embarassment. So if your part is in the white house you support the bill. Fit under Bush, fits under Obama.
Quote from: Ken B on May 31, 2015, 05:27:49 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/exjon/status/605138666416041984 (https://mobile.twitter.com/exjon/status/605138666416041984)
Just in case anyone thought either party had principles here.
The explanation is simple enough. The data might help the president avoid an embarassment. So if your part is in the white house you support the bill. Fit under Bush, fits under Obama.
pls respond to my above post
thx
Quote from: Ken B on May 31, 2015, 05:27:49 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/exjon/status/605138666416041984 (https://mobile.twitter.com/exjon/status/605138666416041984)
Just in case anyone thought either party had principles here.
The explanation is simple enough. The data might help the president avoid an embarassment. So if your part is in the white house you support the bill. Fit under Bush, fits under Obama.
"I'm so old, I remember when the @SenateDems opposed the Patriot Act."
WTF? That bill passed the Senate 98-1. The 1 was Feingold, the abstention was Landrieu, neither of whom are currently in the Senate. Feingold continued to oppose it in 2009.
Maybe he should have written, "I'm so old, my memory is failing."
A hawk takes flight! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lindsey-graham-jump-2016-presidential-race-ready-commander/story?id=31441787)
I took this quiz that was linked on the Lindsey Graham page from Todd. I seem to be a communist... :D No, not really, but it is current and interesting.
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz?
8)
Quote from: Todd on June 01, 2015, 07:34:47 AM
A hawk takes flight! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lindsey-graham-jump-2016-presidential-race-ready-commander/story?id=31441787)
That'll be fun. Here's what we can look forward to:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/graham-and-american-weakness/
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 01, 2015, 08:22:56 AMI took this quiz that was linked on the Lindsey Graham page from Todd.
Er, um, the quiz lists Arnold Schwarzenegger as a potential presidential candidate. I believe the quiz might be worthless.
(My favorite question: Should the U.S. continue NSA surveillance of its allies?)
Quote from: Todd on June 01, 2015, 08:50:07 AM
Er, um, the quiz lists Arnold Schwarzenegger as a potential presidential candidate. I believe the quiz might be worthless.
(My favorite question: Should the U.S. continue NSA surveillance of its allies?)
All quizzes are worthless. Fun to see what their analysis is. I had them sort of confused, if you can imagine that! 0:)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 01, 2015, 10:10:23 AMI had them sort of confused, if you can imagine that!
I scored highest as a Green, despite saying yes to fracking and offshore drilling and no to GMO labelling, so I'm a bit confused as to how their scoring system works. I guess a yes for subsidies for wind farms, a no to the death penalty, and a wimpy stance on immigration grants one a Green card.
(It would be nice if whoever created the test could use the correct possessive form for citizens'.)
Quote from: Todd on June 01, 2015, 11:12:44 AM
I scored highest as a Green, despite saying yes to fracking and offshore drilling and no to GMO labelling, so I'm a bit confused as to how their scoring system works. I guess a yes for subsidies for wind farms, a no to the death penalty, and a wimpy stance on immigration grants one a Green card.
(It would be nice if whoever created the test could use the correct possessive form for citizens'.)
I scored highest as a Libertarian & Green based on my domestic policy ideas, but my foreign policy stance was 95% Republican, and they finally decided I must be a Democrat, sort of an average, I suppose.
Using correct possessives probably knocks you right out of the quiz writing profession, since your talents would be wasted. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 01, 2015, 11:23:55 AM
I scored highest as a Libertarian & Green based on my domestic policy ideas, but my foreign policy stance was 95% Republican, and they finally decided I must be a Democrat, sort of an average, I suppose.
Using correct possessives probably knocks you right out of the quiz writing profession, since your talents would be wasted. :)
8)
This is what the test makers had to say about me: Your political beliefs would be considered moderately Right-Wing Libertarian on an ideological scale, meaning you tend to support policies that promote free market capitalism and smaller government.
I can live with that.
;)
I show up as Libertarian, no surprise, and more Green than Democrat. I think I score a lot of L points for my hardline high importance answers on drugs, drug testing welfare recipients(strong no) , whatever speech they wanted to ban, and opposition to subsidies of all sorts.
They recommend I vote for Rand Paul. No thanks. I like him in the senate. Keep him there.
Oh, Mike.. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/mike-huckabee-transgender-caitlyn-jenner/index.html)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2mecq53.png)
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 02, 2015, 12:00:13 PM
Oh, Mike.. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/mike-huckabee-transgender-caitlyn-jenner/index.html)
See reply #181 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,24159.msg891079.html#msg891079).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/politics/jeb-bush-taking-his-time-tests-the-legal-definition-of-candidate.html
QuoteThe issue is not one of mere semantics. If Mr. Bush did declare that he is running, it would bring a raft of election restrictions, including a limit of $2,700 on contributions, and a ban on “coordinating” with a “super PAC” he has used to raise money
In an appearance Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” the host, Bob Schieffer, asked Mr. Bush bluntly whether he was violating the law by not declaring himself a candidate for the White House.
Mr. Bush did not waver. “Look, I hope I — I hope I run, to be honest with you,” he said. “I would like to run. But I haven’t made the decision.”
Last month, he slipped up for a moment, telling reporters in Nevada, “I am running for president in 2016.” He quickly corrected himself, adding “if I run.”
In his appearance at $25,000-a-head fund-raisers in Washington, New York and elsewhere, Mr. Bush and his advisers are using what are technically considered outside groups — two political action committees, both called Right to Rise — to take in the money, rather than creating an official campaign organization to do it.
Last week, two campaign watchdog groups, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, called on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Bush had broken election law by evading restrictions on candidates.
...
“I really like campaigning,” Mr. Bush told businessmen in Portsmouth, N.H., last month, before quickly adding, “I’m not a candidate.”
...
“Let me be clear,” he said Tuesday at an event in Orlando, Fla. “If I run, if I’m a candidate — and that decision is going to be coming real soon — my intention is to run on my record and my ideas and try to win the presidency.“
". . . my intention would be to run on my record . . . ."
Quote from: karlhenning on June 03, 2015, 04:04:58 AM
". . . my intention would be to run on my record . . . ."
If I get enough votes, I might run
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 01, 2015, 08:22:56 AM
I took this quiz that was linked on the Lindsey Graham page from Todd. I seem to be a communist... :D No, not really, but it is current and interesting.
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz?
8)
My results FWIW
Democrats 84%, Green Party 80%, Socialist (Oh.my.God!!!) 76%, Constitution Party (never heard 'bout it) 75%, Republicans 69%, Libertarians 57%.
By issue
Foreign Policy: Constitution Party
Economy: Green Party
Healthcare: Democrats, Socialist and Green Party
Social: Republicans
Environment: Republicans
Immigration: Democrats
Domestic Policy: Constitution Party
Education: Democrats
Your political beliefs would be considered Centrist on an ideological scale.
If anyone can make any sense of that, please let me know. :D
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 04:14:04 AM
My results FWIW
Democrats 84%, Green Party 80%, Socialist (Oh.my.God!!!) 76%, Constitution Party (never heard 'bout it) 75%, Republicans 69%, Libertarians 57%.
By issue
Economy: Green Party
Environment: Republicans
So you want to ruin both the economy and the environment? 8)
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2015, 04:20:09 AM
So you want to ruin both the economy and the environment? 8)
Not at all. Take the test and see for yourself. :D
EDIT: In Europe / Romania my answers would be considered mostly center-right, and definitely conservative in the social issues --- yet it turns out I'm a Socialist and my best option is Bernie Sanders. Boggles the mind, really. :o
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 04:27:37 AM
Not at all. Take the test and see for yourself. :D
I wasn't at all serious, of course, and was thinking more of some of the former Finnish Green Party MPs ('Why do we need nuclear power plants when we get electricity from the socket?') - although there have been some individuals that I wouldn't mind voting myself even though I detest 99.5% of the party members.
I did take the test the other day, and was 99% Democrat, unsurprisingly. And I'm very much centrist (although I don't care for the centrist parties much, or for the major right [or left] parties either, and even less for the minor parties, not to mention the True Finns. . .) in Finland
QuoteEDIT: In Europe / Romania my answers would be considered mostly center-right, and definitely conservative in the social issues --- yet it turns out I'm a Socialist and my best option is Bernie Sanders. Boggles the mind, really. :o
Well naturally - it's a longstanding American tradition that all Europeans are communists by default. 0:)
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2015, 04:52:50 AM
'Why do we need nuclear power plants when we get electricity from the socket?'
That's a joke, right? Or has anybody really said it?
Quote
I'm very much centrist
So am I but more to the right than the average centrist.
Quote
Well naturally - it's a longstanding American tradition that all Europeans are communists by default. 0:)
Yeah, I guess supporting universal single-payment healthcare and common core educational standards makes one an unrepentant Stalinist. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 04:27:37 AM
Not at all. Take the test and see for yourself. :D
EDIT: In Europe / Romania my answers would be considered mostly center-right, and definitely conservative in the social issues --- yet it turns out I'm a Socialist and my best option is Bernie Sanders. Boggles the mind, really. :o
Bernie Sanders is everyone's best option, to tell the truth. Although he is way too practical to become president. And here in America, it is far more important that his hair not stick out than that his ideas are solid and sensible.
To tell the truth, I have always thought of you as a Pinko... :D
8)
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2015, 04:52:50 AM
Well naturally - it's a longstanding American tradition that all Europeans are communists by default. 0:)
...and don't try to deny it, either. Buncha damn commies! >;(
8)
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 05:10:11 AM
That's a joke, right? Or has anybody really said it?
A Finnish MP of the Green Partt did actually say that.
QuoteSo am I but more to the right than the average centrist.
Yeah, I guess supporting universal single-payment healthcare and common core educational standards makes one an unrepentant Stalinist. ;D ;D ;D
First it's health care, next it's the gulags. :laugh:
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 03, 2015, 05:13:25 AM
Bernie Sanders is everyone's best option, to tell the truth. Although he is way too practical to become president. And here in America, it is far more important that his hair not stick out than that his ideas are solid and sensible.
TBH, it's the first time I've ever heard his name so I know nothing about him, but his being connected with Socialism makes him rather suspect in my eyes --- but hey, I'm beginning to realize that in US Socialism might actually be another name for what in Europe is known as center-rightism. :P :P :P
Quote
To tell the truth, I have always thought of you as a Pinko... :D
That was only to be expected from a Texan capitalist. :D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 03, 2015, 05:13:25 AM
Bernie Sanders is everyone's best option, to tell the truth. Although he is way too practical to become president. And here in America, it is far more important that his hair not stick out than that his ideas are solid and sensible.
To tell the truth, I have always thought of you as a Pinko... :D
8)
I certainly have liked what I've read from
BS. 8)
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2015, 05:21:45 AM
A Finnish MP of the Green Partt did actually say that.
So much for the best educational system in the world... ;D :P
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 05:25:13 AM
So much for the best educational system in the world... ;D :P
Perhaps it was something she smoked...
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2015, 05:33:46 AM
Perhaps it was something she smoked...
Ah, it was a she? That explains a lot... ;D :P >:D
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 04:27:37 AM
yet it turns out I'm a Socialist and my best option is Bernie Sanders.
You are dead to me.
:laugh: :P
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2015, 06:03:25 AM
You are dead to me.
You are not dead to me, but a class enemy very much alive and active. :D ;D :P
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 03, 2015, 05:14:58 AM
...and don't try to deny it, either. Buncha damn commies! >;(
8)
The ones that ain't socialists, you mean! ;)
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 05:10:11 AM
Yeah, I guess supporting universal single-payment healthcare and common core educational standards ...
There are two explanations why your results are so peculiar. Either the test is crap or your ideas are incoherent. I know which way I'm betting!
Markets work better than monopolies. This is true in pretty much everything, yet you, who claim to be a classical liberal, here endorse dirigiste monopolies.
Before anyone jumps to an idiotic conclusion, it is possible to have both state financing and a market in healthcare. The Swiss do. Had Obamacare been done even half sensibly it would have too. And there is nothing inconsistent with having both a free market economy and a sizeable social safety net either.
Oh, nuance, fine!
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2015, 06:31:01 AM
Markets work better than monopolies. This is true in pretty much everything, yet you, who claim to be a classical liberal, here endorse dirigiste monopolies.
Before anyone jumps to an idiotic conclusion, it is possible to have both state financing and a market in healthcare. The Swiss do.
I'm afraid it is you who jumped to concluding I'm incoherent in my ideas.
Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance (ger: Krankenversicherungsgesetz (KVG); fre: la loi fédérale sur l'assurance-maladie (LAMal); ita: legge federale sull'assicurazione malattie (LAMal)). It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[2]
The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.[2]
The universal compulsory coverage provides for treatment in case of illness or accident (unless another accident insurance provides the cover) and pregnancy.
[...]
The compulsory insurance can be supplemented by private "complementary" insurance policies that allow for coverage of some of the treatment categories not covered by the basic insurance or to improve the standard of room and service in case of hospitalisation. This can include complementary medicine, routine dental treatments, half-private or private ward hospitalisation, and others, which are not covered by the compulsory insurance.
As far as the compulsory health insurance is concerned, the insurance companies cannot set any conditions relating to age, sex or state of health for coverage. Although the level of premium can vary from one company to another, they must be identical within the same company for all insured persons of the same age group and region, regardless of sex or state of health. This does not apply to complementary insurance, where premiums are risk-based.
[...]
The Swiss healthcare system is a combination of public, subsidised private and totally private systems:
public: e. g. the University of Geneva Hospital (HUG) with 2,350 beds, 8,300 staff and 50,000 patients per year;
subsidised private: the home care services to which one may have recourse in case of a difficult pregnancy, after childbirth, illness, accident, handicap or old age;
totally private: doctors in private practice and in private clinics.
The insured person has full freedom of choice among the recognised healthcare providers competent to treat their condition (in his region) on the understanding that the costs are covered by the insurance up to the level of the official tariff. There is freedom of choice when selecting an insurance company (provided it is an officially registered caisse-maladie or a private insurance company authorised by the federal law) to which one pays a premium, usually on a monthly basis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Switzerland)
Check these out, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Austria)
This is exactly what universal, single payment healthcare means. It has nothing to do with state monopoly on healthcare. And it is as liberal as it gets, AFAIC.
Quote
And there is nothing inconsistent with having both a free market economy and a sizeable social safety net either.
Did I say there is? I don't remember. Last time I checked, all countries listed above fulfilled both criteria you mentioned.
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 06:54:10 AM
Check these out, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Austria)
This is exactly what universal, single payment healthcare means. It has nothing to do with state monopoly on healthcare. And it is as liberal as it gets, AFAIC.
Did I say there is? I don't remember. Last time I checked, all countries listed above fulfilled both criteria you mentioned.
And the Nordic countries' healthcare systems seem to be alright as well. In Finland it's likewise a mixture of state/private, employee healthcare being private, and for anything else you can choose either.
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2015, 07:01:09 AM
And the Nordic countries' healthcare systems seem to be alright as well. In Finland it's likewise a mixture of state/private, employee healthcare being private, and for anything else you can choose either.
Well, yes. When it comes to healthcare it's not either (the state) / or (the market), it's both.
And the classical liberal "right to life" is quite tricky: the most obvious threat to life are the diseases, so the state should see to it that everybody receives the healthcare he needs, right? :D
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 07:09:33 AM
Well, yes. When it comes to healthcare it's not either (the state) / or (the market), it's both.
And the classical liberal "right to life" is quite tricky: the most obvious threat to life are the diseases, so the state should see to it that everybody receives the healthcare he needs, right? :D
Absolutely.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 02, 2015, 12:00:13 PM
Oh, Mike.. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/mike-huckabee-transgender-caitlyn-jenner/index.html)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2mecq53.png)
People's reactions to this are really ridiculous.
It was a joke. Every high school guy has wished they could get into the girls' locker room and see them undress. He didn't say anything else, and people are stretching what he said to extreme meanings.
And no, I don't support him, before anyone jumps to the "OMG! You're incredibly evil!" conclusion that people on the internet jump to so quickly.
Those people on the Internet!
Quote from: Greg on June 03, 2015, 07:33:07 AM
People's reactions to this are really ridiculous.
Every high school guy has wished they could get into the girls' locker room and see them undress.
I imagine there are many gay high school boys who are deliriously happy with the locker room they are already assigned (that is, if they're not afraid of having the shit beaten out of them by the objects of their adoration) . . . .
Why GOP donors are giving to everyone except Rand Paul (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0602/Why-GOP-donors-are-giving-to-everyone-except-Rand-Paul)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 03, 2015, 08:43:41 AM
Why GOP donors are giving to everyone except Rand Paul (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0602/Why-GOP-donors-are-giving-to-everyone-except-Rand-Paul)
He's clearly a horrible man for not mongering war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/10/29/rand-paul-cant-hide-his-isolationist-views/).
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 03, 2015, 08:43:27 AM
I imagine there are many gay high school boys who are deliriously happy with the locker room they are already assigned (that is, if they're not afraid of having the shit beaten out of them by the objects of their adoration) . . . .
Oh, I bet. :D
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2015, 07:01:09 AM
And the Nordic countries' healthcare systems seem to be alright as well. In Finland it's likewise a mixture of state/private, employee healthcare being private, and for anything else you can choose either.
Which is NOT single payer.
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 07:09:33 AM
Well, yes. When it comes to healthcare it's not either (the state) / or (the market), it's both.
Right. Which is NOT single payer.
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2015, 11:17:42 AM
Right. Which is NOT single payer.
Okay. Are we going to argue over terminology or discuss the thing in itself? :D
I do support the Swiss system but I guess I´m still a Socialist because it involves federal regulations and mandatory primary insurance. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 03, 2015, 11:48:30 AM
Okay. Are we going to argue over terminology or discuss the thing in itself? :D
I do support the Swiss system but I guess I´m still a Socialist because it involves federal regulations and mandatory primary insurance. ;D
You wonder why you are matched up with Bernie Sanders when you answer yes to questions like "Do you support the total abolition of health insurance markets and the prohibition on private healthcare?" ::)
And Common Core is NOT just standardized testing. It is a particular and controversial program.
Quote from: Greg on June 03, 2015, 07:33:07 AMIt was a joke. Every high school guy has wished they could get into the girls' locker room and see them undress. He didn't say anything else, and people are stretching what he said to extreme meanings.
It was a stupid, ignorant joke, showing how friggin' clueless the guy is about gender dysphoria (and the plight of transgender people in general). And people are calling him out for exactly that.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 03, 2015, 05:13:25 AMBernie Sanders is everyone's best option, to tell the truth. Although he is way too practical to become president. And here in America, it is far more important that his hair not stick out than that his ideas are solid and sensible.
Touché.
https://www.youtube.com/v/HnaqrepHrtc
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 03, 2015, 01:40:01 PM
It was a stupid, ignorant joke, showing how friggin' clueless the guy is about gender dysphoria (and the plight of transgender people in general). And people are calling him out for exactly that.
And that's part of what I'm talking about, although you didn't go off the deep end like many of the comments I read (like "wanna child rapist" and such).
He may be clueless (I don't know, you can't expect much from the GOP), but his joke doesn't even comment on the plight of transgender people at all. I mean, does it have to? I could say the same thing- I wouldn't have minded being able to turn into a girl during PE time, either. :P (but it doesn't mean I don't understand that transgender people face incredible challenges and such). Outrage at the drop of a hat... perhaps in that "name a generation" thread, I should have chosen name it "The Offended Generation." :P
Quote from: Greg on June 03, 2015, 01:51:07 PMOutrage at the drop of a hat... perhaps in that "name a generation" thread, I should have chosen name it "The Offended Generation."
It's a wedge issue, and one that's in the news. It plays well to certain segments of the population for different reasons. Huckabee is looking out for his post-election cycle paychecks.
It's early yet. Expect more exploitation of other wedge issues for the next seventeen months. This one is not a big enough vote getter.
Hillary's toughest competitor? (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/06/03/lincoln-chafee-2016-presidential-race/28399971/) Oh, wait, this is Lincoln, not John. Nevermind. Carry on.
Quote from: Greg on June 03, 2015, 01:51:07 PMHe may be clueless (I don't know, you can't expect much from the GOP), but his joke doesn't even comment on the plight of transgender people at all.
No, he doesn't comment it - he makes stupid fun of it and trivializes the real stigma & pain, while being a creep as a bonus.
Quoteperhaps in that "name a generation" thread, I should have chosen name it "The Offended Generation."
..try 'The Generation That Actually Started To Give A Fuck About Marginalized People'.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2015, 01:57:46 PM
Expect more exploitation of other wedge issues for the next seventeen months.
Of course, like always...
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 03, 2015, 02:08:40 PM..try 'The Generation That Actually Started To Give A Fuck About Marginalized People'.
That is some fine regional-class hyperbole.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 03, 2015, 02:08:40 PM
No, he doesn't comment it - he makes stupid fun of it and trivializes the real stigma & pain, while being a creep as a bonus.
Because everyone's stigma and pain must be treated SUPER SERIALLY ALL THE TIME. (Unless they're white + male + straight + able + cis + whatever, of course.)
Of course, it's creepy to be someone who in high school was attracted to the opposite gender and wouldn't mind seeing them naked.
About Huckabee. I don't think you are entitled to call him names unless you can answer his hypothetical. (That,s sort of a principle I think: you shouldn t preen about your imagined superiority unless you can justify it.). So a 14 year old guy announces he wants to use the girl's showers. Is anyone entitled to say no? What do you say about girls who refuse to shower with him? Are they bigots? Because unless your answers are no, yes you are conceding Huckabee has a point. He doesn't win the argument, but if he has a point your snide hectoring pose of superiority is unearned.
And the generation that first cared about marginalized people? That's both hilarious and sad. Tell that to the civil rights workers.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2015, 02:13:25 PMThat is some fine regional-class hyperbole.
Yes, it is. Because I'm tired of people ridiculing the call for common decency around issues that were previously laughed off / taboo with "so now I can't say anything without offending someone" BS. Now THAT's some hyperbole!
Quote from: Greg on June 03, 2015, 02:14:08 PMBecause everyone's stigma and pain must be treated SUPER SERIALLY ALL THE TIME.
No. But if you treat it in a way that's so overtly insensitive and childish, you reap what you sow.
QuoteOf course, it's creepy to be someone who in high school was attracted to the opposite gender and wouldn't mind seeing them naked.
No. It's creepy to jovially express the wish to sneak up on teenage girls.
QuoteHuckabee has a point
What point? The only point in what he said was to take a cheap jab at social progress his faith can't stomach.
Sorry for the - unintended - thread derailing! Never would have guessed a "well, but.." reaction to what Huckabee said. And to imagine I used to like the guy, sort of.
What's the point? I elaborated that pretty fully, and asked two questions to illustrate. But let me spell it out. There are situations where we don't just take someone's word for it in matters like these, and there are public concerns. Huckabee is actually right about that, and his joke highlights his point forcefully. Just because one point doesn't prove his case is beside the point when your reaction is not understanding or engagement but a sneer.
It's a simple matter really. You don't get to call for a double face palm and yell "Dunce!" if the guy you are ridiculing is making a point and you miss it.
When Huckabee next goes on about how "unnatural" it is, or "God's Law" then he'll merit a double face palm. Be patient, it'll happen.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 03, 2015, 03:11:08 PM
Yes, it is. Because I'm tired of people ridiculing the call for common decency around issues that were previously laughed off / taboo with "so now I can't say anything without offending someone" BS. Now THAT's some hyperbole!
Further proof why wedge issues are always trotted out in campaigns: They work!
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 03, 2015, 03:11:08 PM
No. It's creepy to jovially express the wish to sneak up on teenage girls.
And here you take it and twist it to imply something else, exactly what other people were doing.
No, he's not saying at his age he would like to sneak up on teenage girls (this is what let to the "closet pedophile" comments I read). He's saying when he was a teenager, he would have liked to see other teenagers naked. Like every teenager out there. But somehow this is creepy.
Now that the age issue is settled, who hasn't joked/heard someone else joking about sneaking into a locker room? When I was talking about superspeed powers, my friend was joking about sneaking into the NBA locker rooms (implying doing whatever before they could see). Nothing wrong with joking about that.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 03, 2015, 03:11:08 PM
Yes, it is. Because I'm tired of people ridiculing the call for common decency around issues that were previously laughed off / taboo with "so now I can't say anything without offending someone" BS. Now THAT's some hyperbole!
Well, you pretty much can't around the overly-PC/SJW crowd, because I've heard many of them say that you cannot even get into a discussion or comment on anything if you aren't one of the "oppressed" groups (female, gay, trans, fat, disabled, minority, etc.)
Quote from: Greg on June 03, 2015, 07:33:07 AM
People's reactions to this are really ridiculous.
It was a joke. Every high school guy has wished they could get into the girls' locker room and see them undress. He didn't say anything else, and people are stretching what he said to extreme meanings.
And no, I don't support him, before anyone jumps to the "OMG! You're incredibly evil!" conclusion that people on the internet jump to so quickly.
When I read this earlier today, I was thinking that maybe you had a point. But then I saw the video. Although yes, his comment was presented as a joke, the joke was pretty much the sole support of his argument (about which he was dead serious, from what I could gather) that transgender women should not be able to use women's public bathrooms. In that sense, it was not
just a joke, but a rhetorical strategy for making a point about an issue that affects real peoples' lives and safety. It may be worth noting here that bathroom access really is a serious issue for most trans people, because that is where they are so often publicly humiliated and subject to violence. Joking about it--particularly with the intent of making those experiences tougher for trans people--is obviously not going to go over well with trans people or their supporters,
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2015, 02:25:42 PM
About Huckabee. I don't think you are entitled to call him names unless you can answer his hypothetical. (That,s sort of a principle I think: you shouldn t preen about your imagined superiority unless you can justify it.). So a 14 year old guy announces he wants to use the girl's showers. Is anyone entitled to say no? What do you say about girls who refuse to shower with him? Are they bigots? Because unless your answers are no, yes you are conceding Huckabee has a point. He doesn't win the argument, but if he has a point your snide hectoring pose of superiority is unearned.
And the generation that first cared about marginalized people? That's both hilarious and sad. Tell that to the civil rights workers.
I agree with your larger point--that when engaging in debate, we should approach it by trying to understand the opposing point in the most generous way possible. By generous, I mean assuming that they are being made for the best of intentions, perhaps even intentions with which we might possibly agree. As far as that goes, to the extent that Huckabee is concerned about the potential for non-trans people pretending to be trans as a way of making it easier to engage in predatory behavior, I can see that as a legitimate concern that might need to be addressed in some way. On the other hand, that doesn't quite seem to be his intention, because he doesn't in any way acknowledge the needs or experiences of actual trans people, and even seems to blur the line between actual trans people and the theoretical predators who are being dishonest (as if he doesn't believe trans people are really who or what they claim). That is where his prejudices seem to overshadow whatever concerns he has for little girls in women's rooms with adult trans women (to whom he simply refers as "men"). I find it rather remarkable that he doesn't seem to have the same fear for little boys going to the same men's rooms as adult men, which of course has been going on for as long as public bathrooms have existed (and, though I may be wrong about this, I've never heard any evidence that would suggest that most sexual abuse of boys by men has tended to occur in public restrooms, probably because they are so public). On the other hand, I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that trans women forced to use men's rooms (or chased out of women's rooms) are frequently the targets of violence, but Huckabee shows no concern for that whatsoever.
To answer the hypothetical about the 14 year old boy, I would need more information. For one thing, since you did not say "a 14 year old trans girl," I'm assuming you mean a traditionally cisgender male with no history of presenting as a female. In that case, the answer would be no. But if she were actually showing up in girls' clothing, requesting a name change, and the other things that trans folks tend to do, my answer would be yes. What Huckabee is presumably imagining is that a cisgender boy would actually go to the trouble to do all of that, just to get access to the girls' shower. I imagine that if such cases actually start occurring, there are ways they could be dealt with (frankly, I'm skeptical that many--or any--cisgender males would even consider actually doing such a thing--it is hard enough for actual trans people to go through with it). But in the meantime, it seems like a convenient, but not particularly convincing, excuse to keep trans people from living as normally and free of harassment as possible.
Mark
I think we broadly agree on both trans and Huckabee. But in this case the face Palm is unearned. That your answer on the 14 year old is qualified proves Huckabee makes a point. I don't think he is or needs to imagine much beyond a boy asserting.the point is we do not automatically accede. You agree with that.
I object to wallowing in confirmation bias and misrepresenting arguments, both of which I think the other poster was guilty of.
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2015, 10:44:39 PM
Mark
I think we broadly agree on both trans and Huckabee. But in this case the face Palm is unearned. That your answer on the 14 year old is qualified proves Huckabee makes a point. I don't think he is or needs to imagine much beyond a boy asserting.the point is we do not automatically accede. You agree with that.
I object to wallowing in confirmation bias and misrepresenting arguments, both of which I think the other poster was guilty of.
Ken,
Yeah, I know we agree on the fundamentals here. I'm just trying to make sure I fully understand your specific point, because I'm not entirely sure. You are saying that as long as we agree that not just any teenaged boy should be able to shower with the girls, we are agreeing with Huckabee's central point, or at least suggesting that it is not worthy of a face palm--is that correct? If so, I'm just not so sure I see that as his central point--or, if it is, I would contend that his failure (or refusal) to distinguish between a trans girl and a cis boy wanting to shower with the girls is precisely what would be worthy of the face palm. But am I misunderstanding your reasoning here? If your objection is to the mockery of Huckabee's acknowledgment of his teen-aged desire to see nude girls (without regard to the context), I can see your point. But in that case, I think most of the mockery comes in response to his equating that rather banal desire to the kinds of terror that trans people feel when forced to use the inappropriate bathroom--to joke like that shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of what motivates trans people (and a belittling of them) that I don't think a face palm is entirely inappropriate. Still, mockery is usually reductive, and perhaps what you are saying is that those mocking him are falling prey to the same reductive thinking for which they would criticize him--if so, I think you may have a point there.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 03, 2015, 11:28:05 PMBut in that case, I think most of the mockery comes in response to his equating that rather banal desire to the kinds of terror that trans people feel when forced to use the inappropriate bathroom--to joke like that shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of what motivates trans people (and a belittling of them) that I don't think a face palm is entirely inappropriate.
Thanks, that's what I was trying to say and failed, because yeah, the whole thing really pissed me off.
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2015, 12:49:06 PM
You wonder why you are matched up with Bernie Sanders when you answer yes to questions like "Do you support the total abolition of health insurance markets and the prohibition on private healthcare?" ::)
I did not answer yes to that question because it was not there. Had it been, I would have answered an unqualified no.
Quote
And Common Core is NOT just standardized testing. It is a particular and controversial program.
The test stated that Common Core's goal is to define what all high school graduates should know in English and Math, period. Put that way I voted yes. If it is something else then the test is crap and its authors are plain liars.
EDIT: I am not American and many issues are unfamiliar to me, including Obamacare and Common Core. On those issues I voted based on the explanations provided by the test. If they are inaccurate or misleading it's not my fault.
For instance, here is what they say about Common Core:
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an education initiative that details what K-12 students should know in English and Math at the end of each grade. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers and seeks to establish consistent education standards across the states as well as ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter two or four year college programs or enter the workforce. (emphasis mine)
Put this way (and this way only, mind you!) I see nothing objectionable.
About Obamacare
The Affordable Care Act is a federal statute signed into law in 2010 that introduces a sweeping overhaul of the nation's healthcare system. The act grants the federal government significant regulatory powers and price controls over U.S. medical service providers and insurance companies.Put this way (and this way only, mind you!), what is the difference between that and the Swiss system
Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance (ger: Krankenversicherungsgesetz (KVG); fre: la loi fédérale sur l'assurance-maladie (LAMal); ita: legge federale sull'assicurazione malattie (LAMal)). It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[2]
The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.[2]
As far as the compulsory health insurance is concerned, the insurance companies cannot set any conditions relating to age, sex or state of health for coverage. Although the level of premium can vary from one company to another, they must be identical within the same company for all insured persons of the same age group and region, regardless of sex or state of health. (all emphasis mine)
in which one sees both federal regulatory powers and price control.
George Pataki, who is also seeking the 2016 Republican nomination, told CNN, "I think the more important point is we should give people their dignity and let them make their own decisions. If someone chooses a path that's different than mine, we should respect it as opposed to mocking it or in any way trying to prevent that."
It's Primary season. If we take away half-empty mockery, where will the fun be?!
For you, Florestan, to help you understand the American Way a little better. A tweet I made quoting my favorite author (next to Mark Twain), Kurt Vonnegut:
QuoteGurn Blanston retweeted
Kurt Vonnegut @Kurt_Vonnegut May 17
Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools, or health insurance for all?
If you can just get your mind around that, your troubles will be over. :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 04, 2015, 05:44:56 AM
For you, Florestan, to help you understand the American Way a little better. A tweet I made quoting my favorite author (next to Mark Twain), Kurt Vonnegut:
If you can just get your mind around that, your troubles will be over. :-\
8)
I'm waiting for the time when there are road tolls with big signs reading 'You have to be this rich to enter this ride'.
Quote from: North Star on June 04, 2015, 05:48:20 AM
I'm waiting for the time when there are road tolls with big signs reading 'You have to be this rich to enter this ride'.
There probably are, we just haven't run across them yet. ::)
8)
Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society. Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream. There is not enough money in our universe to create this world, and what they end up doing with the available resources is mandating mediocrity for everyone.
Quote from: sanantonio on June 04, 2015, 06:05:30 AM
Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society. Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream. There is not enough money in our universe to create this world, and what they end up doing with the available resources is mandating mediocrity for everyone.
Well, based on what I've heard about Qatar, people could always move there for that. 8)
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 03, 2015, 09:23:21 PM
When I read this earlier today, I was thinking that maybe you had a point. But then I saw the video.
I didn't know there was a video to that. Well, if there's more to it, then maybe that reaction makes sense.
Quote from: sanantonio on June 04, 2015, 06:05:30 AM
Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society. Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream. There is not enough money in our universe to create this world, and what they end up doing with the available resources is mandating mediocrity for everyone.
Yeah yeah yeah. No one here is talking about any of that stuff. We get mediocrity because we demand it.
"Like great public schools, or health insurance for all"
That is not only realizable it should be freaking basic. Infrastructure too. If government provides us anything at all, it should be that plus 'provide for the common defense'. Other than that, who the hell needs government anyway?
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 04, 2015, 06:22:42 AMThat is not only realizable it should be freaking basic. Infrastructure too. If government provides us anything at all, it should be that plus 'provide for the common defense'. Other than that, who the hell needs government anyway?
Surely your exclusion of old age pension is accidental. That's the biggest program of all.
Then you have feeding the hungry. That seems defensible. Agricultural subsidies can help there, while also helping farmers. So there's another defensible program. Protecting jobs via more subsidies paired with protectionist laws, which further boost prices for end consumers, who can argue with that? How are we going to provide fuel for all this? Well, then some energy subsidies seem like a good idea. Let's offer a credit here, and direct payment there. And the Fifth Fleet, too. And shouldn't everyone be able to own their own home? Isn't that part of the American Dream? Better offer up a subsidy for that. What could go wrong?
Quote from: Todd on June 04, 2015, 06:40:54 AM
Surely your exclusion of old age pension is accidental. That's the biggest program of all.
Then you have feeding the hungry. That seems defensible. Agricultural subsidies can help there, while also helping farmers. So there's another defensible program. Protecting jobs via more subsidies paired with protectionist laws, which further boost prices for end consumers, who can argue with that? How are we going to provide fuel for all this? Well, then some energy subsidies seem like a good idea. Let's offer a credit here, and direct payment there. And the Fifth Fleet, too. And shouldn't everyone be able to own their own home? Isn't that part of the American Dream? Better offer up a subsidy for that. What could go wrong?
Screw the American Dream. I'm tired of it. Pie in the Sky.
8)
Mmmmm, pie.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 04, 2015, 06:22:42 AM
... who the hell needs government anyway?
8)
It depends on what government? One large federal/national government or thousands of local governments. I prefer hardly any power at the federal (and state) levels and most governing done at the local level.
The Man with the Most Presidential Hair is in. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/rick-perry-2016-presidential-announcement/) Hooray!!!
(This is exactly what the nation needed after the disgraceful 'do sported by Chafee in his announcement yesterday.)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 04, 2015, 05:44:56 AM
For you, Florestan, to help you understand the American Way a little better. A tweet I made quoting my favorite author (next to Mark Twain), Kurt Vonnegut:
If you can just get your mind around that, your troubles will be over. :-\
8)
Well, if supporting or advocating governmental regulation and supervision of, or intervention in, anything else than protecting life (from direct physical threats only), liberty and property, is Socialism, then yes, I am a Socialist --- but then again so is everybody else except followers of the "chirping sect" (if you know what I mean; I´m sure Ken does.) :D :D :D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 04, 2015, 06:44:15 AM
Screw the American Dream. I'm tired of it. Pie in the Sky.
8)
http://www.youtube.com/v/f-pT-w7qFl4
Quote from: sanantonio on June 04, 2015, 06:05:30 AM
Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society. Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream. There is not enough money in our universe to create this world, and what they end up doing with the available resources is mandating mediocrity for everyone.
Less than, for once you remove incentives we all suffer. Which is why market economies with a decent safety net/welfare state are the way to go.
(I oppose the nanny state, not the welfare state. People confuse them. We can have a welfare state much less intrusively with a negative income tax than with a self serving beauacracy. )
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2015, 10:44:39 PM
Mark
I think we broadly agree on both trans and Huckabee. But in this case the face Palm is unearned. That your answer on the 14 year old is qualified proves Huckabee makes a point. I don't think he is or needs to imagine much beyond a boy asserting.the point is we do not automatically accede. You agree with that.
I object to wallowing in confirmation bias and misrepresenting arguments, both of which I think the other poster was guilty of.
You asked a good question, and I agree: the answer is not easy.
Huckabee did not ask that question. He certainly did not provide any leadership on answering it in any way but "we should reject the notion of transgender." His comments (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTvs7HhGJgc)) did little more than score him some cheap political points with people who wish they didn't have to think about your question.
Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2015, 12:22:35 PM
market economies with a decent safety net/welfare state are the way to go.
I oppose the nanny state, not the welfare state.
We are in perfect agreement then --- as we have always been. :-*
Quote from: sanantonio on June 04, 2015, 06:05:30 AM
Socialism wishes to create a utopia where all people receive a good education (for free), fantastic health care (at no cost), a nice place to live (for next to nothing), all the food they want, a job they like; in short, the perfect society. Trouble is, this is an unrealizable dream. There is not enough money in our universe to create this world,
You''re quite wrong, actually. It is feasible, at least for a (rather long) while, and the highest price to be paid for it is not money.
Case in point: Romania, 1955 - 1989.
Education: ranging from serviceable to excellent at all levels. Free (if you don't count taxes)
Healthcare: ranging from serviceable to excellent. Free (if you don't count taxes and tipping the doctors and nurses)
A place to live: not nice, as they consisted of range after range of blocks of flats, resulting in quite ugly neighborhoods, but at least everybody had a home, and at quite affordable credit rates too. For instance, if you were employed by a huge factory (and they were ubiquitous back then) you were guaranteed that in a few years you'll be able to have your own apartment and not pay your arms and a leg for it.
All the food you want: let's put it "all the food you needed". (until 1980)
A job you like: I don't know how likeable were the jobs for everybody, but at least everybody had one. For instance, upon graduation each and every college graduate was assigned a job. If you graduated in the top ranks, they were better and in more comfortable geographical areas than if you graduated in the median or, worst of all, low ranks --- but at least you were guaranteed to have a job. The most numerous and best paid jobs were in the engineering field, as there were literally hundreds of huge factories, construction sites and research / design institutes scattered all across the country.
I could add more:
Affordable holidays for everybody, twice a year (summer and winter).
Cheap prices for concert, theater, opera and cinema tickets; a sustained program of translating all the masterpieces and less than masterpieces of world literature (of course, those which were not overtly contrary to the official party line) printed in cheap paperback editions and collections (eg, Shakespeare, Balzac, Poe, Maupassant, Tolstoy, Dostoievsky, Gogol, Dickens etc) - sold not only in bookstores but also in factories and institutes, at very affordable prices.
(Almost free) summer and winter camps for primary, secondary and high school pupils.
Etc etc etc.
Looks rather great, ain't it?
Well, the price to be paid for all that was first and foremost human lives.
Between 1948 and 1962 hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people labeled bourgeois or kulaks were expropriated, imprisoned, deported or killed, together with their families. They were all "enemies of the people" that had to be done away with. And if one was born into such a family, he was labeled "unhealthy social element" and denied access to good education or good jobs. (this policy ended in 1965, though)
And then, the price in freedom.
Everything was controlled by the Party. The slightest deviation from the official line could have cost you your job (degraded to low work), your liberty (imprisoned) or even your life. You could have not traveled abroad without official approval. You could have not said, write or print whatever you wanted. (Between 1965 and 1975, though, there was a more relaxed policy regarding these issues).
And then since 1980 you were subjected to a pharaonic cult of personality of the both the leader, who was the providential man sent by history to raise Romania on "the highest tops of civlization" (official slogan) and his wife, an "internationally famed scientist" (he being a former shoemaker journeyman, she being a former nobody knows what, they both being barely literate).
And all the social paradise described above began to crumble as Ceausescu took the decision to pay all Romania's debts in advance. The result was severe shortage of even the basic necessities of life (from basic food to toilet papers and razors), severe power, heating and gas shortage and a general orwellian atmosphere which rendered life almost unbearable.
So, bottom line:
it's either freedom or socialism. Tertium non datur.
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2015, 04:55:58 AM
You''re quite wrong, actually. It is feasible, at least for a (rather long) while, and the highest price to be paid for it is not money.
Case in point: Romania, 1955 - 1989.
Education: ranging from serviceable to excellent at all levels. Free (if you don't count taxes)
Healthcare: ranging from serviceable to excellent. Free (if you don't count taxes and tipping the doctors and nurses)
A place to live: not nice, as they consisted of range after range of blocks of flats, resulting in quite ugly neighborhoods, but at least everybody had a home, and at quite affordable credit rates too. For instance, if you were employed by a huge factory (and they were ubiquitous back then) you were guaranteed that in a few years you'll be able to have your own apartment and not pay your arms and a leg for it.
All the food you want: let's put it "all the food you needed". (until 1980)
A job you like: I don't know how likeable were the jobs for everybody, but at least everybody had one. For instance, upon graduation each and every college graduate was assigned a job. If you graduated in the top ranks, they were better and in more comfortable geographical areas than if you graduated in the median or, worst of all, low ranks --- but at least you were guaranteed to have a job. The most numerous and best paid jobs were in the engineering field, as there were literally hundreds of huge factories, construction sites and research / design institutes scattered all across the country.
I could add more:
Affordable holidays for everybody, twice a year (summer and winter).
Cheap prices for concert, theater, opera and cinema tickets; a sustained program of translating all the masterpieces and less than masterpieces of world literature (of course, those which were not overtly contrary to the official party line) printed in cheap paperback editions and collections (eg, Shakespeare, Balzac, Poe, Maupassant, Tolstoy, Dostoievsky, Gogol, Dickens etc) - sold not only in bookstores but also in factories and institutes, at very affordable prices.
(Almost free) summer and winter camps for primary, secondary and high school pupils.
Etc etc etc.
Looks rather great, ain't it?
Well, the price to be paid for all that was first and foremost human lives.
Between 1948 and 1962 hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people labeled bourgeois or kulaks were expropriated, imprisoned, deported or killed, together with their families. They were all "enemies of the people" that had to be done away with. And if one was born into such a family, he was labeled "unhealthy social element" and denied access to good education or good jobs. (this policy ended in 1965, though)
And then, the price in freedom.
Everything was controlled by the Party. The slightest deviation from the official line could have cost you your job (degraded to low work), your liberty (imprisoned) or even your life. You could have not traveled abroad without official approval. You could have not said, write or print whatever you wanted. (Between 1965 and 1975, though, there was a more relaxed policy regarding these issues).
And then since 1980 you were subjected to a pharaonic cult of personality of the both the leader, who was the providential man sent by history to raise Romania on "the highest tops of civlization" (official slogan) and his wife, an "internationally famed scientist" (he being a former shoemaker journeyman, she being a former nobody knows what, they both being barely literate).
And all the social paradise described above began to crumble as Ceausescu took the decision to pay all Romania's debts in advance. The result was severe shortage of even the basic necessities of life (from basic food to toilet papers and razors), severe power, heating and gas shortage and a general orwellian atmosphere which rendered life almost unbearable.
So, bottom line: it's either freedom or socialism. Tertium non datur.
You must admit that the Swedes have one of the more advanced/strongest Socialist models and it has generally worked well for them (in general terms).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 05, 2015, 05:05:26 AM
You must admit that the Swedes have one of the more advanced/strongest Socialist models and it has generally worked well for them (in general terms).
Socialism for me is what was practiced in the Socialist Republic of Romania. The Swedish "Socialism" is not even remotely similar.
Communism and social democracy aren't quite the same thing, of course.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 05, 2015, 05:05:26 AM
You must admit that the Swedes have one of the more advanced/strongest Socialist models and it has generally worked well for them (in general terms).
And Sweden has benefited in recent years from becoming more market oriented.
I am always reluctant to use one country as an example for another, because culture matters so much, but more general conclusions can be drawn. I think Sweden shows you can make a generous welfare state work on top of a capitalist economy, and that recent years have shown the wisdom of letting markets do their thing, and having the governemtn not try to set economic goals but provide infrastructure and the safety net.
I think Greece shows you cannot always do this quite so easily. For one thing you need a culture where people pay their taxes.
One size does not fit all. But two conclusions are pretty clear I think: Markets work, but they don't work perfectly.
Quote from: North Star on June 05, 2015, 08:29:47 AM
Communism and social democracy aren't quite the same thing, of course.
Of course. The Communist uprisings in Bavaria and other regions of the German Empire in 1918 - 19 were mercilessly crushed by the Social-Democrats. Friedrich Ebert was a monarchist, and only reluctantly accepted the republic. Comrade Lenin branded Social Democracy as some sort of fascism.
TBH and tell the whole truth, my own political position is to be found at the intersection of Classical Liberalism, Christian Democracy and Social Democracy --- in European terms, I mean. I have given up any hope of matching European politics with US one.
Much to the contrary of what I have been accused of in this very thread, I emphatically am not an ideologue. My only guiding principle is "as much liberty as possible, as much constraint as necessary", being acutely aware of the fact that "possible" and "necessary" are culturally and ethnically (sic!) conditioned --- what works wonders in US or Switzerland might spell ruin in Spain (google First Spanish Republic) or Romania (never tried, but please take my word for it)...
One thing I know for sure: welfare state yes, nanny state no!
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2015, 08:47:12 AM
I am always reluctant to use one country as an example for another, because culture matters so much
Exactly.
Quote
I think Sweden shows you can make a generous welfare state work on top of a capitalist economy, and that recent years have shown the wisdom of letting markets do their thing, and having the governemtn not try to set economic goals but provide infrastructure and the safety net.
Ditto.
Quote
I think Greece shows you cannot always do this quite so easily. For one thing you need a culture where people pay their taxes.
Correction: a culture where people pay their taxes knwoing for sure that they will receive in return quality healthcare, education and infrastructure.
Quote
One size does not fit all.
The Golden Rule in geopolitics.
Quote
But two conclusions are pretty clear I think: Markets work, but they don't work perfectly.
Just as true as "governments work, but they don´t work perfectly." That´s why we need both.
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2015, 10:37:17 AM
Much to the contrary of what I have been accused of in this very thread, I emphatically am not an ideologue. My only guiding principle is "as much liberty as possible, as much constraint as necessary"
Well, five posts before that, you wrote "bottom line:
it's either freedom or socialism. Tertium non datur."
Quote from: Pat B on June 05, 2015, 10:54:51 AM
Well, five posts before that, you wrote "bottom line: it's either freedom or socialism. Tertium non datur."
And I qualified it: by Socialism I mean what was practiced in the Socialist Republic of Romania. I safely presume you have not the slightest idea about what it means, other than what I have written.
Back on topic: The Gray Lady maintains its high journalistic standards. (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/)
Quote from: Todd on June 05, 2015, 11:16:00 AM
Back on topic: The Gray Lady maintains its high journalistic standards. (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/marco-rubio-and-his-wife-cited-17-times-for-traffic-infractions-2/)
The four hour courses they talk about allow you to prevent points from being accumulated (which could affect insurance premiums for example). 4 over 17 years isn't so terrible, but 13 over the same period seems quite a bit to me.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 05, 2015, 11:22:35 AMThe four hour courses they talk about allow you to prevent points from being accumulated (which could affect insurance premiums for example). 4 over 17 years isn't so terrible, but 13 over the same period seems quite a bit to me.
Well, at least now I know of one person who thinks traffic citations are a meaningful campaign issue.
I wonder which candidates may have kicked a pet in the past.
Quote from: Todd on June 05, 2015, 11:26:11 AM
Well, at least now I know of one person who thinks traffic citations are a meaningful campaign issue.
Oh? Who's that?
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2015, 11:04:39 AM
And I qualified it: by Socialism I mean what was practiced in the Socialist Republic of Romania. I safely presume you have not the slightest idea about what it means, other than what I have written.
Regardless of what you meant by "socialism," you asserted that it and freedom are the only choices. So which of those two choices does your guiding principle of "as much liberty as possible, as much constraint as necessary" fit into?
Quote from: Pat B on June 05, 2015, 11:49:49 AM
Regardless of what you meant by "socialism," you asserted that it and freedom are the only choices.
No, no, and no! You are twisting my words!
I state it again: Socialism as practiced in the Socialist Republic of Romania is incompatible with freedom. If you take issue with this statement, please feel free to do so --- but I strongly doubt you have the personal experience which would allow you to do it.
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2015, 10:42:18 AM
Just as true as "governments work, but they don´t work perfectly." That´s why we need both.
That's why we get along Andrei: we split the work. You advocate for more government control of everything and everyone, and I against it. ;)
:laugh: :P
Quote from: Ken B on June 05, 2015, 01:15:15 PM
You advocate for more government control of everything and everyone
Pușchea pe limbă!
Quote from: Florestan on June 05, 2015, 12:00:12 PM
No, no, and no! You are twisting my words!
I state it again: Socialism as practiced in the Socialist Republic of Romania is incompatible with freedom. If you take issue with this statement, please feel free to do so --- but I strongly doubt you have the personal experience which would allow you to do it.
Ah. Now I understand what you meant, and I don't take issue with that.
("A is incompatible with B" is different than "
A and B are the only choices. Tertium non datur.")
anyone talking "election" is naive
how am i wrong?
QuoteIt is true that the recognition of the right being a little bit out to lunch — maybe even a touch out of step with the mainstream of the country — is very recent. In fact, up until just a couple of years ago, the political establishment maintained the fiction that "America is a conservative nation" which furthermore was extremely hostile to liberalism. This belief was pretty much based upon one election held three decades ago in which it was excitedly observed that certain white Democrats decided to vote for Ronald Reagan because they just couldn't stand those hippies anymore.
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/04/the_medias_most_destructive_meme_why_we_need_to_admit_that_the_gops_extremism_is_virtually_unprecedented/ (http://www.salon.com/2015/06/04/the_medias_most_destructive_meme_why_we_need_to_admit_that_the_gops_extremism_is_virtually_unprecedented/)
Thoughts? From an outsiders point of view, this
Quote(the GOP)..had become "ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."
seems especially obvious.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 08, 2015, 05:42:34 AMThoughts?
It's an op-ed from Salon. Salon is partisan. The op-ed is a variant of a standard lefty narrative that stretches back decades: Republican obstructionism. Actually, one could go all the way back to Henry Cabot Lodge and see how indignant Progressives were even then when a dastardly Republican dared to (successfully) defy them. Now, of course, the analysis is all science-y. I didn't click the links in the article, but without too much hunting, you can find nifty charts showing the shift to the right of Republicans over time, and the further right they go, the more obstructionist they become. And as everyone knows, if a social scientist generates a chart, it must be true.
But currently, such serious, objective, scientific, or at least science-y analyses tend to go back a certain period of time. To about the time that Reagan started gaining ground, as it turns out. Republicans have shattered the post-war consensus, you see. There was a time, a beautiful time, when the two parties toed the same line, pursued the same policies, and so forth. It's a nicely self-contained analysis, and one that ultimately lends itself to prudent, sensible policy options. Clearly, controlling campaign finance is one such policy option that can be used to contain extremism. But that is not enough. It will probably be necessary to curb when certain types of ads can be run. (True, that used to be law and was struck down, but it's worth another try.) Then the media that can be used can be legislated - no over-sized billboards perhaps, or maybe some limit on TV expenditures. Best of all, the government could fund all elections. This has been the Progressive dream since long before I was even born. A government of the government, by the government, and for the government, that's the ticket.
Op-eds like that in Salon also serve another purpose. They obviously paint Republicans as extremists. You can't deal with extremists. Everyone knows that. As such, it becomes easier to ignore policy issues they may bring up, or better yet, to label the policies extremist so they can be ignored altogether during the legislative process and turned into campaign issues.
Quote from: Todd on June 08, 2015, 07:08:10 AM
It's an op-ed from Salon. Salon is partisan. The op-ed is a variant of a standard lefty narrative that stretches back decades: Republican obstructionism. Actually, one could go all the way back to Henry Cabot Lodge and see how indignant Progressives were even then when a dastardly Republican dared to (successfully) defy them. Now, of course, the analysis is all science-y. I didn't click the links in the article, but without too much hunting, you can find nifty charts showing the shift to the right of Republicans over time, and the further right they go, the more obstructionist they become. And as everyone knows, if a social scientist generates a chart, it must be true.
But currently, such serious, objective, scientific, or at least science-y analyses tend to go back a certain period of time. To about the time that Reagan started gaining ground, as it turns out. Republicans have shattered the post-war consensus, you see. There was a time, a beautiful time, when the two parties toed the same line, pursued the same policies, and so forth. It's a nicely self-contained analysis, and one that ultimately lends itself to prudent, sensible policy options. Clearly, controlling campaign finance is one such policy option that can be used to contain extremism. But that is not enough. It will probably be necessary to curb when certain types of ads can be run. (True, that used to be law and was struck down, but it's worth another try.) Then the media that can be used can be legislated - no over-sized billboards perhaps, or maybe some limit on TV expenditures. Best of all, the government could fund all elections. This has been the Progressive dream since long before I was even born. A government of the government, by the government, and for the government, that's the ticket.
Op-eds like that in Salon also serve another purpose. They obviously paint Republicans as extremists. You can't deal with extremists. Everyone knows that. As such, it becomes easier to ignore policy issues they may bring up, or better yet, to label the policies extremist so they can be ignored altogether during the legislative process and turned into campaign issues.
And of course go to most conservative media and find the mirror process by which any liberal ideas are turned into mere communist agitation.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 08, 2015, 10:55:00 AMAnd of course go to most conservative media and find the mirror process by which any liberal ideas are turned into mere communist agitation.
Absolutely. Depending on the type of conservative, and the hot topic, just how imminent the crisis of government takeover of everything is ranges from some nebulous, distant point in the future to it has already happened. Gun nuts are some of my favorites in this regard. Obama is going to take away the God given right to own an M16, don't you know.
Interesting, thanks for the reply! I don't share your sentiment about the article playing that kind of a cynical agenda, though. While I know where Salon's place is on the political map, I think you overestimate the 'lefty' partisanship of a piece like this, while underestimating how Republicans paint themselves extremist by their bullheaded stance against science for example. From this side of the ocean, the GOP really seems like a party that has gone 'off the cliff' as the op-ed mentions.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 08, 2015, 11:23:34 AM
Interesting, thanks for the reply! I don't share your sentiment about the article playing that kind of a cynical agenda, though. While I know where Salon's place is on the political map, I think you overestimate the 'lefty' partisanship of a piece like this, while underestimating how Republicans paint themselves extremist by their bullheaded stance against science for example. From this side of the ocean, the GOP really seems like a party that has gone 'off the cliff' as the op-ed mentions.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win (http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win)
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 08, 2015, 11:23:34 AMI think you overestimate the 'lefty' partisanship of a piece like this
If anything, I'd say I underestimate it. The propensity of some lefties to attempt to cloak their political and politicized analyses of political trends in the sober, serious, and
irrefutable language of science and statistics, even more than righties with their Heritage Foundation types and such, hints at the views and goals of some. The march of science and progress is unstoppable.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 08, 2015, 11:23:34 AM
Interesting, thanks for the reply! I don't share your sentiment about the article playing that kind of a cynical agenda, though. While I know where Salon's place is on the political map, I think you overestimate the 'lefty' partisanship of a piece like this, while underestimating how Republicans paint themselves extremist by their bullheaded stance against science for example. From this side of the ocean, the GOP really seems like a party that has gone 'off the cliff' as the op-ed mentions.
I recall one Australian commenter here being mocked for her pronouncements on Europe. And she lived there! But where was I? Oh yes ...
In any case it is not true that the gop is more antiscience than the dems. It depends on the science, and you can dig up quite a lot on both parties. Anti vax is generally a liberal disease here, as is the widespread rejection in some circles of sociobiology, nuclear power, and GMOs. Examples abound. The gop oppose stem cell research to cure diseases and the dems oppose golden rice to prevent them.
The selective approach to science is quite widespread. In Canada the Green Party platform endorsed homeopathy.
Quote from: Ken B on June 08, 2015, 03:36:46 PM
I recall one Australian commenter here being mocked for her pronouncements on Europe. And she lived there! But where was I? Oh yes ...
In any case it is not true that the gop is more antiscience than the dems. It depends on the science, and you can dig up quite a lot on both parties. Anti vax is generally a liberal disease here, as is the widespread rejection in some circles of sociobiology, nuclear power, and GMOs. Examples abound. The gop oppose stem cell research to cure diseases and the dems oppose golden rice to prevent them.
The selective approach to science is quite widespread. In Canada the Green Party platform endorsed homeopathy.
It's quite a surprise to hear that the anti-vaxers are from the left. I've actually not seen any figures, so I assume you must be right. But anecdotally, most of my friends and acquaintances are left-leaning, and they are universally, and often quite vocally, pro vaxers (or anti-anti-vaxers, to be more specific). I would have imagined the anti-vaxers to have a lot of overlap with homeschoolers, who I also thought tended toward the right-leaning. In general, it would seem to fit in with the whole "federal government is out to take your guns and subject you to tyranny" attitude of the right.
With anti-nuclear power, that does seem to be more of a lefty issue, but I'm not sure that it counts as anti-science--just concern that the risks of complete annihilation in the case of potential accidents might outweigh the benefits (which they generally don't deny). It's not as if they are denying that nuclear power exists--have all (or most of) the nuclear scientists concluded that nuclear power plants are completely immune to accidents or terrorist attacks, and their waste can be disposed of without consequence? Only if that is the case could I see opposition to nuclear power being construed as "anti-science" in the way that climate change denial can. I think there is a difference between being anti-science--not believing in certain scientific claims simply because they contradict a religious text or are inconvenient--and being against a particular use of a particular technology (where the underlying science is agreed upon by all parties). That doesn't make it any more or less right, but I think it is a different conversation. I can see a bit of science denial from the left on the GMO issue, in that there seems to be little scientific evidence that they are dangerous--on the other hand, my sense has been that there is a lot of scientific uncertainly about the long-term affects of some of that experimentation.
Sure, but "anti-science" sounds much better than "against unquestioned use of dangerous technologies not sufficiently tried out or with a track record of environmental desasters and unsolved problems for dealing with waste products". The latter obviously applies to nuclear energy and while debatable it is not absurd to claim that the former applies to genetic engineering.
(I agree that "anti-vaxxing" and some other things do merit the label "anti-science")
The US presidential election is probably the most fuzz about tiny political differences imaginable. If that guy Sanders was a serious candidate I would understand some of the fuzz. But Hilary against a centrist Republican? Seems like the choice between creamy and crunchy peanut butter not between peanut butter and pate de foie gras.
Quote from: Ken B on June 08, 2015, 03:36:46 PMI recall one Australian commenter here being mocked for her pronouncements on Europe. And she lived there! But where was I? Oh yes ...
That's why I'm curious about opinions from within the US, to get a sharper picture of what's going on. I'm just stating how it
looks from over here, folks.
QuoteIn any case it is not true that the gop is more antiscience than the dems. It depends on the science, and you can dig up quite a lot on both parties. Anti vax is generally a liberal disease here, as is the widespread rejection in some circles of sociobiology, nuclear power, and GMOs. Examples abound. The gop oppose stem cell research to cure diseases and the dems oppose golden rice to prevent them.
The selective approach to science is quite widespread. In Canada the Green Party platform endorsed homeopathy.
As Jo498 pointed out, it's not about discussing nuanced topics like nuclear power or GMOs (I'm pro-both, just to be clear), I mean the outright dangerous stuff: lying about climate change being something scientists are divided about, support of schools choosing to teach creationism.. stuff like that. It paints a picture of a party pandering to the dumb.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 08, 2015, 08:37:59 PMIt's quite a surprise to hear that the anti-vaxers are from the left.
Assuming you're really a New Yorker, all I can say is come on over to the Left Coast. Anti-vaccine jibber jabber here is even more prevalent among lefties than right-wing fools. Here in Oregon, the state with the highest vaccine exemption rate in the US, the city of Ashland - of the Shakespeare festival and two colleges and a pot festival - has a 26.4% non-vaccination rate in its schools. Some individual schools, and here the culprits are private religious schools, go all the way up to 70%+. Oregon is not alone, just extreme; increased vaccine exemption rates are being witnessed in communities all over, and quite often it is in better educated, more affluent areas. Lefty neo-hippies rail against Big Pharma and the terrible chemicals put into modern vaccines. Sure right wing nuts have their own, usually religion-based anti-vaccine rationales, but lefties have joined them in good, by which I mean terrible, numbers.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 08, 2015, 11:28:04 PMSure, but "anti-science" sounds much better than "against unquestioned use of dangerous technologies not sufficiently tried out or with a track record of environmental desasters and unsolved problems for dealing with waste products". The latter obviously applies to nuclear energy and while debatable it is not absurd to claim that the former applies to genetic engineering.
The problems for storing nuclear waste are solved: it is settled science. Vitrification, for instance, turns nuclear waste into a safely and easily manageable substance (ie, nuclear glass). It cannot be turned into new weapons, it will not leak into groundwater. The technology has been around for decades. The movement to prevent it from being stored on a large scale is purely emotional in nature - it's NIMBYism mixed with lefty splutter. As to safely generating power, the US has a strong track record in this regard - and remains the single largest producer of nuclear power if the DOE and IAEA are to be believed - and safety can improve further, and all while not building new plants. Imagine what could happen if the US government poured even more money into R&D here.
As to anti-GMO arguments, to imply that GMOs are dangerous or not sufficiently tried out is to ignore current practice and results. Around 90% of cotton, corn, canola, and soy grown in the US are genetically modified, for instance. Scientific publications are basically uniformly pro-GMO. GMOs also provide the only way to affordably feed the next three billion new mouths that will be born. Anti-GMOers are anti-science in that they refute published scientific findings and rely more on emotional appeals. Of course anti-science lefties are keen on differentiating themselves from creationists, but that doesn't render lefty anti-science arguments any more sophisticated or accurate.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 08, 2015, 11:28:04 PM
Sure, but "anti-science" sounds much better than "against unquestioned use of dangerous technologies not sufficiently tried out or with a track record of environmental desasters and unsolved problems for dealing with waste products". The latter obviously applies to nuclear energy and while debatable it is not absurd to claim that the former applies to genetic engineering.
Twaddle. Todd's response above is good. If your opinion is that GMOs are dangerous then I'd say you are proving my point about
ignoring what the science actually says. Quote
(I agree that "anti-vaxxing" and some other things do merit the label "anti-science")
The anti-vaxxers are a diverse lot but they definitely skew left:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/vaccine-deniers-stick-together-and-now-theyre-ruining-things-for-everyone/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/vaccine-deniers-stick-together-and-now-theyre-ruining-things-for-everyone/)
There has been some recent inroads of this nonsense on the Libertarian right too.
I'm sure Rand Paul will take that 'left-veering' stuff rather personally.... ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 06:41:19 AM
I'm sure Rand Paul will take that 'left-veering' stuff rather personally.... ::)
8)
Let's head off a confusion before it starts. It is not anti-science to hold any policy in particular.
It is only anti-science to reject the scientific evidence. So you can object to mandatory vaccinations on principled grounds about the role of government without being anti-science as long as you don't dispute that vaccinations work and don't peddle that autism crap. Similarly you can be anti-GMO because you find them icky or hate the poor and not be anti-science as long as you don't peddle Frankenfood fears. There are more ways to be wrong than just being anti-science.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 07:03:07 AM
Let's head off a confusion before it starts. It is not anti-science to hold any policy in particular. It is only anti-science to reject the scientific evidence. So you can object to mandatory vaccinations on principled grounds about the role of government without being anti-science as long as you don't dispute that vaccinations work and don't peddle that autism crap. Similarly you can be anti-GMO because you find them icky or hate the poor and not be anti-science as long as you don't peddle Frankenfood fears. There are more ways to be wrong than just being anti-science.
Not that I disagree with your statement above, but I'm not sure this fits into it:
QuoteMr Paul, a Duke University-trained ophthalmologist, favors vaccination. But he questioned the wisdom of vaccinating infants and worried aloud about "tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines". Mr Paul earned a lot of flack for this remark, which flouts the medical consensus about the risks of vaccination.
That isn't 'Libertarianism', it's anti-science. Geez, Ken, I'm libertarian myself, don't you think I would be pleased to see a candidate out there who wouldn't be construed as a nutjob?
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 07:23:49 AMThat isn't 'Libertarianism', it's anti-science.
True, Rand Paul utters anti-science jibber jabber. There are righty anti-science folks, and lefty anti-science folks. What many of them share in common is reliance on dubious anecdotal evidence and personal feelings in reinforcing their pre-existing, politically informed views of science.
You can rest easy knowing that Rand Paul will never be President. You can be unhappy at the reality that there will almost certainly never be a Libertarian President.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 07:23:49 AM
Not that I disagree with your statement above, but I'm not sure this fits into it:
That isn't 'Libertarianism', it's anti-science. Geez, Ken, I'm libertarian myself, don't you think I would be pleased to see a candidate out there who wouldn't be construed as a nutjob?
8)
I'm not defending Paul. But I can see confusion creeping into this thread ...
As for Paul, I lean noticeably more to the gop than the dems in general, and will usually support the gop candidate (92, 96 were the only exceptions in the past 25 years) but I did mention that if Paul gets the nomination I would campaign for Hillary ...
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 07:33:03 AM
True, Rand Paul utters anti-science jibber jabber. There are righty anti-science folks, and lefty anti-science folks. What many of them share in common is reliance on dubious anecdotal evidence and personal feelings in reinforcing their pre-existing, politically informed views of science.
You can rest easy knowing that Rand Paul will never be President. You can be unhappy at the reality that there will almost certainly never be a Libertarian President.
Why, is Ralph Nader giving up? Gone totally Green? :D Yes, of course you're right. This is what scares me politically, that our potential leaders and wannabe leaders are pandering to the lowest common denominator and seeing it as yet another advantage instead of as a challenge to raise up the level where it (the LCD) is currently mired. Sort of like Captains of Industry and Televangelists; a fool and his money (i.e. - vote) are easily parted. In the case of anti-vaxxing, better to pander to the (Jennifer) McCarthyites than to urge them to rise above it. >:(
*sigh*
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 07:44:56 AM
Why, is Ralph Nader giving up? Gone totally Green? :D Yes, of course you're right. This is what scares me politically, that our potential leaders and wannabe leaders are pandering to the lowest common denominator and seeing it as yet another advantage instead of as a challenge to raise up the level where it (the LCD) is currently mired. Sort of like Captains of Industry and Televangelists; a fool and his money (i.e. - vote) are easily parted. In the case of anti-vaxxing, better to pander to the (Jennifer) McCarthyites than to urge them to rise above it. >:(
*sigh*
8)
As I have said on several previous occasions ... dig up Barry Goldwater and run him. :laugh:
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 07:33:50 AM
I'm not defending Paul. But I can see confusion creeping into this thread ...
As for Paul, I lean noticeably more to the gop than the dems in general, and will usually support the gop candidate (92, 96 were the only exceptions in the past 25 years) but I did mention that if Paul gets the nomination I would campaign for Hillary ...
I've voted for every Republican since Nixon in '72, with the sole exception of 2012, just to get that out in the open. But I am very much not happy with the Republicans right now, nor with the Dems nor any others of them. I want to vote in someone else's election. Ours sucks. :P
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 07:48:01 AM
I've voted for every Republican since Nixon in '72, with the sole exception of 2012, just to get that out in the open. But I am very much not happy with the Republicans right now, nor with the Dems nor any others of them. I want to vote in someone else's election. Ours sucks. :P
It is for these (and some other) reasons that I care less about who wins the Presidency than I do about the need for government to remain divided.
Divided Government Now, Divided Government Forever!!(If the Republicans win the White House, the Dems had damn well better retake the Senate.)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 07:48:01 AM
I've voted for every Republican since Nixon in '72, with the sole exception of 2012, just to get that out in the open. But I am very much not happy with the Republicans right now, nor with the Dems nor any others of them. I want to vote in someone else's election. Ours sucks. :P
8)
I dread to ask ... whom did you vote for in 2012?
(I of course have never voted for president!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/opinion/david-brooks-the-mobilization-error.html
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 07:48:01 AM
I've voted for every Republican since Nixon in '72, with the sole exception of 2012, just to get that out in the open. But I am very much not happy with the Republicans right now, nor with the Dems nor any others of them. I want to vote in someone else's election. Ours sucks. :P
8)
As I've said before, the thing about all US elections is that you've only got two bad choices. In Finland, we tend to have at least half a dozen. 8)
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 08:15:19 AM
I dread to ask ... whom did you vote for in 2012?
(I of course have never voted for president!)
I skipped over the president/vice president check mark, and went right to voting against Ted Cruz and Louis Gohmert. 0:)
I couldn't have possibly voted for either 'choice'; I couldn't even think of a good write-in possibility!
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 07:58:13 AM
(If the Republicans win the White House, the Dems had damn well better retake the Senate.)
Amen to that!
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 08:21:58 AM
I couldn't have possibly voted for either 'choice'; I couldn't even think of a good write-in possibility!
That's why I carry an embossed "CALVIN COOLIDGE" stamp.
Quote
Amen to [divided government]!
I'm all for divided government. I just wish we didn't have to divide it between democrats and republicans. 8)
Frankly, I don't see much difference between rejecting science in the name of religion and selectively using, or actively misusing, science in the name of ideology.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 08, 2015, 08:37:59 PM
have all (or most of) the nuclear scientists concluded that nuclear power plants are completely immune to accidents or terrorist attacks, and their waste can be disposed of without consequence?
Car crashes worldwide kill every year much more people than the last major nuclear power plant incident of the Western world did --- BTW, when and where was it, I don't recall? Should we ban using cars then? Of course not, we should build safer cars and enforce stricter safe driving rules --- and that's exactly what we do.
So far terrorists have successfully attacked airports and railway/subway stations. Should we shut them down then? Of course not, we should enforce stricter security rules and checks --- and that's exactly what we do.
Yet when it comes to nuclear power plants, where the incidents are far and few between, the way to go is not to build safer ones and enforce stricter safety rules, but to shut them down altogether. Is this logical / scientific / intellectually honest?
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 08:37:00 AMCar crashes worldwide kill every year much more people than the last major nuclear power plant incident of the Western world did --- BTW, when and where was it, I don't recall?
Though not Western, and though no one died as a result of radiation exposure, Fukushima is now the incident most likely to be used by anti-nuke folks. And of course there is Chernobyl.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 09, 2015, 05:07:40 AM
That's why I'm curious about opinions from within the US, to get a sharper picture of what's going on. I'm just stating how it looks from over here, folks.
Based on what I've seen of your posts on these discussions, the way it looks to you "over there" is pretty much exactly the way it looks to most of us "over here" who lean to the left. Those who lean otherwise will of course disagree with your perspective, and will assume that you too would be more likely to agree with them if you lived here. ;)
Hot off the presses: The lean, mean cutting machine wins! (http://www.cnbc.com/id/102744525)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 06:41:19 AM
I'm sure Rand Paul will take that 'left-veering' stuff rather personally.... ::)
8)
Not to mention Michelle Bachmann!
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 08:47:21 AM
Based on what I've seen of your posts on these discussions, the way it looks to you "over there" is pretty much exactly the way it looks to most of us "over here" who lean to the left. Those who lean otherwise will of course disagree with your perspective, and will assume that you too would be more likely to agree with them if you lived here. ;)
Yeah, I guess so.
Aaaanyway, is Trump running? Perry can't provide
all the fun himself.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 08:43:48 AM
Though not Western, and though no one died as a result of radiation exposure, Fukushima is now the incident most likely to be used by anti-nuke folks. And of course there is Chernobyl.
Yeah, I know, but I want to be pointed out to the Western European or North American equivalent of Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 08:47:21 AM
Based on what I've seen of your posts on these discussions, the way it looks to you "over there" is pretty much exactly the way it looks to most of us "over here" who lean to the left.
Some might conclude that what it "looks like" is therefore strongly determined by
what you select to read.PS. Was it you who recently expressed reluctance to click on a link to a site you didn't know? Someone here did. (Dissent cooties.)
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 06:29:34 AM
The anti-vaxxers are a diverse lot but they definitely skew left:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/vaccine-deniers-stick-together-and-now-theyre-ruining-things-for-everyone/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/vaccine-deniers-stick-together-and-now-theyre-ruining-things-for-everyone/)
There has been some recent inroads of this nonsense on the Libertarian right too.
I'm assuming you have more evidence than the article you cite for this rather confidently stated position, because that article in no way demonstrates the assertion. What it does claim is that in California (only), the largest concentrations of anti-vaxxers seem to be in areas that voted democrat (despite its first example being from Orange County). However, it says nothing about the actual political views of the anti-vaxxers--we don't know whether they fit the political profile of the larger community. They might, of course, but they also might not. It seems to me that areas that vote democratic (which will be more common in CA anyway) will also have the most concentrated and diverse populations, and will certainly include many extreme right-wing religions and other groups. But even if we were to grant that it skews that way in CA, that leaves a whole lot of the rest of the country to consider.
As I mentioned above, the only really prominent political figures who have embraced the idea (that I am aware of) are Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul. If it were really a mainly left-wing movement, one would think that democrats would find it to their advantage to embrace it--but as far as I know, none have. Again, just anecdotally, among my social media circle, it is generally perceived as a Fox News driven issue. This may not be entirely accurate, but anti-vax is most certainly not something that has been embraced by the left in any public way in the way it has by the right.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 09:20:24 AM
Some might conclude that what it "looks like" is therefore strongly determined by what you select to read.
I don't disagree.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 09:21:53 AMAs I mentioned above, the only really prominent political figures who have embraced the idea (that I am aware of) are Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul.
RFK, Jr?
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 09:17:17 AM
Yeah, I know, but I want to be pointed out to the Western European or North American equivalent of Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Three Mile Island was the worst example in the US.
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 08:37:00 AM
Frankly, I don't see much difference between rejecting science in the name of religion and selectively using, or actively misusing, science in the name of ideology.
Religion IS an ideology. So therefore, you are correct.
QuoteCar crashes worldwide kill every year much more people than the last major nuclear power plant incident of the Western world did --- BTW, when and where was it, I don't recall? Should we ban using cars then? Of course not, we should build safer cars and enforce stricter safe driving rules --- and that's exactly what we do.
So far terrorists have successfully attacked airports and railway/subway stations. Should we shut them down then? Of course not, we should enforce stricter security rules and checks --- and that's exactly what we do.
Yet when it comes to nuclear power plants, where the incidents are far and few between, the way to go is not to build safer ones and enforce stricter safety rules, but to shut them down altogether. Is this logical / scientific / intellectually honest?
It's a lot easier to ban things than to take the time to perfect them. After all, it requires disciplined thinking to perfect stuff; who wants to go to all that trouble? Just ban them! ::) Intellectually honest? I think not. :(
8)
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 09, 2015, 09:05:58 AM
Aaaanyway, is Trump running?
Only if he can get that thing on his head to sit still long enough... :D
8)
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 09:21:53 AM
I'm assuming you have more evidence than the article you cite for this rather confidently stated position, because that article in no way demonstrates the assertion. What it does claim is that in California (only), the largest concentrations of anti-vaxxers seem to be in areas that voted democrat (despite its first example being from Orange County). However, it says nothing about the actual political views of the anti-vaxxers--we don't know whether they fit the political profile of the larger community. They might, of course, but they also might not. It seems to me that areas that vote democratic (which will be more common in CA anyway) will also have the most concentrated and diverse populations, and will certainly include many extreme right-wing religions and other groups. But even if we were to grant that it skews that way in CA, that leaves a whole lot of the rest of the country to consider.
As I mentioned above, the only really prominent political figures who have embraced the idea (that I am aware of) are Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul. If it were really a mainly left-wing movement, one would think that democrats would find it to their advantage to embrace it--but as far as I know, none have. Again, just anecdotally, among my social media circle, it is generally perceived as a Fox News driven issue. This may not be entirely accurate, but anti-vax is most certainly not something that has been embraced by the left in any public way in the way it has by the right.
You are correct. Research/studies/surveys show that there is really not much difference across parties, looking at the country as a whole.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/)
http://mic.com/articles/109806/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-anti-vaxxers-isn-t-disease-it-s-politicians (http://mic.com/articles/109806/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-anti-vaxxers-isn-t-disease-it-s-politicians)
Christie also made some comments similar to Rand, but then back-tracked. In any case, a great majority of national politicians came out in support of vaccination, both Democrats and Republicans.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 09:53:16 AM
Him too. No righty there! :)
Shh, it's a right-wing, Fox News-driven thing.
The stats from Pew, which serve as the basis for all three links immediately above, indicate that it is younger parents who are more likely to favor vaccine "choice." In other words, those who have never lived with widespread, preventable communicable diseases are more likely to think prevention unnecessary. That is unwise.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 09:20:24 AM
Some might conclude that what it "looks like" is therefore strongly determined by what you select to read.
PS. Was it you who recently expressed reluctance to click on a link to a site you didn't know? Someone here did. (Dissent cooties.)
That was me, but it was absolutely not because I don't want to be exposed to alternative points of view--as you know, I more than welcome people to cut-and-paste the content from such sites. I worry more about trojans, as well as targeted advertizing, etc. Those concerns may not be warranted, but I am not knowledgeable enough about internet security to feel secure going on unknown or especially fringe sites (and that would include any political points of view).
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 09:52:38 AMOnly if he can get that thing on his head to sit still long enough... :D
Are foxes trainable? 8)
https://www.youtube.com/v/iWuv2txl_5M
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 10:19:07 AM
Shh, it's a right-wing, Fox News-driven thing.
The stats from Pew, which serve as the basis for all three links immediately above, indicate that it is younger parents who are more likely to favor vaccine "choice." In other words, those who have never lived with widespread, preventable communicable diseases are more likely to think prevention unnecessary. That is unwise.
Is the sarcasm necessary? I admitted that it was my perception based only on anecdotal experience; I am certainly open to changing it. I had no idea about RFK, Jr. I just looked it up. Why is this not as well known as the Michelle Bachmann incident? Possibly "liberal media bias"--but I suspect it's more likely due to the fact that he's not currently running for president, as I believe she was at the time she made her comments. On the other hand, it sounds like he is more deeply committed to the position than she ever seemed to be.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 10:50:28 AMOn the other hand, it sounds like he is more deeply committed to the position than she ever seemed to be.
Is that supposed to be a good thing?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 09, 2015, 09:58:35 AM
You are correct. Research/studies/surveys show that there is really not much difference across parties, looking at the country as a whole.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/)
http://mic.com/articles/109806/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-anti-vaxxers-isn-t-disease-it-s-politicians (http://mic.com/articles/109806/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-anti-vaxxers-isn-t-disease-it-s-politicians)
Christie also made some comments similar to Rand, but then back-tracked. In any case, a great majority of national politicians came out in support of vaccination, both Democrats and Republicans.
Thank you. This is the sort of data I was expecting Ken to provide--national surveys that actual provide specific demographic breakdowns--because he sounded so absolutely certain of his factual claim. Interestingly, the Pew survey suggests that while there were basically no party differences in 2009, in 2014 it appears that both Republicans and Independents are significantly less likely than Democrats to believe that vaccines should be required. Some of that could be libertarian antipathy to
anything being required by the government, but it certainly suggests that the characterization of the anti-vax movement as definitively skewing left is misleading at best, and flat out wrong at worst.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 10:53:52 AM
Is that supposed to be a good thing?
No, it is supposed to be a bad thing (from my perspective); I was trying to acknowledge that the other side might have a point. (something I wish were more commonly done).
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 10:50:28 AM
Is the sarcasm necessary? I admitted that it was my perception based only on anecdotal experience; I am certainly open to changing it. I had no idea about RFK, Jr. I just looked it up. Why is this not as well known as the Michelle Bachmann incident? Possibly "liberal media bias"--but I suspect it's more likely due to the fact that he's not currently running for president, as I believe she was at the time she made her comments. On the other hand, it sounds like he is more deeply committed to the position than she ever seemed to be.
I don't think he is running for anything at all. Bachmann was a moron, her stand on ths issue was only tangential to the overall Big Michelle Picture. It didn't take any sort of bias at all; at the time that was all taking place, I was still among those who would vote in the Republican primary, but I sure as hell wasn't going to be voting for her!
8)
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 08:37:00 AM
Frankly, I don't see much difference between rejecting science in the name of religion and selectively using, or actively misusing, science in the name of ideology.
Car crashes worldwide kill every year much more people than the last major nuclear power plant incident of the Western world did --- BTW, when and where was it, I don't recall? Should we ban using cars then? Of course not, we should build safer cars and enforce stricter safe driving rules --- and that's exactly what we do.
So far terrorists have successfully attacked airports and railway/subway stations. Should we shut them down then? Of course not, we should enforce stricter security rules and checks --- and that's exactly what we do.
Yet when it comes to nuclear power plants, where the incidents are far and few between, the way to go is not to build safer ones and enforce stricter safety rules, but to shut them down altogether. Is this logical / scientific / intellectually honest?
First, I personally am open to the idea of nuclear power, so I'm not arguing my own position here. But I do not think the anti-nuclear arguments involve a denial of science. The difference I see between the situations you mention (that is, the vulnerablitlity of an airport to terrorist attack versus that of a nuclear power plant) is that the consequences of an exploded nuclear power plant could last generations or longer (and I believe this is based on science, though I may be misinformed). It isn't simply a matter of who might be killed at the time of the incident, but poisoning the entire area irreversibly. That doesn't happen with an airport attack (unless it's attacked with nuclear weapons). So the issue is not about the likelihood of an accident as much as the potential consequences of an accident. While I'm even less sympathetic to the anti-GMO people, I think they are concerned that unintended consequences could be irreversible as well. It's not so much a denial of the truth of the science that is currently available, but a sense that it is incomplete. Often, scientists are quite upfront about the limits of their knowledge--for example, we know that certain food additives are safe in the short-term, but we often do not know what the longer term effects might be. Vaccinations, on the other hand, have been demonstrably saving lives for many generations now. To me, it is not a good comparison. I won't call it intellectually dishonest, because I believe in your intellectual honesty, even though I disagree with you. I'd enjoy the same courtesy in return.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 11:26:07 AM
I don't think he is running for anything at all. Bachmann was a moron, her stand on ths issue was only tangential to the overall Big Michelle Picture. It didn't take any sort of bias at all; at the time that was all taking place, I was still among those who would vote in the Republican primary, but I sure as hell wasn't going to be voting for her!
8)
I believe you! I was pleased that she didn't do well in the primaries (except in Iowa, which was kind of scary). One thing I've found illuminating about these political discussions here, is that you, Todd, and Ken all seem to be centrist (or at least independent) libertarians, yet you usually disagree just as vehemently with one another as with those on the left or right. It's kind of refreshing to see that, in a way--I tended to think libertarians had a more unified/consistent outlook than lefties and righties, so these discussions give me a good sense of just some of the varieties of that line of thinking.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 11:37:30 AM
I believe you! I was pleased that she didn't do well in the primaries (except in Iowa, which was kind of scary). One thing I've found illuminating about these political discussions here, is that you, Todd, and Ken all seem to be centrist (or at least independent) libertarians, yet you usually disagree just as vehemently with one another as with those on the left or right. It's kind of refreshing to see that, in a way--I tended to think libertarians had a more unified/consistent outlook than lefties and righties, so these discussions give me a good sense of just some of the varieties of that line of thinking.
:) Well, I truly AM centrist: I despise left wingnuts at least as much as I do right wingnuts! I think one of the reasons centrist candidates struggle is because it is hard to define where the center is. It's easy to be a frootloop out on the fringe, but the middle is tough territory to stake out, because now you are actually talking issues, not just slinging rhetoric. I've about decided though, if I am going to get represented, I'll have to do it myself. I wonder if they would just let me sit in.... :D
8)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 09, 2015, 09:48:18 AM
Three Mile Island was the worst example in the US.
Thanks.
FWIW:
Quote from: Wikipedia
The health effects of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident are widely, but not universally, agreed to be very low level. According to the official radioactivity release figures, average local radiation exposure was equivalent to a chest X-ray, and maximum local exposure equivalent to less than a year's background radiation. Local activism based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of studies have been unable to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects, but a debate remains about some key data (such as the amount of radioactivity released, and where it went) and gaps in the literature.[1]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects)
The very few, and largely inconsequential, accidents that happened in the history of Western European and North American nuclear power plants do not warrant in any way their shutdown, much less banning any further NPP from being built.
Re global heating: scientists are not divided about it, they are divided about whether it is caused primarily by human activity, or by natural causes/cycles.
What is interesting, though, is that most leftists are also ecologists and most ecologists are also leftists. ;D ;D ;D
But given that I am a selfish, rich, cold-hearted, war-mongering, right-winger religious nut, I might be biased. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 11:27:21 AM
To me, it is not a good comparison. I won't call it intellectually dishonest, because I believe in your intellectual honesty, even though I disagree with you. I'd enjoy the same courtesy in return.
I certainly wasn´t refering to you personally, and the fact that you formulated it as a question rather than a statement showed me very clear that you were not a rigid ideologue but a person open to arguments and opposing views.
I´m not even sure that we disagree on the essential matters. :D
I don't necessarily agree about Three Mile Island: I think the ongoing disposal issues at the weapons manufacturing facility in Hanford Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site) will be far worse in the long run. Of course, this isn't a power generating station, but 3MI is a drop in the bucket. :(
I only point this out because a lot of the resistance to nuclear power is based, not on nuclear power per se, but on how we have handled other nuclear issues to date. The answer to that is that we have handled them very poorly, and so why should we suddenly believe we will handle them well from now on? There is more to the nuclear power issue than nuclear power!
PS: I am completely in favor of nuclear power, but I have trouble believing we won't screw the pooch also. :-\
8)
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 11:51:50 AM
The very few, and largely inconsequential, accidents that happened in the history of Western European and North American nuclear power plants do not warrant in any way their shutdown, much less banning any further NPP from being built.
Re global heating: scientists are not divided about it, they are divided about whether it is caused primarily by human activity, or by natural causes/cycles.
What is interesting, though, is that most leftists are also ecologists and most ecologists are also leftists. ;D ;D ;D
But given that I am a selfish, rich, cold-hearted, war-mongering, right-winger religious nut, I might be biased. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I'm really not following your logic here (and it has nothing to do with whatever ideology I might perceive you to have). You seem to be saying that unless a major nuclear disaster has occurred--in that specific country(!!!)--we can safely assume that no major disaster can or will occur in the future. The problem with that logic is that Russia could have made the same case the day before Chernobyl, and Japan could have made the same case the day before Fukushima. To me it's more logical to think "if it happened there (and, we must remember, Japan is not exactly a third world country known for laxity or lack of technological prowess), it could happen here," than "Well, since it just recently happened there but hasn't happened here yet, it clearly cannot happen here." It makes no sense to me. How am I misunderstanding your reasoning?
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 11:58:29 AM
I certainly wasn´t refering to you personally, and the fact that you formulated it as a question rather than a statement showed me very clear that you were not a rigid ideologue but a person open to arguments and opposing views.
I´m not even sure that we disagree on the essential matters. :D
OK, thanks. Sorry I misunderstood. :)
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 11:37:30 AM
I believe you! I was pleased that she didn't do well in the primaries (except in Iowa, which was kind of scary). One thing I've found illuminating about these political discussions here, is that you, Todd, and Ken all seem to be centrist (or at least independent) libertarians, yet you usually disagree just as vehemently with one another as with those on the left or right.
Although I´m not a libertarian
stricto sensu (and I doubt the three gentlemen you mentioned are, too), I am mostly in agreement with them, my frequent polemics with Todd notwithstanding. :D
Quote
It's kind of refreshing to see that, in a way--I tended to think libertarians had a more unified/consistent outlook than lefties and righties, so these discussions give me a good sense of just some of the varieties of that line of thinking.
Lefties and righties are all the same --- they all pledge their allegiance to an ideology; they differ only in their choice of the respective ideology. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 11:51:50 AM
Thanks.
FWIW:
Quote from: Wikipedia
The health effects of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident are widely, but not universally, agreed to be very low level. According to the official radioactivity release figures, average local radiation exposure was equivalent to a chest X-ray, and maximum local exposure equivalent to less than a year's background radiation. Local activism based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of studies have been unable to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects, but a debate remains about some key data (such as the amount of radioactivity released, and where it went) and gaps in the literature.[1]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects)
The very few, and largely inconsequential, accidents that happened in the history of Western European and North American nuclear power plants do not warrant in any way their shutdown, much less banning any further NPP from being built.
Re global heating: scientists are not divided about it, they are divided about whether it is caused primarily by human activity, or by natural causes/cycles.
What is interesting, though, is that most leftists are also ecologists and most ecologists are also leftists. ;D ;D ;D
But given that I am a selfish, rich, cold-hearted, war-mongering, right-winger religious nut, I might be biased. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
In the 80-90's there was a power plant on Long Island that was planned to be put into operation (Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant), but never went into operation (though it was fully built). Keeping in mind the Three Mile Island incident and Chernobyl later on, there was a lot of fear. On the other hand, because of Three Mile Island, there had to be an evacuation plan. Imagine 3m+ residents all fleeing in one direction, mostly using 3 main highways and other east-west local roads, all to get to the bridges of NYC, a huge bottleneck on a good day. Not to mention that Long Island uses water from the water table, which is quite close to the surface, so even relatively minor incidents could impact the water usage for millions. It was a stupid idea to put a nuclear power plant in such a place (in some of the most densely populated areas of the US, on an island with limited exits, etc.). But it shaped the opinion of many Americans who lives in the general vicinity (outside NY/NYC as well, after all, Connecticut was visible across the Long Island Sound to give you an idea of how close it was).
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 11:26:07 AMI don't think he is running for anything at all.
He doesn't have to. He's a Kennedy offspring, and of one of the best of them, and by those very facts, and his penchant for publicity seeking, he's a lefty of note.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 12:01:27 PMI think the ongoing disposal issues at the weapons manufacturing facility in Hanford Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site) will be far worse in the long run.
Hanford is a dream gig for many contractors. Some estimates of final decommissioning timelines are pegged at over 70 more years. Incidentally, Hanford is where vitrification was scaled up and "perfected". One of my relatives is making his career there. I want to get on board that gravy train somehow . . .
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 12:13:29 PM
He doesn't have to. He's a Kennedy offspring, and of one of the best of them, and by those very facts, and his penchant for publicity seeking, he's a lefty of note.
Hanford is a dream gig for many contractors. Some estimates of final decommissioning timelines are pegged at over 70 more years. Incidentally, Hanford is where vitrification was scaled up and "perfected". One of my relatives is making his career there. I want to get on board that gravy train somehow . . .
Oh, it was major and important, no doubt. We needed it then, but it's aftermath haunts us today. I think the Columbia River is major and important too, and that's without even being a tree-hugger! Hell, if you can contribute anything of value to stopping that ongoing nightmare, I hope you can climb aboard too. All I have in good supply is sarcasm, and apparently they have plenty of that for now... ;)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 11:50:17 AM
:) Well, I truly AM centrist: I despise left wingnuts at least as much as I do right wingnuts! I think one of the reasons centrist candidates struggle is because it is hard to define where the center is. It's easy to be a frootloop out on the fringe, but the middle is tough territory to stake out, because now you are actually talking issues, not just slinging rhetoric. I've about decided though, if I am going to get represented, I'll have to do it myself. I wonder if they would just let me sit in.... :D
8)
Hmmm..can we expect an announcement soon? ;)
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 12:03:32 PM
I'm really not following your logic here (and it has nothing to do with whatever ideology I might perceive you to have). You seem to be saying that unless a major nuclear disaster has occurred--in that specific country(!!!)--we can safely assume that no major disaster can or will occur in the future. The problem with that logic is that Russia could have made the same case the day before Chernobyl, and Japan could have made the same case the day before Fukushima. To me it's more logical to think "if it happened there (and, we must remember, Japan is not exactly a third world country known for laxity or lack of technological prowess), it could happen here," than "Well, since it just recently happened there but hasn't happened here yet, it clearly cannot happen here." It makes no sense to me. How am I misunderstanding your reasoning?
I´m not saying "It can never happen!". Shit happens everytime and everywhere. But if the only criterion for assessing the necessity / utility of a certain technology had been just how risky it was, then we would have still dwelled in caves, with no fire-heating at all, let alone bow-and-arrows hunting.
We must decide: do we want cheap power and heating? Are we willing to take the risks associated with them? Do the advantages outbalance the risks? I believe that the answer to all these questions is yes --- but of course YMMV.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 12:17:17 PMI think the Columbia River is major and important too, and that's without even being a tree-hugger!
Me, too, but mostly because the biggest chunk of my cheap electricity is generated by the mighty Columbia.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 09, 2015, 12:10:01 PM
In the 80-90's there was a power plant on Long Island that was planned to be put into operation (Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant), but never went into operation (though it was fully built). Keeping in mind the Three Mile Island incident and Chernobyl later on, there was a lot of fear. On the other hand, because of Three Mile Island, there had to be an evacuation plan. Imagine 3m+ residents all fleeing in one direction, mostly using 3 main highways and other east-west local roads, all to get to the bridges of NYC, a huge bottleneck on a good day. Not to mention that Long Island uses water from the water table, which is quite close to the surface, so even relatively minor incidents could impact the water usage for millions. It was a stupid idea to put a nuclear power plant in such a place (in some of the most densely populated areas of the US, on an island with limited exits, etc.). But it shaped the opinion of many Americans who lives in the general vicinity (outside NY/NYC as well, after all, Connecticut was visible across the Long Island Sound to give you an idea of how close it was).
This proves only that the location of a nuclear power plant must be carefully considered --- not that it should not be built at all.
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 12:24:43 PM
This proves only that the location of a nuclear power plant must be carefully considered --- not that it should not be built at all.
I don't disagree, but the event (and unlucky timing) made it hard to consider ANY new such plants in the area. Would have been political suicide.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 09, 2015, 12:26:42 PM
I don't disagree, but the event (and unlucky timing) made it hard to consider ANY new such plants in the area. Would have been political suicide.
Politics poisons everything it touches. The most frightful aspect of modernity is the politicization of everything. One cannot anymore fart at one´s own ease in the privacy of one´s own home without being accused of supporting, or not supporting, certain policy by the mere fact of farting. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 12:32:32 PMOne cannot anymore fart at one´s own ease in the privacy of one´s own home without being accused of supporting, or not supporting, certain policy by the mere fact of farting.
Everyone knows what I stand for when I engage in such behavior: Isolationism.
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 12:32:32 PM
Politics poisons everything it touches. The most frightful aspect of modernity is the politicization of everything. One cannot anymore fart at one´s own ease in the privacy of one´s own home without being accused of supporting, or not supporting, certain policy by the mere fact of farting. ;D ;D ;D
You rightist bastard: contributing to global warming!! >:( :D
8)
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 12:39:22 PM
Everyone knows what I stand for when I engage in such behavior: Isolationism.
I was actually talking about real farting. Mental farting is quite another thing. ;D ; :P >:D
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 11:51:50 AMRe global heating: scientists are not divided about it, they are divided about whether it is caused primarily by human activity, or by natural causes/cycles.
No, they're not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)
QuoteWhat is interesting, though, is that most leftists are also ecologists and most ecologists are also leftists. ;D ;D ;D
Protecting the environment = intervention. Ecologists by definition have to lean away from the 'free market über alles' line of thinking.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 12:40:06 PM
You rightist bastard: contributing to global warming!! >:( :D
8)
Global warming is a leftist hoax, so there. ;D ; :P >:D
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 12:43:50 PM
Global warming is a leftist hoax, so there. ;D ; :P >:D
I know, I started it! :P :P
8)
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 09, 2015, 12:43:33 PM
No, they're not:
Okay.
Quote
Protecting the environment = intervention. Ecologists by definition have to lean away from the 'free market über alles' line of thinking.
I was refering more to LGBTABCDEFGetcetcetc, abortion-at-ones-own-ease, dead-white-European-males, rape culture and the likes than
laissez-faire, which never happened anywhere, btw. ;D
I´m not against protecting the environment. I´m against using the protection of the environment as a tool to promote other issues that have got nothing at all to do with it.
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 12:09:31 PM
Although I´m not a libertarian stricto sensu (and I doubt the three gentlemen you mentioned are, too), I am mostly in agreement with them, my frequent polemics with Todd notwithstanding. :D
Lefties and righties are all the same --- they all pledge their allegiance to an ideology; they differ only in their choice of the respective ideology. ;D ;D ;D
Sort of like libertarians or Catholics, then! ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 12:50:19 PM
Okay.
I´m not against protecting the environment. I´m against using the protection of the environment as a tool to promote other issues that have got nothing at all to do with it.
What, politics don't make strange bedfellows in Romania? Of course, over here, being environmentally concerned automatically makes you a godless fu**ing commie, so you have that to deal with. You will end up lumped in with the transgender abortionists whether you are one or not if you just like trees, fish or birds (as something other than targets, that is). So you might as well make the most of it. :)
8)
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2015, 12:20:47 PM
I´m not saying "It can never happen!". Shit happens everytime and everywhere. But if the only criterion for assessing the necessity / utility of a certain technology had been just how risky it was, then we would have still dwelled in caves, with no fire-heating at all, let alone bow-and-arrows hunting.
We must decide: do we want cheap power and heating? Are we willing to take the risks associated with them? Do the advantages outbalance the risks? I believe that the answer to all these questions is yes --- but of course YMMV.
As you said above, I think we are substantially in agreement here. However, what you described is what I would call a risk-benefit assessment, and I think people should be able to come to different conclusions from you or me about where they are willing to draw that line without being labeled "anti-science" or "intellectually dishonest." Most anti-nuclear power arguments I have heard are not anti-science at all, but interpret the science as suggesting, perhaps even demanding, a need to proceed with extreme caution. They feel that those who are in favor of nuclear plants haven't taken the science seriously enough. It's actually what I would call a "lower-case-c conservative" position--they understand and accept the science, and aren't willing to accept the risks associated with certain courses of action.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 01:45:14 PMMost anti-nuclear power arguments I have heard are not anti-science at all, but interpret the science as suggesting, perhaps even demanding, a need to proceed with extreme caution.
This sentence is confusing. Are you saying that anti-nuclear advocates recognize that there is scientific validity to nuclear power, and that nuclear power can be safely generated, provided it is done properly - ie, with extreme caution - but that such advocates reject nuclear power anyway? If so, how would the rejection not be anti-science? The implication is that the level of risk could never be low enough for anti-nuclear activists.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 02:16:36 PM
This sentence is confusing. Are you saying that anti-nuclear advocates recognize that there is scientific validity to nuclear power, and that nuclear power can be safely generated, provided it is done properly - ie, with extreme caution - but that such advocates reject nuclear power anyway? If so, how would the rejection not be anti-science? The implication is that the level of risk could never be low enough for anti-nuclear activists.
I thought that was answered by another poster--the key may be "provided it is done properly." The anti-nuclear folks I know (who may or may not be representative of the larger category) keep up with the science, and would be thrilled if they were convinced that a foolproof way to implement nuclear power in this country had been devised. I can't speak to what the sticking points are, as it it is well outside my area of expertise, but now that I think of it, many of the people I am thinking of are scientists themselves (as they are the ones most likely to follow the debates closely enough to have strong opinions on the subject). Often, they think that nuclear power is necessary to survive in the future, but are very concerned that we have not yet reached the point where we could "do it properly."
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 02:36:44 PMThe anti-nuclear folks I know (who may or may not be representative of the larger category) keep up with the science, and would be thrilled if they were convinced that a foolproof way to implement nuclear power in this country had been devised.
Then these arguments against nuclear power basically move into at least the
ascientific realm. A word like "foolproof" is just a nice-sounding way of taking what amounts to an absolutist position. Foolproof basically equates with either no risk or a level of risk that cannot be obtained. Nuclear power, like anything else, involves risk management, which you mentioned earlier, and as assuredly as there may be small-c conservatives who don't take risk seriously enough, there are people on the other side who will hold that any level of risk is too high.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 09:21:53 AM
As I mentioned above, the only really prominent political figures who have embraced the idea (that I am aware of) are Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul. If it were really a mainly left-wing movement, one would think that democrats would find it to their advantage to embrace it--but as far as I know, none have. Again, just anecdotally, among my social media circle, it is generally perceived as a Fox News driven issue. This may not be entirely accurate, but anti-vax is most certainly not something that has been embraced by the left in any public way in the way it has by the right.
A quick google indicated the recent anti-vax (not just anti-mandate) U.S. Representatives include:
Bill Posey (R-FL)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Dan Burton (R-IN, since retired)
Dave Weldon (R-FL, since retired, replaced by Posey)
With Darrell Issa (R-CA) flirting with it.
Mother Jones, talkingpointsmemo, vox, huffingtonpost, and thinkprogress are all pro-vaccine as far as I can tell.
Frankly it's a fringe issue among politicians and the general public.
Whereas here in Texas, our new Lt. Gov (historically regarded as the most powerful politician in the state), Dan Patrick, said this:
"Our children must really be confused. We want them to go to school on Sunday and we teach them about Jesus Christ and then they go to school on Monday—they can't pray they can't learn about creationism. They must really be confused. When it comes to creationism, not only should it be taught, it should be triumphed, it should be heralded."
At least one U.S. Senator (Daines) and a couple of Republican Presidential candidates (Santorum, Jindal) have also explicitly supported teaching Creationism in school. Granted, those two candidates are longshots, but if RFK, Jr. counts as a prominent liberal then surely all of Patrick, Daines, Santorum, and Jindal are prominent conservatives.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 02:36:44 PM
I thought that was answered by another poster--the key may be "provided it is done properly." The anti-nuclear folks I know (who may or may not be representative of the larger category) keep up with the science, and would be thrilled if they were convinced that a foolproof way to implement nuclear power in this country had been devised. I can't speak to what the sticking points are, as it it is well outside my area of expertise, but now that I think of it, many of the people I am thinking of are scientists themselves (as they are the ones most likely to follow the debates closely enough to have strong opinions on the subject). Often, they think that nuclear power is necessary to survive in the future, but are very concerned that we have not yet reached the point where we could "do it properly."
I'm with Todd on this. "Foolproof" is an impossible standard that is not met by any form of energy conversion. Nuclear is relatively safe, but when something goes wrong, it's bigger news. Many more people die of coal-related causes, but they do so one at a time. There's no story there.
Sort of like how when 7 people die in a train crash, it's national news with a Congressional inquiry, but automotive deaths in the U.S. are around 30,000 annually, and hardly anybody talks about that.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 02:50:45 PM
Then these arguments against nuclear power basically move into at least the ascientific realm. A word like "foolproof" is just a nice-sounding way of taking what amounts to an absolutist position. Foolproof basically equates with either no risk or a level of risk that cannot be obtained. Nuclear power, like anything else, involves risk management, which you mentioned earlier, and as assuredly as there may be small-c conservatives who don't take risk seriously enough, there are people on the other side who will hold that any level of risk is too high.
Yes, but I see no reason to take your personal assessment of the risk/benefit ratio to be pro-science and that of someone who disagrees with you as anti-science. The scientists who take the position I described might consider your acceptance of these particular risks to be in denial of the science on the possible consequences. I am not personally taking a position on which side is right, but I think it's self-serving for a nuclear power advocate to assume its critics are anti-science, just as it would be for them to make that assumption of you. Equating a particular use of a particular technology, on a particular timeable, with "science"
tout court is the fallacy I'm seeing here. I could be wrong on this, but I've hardly seen this as a situation of nearly all the physicists on the one side, pitted against activists and politicians on the other--if that is, in fact, the case, I'll grant your point. But it seems to me simply an issue of intense controversy among scientists, among politicians, among competing economic interests, etc., where no one side can claim the sole imprimatur of "science."
By the way, by "small c conservatives," I meant conservatism in the most abstract sense, detached from any partisan political implications, which I understand to be concerned with protection from potential danger and caution in relation to change. I'm saying that the anti-nuke position is conservative in this sense, though not in the political one. They are conservative (in a non-political sense) about moving forward with something they see as extremely risky if not done perfectly.
Quote from: Pat B on June 09, 2015, 03:35:42 PM
I'm with Todd on this. "Foolproof" is an impossible standard that is not met by any form of energy conversion. Nuclear is relatively safe, but when something goes wrong, it's bigger news. Many more people die of coal-related causes, but they do so one at a time. There's no story there.
Sort of like how when 7 people die in a train crash, it's national news with a Congressional inquiry, but automotive deaths in the U.S. are around 30,000 annually, and hardly anybody talks about that.
Good points. What you are saying probably comes closest to describing my own personal position, but to continue defending what I believe to be a reasonable (and not in any way anti-scientific) counter position, I believe the concerns about nuclear accidents involve potential contamination on a much larger, more long-lasting, and perhaps less controllable scale, than those of other forms of energy extraction (and actually, it seems to me that a lot of anti-nuclear folks are also anti-coal, but that a different debate). There is a sense among some that the full impact of a really serious accident may not be understood by some on the pro-nuclear side, who they see as being in denial or at least engaged in wishful thinking, both that we won't manage to screw it up in a major way, and that the impact won't be devastating. They seem to think the point Florestan made earlier--that if we always used that standard of caution, we'd still be living in caves--fails to understand the nuclear science involved. They feel that the damage possible is on a completely different scale from that of any previous type of technology. And frankly, I find it hard to come up with examples to support that (rhetorical) claim about living in caves--how would inventions like the printing press, reinforced concrete, or the steam engine be seen as posing risks equivalent to nuclear disasters?
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 10:50:28 AM
Is the sarcasm necessary? I admitted that it was my perception based only on anecdotal experience; I am certainly open to changing it. I had no idea about RFK, Jr. I just looked it up. Why is this not as well known as the Michelle Bachmann incident? Possibly "liberal media bias"--but I suspect it's more likely due to the fact that he's not currently running for president, as I believe she was at the time she made her comments. On the other hand, it sounds like he is more deeply committed to the position than she ever seemed to be.
I felt that pointing out RFK Jr was involved in this was a bit like pointing out FDR was involved in the New Deal. My error.
Bachmann is in no sense prominent except as she was made so briefly by the media looking for an easy ( very easy) target, and she saw a chance for her 15 minutes. In a poll of Tea Partiers for instance, with whom is she is often misleadingly cast, she placed dead last in a straw poll. She is a religious and social conservative, and a fanatic on abortion. (She couldn't even do well in her own state when she ran for
publicity president. )These are not tea party issues.
Quote from: Pat B on June 09, 2015, 03:20:24 PM
A quick google indicated the recent anti-vax (not just anti-mandate) U.S. Representatives include:
Bill Posey (R-FL)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Dan Burton (R-IN, since retired)
Dave Weldon (R-FL, since retired, replaced by Posey)
With Darrell Issa (R-CA) flirting with it.
Mother Jones, talkingpointsmemo, vox, huffingtonpost, and thinkprogress are all pro-vaccine as far as I can tell.
Frankly it's a fringe issue among politicians and the general public.
Whereas here in Texas, our new Lt. Gov (historically regarded as the most powerful politician in the state), Dan Patrick, said this:
"Our children must really be confused. We want them to go to school on Sunday and we teach them about Jesus Christ and then they go to school on Monday—they can't pray they can't learn about creationism. They must really be confused. When it comes to creationism, not only should it be taught, it should be triumphed, it should be heralded."
At least one U.S. Senator (Daines) and a couple of Republican Presidential candidates (Santorum, Jindal) have also explicitly supported teaching Creationism in school. Granted, those two candidates are longshots, but if RFK, Jr. counts as a prominent liberal then surely all of Patrick, Daines, Santorum, and Jindal are prominent conservatives.
Over the past few years HuffPo has been a hotbed of antivax. They may have reformed more recently.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 09, 2015, 09:58:35 AM
You are correct. Research/studies/surveys show that there is really not much difference across parties, looking at the country as a whole.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/)
http://mic.com/articles/109806/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-anti-vaxxers-isn-t-disease-it-s-politicians (http://mic.com/articles/109806/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-anti-vaxxers-isn-t-disease-it-s-politicians)
Christie also made some comments similar to Rand, but then back-tracked. In any case, a great majority of national politicians came out in support of vaccination, both Democrats and Republicans.
Ok. This is exactly the sort of nonsense I tried to head off
Gurn. The Pew poll is about a policy, not about acceptance or rejection of the science. There are many bad reasons to support "choice" in vaccinations, such as being reflexively pro "choice", or lacking experience, or vicarious experience of elders, about diseases.
Support for abortion does not imply rejection of the science about fetal viability does it? Policy disagreement does not mean ignorance.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 09, 2015, 03:36:11 PMYes, but I see no reason to take your personal assessment of the risk/benefit ratio to be pro-science and that of someone who disagrees with you as anti-science.
In my last post, I used the word ascientific, to differentiate it from anti-scientific. Anti-scientific anti-nuclear activists and others tend to rely on old-fashioned scare tactics (Chernobyl!!! Birth defects!!! Unsafe drinking water!!!) and similar tactics, whereas what you described in the post I replied to involved using scientific evidence as the basis for opposing the use of nuclear power, but ultimately coming to an anti-nuclear conclusion based at last in significant part on non-scientific ideas or concerns, in this case a
perception of risk, which is clearly informed by things other than statistical probability.
Of course, a big non-scientific reason I am pro-nuclear is that I know the practical reality of electricity generation in the US today, and in other countries, and what that means. Roughly 20% of total electricity in the US is produced by nuclear power plants. Going non-nuclear would require a huge investment in other sources of electricity generation, and renewable sources cannot make up the current levels produced by nuclear in any short or medium period of time. A country like France, with over 70% of its electricity coming from nuclear, would have it even worse. And is it a coincidence that France has one of the lowest per capita carbon emission levels in the developed world?
Nuclear power must be part of the energy mix in the coming decades and centuries. It should not, cannot become the main source of energy (there literally is not enough uranium to be mined), but if the US as a country, and the world as a whole, wants to move away from excessive reliance on carbon based fuels, other reliable, on-demand forms of electricity generation are needed to augment intermittent forms of electricity (eg, wind, solar). Nuclear power is actually quite safe, and it can be made safer. That seems like a laudable goal to me.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 04:08:02 PM
Over the past few years HuffPo has been a hotbed of antivax. They may have reformed more recently.
Could be. I don't frequent that site. I googled (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:huffingtonpost.com+vaccine) it, read a few of the articles (like this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/utibe-effiong/breaking-the-silence-on-autism-and-vaccines_b_6846586.html)), and got the impression that they were pro-vax, but closer to neutral than several of the other sites I mentioned. But my analysis wasn't scientific. ;)
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 04:52:16 PM
In my last post, I used the word ascientific, to differentiate it from anti-scientific. Anti-scientific anti-nuclear activists and others tend to rely on old-fashioned scare tactics (Chernobyl!!! Birth defects!!! Unsafe drinking water!!!) and similar tactics, whereas what you described in the post I replied to involved using scientific evidence as the basis for opposing the use of nuclear power, but ultimately coming to an anti-nuclear conclusion based at last in significant part on non-scientific ideas or concerns, in this case a perception of risk, which is clearly informed by things other than statistical probability.
Of course, a big non-scientific reason I am pro-nuclear is that I know the practical reality of electricity generation in the US today, and in other countries, and what that means. Roughly 20% of total electricity in the US is produced by nuclear power plants. Going non-nuclear would require a huge investment in other sources of electricity generation, and renewable sources cannot make up the current levels produced by nuclear in any short or medium period of time. A country like France, with over 70% of its electricity coming from nuclear, would have it even worse. And is it a coincidence that France has one of the lowest per capita carbon emission levels in the developed world?
Nuclear power must be part of the energy mix in the coming decades and centuries. It should not, cannot become the main source of energy (there literally is not enough uranium to be mined), but if the US as a country, and the world as a whole, wants to move away from excessive reliance on carbon based fuels, other reliable, on-demand forms of electricity generation are needed to augment intermittent forms of electricity (eg, wind, solar). Nuclear power is actually quite safe, and it can be made safer. That seems like a laudable goal to me.
I won't keep arguing about the first paragraph, and will just leave it at "fair enough." As to the rest, I agree with pretty much everything you say.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 04:20:07 PM
Ok. This is exactly the sort of nonsense I tried to head off Gurn. The Pew poll is about a policy, not about acceptance or rejection of the science. There are many bad reasons to support "choice" in vaccinations, such as being reflexively pro "choice", or lacking experience, or vicarious experience of elders, about diseases.
Support for abortion does not imply rejection of the science about fetal viability does it? Policy disagreement does not mean ignorance.
The question in this case was whether there was a difference across parties. And the data shows that the thinking about vaccines is broadly the same throughout the country regardless of parties.
If you have other data you feel is relevant, please share it with us.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2015, 04:52:16 PM
In my last post, I used the word ascientific, to differentiate it from anti-scientific. Anti-scientific anti-nuclear activists and others tend to rely on old-fashioned scare tactics (Chernobyl!!! Birth defects!!! Unsafe drinking water!!!) and similar tactics, whereas what you described in the post I replied to involved using scientific evidence as the basis for opposing the use of nuclear power, but ultimately coming to an anti-nuclear conclusion based at last in significant part on non-scientific ideas or concerns, in this case a perception of risk, which is clearly informed by things other than statistical probability.
Of course, a big non-scientific reason I am pro-nuclear is that I know the practical reality of electricity generation in the US today, and in other countries, and what that means. Roughly 20% of total electricity in the US is produced by nuclear power plants. Going non-nuclear would require a huge investment in other sources of electricity generation, and renewable sources cannot make up the current levels produced by nuclear in any short or medium period of time. A country like France, with over 70% of its electricity coming from nuclear, would have it even worse. And is it a coincidence that France has one of the lowest per capita carbon emission levels in the developed world?
Nuclear power must be part of the energy mix in the coming decades and centuries. It should not, cannot become the main source of energy (there literally is not enough uranium to be mined), but if the US as a country, and the world as a whole, wants to move away from excessive reliance on carbon based fuels, other reliable, on-demand forms of electricity generation are needed to augment intermittent forms of electricity (eg, wind, solar). Nuclear power is actually quite safe, and it can be made safer. That seems like a laudable goal to me.
A big + 1!
And the problem is bigger still, because usually environmental activism doesn't limit itself to nuclear power plants. Hydro power is not good, either, because dams are hurtful to beavers, trouts and eels; nor is wind power, because turbine fields spoil the landscape; ditto for solar panel fields; carbon-based fuels are already anathema --- what options are we left with, I wonder.
I'm certainly not the least bit anti-nuclear, but I do believe that the future (well within this century) will be solar, with buildings, vehicles, roads, etc coated in material gathering solar energy gaining importance as well as dedicated solar power plants.
The problem of nuclear waste is not "scientific" in the strict sense. Nobody critical of nuclear power doubts nuclear physics.
Maybe there is a solution (I do not know if everything can just be vitrified, I do not think so). The point is that it is very expensive to do it right because the sites have to be safe or be attended to literally for centuries. Similar things are true about sites of former nuclear plants and especially of blown-up plants like Chernobyl.
Some no-go-areas of nuclear pollution for millenia might not be such a problem in Siberia or the US desert. It certainly would be a fatal problem in densely populated Europe.
And the perfectionist and punctual Germans have already messed up one waste repository so I really do not want to think about future situations in "failing" countries where the stuff will just be dumped into some old mine or so with a decent probability of spoiling the water supply or so in some centuries hence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
I agree that e.g. the current German (rather coal (and the dirty low energy content brown stuff!) than nuclear) policy is schizophrenic because the waste problem is there anyway and we might as well run the plants that are already there as long as they can be run safely.
In the long run the only solution is to use MUCH less energy. Europeans use up about 3 times as much energy and ressources as the world average, Northern Americans five times. Probably the current average will not be sustainable but taking it as a goal, try to get along using only 20-30% of what is used now. I do not see any party seriously working in that direction. Even the Greens seem to believe that we could simply keep our lifestyle and just switch to solar and wind. Which is not possible for a variety of reasons.
One of the best internet sources for these things it the "Do the math" blog by a California physics professor.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 10, 2015, 01:54:20 AM
In the long run the only solution is to use MUCH less energy. [...] try to get along using only 20-30% of what is used now.
How can it be achieved?
Quote from: Florestan on June 10, 2015, 01:14:27 AMAnd the problem is bigger still, because usually environmental activism doesn't limit itself to nuclear power plants. Hydro power is not good, either, because dams are hurtful to beavers, trouts and eels; nor is wind power, because turbine fields spoil the landscape; ditto for solar panel fields; carbon-based fuels are already anathema --- what options are we left with, I wonder.
C'mon, aside from simplifying the problem (dams can be hurtful to the whole region, not just some cuddly animals), you're lumping together extremist views with the majority of clean energy advocates, who support a combination of renewables with long term focus on the development of solar power / batteries.
Quote from: Jo498In the long run the only solution is to use MUCH less energy.
In the long run, Sun. And in the meantime, wasting less energy.
Quote from: FlorestanHow can it be achieved?
Technology and sensible energy policies (e.g. subsidies for renewables, required energy efficiency of newly built buildings, curbing light pollution in cities).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 09, 2015, 08:59:01 PM
The question in this case was whether there was a difference across parties. And the data shows that the thinking about vaccines is broadly the same throughout the country regardless of parties.
If you have other data you feel is relevant, please share it with us.
No, the question was rejection of science. That is not the same thing as a policy decision. Since the Pew poll did not ask if vaccinations cause autism etc it does not address the point under dispute.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 10, 2015, 02:58:02 AM
Technology and sensible energy policies (e.g. subsidies for renewables, required energy efficiency of newly built buildings, curbing light pollution in cities).
Prices.
Quote from: Jo498 on June 10, 2015, 01:54:20 AMIn the long run the only solution is to use MUCH less energy.
Sensible, long term energy policy ought not to be overly focused on one or two solutions, so whenever I see a proclamation that the "only" solution is this or that, I know it's wrong.
The reality is that solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, carbon-based fuels, additional "alternative" sources (eg, geothermal, wave), combined with efficiency gains is the way forward.
Quote from: Florestan on June 10, 2015, 01:14:27 AMnor is wind power, because turbine fields spoil the landscape; ditto for solar panel fields;
With wind you forgot about birds. With solar, depending on where the arrays are, you must also consider lizards.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 10, 2015, 02:58:02 AMyou're lumping together extremist views with the majority of clean energy advocates, who support a combination of renewables with long term focus on the development of solar power / batteries.
No, he was addressing a known problem. In the US, "extremists" routinely use legal action to block construction of new projects to protect any number of critters that can be harmed by Big Wind and Big Solar. And no, I'm not making those labels up. Maybe in Europe, governments and companies bypass such groups with regularity, but in the US it is not so easy, unless a "national security" label is slapped on a project.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2015, 04:49:20 AM
No, the question was rejection of science. That is not the same thing as a policy decision. Since the Pew poll did not ask if vaccinations cause autism etc it does not address the point under dispute.
Let me refresh your memory - since this thread exploded yesterday. You said the anti-vaxxers skew left and then you linked to an article. Another poster contested that article since it only refers to California and is limited in scope. To answer whether they skew left or not, I posted a few links that show they do not in their broad approach to vaccination. I think this is enough to make general conclusions that the anti-vaxxers are not from one particular party or point of view (although another poster then pointed out that the biggest group against vaccines seemed to be the youngest group). Perhaps you do not agree. I was only concerned with the part of the discussion that addressed who anti-vaxxers are (from left or right, both, other, etc.).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 10, 2015, 06:56:43 AM
Let me refresh your memory - since this thread exploded yesterday. You said the anti-vaxxers skew left and then you linked to an article. Another poster contested that article since it only refers to California and is limited in scope. To answer whether they skew left or not, I posted a few links that show they do not in their broad approach to vaccination. I think this is enough to make general conclusions that the anti-vaxxers are not from one particular party or point of view (although another poster then pointed out that the biggest group against vaccines seemed to be the youngest group). Perhaps you do not agree. I was only concerned with the part of the discussion that addressed who anti-vaxxers are (from left or right, both, other, etc.).
Neal
Perhaps this is just a matter of wording. By anti-vaxxer I mean, as does every source I have seen btw, someone who questions the efficacy or safety of vaccines for non-scientific reasons. People who peddle autism stories or the like, or who deny vacccines even work. Your links talk about people who think parents should be able to choose whether their kids get vaccinated.
These are different issues. You can oppose mandatory vaccinations for
other reasons than rejecting the science.
Rinaldo started this with his "republicans are anti-science". I -- me, I, Ken B -- introduced vaxxers into the discussion with the observation that it depends on the science which side rejects which science. The context is clearly unambiguously about scince denial in re vaccines NOT about support or opposition to a particular program or law.
UPDATE. Neal. Let's say in the next year researchers agree that the death penalty is a deterrent. And let's say that even after learning that I oppose the death penalty. Does that imply I deny the evidence? No, it does not.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 10, 2015, 06:56:43 AM
Let me refresh your memory - since this thread exploded yesterday. You said the anti-vaxxers skew left and then you linked to an article. Another poster contested that article since it only refers to California and is limited in scope. To answer whether they skew left or not, I posted a few links that show they do not in their broad approach to vaccination. I think this is enough to make general conclusions that the anti-vaxxers are not from one particular party or point of view (although another poster then pointed out that the biggest group against vaccines seemed to be the youngest group). Perhaps you do not agree. I was only concerned with the part of the discussion that addressed who anti-vaxxers are (from left or right, both, other, etc.).
[NB--I wrote this before seeing Ken's response above, so apologies for any redundancy].
In Ken's defense, I understand his point here (and mentioned it in my own previous points about this study)--Ken is distinguishing between those who believe that vaccines are dangerous from those who may not believe that, but still do not think they should be mandated by the government. Because the study only concerns attitudes toward government mandated vaccination, he doesn't think it tells us anything about who he considers to be the "anti-science" anti-vaxxers. Leaving aside questions of whether epidemiologists might also be considered scientists rather than mere policy makers, I think he has a point, though the Pew data certainly does nothing to support his claim, which would depend on a majority of the conservatives opposing mandated vaccinations to be fully supportive of the safety, efficacy, and epidemiological necessity of universal vaccinations, and a majority of progressives opposing mandatory vaccinations being opposed to or skeptical of those same things.
On the other hand, I was the one who questioned the study he posted for similar reasons--first, it was limited to CA, and second, it contained no information whatsoever about the anti-vaxxers themselves (including their ideological affiiations), but merely the voting tendencies of the areas where they were most heavily concentrated. To draw his conclusion from that study, he would have to assume, first, that the anti-vaxxers largely reflect the voting trends of their larger communities (which would run counter to any notion that anti-vaxxers are outliers in any meaningful way), and second, that the demographics of anti-vax in CA reflect those of the rest of the country. I don't think either is in any way a safe assumption. So yes, based on the many assumptions required to interpret the data from both studies in a way that would support Ken's claim that "anti-vax is mainly an issue of the left" (apologies if I misquoted, as it's from memory only), I think it's safe to say that such a claim is insufficiently supported. I will grant him this, though--it's certainly not "mainly an issue of the right," as I had previously believed. As you say, it would appear most likely to be relatively evenly distributed, with possible regional differences and/or shifts over time.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2015, 09:19:02 AM
Perhaps this is just a matter of wording. By anti-vaxxer I mean, as does every source I have seen btw, someone who questions the efficacy or safety of vaccines for non-scientific reasons. People who peddle autism stories or the like, or who deny vacccines even work. Your links talk about people who think parents should be able to choose whether their kids get vaccinated.
Check Neal's second link.
ETA: I'm not sure why y'all are so interested in debating which side is more at fault for this fringe issue. As far as I can tell, no senators, at most one presidential candidate (Rand Paul, who later backtracked), and very few U.S. representatives have bought into the supposed autism link or other "dangers" of vaccines.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on June 10, 2015, 09:39:50 AM
[NB--I wrote this before seeing Ken's response above, so apologies for any redundancy].
In Ken's defense, I understand his point here (and mentioned it in my own previous points about this study)--Ken is distinguishing between those who believe that vaccines are dangerous from those who may not believe that, but still do not think they should be mandated by the government. Because the study only concerns attitudes toward government mandated vaccination, he doesn't think it tells us anything about who he considers to be the "anti-science" anti-vaxxers. Leaving aside questions of whether epidemiologists might also be considered scientists rather than mere policy makers, I think he has a point, though the Pew data certainly does nothing to support his claim, which would depend on a majority of the conservatives opposing mandated vaccinations to be fully supportive of the safety, efficacy, and epidemiological necessity of universal vaccinations, and a majority of progressives opposing mandatory vaccinations being opposed to or skeptical of those same things.
On the other hand, I was the one who questioned the study he posted for similar reasons--first, it was limited to CA, and second, it contained no information whatsoever about the anti-vaxxers themselves (including their ideological affiiations), but merely the voting tendencies of the areas where they were most heavily concentrated. To draw his conclusion from that study, he would have to assume, first, that the anti-vaxxers largely reflect the voting trends of their larger communities (which would run counter to any notion that anti-vaxxers are outliers in any meaningful way), and second, that the demographics of anti-vax in CA reflect those of the rest of the country. I don't think either is in any way a safe assumption. So yes, based on the many assumptions required to interpret the data from both studies in a way that would support Ken's claim that "anti-vax is mainly an issue of the left" (apologies if I misquoted, as it's from memory only), I think it's safe to say that such a claim is insufficiently supported. I will grant him this, though--it's certainly not "mainly an issue of the right," as I had previously believed. As you say, it would appear most likely to be relatively evenly distributed, with possible regional differences and/or shifts over time.
Well, this whole thing was a response to Rinaldo's implication that the gop is uniquely anti-science. So if you don't like vaxxers I will go for a different high emotional topic I was hoping to avoid. There is widespread rejection of sociobiology and research on the genetic basis of personality and intelligence. Most of this particular anti-science stuff comes from the Left, just as nearly all of the creationist twaddle comes from the Right. Is the right anti-science? Some of it is, for some science. Is the left anti-science? Some of it is, for some science.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2015, 12:05:57 PM
Well, this whole thing was a response to Rinaldo's implication that the gop is uniquely anti-science. So if you don't like vaxxers I will go for a different high emotional topic I was hoping to avoid. There is widespread rejection of sociobiology and research on the genetic basis of personality and intelligence. Most of this particular anti-science stuff comes from the Left, just as nearly all of the creationist twaddle comes from the Right. Is the right anti-science? Some of it is, for some science. Is the left anti-science? Some of it is, for some science.
I think your overall point about anti-scientific biases not being exclusive to the GOP is a valid one. Some aspects of the left tend to embrace a "back to the earth" philosophy that occasionally contains more than a hint of skepticism towards certain branches of science (hence the antipathy to GMOs, etc). I do think there is a distinction between the political parties, though, in that I think the religious right has a stronger foothold within the GOP than the earthy-hippy left does in the Democratic party. Republican elected officials seem more likely to embrace anti-science positions in a very public way than Democratic ones--even on anti-vax, we can associate the position with at least three GOP candidates who have run or are running for the party's Presidential nomination (Bachmann, Paul, and Christie, though the latter backed off), whereas the leftist most associated with it has never run for elected office (and from what I've just been reading about him, he hopefully wouldn't stand a chance in a primary, at least without the benefit of that name). My point is that I agree that science denial (rather than interpretive debates about the science) is not exclusive to one party, but I would also be wary of a false equivalency.
About sociobiology, I'm probably not informed enough to get into a substantial debate (as I wasn't on anti-vax, though you and Neal were helpful in providing relevant info). I assume the form of science skepticism you are referring to is anti-essentialism or social constructionism (as in Simone de Beauvoir's famous remark that "one is not born a woman, but rather becomes one"). Now, if taken to an extreme, this position could deny that biology or genetics play any role in any human behavior--and I imagine that some media sources would pounce on pronouncements that might reflect an extreme version of that position, so I won't go so far as to deny that such extreme versions exist. Again, though, as an academic somewhat steeped in feminist and queer theory, I've never actually met a real, flesh-and-blood feminist who denied that either biology or genetics play substantial roles in human behavior; rather, they argue (persuasively, I've found) that biology and genetics are not the
sole determinants of human behavior and should not be used to justify prejudices or limitations on people's social opportunities. Another well-known anti-essentialist catch-phrase--"Biology is not destiny"--doesn't deny that biology exists or has an impact, but denies that it should determine people's social roles and horizons. I was about to concede that those who do take an extreme anti-essentialist view are more likely to be on the left than on the right, but then I realized that this is probably not true. Ask any social conservative about the potential biological bases of homosexuality or transgenderism, and watch how quickly they become more orthodox social constructionists than even the most thoroughly post-structuralist of feminists. ;)
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2015, 12:05:57 PM
Well, this whole thing was a response to Rinaldo's implication that the gop is uniquely anti-science. So if you don't like vaxxers I will go for a different high emotional topic I was hoping to avoid. There is widespread rejection of sociobiology and research on the genetic basis of personality and intelligence. Most of this particular anti-science stuff comes from the Left, just as nearly all of the creationist twaddle comes from the Right. Is the right anti-science? Some of it is, for some science. Is the left anti-science? Some of it is, for some science.
This raises a few questions.
1. Is there a scientific consensus on sociobiology, and if so, what is it?
2. Is there a national or regional debate on how to teach sociobiology at any level?
3. Which liberal politicians advocate teaching an overtly anti-scientific alternative to sociobiology in public schools?
Quote from: Todd on June 10, 2015, 06:32:42 AM
Sensible, long term energy policy ought not to be overly focused on one or two solutions, so whenever I see a proclamation that the "only" solution is this or that, I know it's wrong.
The reality is that solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, carbon-based fuels, additional "alternative" sources (eg, geothermal, wave), combined with efficiency gains is the way forward.
Pounds the table.
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 10, 2015, 02:58:02 AM
In the long run, Sun.
You seem to be quite familiar with solar power engineering and technology, therefore I have two questions for you:
1. Assuming a solar power plant to be a blackbox with an input of 100 solar energy units, how many useful energy units is the output?
2. Suppose a nuclear power plant generates 1400 MWe. What total area of solar panels would a solar power plant need in order to produce the same amount?
TIA for answering.
According to sociobio evo/psych proponents virtually ALL of standard social science is "blank slatism" and (in this respect) deeply mistaken. This is probably somewhat exaggerated but it is not completely off the mark either. (google the "manifesto on intelligence" or something like that)
I am not sure how many high school subjects are affected by the "blank slate" model but certainly a lot of college level education, social science etc. is. (There is a blogger "education realist" who is a high school math teacher who has some material.)
Of course, sociobiology in the interwebs is often used as thin veil for attitudes that would be considered racist. Or not even as a veil but as a scientific foundation for attitudes that are openly racist. The problem here is not any findings of e.g. IQ differences. The problem is what should follow for treating people and for public policy.
As for myself, I am pretty sure that the blank slatists are wrong, I am not so sure how much of the "positive" findings (other than the refutation of blank slatism) of sociobiology etc. are to be taken seriously, but in any case I do not think that they can be used as a rationale for racist policies. In any case, the "hard core" of sociobiology contradicts BOTH the "leftist narrative" (it's all bad social circumstances and structural racism etc.) and favored "rightist narratives" (everybody can make it with hard work). In fact, it's not really clear if anything but some kind of stoic fatalism could follow from sociobiologist ideas. But then again, nothing moral or political simply follows from some more or less probable scientific findings. (No ethics/values etc. in, no ethics/values out.)
Quote from: Florestan on June 11, 2015, 12:34:20 AM
You seem to be quite familiar with solar power engineering and technology, therefore I have two questions for you:
1. Assuming a solar power plant to be a blackbox with an input of 100 solar energy units, how many useful energy units is the output?
2. Suppose a nuclear power plant generates 1400 MWe. What total area of solar panels would a solar power plant need in order to produce the same amount?
TIA for answering.
Nice try - your nephew will have to do his own homework! :)
Quote from: Pat B on June 10, 2015, 07:39:05 PM
This raises a few questions.
1. Is there a scientific consensus on sociobiology, and if so, what is it?
2. Is there a national or regional debate on how to teach sociobiology at any level?
3. Which liberal politicians advocate teaching an overtly anti-scientific alternative to sociobiology in public schools?
Nice! When I say vaxxers are mostly left I get links about *members of the public*. When I say a resistance to sociobiology is mostly left I get demands about *professsional politicians*.
And, as the rhetorical cherry on top, suddenly this has to be about what's taught in *public school*.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 07:33:50 AM
But I can see confusion creeping into this thread ...
I can see a church by daylight. 8)
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2015, 07:47:36 AM
As I have said on several previous occasions ... dig up Barry Goldwater and run him. :laugh:
So
you're "Zombie" Goldwater's press agent!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 12:17:17 PM
Oh, it was major and important, no doubt. We needed it then, but it's aftermath haunts us today. I think the Columbia River is major and important too, and that's without even being a tree-hugger! Hell, if you can contribute anything of value to stopping that ongoing nightmare, I hope you can climb aboard too. All I have in good supply is sarcasm, and apparently they have plenty of that for now... ;)
8)
You've
never hugged a tree? 8)
Fartists should be isolated.
There! I said it!
"If I'm a candidate, there's no fifth-place, you know, kind of mentality in my mind." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-jeb-bushs-campaign-ran-off-course-before-it-even-began/2015/06/10/386331e6-0eb6-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html?hpid=z1)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 11, 2015, 10:06:09 AM
"If I'm a candidate, there's no fifth-place, you know, kind of mentality in my mind." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-jeb-bushs-campaign-ran-off-course-before-it-even-began/2015/06/10/386331e6-0eb6-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html?hpid=z1)
I'm skeptical of any piece from a partisan paper that assumes a candidate is "off course.' But I don't think Jeb can get the nomination -- because he's a Bush. I don't think this unfair because he's only prominent in the first place because he's a Bush.
Quote from: Ken B on June 11, 2015, 11:11:19 AM
I'm skeptical of any piece from a partisan paper that assumes a candidate is "off course.' But I don't think Jeb can get the nomination -- because he's a Bush. I don't think this unfair because he's only prominent in the first place because he's a Bush.
All your points, well taken. Well, most of them. Reasonably well taken. 8)
Look. I'm a hardline free trader. So probably I would support Obamatrade. But we can't have congress passing secret laws. WTF. The gop bitched about the dems passing Obamacare without reading it. Obama and the gop deserve to lose this until they make the bill public. How pathetic are you when Harry Reid sounds like the guardian of open government and candor in comparison??
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/secrecy-eroding-support-for-trade-pact-critics-say-117581.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/secrecy-eroding-support-for-trade-pact-critics-say-117581.html)
Quote from: Ken B on June 11, 2015, 05:01:05 AM
Nice! When I say vaxxers are mostly left I get links about *members of the public*. When I say a resistance to sociobiology is mostly left I get demands about *professsional politicians*.
And, as the rhetorical cherry on top, suddenly this has to be about what's taught in *public school*.
Sorry for the slow response -- I was mostly offline for the past few days.
1. No, see Reply #510 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,24159.msg899721.html#msg899721).
2. You have been asserting that the Ds are just as "anti-science" as the Rs, in different fields. Since some Rs are openly pushing to teach anti-science in public schools, then your alleged equivalence would require that at least some Ds are doing the same, in different fields.
Must say, this was rather well played:
Quote"And, gotta say, Hilary [sic] logo looks like parking lot directions for a French hospital"
(I mean, apart from the cheap use of
French as a punchline.)
RTWT
here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0615/Jeb!-Bush-s-new-logo-and-the-politics-of-punctuation) (actually, about Jeb's exclamation point, &c.)
I think logos are very important. Jeb and team have obviously put a lot of thought into his. In the event he does not take the White House, it might be possible to recycle it as a logo for a new dollar store chain in the south. Remove the 2016 bit, and voilà, you got some great branding.
Quote from: Pat B on June 15, 2015, 08:22:58 AM
Sorry for the slow response -- I was mostly offline for the past few days.
2. You have been asserting that the Ds are just as "anti-science" as the Rs, in different fields. Since some Rs are openly pushing to teach anti-science in public schools, then your alleged equivalence would require that at least some Ds are doing the same, in different fields.
Now you are arguing that unless they are both anti-science in the same
buildings -- public schools -- they cannot be compared. You are simply trying to cherry-pick.
So let's talk "alternative medicine" as an example. This comes in several varieties. The faith healing kind skews right. The "natural" "non-western" type skews left, like homeopathy or aromatherapy.
And in some places this nonsense DOES get taught in schools, just at higher levels.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9041291/Stop-teaching-nonsense-alternative-medicine-courses-Australian-doctors-say.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9041291/Stop-teaching-nonsense-alternative-medicine-courses-Australian-doctors-say.html)
Quote from: Ken B on June 15, 2015, 10:26:34 AM
Now you are arguing that unless they are both anti-science in the same buildings -- public schools -- they cannot be compared. You are simply trying to cherry-pick.
So let's talk "alternative medicine" as an example. This comes in several varieties. The faith healing kind skews right. The "natural" "non-western" type skews left, like homeopathy or aromatherapy.
And in some places this nonsense DOES get taught in schools, just at higher levels.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9041291/Stop-teaching-nonsense-alternative-medicine-courses-Australian-doctors-say.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9041291/Stop-teaching-nonsense-alternative-medicine-courses-Australian-doctors-say.html)
I am reminded of PT Barnum...
Ladies and gentlemen: The next President of the United States of America! (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/donald-trump-2016-announcement-elections/)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 16, 2015, 10:54:00 AM
I am reminded of PT Barnum...
You know, that explains several of the present campaigns.
Quote from: Todd on June 16, 2015, 05:25:28 PM
Ladies and gentlemen: The next President of the United States of America! (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/donald-trump-2016-announcement-elections/)
I thank God he has joined the
circus fray!
Quote from: karlhenning on June 17, 2015, 03:20:07 AM
I thank God he has joined the circus fray!
And you're not alone.
https://www.youtube.com/v/BOp0zmNWzSg
I am alone. I am glad, not "orgasmic," thank you very much 8)
Quote from: Ken B on June 15, 2015, 10:26:34 AM
Now you are arguing that unless they are both anti-science in the same buildings -- public schools -- they cannot be compared. You are simply trying to cherry-pick.
So let's talk "alternative medicine" as an example. This comes in several varieties. The faith healing kind skews right. The "natural" "non-western" type skews left, like homeopathy or aromatherapy.
And in some places this nonsense DOES get taught in schools, just at higher levels.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9041291/Stop-teaching-nonsense-alternative-medicine-courses-Australian-doctors-say.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9041291/Stop-teaching-nonsense-alternative-medicine-courses-Australian-doctors-say.html)
Fair enough regarding venue, but I was trying (clumsily) to make the distinction between unscientific and anti-scientific (and education is an important and touchy subject with me these days). I will agree that both parties sometimes make arguments that aren't supported by science (not necessarily equally but I'm not arguing that point), but I never hear Ds overtly
attacking science the way some Rs do regarding evolution or climate change.
So far you have named:
1. Anti-vax. A fringe issue with negligible support among elected officials from either party. If you extend this to vaccine mandates, it becomes a significant issue, but then it's mostly Rs that align with the anti-vaxxers.
2. Sociobiology. Seems like more of an academic issue than a political one, and I haven't found any reason to think that there is a scientific consensus, or that opinions on it fall along politically partisan lines.
3. Nuclear power. Traditionally, you may be right, but a lot of Ds (including Obama, Kerry, Boxer, and to a lesser extent Pelosi and Reid) have come around in the past 10 years. None of the political debate changes the fact that nuclear plants are very expensive to build, which might be why we didn't see much action on it when the Rs controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress.
4. Anti-GMO. The furthest this has gotten was Sanders's amendment to allow states to require labelling (which is anti-GMO in a similar way as not mandating vaccines is anti-vax), and even that split Senate Ds. FWIW I don't think many people on either side of this issue understand it very well.
5. Alternative medicine. Again I would consider this more unscientific than antiscientific, and it has never been a major issue. There is a related bill this year (S.398), and the cosponsor list skews left, but the actual sponsor is an R.
QuoteSociobiology. Seems like more of an academic issue than a political one, and I haven't found any reason to think that there is a scientific consensus, or that opinions on it fall along politically partisan lines.
You don't think there's a scientific consensus that genetics affects behavior? Then you just don't know much about it. Nothing wrong with not knowing something. Something wrong with citing that lack of knowledge to support a position.
I recommend The Blank Slate by Pinker.
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2015, 06:23:07 AM
You don't think there's a scientific consensus that genetics affects behavior? Then you just don't know much about it. Nothing wrong with not knowing something. Something wrong with citing that lack of knowledge to support a position.
I recommend The Blank Slate by Pinker.
"Genetics affects behavior" is all you meant? Who are the liberals disputing that and how is it reflected in their policy ideas?
I guess one more can't hurt. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/bobby-jindal-announces-bid-for-gop-presidential-nomination-1435165678)
Quote from: Todd on June 24, 2015, 06:37:03 PM
I guess one more can't hurt. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/bobby-jindal-announces-bid-for-gop-presidential-nomination-1435165678)
"When the front-runners are still clumped together around 10%, what that tells me there" . . . may be crowding in the pool ;)
And the Court just upheld Obamacare 6-3 (guess the 3). I suppose all these Republicans are going to have to work even harder to deprive millions of their newly acquired insurance, just when they thought it all might be going their way. What's next? Legalized gay marriage? oh, the horror!
Obamacare and the evils of judicial activism will make for a good 2016 issue (I will repeal it if elected!, and so forth), as will gay marriage if the court strikes down bans, which seems likely. But in 2018 and later, something else will be needed. I'm thinking those good old standbys abortion and immigrant bashing will feature more prominently. And global warming. Lots of global warming stuff.
Quote from: Todd on June 25, 2015, 07:29:28 AM
Obamacare and the evils of judicial activism will make for a good 2016 issue (I will repeal it if elected!, and so forth), as will gay marriage if the court strikes down bans, which seems likely. But in 2018 and later, something else will be needed. I'm thinking those good old standbys abortion and immigrant bashing will feature more prominently. And global warming. Lots of global warming stuff.
The Court is only activist when it rules against the way this one or that one wants it to. Otherwise it is a model of juridical impartiality.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 25, 2015, 07:42:48 AMThe Court is only activist when it rules against the way this one or that one wants it to. Otherwise it is a model of juridical impartiality.
Absolutely. Judicial activism - meaning "bad decisions", or "decisions I disagree with" - is always useful politically. The Republicans have this bad decision, among others, to rail against, the Democrats have Citizens United, among others, and so on. I'm just commenting on the political utility of this particularly
egregious example of judicial activism. Its egregiousness is unprecedented, or something along those lines.
See how egregious this decision is! (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mike-huckabee-supreme-court-just-150134987.html) It actually transcends judicial activism. It is judicial tyranny! The Republic itself is in danger!!
Huckabee's language is actually not too far from Scalia's own language in his dissent. Here are some quotes I found while I read it this morning:
"Words no longer have meaning..." [when the majority makes this ruling]
"so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it."
"Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved."
Roberts' opinion is "a defense of the indefensible."
He also suggests that, in common parlance, the law should "be called SCOTUScare" - implicitly in contrast to Obamacare. This is the first time the term 'SCOTUS' has appeared in a SCOTUS decision.
Quote from: Brian on June 25, 2015, 08:07:40 AMHe also suggests that, in common parlance, the law should "be called SCOTUScare"
Obamacare is ungainly enough, thank you.
Quote from: Todd on June 25, 2015, 08:11:06 AM
Obamacare is ungainly enough, thank you.
Many would also say Obamacare = Romneycare. In Kentucky, of course, it's KYCare, thus making sure it does the same thing without any taint of Obama on its ungainly neck.
And who said Republicans aren't fun?
Quote from: Todd on June 25, 2015, 08:11:06 AM
Obamacare is ungainly enough, thank you.
But SCOTUScare does sound more . . . medical . . . .
Quote from: Brian on June 25, 2015, 08:07:40 AM
Huckabee's language is actually not too far from Scalia's own language in his dissent. Here are some quotes I found while I read it this morning:
"Words no longer have meaning..." [when the majority makes this ruling]
"so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it."
"Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved."
Roberts' opinion is "a defense of the indefensible."
He also suggests that, in common parlance, the law should "be called SCOTUScare" - implicitly in contrast to Obamacare. This is the first time the term 'SCOTUS' has appeared in a SCOTUS decision.
Scalia, in the words have no meaning bit, is talking about logic not consequences. Roberts's opinion even admits it is flouting the actual wording. That is what Scalia objects to and Scalia is right.
Legal opinions should be judged on their logic, not their political consequences.
Here, for the sake of accuracy, is the full sentence which Brian artfully elided:
Quote"Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established by the State.'"
Donald Trump comes second in New Hampshire poll. How? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0625/Donald-Trump-comes-second-in-New-Hampshire-poll.-How)
Well, duh!
Quote from: Michelle TohAnalysts attribute Trump's advance to his broad name recognition in a field brimming with nearly 20 Republican candidates, aided by a successful global empire of long-running reality television shows and luxury hotels.
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 09:37:46 AM
Scalia, in the words have no meaning bit, is talking about logic not consequences. Roberts's opinion even admits it is flouting the actual wording. That is what Scalia objects to and Scalia is right.
Legal opinions should be judged on their logic, not their political consequences.
Here, for the sake of accuracy, is the full sentence which Brian artfully elided:
I wouldn't say my "artful elision" was motivated by any particular to desire to skew the statement - I had just closed the PDF of the decision and didn't want to find the rest of the sentence again.
My point, anyway, was the tone, and the tone survived intact.
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 09:37:46 AM
Scalia, in the words have no meaning bit, is talking about logic not consequences. Roberts's opinion even admits it is flouting the actual wording. That is what Scalia objects to and Scalia is right.
You're talking about the same Scalia who thinks corporations are persons and that the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment can be discounted.
Any document, especially such a huge and complex one as the ACA, is bound to have instances where meanings are not as clear as the framers intended. Roberts's point, and he was right, is that despite a few ambiguous and inconsistent words, in context "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them."
Live with it. It was a good day for the country, and the bad guys don't always get their way.
Trump certainly will have an impact on the Hispanic vote.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/25/media/univision-donald-trump-mexicans/index.html?iid=ob_article_topstories_pool&iid=obnetwork (http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/25/media/univision-donald-trump-mexicans/index.html?iid=ob_article_topstories_pool&iid=obnetwork)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 25, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
You're talking about the same Scalia who thinks corporations are persons
Ha ha, what a risible and ignorant comment. Corporations as legal persons goes back centuries. Ignorance of that case seems to be a badge of honour with some people.
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 05:38:22 PM
Ha ha, what a risible and ignorant comment. Corporations as legal persons goes back centuries. Ignorance of that case seems to be a badge of honour with some people.
Ha ha, yourself. There is no one "case." The central issue with the Citizens United case was the Court's 5-4 decision that "corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment." This was an overruling of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which "upheld the right of the state of Michigan to prohibit corporations from using money from their corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates in elections, noting: '[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.'"
Are you going to accuse the 4 dissenting justices of ignorance too? I bet Stevens, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg know more about the law than you do in your little finger.
(quotes from Wikipedia, "Corporate Personhood")
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 25, 2015, 05:49:21 PM
Ha ha, yourself. There is no one "case." The central issue with the Citizens United case was the Court's 5-4 decision that "corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment." This was an overruling of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which "upheld the right of the state of Michigan to prohibit corporations from using money from their corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates in elections, noting: '[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.'"
Are you going to accuse the 4 dissenting justices of ignorance too? I bet Stevens, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg know more about the law than you do in your little finger.
(quotes from Wikipedia, "Corporate Personhood")
Did those justices deny that corporations are legal persons in those cases? No. Your comment was about Scalia thinking corporations are persons. So do all the justices. They differ on which rights corporations should have, and which restrictions on corporations constitute infringements on the rights of their owners. Those are indeed arguable. Your implication isn't.
Some explanation of the background. http://volokh.com/posts/1253637850.shtml (http://volokh.com/posts/1253637850.shtml)
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 05:54:11 PM
Did those justices deny that corporations are legal persons in those cases? No. Your comment was about Scalia thinking corporations are persons. So do all the justices. They differ on which rights corporations should have, and which restrictions on corporations constitute infringements on the rights of their owners. Those are indeed arguable. Your implication isn't.
Yawn. You know very well what I was talking about.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 25, 2015, 05:22:33 PM
You're talking about the same Scalia who thinks corporations are persons and that the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment can be discounted.
Any document, especially such a huge and complex one as the ACA, is bound to have instances where meanings are not as clear as the framers intended. Roberts's point, and he was right, is that despite a few ambiguous and inconsistent words, in context "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them."
Live with it. It was a good day for the country, and the bad guys don't always get their way.
Bravo. on all counts. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 25, 2015, 06:27:17 PM
Bravo. on all counts. :)
8)
What you are applauding is an ad hominem argument straight up. Rather than answering Scalia's charge about language this attacks the man. And if you follow the thread you will see it does so with scant regard for accuracy. This is nothing but boosterism. Pfui.
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 07:25:01 PM
What you are applauding is an ad hominem argument straight up. Rather than answering Scalia's charge about language this attacks the man. And if you follow the thread you will see it does so with scant regard for accuracy. This is nothing but boosterism. Pfui.
Jiggery-pokery, you might have said. Pure applesauce.
Wikipedia again: "Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words."
Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times:
QuoteDo "words no longer have meaning," as Justice Scalia put it in his angry dissenting opinion? What, after all, could be clearer? The state, not the federal government. The two are not the same. They are different! So poor and middle-class people in the 34 (mostly red) states that refused to set up their own insurance exchanges, defaulting that task to the federal government, are just out of luck. They aren't eligible for tax subsidies to help them buy insurance, subsidies that are critical to making the law work. End of story, end of case, end of the Affordable Care Act (or Scotuscare, as Justice Scalia said the law should be re-named).
The chief justice's masterful opinion showed that line of argument for the simplistic and agenda-driven construct that it was. Parsing the 1,000-plus-page statute in a succinct 21-page opinion, he deftly wove in quotations from recent Supreme Court opinions.
Who said that we "must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme"? Why, it was Justice Scalia (actually quoting an earlier opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) in a decision just a year ago.
And who said that "a provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme" because "only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law"? Why, Justice Scalia again.
"In this instance," Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase." He concluded: "A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan."
If Justice Scalia doesn't like it, it's wrong! I get it. He Is Supreme!
Actually, the whole idea that 9 people nominated on political criteria have the power to deny, or allow, an act voted by hundreds of others elected by the people is mindboggling.
Mindboggling, unless one acknowledges that the "representatives of the people" can, and often do, make bad and unjust laws, but then one runs into a big dilemma: if they act as truly representatives of the people, as they claim, and in so doing they make bad and unjust laws, then it follows logically that the people themselves want, or at least acquiesce to, bad and unjust laws --- and then why can 9 persons have the power to oppose the will of tens or even hundreds of millions? If, on the other hand, people themselves do not want, nor acquiesce to, bad and unjust laws, then it follows logically that those who make such laws are in no way representatives of the people, and as soon as one of their laws has been found bad and unjust, and blocked by the 9 persons who have the power to do so, all those who voted for the law should automatically be declared as fraudulent representatives of the people and immediately removed from their positions.
Big dilemma, unless one acknowledges that the whole "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is actually a fiction, a very useful and practical fiction which makes the state machinery run relatively smooth and peaceful and therefore should better be left unquestioned and unexposed, lest the whole political, economical and social arrangements crumble like a playing-cards castle, crushing under its weight the whole political, economical and social establishment and "elites"
Checks and balances . . . and there is always the human factor . . . if there is some better system of government, you have the floor 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 26, 2015, 04:18:19 AM
Checks and balances . . . and there is always the human factor . . . if there is some better system of government, you have the floor 8)
I unreservedly agree that "government of the people, for the people, by the people" is the least bad of all governments, but this doesn´t mean it is not bad on its own terms. Diabetes is less bad than cancer, since one can live with it --- but it is bad enough on its own. ;D
"government of the people, for the people, by the people" is basically a trade off, and an inequal one for that matter:
1. The political establishment pretends to represent the people, in order to better secure its privileges and powers, while
2. The people (or rather, their majority) pretend to be represented by the political establishment, in order to better secure their rights and liberties.
Of course, there are degrees in that, according to the nature of the people and the quality of the political establishment. I see no reason (other than it´ll make
Ken furious ;D :P >:D ) to refrain from stating the obvious: the smallest gap between the two is to be found in such "Socialist" states as Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. And I hasten to add that simpy copypasting their policies in other countries is no guarantee that wider gaps will be reduced. One cannot change moral and mental habits acquired in centuries by passing overnight legislation. And I´m not even sure that the price at which the smallest gaps come (massive and irresistible social conformity, and massive and irresistible governmental interference in society from the craddle to the grave) is not too high.
You've made enough points to qualify your post, that I have nothing to add at present 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 26, 2015, 04:49:19 AM
You've made enough points to qualify your post, that I have nothing to add at present 8)
I feel relieved. :D
We're here for you, buddy!
Quote from: Florestan on June 26, 2015, 04:45:34 AMOne cannot change moral and mental habits acquired in centuries by passing overnight legislation. And I´m not even sure that the price at which the smallest gaps come (massive and irresistible social conformity, and massive and irresistible governmental interference in society from the craddle to the grave) is not too high.
I for one have not spent centuries acquiring moral or mental habits. 8)
And I would like some examples of how the social conformity and governmental interference are different (and detrimental) in countries using the Nordic model compared to others.
All health care reform has a system of subsidies at the center. That's the reform, yours, mine, the Martians, the French who are too evil to have bad health care.
The opponents have no trouble differentiating between an oversight and an intention for the purpose of opposing the act, but only from the perverse standpoint of becoming unaware of the same facts to read the oversight as the intention. It didn't work and Scalia is pissed because he thinks it should. Me, I had the idea that if the act was constitutional, and that wasn't challenged, the intention would have to be honored and the oversight treated as such.
Quote from: Florestan on June 26, 2015, 04:04:10 AM
Big dilemma, unless one acknowledges that the whole "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is actually a fiction.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Quote from: Florestan on June 26, 2015, 04:45:34 AM
I see no reason (other than it´ll make Ken furious ;D :P >:D ) . . . .
Laudable goal.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 26, 2015, 05:30:12 AM
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
He´s worse than a Socialist, he´s a Commie!
Between yesterday and today, Scalia is riding an express train well past Crazytown. Calls the same-sex marriage decision "a threat to our democracy."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 26, 2015, 05:30:12 AM
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Quote from: Jos. Stieglitz[...] America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
Quite right: if the wealthy do not benefit from these, why should they be compelled to underwrite them?
Quote from: karlhenning on June 26, 2015, 06:22:14 AM
Quite right: if the wealthy do not benefit from these, why should they be compelled to underwrite them?
And you are Commie, too.
Quote from: Brian on June 26, 2015, 06:19:55 AM
Between yesterday and today, Scalia is riding an express train well past Crazytown. Calls the same-sex marriage decision "a threat to our democracy."
How the fat rogue roared!
Quote from: North Star on June 26, 2015, 05:10:56 AM
I for one have not spent centuries acquiring moral or mental habits. 8)
And I would like some examples of how the social conformity and governmental interference are different (and detrimental) in countries using the Nordic model compared to others.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/scandinavian-miracle-brutal-truth-denmark-norway-sweden (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/scandinavian-miracle-brutal-truth-denmark-norway-sweden)
I invite you all to join me in the Listening thread for a gay composer marathon. :)
Quote from: Brian on June 26, 2015, 07:05:54 AM
I invite you all to join me in the Listening thread for a gay composer marathon. :)
You should make it gay-
married composers marathon. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 26, 2015, 06:19:07 AMHe´s worse than a Socialist, he´s a Commie!
No, he's just an academic. Stiglitz dresses up his popular/populist, partisan, essentially Keynesian arguments in very serious sounding, or reading, arguments in an entirely predictable way. And since he won a Nobel, he must be taken seriously. Of course, there are a good number of Chicago school monetarist/rational expectations/just general free market types who offer counter-arguments, and some of them have won Nobel prizes, too. So, in other words, pick the position you like, and you can find a Very Serious Intellectual who has already argued for it.
I am disappointed in the false equivalency that opens Stiglitz's article, and while I can certainly appreciate exaggeration for effect, the conclusion is just too melodramatic:
Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late. Goodness me, is revolution coming?
The thing is, and this is no secret, many of America's specific economic woes can be largely alleviated with comparatively minor changes to the tax code. And here's another not-so-secret: these changes need to involve more than the 1%-ers. The entire tax expenditure structure (that is, the tax code), which disproportionately favors the top quintile (70% or so of the benefits go them), needs an overhaul. Stiglitz, of course, knows this. But he will garner more press for himself if he goes on about the 1%. Nevermind the fundamental logical and policy flaws in fixating on sticking it to the highest earners and wealthiest people, whose income and wealth are comparatively more volatile than the next 19% of income earners, let alone the 80% after that. Unstable and widely varying incomes and asset bases do not make for a stable fiscal foundation. I'm not arguing against progressive taxation and eliminating distortions in the tax code - I'm all for it - but I would like to see more serious policy discussions in the public realm, especially coming from serious thinkers. Of course, the article was published in Vanity Fair, so that should be kept in mind.
(I should note that tax policy will not be able to address income inequality in a wholly satisfactory way since a significant portion of income inequality is attributable to non-economic factors, the most significant of which is the observable marriage trend over the past forty years.)
The Republicans get their second SCOTUS-fueled campaign issue for the cycle! (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages)
Now, more forward-thinking (and/or cynical) Republicans need to start working on ways to carve out the best-educated and wealthiest sub-segments of the gay community and get them to join the Republicans, if not in party, then at least in policy. It will be a multi-cycle process, but I firmly believe in the power of pocketbook politics.
Quote from: Todd on June 26, 2015, 07:11:00 AM
pick the position you like, and you can find a Very Serious Intellectual who has already argued for it.
True. :D
Quote
Stiglitz dresses up his popular/populist, partisan, essentially Keynesian arguments in very serious sounding, or reading, arguments in an entirely predictable way. And since he won a Nobel, he must be taken seriously. Of course, there are a good number of Chicago school monetarist/rational expectations/just general free market types who offer counter-arguments, and some of them have won Nobel prizes, too.
True as well, but this says much less about Stieglitz or, say, Milton Friedman or Friedrich von Hayek, than it does about the Nobel Prize for Economics committee members and their criteria for awarding it. If both theory A and theory non-A, or even theory anti-A, are so equally worthwile as to be Nobelized, then we go back again at the quote of the day: "words have lost all meaning" ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 26, 2015, 07:20:46 AMTrue as well, but this says much less about Stieglitz or, say, Milton Friedman or Friedrich von Hayek, than it does about the Nobel Prize for Economics committee members and their criteria for awarding it. If both theory A and theory non-A, or even theory anti-A, are so equally worthwile as to be Nobelized, then we go back again at the quote of the day: "words have lost all meaning"
That is not the case at all. The selections for Nobels in economics are almost always for highly specialized work that genuinely advances the field as whole. So, while someone like Paul Krugman is a traditional American left-wing economic thinker in macro policy matters and he goes on about this and that accordingly, his very precise and brilliant work in international economics led to his award. No one in the field questions the quality of his academic work. The same holds true for other recipients. The issue is not so much the value or validity of the Nobel itself, but the undue heft it falsely bestows on recipients when they venture into other realms, which almost invariably involve politics.
Quote from: Todd on June 26, 2015, 07:29:23 AM
That is not the case at all. The selections for Nobels in economics are almost always for highly specialized work that genuinely advances the field as whole. So, while someone like Paul Krugman is a traditional American left-wing economic thinker in macro policy matters and he goes on about this and that accordingly, his very precise and brilliant work in international economics led to his award. No one in the field questions the quality of his academic work. The same holds true for other recipients. The issue is not so much the value or validity of the Nobel itself, but the undue heft it falsely bestows on recipients when they venture into other realms, which almost invariably involve politics.
Can economics be separate from politics, or rathe, can politics be separated from economics?
Quote from: Florestan on June 26, 2015, 07:52:07 AMCan economics be separate from politics, or rathe, can politics be separated from economics?
Yes. Specific areas of micro theory are intrinsically apolitical, and both experimental economics and behavioral economics rely on concrete testing, though the value of such testing can be disputed as normal.
Your conception of economics is clearly fixed on macroeconomics, which used to be called Political Economy, and that cannot be separated from politics. The field is much bigger and richer than your question implies.
Quote from: Todd on June 26, 2015, 07:11:00 AM
No, he's just an academic. Stiglitz dresses up his popular/populist, partisan, essentially Keynesian arguments in very serious sounding, or reading, arguments in an entirely predictable way. And since he won a Nobel, he must be taken seriously. Of course, there are a good number of Chicago school monetarist/rational expectations/just general free market types who offer counter-arguments, and some of them have won Nobel prizes, too. So, in other words, pick the position you like, and you can find a Very Serious Intellectual who has already argued for it.
I am disappointed in the false equivalency that opens Stiglitz's article, and while I can certainly appreciate exaggeration for effect, the conclusion is just too melodramatic: Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late. Goodness me, is revolution coming?
The thing is, and this is no secret, many of America's specific economic woes can be largely alleviated with comparatively minor changes to the tax code. And here's another not-so-secret: these changes need to involve more than the 1%-ers. The entire tax expenditure structure (that is, the tax code), which disproportionately favors the top quintile (70% or so of the benefits go them), needs an overhaul. Stiglitz, of course, knows this. But he will garner more press for himself if he goes on about the 1%. Nevermind the fundamental logical and policy flaws in fixating on sticking it to the highest earners and wealthiest people, whose income and wealth are comparatively more volatile than the next 19% of income earners, let alone the 80% after that. Unstable and widely varying incomes and asset bases do not make for a stable fiscal foundation. I'm not arguing against progressive taxation and eliminating distortions in the tax code - I'm all for it - but I would like to see more serious policy discussions in the public realm, especially coming from serious thinkers. Of course, the article was published in Vanity Fair, so that should be kept in mind.
(I should note that tax policy will not be able to address income inequality in a wholly satisfactory way since a significant portion of income inequality is attributable to non-economic factors, the most significant of which is the observable marriage trend over the past forty years.)
Nothing ad hominen there. But I'm sure Ken B will come around to rebut any such implication.
Quote from: Todd on June 26, 2015, 07:11:00 AM
I am disappointed in the false equivalency that opens Stiglitz's article, and while I can certainly appreciate exaggeration for effect, the conclusion is just too melodramatic: Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late. Goodness me, is revolution coming?
Your critique of the curtain line is spot on.
Quote from: drogulus on June 26, 2015, 05:18:38 AM
All health care reform has a system of subsidies at the center. That's the reform, yours, mine, the Martians, the French who are too evil to have bad health care.
The opponents have no trouble differentiating between an oversight and an intention for the purpose of opposing the act, but only from the perverse standpoint of becoming unaware of the same facts to read the oversight as the intention. It didn't work and Scalia is pissed because he thinks it should. Me, I had the idea that if the act was constitutional, and that wasn't challenged, the intention would have to be honored and the oversight treated as such.
The problem with this is that it was quite clearly not an oversight. It was drafted that way to provide the states an incentive to set up exchanges. We have seen videos of the drafters saying as much. (You can do your own googling.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 26, 2015, 06:32:26 AM
How the fat rogue roared!
That was only 3 seconds. You have 1:57 left.
This is a political thread, right? So I can say what *I* think is the biggest problem in American politics. It is that for so many people
politics is not about policy. It is about tribalism, and building your self-image around expressing contempt for those who disagree with you, simply as members of another tribe.
Quote from: Ken B on June 26, 2015, 08:42:15 AM
That was only 3 seconds. You have 1:57 left.
This is a political thread, right? So I can say what *I* think is the biggest problem in American politics. It is that for so many people politics is not about policy. It is about tribalism, and building your self-image around expressing contempt for those who disagree with you, simply as members of another tribe.
Good to see you, too, Ken B, and thanks for that contemptuous remark!
Quote from: Ken B on June 26, 2015, 08:42:15 AMIt is that for so many people politics is not about policy. It is about tribalism, and building your self-image around expressing contempt for those who disagree with you, simply as members of another tribe.
This is also a very good summary of Antonin Scalia.
Quote from: Brian on June 26, 2015, 09:25:13 AM
This is also a very good summary of Antonin Scalia.
I wasn't aware I denied that. Do you have a link where I did?
Quote from: Ken B on June 26, 2015, 09:26:40 AM
I wasn't aware I denied that. Do you have a link where I did?
Huh?
Just because this is a politics thread doesn't mean every reply to you is a personal attack.
EDIT: Although that is a reasonable assumption.
Quote from: Ken B on June 26, 2015, 08:42:15 AM
This is a political thread, right? So I can say what *I* think is the biggest problem in American politics. It is that for so many people politics is not about policy. It is about tribalism, and building your self-image around expressing contempt for those who disagree with you, simply as members of another tribe.
You could probably extend that to include American culture in general, as well.
Quote from: Greg on June 26, 2015, 09:41:07 AM
You could probably extend that to include American culture in general, as well.
This is nothing but boosterism. Pfui.
;)
Quote from: Todd on June 26, 2015, 08:07:33 AM
Yes. Specific areas of micro theory are intrinsically apolitical, and both experimental economics and behavioral economics rely on concrete testing, though the value of such testing can be disputed as normal.
Your conception of economics is clearly fixed on macroeconomics, which used to be called Political Economy, and that cannot be separated from politics. The field is much bigger and richer than your question implies.
Okay, let me put it in a different way: is there any way to implement an economic policy other than by either making a law or repealling one? And is not a reality that making / repealling laws is a heavily politicized business?
Quote from: karlhenning on June 26, 2015, 09:59:07 AM
This is nothing but boosterism. Pfui.
;)
Pure applesauce. (And why all the animus towards applesauce?)
Quote from: Florestan on June 26, 2015, 10:03:00 AMOkay, let me put it in a different way: is there any way to implement an economic policy other than by either making a law or repealling one? And is not a reality that making / repealling laws is a heavily politicized business?
Now you're asking entirely different questions than before. Of course having a government implement any policy, economic or otherwise, necessarily involves politics, but that is fundamentally different than theorizing, testing, and studying specific areas of economics. This does not change the answer to your prior question.
Quote from: Todd on June 26, 2015, 12:05:26 PM
Now you're asking entirely different questions than before. Of course having a government implement any policy, economic or otherwise, necessarily involves politics, but that is fundamentally different than theorizing, testing, and studying specific areas of economics. This does not change the answer to your prior question.
Oh, my! I forgot how nitpicking and hairsplitting you were. My bad. :D :D :D
Quote from: Florestan on June 26, 2015, 12:12:46 PMOh, my! I forgot how nitpicking and hairsplitting you were. My bad. :D :D :D
In this case, it is nothing of the sort. You changed the fundamental nature of the question you asked because you did not get the answer you wanted to your hastily crafted prior inquiry. Your original question had to do with whether economics and politics can be separated. The answer is very obviously yes. If you meant can they be separated when it comes to implementing policy, then you should have asked that initially. The word policy literally makes all the difference.
Quote from: Todd on June 26, 2015, 12:19:15 PM
In this case, it is nothing of the sort. You changed the fundamental nature of the question you asked because you did not get the answer you wanted to your hastily crafted prior inquiry. Your original question had to do with whether economics and politics can be separated. The answer is very obviously yes. If you meant can they be separated when it comes to implementing policy, then you should have asked that initially. The word policy literally makes all the difference.
Okay, okay, okay, for God´s sake!... In Romanian there is one single word for both politics and policy, hence my apparently (to you) changing the nature of the question. Can I please be excused for thinking in my native language while writing in yours? ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 26, 2015, 12:25:58 PM
In Romanian there is one single word for both politics and policy
English too. "Graft".
A little perspective.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-off-stage-horror-amid-the-euphoria-1435355279 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-off-stage-horror-amid-the-euphoria-1435355279)
I am also seeing some predictable over-reactions and foolishness. I understand that a core of the religious, whose "holy book" condemns gays explicitly, will never be reconciled. But am I the only one to think that this really is a win for "conservative values", like the importance of family and self-reliance. Two guys want to be a family and take care of each other as they age. And a self-described conservative says, "No, I don't think so."??
Quote from: drogulus on June 26, 2015, 05:18:38 AM
The opponents have no trouble differentiating between an oversight and an intention for the purpose of opposing the act, but only from the perverse standpoint of becoming unaware of the same facts to read the oversight as the intention. It didn't work and Scalia is pissed because he thinks it should. Me, I had the idea that if the act was constitutional, and that wasn't challenged, the intention would have to be honored and the oversight treated as such.
As I pointed out, this is wrong. The law was drafted to give the states an incentive to set up exchanges. I'll let Gruber explain it. http://youtu.be/34rttqLh12U
And another . . . (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/chris-christie-supporters-im-running-n384421)
(Maybe he's angling to be Secretary of Transportation?)
What's the count up to? ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 30, 2015, 07:52:14 AM
What's the count up to? ;)
I ran out of fingers, and so need to start using my toes. Give me a minute.
A discussion of Scalia by the liberal legal scholar Cass Sunstein.
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/how-to-understand-the-world-through-antonin-scalia-s-eyes-cass-r-sunstein-1.5612624 (http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/how-to-understand-the-world-through-antonin-scalia-s-eyes-cass-r-sunstein-1.5612624)
Quote from: Ken B on June 30, 2015, 08:23:32 AM
A discussion of Scalia by the liberal legal scholar Cass Sunstein.
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/how-to-understand-the-world-through-antonin-scalia-s-eyes-cass-r-sunstein-1.5612624 (http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/how-to-understand-the-world-through-antonin-scalia-s-eyes-cass-r-sunstein-1.5612624)
An interesting read, thanks.
Quote from: Paul WaldmanWhile everyone has treated the Trump story as an amusing sideshow to the campaign (which it certainly is), there's a genuine danger for the GOP in his presence that goes beyond the simple fact that he makes the party look silly (which he certainly does). More than any other candidate, Trump is telling Latinos that the Republican Party doesn't like them.
Donald Trump is on the rise — and that's very bad news for the GOPRTWT
here.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 01, 2015, 10:44:13 AM
Donald Trump is on the rise — and that's very bad news for the GOP
RTWT here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/01/donald-trump-is-on-the-rise-and-thats-very-bad-news-for-the-gop/?hpid=z2).
Compare and contrast. On the one hand, we have this worthless ass. On the other:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Winton
Quote from: karlhenning on July 01, 2015, 10:44:13 AM
Donald Trump is on the rise — and that's very bad news for the GOP
RTWT here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/01/donald-trump-is-on-the-rise-and-thats-very-bad-news-for-the-gop/?hpid=z2).
Meh. Trump has the best name recognition is all. He's not electable even to city council. Pretty soon he'll flamboyantly quit with an "I gave them the best and they were to blind to see" air.
And the Democratic frontrunner is . . . (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-breaks-fundraising-records-with-45-million-haul-20150701)
Quote from: Todd on July 01, 2015, 03:16:53 PM
And the Democratic frontrunner is . . . (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-breaks-fundraising-records-with-45-million-haul-20150701)
Well, there's not been much doubt that this is a machine, and not a process. Many would be happier if there were 16 aspirants, rather than "whom can we have, other than Hillary?"
Quote from: karlhenning on July 02, 2015, 03:24:34 AM
Well, there's not been much doubt that this is a machine, and not a process. Many would be happier if there were 16 aspirants, rather than "whom can we have, other than Hillary?"
Yes. On the other hand, this is the second time Hillary was inevitable. I'm not sure voters in general will take Bernie seriously, but I think democrat primary voters might.
Bernie
Quote from: Ken B on July 02, 2015, 08:18:58 AM
Yes. On the other hand, this is the second time Hillary was inevitable. I'm not sure voters in general will take Bernie seriously, but I think democrat primary voters might.
Quote from: MN Dave :) on July 02, 2015, 08:57:11 AM
Bernie
Here's hoping. I'd prefer Bernie as a candidate, even if it should mean that the White House goes G.O.P. in the final contest. (Yes, I'm saying I should prefer a Republican President, to President Hillary.)
Pfft, hasn't this plebe heard that Her Highness has it all sewn up? (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/07/02/jim-webb-2016-presidential-race/29574907/)
Quote from: Todd on July 02, 2015, 10:27:42 AM
Pfft, hasn't this plebe heard that Her Highness has it all sewn up? (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/07/02/jim-webb-2016-presidential-race/29574907/)
What if, backstage, Hllary put him up to it? I mean, she needs opponents in the debates, right? Doesn't set the right tone, if she's the only one to show up . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on July 02, 2015, 10:29:33 AM
What if, backstage, Hllary put him up to it? I mean, she needs opponents in the debates, right? Doesn't set the right tone, if she's the only one to show up . . . .
Now she's up to three to debate: Webb, O'Malley, and Sanders.
By the way, this is a really fun movie.
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk2NDEwODU5M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDMwNzc0Nw@@._V1_SX214_AL_.jpg)
I keep wanting to support Bernie Sanders based on half his views, and then I remember the other half of his views are kinda scary. Ditto Rand Paul. Can I vote for a government where Paul and Sanders share power and I get to tell them who does what?
Quote from: Brian on July 02, 2015, 11:13:51 AM
I keep wanting to support Bernie Sanders based on half his views, and then I remember the other half of his views are kinda scary. Ditto Rand Paul. Can I vote for a government where Paul and Sanders share power and I get to tell them who does what?
They already do share power.
Quote from: Todd on July 02, 2015, 10:27:42 AM
Pfft, hasn't this plebe heard that Her Highness has it all sewn up? (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/07/02/jim-webb-2016-presidential-race/29574907/)
Does she though? :(
Quote from: Brian on July 02, 2015, 11:13:51 AM
I keep wanting to support Bernie Sanders based on half his views, and then I remember the other half of his views are kinda scary.
Which views are you talking about?
Quote from: Brian on July 02, 2015, 11:05:00 AM
By the way, this is a really fun movie.
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk2NDEwODU5M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDMwNzc0Nw@@._V1_SX214_AL_.jpg)
Picture doesn't show for me.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 02, 2015, 11:51:56 AM
Picture doesn't show for me.
Bernie - Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, from director Richard Linklater and based on a bizarre true crime in East Texas
Quote from: karlhenning on July 02, 2015, 09:23:51 AM
Here's hoping. I'd prefer Bernie as a candidate, even if it should mean that the White House goes G.O.P. in the final contest. (Yes, I'm saying I should prefer a Republican President, to President Hillary.)
Me too, depending on the republican.
I don't know how honest Bernie is really, but he looks squeaky clean next to Hillary from what I have seen. That counts for something. I think if Bernie tops her in a few polls that will crack the ice and we will see some more plausible candidate step forward. Is a Wendell Wilkie impossible these days?
Quote from: Brian on July 02, 2015, 11:52:49 AM
Bernie - Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, from director Richard Linklater and based on a bizarre true crime in East Texas
I see you avoid my question.
Trump calling anyone else on the planet nothing more than professional agitators is quite possibly the funniest thing I shall read this week.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 07, 2015, 09:39:49 AM
Trump calling anyone else on the planet nothing more than professional agitators is quite possibly the funniest thing I shall read this week.
And yet ... http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015/07/06/trump-death-wish-the-wollman-rink-and-the-white-house/?singlepage=true (http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015/07/06/trump-death-wish-the-wollman-rink-and-the-white-house/?singlepage=true)
Quote from: Ken B on July 07, 2015, 01:22:47 PM
And yet ... http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015/07/06/trump-death-wish-the-wollman-rink-and-the-white-house/?singlepage=true (http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015/07/06/trump-death-wish-the-wollman-rink-and-the-white-house/?singlepage=true)
Yes, that was a signal achievement. Was a time when he had fire in the belly to accomplish something. Alas, he's learnt that he gets as much attention, and with far less actual effort, with his new schtick.
Be the guy who brings a buzz saw to the dinner table, yeah!
Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2015, 10:39:38 AM
Yes, that was a signal achievement. Was a time when he had fire in the belly to accomplish something. Alas, he's learnt that he gets as much attention, and with far less actual effort, with his new schtick. Be the guy who brings a buzz saw to the dinner table, yeah!
He seems a total clown these days. I saw a funny fake campaign lawn-sign: "Trump 2016, somebody's doing the raping"
This is funny http://twitchy.com/2015/07/09/whos-laughing-now-we-are-at-the-twerps-who-mocked-romney-for-warning-about-chinese-hackers/ (http://twitchy.com/2015/07/09/whos-laughing-now-we-are-at-the-twerps-who-mocked-romney-for-warning-about-chinese-hackers/)
From an Op-Ed in
The Boston Globe.
Quote from: Joan VenocchiRaise middle class wages. Spank Wall Street.
Hillary Clinton is searching for the safe space that was magic for Bill — somewhere in the middle between left and right extremes. But safety is harder to define today, because of an unlikely Democratic hottie: "#feeltheBern" Bernie Sanders, a 73-year-old self-described socialist.
Sure, there are Hillary activists who are (or, make a principled show of being) genuinely enthusiastic about her; I run into one, now and again on social media (of course). I get that Hillary is partly aware of how divisive a figure she is, but she's determined to run anyway (which emphasizes for me her cynical side); and I get, too, that part of the wind in Bernie's sails is an "anyone but La Clinton" sentiment among many Democrats. Well, I am looking forward to the debates . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on July 14, 2015, 05:30:46 AM
Well, I am looking forward to the debates . . . .
You should join the
Root Canal of th Month Club.
Oh, I'll be anæsthetized, all right . . . .
Well, a Boston Globe columnist calls Bernie "a major challenger to Clinton".
It's the sort of thing a Boston Globe columnist would say; wonder if it's true?
When I was younger and a little naive I thought that it was important for a candidate to appear honest, by which I suppose I meant "really" honest in the sense of telling truths politically unwise to tell. It amounted, amounts, to saying only someone too politically inept to become President is qualified to be President. Notorious liars and trimmers like Lincoln and FDR don't make the cut.
It's hard because while honesty looks disqualifying it might not always be, while Presidential competence can't reliably be judged in advance. Nixon was the best qualified in history, but his qualifying dishonesty got him in trouble, too much of a "good" thing. On a proper Machiavellian scale how do you pick the Lincolns and FDRs out from the Nixons, or should you try?
Lindsay Graham says lots of near-demagogic things and good things, too. The Romney template seems to fit, but it no longer fits the radicalized Repubs. Repubs have been tempered in the fires of Obama-hatred for too long for moderation to appeal to them now. There's too much vengeance to allow room for victory. Not that a moderate would win, not with the Repub millstone around his/her neck. We're approaching the point where even Sanders might squeak by if voters get a whiff of the Repub platform, which will be awesome! Can Repubs trumpet their platform while hiding it in the general? I thinks not, but stranger things have happened.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 14, 2015, 06:57:56 AMIt's the sort of thing a Boston Globe columnist would say; wonder if it's true?
I don't see how Sanders would make a viable national candidate. Strikes against him: Age, he was once a Socialist (though more in name than substance it appears) and is now a "democratic socialist", no backing of big money donors (though it would come), he doesn't seem to have a great campaign machine, poor speaking and debate style too reliant on platitudes. Strong (or strong-ish) points: Does the populist thing well, comes across as a down to earth type, reasonably smart. If he got the nod, the best Republican to take him on would be a younger one. Rubio, perhaps.
Speaking of Republicans, Scott Walker is now in officially. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politics/scott-walker-2016-presidential-announcement/) Let's watch the meat puppet dance. John Kasich is slated to announce on the 21st, and one article (in Red State?) opined that Kasich was entering to be a hatchet man going for a top job for the nominee, with his biggest likely primaries target being Walker. I'd be fine with that. Kasich should do his utmost to destroy Scott Walker's chances and career, maybe even driving salt into the political earth, so that Walker can never run for anything again.
Quote"Bernie is a socialist and claims that title," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), an early Clinton supporter. "I just don't believe that someone who is a self-described socialist is going to be elected to be president of the United States."
Yah he's a typical outsider, and when citizens get a little more of his Brooklynese, Dogpatch Dems will flee for the hills(ery). No, Bernie don't play so good down there, down there being south of Surf Avenue. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2015, 07:14:59 AM
I don't see how Sanders would make a viable national candidate.
Of course, if the Democrats nominate Sanders,
and the Republicans nominate Trump... that would be a fun one.
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2015, 07:14:59 AMKasich should do his utmost to destroy Scott Walker's chances and career, maybe even driving salt into the political earth, so that Walker can never run for anything again.
Co-sign. (Did you by any chance read the NYT article about how Walker is his own campaign strategist, because the very considerable part of his brain NOT devoted to understanding policy is devoted to memorizing information about media markets, TV buys, political maneuvers, etc.?)
Ideologically extreme candidates grab the early lead then fade, and so do the Thomas Friedman approved "nonpartisan" protest candidates like John Anderson, who don't protest wicked policies but fighting about them. They ask "can't we all get along?" to which the correct answer always will be "negative, not if we want to do something".
Anyway I prefer candidates who can put on a good show, with the courage of their evil convictions, but just a hint of their willingness to govern pragmatically when it comes down to cases. That's what great leaders do, why Machiavellians like Lincoln and FDR came to be viewed as our greatest Presidents, while also being our greatest Presidents.
Quote from: Brian on July 14, 2015, 01:53:51 PMOf course, if the Democrats nominate Sanders, and the Republicans nominate Trump... that would be a fun one.
The latter will never happen. The RNC will take out a contract first.
Quote from: Brian on July 14, 2015, 01:53:51 PMDid you by any chance read the NYT article about how Walker is his own campaign strategist, because the very considerable part of his brain NOT devoted to understanding policy is devoted to memorizing information about media markets, TV buys, political maneuvers, etc.?
I read a blurb that he was, but he will have to cede that function if he hopes to win. So I hope he keeps that function for himself. Walker has political smarts sufficient to win elections in Wisconsin, the proud home of Joe McCarthy, but I don't see him as electable nationwide. Combine that with his
profoundly stupid remark that Reagan's termination of air traffic controllers was the most significant foreign policy decision of his lifetime, and though he is politically wily, I simply don't see the uneducated meat puppet as suitable to serve as President of the United States. He is out of his depth, and his supposed "leadership" skills are not at all reassuring. Quite the opposite. He would find out very quickly that Washington is not the same as Madison. And before his fans try to chime in and say something along the lines of "What about Reagan?", let me state unequivocally that Scott Walker isn't worth the gunk stuck to the bottom of the Gipper's shoes. If Walker gets the nod, I will write in a different candidate on my general election ballot; I would not be able to vote Republican for President in 2016 - and I absolutely will not be able to vote for a Democrat. (Oregon will go Democrat no matter what, so it doesn't matter anyway.)
If Walker picks up steam politically, I may be spurred to break my no political contributions pledge, so far religiously observed, and give to any group, PAC, Super PAC, or anyone or anything else devoted to defeating and/or destroying him. Preferably the latter.
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2015, 02:29:32 PM
The latter will never happen. The RNC will take out a contract first.
The hit man to be an illegal Mexican.
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2015, 02:29:32 PMCombine that with his profoundly stupid remark that Reagan's termination of air traffic controllers was the most significant foreign policy decision of his lifetime,
He said that?!??!??!?!?!
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2015, 02:29:32 PMand though he is politically wily, I simply don't see the uneducated meat puppet as suitable to serve as President of the United States. He is out of his depth, and his supposed "leadership" skills are not at all reassuring. Quite the opposite.
Frank Bruni at NYT agrees with you (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/frank-bruni-haste-hustle-and-scott-walker.html).
"I see an ambition even more pronounced than any ideology. I see an interest in personal advancement that eclipses any investment in personal growth. These are hardly unusual traits in our halls of government. But they're distilled in Walker, the governor of Wisconsin....
"We know from the biographies of him so far that he has been absorbed in those "political thoughts" since at least the start of college, before he could have possibly developed any fully considered, deeply informed set of beliefs or plan for what to do with power."
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2015, 08:45:37 AM
He said that?!??!??!?!?!
Frank Bruni at NYT agrees with you (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/frank-bruni-haste-hustle-and-scott-walker.html).
"I see an ambition even more pronounced than any ideology. I see an interest in personal advancement that eclipses any investment in personal growth. These are hardly unusual traits in our halls of government. But they're distilled in Walker, the governor of Wisconsin....
"We know from the biographies of him so far that he has been absorbed in those "political thoughts" since at least the start of college, before he could have possibly developed any fully considered, deeply informed set of beliefs or plan for what to do with power."
Walker said that that action established Reagan's credibility with friends and foes, and helped convince the soviets he meant business and would act. It is profoundly stupid to call that profoundly stupid without quoting the full context. Right or wrong it does not, as some would imply, suggest Walker thinks air traffic controllers are a foreign power.
Walker made the point as part of his argument that it is decisive leadership that really matters.
Why is it so f$cking hard for some people to simply be honest?
Quote from: Ken B on July 15, 2015, 11:36:20 AMWhy is it so f$cking hard for some people to simply be honest?
Let's be very, very clear about the nature of what Walker said: There is no context in which what he said was in any way intelligent. And Reagan's action did not have the
documented impact Walker himself claimed. (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/jan/28/scott-walker/scott-walker-records-show-soviets-treated-ronald-r/) He made a stupid statement, and lied about "evidence". Your question is a good one: Just why did Walker flat out lie?
(I guess if one puts much credence into what Edmund Morris wrote about Reagan, that can serve as heavyweight intellectual support. The Schultz claim, if true, is the only one that would carry any weight, but that requires one to place great faith in Peggy Noonan. Some people do.)
The purpose of Walker's statements is blindingly obvious: Reagan busted unions. Walker busted unions. Union busting equates to good foreign policy, because it makes people take the US seriously. Therefore, Walker would be good at foreign policy. He'd be a strong guy. A
tough guy. He's like the Gipper! It appears that there are some people who take that type of thinking seriously.
Another entertaining peek into Walker's foreign policy "views" can be observed in his interview with Martha Raddatz. Clearly, his handlers have since worked hard to get him on message - a simple one so that he can regurgitate it. (And a dehumanizing one. Radical Islam is like a virus! And killing viruses is good! Amiright?)
Walker is good at the grungy side of politics, but on policy matters he's a very dim bulb. He should never be President.
LEXINGTON, S.C. – Gov. Scott Walker, who recently expressed support for a ban on gay Boy Scout leaders because it "protected children," said on Wednesday that he did not mean that children needed "physical protection" from gay scoutmasters – but rather protection from the debate over the ban.
In comments published on Tuesday by The Independent Journal Review, a news website that is popular with young conservatives, Mr. Walker said, "I have had a lifelong commitment to the Scouts and support the previous membership policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values." But during a brief press conference in South Carolina on Wednesday, Mr. Walker said the decision on the ban was "up to the Boy Scouts" and added that his earlier remarks were not about protecting children from gay people.
"The protection was not a physical protection," he said, but rather about "protecting them from being involved in the very thing you're talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature."
-
Somewhere, they're having a funeral for logic.
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2015, 01:44:05 PM"The protection was not a physical protection," he said, but rather about "protecting them from being involved in the very thing you're talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B84xLI9IMAA2QeP.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2015, 01:44:05 PM
LEXINGTON, S.C. – Gov. Scott Walker, who recently expressed support for a ban on gay Boy Scout leaders because it "protected children," said on Wednesday that he did not mean that children needed "physical protection" from gay scoutmasters – but rather protection from the debate over the ban.
In comments published on Tuesday by The Independent Journal Review, a news website that is popular with young conservatives, Mr. Walker said, "I have had a lifelong commitment to the Scouts and support the previous membership policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values." But during a brief press conference in South Carolina on Wednesday, Mr. Walker said the decision on the ban was "up to the Boy Scouts" and added that his earlier remarks were not about protecting children from gay people.
"The protection was not a physical protection," he said, but rather about "protecting them from being involved in the very thing you're talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature."
-
Somewhere, they're having a funeral for logic.
Not so illogical. Some people DO object to talking about it, especially with children. Should we debate BDSM in grade 4? But his concerns are overblown.
I would rather social conservatives just 'fess up. Something like
sucking a guy's cock kinda disgusts me and I wish I didn't have to think of it, but you know it's not really my business or the government's business what you do in bed, and the law is settled regarding marriage, so let's just move on.
Quote from: Ken B on July 15, 2015, 02:14:51 PM
Not so illogical. Some people DO object to talking about it, especially with children.
Yes, but the way to end the debate and protect the kids from hearing constant debate, is to admit gay people, not to discriminate against them. If they kept banning gay people, the debate would rage on.
Doesn't change that Walker's "backtrack" was a lie.
Fascism straight up.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/210729/ (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/210729/)
Donald Trumped, pwned
http://twitchy.com/2015/07/21/blame-the-intern-again-donald-trumps-twitter-account-retweeted-a-picture-of-a-murderer-photo/ (http://twitchy.com/2015/07/21/blame-the-intern-again-donald-trumps-twitter-account-retweeted-a-picture-of-a-murderer-photo/)
This was not just an oversight, Trump and his team were duped. Think about the message on the picture to see how great a pwning this is.
Quote from: Ken B on July 21, 2015, 06:46:27 PM
Donald Trumped, pwned
http://twitchy.com/2015/07/21/blame-the-intern-again-donald-trumps-twitter-account-retweeted-a-picture-of-a-murderer-photo/ (http://twitchy.com/2015/07/21/blame-the-intern-again-donald-trumps-twitter-account-retweeted-a-picture-of-a-murderer-photo/)
This was not just an oversight, Trump and his team were duped. Think about the message on the picture to see how great a pwning this is.
I blame those scoundrelly Mexicans!
I wish i was American so i could vote Donald Trump. The amount of entertainment if he wins would be spectacular. Nothing is going to save America at this point, might as well go out with a bang.
Surprisingly funny:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/watch-lindsey-graham-destroy-his-cell-phone-after-124770719626.html (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/watch-lindsey-graham-destroy-his-cell-phone-after-124770719626.html)
Quote from: Purusha on July 22, 2015, 08:01:39 AM
Nothing is going to save America at this point,
From what?
Decline, irrelevancy, and collapse. History repeating itself, and all that.
Here's how i see America, or the west in general for that matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJh6EQ5gv7g
Quote from: Purusha on July 22, 2015, 01:07:29 PMDecline, irrelevancy, and collapse.
What's the timeline for this collapse?
It's much harder, today, for nations to endure "decline, irrelevancy, and collapse." It's not like ancient times, where America would grow weak and then barbarians would invade from Canada and sack all the cities. Unless the entire global political system is destroyed, and/or Canada becomes a barbarian warrior clan, America will probably exist for centuries to come, and its borders will remain unscathed.
We can still, of course, talk about decline, but I can't imagine this affecting my life as an everyday citizen. Global issues, like climate change, are a far bigger threat than somebody like China.
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2015, 05:42:14 PMIt's not like ancient times, where America would grow weak and then barbarians would invade from Canada and sack all the cities.
Kinda hard to do that with nukes part of the equation. Worst case for the US is that it goes the way of the British Empire in terms of global influence, and ends up a fat, rich nation glorying in its past. First, though, the dollar has to lose reserve currency status. Maybe next year.
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2015, 05:42:14 PM
It's much harder, today, for nations to endure "decline, irrelevancy, and collapse." It's not like ancient times, where America would grow weak and then barbarians would invade from Canada and sack all the cities. Unless the entire global political system is destroyed, and/or Canada becomes a barbarian warrior clan, America will probably exist for centuries to come, and its borders will remain unscathed.
We can still, of course, talk about decline, but I can't imagine this affecting my life as an everyday citizen. Global issues, like climate change, are a far bigger threat than somebody like China.
Canadians are a patient people. And we
love to sack cities.
LOL. You Canadians are one unfortunate roadkill incident away from being run out of Ottawa by a gang of angry beavers.
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2015, 05:42:14 PMGlobal issues, like climate change, are a far bigger threat than somebody like China.
This type of thinking is precisely why America cannot be saved.
Quote from: Brian on July 22, 2015, 05:42:14 PM
It's much harder, today, for nations to endure "decline, irrelevancy, and collapse." It's not like ancient times, where America would grow weak and then barbarians would invade from Canada and sack all the cities.
In a (small) way, 'tis pity. A good sacking might do Detroit all the good in the world ....
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on July 22, 2015, 10:03:22 PM
LOL. You Canadians are one unfortunate roadkill incident away from being run out of Ottawa by a gang of angry beavers.
That's true! You haveno idea howvicious those beavers can be. And cunning.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 23, 2015, 02:27:14 AM
In a (small) way, 'tis pity. A good sacking might do Detroit all the good in the world ....
I dunno, they make some really good-looking watches nowadays.
(This is not a joke. Look up Shinola watches.)
I know them from . . . .
Actually I lived in Canada (Vancouver) for nearly 4 years, and would seriously consider going back if the right opportunity arose. Becoming a hermit in a little hut on Salt Spring Island would be about right. Alternatively an NSERC grant to search for Sasquatch on Vancouver Island...
For It's Always Sunny fans:
Who said it: Frank Reynolds or Donald Trump? (https://medium.com/@jhermann/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-frank-from-it-s-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-b150d02cc0f8)
Ted Cruz has called Mitch McConnell a liar.
This is the Trump effect, I think. In a race where the Trumpster is sucking up all the oxygen, you need to be increasingly crazy to get any TV time. The only way Ted Cruz will reclaim his fanbase from Trump is by out-crazying him.
Hillary's big idea: 500,000,000 solar panels installed in four years. (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/26/3684585/hillary-clintons-climate-plan-released/) If they got started on day one of her presidency, that would require the installation of over 342,000 every day. This raises some practical questions, such as 1.) Who will pay for them? 2.) Who will install them? 3.) Where will they be installed? 4.) Has the so far intractable problem of intermittency been solved? If I didn't know better, I'd think this might be a hollow campaign promise.
The article says that would be 7 times the current total. It might take longer than 4 years. I care not a single shit.
1) Payers
2) Installers
3) Wherever there's enough sun
4) When we have that many more panels this oversold problem with be hacked down to a more realistic scale.
In sum, once we move the efforts to scare us will be out of date. We'll get down to the business of making it work.
Quote from: drogulus on July 26, 2015, 07:24:36 PM
1) Payers
2) Installers
3) Wherever there's enough sun
Talk about simplistic non-answers. Since no price tag has been mentioned yet, it's not even pie in the sky yet.
Quote from: drogulus on July 26, 2015, 07:24:36 PM
4) When we have that many more panels this oversold problem with be hacked down to a more realistic scale.
It's not oversold at all. Intermittency is the main limitation of both solar and wind. Even those with ideological or financial interests in the technologies admit that. Until the issue can be addressed, both sources are limited. Shy of adequate battery technology, a more interconnected "smart" grid is needed, and the price tag for that is immense. That's two immensely expensive projects. That's more than Hillary could deliver.
Quote from: Brian on July 24, 2015, 12:32:44 PM
Ted Cruz has called Mitch McConnell a liar.
This is the Trump effect, I think. In a race where the Trumpster is sucking up all the oxygen, you need to be increasingly crazy to get any TV time. The only way Ted Cruz will reclaim his fanbase from Trump is by out-crazying him.
Out-crazying Trump? Is it medically possible?
Quote from: karlhenning on July 27, 2015, 03:21:13 AM
Out-crazying Trump? Is it medically possible?
But don't forget. On "that other board" we are told authoritatively that "he'll win (and win decisively) if he gets the nomination. In fact, he may ultimately get the nomination if for no other reason than primary voters conclude he's most likely to win the general election."
Quote from: karlhenning on July 27, 2015, 03:21:13 AM
Out-crazying Trump? Is it medically possible?
Well Mike Huckabee just said that Obama's Iran deal puts the people of Israel at "the door of the oven"...
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 27, 2015, 01:06:34 PM
But don't forget. On "that other board" we are told authoritatively that "he'll win (and win decisively) if he gets the nomination. In fact, he may ultimately get the nomination if for no other reason than primary voters conclude he's most likely to win the general election."
Meh. Trump is able tolatch onto to immigration as an issue because no serious candidate wants to really discuss it honestly. That gives guys like Trump an opening. But once people see more of The Donald the less they like. His numbers fell after the McCain crap for instance. And that's just the first thing.
No need to panic. No-one normal really takes the election seriously yet, so name recognition and theatre go a long way at this stage.
I don't think Trump is actually running. I think he wants attention and then to flamboyantly pull out because "they" have blocked him. We will see.
Did I even know that Lincoln Chafee is in the ring? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2015/0728/Lincoln-Chafee-targets-Hillary-Clinton-on-Iraq-War-vote)
Quote from: David Cook... Chafee comes in fifth among the five declared candidates at 0.7 percent.
So there are two declared [Democratic] candidates whom I cannot seem to name . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2015, 03:52:33 AM
So there are two declared [Democratic] candidates whom I cannot seem to name . . . .
The poll rated the following
Her Presidentness in waiting
Sanders
Biden
Webb
O'Malley
Chafee
I had forgotten Webb has declared. There are six overall because Biden has not yet declared.
Thanks, I think 8)
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 02:27:13 PM
Meh. Trump is able tolatch onto to immigration as an issue because no serious candidate wants to really discuss it honestly. That gives guys like Trump an opening. But once people see more of The Donald the less they like. His numbers fell after the McCain crap for instance. And that's just the first thing.
No need to panic. No-one normal really takes the election seriously yet, so name recognition and theatre go a long way at this stage.
I don't think Trump is actually running. I think he wants attention and then to flamboyantly pull out because "they" have blocked him. We will see.
Oh, I'm not "panicking," and possibly you didn't catch the irony in my use of the word "authoritatively" in reference to the poster on that other board who considers himself the universal expert in all things. Actually I think the whole Trump thing is hilarious. I love it when Republicans make fools of themselves; they do it so well.
This is only an opinion, to be sure:
Quote from: Jack PitneyDonald Trump thrives in the realm of snap judgments on issues like immigration and trade. Logic takes more time, and his GOP rivals won't have much of it in a debate. He thrives on anger, too. What's left is mockery.
RTWT
here. (If you wish.)
(I dig how this refers to a book which — IIRC —
Jeffrey recommended . . . and which I have started to read on my Kindle . . . .)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 29, 2015, 06:14:40 AM
Oh, I'm not "panicking," and possibly you didn't catch the irony in my use of the word "authoritatively" in reference to the poster on that other board who considers himself the universal expert in all things. Actually I think the whole Trump thing is hilarious. I love it when Republicans make fools of themselves; they do it so well.
Ah but that references fits so many posters ...
Quote from: Ken B on July 29, 2015, 10:41:31 AM
Ah but that references fits so many posters ...
But some are more proud of their ignorance than others.
Quote from: Todd on July 26, 2015, 08:22:50 PM
Talk about simplistic non-answers. Since no price tag has been mentioned yet, it's not even pie in the sky yet.
Such nonquestions deserve nothing better. Actually they deserve that. Do you care what new businesses or expanded old ones flourish to install solar panels. OMFNG, it's labor intensive, numerous paychecks (garlic to Republican "job creators") will be generated. Offshore that, Kongresssional Klowns!
Ah, then there's the lovely "who pays?"....nonquestion
par exellence, always asked with the firm intention not of preventing any payment, but preventing anything worthy of paying for from happening.
QuoteIt's not oversold at all. Intermittency is the main limitation of both solar and wind. Even those with ideological or financial interests in the technologies admit that. Until the issue can be addressed, both sources are limited. Shy of adequate battery technology, a more interconnected "smart" grid is needed, and the price tag for that is immense. That's two immensely expensive projects. That's more than Hillary could deliver.
No, that's not how it works. It never works that way. You don't start a vast project knowing how you'll accomplish it. We did not go to the moon when we knew how, we learned how by going. We will learn how, and who does the work, and who pays for what as we go along, just as we always do, and we'll do it with all the usual sniping from the sidelines.
Quote from: drogulus on July 30, 2015, 07:26:31 PMAh, then there's the lovely "who pays?"....nonquestion par exellence, always asked with the firm intention not of preventing any payment, but preventing anything worthy of paying for from happening.
Nah, it's just a question rooted in the real world. Someone has to pay, and if it's a government program, that means taxpayers, and so far there isn't even a price tag. That's good politics, of course. It gets true believers like you to talk about how it's a good idea before even seeing the figures. It's the
idea that matters, or something along those lines. Who cares if it's a multitrillion boondoggle to embarrass even DOD types currently red-faced over the JSF? It's just (other peoples') money.
And Hillary's plan is grand, based on what she said subsequently. She has a ten year goal of freeing people from utilities, generating their own power, and so forth. That's a decent pitch for suburbanites, a bit tougher for city dwellers, but she knows her base, and how she has to entice those harder to convince suburbanites - with that Democrat specialty, the taxpayer funded handout. I do commend her on her cynicism. She and her advisors know that the targets will never be met, specifically because of issues like "who pays", plus lawsuits, local zoning ordinances, endless environmental impact studies, shortages of skilled labor and inadequate training time, etc, etc, etc. Here's the kicker, projections for solar growth over the same time periods are roughly half of what she advocates. If that growth occurs, and she gets, say, an additional 10-15 points of growth over the projections, she can say that
she tripled or quadrupled solar energy, and could have done better, but for those dastardly Republicans. Again, good, borderline great politics. Policy? Not so much.
QuoteSomeone has to pay
Got it, someone has to pay so it shouldn't happen. Or....are you just being a good citizen and reminding everyone that it costs more money to do worthwhile things than let the economy go in the toilet to "save dollars". Yeah I think we know that.
Quote from: drogulus on July 30, 2015, 08:00:08 PMGot it, someone has to pay so it shouldn't happen. Or....are you just being a good citizen and reminding everyone that it costs more money to do worthwhile things than let the economy go in the toilet to "save dollars". Yeah I think we know that.
No, that's not it at all. It's just that I see a (not yet qualified to be) pie in the sky policy, with a nice, big, politically motivated target,
without costs yet outlined, and I see the wholly cynical nature of what she is doing, rather than swallowing whole the idea that installing that many solar panels will solve our woes.
I get it, it's a big idea, so concerns like updating the electrical grid to deal with potential overflow of power at peak times (people won't want just
free electricity, they will demand the
right to sell it back to utilities) and sudden spikes in on-demand power needs when the unsolved intermittency issue arises are not important. Concerns like how to structure taxes - both for raising revenue and for targeting tax expenditures - to pay for it are also not important. Best to just do it. Let's have the US focus on the technology of the future for the last forty years without considering other forms of energy (eg, wind, which has grown much faster over the last twenty years, and works day
or night, though with its own significant intermittency issues), and at least as big an emphasis on efficiency gains. Solar, that's where it's at baby. Full speed ahead, and all that.
(I suspect if Hillary wins and actually pushes hard for this project, which of course is not certain, we will get to witness conservative groups funding lawsuits centered around animal rights and environmental impact. It'll be great.)
Quote from: Todd on July 30, 2015, 08:20:19 PM
No, that's not it at all. It's just that I see a (not yet qualified to be) pie in the sky policy, with a nice, big, politically motivated target, without costs yet outlined, and I see the wholly cynical nature of what she is doing, rather than swallowing whole the idea that installing that many solar panels will solve our woes.
I don't care about the political cynical motivations. Opponents have those, too.
Quote from: Todd on July 30, 2015, 08:20:19 PM
I get it, it's a big idea, so concerns like updating the electrical grid to deal with potential overflow of power at peak times (people won't want just free electricity, they will demand the right to sell it back to utilities) and sudden spikes in on-demand power needs when the unsolved intermittency issue arises are not important.
They are important, but they are to be solved, not used to block progress towards solving them. As for the ultimate importance of solar versus other new energy systems, we won't know that in advance either. Uncertainty about the ultimate shape of the system can't be allowed to block developing it. Maybe there will be less solar and more something else. It wouldn't surprise me.
Quote from: drogulus on July 31, 2015, 05:02:48 AM
Uncertainty about the ultimate shape of the system can't be allowed to block developing it.
That's why I say full speed ahead with caged-squirrel power!
No! Free the squirrels!
(http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/kzCLvZZd9c7qCY_cuVVUQw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AHTTP_H_FISCAL_TIMES_LIVE/Wage-Growth.png)
For years we've heard about how wages have stagnated since the '70s. The chart shows the course of both productivity and wages from 1950 on. See the divergence? That's problem no. 1, but it manifests in a trillion dollars of infrastructure neglect. This is what caring about budgets more than what spending and taxing are actually for has given us.
Let me correct a common error. A budget measures the net position of the public versus the private and foreign sectors. It is not therefore a goal in itself, it shows at the aggregate level how far we are from the goals we set, while at the program level we deal with goals specifically, military, health care, retirement, education, government operations, infrastructure. The budget is a tool to show where we are, that's all. The difference between annual budget balance and economic balance is something we always deal with, so this kind of balance shouldn't be expected to match any more than it has in the past. Deficits show how different they are, and atm the larger deficits we need for optimal balance show it better. The error is assuming that the zero sum point is a priori optimal, which it almost never is by anyone's measure except a priori "best of all possible worlds" budgeteers.
Look at how simple it is to think like a budgeteer. The pants are too short, so cut off the legs above the ankle, problem solved. Never mind what pants, legs, feet are for, they're for the budget, the budget must balance no matter what. OK, we can't actually do that, even the budgeteers themselves are dimly aware of how disastrous it would be to liquidate the private sector to eliminate the national debt. Does this precipitate learning about the cause of depressions among them? Why no, not if they can help it, it doesn't.
Quote from: drogulus on July 31, 2015, 05:02:48 AMThey are important, but they are to be solved, not used to block progress towards solving them.
What a charming but unrealistic statement. If overcoming intermittency on a national scale costs too much, then alternatives will be used. That is rational policy making.
Quote from: drogulus on July 31, 2015, 06:53:15 AMA budget measures the net position of the public versus the private and foreign sectors.
No it doesn't.
Mark Steyn
QuoteTrump is full of it, too. But at least he's full of it in English rather than bullshit. Which is what you're speaking when you talk about "pathways to citizenship" and "comprehensive immigration reform". They're Democrat evasions, and the Republican base is entitled at the very minimum to demand Republican candidates who come up with some weaselly duplicitous evasions of their own. A significant section of the GOP base is sick of dialing Republican headquarters and hearing "Press 1 for Spanish, press 2 for consultant-approved claptrap, press 3 for artful straddle, press 4 for all disavowals of last year's positions, press 5 for endless looped replays of John McCain's amusing primary-season-only super-butch 'Build the danged fence!' commercial, press 6 for live audio feed of John McCain teaching Lindsey Graham how to say 'Danged!', press 7 if you know the Spanish for 'Danged!', press 8 to hear Jeb Bush say 'No amnesty, not on my watch, no sirree!', press 9 to hear Jeb Bush say 'Viva la danged amnistía!' If you wish someone to speak to you in non-forked-tongue English, please stay on the line and wait for an operator."
In the news
QuoteAnother tech giant that says it must import foreign workers because there aren't enough skilled American workers in the industry is laying off thousands of workers.
Qualcomm — a major producer of smartphone chips — announced last week it's eliminating 15 percent of its workforce or about 4,500 employees, just weeks after fellow tech giant Microsoft announced a massive round of layoffs.
Both companies are top beneficiaries of the H-1b visa program, which backers say allows companies to temporarily hire foreign workers for jobs they can't find qualified Americans workers to fill.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jBU5MA0V-AI/T0V4jISptJI/AAAAAAAAADA/CiqZVT160d0/s1600/Financial+Balances.png)
The chart shows how the economy balances, with the government in the red most of the time. It shows as well how upward versus downward balance coincides with boom/bust. The question for informed policy makers is not balance versus unbalance, but where the balance is to be set. As a matter of accounting there is always balance, or someone made a mistake in math.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rV7XfUB0rSU/T0V3hPkAENI/AAAAAAAAAC4/4esL7p8mHZg/s1600/Post+Keynes.jpg)
I like this.
Quote from: drogulus on July 31, 2015, 09:57:56 AM(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jBU5MA0V-AI/T0V4jISptJI/AAAAAAAAADA/CiqZVT160d0/s1600/Financial+Balances.png)
The chart shows how the economy balances, with the government in the red most of the time. It shows as well how upward versus downward balance coincides with boom/bust. The question for informed policy makers is not balance versus unbalance, but where the balance is to be set. As a matter of accounting there is always balance, or someone made a mistake in math.
I believe you have posted this graph before. The problem is that when it comes to macroeconomics, not everyone agrees, so what you posit as truth, or something near to it, is not in fact truth. It would be like me posting on the quantity theory of money (MV = PQ) and stating that it is true. Like what you posted, it is self-contained, and grossly simplified, and therefore doesn't represent what its most ardent supporters wish. You choose your side, complete with Nobel winners, and I can do the same.
It's an opinion, of course:
. . . Trump is not an outlier at all – his hyperbolic, smash-mouthed style has become the Republican brand.
RTWT here (http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20150803/NEWS/150809900).
Quote from: karlhenning on August 03, 2015, 05:25:25 AM
It's an opinion, of course:
From a former chairman of the NH Democratic Party, not that he'd be overtly biased at all, or anything.
Quote from: Todd on August 03, 2015, 05:32:21 AM
From a former chairman of the NH Democratic Party, not that he'd be overtly biased at all, or anything.
I noted his background. But, the piece is rich with example; I know you noted that, as well 8)
Reading a piece in the on-line Christian Sc Monitor, I came across the phase "almost certainly Hillary Clinton" (as to the eventual Democratic nominee). I realize that the reasoning is sound. But crikey, it's only August 2015 . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on August 03, 2015, 05:44:37 AM
I noted his background. But, the piece is rich with example; I know you noted that, as well 8)
Don't forget "calves the size of cantaloupes." Real classy, that.
I missed that. I don't know why, but I did miss that somehow.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 03, 2015, 05:44:37 AMBut, the piece is rich with example; I know you noted that, as well
Yes, there are examples, but I didn't see Bob Corker's name listed when covering Iran, for instance, and the names Bush, Rubio, and Kasich do not appear in his op-ed. Now why might that be?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 03, 2015, 05:51:23 AMI realize that the reasoning is sound. But crikey, it's only August 2015 . . . .
Well, there was speculation yesterday that Joe Biden might run again, potentially throwing a (small) wrench into the works.
Is there something about Bernie? Yes. Right now, he's losing.
RTWT here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0730/feelthebern-Yes-there-is-something-about-Bernie.-He-s-losing).
A couple of minutes left in the debate and I am retracting my Cruz prediction.
I thought Kasich made a great impression.
ETA: watching the Republican reaction, maybe I should have stuck with Cruz (as a prediction, not as who I support).
Quote from: Pat B on August 06, 2015, 07:00:31 PMI thought Kasich made a great impression.
Kasich is a mensch in a party of parakeets. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/camille-paglia-john-kasich-won-813657)
(From Camille Paglia's, um, analysis in The Hollywood Reporter! (?!?) This is what the election has come to.)
Alas, I could not watch the whole thing, but the two minute blurbs I saw of the candidates reacting to specific questions were exactly as expected. I was relieved that Ted Cruz pledged to always tell the truth.
Quote from: Todd on August 07, 2015, 07:45:40 AM
Kasich is a mensch in a party of parakeets. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/camille-paglia-john-kasich-won-813657)
(From Camille Paglia's, um, analysis in The Hollywood Reporter! (?!?) This is what the election has come to.)
Alas, I could not watch the whole thing, but the two minute blurbs I saw of the candidates reacting to specific questions were exactly as expected. I was relieved that Ted Cruz pledged to always tell the truth.
Yes, they all pretty much stuck to their canned presentations. No surprises whatsoever in terms of policy ideas.
I would not have thought to look in something called The Hollywood Reporter for debate coverage, but that's actually a decent summary. I disagree completely about Rubio (he was stiff and awkward) and Huckabee (comfortably aggressive with his brand of nonsense), but she nailed most of the others.
Cruz was ruthless in his Senate primary against Dewhurst. Now he's just whiny. I was especially surprised by how slowly he spoke. Still, his vow to "always tell the truth" was clearly popular with the crowd, and anecdotally, it seems like Republicans were more impressed with him than I was.
Kasich is an effective moderate governor with plausible mainstream appeal, which probably makes him this year's Jon Huntsman.
I guess Jeb! is back to being the frontrunner.
Quote from: Pat B on August 07, 2015, 11:22:32 AMKasich is an effective moderate governor with plausible mainstream appeal, which probably makes him this year's Jon Huntsman.
Alas, that is probably true. He's turned off some donors with his St Peter line, too, which he apparently re-uttered in a fundraising setting.
Authentic protest, or paid diversion? (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-bernie-sanders-rally/)
(Will the phrase "White Supremacist Liberalism" catch on with Democrats?)
Quote from: Todd on August 09, 2015, 06:18:44 AM
Authentic protest, or paid diversion? (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-bernie-sanders-rally/)
(Will the phrase "White Supremacist Liberalism" catch on with Democrats?)
The irony being his history of strongly supporting the civil right movement...
At a similar protest, they booed when the phrase "White Lives Matter," was used after the guy said "Yes, Black Lives Matter," and continued booing when he went on to say "All Lives Matter." Pretty much demonstrates where the protestors stand. ::)
SJWs turning on old school leftists now? Talk about poetic justice. As if what happened to Matt Taylor and Tim Hunt isn't proof enough those people are deranged.
Hillary's second big, taxpayer funded giveaway: (even more heavily) subsidized college tuition! (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/politics/hillary-clinton-college-affordability/) (At least this has a price tag. If I didn't know better, I'd say it was understated.)
Where is she going to get 350 billions?
Quote from: Purusha on August 10, 2015, 07:09:36 AM
Where is she going to get 350 billions?
A reduction in tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers - ie, she's planning on killing some deductions and credits, but the articles I saw didn't say which ones. To be determined, I guess.
Extinction, Ho!
Bad news, Republicans: Donald Trump is practically bulletproof
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/10/bad-news-republicans-donald-trump-is-practically-bulletproof/?hpid=z2
Quote from: karlhenning on August 10, 2015, 10:44:43 AM
Extinction, Ho!
Bad news, Republicans: Donald Trump is practically bulletproof
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/10/bad-news-republicans-donald-trump-is-practically-bulletproof/?hpid=z2
This is a shrewd take. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/09/trump-american-ruling-class-tyranny-column/31371813/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/09/trump-american-ruling-class-tyranny-column/31371813/) Especially the opening Tweet he quotes.
Quote from: Ken B on August 10, 2015, 10:46:42 AM
This is a shrewd take. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/09/trump-american-ruling-class-tyranny-column/31371813/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/09/trump-american-ruling-class-tyranny-column/31371813/) Especially the opening Tweet he quotes.
Thanks!
Quote from: Jennifer RubinTrump's defenders deep in the heart of the right-wing echo chamber were incensed Trump would be asked to defend his record and egregious language.
(* chortle *)
I wonder if Comedy Central plans on rerunning the Donald Trump roast anytime soon. The Marlee Matlin/Gilbert Gottfried bit is great. (Trump is the 20th hijacker.)
I watched a clip of Megyn Kelly for the very first time today. So the Trump campaign has not been a complete waste.
And ...
(http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/rickroll2016-400x600.jpg)
Quote from: Ken B on August 11, 2015, 09:23:44 AM
I watched a clip of Megyn Kelly for the very first time today. So the Trump campaign has not been a complete waste.
:D
I saw her too, CNN played a clip from her show, I guess for its newsworthiness (?), and she started out with "Donald Trump said this and that, but I'm not going to reply to that...." and then did a couple minutes of replying to that. ::) :D
8)
Well, don't that beat all? (http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/08/poll_bernie_sanders_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinton_in_nh_44_37)
Today I saw the suggestion, made for illustrative purposes not as a real possibility, of Trump-Sanders 2016
It's horrifying. But damn would it be fun!
Quote from: Todd on August 12, 2015, 06:51:58 AM
Well, don't that beat all? (http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/08/poll_bernie_sanders_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinton_in_nh_44_37)
Sharing a hometown with Bernie sort of makes me partial to him even though we disagree somewhat on our political stances. Despite any of that, I know enough about him to say "go ahead on, Bernie, kick her ass good". :)
8)
I don't see him doing any ass kicking any time soon after that disaster with the #blacklivesmatter trolls.
You Americans sure live in interesting times!
Quote from: Purusha on August 13, 2015, 12:00:09 AM
I don't see him doing any ass kicking any time soon after that disaster with the #blacklivesmatter trolls.
Au contraire, he is significantly ahead of Hillary Clinton in one recent New Hampshire poll (granted, it's from a neighbor state to his home Vermont), and he consistently draws larger crowds than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat.
Now just imagine one year from now - not Hillary vs. Jeb, but Bernie vs. The Donald for the general. Ain't going to happen, but it sure would be fun.
All right, so I misread the headline:
Donald Trump Jury Duty: Will He Be Pickled?
Hillary Clinton e-mails: Her tactics take a political toll (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0814/Hillary-Clinton-e-mails-Her-tactics-take-a-political-toll)
Quote"For various reasons, the Clintons don't seem to be able to learn some of the most basic lessons" about the appearance of impropriety, says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
QuoteA recent Reuters poll found that 3.3 percent of Democrats would vote for Gore in the 2016 election, the same percentage as those who would vote for actor George Clooney.
Al Gore vs. Hillary Clinton? Gore 2016 campaign rumors. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0814/Al-Gore-vs.-Hillary-Clinton-Gore-2016-campaign-rumors)
Me, I wonder if the best that can be said for Gore is, he is
no worse than Hillary . . . .
The George Clooney thing reminded me: my friend and I were discussing this question. Which pop culture celebrity do you think would make the best president?
We both agreed on Jay Z for his business acumen and negotiating skills. Anybody got a better celebrity president idea?
Quote from: Brian on August 18, 2015, 06:31:30 AMAnybody got a better celebrity president idea?
Donald Trump.
Schwarzenegger - the Terminator! but he was not born in the US, unfortunately
Quote from: Jo498 on August 18, 2015, 06:42:10 AM
Schwarzenegger
Ineligible. Not born in the USA. This provision was stipulated in the Constitution to protect the new nation from the possibility of a "desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist 68).
(Actually, if Republicans get their way, they would abolish the right to citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil, a protection explicitly guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the Constitution. But of course as we all know Barack Obama violated this rule because his Hawaiian birth certificate doesn't prove he was born in Hawaii; just ask Donald Trump.)
So why should an Austrian certificate prove birth in Austria? :D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 18, 2015, 06:57:44 AMIneligible. Not born in the USA. This provision was stipulated in the Constitution to protect the new nation from the possibility of a "desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist 68).
The requirement now is to be a "natural born citizen," not born in the USA. Alas, to the best of my knowledge, there is no federal statutory definition of "natural born citizen" currently on the books. Surely a child born overseas to an active duty US servicemember, diplomat, or citizen would count as a natural born citizen of the USA. Surely you do not want to deprive Ted Cruz of the right to run for President . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 18, 2015, 06:57:44 AMActually, if Republicans get their way, they would abolish the right to citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil, a protection explicitly guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
I think it is safe to say that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will not be repealed.
Quote from: Todd on August 18, 2015, 07:33:22 AM
I think it is safe to say that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will not be repealed.
But Donald Trump has that in his policy statement, and as he told Maureen Dowd, "I am a man of great achievement. I win, Maureen, I always win. Knock on wood. I win. It's what I do. I beat people. I win."
:o ;D ;D
Quote from: Brian on August 18, 2015, 07:56:28 AM
But Donald Trump has that in his policy statement, and as he told Maureen Dowd, "I am a man of great achievement. I win, Maureen, I always win. Knock on wood. I win. It's what I do. I beat people. I win."
It is hard to argue with such profound eloquence as delivered by The Donald.
Quote from: El TupéHe [Reagan] had a great heart, and I have a great heart.
No one thought to tell The Donald that it means ever so much more when
someone else says it of you.
Quote from: Todd on August 18, 2015, 07:33:22 AM
Surely a child born overseas to an active duty US servicemember, diplomat, or citizen would count as a natural born citizen of the USA.
This is correct. I was born in India, when my dad was working at the US embassy in New Delhi. So I'm a natural born citizen (although I had to get a sort of naturalization certificate when we moved back).
Hope you got the long form 8) ;) 0:)
Quote from: Todd on August 18, 2015, 07:33:22 AM
The requirement now is to be a "natural born citizen," not born in the USA. Alas, to the best of my knowledge, there is no federal statutory definition of "natural born citizen" currently on the books. Surely a child born overseas to an active duty US servicemember, diplomat, or citizen would count as a natural born citizen of the USA. Surely you do not want to deprive Ted Cruz of the right to run for President . . .
Please, don't tempt me. And various Republicans such as Scott Walker have explicitly argued for a repeal of birthright citizenship, on the alleged grounds of abuse (e.g., immigrants coming to the US briefly solely to have a child here and then leaving). Steve King of Iowa (he of "calves the size of canteloupes" fame) has introduced legislation attempting to limit such citizenship, on the grounds that the amendment was not intended to protect babies born to undocumented parents. Well, tough noogies, Steve, the amendment specifically says, "
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Schwarzenegger himself thinks he's ineligible, and he was not "born overseas to an active duty US servicemember, diplomat, or citizen": "Everyone knows that if I was American-born I would probably run for president. I could do a better job than these guys can, trust me. . . . [What, better than The Donald?] That job's not available and I am not going to complain about it because everything that I have accomplished in my life is because of America," Schwarzenegger told The Daily Telegraph. "So I'm not going to complain about the one job that I can't do."
But the fact is that, on the one hand, America prides itself on being the melting pot, and on the other, it resists (often with pathological intensity) any efforts from newcomers to assimilate. This happened with the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, and now it's the turn of the Hispanics. Too bad for Republicans, but this is no longer the country of rich old white men.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 18, 2015, 08:46:30 AM
But the fact is that, on the one hand, America prides itself on being the melting pot, and on the other, it resists (often with pathological intensity) any efforts from newcomers to assimilate. This happened with the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, and now it's the turn of the Hispanics.
::)
Do, please, explain how citizenship and immigration works in Germany and Switzerland.
The resistance comes from the fact America was never a "melting pot".
Quote from: Ken B on August 18, 2015, 08:49:38 AM
::)
Do, please, explain how citizenship and immigration works in Germany and Switzerland.
Please, it's hard enough explaining how it works in the USA. But I have heard that those two countries, along with Austria and Japan, are among the hardest to achieve citizenship.
Quote from: Purusha on August 18, 2015, 09:01:35 AM
The resistance comes from the fact America was never a "melting pot".
It is and it isn't. The ideal was there, as happened when my grandparents came to Ellis Island from Lithuania and Poland around 1915:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
But the ideal has always met with resistance, the ultimate and obvious case being the case of American blacks following emancipation. But of course, we have been told by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, in conversation with another rich white guy, that racism is no longer an issue in this country. I'm sure Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown will be delighted to hear that.
Bill O'Reilly said so, it's settled!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 18, 2015, 08:46:30 AMWell, tough noogies, Steve, the amendment specifically says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
I see this as good, old-fashioned wedge issue politics. Scott Walker aside, I doubt the Republicans floating plans to scrap the first section of the 14th Amendment think their ideas will gain traction, and use it more as political red meat to appeal to more rabid and/or dumber members of the base. (There may be some overlap, of course.) In the case of the 14th Amendment, the Republican authors were unambiguously clear in their intentions and used very specific language on purpose, so interpretation is not really an issue. It needs to be changed, or it stands as-is. It is very easy to think of thirteen state legislatures that will kill any proposed amendment dead - and that's provided any proposed amendment makes it out of Congress, which will never happen. And both are far more likely than a new Constitutional Convention. Thank goodness the framers made amending the Constitution a very difficult process.
I also see some benefit to the fits of anti-immigration ridiculousness that routinely arise in the US. It forces public discussion, allows for a political outlet for frustrations (real or imagined, legitimate or not), and results in some occasional entertainment, like the foolish law passed (and now repealed) in Alabama regarding illegal immigrant labor.
I see that you included the current small-l liberal platitude about this country no longer being the country of rich old white men. Thing is, it still is. Demographic projections show a white majority until mid-century, so ideas that the white majority doesn't have influence commensurate with their numbers (or even more so, really) strike me as wishful thinking. In time that will change. It will change to be a country of rich men, and some rich women, of all races - at least as far as outsize political influence is concerned.
QuoteWashington (CNN)—Donald Trump has won his party's trust on top issues more than any other Republican presidential candidate, and now stands as the clear leader in the race for the GOP nomination, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 18, 2015, 09:02:52 AM
Please, it's hard enough explaining how it works in the USA. But I have heard that those two countries, along with Austria and Japan, are among the hardest to achieve citizenship.
And here I thought you were arguing problems with immigration was uniquely an American problem. In fact it's a problem with any country anywhere at any time. (I believe even Norway had objections to sudden, uninvited, mass immigration 75 years ago.)
I thought this was interesting.
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/08/17/floodgates-open-top-democrat-professor-says-ive-never-seen-any-politician-with-better-immigration-plan-than-trump/ (http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/08/17/floodgates-open-top-democrat-professor-says-ive-never-seen-any-politician-with-better-immigration-plan-than-trump/)
QUIZ: Which other candidate sounds most like Trump on immigration?
ANSWER: Bernie Sanders.
Let's play spot the exaggeration.
Conservative icon Ann Coulter and author of new book Adios America has called Trump's policy paper, "The greatest political document since the Magna Carta."
In an understandably specific sense, that is beautiful.
The exaggeration is calling Ann Coulter a conservative icon.
Actually, that's two exaggerations.
Quote from: Ken B on August 18, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
And here I thought you were arguing problems with immigration was uniquely an American problem.
I don't see that I said or even implied anything of the sort.
Quote from: Ken B on August 18, 2015, 11:40:58 AM
The exaggeration is calling Ann Coulter a conservative icon.
Actually, that's two exaggerations.
Breitbart is not necessarily noted for quality or accuracy or reasonableness.
Quote from: Todd on August 18, 2015, 09:37:34 AM
I see this as good, old-fashioned wedge issue politics. Scott Walker aside, I doubt the Republicans floating plans to scrap the first section of the 14th Amendment think their ideas will gain traction, and use it more as political red meat to appeal to more rabid and/or dumber members of the base. (There may be some overlap, of course.) In the case of the 14th Amendment, the Republican authors were unambiguously clear in their intentions and used very specific language on purpose, so interpretation is not really an issue. It needs to be changed, or it stands as-is. It is very easy to think of thirteen state legislatures that will kill any proposed amendment dead - and that's provided any proposed amendment makes it out of Congress, which will never happen. And both are far more likely than a new Constitutional Convention. Thank goodness the framers made amending the Constitution a very difficult process.
I also see some benefit to the fits of anti-immigration ridiculousness that routinely arise in the US. It forces public discussion, allows for a political outlet for frustrations (real or imagined, legitimate or not), and results in some occasional entertainment, like the foolish law passed (and now repealed) in Alabama regarding illegal immigrant labor.
I see that you included the current small-l liberal platitude about this country no longer being the country of rich old white men. Thing is, it still is. Demographic projections show a white majority until mid-century, so ideas that the white majority doesn't have influence commensurate with their numbers (or even more so, really) strike me as wishful thinking. In time that will change. It will change to be a country of rich men, and some rich women, of all races - at least as far as outsize political influence is concerned.
The problem is that the Latino population is rapidly growing, and it's counterproductive for Republican candidates to alienate this constituency. And if it's becoming a country of rich men and/or rich women, they are a small minority whose outsize gains are leaving behind the rest of the population, and I don't see anyone but Sanders who understands the issue.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 18, 2015, 07:19:33 PMThe problem is that the Latino population is rapidly growing, and it's counterproductive for Republican candidates to alienate this constituency.
You will get no disagreement from me - at least as it pertains to future elections. I doubt you'd get a lot of disagreement from Republicans like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush (or any other Bush, including likely future star George P Bush), and others who have a potentially long future in politics. The cold, hard truth is that anti-immigration politics still works as a vote getter for a number of reasons. The rise of the Latino vote is very real in a number of regions of the country, but there are still areas where it is not as politically potent, so the benefits outweigh the costs, politically speaking.
I'm afraid I have to disagree about Sanders' understanding of the impact of, and ways to adequately address, inequality and other economic woes, especially when looking at some of his policy "proposals". His twelve point plan is boilerplate Progressivism that's (understandably) light on specifics. Raise the minimum wage? Well, OK, to what? And how to address studies that show it doesn't have the beneficial effects that proponents claim? (Republicans can address the fact that the threatened job losses, undeniably massive, don't materialize.) Reform trade policy? OK, to what? And then there's his take on tax reform. Base it on people's ability to pay? That's exactly what the federal income tax does now, and even when tempered by regressive or flat taxes elsewhere in the system (eg, social security), it's still structurally progressive overall. He should just say that he wants to raise rates on the rich. That's simple and honest. Where he really gets it wrong, though, is on corporate taxation. The US has too high a corporate rate compared to the rest of the advanced world. There are more than a few economists of liberal persuasion who support lowering the corporate rate in an effort to actually repatriate funds held overseas. Promises of strong arming companies will not work as advertised. And
real tax reform would address the $700 billion a year in tax expenditures that go to the top quintile. I don't see Sanders offering specifics there, because it means taking on things like mortgage interest deductions and health care tax expenditures. (The last will not fly with unions, period.) Medicare for all is DOA. Breaking up big banks, sure, do that, but that's more of a safety and soundness measure, not an economic growth and job creation measure, and I've yet to see too many politicians come out against infrastructure spending, especially since highway bills are some of the last remaining ways to reel in pork. Sanders offers superficially nice sounding blurbs that amount to basically nothing.
Quote from: Todd on August 18, 2015, 08:01:23 PM
You will get no disagreement from me - at least as it pertains to future elections. I doubt you'd get a lot of disagreement from Republicans like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush (or any other Bush, including likely future star George P Bush), and others who have a potentially long future in politics. The cold, hard truth is that anti-immigration politics still works as a vote getter for a number of reasons. The rise of the Latino vote is very real in a number of regions of the country, but there are still areas where it is not as politically potent, so the benefits outweigh the costs, politically speaking.
I'm afraid I have to disagree about Sanders' understanding of the impact of, and ways to adequately address, inequality and other economic woes, especially when looking at some of his policy "proposals". His twelve point plan is boilerplate Progressivism that's (understandably) light on specifics. Raise the minimum wage? Well, OK, to what? And how to address studies that show it doesn't have the beneficial effects that proponents claim? (Republicans can address the fact that the threatened job losses, undeniably massive, don't materialize.) Reform trade policy? OK, to what? And then there's his take on tax reform. Base it on people's ability to pay? That's exactly what the federal income tax does now, and even when tempered by regressive or flat taxes elsewhere in the system (eg, social security), it's still structurally progressive overall. He should just say that he wants to raise rates on the rich. That's simple and honest. Where he really gets it wrong, though, is on corporate taxation. The US has too high a corporate rate compared to the rest of the advanced world. There are more than a few economists of liberal persuasion who support lowering the corporate rate in an effort to actually repatriate funds held overseas. Promises of strong arming companies will not work as advertised. And real tax reform would address the $700 billion a year in tax expenditures that go to the top quintile. I don't see Sanders offering specifics there, because it means taking on things like mortgage interest deductions and health care tax expenditures. (The last will not fly with unions, period.) Medicare for all is DOA. Breaking up big banks, sure, do that, but that's more of a safety and soundness measure, not an economic growth and job creation measure, and I've yet to see too many politicians come out against infrastructure spending, especially since highway bills are some of the last remaining ways to reel in pork. Sanders offers superficially nice sounding blurbs that amount to basically nothing.
Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful reply. Perhaps you're right in your conclusion, but at least Sanders recognizes the issue though I don't see that his lack of specifics is unique to him. As for corporate taxes, well, many of these large corporations pay an effective rate of zero. "While Americans have just been subjected to higher taxes, billion-dollar corporations like Facebook, General Electric, Boeing and Wells Fargo have all been able to avoid paying any corporate income taxes, reports Citizens for Tax Justice." - http://www.rt.com/usa/facebook-income-tax-year-342/ (2013)
Could be the darkest headline you ever read:
CNN/ORC Poll: Donald Trump now competitive in general electionQuote from: Jennifer AgiestaAnd positive impressions of Clinton continue to fade. Among all adults, the new poll finds 44% hold a favorable view of her, 53% an unfavorable one, her most negative favorability rating since March 2001.
Quote from: Todd on August 18, 2015, 08:01:23 PM
You will get no disagreement from me - at least as it pertains to future elections. I doubt you'd get a lot of disagreement from Republicans like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush (or any other Bush, including likely future star George P Bush),
George P Bush has one thing in common with Jeb. I know a guy who went to law school with GP, who says that he absolutely never mentioned his last name in conversation, and nobody ever addressed him by his last name either. Apparently the word is he's a good decent guy, at least to be in a classroom with.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 19, 2015, 03:07:05 AM
As for corporate taxes, well, many of these large corporations pay an effective rate of zero. "While Americans have just been subjected to higher taxes, billion-dollar corporations like Facebook, General Electric, Boeing and Wells Fargo have all been able to avoid paying any corporate income taxes, reports Citizens for Tax Justice." - http://www.rt.com/usa/facebook-income-tax-year-342/ (2013)
Corporate taxes SHOULD be 0. For one thing, they are regressive. A lot of not-so-rich own shares after all. Second, they are subject to manipulation, which is why well-connected companies like Facebook can arrange to pay less than their competitors. And most importantly they impede growth and wealth creation. What
should be taxed is either income or consumption. That way rich *people* pay more.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 19, 2015, 03:07:05 AMfor corporate taxes, well, many of these large corporations pay an effective rate of zero.
Correct, and part of the cause is the combination of high rates paired with innumerable tax expenditures. No one in his or her right political mind will advocate eliminating all "loopholes" (eg, accelerated depreciation), but eliminate many of them, drop the rate to a few percentage points below the tax rate of countries that hold large shares of completely un-ill-gotten corporate gains (ie, the companies are doing what they should), or perhaps parity for those so obsessed with equality that they want it for corporate tax rates, and there would be more funds coming into the US Treasury. Enough for Sanders? Probably not. That doesn't really matter.
(And RT, really?)
Quote from: Ken B on August 19, 2015, 05:18:34 AMWhat should be taxed is either income or consumption. That way rich *people* pay more.
Not true when it comes to consumption taxes. Sales taxes and VATs are regressive. Per the OECD, some European countries have a regressive structure due largely on a reliance on VATs. The conservative emphasis on consumption taxes is one of the most misleading sales pitches out there.
Quote from: Todd on August 19, 2015, 05:33:43 AM
Correct, and part of the cause is the combination of high rates paired with innumerable tax expenditures. No one in his or her right political mind will advocate eliminating all "loopholes" (eg, accelerated depreciation), but eliminate many of them, drop the rate to a few percentage points below the tax rate of countries that hold large shares of completely un-ill-gotten corporate gains (ie, the companies are doing what they should), or perhaps parity for those so obsessed with equality that they want it for corporate tax rates, and there would be more funds coming into the US Treasury. Enough for Sanders? Probably not. That doesn't really matter.
(And RT, really?)
Not true when it comes to consumption taxes. Sales taxes and VATs are regressive. Per the OECD, some European countries have a regressive structure due largely on a reliance on VATs. The conservative emphasis on consumption taxes is one of the most misleading sales pitches out there.
A VAT is not the same thing as a consumption tax. And you cite examples which are not progressive and claim therefore no such tax can be progressive. (Wellington's Victory is lousy, so the Eroica must be lousy.)
UPDATE. I guess it's worth a link to show that
1) progressive consumption taxes are quite possible logically
2) they are not just a conservative "sales pitch" since there are quite left-wing advocates
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/inequality_and_executive_pay (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/inequality_and_executive_pay)
and 3) they have broad support amongst more than just right or left wing ideologues
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/03/18/bill-gates-points-to-the-best-tax-system-the-progressive-consumption-tax/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/03/18/bill-gates-points-to-the-best-tax-system-the-progressive-consumption-tax/)
I am not interested in debating the merits of such taxes. I am just pointing out uninformed BS in a comment here.
Quote from: Ken B on August 19, 2015, 05:54:28 AMI am not interested in debating the merits of such taxes. I am just pointing out uninformed BS in a comment here.
A humorous riposte from a person who misused the word "monopoly" when attempting to describe single payer insurance. (That's a monopsony.)
You purposely misread and misrepresent what I wrote. I wrote sales taxes and VATs are regressive. Why would I do that? Well, it's because I live in the real world of practical policy, and I see the difference between what is touted as theoretically possible and how things may, in fact, work. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ConsumptionTax.html) (The third and fourth paragraphs briefly describe the practical concerns; the rest of the article describes pro-consumption tax ideas and alternatives, including unlimited IRAs.) Your hastily put together mini-list of cherry picked articles of dubious value - eg, something referencing Bill Gates - does not convince, nor does it mask the primary goal of many or most
conservatives in advocating a switch to, or increased reliance on, consumption taxes. Now maybe
you, specifically, believe that it is the fairest, most equitable, most efficient way to raise revenue. I'll assume that's the case. But most discussions I had while in college, and most articles - scholarly and popular - that I've read since, have offered it as a more efficient way to tax
while allowing for a decrease in, or elimination of, capital gains taxes. I get it, more investment is more better, and hence the attractiveness of the Economist article ("If a progressive consumption tax were phased in gradually, its main effect would be to shift spending from consumption to investment, causing productivity and incomes to rise faster"), which I read when it was published. This would be far more convincing if lack of private sector investment was one of the main problems faced by the US economy. Consumption taxes, including the items I mentioned and others, are regressive in practice. They can be part of the mix. They should be. They should not become the primary method of raising revenue.
Quote from: Todd on August 19, 2015, 05:33:43 AM
Correct, and part of the cause is the combination of high rates paired with innumerable tax expenditures.
QuoteBut thanks to a controversial loophole in US tax code, 12 tech companies—including Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin—are poised to avoid paying income taxes on their next $11.4 billion in earnings, netting the companies a collective savings of $4 billion, according to a report put out this week by the Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ).
The way the law stands now, US companies get big tax deductions when they pay their employees in stock options. For example, if an executive is given the option to buy a million shares of a company at five cents a share and later cashes those options in when they're selling for $20 a share, the company can deduct the price difference in tax breaks, even though they never actually paid that higher salary. This is especially profitable to emerging industries, like tech, where companies give stock options to young executives when they're still coding out of their parents' basements. These tech employees have an incentive to stay with the company over the long-term, and then cash in once the company is profitable. That means that companies get to store these tax breaks until—ta-da!—they're not paying income taxes for years.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/11/report-facebook-twitter-taxes
I don't see any tax expenditures here. And what is "RT, really," please?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 19, 2015, 07:27:58 AM
I don't see any tax expenditures here. And what is "RT, really," please?
A tax deduction is a tax expenditure. From the Joint Committee on Taxation:
"Tax expenditures are defined under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the "Budget Act") as "revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability." Thus, tax expenditures include any reductions in income tax liabilities that result from special tax provisions or regulations that provide tax benefits to particular taxpayers."
RT.com is a sometime questionable source of information.
Quote from: Todd on August 19, 2015, 07:42:51 AM
A tax deduction is a tax expenditure. From the Joint Committee on Taxation:
"Tax expenditures are defined under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the "Budget Act") as "revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability." Thus, tax expenditures include any reductions in income tax liabilities that result from special tax provisions or regulations that provide tax benefits to particular taxpayers."
RT.com is a sometime questionable source of information.
I didn't use RT. Well, yes, if I pay mortgage interest, state taxes, and/or medical expenses and deduct them on Schedule A, I've incurred expenses that result in a reduction of my taxable income. But not invariably (e.g., I buy a piece of art for $5K, it appreciates to $25K, and I donate the appreciated value as a charitable deduction). So are these companies granting stock options not reaping far greater benefits than they immediately pay? (I'm just asking, I'm not a tax specialist.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 19, 2015, 07:57:21 AMSo are these companies granting stock options not reaping far greater benefits than they immediately pay? (I'm just asking, I'm not a tax specialist.)
Nor am I, so I cannot say conclusively, but it looks like they are reducing current and some future tax liabilities based on what is in the article (from RT, however it was linked). I'm not at all surprised they are using such a deduction. They should. I would say management at companies using this deduction have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to minimize taxes and therefore to use all legal means of doing so. The policy question is whether such deductions are economically or socially useful. The same question applies to all tax expenditures.
Quote from: Ken B on August 18, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
QUIZ: Which other candidate sounds most like Trump on immigration?
ANSWER: Bernie Sanders.
Somebody wrote it on National Review, it must be true.
Their actual policy ideas are extremely different.
Anyone heard about the candidate, Deez Nuts, polling at 9% of the vote?
I would have voted for them... hey, it's a better choice than Clinton or Trump, so why not?
Fun little nugget buried in an NYT piece about Bernie Sanders' Iowa campaign events:
It was around then that Fred Bowes, a 77-year-old Democrat, walked out of an event in Boone.
"Everything he said is true," Mr. Bowes said. "Implementing what he says is next to impossible."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-evokes-obama-of-08-but-with-less-hope.html
Quote from: Brian on August 21, 2015, 07:25:46 AM
Fun little nugget buried in an NYT piece about Bernie Sanders' Iowa campaign events:
It was around then that Fred Bowes, a 77-year-old Democrat, walked out of an event in Boone.
"Everything he said is true," Mr. Bowes said. "Implementing what he says is next to impossible."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-evokes-obama-of-08-but-with-less-hope.html
But nothing's impossible for Donald Trump.
Because that's how the G.O.P. colors the process: Carly Fiorina in the bizarre position of having to say, Yes, Jesus is my personal Savior (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/21/carlys-momentum-keeps-growing/). Thank God she ain't Muslim!
"We are now in a campaign era . . . it's all about what fizzle you're gonna bring."
Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2015, 10:33:16 AM
Because that's how the G.O.P. colors the process: Carly Fiorina in the bizarre position of having to say, Yes, Jesus is my personal Savior (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/21/carlys-momentum-keeps-growing/).
Ya won't hear Bernie Sanders sayin' that!
Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2015, 10:33:16 AM
Because that's how the G.O.P. colors the process:
I also saw where four different GOP candidates - including Donald Trump!! - are the children of immigrants.
(http://www.foodsubs.com/Photos/yellowonion.jpg)
Encouraging Study Finds It Now Easier Than Ever For American Dollars To Rise Into Upper Class (http://www.theonion.com/article/encouraging-study-finds-it-now-easier-ever-america-51117)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2015, 10:33:16 AM
Because that's how the G.O.P. colors the process: Carly Fiorina in the bizarre position of having to say, Yes, Jesus is my personal Savior (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/21/carlys-momentum-keeps-growing/). Thank God she ain't Muslim!
I don't see that as bizarre. Besides, no one is
forced to lie, it's practically expected. She has the option of "believing in a higher power", too.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Ugh...the article indicates Carly "thinks" savioristic beliefs fight cancer. The policy implications are rather gruesome, so let's hope she's bullshitting like politicians do. Chances are that's exactly what it is.
Quote from: Brian on August 21, 2015, 11:37:59 AM
I also saw where four different GOP candidates - including Donald Trump!! - are the children of immigrants.
But they were the
right kind of immigrants.
BTW, there is one other GOP candidate who seems to be totally under the radar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Everson
Quote from: drogulus on August 21, 2015, 11:42:59 AM
I don't see that as bizarre. Besides, no one is forced to lie, it's practically expected. She has the option of "believing in a higher power", too. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Ugh...the article indicates Carly "thinks" savioristic beliefs fight cancer. The policy implications are rather gruesome, so let's hope she's bullshitting like politicians do. Chances are that's exactly what it is.
:D Yes, chances are. I hope.... :-\
8)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 21, 2015, 11:55:49 AM
BTW, there is one other GOP candidate who seems to be totally under the radar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Everson
He wants to reestablish the draft. The Republican equivalent of Lincoln Chafee, who wants to adopt the metric system?
Why Donald Trump Won't Fold: Polls and People Speak (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/politics/why-donald-trump-wont-fold-polls-and-people-speak.html)
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 23, 2015, 07:16:12 AM
Why Donald Trump Won't Fold: Polls and People Speak (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/politics/why-donald-trump-wont-fold-polls-and-people-speak.html)
Thank goodness there are 443 more days to go . . .
Quote from: Todd on August 23, 2015, 07:19:45 AM
Thank goodness there are 443 more days to go . . .
That still leaves a lot of oxygen for El Tupé to suck in!
What a joke the USA is, the laughing stock of the world .. it's nowhere near 2016 yet and the long-winded circus is on .. to be "the puppet" of one of the most hated and bankrupt industrial countries in the world. Can't they intelligently do this shit a couple of months prior to the actual election? The pageantry is beyond ridiculous and overblown. Most of these assholes spend more money to get a job that will pay less.
Quote from: James on August 23, 2015, 08:15:19 AMMost of these assholes spend more money to get a job that will pay less.
True, but post-presidency book deals and speaking fees can earn Clintonesque money.
Quote from: Todd on August 23, 2015, 08:49:17 AM
True, but post-presidency book deals and speaking fees can earn Clintonesque money.
I have to admit that "speaking fees" have always been a mystery to me. Why would anyone pay outrageous amounts of money to a retired politician to listen to them give a speech? That sounds about as exciting as reading the contents of a cereal box (and less informative).
Quote from: Todd on August 23, 2015, 08:49:17 AMTrue, but post-presidency book deals and speaking fees can earn Clintonesque money.
That's something I noticed too .. most of them leave and end up very wealthy. Hmmm
Meanwhile what they achieved in office is essentially the same ol' shit. Perpetual war/debt.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on August 23, 2015, 08:58:40 AM
I have to admit that "speaking fees" have always been a mystery to me. Why would anyone pay outrageous amounts of money to a retired politician to listen to them give a speech? That sounds about as exciting as reading the contents of a cereal box (and less informative).
It is payment for influence wielded.
Why pay it when he's an ex president? Because there are future ex presidents whose influence will be sought.
Has the media finally accepted Donald Trump? What that could mean. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0824/Has-the-media-finally-accepted-Donald-Trump-What-that-could-mean)
Must Republicans face the possibility that Trump will be their candidate? 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2015, 05:24:43 AM
Has the media finally accepted Donald Trump? What that could mean. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0824/Has-the-media-finally-accepted-Donald-Trump-What-that-could-mean)
Must Republicans face the possibility that Trump will be their candidate? 8)
No. Trump won't be the nominee.
I'm not convinced he's even much of a Republican; certainly not of the small government variety, and not of the pious variety. Maybe of the "not a Democrat" kind.
What Trump is is a guy willing to call out the established ruling class (never mind he's part of it), especially the GOP establishment. What appeals about Trump is not the policies but the stance. As Christo said here, "Balls and brains." Trump has both. What he hasn't is restraint, or a consistent set of policies.
Quote from: Ken B on August 24, 2015, 06:22:00 AM
I'm not convinced he's even much of a Republican; certainly not of the small government variety, and not of the pious variety. Maybe of the "not a Democrat" kind.
What Trump is is a guy willing to call out the established ruling class (never mind he's part of it), especially the GOP establishment. What appeals about Trump is not the policies but the stance. As Christo said here, "Balls and brains." Trump has both. What he hasn't is restraint, or a consistent set of policies.
All your points are well taken. And I want to believe that his present polling success is the matter of an angry, disaffected minority. No, I suppose it is fair to posit the matter of an angry, disaffected minority; I want to believe that the process will, erm, weed him out. Only, maybe, he's the noxious, sturdy sort of weed, and pulling him out will leave the whole garden in ruin.
Quote from: Todd on August 24, 2015, 06:22:53 AM
A Democrat wins in 2016.
Yes. Only, please, God, not Hillary.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2015, 06:31:09 AMYes. Only, please, God, not Hillary.
What's Uncle Joe up to? (Maybe the Dems can dust off Al Gore?)
Quote from: Todd on August 24, 2015, 06:33:58 AM
What's Uncle Joe up to? (Maybe the Dems can dust off Al Gore?)
I guess if the rumors are true that Joltin' Joe wants to only serve a single term, that would set up a Booker/Castro 2020 ticket.
Quote from: Brian on August 24, 2015, 06:43:30 AMI guess if the rumors are true that Joltin' Joe wants to only serve a single term, that would set up a Booker/Castro 2020 ticket.
This country needs 3-4 one term presidents in a row.
Since the 2016 field isn't settled, 2020 prognostications seem premature. Besides, why not Kamala Harris? That's three identity politics groups rolled up in one attractive package, at least if Obama's aesthetic judgment is to be believed. (This assumes she wins her Senate bid.)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2015, 06:31:09 AM
All your points are well taken. And I want to believe that his present polling success is the matter of an angry, disaffected minority. No, I suppose it is fair to posit the matter of an angry, disaffected minority; I want to believe that the process will, erm, weed him out. Only, maybe, he's the noxious, sturdy sort of weed, and pulling him out will leave the whole garden in ruin.
Yes. Only, please, God, not Hillary.
God has said he won't run.
People are still at the "send a message" stage not at the "choose a favorite" stage.
Still Trump should scare the bejeezuz out of the GOP. Not just because of a third party but because it should be plain that
republican voters do not much like republican politicians. I see this as a credit to republican voters. (I see being a die hard fan of a politican as a bad thing.) Unlike Karl though, I wish MORE people hated our political class and wanted to vote more of them out, regardless of party.
Quote from: Todd on August 24, 2015, 06:48:44 AM
This country needs 3-4 one term presidents in a row.
Since the 2016 field isn't settled, 2020 prognostications seem premature. Besides, why not Kamala Harris? That's three identity politics groups rolled up in one attractive package, at least if Obama's aesthetic judgment is to be believed. (This assumes she wins her Senate bid.)
First I'd heard of Kamala Harris, but after reading up on her, add her to the list - it just seems like the Democrats are in an awkward transition stage where all their charismatic, photogenic "natural politician" types are either older than the hills (Bill, Joe), or too young/inexperienced to run this time (Booker, Harris, the Castro twins). Seems like 2-3 of the latter group are destined for presidential tickets, just not until next decade.
Quote from: Ken B on August 24, 2015, 07:37:26 AM
Unlike Karl though, I wish MORE people hated our political class and wanted to vote more of them out, regardless of party.
You may be right, at that.
Quote from: Ken B on August 24, 2015, 07:37:26 AM
I wish MORE people hated our political class and wanted to vote more of them out, regardless of party.
That's why you vote:
#DeezNuts for President!
Quote from: Ken B on August 24, 2015, 06:22:00 AM
No. Trump won't be the nominee.
I'm not convinced he's even much of a Republican; certainly not of the small government variety, and not of the pious variety. Maybe of the "not a Democrat" kind.
What Trump is is a guy willing to call out the established ruling class (never mind he's part of it), especially the GOP establishment. What appeals about Trump is not the policies but the stance. As Christo said here, "Balls and brains." Trump has both. What he hasn't is restraint, or a consistent set of policies.
The likelihood that Trump will become the nominee, much less president, is slim. Trump is all about schtick, the politician as stand-up comic. This .001 percenter resonates with a group of disaffected mostly white Americans who think despite his New York City billions he is "one of them," and that he "tells it like it is." He chose to speak in Alabama because that state has the most punitive anti-immigration laws in the country, and his position was put together by none other than that fine upstanding senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. But if saying the current president's Hawaiian birth certificate doesn't prove he was born in Hawaii, and if you believe for a minute that The Donald spends all his free time reading the Bible, then I have a Palm Springs golf course I can sell you.
The reason I don't believe he'll be elected is that he doesn't really want to be. He wants to rev up the base, stir the pot, crack a few jokes, poke a few fingers in the eyes. Next to him, Jeb looks like a schlemiel even when attacking Trump, Rand Paul is totally lost, Hillary totally phony, Bernie too progressive and a Jew besides, and Biden indecisive. But if The Donald is elected, he'll have to make good on all his big talk and settle down to the hard work of governing, where he'll find that Mexico won't cough up the funds for his wall, ISIS won't be cowed by his one-liners, rounding up 11 million "illegals" is if nothing else a logistical nightmare, and the 14th amendment isn't going away just because he says so. If he isn't nominated or elected, he'll have the luxury of pointing fingers at the unfortunate moron who is and saying, you people blew it, you could have had me.
But even if the chance of a Trump presidency are slim, don't forget there was a time a certain 10th-rate actor was counted out, and there was another unlikely candidate some eighty years ago who rose to national leadership and more on the grounds of his oratorical charisma and his hatred for a group of minority undesirables. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity."
Quote from: Peter GrierAnd there's evidence that, inch-by-inch, GOP voters are taking Trump's rise more seriously, whether they support him or not. Rasmussen has a poll out today that finds 57 percent of likely Republican voters now think Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee.
Two months ago, when he announced his bid, the corresponding figure was 27 percent.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0821/Why-Donald-Trump-s-2016-bid-looks-less-and-less-like-entertainment
In other news: Sarah Palin Delivers Incoherent Speech in Iowa
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 24, 2015, 09:11:51 AMTrump is all about schtick, the politician as stand-up comic.
It's time to rely on a professional analyst: Al Sharpton. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/16/al_sharpton_you_got_him_trump_is_a_secret_democrat.html) Trump's a plant. (And professional snitches can sniff out people who aren't who they claim to be.)
Brother Stair, THE (self-designated) Last Day Prophet, from his commune in South Carolina has announced with the arrival of Donald Trump and the fact that he is a Presbyterian and the symbol of the Presby's is a Burning Bush that a Trump and a Burning Bush are warnings from God. I think the warnings are actually directed at people who won't pay attention to him (Stair).
I would have said a few months ago that Biden had no chance, now he has a chance, maybe one chance not to blow up his own campaign with one too many loopy sounding off the cuffers. In his favor are that people like him and see him as an experienced pol. Inexperienced "I'm not from Washington" types often take the early lead in polls where dingbats rule, then fade when people contemplate their real world residence in the WH. With Biden a sense of reality is a double edged sword, it can take him up and crash him pretty quick, but people do know he's as prepared to be President as anyone out there. Can he go months without a serious gaffe, or even one too many "no really, I'm not being facetious!"? No, Joe, you're not being facetious, a fukin' retahhd perhaps..... (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
If Biden can avoid saying something irredeemable (not saying that I necessarily fancy the chances), even his occasion minor gaffes may well work to his advantage: they reinforce how genuine and humane he is, which is exactly the contrast one wants against the machinist control-freakdom which is Hillary 2016. Anyway, a broader field (not so many as the 17 Republicans, thank you very much) may work to Bernie's advantage.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 26, 2015, 02:57:57 AM
If Biden can avoid saying something irredeemable (not saying that I necessarily fancy the chances), even his occasion minor gaffes may well work to his advantage: they reinforce how genuine and humane he is, which is exactly the contrast one wants against the machinist control-freakdom which is Hillary 2016. Anyway, a broader field (not so many as the 17 Republicans, thank you very much) may work to Bernie's advantage.
I wish Biden had decided sooner, since Hillary is proving herself increasingly untrustworthy. But it doesn't matter. It's going to be The Donald all the way. Haven't you read the definitive pronouncements by the Ultimate Seer on That Other Board? Just as Trump manages to alienate the Latino population more and more (witness his disastrous encounter with the powerful and popular Jorge Ramos of Univision), the Seer informs us that:
"People are put off by his somewhat crass demeanor -- I get that, but ultimately that isn't his appeal at all (and isn't why anyone will vote for him). The analysts who think it is and try to defeat and discredit him by attacking his unconventional character or demeanor are likely to watch him go all the way to White House in a landslide victory."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 26, 2015, 03:24:06 AM
I wish Biden had decided sooner, since Hillary is proving herself increasingly untrustworthy. But it doesn't matter. It's going to be The Donald all the way. Haven't you read the definitive pronouncements by the Ultimate Seer on That Other Board? Just as Trump manages to alienate the Latino population more and more (witness his disastrous encounter with the powerful and popular Jorge Ramos of Univision), the Seer informs us that:
"People are put off by his somewhat crass demeanor -- I get that, but ultimately that isn't his appeal at all (and isn't why anyone will vote for him). The analysts who think it is and try to defeat and discredit him by attacking his unconventional character or demeanor are likely to watch him go all the way to White House in a landslide victory."
I Guess There Are People Who Actually Think Like That Dept.
The most entertaining candidate early on is not the one that wins the nomination. Winners approximate what Krugman calls Very Serious Persons. It's an expansive standard that reaches as far as Biden, just.
How do dull candidates win? Most people vote for VSPs is how. Most people don't vote for entertainers. Factor in as well that journalists need entertainers. I saw Trump speaking on CNN. People watch CNN to see Bourdain or watch disasters as they happen. Trump is some of both.
"Biden probably won't beat Clinton. He should run anyway." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/biden-probably-wont-beat-clinton-he-should-run-anyway/2015/08/25/d5a109f4-4b58-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html?hpid=z2)
Quote from: drogulus on August 26, 2015, 05:24:56 AMPeople watch CNN to see Bourdain or watch disasters as they happen. Trump is some of both.
This might be the cruelest insult anybody's ever leveled at Anthony Bourdain.
Quote from: drogulus on August 26, 2015, 05:24:56 AM
The most entertaining candidate early on is not the one that wins the nomination. Winners approximate what Krugman calls Very Serious Persons. It's an expansive standard that reaches as far as Biden, just.
How do dull candidates win? Most people vote for VSPs is how. Most people don't vote for entertainers. Factor in as well that journalists need entertainers. I saw Trump speaking on CNN. People watch CNN to see Bourdain or watch disasters as they happen. Trump is some of both.
I don't disagree, but for a junk candidate (compare Herman Cain) the endlessly sociopathic, self-congratulating Trump is remarkably tenacious.
Quote from: Brian on August 26, 2015, 06:14:35 AM
This might be the cruelest insult anybody's ever leveled at Anthony Bourdain.
Perhaps, but considering all the insults he's leveled he should be able to take it as well as (ahem) dish it.
http://www.grubstreet.com/2011/08/anthony-bourdain-food-network-quotes.html
(For the record, when dealing with a slob like Guy Fieri, the man who can't pronounce his own name, or a dingbat like Rachael Ray, he's being much too kind.)
(Edited to make comment on Guy Fietti more insulting.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 26, 2015, 06:19:33 AM
I don't disagree, but for a junk candidate (compare Herman Cain) the endlessly sociopathic, self-congratulating Trump is remarkably tenacious.
Yes.
Quote from: Brian on August 26, 2015, 06:14:35 AM
This might be the cruelest insult anybody's ever leveled at Anthony Bourdain.
Not at all, I'm on his wavelength. I only wish I could be as entertainingly fucked up as he is. It's rare gift.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 26, 2015, 06:19:33 AM
I don't disagree, but for a junk candidate (compare Herman Cain) the endlessly sociopathic, self-congratulating Trump is remarkably tenacious.
Yes. But look at it this way. Sometimes people just feel the need to throw a stone at those they feel mistreat or ignore them. Trump is the stone GOP voters are throwing at the GOP.
This could be very serious indeed for the Republicans. In Canada a similar revulsion to the establishment Conservative Party, which founded the country in fact, a quarter century ago led to a fissure, a protest party, and oblivion in the election (they won 2 seats total). Plus there are Tea-Party discontents in the GOP.
In many ways the election should be the Republicans' to lose. I'm not giving odds yet though.
Quote from: Ken B on August 26, 2015, 07:03:49 AM
In many ways the election should be the Republicans' to lose. I'm not giving odds yet though.
I don't think this matters as much in this cycle as it has in the past because of the widespread belief that the out party has chosen to side against not just the President but the country that voted for him twice.
Not that that would change the minds of the Republican base to any great extent, but to a small extent it already has, giving Trump more running room (for awhile) to do more damage.
The dogs that do not bark are having a big effect by their silence. That could change, of course, but at present I have to think that in the deep recesses of the Republican mind a middle of the road Dem is not a bad option, good enough not to vote against.
I expect support for Kasich to grow, because he has less room to make up to get to the middle. He counts as a VSP, and therefore acceptable to independents, the sort of people who like who David Brooks and Thomas Friedman like.
Quote from: Ken B on August 26, 2015, 07:03:49 AM
In many ways the election should be the Republicans' to lose.
Yes, not only because of the prevailing anti-incumbency winds, but because, if (heaven forfend) Hillary is the nominee, she is at best a polarizing figure
The only reason Trump is leading is because he's the only one tapping into the population's resentments about illegal immigration and changing demographics. The Democrats don't seem to care about this sentiment, and Republicans only give lip service to it while secretly preferring the interests of the Chamber of Commerce for low wages (which are served by illegal immigration). It's a fallacy that Trump is only sustaining high polling because of his entertaining personality and not because he's taking positions that have been deemed as taboo and illegitimate by political elites but which are emotionally held by much of the population. We have a fundamental zero-sum clash of interests. A regular middle class American might think "I don't see the United States as basically one big economy. I see it as a culture, a peoplehood, and I don't like what mass illegal immigration is doing to the demographics of my country." And East Coast establishment types give no fucks about this sentiment.
The people are picking up on the hypocrisy of political elites. Here's Thomas Friedman's latest column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/opinion/thomas-friedman-bonfire-of-the-assets-with-trump-lighting-matches.html
It's very easy for the likes of Thomas Friedman and Chuck Schumer to have these sort of sentiments because they both have an ethnically exclusive backup country in the form of Israel.
Quote from: -abe- on August 26, 2015, 10:13:14 AM
The only reason Trump is leading is because he's the only one tapping into the population's resentments about illegal immigration and changing demographics. The Democrats don't seem to care about this sentiment, and Republicans only give lip service to it while secretly preferring the interests of the Chamber of Commerce for low wages (which are served by illegal immigration). It's a fallacy that Trump is only sustaining high polling because of his entertaining personality and not because he's taking positions that have been deemed as taboo and illegitimate by political elites but which are emotionally held by much of the population.
I think you have actually argued for Trump being essentially a circus act; and it is nothing really new . . . it's the "T (for Tantrum) Party" warmed over. The people who would vote for Trump either don't get or don't care that his whole act is double-speak. He bullies a Latino journo, and then claims "I am no bully"; he decries Megan Kelly for being nasty (which she wasn't) and, in spite of nasty being how we shouldn't be, he carpet-bombs Twitter with nasty tweets about her. There simply isn't enough of a fourth-grade-mentality portion of the electorate for Trump to infest the Oval Office.
Quote from: Peter Grier[...]
There's no obvious ideological or demographic component in his voter base, after all. He gets a degree of support from all parts of the GOP spectrum. That means that to some extent, it is Trump's personality that is the core of his appeal. And that personality is nothing if not pugnacious.
That's what Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared to find, anyway. He assembled a group of avowed Trump supporters in his D.C.-area office for a focus group on Monday night. According to an account of the focus group in Time magazine, the Trumpians generally espoused a "we're not going to take it anymore" anger.
"They believed Washington politicians and the Republican Party had repeatedly misled them, and that the country is going down the tubes. They looked for relief in Trump," writes Time's Sam Frizell.
Mr. Luntz showed the group clips of Trump's unbridled attacks. For instance, they saw Trump describe comedian Rosie O'Donnell as having a "fat, ugly face." But that did not give them pause, apparently.
"At the end of the session, the vast majority said they liked Trump more than when they walked in," according to Mr. Frizell.
Perhaps they equate Trump's eagerness for conflict with power. Specifically, he's like a cartoon superhero, writes Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan. Trump promises to wipe away intractable problems with the application of nothing but willpower – an attitude that Professor Nyhan has dubbed the "Green Lantern theory of the presidency."
[...]
Of course, the "Green Lantern theory of the presidency" rather echoes my observation about fourth-grade-mentality, doesn't it? 8)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0825/Attack-against-Megyn-Kelly-could-hint-at-core-of-Donald-Trump-s-appeal
Quote from: karlhenning on August 26, 2015, 10:30:27 AM
I think you have actually argued for Trump being essentially a circus act; and it is nothing really new . . . it's the "T (for Tantrum) Party" warmed over. The people who would vote for Trump either don't get or don't care that his whole act is double-speak. He bullies a Latino journo, and then claims "I am no bully"; he decries Megan Kelly for being nasty (which she wasn't) and, in spite of nasty being how we shouldn't be, he carpet-bombs Twitter with nasty tweets about her. There simply isn't enough of a fourth-grade-mentality portion of the electorate for Trump to infest the Oval Office.
Trump is a result of elites of either party not doing anything about uncontrolled illegal immigration. You can try to discredit him for his antics against certain reporters (and it could be argued that those reporters take hostile attitude towards him (even the Fox News one) due to their dislike of the political positions he's assuming, so all Trump is doing is returning hostility directed at him) but this is just to avoid granting legitimacy to the political positions Trump is assuming. Trump is taping into the same political mood that ousted Eric Cantor, who was being groomed to be a future Republican House Speaker after Boehner.
Quote from: -abe- on August 26, 2015, 11:13:30 AM
You can try to discredit him for his antics against certain reporters (and it could be argued that those reporters take hostile attitude towards him (even the Fox News one) due to their dislike of the political positions he's assuming
No, that is not the case at all. Making insulting, personal, sexist remarks to women is not "a political positions he's assumed," it is a behavioral question which is a legitimate concern for the electorate. So, no, you aren't addressing the point, and you're just thumping the Trump tub.
And, in so doing, quite neatly illustrating the shortcomings of Trump's methods.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 26, 2015, 11:16:50 AM
No, that is not the case at all. Making insulting, personal, sexist remarks to women is not "a political positions he's assumed," it is a behavioral question which is a legitimate concern for the electorate. So, no, you aren't addressing the point, and you're just thumping the Trump tub.
And, in so doing, quite neatly illustrating the shortcomings of Trump's methods.
Yes, it should say something about the political current Trump is tapping into that he's polling so well despite the nasty elements of his character. You are eliding the fact he's tapping into some legitimate issues. The elites of both parties are hoping that emphasizing his character flaws will overwhelm the populism which he's ignited and for which neither party seems to care for.
Quote from: -abe- on August 26, 2015, 11:54:45 AM
Yes, it should say something about the political current Trump is tapping into that he's polling so well despite the nasty elements of his character. You are eliding the fact he's tapping into some legitimate issues. The elites of both parties are hoping that emphasizing his character flaws will overwhelm the populism which he's ignited and for which neither party seems to care for.
This is true to some degree. Trump has exposed, and brought to the foreground, a prominent populist movement founded (mainly) on racism and ignorance. One might say his achievement is to "smoke out" the radical elements which had been hiding before.
Unfortunately, I do not think it will be at all productive if our immigration debate is reduced and dumbed down from debates over serious policy proposals to a straight "are immigrants good?" ultimatum.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/2f/2f2518d41c406b7d055c9cce3e7049cd6c02f8a8a754750617b031f4decd8136.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on August 26, 2015, 12:34:12 PM
This is true to some degree. Trump has exposed, and brought to the foreground, a prominent populist movement founded (mainly) on racism and ignorance. One might say his achievement is to "smoke out" the radical elements which had been hiding before.
Unfortunately, I do not think it will be at all productive if our immigration debate is reduced and dumbed down from debates over serious policy proposals to a straight "are immigrants good?" ultimatum.
You didn't think asking Ramos, "Are gangs bad?" seemed . . . Presidential?
Quote from: Brian on August 26, 2015, 12:34:12 PM
This is true to some degree. Trump has exposed, and brought to the foreground, a prominent populist movement founded (mainly) on racism and ignorance. One might say his achievement is to "smoke out" the radical elements which had been hiding before.
Unfortunately, I do not think it will be at all productive if our immigration debate is reduced and dumbed down from debates over serious policy proposals to a straight "are immigrants good?" ultimatum.
Double. By which I mean to challenge your unsupported accusations of ignorance and racism. Got evidence? Better yet, can you explain how low-skill workers will not be adversely affected, and hence why they should be unconcerned, and the difference between guest worker programs as currently implemented and immigration?
Quote from: -abe- on August 26, 2015, 10:16:31 AM
The people are picking up on the hypocrisy of political elites. Here's Thomas Friedman's latest column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/opinion/thomas-friedman-bonfire-of-the-assets-with-trump-lighting-matches.html
It's very easy for the likes of Thomas Friedman and Chuck Schumer to have these sort of sentiments because they both have an ethnically exclusive backup country in the form of Israel.
This is not the first time you have exposed yourself as someone who hates Jews.
Quote from: Ken B on August 26, 2015, 03:09:00 PM
Double. By which I mean to challenge your unsupported accusations of ignorance and racism. Got evidence? Better yet, can you explain how low-skill workers will not be adversely affected, and hence why they should be unconcerned, and the difference between guest worker programs as currently implemented and immigration?
The ignorance is proved by the kneejerk rejection of any reasonable attempt to reform immigration as "amnesty", and to insist on a secure border...which is not possible until we reduce the flow of illegal immigrants by allowing more of them to enter through legal immigration. And the opposition does not come from low skilled workers, but from the white middle class that is the core if the GOP.
Jeez whiz...how does Israel deal with unwanted non-Jewish immigrants? Oh that's right...it deports them en masse immediately.
Israel also surreptitiously gave a fertility suppressant to Ethiopian Jews after the PR coup of letting them in wore off.
It's also perfectly legitimate to wonder why Chuck Schumer and many of his ilk are so eager about amnesty but are silent on Israel's aggressive guarding of its demographics.
Anti-semite: Someone who the Jews don't like.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 26, 2015, 07:38:18 PM
The ignorance is proved by the kneejerk rejection of any reasonable attempt to reform immigration as "amnesty", and to insist on a secure border...which is not possible until we reduce the flow of illegal immigrants by allowing more of them to enter through legal immigration. And the opposition does not come from low skilled workers, but from the white middle class that is the core if the GOP.
So, reduce the flow of illegal immigrants by allowing the would be illegal immigrants to come here legally?
Some thought process you have there!
All I'm saying is that the citizens of this country have as much right to guard their demographics as Israel does, and it's ASTOUNDINGLY hypocritical for someone to approve of Israel's ethno-nationalism while fearing and deploring that aspect in America, and I'm seeing much of that in certain East Coast liberal media publications.
Nationalism for me, but not for thee!!
Quote from: Brian on August 26, 2015, 12:34:12 PM
This is true to some degree. Trump has exposed, and brought to the foreground, a prominent populist movement founded (mainly) on racism and ignorance. One might say his achievement is to "smoke out" the radical elements which had been hiding before.
Unfortunately, I do not think it will be at all productive if our immigration debate is reduced and dumbed down from debates over serious policy proposals to a straight "are immigrants good?" ultimatum.
Ho, he is in fact smoking out all the radical elements that seem to infect our society. Its just that those radical elements all come from the left.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 26, 2015, 07:32:32 PM
This is not the first time you have exposed yourself as someone who hates Jews.
Well, and here we have someone defending Trump, and himself a bigot. Who could have foreseen it?
State Department officials routinely sent secrets over email
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0826/State-Department-officials-routinely-sent-secrets-over-email-video
Call it a quirk of mine, but Did no more than was required to is hardly a commendation for the Presidency.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2015, 04:05:17 AM
State Department officials routinely sent secrets over email
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0826/State-Department-officials-routinely-sent-secrets-over-email-video
Call it a quirk of mine, but Did no more than was required to is hardly a commendation for the Presidency.
Indeed. We are more careful with customers' addresses in our systems. This sort of thing gets people fired in the real world. Little people I mean, not rich ones with clout and campaign committees.
From the platform:
Quote[W]e must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years [...], Washington talked tough but failed to act...our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.
Here http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29611 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29611)
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 04:22:54 AM
Indeed. We are more careful with customers' addresses in our systems. This sort of thing gets people fired in the real world. Little people I mean, not rich ones with clout and campaign committees.
Yes.
The real reason why Trump is popular:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2015, 03:15:55 AM
Well, and here we have someone defending Trump, and himself a bigot. Who could have foreseen it?
Well, in all fairness, Jews can be bigots too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/towards-a-concept-of-whit_b_7985986.html
Articles like this are another reason why Trump is popular. Or stuff like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRJnkBqwzOQ
Let's all keep pretending there isn't a problem with the radical left in the west and that this isn't what's causing people to move towards the hard-right as a counter measure. No no, the left never does anything wrong. Their track record is totally pure and immaculate. I mean, people being persecuted because of their opinions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DTxwZggnbM
Why, we never saw stuff like this happening before.
Quote from: Purusha on August 27, 2015, 04:39:55 AM
Well, in all fairness, Jews can be bigots too:
You have a curious, and indeed distasteful, notion of "fairness."
Trump 1, Press 0
I didn't watch it all, but watch the first few minutes and then, after Ramos is back in, a few starting at the 18:00 mark. http://youtu.be/d2Z7k75SnN4
This is a seriously impressive display. He seems genuine, sharp, and most importantly honest. (I am not saying he is; I am pointing out how unlike a scripted panderer he seems.)
(He also seems egotistical of course).
As opposed to this sense of fairness?
(http://www.lifelineexpedition.co.uk/mota/downloads/mota%20pics/lifeline010.jpg)
Hey everybody, let's all wonder why Trump is popular. What could possibly drive reasonable people to support such a clown? Ho right, must be the inner bigotry all whites carry within their genes. Fear not however, for science has finally found a way to cure racism out of white babies:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3209554/Is-baby-racist-Scientists-discover-way-reverse-racial-bias-young-children.html
Why would anyone support Trump.
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 05:22:32 AM
Trump 1, Press 0
I didn't watch it all, but watch the first few minutes and then, after Ramos is back in, a few starting at the 18:00 mark. http://youtu.be/d2Z7k75SnN4
This is a seriously impressive display. He seems genuine, sharp, and most importantly honest. (I am not saying he is; I am pointing out how unlike a scripted panderer he seems.)
(He also seems egotistical of course).
My current favored Trump moment:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/19/trump-reporter-spar-over-term-anchor-baby/
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 05:22:32 AM
Trump 1, Press 0
I didn't watch it all, but watch the first few minutes and then, after Ramos is back in, a few starting at the 18:00 mark. http://youtube.com/v/d2Z7k75SnN4
This is a seriously impressive display. He seems genuine, sharp, and most importantly honest. (I am not saying he is; I am pointing out how unlike a scripted panderer he seems.)
(He also seems egotistical of course).
.
I saw a condensed version of the exchange; I should have said he seems sharp, decisive, and most importantly, he deflects questions with strawman counter-questions ("Yes, or no, do you agree that gangs are bad?") — it isn't addressing the point, but it's seizing the mic and driving the carriage.
Trump does have one thing in common with Obama - that his answers, while they always sound good and honest, are vague and insubstantial enough to appeal to a wide audience. For example, he appeals to evangelicals despite his three divorces and lack of clear faith; he appeals to ultra-right-wingers despite being a Democrat for most of his adult life; he appeals to moderates because of "truth-telling" no matter what truth he may be telling; and white supremacists have enthusiastically endorsed his candidacy even though he has never said he is a white supremacist.
Quote from: Brian on August 27, 2015, 06:15:01 AM
Trump does have one thing in common with Obama - that his answers, while they always sound good and honest, are vague and insubstantial enough to appeal to a wide audience. For example, he appeals to evangelicals despite his three divorces and lack of clear faith; he appeals to ultra-right-wingers despite being a Democrat for most of his adult life; he appeals to moderates because of "truth-telling" no matter what truth he may be telling; and white supremacists have enthusiastically endorsed his candidacy even though he has never said he is a white supremacist.
I agree. Gore Vidal said the most profound thing about American politics (it isn't true the way he actually meant it, but it's true in a way he didn't): "Presidents are the men we hire to make the commercials." Trump, like Obama,
regardless of facts or substance projects an image of what people want to see in their country.
Quote from: Brian on August 27, 2015, 06:15:01 AMTrump does have one thing in common with Obama - that his answers, while they always sound good and honest, are vague and insubstantial enough to appeal to a wide audience.
Obama's answers didn't always sound good. Trump's almost never do. He's a showman, and for now, he's playing a right wing nationalist. He's barking out nativist drivel on immigration, and economic nationalism on economic matters - eg, high tariffs targeted at Mexico and China will somehow generate lots of jobs here in the States. He's recycling late 19th Century policies with 21st Century media savvy. Some people are falling for it, and some, who presumably should know better, are rushing to his defense.
Quote from: Brian on August 27, 2015, 06:15:01 AMFor example, he appeals to evangelicals despite his three divorces and lack of clear faith...
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2015/TrumpandFutureFirstLady.jpg)
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 27, 2015, 06:34:06 AM
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2015/TrumpandFutureFirstLady.jpg)
I do fully support Trump's First Lady policy.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2015, 06:11:20 AM
I saw a condensed version of the exchange; I should have said he seems sharp, decisive, and most importantly, he deflects questions with strawman counter-questions ("Yes, or no, do you agree that gangs are bad?") — it isn't addressing the point, but it's seizing the mic and driving the carriage.
In this case -- Ramos is a very biased guy -- not such a strawman. But that's by the by. He's rejecting the premise implicit in the question. That's appealing when you can see the PC-tendentious-agenda loaded into the question. People of tired of the dreary you-must-assent political correctness of politics in the big media, and Trump is catching that.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 27, 2015, 06:34:06 AM
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2015/TrumpandFutureFirstLady.jpg)
Sarge
Oh Christ, now I want to vote for him!
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 06:29:14 AM
Trump, like Obama, regardless of facts or substance projects an image of what people want to see in their country.
Speak for yourself. I posted the following just now at the New York Times website:
Trump is a sociopath, pure and simple. He has no respect for the rights or feelings of others (once he even rejected a fleet of custom-based limousines because they measured 1/4 inch too short), and his endless indifference to other human beings (unless of course they "love HIM") resonates with all the disenchanted voters who fantasize being able to say whatever they want to whomever they want so long as it is mercilessly insulting, and who thus feel this endlessly self-congratulatory plutocrat is actually "one of them." But behind every bully is a cry-baby, and confronted with Megyn Kelly's entirely on-point questions about his misogyny, Trump can only whine "unfair! unfair!"
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 05:22:32 AM
This is a seriously impressive display. He seems genuine, sharp, and most importantly honest. (I am not saying he is; I am pointing out how unlike a scripted panderer he seems.)
(He also seems egotistical of course).
Scott Adams (creator of
Dilbert) has been blogging about the Trump campaign, analyzing his marketing/business mastery. Here's his take on this:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127604348746/trump-makes-univision-do-the-perp-walk
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 06:38:30 AM
Speak for yourself.
Reading impairment alert.
Update. I'm going to expand on this as this sort of thing irks me greatly.
Debate involves trying to actually understand what other people say and think. It should involve the ability to try to express the thoughts of others, even those you don't agree with, fairly and accurately. So it follows that
misrepresenting attempts to do that are in fact just a rejection of rational debate in toto.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on August 27, 2015, 06:41:09 AM
Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) has been blogging about the Trump campaign, analyzing his marketing/business mastery. Here's his take on this:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127604348746/trump-makes-univision-do-the-perp-walk
Yes exactly.
NOTE to the reading impaired: I do not support Trump for president.
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 06:47:17 AM
Reading impairment alert.
Update. I'm going to expand on this as this sort of thing irks me greatly.
Debate involves trying to actually understand what other people say and think. It should involve the ability to try to express the thoughts of others, even those you don't agree with, fairly and accurately. So it follows that misrepresenting attempts to do that are in fact just a rejection of rational debate in toto.
Well, harrumph!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 06:57:49 AM
Well, harrumph!
I bet Trump doesn't acknowledge when he misrepresents people either.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 27, 2015, 06:34:06 AM
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2015/TrumpandFutureFirstLady.jpg)
Sarge
Considering the percentage of porn traffic which is from the Bible Belt, Trump's appeal on these lines is perfectly understandable.
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 06:54:51 AM
Yes exactly.
NOTE to the reading impaired: I do not support Trump for president.
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 06:38:01 AM
Oh Christ, now I want to vote for him!
You're evolving on this issue, and we should give you the space . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2015, 07:05:04 AM
You're evolving on this issue, and we should give you the space . . . .
Hehehe.
Actually, I am. I still say Trump won't win and won't run an independent campaign, because I think he's more motivated by ego, and
actually losing in the vote is not what he wants. But I'm less confident of that now than I was. I posted something a while ago about Trump's indisputable competence in his past. We are seeing that on display now. Mixed in with the petulance, the egotism, the thin skin. It's certainly interesting.
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 08:33:10 AM
Actually, I am. I still say Trump won't win and won't run an independent campaign, because I think he's more motivated by ego, and actually losing in the vote is not what he wants. But I'm less confident of that now than I was. I posted something a while ago about Trump's indisputable competence in his past. We are seeing that on display now. Mixed in with the petulance, the egotism, the thin skin. It's certainly interesting.
At the very least, it is that.
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 06:59:40 AM
I bet Trump doesn't acknowledge when he misrepresents people either.
Oh, get off your little snit, will you.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 08:49:01 AM
Oh, get off your little snit, will you.
You know, I did think after I posted that comment about Trump I was perhaps being a little harsh. Now I don't think so.
I had this vision of a campaign ad.
A dark room, indistinct. You see something glowing in the background.
Voice over: It is 3 a.m. Trouble erupts in a far corner of the world. Who do you want answering that secret email?
The lights come on and we see the room is a one-room apartment with an old Dell computer in the closet; the screen reads "You have mail."
Quote from: Chris StirewaltClinton's net favorability rating among all voters – a more valuable general election metric in the early going than horse-race numbers – is now a dreadful negative 12 points.
[...]
Only 11 percent of Democrats said they would "definitely not" back Clinton compared to 26 for Trump with the GOP. Third-place GOP candidate Bush can be happy that a quarter of his party is keeping an open mind, but the grim news is that more than twice as many respondents would never consider supporting him (18 percent) than are currently backing his candidacy (7 percent). Only 9 percent of GOP respondents are waiting to hear more about Trump before making up their minds.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/27/dislike-for-hillary-intensifies/
Immigration problems in Europe http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/26/open-borders-europe-migrants-column/32333153/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/26/open-borders-europe-migrants-column/32333153/)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2015, 09:28:32 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/27/dislike-for-hillary-intensifies/
Oh, but there's more!
Quote from: Chris StirewaltTRUMP'S NEW IOWA HIRE BUSTED TRASHING HIM
Iowa political personnel can be a tricky business, as Donald Trump can now attest. Trump's top hire in Iowa got busted in emails leaked to the Des Moines Register trashing his now-boss. In messages written as recently as last month, new Trump national co-chairman, Sam Clovis, who abandoned the struggling campaign of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry this week to work for Trump, calls the New York billionaire "a cancer on conservatism" and a man with "no foundation in Christ." Clovis said in one message that as a veteran he was "offended by a man who sought and gained four student deferments to avoid the draft and who has never served this nation a day — not a day — in any fashion or way." Clovis copped to the nastygrams, but said he had become convinced of Trump's merits and sincerity after he got the chance to "look [Trump] in the eye and ask him the tough questions."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 06:38:30 AM
Trump is a sociopath, pure and simple.
That's why I won't vote for him. Sociopaths need to be rid of from the world, not voted for president.
One of those stupid people who you know the name of even if you never asked to. Might as well vote Kim Kardashian for president, who gives a fuck about these people.
Quote from: Greg on August 27, 2015, 10:28:11 AM
That's why I won't vote for him. Sociopaths need to be rid of from the world, not voted for president.
Wait, get rid of like eliminated? It's a mental illness...
Quote from: Greg on August 27, 2015, 10:28:11 AM
Might as well vote Kim Kardashian for president, who gives a fuck about these people.
I think I've mentioned this before, but I think Jay Z would be a damn good president.
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 06:59:40 AM
I bet Trump doesn't acknowledge when he misrepresents people either.
Since you're determined to keep justifying yourself, let's look at what you actually said: "Trump, like Obama, regardless of facts or substance projects an image of what people want to see in their country." No qualifications on these "people," no nuance. There was no reading impairment on my part.
I remember another time when you attacked me for alleged "reading impairment," when I in fact quoted your exact words to make my point. So let's knock off the accusations, OK? I'm not impressed.
Quote from: Brian on August 27, 2015, 10:38:22 AMWait, get rid of like eliminated? It's a mental illness...
It is indeed. I wonder if Trump has been diagnosed as a sociopath by a mental health professional.
Quote from: Todd on August 27, 2015, 10:45:29 AM
It is indeed. I wonder if Trump has been diagnosed as a sociopath by a mental health professional.
I've seen narcissistic personality disorder mentioned by a lot of the types of mental health professionals who appear on TV without interviewing the celebrity in question. I've never seen sociopathy mentioned.
Quote from: Brian on August 27, 2015, 10:38:22 AM
Wait, get rid of like eliminated? It's a mental illness...
It's something to think about... what percentage of the dictators throughout world history are sociopaths, I wonder?
Quote from: Brian on August 27, 2015, 10:38:22 AM
I think I've mentioned this before, but I think Jay Z would be a damn good president.
Meh. Deez Nuts 2016.
Quote from: Todd on August 27, 2015, 10:45:29 AM
It is indeed. I wonder if Trump has been diagnosed as a sociopath by a mental health professional.
If so, it would have to be by a winner!
Quote from: Brian on August 27, 2015, 10:52:50 AMI've seen narcissistic personality disorder mentioned by a lot of the types of mental health professionals who appear on TV without interviewing the celebrity in question.
I see.
The words "psychopath" and "sociopath", and the lengthier yet NPD, are nifty ways to say something mean about someone while appearing to be very serious rather than petty.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2015, 10:21:09 AM
Oh, but there's more!
oops. Not a good career move. Not a very flattering reflection on a guy who can take a job
trying to get a man he thinks so ill of elected. But I'm not sure it's all trashing Trump. Some of it is reassuring to hear!
>:D :laugh:
Quote from: Greg on August 27, 2015, 10:58:10 AMIt's something to think about... what percentage of the dictators throughout world history are sociopaths, I wonder?
Somewhere between 0% and 100%. How would one diagnose a long dead dictator? At any rate, I would think the word "dictator" sufficiently bad that a qualifier like "sociopathic" is unnecessary.
Quote from: Todd on August 27, 2015, 11:00:03 AM
I see.
The words "psychopath" and "sociopath", and the lengthier yet NPD, are nifty ways to say something mean about someone while appearing to be very serious rather than petty.
Nice try, but a condition does not require a diagnosis in order to exist.
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 11:01:27 AM
oops. Not a good career move. Not a very flattering reflection on a guy who can take a job trying to get a man he thinks so ill of elected. But I'm not sure it's all trashing Trump. Some of it is reassuring to hear!
>:D :laugh:
I know: "no foundation in Christ" as character assassination. That
that, Jewish friends! 0:)
Oh, but I am forgetting that a foundation in Christ is a pre-requisite for the POTUS . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 10:45:04 AM
Since you're determined to keep justifying yourself, let's look at what you actually said: "Trump, like Obama, regardless of facts or substance projects an image of what people want to see in their country." No qualifications on these "people," no nuance. There was no reading impairment on my part.
I remember another time when you attacked me for alleged "reading impairment," when I in fact quoted your exact words to make my point. So let's knock off the accusations, OK? I'm not impressed.
Are you serious? I made a statement about what *some people* see in Trump. You read that as me saying that's what *I* like in Trump.
And not that it's relevant but it's just wrong to say there was no qualification on people. The topic was why people like Trump. That means why some people, the group of people who like Trump, do so.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 11:02:29 AM
Nice try, but a condition does not require a diagnosis in order to exist.
True, however, you are offering a diagnosis. Are you a mental health professional who has worked with Trump?
Over the past, what, five to ten years, it has been intellectually fashionable to label this or that person a sociopath, or whatnot. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest. Why not just say that Trump is a douchenozzle?
Quote from: Todd on August 27, 2015, 11:08:08 AM
True, however, you are offering a diagnosis. Are you a mental health professional who has worked with Trump?
Over the past, what, five to ten years, it has been intellectually fashionable to label this or that person a sociopath, or whatnot. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest. Why not just say that Trump is a douchenozzle?
http://www.md-health.com/Sociopath-Traits.html
According to ICD-10 criteria, presence of 3 or more of the following qualifies for the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (~sociopathy):
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
- Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, and obligations.
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
- Very low tolerance to frustration, a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
- Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
- Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalization for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
Works for me. You can go on with your accusations till the cows come home (intellectually lazy, dishonest, petty, whatever).
ETA:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/
Money quote: "There are absolutes in psychopathy and the main absolute is a literal absence of empathy. It's just not there. In higher-scoring psychopaths, what grows in the vacant field where that empathy should be is a joy in manipulating people, a lack of remorse, a lack of guilt. If you've got a little bit of empathy, you're kind of not a psychopath."
Are you going to accuse this author of intellectual laziness and dishonesty too?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 11:14:37 AM
http://www.md-health.com/Sociopath-Traits.html
According to ICD-10 criteria, presence of 3 or more of the following qualifies for the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (~sociopathy):
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
- Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, and obligations.
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
- Very low tolerance to frustration, a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
- Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
- Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalization for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
Works for me. You can go on with your accusations till the cows come home (intellectually lazy, dishonest, petty, whatever).
This is a standard reply from people attempting to misuse clinical diagnoses for political purposes. ("See, see, he does these things, therefore he must be a sociopath!") It's actually something of a shame to see you double down. Trump is a douchenozzle, I think that much is clear. Insisting that he is a sociopath because of what you see on TV doesn't change the fact that you are simply engaging in name calling and attempting to present it as something else.
Quote from: Todd on August 27, 2015, 11:23:35 AM
This is a standard reply from people attempting to misuse clinical diagnoses for political purposes. ("See, see, he does these things, therefore he must be a sociopath!") It's actually something of a shame to see you double down. Trump is a douchenozzle, I think that much is clear. Insisting that he is a sociopath because of what you see on TV doesn't change the fact that you are simply engaging in name calling and attempting to present it as something else.
Do you deny he meets several of the criteria?
Regardless, he should be evaluated psychologically by a professional, and if he really is diagnosed a sociopath, he shouldn't be eligible to run as president. I don't see how letting a sociopath run the country could possibly be a good thing.
Quote from: Greg on August 27, 2015, 11:29:34 AM
Regardless, he should be evaluated psychologically by a professional, and if he really is diagnosed a sociopath, he shouldn't be eligible to run as president.
Egad, you'll be wanting to do that with prospective Senators and Congressmen, next!
Quote from: Greg on August 27, 2015, 11:29:34 AM
Regardless, he should be evaluated psychologically by a professional, and if he really is diagnosed a sociopath, he shouldn't be eligible to run as president. I don't see how letting a sociopath run the country could possibly be a good thing.
Unfortunately the Constitution does not preclude sociopathy or psychopathy as a condition of eligiblity, only being younger than 35 years or not born in this country.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 11:14:37 AM
http://www.md-health.com/Sociopath-Traits.html
According to ICD-10 criteria, presence of 3 or more of the following qualifies for the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (~sociopathy):
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
- Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, and obligations.
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
- Very low tolerance to frustration, a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
- Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
- Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalization for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
Works for me.
ETA:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/
What Todd said. Plus get a grip. You know nothing about Trump and these summarized bullet points. Take just the first. "Callous unconcern for the feelings of others." That's just you labeling your dislike of his policies. What the bullet point refers to is a thorough-going callous unconcern in his life, not advocating policies you think unfeeling, and you have no evidence for that at all.
Or the low frustration theshhold. Did you note "including violence"? I suspect Trump has way too low a threshold for a president, but he's not a wife-beater. He's never been accused of violence that I know of. He's been accused of crudity and rudeness, which ain't what the bullet point means.
And let me emphasize bullet point. What you posted is NOT what is taught to clinical psychologists. It's just ridiculous to offer a diagnosis of someone you have never met, and know litle of, on the basis of a half page summary cribbed from the DSM.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 11:25:27 AM
Do you deny he meets several of the criteria?
A question of some merit for true believers in pop psychology, I suppose. I only know what I see on TV and in print. That may or may not be a reliable indicator of what he is really like. I can neither confirm nor deny he actually meets those criteria, and neither can you.
Bercovici and Ronson are journalists, not mental health professionals, and they are after clicks and sales, so their assessment of who is and who is not a sociopath or psychopath is of dubious value. When Chainsaw Al is the first name trotted out, I see sensationalism at its finest.
Your fixation on Trump is a bit odd, I must say, but the man knows how to capture people's attention and hold it, that much is clear.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 11:25:27 AM
Do you deny he meets several of the criteria?
I deny that you or I can know whether he meets the actual clinical criteria that are summarized in those points, yes.
But let's look.
1. Sometimes I expect so, but sometimes won't cut it. You need a "pervasive pattern" according to the DSM IV.
2. Absolutely I deny it. Trump has a reputation of being a man of his word, and reliable in business and other dealings.
3. On what basis do you say this? His penchant for attractive women? I have no idea of his family or long term friendships. Do you?
4. No violence. Denied. Being a thin skinned asshat is not the same.
5. Again, how do we know. I expect he has learnt a lot from experience.
6. Did you notice this is about being in conflict with society? trump isn't. He's establishment, and he currently leads the polls. Not remotely "in conflict with society."
This is a stupid conversation. I have a friend who was head of psychiatry at a major hospital before retiring this year. He would never diagnose someone he's never seen. But I will ask him about your contention.
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 11:35:56 AM
What Todd said. Plus get a grip. You know nothing about Trump and these summarized bullet points. Take just the first. "Callous unconcern for the feelings of others." That's just you labeling your dislike of his policies. What the bullet point refers to is a thorough-going callous unconcern in his life, not advocating policies you think unfeeling, and you have no evidence for that at all.
Or the low frustration theshhold. Did you note "including violence"? I suspect Trump has way too low a threshold for a president, but he's not a wife-beater. He's never been accused of violence that I know of. He's been accused of crudity and rudeness, which ain't what the bullet point means.
And let me emphasize bullet point. What you posted is NOT what is taught to clinical psychologists. It's just ridiculous to offer a diagnosis of someone you have never met, and know litle of, on the basis of a half page summary cribbed from the DSM.
I more than have a grip. The criteria cited must not all be met for the condition to exist, and what I has not so much to do with dislike of policies as with his explicit indifference to his tone. Some quotations:
"I have black guys counting my money. ... I hate it. The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day." (USA Today, May 20, 1991)
"Oftentimes when I was sleeping with one of the top women in the world I would say to myself, thinking about me as a boy from Queens, 'Can you believe what I am getting?' " ("Think Big: Make it Happen in Business and Life," 2008)
"... she does have a very nice figure. I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her." (ABC's "The View," March 6, 2006)
"If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?" (Twitter, April 16, 2015)
"Rosie's a person that's very lucky to have her girlfriend. And she better be careful or I'll send one of my friends over to pick up her girlfriend. Why would she stay with Rosie if she had another choice?" ("Entertainment Tonight," Dec. 21, 2006)
Arianna Huffington is "a dog." (Twitter, April 6, 2015)
No callous indifference to the feelings of others there. But thanks to Todd for letting me know my fixation on Trump (who's making amateur diagnoses now?) is a bit odd.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 11:52:22 AMBut thanks to Todd for letting me know my fixation on Trump (who's making amateur diagnoses now?) is a bit odd.
You're welcome.
Quote from: Todd on August 27, 2015, 11:08:08 AM
Why not just say that Trump is a douchenozzle?
That's what
I say. With no modifiers or other addenda. 0:)
8)
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 11:48:29 AM
But I will ask him about your contention.
I can't wait. But meanwhile, if you Google "Donald Trump sociopath," you will see any number of articles expressing the same position.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 12:07:01 PMBut meanwhile, if you Google "Donald Trump sociopath," you will see any number of articles expressing the same position.
Googling "cute kittens" brings up many pictures of cute kittens.
Quote from: Todd on August 27, 2015, 12:19:40 PM
Googling "cute kittens" brings up many pictures of cute kittens.
How snide we are. But it does not erase the fact that (whether clinically exact or no), there are personality traits in Trump that accord with numerous people's concept of what a sociopath may be.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 12:30:29 PMBut it does not erase the fact that (whether clinically exact or no), there are personality traits in Trump that accord with numerous people's concept of what a sociopath may be.
That is not a fact.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 27, 2015, 12:30:29 PM
How snide we are. But it does not erase the fact that (whether clinically exact or no), there are personality traits in Trump that accord with numerous people's concept of what a sociopath may be.
What a sneaky retreat! First he is one, this claimed as a matter of fact. Now it's that there are traits. As there are in everyone.
Google your opinion to see it's shared? Ironic, in a debate where one of the threads is about the tendency of some people to try to gussy up their attitudes with foolish claims of scientific solidity!
Quote from: Ken B on August 27, 2015, 01:30:36 PM
What a sneaky retreat! First he is one, this claimed as a matter of fact. Now it's that there are traits. As there are in everyone.
Google your opinion to see it's shared? Ironic, in a debate where one of the threads is about the tendency of some people to try to gussy up their attitudes with foolish claims of scientific solidity!
All right, you've had your fun. Let it go.
Can't argue with that.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2a7zi9f.jpg)
In a cool, dispassionate way, I know that such people must exist. Still, one cannot prepare for the shock.
Our political process encapsulated in two short sentences.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2015, 03:46:01 PM
In a cool, dispassionate way, I know that such people must exist. Still, one cannot prepare for the shock.
Is it really any stupider than "Hope and Change"? Both seem examples of what
Brian observed: sounds good from a distance, but really meaningless.
Quote from: Ken B on August 28, 2015, 04:17:36 AM
Is it really any stupider than "Hope and Change"? Both seem examples of what Brian observed: sounds good from a distance, but really meaningless.
I meant more the
We know it's his goal—it's on his hat! angle.
Since Trump has floated the idea of ending birthright citizenship for "anchor babies" by an act of congress, here are two interesting articles on either side of the constitutionality issues.
http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2015/08/originalism-and-birthright-citizenship-againmichael-ramsey.html (http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2015/08/originalism-and-birthright-citizenship-againmichael-ramsey.html)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/birthright-citizenship-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/birthright-citizenship-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment)
One of the delights of this debate is that the THWACK of sacred cows colliding is very loud: the best case against Trump's position is an originalist one.
I do apologize for presenting serious articles on both sides.
But for those who prefer shortcuts, a link to DSM-IV codes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_codes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_codes)
Just gonna throw this Op-Ed title out there for entertainment purposes only:
Is Donald Trump rising, or is rest of Republican field sinking?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 28, 2015, 11:24:38 AM
Just gonna throw this Op-Ed title out there for entertainment purposes only:
Is Donald Trump rising, or is rest of Republican field sinking?
Exactly what I have been saying. Trump should scare the GOP establishment witless (more witless). I am far from endorsing all the claims here, but some of it is insightful. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/donald-trumps-napoleon-moment/ (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/donald-trumps-napoleon-moment/)
There's no way I'm watching Palin interview El Tupé.
By the way, I don't think Trump would be a good president, and him getting elected would be an embarrasment for the U.S. I just think that his popularity signals a fault line within the conservative movement which the Republican party has been suppressing through money.
Also, I know a fair number of working class Hispanic people and Trump is creating major anxiety and fear in that community.
Most humane solution: Secure border, then amnesty.
Who knows how accurate but the polls in Iowa show Ben Carson tied with Trump now. Third place trails way back. I don't know what it means, if it means anything, but I can spin it as vindicating my belief that Trumpism is largely a "we hate you" message from GOP voters to GOP leaders. The two non-politician outsiders are way ahead of the rest. And Fiorina, who has run once before but was never elected, is in third.
It's only an opinion, to be sure:
Alienating the largest and fastest growing minority in the country, creating ill feelings among key voter groups, and repeatedly making foolish and hateful comments on all manner of topics. That is the Trump candidacy in a nutshell. (http://www.insidesources.com/donald-trump-is-a-disaster/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=july)
I don't trust any analysis of Trump that completely ignores his hat.
Quote from: Pat B on August 31, 2015, 10:42:52 AM
I don't trust any analysis of Trump that completely ignores his hat.
That may fall under
creating ill feelings among key voter groups 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 31, 2015, 09:58:11 AM
It's only an opinion, to be sure:
Alienating the largest and fastest growing minority in the country, creating ill feelings among key voter groups, and repeatedly making foolish and hateful comments on all manner of topics. That is the Trump candidacy in a nutshell. (http://www.insidesources.com/donald-trump-is-a-disaster/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=july)
Not an unreasonable or baseless one!
Perry scales back Iowa team to one paid staffer
I don't know, but the most interesting news to come out during this presidential cycle, for me, is the potential for a Kanye West presidency.
Kanye West was in my dream last night... *shudder*...
and then today I find this out.
Quote from: sanantonio on August 31, 2015, 12:33:40 PM
I don't know, but the most interesting news to come out during this presidential cycle, for me, is the potential for a Kanye West presidency.
:'(
In my dream, I was walking around with a group of people who look up to me for some reason, and I noticed a face in the group that was familiar. Kanye? wtf?... he was super short, though just now I looked up his height and he's really only 2 inches shorter than me. And he was there because he aspired to be like me. I figured it was a good aspiration to want to be something better than yourself, so I was okay with it. But of course, there are thousands (millions?) of other musicians that he could have aspired to that are better than him.
I think the best way to describe how that dream happened is that I always tell my mind to dream of my favorite girls (imagining them as 5 feet tall or so), but then my mind interprets this information like, "Oh, you want to dream of little bitches, eh? Well, here's a 5 foot tall Kanye West!"
:'(
You just might consider thanking your lucky stars that you're registered to vote in Texas.
Quote from: Kenric WardNo law prevents localities from having more registered voters than voting-age residents, and eight Texas counties do.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/02/eight-texas-counties-list-more-voters-than-residents/
Quote from: Greg on August 31, 2015, 03:40:07 PM
I think the best way to describe how that dream happened is that I always tell my mind to dream of my favorite girls (imagining them as 5 feet tall or so), but then my mind interprets this information like, "Oh, you want to dream of little bitches, eh? Well, here's a 5 foot tall Kanye West!"
:'(
A wormhole from the
New Topic thread reveals:
Astrophysicists hypothesize a Trump shaped hole in Universe could win election.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 02, 2015, 05:47:00 AM
You just might consider thanking your lucky stars that you're registered to vote in Texas.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/02/eight-texas-counties-list-more-voters-than-residents/
I believe that is something of a tradition in Texas. Didn't LBJ leverage that somehow in his 87 vote win over Coke Stevenson (aka, Mr Texas) in 1948, thus earning the title Landslide Lyndon in the Senate?
Quote from: drogulus on September 02, 2015, 06:02:34 AM
A wormhole from the New Topic thread reveals:
Astrophysicists hypothesize a Trump shaped hole in Universe could win election.
I saw an image of a hypothetical 2020 election poll.
(R) Donald Trump- 60%
(D) Kanye West- 30%
(I) Deez Nuts- 10%
I think you know by now who I would vote for.
Breaking News: Hillary Surrounds Herself With Sycophants (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0901/Hillary-Clinton-e-mails-flattery-frozen-fish-and-The-Good-Wife)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 02, 2015, 10:15:58 AM
Breaking News: Hillary Surrounds Herself With Sycophants (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0901/Hillary-Clinton-e-mails-flattery-frozen-fish-and-The-Good-Wife)
Isn't "breaking news" news that was not known before?
Ah, you perceive my small witticism!
Quote from: Greg on September 02, 2015, 06:29:21 AM
I think you know by now who I would vote for.
Why not flip a coin?
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/digitaltrends-uploads-prod/2014/07/the-shining.png)
Quote from: drogulus on September 02, 2015, 10:35:06 AM
Why not flip a coin?
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/digitaltrends-uploads-prod/2014/07/the-shining.png)
Because I'd rather not even touch the coin to begin with, because it's covered in shit.
Good analogy with that picture, too. 8)
Quote from: Greg on September 02, 2015, 11:26:29 AM
Because I'd rather not even touch the coin to begin with, because it's covered in shit.
(https://bkblack28.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/anchorman-well-that-escalated-quickly.jpg)
Who would you vote for, Brian? Donald Trump, Kanye West, or Deez Nuts? ;D
The last few elections and probably most elections in the future:
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/dd4507e855fd8cab5b54d04e3bb405bc/tumblr_nkr8qtg0XA1rlo1q2o1_1280.jpg)
(http://tinyurl.com/q3d9syy)
Quote from: The Six on September 02, 2015, 04:13:04 PM
(http://tinyurl.com/q3d9syy)
Mean Regression.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/akyhne/blank.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)
He really is the gift that keeps on giving:
Quote"As much as I love 'The Art of the Deal,' it's not even close," he said Friday. "We take the Bible all the way."
But when asked Wednesday on Bloomberg's "With All Due Respect" to share his favorite verses, Trump, a Presbyterian, was not as direct.
"I wouldn't want to get into it. Because to me, that's very personal," he said. "The Bible means a lot to me, but I don't want to get into specifics."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 04, 2015, 06:27:39 PM
He really is the gift that keeps on giving:
If he can't quote even a single verse I like him more!
Why John Kasich is gaining ground in New Hampshire (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0909/Why-John-Kasich-is-gaining-ground-in-New-Hampshire)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 09, 2015, 08:55:42 AM
Why John Kasich is gaining ground in New Hampshire (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0909/Why-John-Kasich-is-gaining-ground-in-New-Hampshire)
I keep meaning to give Kasich a closer look. Just not exciting. But that's a good thing actually.
Huckabee and Cruz made big head way in the fight for the homophobic hypocrite vote. ::)
Wow, are there really THAT many homophobes still living in America? :( >:( ???
Quote from: Ken B on September 09, 2015, 10:07:20 AM
I keep meaning to give Kasich a closer look. Just not exciting. But that's a good thing actually.
Especially this cycle!
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 09, 2015, 10:18:57 AM
Wow, are there really THAT many homophobes still living in America? :( >:( ???
Yup! And racists, hooray!
Quote from: Brian on September 09, 2015, 11:37:41 AM
Yup! And racists, hooray!
I find this quite an annoying comment, and I want to explain why. Because it's on a politics thread I think it is most likely just a term you frequently use for people who disagree with you. Want to restrict immigration? Racist! It's like Godwin's Law: when your go-to argument is "Hitler!" something is wrong. When your go-to argument is "racist!" something is wrong.
Quote from: Ken B on September 09, 2015, 12:02:41 PM
I find this quite an annoying comment, and I want to explain why. Because it's on a politics thread I think it is most likely just a term you frequently use for people who disagree with you. Want to restrict immigration? Racist! It's like Godwin's Law: when your go-to argument is "Hitler!" something is wrong. When your go-to argument is "racist!" something is wrong.
It's amazing how many you'll find on the internet, though. IRL not so much, very much in the minority. Seems to be a very vocal minority.
Quote from: Ken B on September 09, 2015, 12:02:41 PM
I find this quite an annoying comment, and I want to explain why. Because it's on a politics thread I think it is most likely just a term you frequently use for people who disagree with you. Want to restrict immigration? Racist! It's like Godwin's Law: when your go-to argument is "Hitler!" something is wrong. When your go-to argument is "racist!" something is wrong.
Well...no. I was talking about the people who are actually racist. Methinks you protest too much. ;)
She's calling it an apology, but it feels like little more than a tactical statement. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0909/Hillary-Clinton-apologizes-over-e-mail-flap.-Too-little-too-late)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 10, 2015, 09:37:16 AM
She's calling it an apology, but it feels like little more than a tactical statement. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0909/Hillary-Clinton-apologizes-over-e-mail-flap.-Too-little-too-late)
It's also a lie. It wasn't allowed. There were clear policies about even unclassified official emails. And it was illegal with the classified messages.
Aye, part of her credibility problem is, she is a habitual bullshitter.
Quote from: Geo. WillNovelist Mary McCarthy said of playwright Lillian Hellman, "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" If that was so, Trump is not even an original.
(http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0831/1537/products/have-fever-blue_1024x1024.jpg?v=1441398581)
Feverish is le mot juste 8)
AUD'T THE PHED
AUD'T THE PHED
Casualty #1! (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/09/11/rick-perry-suspends-campaign/72093356/)
(http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/all/themes/tnr/assets/images/apostrophe.jpg)
Bernie Sanders Isn't Crazy to Court Evangelicals. But Here's Why It's a Tough Sell. (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122809/bernie-sanders-isnt-crazy-court-evangelicals-its-tough-sell)
The article doesn't convince me abortion is a terribly relevant factor. The tough sell part is more along the lines of "He's a Brooklyn socialist Jew socialist Jew!!", something like that.
Quote from: drogulus on September 15, 2015, 07:02:30 AMThe article doesn't convince me abortion is a terribly relevant factor. The tough sell part is more along the lines of "He's a Brooklyn socialist Jew socialist Jew!!", something like that.
How strongly does he support Israel? If he's a devout friend of Israel, that alone could win over some Evangelicals.
But I like hanging chads. (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/15/2016-election-old-voting-machines-hanging-chad)
Quote from: drogulus on September 15, 2015, 07:02:30 AM
(http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/all/themes/tnr/assets/images/apostrophe.jpg)
Bernie Sanders Isn't Crazy to Court Evangelicals. But Here's Why It's a Tough Sell. (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122809/bernie-sanders-isnt-crazy-court-evangelicals-its-tough-sell)
The article doesn't convince me abortion is a terribly relevant factor. The tough sell part is more along the lines of "He's a Brooklyn socialist Jew socialist Jew!!", something like that.
Then you obviously have no clue.
What Do Donald Trump Voters Actually Want? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/)
"... And how much damage can [Trump] really do?"
Quote from: karlhenning on September 15, 2015, 09:30:37 AM
What Do Donald Trump Voters Actually Want? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/)
I believe
prospective voters would be a better headline, given that nary a vote has been cast yet. I mean, what if it is learned that Mr Trump kills kittens?
Quote from: Todd on September 15, 2015, 09:43:46 AM
I believe prospective voters would be a better headline, given that nary a vote has been cast yet. I mean, what if it is learned that Mr Trump kills kittens?
Perfectly fair (your qualification, not Trump's unpredictable violence).
Quote from: Todd on September 15, 2015, 09:43:46 AM
I believe prospective voters would be a better headline, given that nary a vote has been cast yet. I mean, what if it is learned that Mr Trump kills kittens?
Those bastard kittens opened a factory in China.
In other Trump related news, he lost his TV job to an immigrant! (http://www.ew.com/article/2015/09/14/arnold-schwarzenegger-replace-donald-trump-celebrity-apprentice-host)
The day's dose of surrealism:
Hillary Clinton says Bill for Veep has 'crossed her mind.' (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0915/Hillary-Clinton-says-Bill-for-Veep-has-crossed-her-mind.-Legal)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 15, 2015, 11:34:43 AM
The day's dose of surrealism:
Hillary Clinton says Bill for Veep has 'crossed her mind.' (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0915/Hillary-Clinton-says-Bill-for-Veep-has-crossed-her-mind.-Legal)
This confirms my impression of Hillary's competence and respect for the law.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 15, 2015, 11:34:43 AMThe day's dose of surrealism:
As delightful as a Clinton/Clinton ticket would be from an election cycle/entertainment perspective, I'm not certain the CSM analysis of the 22nd Amendment is entirely correct or complete as it relates to the VP's most important job: Standby. There is more to the first part of the 22nd Amendment, like everything in bold:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."Slick Willy could be VP, but in the event Hillary were no longer able to fulfill her duties, it might trigger a Constitutional crisis, depending on when incapacitation/death occurred. That is, if she died of a stroke in her third month in office, Bill would not be able to serve more than two years before someone else would have to tapped to fill the role (the Speaker?). The 25th Amendment does not really envision this type of scenario for succession, and while it is all fun and games, it does seem as though if anyone were to even consider trying this, it would be the Clintons.
(And there's also the little problem about New York Electors under the 12th Amendment.)
Quote from: Todd on September 15, 2015, 12:01:25 PM
As delightful as a Clinton/Clinton ticket would be from an election cycle/entertainment perspective, I'm not certain the CSM analysis of the 22nd Amendment is entirely correct or complete as it relates to the VP's most important job: Standby. There is more to the first part of the 22nd Amendment, like everything in bold: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Huh. I never realized this before, but somebody could plausibly be president for (counting the time between election and succession) 10 full years under that scenario. Elect Hillary/Diamond Joe in 2016, they die in 2019 of excess Valentine's Day candy, and Julian Castro can be president until inauguration day 2029.
Even more surreal: What if Trump wins the GOP nomination but Hillary loses out? What if Trump offers her the running mate job? (Would be yet another reason to vote against him!)
Quote from: Ken B on September 15, 2015, 09:22:24 AM
Then you obviously have no clue.
Sanders wants to help born children and that disqualifies him before you get to abortion.
Quote from: drogulus on September 16, 2015, 04:50:25 AM
Sanders wants to help born children and that disqualifies him before you get to abortion.
And that relates to my comment how?
You implied evangelicals don't
really care about abortion. That's clueless.
Quote from: Ken B on September 16, 2015, 05:10:25 AM
And that relates to my comment how?
You implied evangelicals don't really care about abortion. That's clueless.
They want it to be illegal more than they want to reduce the number of abortions, so there are different ways of caring, and not just one factor to care about. Take me, for example. I see a continuum of care that includes birth control, reproductive health and the welfare of children. Abortion is part of those concerns, not a stand alone issue for me. So I want to reduce the number of abortions by reducing both the necessity and the desire for them, which is best done within the law. Criminalized abortion doesn't have a good track record in this respect, and to the extent that self described evangelicals trample these distinctions, as they so often do, they deserve to be considered cruel hypocrites.
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on September 15, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
Even more surreal: What if Trump wins the GOP nomination but Hillary loses out? What if Trump offers her the running mate job? (Would be yet another reason to vote against him!)
Who WOULD Trump choose as a running mate?
Mark Cuban
Ted Cruz
Sarah Palin
That's what I bet he chooses between.
Quote from: Brian on September 16, 2015, 08:30:51 AM
Mark Cuban
Too much trash talk from Cuban, methinks:
"And if it was me vs. Trump, I would crush him. No doubt about it."That this type of thing is discussed at all, serious or not, makes me think of Richard Dawson's line from
The Running Man:
"Hello, this is Killian. Give me the Justice Department, Entertainment Division. No, no, hold that, Operator? Get me the President's agent."
Quote from: Brian on September 16, 2015, 08:30:51 AM
Who WOULD Trump choose as a running mate?
Mark Cuban
Ted Cruz
Sarah Palin
That's what I bet he chooses between.
Nah. He will choose himself.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 16, 2015, 01:20:52 PM
Nah. He will choose himself.
That's an interesting idea. But I'm sleptical. I doubt he'd put up with an equal, and he'd never agree to serve in a subordinate roll.
Quote from: Ken B on September 16, 2015, 01:36:43 PM
That's an interesting idea. But I'm sleptical. I doubt he'd put up with an equal, and he'd never agree to serve in a subordinate roll.
I see you're already playing the Presidential Debate Drinking Game!
Rules:
1. Any time you feel the need to drink, drink.
This debate took about 10 minutes to get from a classy, humble intro by Ben Carson to the level of a VH1 reality TV series.
Quote from: Brian on September 16, 2015, 04:26:47 PM
This debate took about 10 minutes to get from a classy, humble intro by Ben Carson to the level of a VH1 reality TV series.
That long?
I streamed a fair chunk, and got hear about the threats faced not by just America, no, but by Western Civilization itself (!!!!!!); someone mentioned 9/11 in passing; there was much splutter about immigration; but Huckabee's mention of the "Fair Tax" - the right's equivalent of the left's so-called "Fair Trade" - spurred me to stop watching.
Fiorina came off rather well. She did her homework. I could not vote for her, but the same goes for most of the people on the stage. And where was Pataki? He did Tavis Smiley this week and said some forgettable things, but nothing embarrassing like Trump or Huckabee. The field needs more trimming.
Quote from: Vanessa WilliamsWhen the moderator asked the candidates which woman they would like to see on the $10 bill, the male candidates offered suggestions including Rosa Parks, the choice of Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.), and Mother Teresa, the pick of Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Fiorina said she wouldn't make any changes.
"Honestly, it's a gesture. I don't think it helps to change our history," she said. "What I would think is that we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group. Women are the majority of this nation."
Nicely done,
and as a pointedly visible minority on the stage. Good theatre.
Quote from: Todd on September 16, 2015, 06:04:42 PM
Fiorina came off rather well. She did her homework. I could not vote for her, but the same goes for most of the people on the stage.
That's how I feel. Fiorina seemed like the most professional, polished candidate onstage - more so than "she's a beautiful woman" Trump, more so than "please hold while I think of a comeback" Bush, more so than "yeah, if somebody else has a good idea, I'm cool with that" Carson. (Although I think accepting other people's cool ideas is a hugely underrated quality in a candidate.) Rand Paul was also surprisingly substantive, but his Constitution answer was a hilarious dork-out moment where he forgot what the point was and just lectured on history.
The big losers, for me: Scott Walker, who basically did nothing at all, and Ted Cruz, who sounded like the stupid clown he is.
Quote from: Brian on September 17, 2015, 04:34:29 AM
(Although I think accepting other people's cool ideas is a hugely underrated quality in a candidate.)
Because that is an important component of actual governance:
acknowledges the contributions of others.
(Disclosure: left-wing commentator.)
What was hinted at tonight is that as the Trump phenomenon is normalized, it will become less interesting. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/09/17/the-winners-and-losers-of-the-debate-that-never-ended/)
Quote from: Brian on September 17, 2015, 04:34:29 AM
Ted Cruz, who sounded like the stupid clown he is.
Double. Alan Dershowitz called Cruz the most brilliant student he's ever had. People can disagree with Brian and not be stupid I think.
As a foreigner, I'm very interested in your thoughts on who you believe the top 2 or 3 candidates from each party are (most likely), at this point? Thanks. :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 17, 2015, 04:58:47 AM
As a foreigner, I'm very interested in your thoughts on who you believe the top 2 or 3 candidates from each party are (most likely), at this point? Thanks. :)
I'm Canadian too. I still think Trump will fade. The most interesting candidates to me -- and I have not done a deep dive just noted who seems to turn me off least -- are
Walker, Kasich, Rubio, Fiorina, Christie, Bush. Walker seems to be fading, and Christie looks to have no chance. I cannot see another Bush on the ticket. There are things I like about Paul. I'm glad to have his view point in the senate, since ideas need to be heard. He's my last choice in the field.
The dem who interests me most is Webb, who gets no traction. The one who appeals least is O'Malley. Bernie's ideas are crazy -- his current promises amount to 18 trillion I read -- but he's more honest than Hillary.
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 17, 2015, 04:58:47 AM
As a foreigner, I'm very interested in your thoughts on who you believe the top 2 or 3 candidates from each party are (most likely), at this point? Thanks. :)
The circus has only begun, so "at this point" is not indicative of November 2016 . . . against all better judgment, Trump remains a serious candidate, for now, certainly; Carson and Kasich may prove viable longer-term.
Time has yet to show if Hilary can pull her campaign out of its current tailspin; she is helped mostly by the great height at which her beleaguered craft began. Is Sanders a viable alternative? I view his future career with interest.
So why don't I think Fiorina viable longer-term? Well, she may prove to be, of course. My back-of-the-envelope analysis today is that she is a nascent flavor du jour, and mostly the "anti-Trump" of the hour. I think it a very good thing that she is part of the process, generally; offhand, I shouldn't mind if she wound up the eventual nominee.
I don't see the Christie campaign as having legs, at least not to take him into the White House. I do see him as staying through a fair amount of the primaries.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 17, 2015, 05:17:11 AM
So why don't I think Fiorina viable longer-term? Well, she may prove to be, of course. My back-of-the-envelope analysis today is that she is a nascent flavor du jour, and mostly the "anti-Trump" of the hour. I think it a very good thing that she is part of the process, generally; offhand, I shouldn't mind if she wound up the eventual nominee.
I don't see the Christie campaign as having legs, at least not to take him into the White House. I do see him as staying through a fair amount of the primaries.
She's climbed the most of the seemingly plausible candidates. I rather like her style, which is tough without being boorish, and confident without being a braggart. Her record seems a bit mixed (I don't know for sure, just see different claims) but it is unsullied by time in office. In many ways that's an appealing thing.
The predictive markets are still big on Bush, but also show some respect for Rubio and Fiorina.
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination (http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination)
Quote from: Ken B on September 17, 2015, 05:34:54 AM
The predictive markets are still big on Bush [...]
They will be slow to downgrade either the Bush or Clinton brand.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 17, 2015, 05:47:59 AM
They will be slow to downgrade either the Bush or Clinton brand.
I agree. But sometimes they are smarter than we are.
Rubio looks underpriced to me.
Thanks for the feedback, Ken and Karl! :)
A significant sub-population of El Tupé's present "support" are jokester, borderline nihilists who are just enjoying the unseemly spectacle; but the serious side of his proposed constituency is fueled by righteous disgust for the politician class.
Even if these are ultimately denied a Trump candidacy, they are not going to do either a Clinton or a Bush any favors at the ballot box.
On Facebook I recently unfriended a chap, not because he had done me any great discourtesy (he has not, lately) but because he has not merely drunk the Hillary Kool-Ade--that seemed to have been his amniotic fluid. He has the zealot's conviction that Hillary and Hillary Alone can serve the Democratic Party next November. That of itself is no great offense, but even our limited history on Facebook has taught me that he will not respond civilly to dissent, so the easiest thing from my end was to exise his pro-Hillary screeds from my feed. I have a limited appetite for the My Mind Is Made Up Don't Confuse Me With Potentially Inconvenient Facts crowd . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on September 17, 2015, 05:17:11 AMSo why don't I think Fiorina viable longer-term?
Because she's not. She'd be a potentially good choice for VP to counter Hillary and the inevitable charges of a GOP sexism/War on Women if Hillary gets the nod, though it's hard to see what electoral advantage she would bring. (I get it, outsiders are popular right now, but they are always popular early on; winning needs votes, and that needs political support and a base.) She'd be better at Commerce or Labor or as USTR, or someplace where she follows orders rather than giving them. She may serve a purpose in attacking Trump more, because as she showed last night, she has some attacks ("I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.") that he cannot refute without looking worse. He may pretend not to care, or he may not care, but it can hurt him.
A Kasich/Rubio ticket could be a good one, but both of them need to up their games. Kasich looked and sounded the same as before. He's by far the most experienced Republican running, but that means little to nothing. Fundraising reports come out next month, so that should weed the field a bit.
Quote from: Todd on September 17, 2015, 06:28:47 AM
Because she's not. She'd be a potentially good choice for VP to counter Hillary and the inevitable charges of a GOP sexism/War on Women if Hillary gets the nod, though it's hard to see what electoral advantage she would bring. (I get it, outsiders are popular right now, but they are always popular early on; winning needs votes, and that needs political support and a base.) She'd be better at Commerce or Labor or as USTR, or someplace where she follows orders rather than giving them. She may serve a purpose in attacking Trump more, because as she showed last night, she has some attacks ("I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.”) that he cannot refute without looking worse. He may pretend not to care, or he may not care, but it can hurt him.
A Kasich/Rubio ticket could be a good one, but both of them need to up their games. Kasich looked and sounded the same as before. He's by far the most experienced Republican running, but that means little to nothing. Fundraising reports come out next month, so that should weed the field a bit.
Good analysis, I thnk.
Quote from: Chris CilizzaJohn Kasich continued to play the adult in the room, arguing that the next president should see if the Iran deal can work rather than immediately tearing it up and losing our allies on the issue. He also pointed out that it makes no strategic sense for Republicans to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. He stressed unity and working together. As ever, his candidacy rests on impressing moderates in New Hampshire.
Scott Walker made no rhetorically or substantively cogent points. The others on the big stage also didn't do enough to distinguish themselves.
Finally, Lindsey Graham deserves a shoutout for explicitly promising to work with Democrats. He is no rhetorical craftsman, and he will probably never make it out of the JV debate. He will certainly never be president. But in a more reasonable Republican Party, his sentiment wouldn't be noteworthy. Instead, we have the debate we have.
I did not watch the debate but people I think sane were underwhelmed by Kasich. Depressing. This is inherent I think. I don't want a bomb-thrower like Trump even if I were to agree with him on more issues. But people like that get lost in the circus atmosphere, unless they have a lot of charisma. I'd like to see something more like a Firing Line approach, where a tough but not unfairly hostile interviewer presses the candidates individually, for an hour or two. Pipe dream I guess, but if you watch some old debates or probing interviews on say PBS from 40 years ago the level of debate will blow your socks off, so it can be done.
Quote from: Ken B on September 17, 2015, 06:59:39 AM
I did not watch the debate but people I think sane were underwhelmed by Kasich. Depressing. This is inherent I think. I don't want a bomb-thrower like Trump even if I were to agree with him on more issues. But people like that get lost in the circus atmosphere, unless they have a lot of charisma. I'd like to see something more like a Firing Line approach, where a tough but not unfairly hostile interviewer presses the candidates individually, for an hour or two. Pipe dream I guess, but if you watch some old debates or probing interviews on say PBS from 40 years ago the level of debate will blow your socks off, so it can be done.
I actually DID watch the debate, most of it anyway.
Kasich rose the most in my estimation, but at least part of that is based on 'yes, but look at the competition' sort of thinking, I fear.
Rand Paul actually seemed a bit better than before, I think he is over letting Trump unnerve him.
Jeb looked better. He needs to come up with a way to deal with the (unfair but inevitable) constant blaming of his brother's actions on him. Whatever it is, he needs to do it quickly.
My favorite is still Chris Christie, but I don't consider him to be electable.
Walker is right out (always was though).
Fiorina needs to be careful about sounding strident. That's a loser for a woman, whether it is fair or not to say it. She is miles better than Sarah Palin ever thought to be though. Probably better than Hillary for that matter. (Is that really saying anything though?)
Carson would be a nice guy to know, but that's about it.
By and large, anyone who is intent on turning this into a Religious State, while simultaneously decrying the Muslim countries for being Religious States, is handing me a tar baby that I don't care a damn about unsticking myself from, so they need to appeal to someone else.
8)
"Oh, but a Christian religious state would be ever so much better!" >:D
Quote from: karlhenning on September 17, 2015, 07:41:32 AM
"Oh, but a Christian religious state would be ever so much better!" >:D
I understand Spain used to be one; let's ask what they thought. Inquisition? Hmmm... that could work! >:D
8)
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 17, 2015, 04:58:47 AM
As a foreigner, I'm very interested in your thoughts on who you believe the top 2 or 3 candidates from each party are (most likely), at this point? Thanks. :)
In terms of likelihood IMO:
Republicans: Jeb Bush (establishment), Cruz (right wing), Kasich (moderate), Trump (not-a-politician)
Democrats: Hillary Clinton (establishment), Sanders (left wing)
My preferences are Kasich (with none of the other Rs even close) and probably Webb.
Quote from: Pat B on September 17, 2015, 11:09:00 AM
My preferences are Kasich ... and probably Webb.
Odd that our preferences should align. What are the chances we'll get that?
Quote from: Ken B on September 17, 2015, 11:20:50 AM
Odd that our preferences should align. What are the chances we'll get that?
Either of them would do great in the general, but I am not optimistic about their chances in the primaries.
Trump, who was a driver of the "birther" movement that claimed Obama wasn't born in the U.S, first responded with feigned exasperation -- "We need the question," he said, to laughs -- but let the man continue (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/18/trump-declines-to-correct-questioner-who-calls-obama-muslim-at-nh-event/?intcmp=hpbt3)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 18, 2015, 07:32:11 AM
Trump, who was a driver of the "birther" movement that claimed Obama wasn't born in the U.S, first responded with feigned exasperation -- "We need the question," he said, to laughs -- but let the man continue
While not conceding that the whole topic has an iota of validity, for the sake of argument, if Obama IS a Muslim, so what? AT least at this point (no telling what the future holds, beyond my (fortunate) demise), the Constitution doesn't mandate being a Xtian as a qualification for POTUS... So WTF anyway?
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 18, 2015, 07:57:28 AMthe Constitution doesn't mandate being a Xtian as a qualification for POTUS... So WTF anyway?
8)
We've had several non-Christian presidents (e.g. Thomas Jefferson) and several presidents for whom church attendance was a very, very low priority (e.g. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln).
Quote from: Brian on September 18, 2015, 08:14:21 AM
We've had several non-Christian presidents (e.g. Thomas Jefferson) and several presidents for whom church attendance was a very, very low priority (e.g. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln).
Hmmm. I think you are overstating about Washington. There is good reason to believe he was a deist, but he was pretty consistent over the years in attending church in the polite gentlemanly fashion. That is, he owned a pew, he showed up on major occasions, and desultorily otherwise.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 18, 2015, 07:57:28 AM
While not conceding that the whole topic has an iota of validity, for the sake of argument, if Obama IS a Muslim, so what? AT least at this point (no telling what the future holds, beyond my (fortunate) demise), the Constitution doesn't mandate being a Xtian as a qualification for POTUS... So WTF anyway?
8)
Precisamente, fellow
Haydnista!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 18, 2015, 07:57:28 AM
While not conceding that the whole topic has an iota of validity, for the sake of argument, if Obama IS a Muslim, so what? AT least at this point (no telling what the future holds, beyond my (fortunate) demise), the Constitution doesn't mandate being a Xtian as a qualification for POTUS... So WTF anyway?
8)
Because every Muslim is working to re-establish the Caliphate, ergo he is secretly working on behalf of ISIS.
They really think this.
If Obama is a Muslim... lol, pretty much all of his principles are the opposite of a typical Muslim. If he is, he's the strangest Muslim ever.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 18, 2015, 05:14:20 PM
Because every Muslim is working to re-establish the Caliphate, ergo he is secretly working on behalf of ISIS.
They really think this.
Who does?
You know it's a big country. Amongst 300 million you can find someone who believes anything. So I don't doubt you can find a wingnut or two. But you seem to be implying a largish group. Who exactly?
Incidentally, in 2007 two Clinton staffers were caught circulating rumours Obama was a muslim.
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2015, 07:31:56 PM
Who does?
You know it's a big country. Amongst 300 million you can find someone who believes anything. So I don't doubt you can find a wingnut or two. But you seem to be implying a largish group. Who exactly?
A lot of right wing folks. Not necessarily a largish group, but not smallish either. I run into some of them online.
The more rational version, which does not depend on whether he is or is not a Muslim, argues that he is, from childhood experience and political ideology, too sympathetic to Muslims, to the detriment of US interests. That version is actually one I myself tend to agree with.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 18, 2015, 07:39:32 PM
A lot of right wing folks. Not necessarily a largish group, but not smallish either. I run into some of them online.
The more rational version, which does not depend on whether he is or is not a Muslim, argues that he is, from childhood experience and political ideology, too sympathetic to Muslims, to the detriment of US interests. That version is actually one I myself tend to agree with.
Rather vague isn't it? The people who think that way are the people who think that way?
Anyway, I tend to agree with that version too. Not just US interests. I think he fumbled the the ISIS development horribly, to the detriment of millions, and maybe millions more to come. One of the things I like about Trump is he seems to see that. Do I trust him to handle it better? Nope. But I've been wrong before. (It's why Paul is my last choice amongst the candidates. I'd campaign for anyone the dems nominate to defeat Paul, despite liking many of his other positions. Fortunately he has less chance than Christie. )
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2015, 07:31:56 PM
Incidentally, in 2007 two Clinton staffers were caught circulating rumours Obama was a muslim.
Emphasizing our shared point that La Clinton and her machine are underhanded cynics ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 19, 2015, 05:21:00 AM
Emphasizing our shared point that La Clinton and her machine are underhanded cynics ;)
Oh indeed.
Quote from: Ken B on September 18, 2015, 07:31:56 PM
You know it's a big country. Amongst 300 million you can find someone who believes anything. So I don't doubt you can find a wingnut or two.
I had a dream once, that there were only two wingnuts in the country . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on September 19, 2015, 05:30:50 AM
I had a dream once, that there were only two wingnuts in the country . . . .
I bet they were senators.
I think he simply misspoke, but I bet if you heard me talk about "my Christian faith" you'd assume I was a christian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw)
To clarify, I think he meant " my putative muslim faith" or "my supposed muslim faith" or words to that effect.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 18, 2015, 07:57:28 AM
While not conceding that the whole topic has an iota of validity, for the sake of argument, if Obama IS a Muslim, so what? AT least at this point (no telling what the future holds, beyond my (fortunate) demise), the Constitution doesn't mandate being a Xtian as a qualification for POTUS... So WTF anyway?
There was a poll earlier this year where 57% of Republicans supported establishing Christianity as the National Religion.
Earlier today, Carson said we can have Muslims in Congress but not as President. It's not clear how many people he represents, but my hunch is that he won't lose much support over it.
I think we're a long way of from saying "so what if he's a Muslim?" And probably even further from "so what if he's an Atheist?"
Quote from: Pat B on September 20, 2015, 02:48:53 PM
There was a poll earlier this year where 57% of Republicans supported establishing Christianity as the National Religion.
Earlier today, Carson said we can have Muslims in Congress but not as President. It's not clear how many people he represents, but my hunch is that he won't lose much support over it.
I think we're a long way of from saying "so what if he's a Muslim?" And probably even further from "so what if he's an Atheist?"
Nor should he. Religions are ideas, bad ones, and it's perfectly correct to judge candidate's on their opinions and ideas. Isn't Carson a creationist? I know a lot of people who would never support a creationist for president. Would you? How about a member of a cult that thinks the apocalypse is near? You want someone like that with nuclear codes? I don't.
Quote from: Pat B on September 20, 2015, 02:48:53 PM
There was a poll earlier this year where 57% of Republicans supported establishing Christianity as the National Religion.
Earlier today, Carson said we can have Muslims in Congress but not as President. It's not clear how many people he represents, but my hunch is that he won't lose much support over it.
I think we're a long way of from saying "so what if he's a Muslim?" And probably even further from "so what if he's an Atheist?"
Although I'VE been saying it for most of my (rather lengthy) adult life.
Puritanism lives on and on. The funny part is: they came here to escape religion controlled by the government, and have spent the 400 years since then trying to get the government to control religion. What's wrong with this picture...? ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 20, 2015, 03:44:15 PM
Although I'VE been saying it for most of my (rather lengthy) adult life.
Puritanism lives on and on. The funny part is: they came here to escape religion controlled by the government, and have spent the 400 years since then trying to get the government to control religion. What's wrong with this picture...? ::)
8)
Puritanism is flourishing, but not where you are pointing. Have you seen what's happening on campus? Or the calls to ban sex robots, or the kind of travesty The Six linked to about sexters? And I recall you arguing prostitution should be illegal. Is my memory faulty?
Quote from: Ken B on September 20, 2015, 07:41:14 PM
Puritanism is flourishing, but not where you are pointing. Have you seen what's happening on campus? Or the calls to ban sex robots, or the kind of travesty The Six linked to about sexters? And I recall you arguing prostitution should be illegal. Is my memory faulty?
Oh FFS, nobody is going to ban your sex robots.
Quote from: Ken B on September 20, 2015, 03:23:10 PM
Religions are ideas, bad ones...
That's another thing I don't expect to hear from any Republican candidate any time soon. (Or a Democrat for that matter, though this is slightly less unplausible.)
Quote from: Ken B on September 20, 2015, 03:23:10 PM
Isn't Carson a creationist? I know a lot of people who would never support a creationist for president. Would you? How about a member of a cult that thinks the apocalypse is near? You want someone like that with nuclear codes? I don't.
Creationism is not the same as anti-evolutionism. Creationism itself is not a big deal. Many people believe in a creator and also believe that evolution was a mechanism of the creator. To reject evolution, at this point, is to gratuitously ignore the available evidence, which is not something I want the President to do.
I am adamantly opposed to teaching creationism as science. Unfortunately even Kasich is on the wrong side of this, though I'm not sure how hard he has actually pushed for it.
Your comment about the apocalypse reminds me of John Hagee, who wants the U.S.A. to attack Iran in order to fulfill some prophesy and bring about the Rapture. If he endorses anybody for 2016 I will consider that a huge red flag.
Quote from: Daverz on September 20, 2015, 09:07:07 PM
Oh FFS, nobody is going to ban your sex robots.
There are those who are trying, which is the point. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/09/should-we-ban-sex-robots (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/09/should-we-ban-sex-robots)
Quote from: Ken B on September 20, 2015, 07:41:14 PM
Puritanism is flourishing, but not where you are pointing. Have you seen what's happening on campus? Or the calls to ban sex robots, or the kind of travesty The Six linked to about sexters? And I recall you arguing prostitution should be illegal. Is my memory faulty?
Yes, your memory is faulty on
that topic.
No, I haven't seen what's happening on campus; thousands said the same in the late '60's though, when I was part of all that. In the end, it all blended in to the big picture. As will this.
Sex robots? Really? So, um, are they expensive? Wait, I'll ask Sean.... ;D
8)
Quote from: Ken B on September 21, 2015, 05:05:57 AM
There are those who are trying, which is the point. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/09/should-we-ban-sex-robots (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/09/should-we-ban-sex-robots)
As you wrote earlier: "Amongst 300 million you can find someone who believes anything."
First they came for the sexbots, and I did not speak out—because I was not a sexbot . . .
Quote from: Todd on September 21, 2015, 10:40:12 AM
First they came for the sexbots, and I did not speak out—because I was not a sexbot . . .
Unkind, to those of us who are.
Quote from: Pat B on September 21, 2015, 10:32:03 AM
As you wrote earlier: "Amongst 300 million you can find someone who believes anything."
Oh I don't think they will succeed. But the question is, are puritans popping up all over. And they are. I am old enough to remember when it was only the religious who objected to dildos. Ah, the good old days.
I see Scott Walker is fixin' to withdraw from the race. Announcement later today. Now, if just 16 more will do the right thing, maybe we can find a Repub to run against Hillary.... >:D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 21, 2015, 12:28:38 PMI see Scott Walker is fixin' to withdraw from the race. Announcement later today.
The poor little meat puppet. Now, how to dump Trump?
Quote from: Todd on September 21, 2015, 12:33:45 PM
The poor little meat puppet. Now, how to dump Trump?
I still feel he will eventually pour a bucket of water on himself and melt... 0:)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 21, 2015, 12:50:37 PM
I still feel he will eventually pour a bucket of water on himself and melt... 0:)
8)
Because he makes comments that lower the tone of debate?
Quote from: Ken B on September 21, 2015, 06:04:17 PM
Because he makes comments that lower the tone of debate?
No, I don't give much of a hoot about tone. I do believe, however, that you can only shoot yourself in the foot just so many times before you can't walk anymore, let alone run... ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 21, 2015, 07:06:14 PM
No, I don't give much of a hoot about tone. I do believe, however, that you can only shoot yourself in the foot just so many times before you can't walk anymore, let alone run... ::)
8)
But, there are so many cheering, each time you hit one of your feet!
Quote from: karlhenning on September 22, 2015, 04:32:02 AM
But, there are so many cheering, each time you hit one of your feet!
Yes, it sort of could make the most swollen head turn. And
that head is all swole up like a ole toad-frog. With a thing on top of it. >:D
8)
Well, I had hoped that Walker would be exposed at least a little bit, but I guess I'll have to settle for him being out of the race and increasingly unpopular in Wisconsin.
Did anyone see this article (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated) on Trump? I thought Gary Johnson's comments were interesting. Of course you can't win the Presidency by telling people they're wrong. Or by running as a Libertarian. I rather admire him anyway.
Trumpery!
QuoteThe presidential campaign of Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened legal action against a politically oriented clothing outlet for using the GOP front-runner's name, which is trademarked, in its domain name and merchandise.
StopTrump.us sells t-shirts and other apparel online ... Its merchandise features Trump's name and face along with slogans such as "Donald Is Dumb," "Stop Trump" and "America Is Already Great."
This both hilarious and awful.
I wonder though how many of those who decried the notion that corporations can have speech rights will suddenly leap to the defense of StopTrump.us's speech rights. Which are of course nothing but the speech rights of the owners, exercised through the medium of their company.
Quote from: Ken B on September 24, 2015, 10:07:36 AMI wonder though how many of those who decried the notion that corporations can have speech rights will suddenly leap to the defense of StopTrump.us's speech rights. Which are of course nothing but the speech rights of the owners, exercised through the medium of their company.
Well I do think there is some sort of fair use, even if Donald has trademarked his name. Hypothetically, "Donald is Dumb" could be a T-shirt from a Mad Men fan club.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9d/a3/d6/9da3d6fcc830a56060a826f783726162.gif)
Donald can indeed be pretty dumb.
Quote from: North Star on September 24, 2015, 10:52:41 AM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9d/a3/d6/9da3d6fcc830a56060a826f783726162.gif)
Donald can indeed be pretty dumb.
Donald Duck has a bit of the everyman about him and thus is redeemable. Donald Trump is a fat, arrogant self-centered toad of a man and thoroughly irredeemable.
Quote from: North Star on September 24, 2015, 10:52:41 AM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9d/a3/d6/9da3d6fcc830a56060a826f783726162.gif)
Donald can indeed be pretty dumb.
Every interview seems to go the same way.
Interviewer: Do you know the beach at Marina del Rey?
Trump: No, but I'll know it better than you do when I have to. I'll know it better than the seagulls who live there. Nobody will ever be able to know that beach as well as I will, and I learn it fast. Faster than you can learn even a small beach, with rocks.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on September 24, 2015, 11:02:39 AM
Donald Trump is a fat, arrogant self-centered toad of a man and thoroughly irredeemable.
Hey! What's wrong with fat??
*reaches for dragon strength fire extinguisher*
Quote from: Brian on September 24, 2015, 10:45:27 AM
Well I do think there is some sort of fair use, even if Donald has trademarked his name. Hypothetically, "Donald is Dumb" could be a T-shirt from a Mad Men fan club.
Fair use of trademarks is sometimes permitted, but it's not quite the same as fair use of a sentence or two in a review. Consider the case of Olympic Meat Packers:
http://rmfpc.com/the-fair-use-of-anothers-trademarks/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/16/nation/na-olympics-name16
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 24, 2015, 02:13:17 PM
Fair use of trademarks is sometimes permitted, but it's not quite the same as fair use of a sentence or two in a review. Consider the case of Olympic Meat Packers:
http://rmfpc.com/the-fair-use-of-anothers-trademarks/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/16/nation/na-olympics-name16
There are numerous exemptions for trademarks including satire and criticism. Plus this is political speech.
This is pathetic and strange even for the Donald.
Quote from: Ken B on September 24, 2015, 11:52:45 AM
Hey! What's wrong with fat??
A little marbling for winter comfort is ok, but Trump's beyond the pale in more ways than that.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on September 24, 2015, 03:26:24 PM
but Trump's beyond the pale
True. He's orange. Except I like oranges. So maybe he isn't an orange. I'm confused.
Quote from: Greg on September 24, 2015, 03:46:03 PM
True. He's orange. Except I like oranges. So maybe he isn't an orange. I'm confused.
Reddish-orange - his blood pressure must be through the roof, judging from weight and complexion (however, he claims it's "as low as a great athlete's").
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 24, 2015, 02:13:17 PM
Fair use of trademarks is sometimes permitted, but it's not quite the same as fair use of a sentence or two in a review. Consider the case of Olympic Meat Packers:
http://rmfpc.com/the-fair-use-of-anothers-trademarks/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/16/nation/na-olympics-name16
Quote from: Ken B on September 24, 2015, 02:31:59 PM
There are numerous exemptions for trademarks including satire and criticism. Plus this is political speech.
This is pathetic and strange even for the Donald.
Of course, I suppose that either way Donald's intentions are to drive the company out of business just by excessive legal fees alone.
Quote from: Ken B on September 24, 2015, 02:31:59 PM
There are numerous exemptions for trademarks including satire and criticism. Plus this is political speech.
This is pathetic and strange even for the Donald.
I was just thinking it was par for the course -- he has also threatened to sue Club for Growth.
Quote from: Pat B on September 24, 2015, 07:53:10 PM
I was just thinking it was par for the course -- he has also threatened to sue Club for Growth.
Agreed. To me it sounds entirely in character.
Quote from: Pat B on September 24, 2015, 07:53:10 PM
I was just thinking it was par for the course -- he has also threatened to sue Club for Growth.
I hadn't heard that. Not that it surprises me. This goes to why I doubt whether Trump *really* wants the nomination. He'd lose an actual vote. Losing an actual vote is not an ego-stroke. Finding some way to blame some insiders and flamboyantly withdrawing -- "look what you could have had" -- still seems more in character. Everything with the Donald is ego. But he does seem to be actually trying, so maybe I'm wrong.
Quote from: Ken B on September 25, 2015, 06:24:46 AM
This goes to why I doubt whether Trump *really* wants the nomination.
It never occurred to me Trump wanted anything other than what he's getting.
Quote from: Ken B on September 25, 2015, 06:24:46 AM
I hadn't heard that. Not that it surprises me. This goes to why I doubt whether Trump *really* wants the nomination. He'd lose an actual vote. Losing an actual vote is not an ego-stroke. Finding some way to blame some insiders and flamboyantly withdrawing -- "look what you could have had" -- still seems more in character. Everything with the Donald is ego. But he does seem to be actually trying, so maybe I'm wrong.
Here's more on the CFG thing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/25/donald-trump-v-club-for-growth/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/25/donald-trump-v-club-for-growth/)
Notice how he's going after basically everyone now!
I hope this might be Trump setting up his pretext for withdrawing. "See, they can just lie about me and no-one will stop them. The system is just slanted and corrupt. I could have fixed it but I can't overcome this sort of disgusting blah blah blah."
Right now the MSM is all Pope all the time. I would not be surprised if Le Combover is doing a slow burn, and comes out with a megaDonaldism just to get back in the news.
We could have a kind of matter/anti-matter explosion with Francis and Donaldo.
If we made Trump Ambassador to the Sea of Holes as a kind of consolation prize......ohhh my lack of god what fun that would be!!
Quote from: drogulus on September 25, 2015, 10:09:59 AM
We could have a kind of matter/anti-matter explosion with Francis and Donaldo.
If we made Trump Ambassador to the Sea of Holes as a kind of consolation prize......ohhh my lack of god what fun that would be!!
Two men who claim to be infallible? Both spout nonsense? More alike than different.
"You know there's this clown Marco Rubio, I've been so nice to him," Trump said at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.
The jab was immediately met with sustained booing from many of those in attendance.
Trump tried to talk over the boos, which lasted several seconds: "I've been so nice to him. No. But I've been so nice."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 25, 2015, 05:31:37 PM
"You know there's this clown Marco Rubio, I've been so nice to him," Trump said at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.
The jab was immediately met with sustained booing from many of those in attendance.
Trump tried to talk over the boos, which lasted several seconds: "I've been so nice to him. No. But I've been so nice."
Maybe the bubble is bursting.
Quote from: Ken B on September 25, 2015, 06:02:20 PM
Maybe the bubble is bursting.
Asked about the boos after his speech, Mr. Trump said they "were cheers," NBC News reported.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 25, 2015, 06:40:49 PM
Asked about the boos after his speech, Mr. Trump said they "were cheers," NBC News reported.
John Lovitz 2016
Trump is a big story, I suppose. A bigger story is how he came to twirl a formerly major political party around his finger for as long as he did.
Well, they say "debate" though what they mean is, feeling good about ourselves for venting our rancor. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0928/Republican-debate-on-illegal-immigration-is-missing-the-point-study-suggests)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 29, 2015, 04:53:03 AM
Well, they say "debate" though what they mean is, feeling good about ourselves for venting our rancor. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0928/Republican-debate-on-illegal-immigration-is-missing-the-point-study-suggests)
Not only that, but as I recall, more illegal Mexicans/Latin Americans are now leaving the USA than entering it.
EDIT: proof https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-depression-more-mexicans-leave-us-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html
Quote from: karlhenning on September 29, 2015, 04:53:03 AM
Well, they say "debate" though what they mean is, feeling good about ourselves for venting our rancor. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0928/Republican-debate-on-illegal-immigration-is-missing-the-point-study-suggests)
Sorry but any argument that talks about how wrong someone is based on predictions about 2055 is prima facie just tendentious. I am sure it makes the writer feel good about venting his rancor at Trump.
Transparent, rapid-fire pandering is usually bad news, but it's still better than being reduced to legalistic dissembling in front of a gaggle of reporters. Yet there Clinton was, watching the second reset of her second campaign fall apart like cheap shoes in a rainstorm.
But her bad day wasn't over yet. Not by a long shot. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/23/email-news-wipes-hillarys-second-reset/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obinsite)
Quote from: Ken B on September 29, 2015, 12:53:19 PM
Sorry but any argument that talks about how wrong someone is based on predictions about 2055 is prima facie just tendentious. I am sure it makes the writer feel good about venting his rancor at Trump.
Rancor is entirely misdirected at Trump! We're glad he's here to stay 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 01, 2015, 11:34:43 AM
Rancor is entirely misdirected at Trump! We're glad he's here to stay 0:)
I finally realized who Trump reminds me of.
Liberace. Doing Mussolini.
Quote from: Ken B on October 01, 2015, 03:03:49 PM
I finally realized who Trump reminds me of.
Liberace. Doing Mussolini.
Without the piano.
Quote from: Ken B on October 01, 2015, 03:03:49 PM
I finally realized who Trump reminds me of.
Liberace. Doing Mussolini.
Mussolini with a lobotomy. But I think John Oliver has the right attitude here.
https://youtu.be/4jP5AAA1XgQ
I don't look forward to voting for Hillary. It's not that I think she's particularly dishonest or incompetent. In ways that matter she isn't, in fact can't be because she's so heavily scrutinized. Nor is it concern about Bush/Clinton duopoly, which macht nichts compared to real threats to democratic government by granting citizenship rights to dollars. If I had to put it down to one factor it would be WhiteBenghaziwater. It's not the perpetually accused, it's the license granted to perpetual accusers. Here we have the next Speaker (?) discussing a fine point of accusational ethics with noted philosophe Sean Hannity:
"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."
No, I don't like Hillary and it isn't all the remarkably successful campaign against her, but I must admit I'm not entirely sure how much of the hate fest has conditioned even me. Crude, annoying advertising, you see, works, even on those who see it coming.
I have been telling friends all along Hillary is not a lock for the nomination. Biden seems to agree. I think Biden would be a stronger candidate. He seems dim but decent. I can think of several dems who would be stronger than she. Webb most likely.
Look again at the polls. There is not a single Republican that could win against her. You have to get past all the artillery aimed in her direction. In the end it will not stop her because Dems know her, know she can't be beaten, and that every alternative is weaker. Only a real scandal could stop her, not Benghazi, not emails, nothing that's out there now.
Quote from: drogulus on October 04, 2015, 08:52:20 AMThere is not a single Republican that could win against her.
That's today. Next October's polls, when there are only two candidates, will be more accurate and predictive.
This is her low point. Later it will get get worse for Repubs when voters contemplate seriously, seriously voting for the candidate of a party that has abandoned any effort to govern. Repubs have both houses, which makes them as important partners in governing as a party can be, but they brought their scorched earth oppositionism into government itself, injecting pure poison into its veins. There will be consequences, there are consequences, and the invincibility of Hillary Clinton is one.
Quote from: drogulus on October 04, 2015, 11:52:15 AMLater it will get get worse for Repubs when voters contemplate seriously, seriously voting for the candidate of a party that has abandoned any effort to govern. Repubs have both houses, which makes them as important partners in governing as a party can be, but they brought their scorched earth oppositionism into government itself, injecting pure poison into its veins.
Perhaps there will be consequences, but perhaps not. First of all, the candidate matters. A Kasich or Rubio or even Bush candidacy would offer a candidate who would at least talk about governing.
It is worth noting that in the post-war era, only Bush Sr was able to make it three in a row for the party in the White House. Maybe Clinton can pull it off. You'd have a much stronger case if Hillary wasn't such a well known and polarizing quantity already.
It's also worth remembering Hillary's past performance. Remember this October 2007 CBS poll:
Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 16%, John Edwards 7%? She was well known and pretty much invincible then, the prohibitive front-runner, etc.
Incidentally, the government doesn't have veins. It's like a corporation in that it's not a person.
I didn't think there was any gaffe that could kill Trump. I thought the guy was gaffe-proof. I really thought he could say any and every insane thought he had, and nobody would ever complain.
But calling mass shooters "geniuses in a certain way" might be it. I really think that might be it.
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2015, 03:54:00 PM
I didn't think there was any gaffe that could kill Trump. I thought the guy was gaffe-proof. I really thought he could say any and every insane thought he had, and nobody would ever complain.
But calling mass shooters "geniuses in a certain way" might be it. I really think that might be it.
Time will tell ....
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2015, 03:54:00 PM
I didn't think there was any gaffe that could kill Trump. I thought the guy was gaffe-proof. I really thought he could say any and every insane thought he had, and nobody would ever complain.
But calling mass shooters "geniuses in a certain way" might be it. I really think that might be it.
Reminds me of Stockhausen's "the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos."
But: When the reporter noted his use of the phrase "stuff happens" in describing a massacre,
Jeb!, obviously annoyed, quickly added, "Things happen. 'Things.' Is that better?" Yes, Jeb! Much better.
Quote from: Brian on October 04, 2015, 03:54:00 PMI didn't think there was any gaffe that could kill Trump. I thought the guy was gaffe-proof. I really thought he could say any and every insane thought he had, and nobody would ever complain.
But calling mass shooters "geniuses in a certain way" might be it. I really think that might be it.
You sure it was a gaffe?
Trump's numbers have been sliding since the second debate. The trend is your friend.
Quote from: Todd on October 04, 2015, 03:39:59 PM
It's also worth remembering Hillary's past performance. Remember this October 2007 CBS poll: Hillary Clinton 45%, Barack Obama 16%, John Edwards 7%? She was well known and pretty much invincible then, the prohibitive front-runner, etc.
The situation will be quite different if Hillary gets the nomination. She'll be running against a Republican, who either runs on his party's platform and record and is therefore slaughtered, or runs away from said platform and record, an alternative path to annihilation. What's the win for them? Keep in mind that these Repubs have broken all records for public spite, resentment and stupidity. What once were their own people are ashamed of them.
Quote from: Ken B on October 04, 2015, 08:00:11 AM
I have been telling friends all along Hillary is not a lock for the nomination. Biden seems to agree. I think Biden would be a stronger candidate. He seems dim but decent. I can think of several dems who would be stronger than she. Webb most likely.
Webb is barely a Democrat and could not make it through the primaries.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 04, 2015, 04:52:08 PM
Reminds me of Stockhausen's "the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos."
It was decided that Karlheinz the Great was regrettably misconstrued there, wasn't it? (
Oh, I kid, I kid . . . .)
Quote from: drogulus on October 04, 2015, 07:56:20 PMKeep in mind that these Repubs have broken all records for public spite, resentment and stupidity.
What records do you write of and where can I see the list of current record holders?
Quote from: Todd on October 05, 2015, 05:30:52 AM
What records do you write of and where can I see the list of current record holders?
Somewhere in the bowels of the Richard Nixon library, I'm sure.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 05, 2015, 03:44:12 AM
It was decided that Karlheinz the Great was regrettably misconstrued there, wasn't it? (Oh, I kid, I kid . . . .)
Definitely the press's fault.
Quote from: Pat B on October 05, 2015, 06:26:28 AM
Definitely the press's fault.
Danged Mainstream Media!
The Trans-Pacific Partnership deal is done! (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html?_r=0)
For 2016 purposes, is it A.) Capitulation to elites running transnational corporations whose very goal is the impoverishment of workers and exploitation of the rural poor everywhere, or B.) The largest trade deal in history that will lower a record number of tariffs and benefit consumers the world over on a scale heretofore unimagined? (snyprrr, you reading this?) Even more important for the purposes of this thread, will candidates come out strongly in support or strongly opposed before being briefed on the details, oversimplifying and distorting an exceptionally long and complex agreement?
Quote from: Daverz on October 05, 2015, 03:36:23 AM
Webb is barely a Democrat and could not make it through the primaries.
Oh I agree with that completely. But I think he could win. I think right-side-of-the-democrats would win easily. I think Gephardt or someone like him would have beat Bush soundly in 2004. They just cannot get nominated.
Quote from: Todd on October 05, 2015, 06:53:35 AM
The Trans-Pacific Partnership deal is done! (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/business/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-reached.html?_r=0)
For 2016 purposes, is it A.) Capitulation to elites running transnational corporations whose very goal is the impoverishment of workers and exploitation of the rural poor everywhere, or B.) The largest trade deal in history that will lower a record number of tariffs and benefit consumers the world over on a scale heretofore unimagined? (snyprrr, you reading this?) Even more important for the purposes of this thread, will candidates come out strongly in support or strongly opposed before being briefed on the details, oversimplifying and distorting an exceptionally long and complex agreement?
Well Trump and Sanders are already opposed, so there's your question answered.
Personally I think the deal sounds fantastic.
Quote from: Brian on October 05, 2015, 08:13:15 AMWell Trump and Sanders are already opposed, so there's your question answered.
Well, in Trump's defense, he is, like, a really smart person, and he no doubt has really great people who filled him in on all the details already. (It was probably Bret Michaels.)
Quote from: Todd on October 05, 2015, 08:22:07 AM
Well, in Trump's defense, he is, like, a really smart person, and he no doubt has really great people who filled him in on all the details already. (It was probably Bret Michaels.)
His administration will be winning so much, you'll get bored with winning.
Quote from: Todd on October 05, 2015, 05:30:52 AM
What records do you write of and where can I see the list of current record holders?
Go back and look yourself, see if you can find anything since the Know Nothings to compare with the current bunch. Have you been following events the last few years?
Supposing for a moment that anything can be debated, just to keep ones skills up, say, this would have to fall under "parties disagree on the shape of the Earth, Thos. Friedman calls for an end to partisan bickering".
Quote from: drogulus on October 05, 2015, 01:12:27 PMGo back and look yourself, see if you can find anything since the Know Nothings to compare with the current bunch. Have you been following events the last few years?
Yep. And I know US history. That's why when I see someone complaining about just how "bad" things are now, I know it's either meaningless puffery or ignorance in the form of complaint. Congressional leaders today could take lessons in obstruction from Uncle Joe Cannon and Henry Cabot Lodge, for instance. Those men knew how to kill legislation dead. Bless them.
A friend of mine likes to point out that political discourse could hardly be getting worse by the year, if we started with the Vice President literally murdering his political rival.
Quote from: Todd on October 05, 2015, 01:31:05 PM
Yep. And I know US history. That's why when I see someone complaining about just how "bad" things are now, I know it's either meaningless puffery or ignorance in the form of complaint. Congressional leaders today could take lessons in obstruction from Uncle Joe Cannon and Henry Cabot Lodge, for instance. Those men knew how to kill legislation dead. Bless them.
Have to agree with Droggy. Sure, it was worse in 1860, but the Republican Party has definitely been losing it's grip on reality over the past 30 years, and the trend has really accelerated over the last 5 years. Hopefully we won't need another William Tecumseh Sherman.
Quote from: Daverz on October 05, 2015, 01:48:22 PM
Have to agree with Droggy. Sure, it was worse in 1860, but the Republican Party has definitely been losing it's grip on reality over the past 30 years, and the trend has really accelerated over the last 5 years. Hopefully we won't need another William Tecumseh Sherman.
It's not surprising that you would agree with him given your Progressive inclinations. Your melodramatic comparison is, of course, purposely ahistorical. I mean, for all the bluster of the current Republican party, they still haven't even reached 1979 levels of recklessness/obstructionism/whatever other description you prefer and allowed an actual federal default to occur. Maybe next year? I would think that something at least that bad would have to happen before going to war.
In your estimation, what issue or issues could potentially lead to a second Civil War?
Quote from: Todd on October 05, 2015, 01:56:06 PM
It's not surprising that you would agree with him given your Progressive inclinations. Your melodramatic comparison is, of course, purposely ahistorical. I mean, for all the bluster of the current Republican party, they still haven't even reached 1979 levels of recklessness/obstructionism/whatever other description you prefer and allowed an actual federal default to occur.
Ah, didn't know that and had to google it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/delayed-payments-in-1979-offer-glimpse-of-default-consequences/2011/07/10/gIQARRBj7H_story.html
(I was in high school at the time.)
The article describes the 1979 default as "inadvertant".
Quote
Maybe next year? I would think that something at least that bad would have to happen before going to war.
In your estimation, what issue or issues could potentially lead to a second Civil War?
(http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/files/images/HD_shermanWT2c.jpg)
"Don't make me come down there again."
Quote from: Daverz on October 05, 2015, 03:07:23 PM
The article describes the 1979 default as "inadvertant".
The guilty parties would like to color it so 8)
Quote from: Brian on October 05, 2015, 01:38:32 PM
A friend of mine likes to point out that political discourse could hardly be getting worse by the year, if we started with the Vice President literally murdering his political rival.
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Husna HaqThe latest batch of released Hillary Clinton e-mails appears to show, again, that Clinton Foundation donors got special access to the Clinton-led State Department, raising questions, again, about conflicts of interest that could serve to further jeopardize her campaign.
RTWT
here.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 06, 2015, 10:18:20 AM
RTWT here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1006/Clinton-e-mails-Did-donors-get-special-State-Department-access).
People amaze me sometimes. My congressman was the longest serving ever, John Dingell, who spent only a few months working before joining congress. He retired immensely rich, with for example over$5M in GM stock. He voted for anythinh GM wanted and the bailout. How did he get rich except through favors, tips, and other forms of influence peddling. But it's impolite to call him corrupt! And he's a piker next to HRC!
Quote from: Ken B on October 06, 2015, 02:06:14 PM
People amaze me sometimes. My congressman was the longest serving ever, John Dingell, who spent only a few months working before joining congress. He retired immensely rich, with for example over$5M in GM stock. He voted for anythinh GM wanted and the bailout. How did he get rich except through favors, tips, and other forms of influence peddling. But it's impolite to call him corrupt! And he's a piker next to HRC!
Too bad Scott Walker dropped out.
Trump is not the only one running.
https://www.bobbyjindal.com/jindal-we-fill-our-culture-with-garbage/ (https://www.bobbyjindal.com/jindal-we-fill-our-culture-with-garbage/)
Quote from: Ken B on October 06, 2015, 02:06:14 PM
People amaze me sometimes. My congressman was the longest serving ever, John Dingell, who spent only a few months working before joining congress. He retired immensely rich, with for example over$5M in GM stock. He voted for anythinh GM wanted and the bailout. How did he get rich except through favors, tips, and other forms of influence peddling. But it's impolite to call him corrupt! And he's a piker next to HRC!
What about his wife? She worked for GM and succeeded him as Congressperson I thought.
Quote from: Ken B on October 07, 2015, 10:08:29 AM
Trump is not the only one running.
https://www.bobbyjindal.com/jindal-we-fill-our-culture-with-garbage/ (https://www.bobbyjindal.com/jindal-we-fill-our-culture-with-garbage/)
Not again with this bullshit...
QuoteWe have generations of young boys who were raised on video games where they compete with other young boys around the country and the world to see who can kill the most humans. We make it so fun, so realistic, so sensational.
I guess you can't expect everyone to catch up. Some are slow learners, especially politicians.
Quote from: Ken B on October 07, 2015, 10:08:29 AM
Trump is not the only one running.
https://www.bobbyjindal.com/jindal-we-fill-our-culture-with-garbage/ (https://www.bobbyjindal.com/jindal-we-fill-our-culture-with-garbage/)
Jindal's lack of self-awareness is stunning even in a world with Donald Trump. Can we bring back shunning, please?
Spend 8 minutes watching Scott Adams, an amazingly intelligent person, actually, discussing his thoughts about Donald Trump. His essential premise, which is that reason isn't what makes us choose our leaders (sorry, Todd), is something to consider.
https://youtu.be/55NxKENplG4 (https://youtu.be/55NxKENplG4)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 08, 2015, 04:40:13 PMHis essential premise, which is that reason isn't what makes us choose our leaders (sorry, Todd), is something to consider.
Wait, when did that start happening? Surely you don't mean to imply "There is a bear in the woods . . ." or "Daisy" were anything other than deeply thoughtful, honest, and appealing to reason.
Trump's an effective showman, there's no doubt about that, and he has been since the 80s when he used to be on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and Phil Donahue, but fortunately, he has made enemies who don't want to see him in power, and hopefully some of them will be unreasonable (though entirely lawful) in their ongoing efforts to derail him.
I dig the title: “Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party.”
Quote from: Todd on October 08, 2015, 05:49:22 PM
Wait, when did that start happening? Surely you don't mean to imply "There is a bear in the woods . . ." or "Daisy" were anything other than deeply thoughtful, honest, and appealing to reason.
Trump's an effective showman, there's no doubt about that, and he has been since the 80s when he used to be on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and Phil Donahue, but fortunately, he has made enemies who don't want to see him in power, and hopefully some of them will be unreasonable (though entirely lawful) in their ongoing efforts to derail him.
No, even simpler than that; you and I are now going through our 4th presidential election together, it isn't like there are a lot of hidden secrets any longer!! All I'm saying is that you have consistently applied reason and logic to the process, and the results have usually shown that the electorate at large is ultimately swayed more by demagoguery and a nice smile. Just sayin'... :D
8)
Perhaps this time around, demagoguery, narcissism, and a toupé!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 09, 2015, 04:19:51 AM
No, even simpler than that; you and I are now going through our 4th presidential election together, it isn't like there are a lot of hidden secrets any longer!! All I'm saying is that you have consistently applied reason and logic to the process, and the results have usually shown that the electorate at large is ultimately swayed more by demagoguery and a nice smile. Just sayin'...
I admit I do apply reason, and for that, um, reason, I can never quite bring myself to trumpet the benefits of losing candidates. For instance, I believe I called the 2012 Republican race a contest between hair, and sure enough, the best hair won. I never thought Romney would beat Obama. This time around, it's too early to tell still, but Hillary looks strong for the Dems but not as strong all around, but the Republicans need to end their circus and choose a serious candidate if they want to win. I'm not convinced that Trump has a broad enough appeal beyond his fans who either like him because he's a sideshow, or because they are racist simpletons, or because they believe in the value of snake oil.
It was a winning snake!
Quote from: Todd on October 09, 2015, 05:35:50 AM
I admit I do apply reason, and for that, um, reason, I can never quite bring myself to trumpet the benefits of losing candidates. For instance, I believe I called the 2012 Republican race a contest between hair, and sure enough, the best hair won. I never thought Romney would beat Obama. This time around, it's too early to tell still, but Hillary looks strong for the Dems but not as strong all around, but the Republicans need to end their circus and choose a serious candidate if they want to win. I'm not convinced that Trump has a broad enough appeal beyond his fans who either like him because he's a sideshow, or because they are racist simpletons, or because they believe in the value of snake oil.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 09, 2015, 05:37:25 AM
It was a winning snake!
The scary thing is that Karl may be right; the demographic you describe, the Trumpians, are unable to see past their myopic world view. And as Scott Adams was saying in that video, Trump is so good at what he does that he might be able to sway enough of the electorate to get through the process. After all, if there is one thing we have learned in recent elections, it isn't how good
I am, it's how bad I can make YOU appear to be. And Trump is damn sure good at that.
Back in the 1990's somewhere, I gave up even the pretense of being emotionally invested in this shit. I always vote, but I know it isn't worth any more than the vice-presidency (i.e. - a bucket of warm spit), and so at best I can say that I am eternally hopeful that we won't screw the pooch until after I am dead... :-\
8)
We heard it from Miss Alabama first: GOP should be 'absolutely terrified' of Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/miss-alabama-donald-trump/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obinsite)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 09, 2015, 06:09:16 AM
The scary thing is that Karl may be right; the demographic you describe, the Trumpians, are unable to see past their myopic world view. And as Scott Adams was saying in that video, Trump is so good at what he does that he might be able to sway enough of the electorate to get through the process. After all, if there is one thing we have learned in recent elections, it isn't how good I am, it's how bad I can make YOU appear to be. And Trump is damn sure good at that.
Back in the 1990's somewhere, I gave up even the pretense of being emotionally invested in this shit. I always vote, but I know it isn't worth any more than the vice-presidency (i.e. - a bucket of warm spit), and so at best I can say that I am eternally hopeful that we won't screw the pooch until after I am dead... :-\
8)
Most analyses of Trump's poll numbers are based on a false premise: that people who say they are for Trump actually want him elected.
Most are nowhere near deciding on who they actually want as president; their declared preference is based on other considerations than a sober assessment of the man's suitability.
Saying "Trump" now sends a message, that's all. Lots of messages are being sent: "I hate the GOP leadership", "We need to do something about uncontrolled immigration", "I'm sick of PC doublespeak" are just a few.
Polls this early do not reflect an intent to vote. Now perhaps ypu think I'm way wrong here. If so you can cite the results of the Giuliani-Clinton presidential election against me.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 09, 2015, 06:14:40 AM
We heard it from Miss Alabama first: GOP should be 'absolutely terrified' of Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/miss-alabama-donald-trump/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obinsite)
Actually, you heard the from me months ago.
Quote from: Ken B on October 09, 2015, 06:20:49 AM
Actually, you heard the from me months ago.
No doubt. The tiara is a help, I think.
Quote from: Ken B on October 09, 2015, 06:19:36 AM
Most analyses of Trump's poll numbers are based on a false premise: that people who say they are for Trump actually want him elected.
Most are nowhere near deciding on who they actually want as president; their declared preference is based on other considerations than a sober assessment of the man's suitability.
Spot on . . . but, no, that's not how the yammerers are discussing them.
Just watched a talking head speaking of Bernie's disinclination to attack Hillary, and his penchant for, erm, talking issues (even if, as we know, on the fuzzy side) as if they were Bad Things because,
gasp, it won't make a big ratings draw of the debates. Had the unseemly look of someone who just wants a food fight . . . .
Very frustrated with literally everyone running for president now since they all oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Is there anybody who supports the damn thing? Is there anybody advised by economists at all?
Quote from: Brian on October 09, 2015, 06:28:10 AM
Very frustrated with literally everyone running for president now since they all oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Is there anybody who supports the damn thing? Is there anybody advised by economists at all?
Well, there is me... :(
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 09, 2015, 06:09:16 AMI always vote
I don't. In fact, it is one of my rules to never vote for unopposed candidates, though that only happens in local elections. (I doubt the US will ever see another Washington or Monroe at the national level.) I may write in a presidential candidate on next year's ballot.
Quote from: Brian on October 09, 2015, 06:28:10 AMVery frustrated with literally everyone running for president now since they all oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Is there anybody who supports the damn thing? Is there anybody advised by economists at all?
Right wing and left wing populism both favor economic nationalism. Politicians must pander to their bases, who are most active now. As November 2016 approaches, I suspect the two main candidates, whoever they may be, will have an altered outlook on the matter.
Quote from: Brian on October 09, 2015, 06:28:10 AM
Very frustrated with literally everyone running for president now since they all oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Is there anybody who supports the damn thing? Is there anybody advised by economists at all?
Hillary was for it before she was against it.
Surely there are *some* republicans for it? Surely?
Sorry for calling you Shirley.
Quote from: Brian on October 09, 2015, 06:28:10 AM
Is there anybody advised by economists at all?
Krugthulu on TPP:
Quote
I've described myself as a lukewarm opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; although I don't share the intense dislike of many progressives, I've seen it as an agreement not really so much about trade as about strengthening intellectual property monopolies and corporate clout in dispute settlement — both arguably bad things, not good, even from an efficiency standpoint. But the WH is telling me that the agreement just reached is significantly different from what we were hearing before, and the angry reaction of industry and Republicans seems to confirm that.
What I know so far: pharma is mad because the extension of property rights in biologics is much shorter than it wanted, tobacco is mad because it has been carved out of the dispute settlement deal, and Rs in general are mad because the labor protection stuff is stronger than expected. All of these are good things from my point of view. I'll need to do much more homework once the details are clearer.
But it's interesting that what we're seeing so far is a harsh backlash from the right against these improvements. I find myself thinking of Grossman and Helpman's work on the political economy of free trade agreements, in which they conclude, based on a highly stylized but nonetheless interesting model of special interest politics, that
An FTA is most likely to politically viable exactly when it would be socially harmful.
The TPP looks better than it did, which infuriates much of Congress.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/tpp-take-two/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body
Trade agreements seem to usually be about protecting corporate interests rather than anything resembling free trade.
Quote from: Daverz on October 09, 2015, 03:43:43 PMTrade agreements seem to usually be about protecting corporate interests rather than anything resembling free trade.
As a Progressive sort (whole or partial), what type of trade arrangements, if any, do you support, and what type of regulatory structures would your preferred solutions require?
Quote from: Todd on October 09, 2015, 07:08:30 PM
As a Progressive sort (whole or partial), what type of trade arrangements, if any, do you support, and what type of regulatory structures would your preferred solutions require?
Small "p" progressive. The capital "P" Progressives were a late 19th, early 20th-Century political movement that I associate with bastards like Woodrow Wilson. I prefer to identify as a liberal in the US context.
Quote from: Daverz on October 10, 2015, 03:21:47 AMI prefer to identify as a liberal in the US context.
OK, as a small-l liberal, what type of trade arrangements, if any, do you support, and what type of regulatory structures would your preferred solutions require?
Quote from: Todd on October 10, 2015, 06:33:33 AM
OK, as a small-l liberal, what type of trade arrangements, if any, do you support, and what type of regulatory structures would your preferred solutions require?
Trade agreements that are actually trade agreements. This one just has "Trade" in the title. Created in an open and transparent manner with no "fast track" monkey business. As for regulation, a transparent enforcement process that's not tilted in favor of corporate interests and that does not give those interests a veto-point over national labor and environmental laws.
Quote from: Daverz on October 10, 2015, 01:59:21 PMTrade agreements that are actually trade agreements.
What would a trade agreement that is "actually" a trade agreement look like?
And now, the latest in the Mommy Dearest Rises From The Grave Saga!
1) Only a Democrat could stop Hillary from being the next President.
2) Biden sits in front of the teevee and is like "Oh shit....". He only runs if a path is open and it isn't. Bye Joe, I always liked you.
3) Who rescues the Repubs after the Trump fizzle? Who will be standing that can battle Hillary for the center 20% of voters and win the majority of them?
4) There is the "$200 dress on a wire coat hanger" problem. Hillary is liked but not well liked. This is widely thought to be important, and is widely wrong.
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2015, 05:49:15 AM
1) Only a Democrat could stop Hillary from being the next President.
Not necessarily true. If criminal charges are brought regarding the email server situation, that could kill her campaign. The probability of that is exceedingly low, of course.
Republicans need to coalesce around an electable candidate - Kasich or Rubio at this point since Bush evidently can't campaign - soon if they want to have a chance.
Republicans may soon need to shift focus to maintaining control of Congress so as to kill as many Clinton initiatives as possible in the event she wins. As long as there is divided government, all will be well. SCOTUS nominations would make for especially entertaining politics.
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2015, 05:49:15 AM
3) Who rescues the Repubs after the Trump fizzle?
What if there is no fizzle, and no rescue?
I was most impressed by Jim Webb.
Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2015, 06:33:35 AM
Republicans need to coalesce around an electable candidate
Mitt Romney isn't running. He'd at least have a chance.
The Republicans are doomed. This has been coming for some time. Here's an idea. Republican radicalism is not the cause of their existential crisis. I know it looks like that, but it isn't. No, the radical shift represents Republicans running out of time to enact a conservative agenda before demographics moves so far against them gerrymandering can't sustain them. It isn't all malice and stupidity, it's that and a seed of realism as well. The party might disappear in the next 20 years.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine Louie Gohmert stamping on human intelligence - forever."
Not even the Inner Party could handle that level of inhumanity. The phenomenon is wider and deeper than isolated instances of Gohmertism and caribou warming oil pipelines.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 14, 2015, 07:21:06 AM
I was most impressed by Jim Webb.
He probably doesn't share your view right now.
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2015, 08:09:41 AMThe Republicans are doomed.
Perhaps, but that looks more like wishful thinking on your part than a meaningful prognostication. Demographic trends are well known by everyone. And let's not forget that it is the Republicans who have two Hispanics, and an African American, and a woman all running for the top job right now, whereas the Democrats have four white guys and one woman with a lot of baggage and a famous white dude for a husband. Also keep in mind that demographic trends project evil (non-Hispanic) white people to lose majority status around mid-century, but even then they will be the largest single group with a 20 point (
not percent) advantage over Hispanics, who include some white folks in their numbers. That leaves an immense amount of room for divide and conquer politics. Your dream of a single party state may be deferred a while longer than you hope.
Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2015, 08:23:06 AM
Your dream of a single party state may be deferred a while longer than you hope.
It just won't do to make excuses for the Repubs or to claim that criticism is partisan. They're too far gone for that. Can't you see that a party that has Trump in the middle is a very different beast from one that can shake him off before the damage is done? The normalizing of Trumplicanism is damaging evidence for the realism of my view no matter what I dream.
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2015, 09:09:32 AMThe normalizing of Trumplicanism is damaging evidence for the realism of my view no matter what I dream.
Well at least you admit that you dream of a one party state. Your assertion of Trumplicanism, which is really too ungainly to catch on, might be something to take seriously if he gets the nod. (Maybe "Trumpism" will work, but then that falls into the Trotsky trap of calling everything an "ism".)
Could Trump beat Hillary? Perhaps if at their debate meeting she drinks from a silver goblet the blood of a 12 year old virgin and loudly smacks her lips she might lose 5 points in the overnights. Embarrassing as such a spectacle might be thought to be, I doubt there would be any permanent harm.
Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2015, 09:16:47 AM
Well at least you admit that you dream of a one party state.
You mean in the sense of wanting one? I thought it was clear the collapse of traditional Republicanism was a bad thing. Of course I don't know what will replace it, but there should be 2 parties at least bidding to govern a democracy.
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2015, 09:23:35 AMCould Trump beat Hillary?
No.
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2015, 09:23:35 AMYou mean in the sense of wanting one? I thought it was clear the collapse of traditional Republicanism was a bad thing. Of course I don't know what will replace it, but there should be 2 parties at least bidding to govern a democracy.
Ah, yes, the common lefty lament about how the Republican party has lost its way, and how if only the Republicans of old would come back, everything would be better. Having political opponents that meet your criteria of what your opponents should be like is one party thinking in a poor disguise. You don't get to choose your opponents.
Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2015, 08:23:06 AM
Perhaps, but that looks more like wishful thinking on your part than a meaningful prognostication. Demographic trends are well known by everyone. And let's not forget that it is the Republicans who have two Hispanics, and an African American, and a woman all running for the top job right now,
Yeah, the Democrats should get hip and actually run a non-white candidate for a change.
I think the demographic trends are more about party identification of voters in aggregate. Do you believe that they are more about voters' ethnic and gender affinity with individual candidates?
(The discussion of demographics tends to annoy me somewhat, because it doesn't mean anything if you can't get these new voters to vote.)
Rubio might win back some of the Hispanic vote if he tacks back to his previous, more conciliatory rhetoric on immigration. But that's going to be hard after Trump's antics have tainted the whole field. Rubio may be the least unappealing candidate the Republicans have, though.
I don't think Fiorina would excite many women who are aren't already inclined to vote GOP.
Cruz and Carson are simply too nuts to win, I hope.
And while it's early yet, Trump is still the front-runner.
Quote from: Daverz on October 14, 2015, 10:31:59 AMYeah, the Democrats should get hip and actually run a non-white candidate for a change.
It worked for them before.
Quote from: Daverz on October 14, 2015, 10:31:59 AMI think the demographic trends are more about party identification of voters in aggregate.
The demography argument, as it is typically presented, is based on identity politics. Since minority/marginalized group X votes for Democrats now, the Republicans are doomed as the white population shrinks. There is some truth to it. Native born blacks are not likely going to vote for Republicans, for instance. However, the bigger electoral prizes of Hispanics for the next two or three decades, and then native born and immigrant Asians along with African immigrants thereafter are more up for grabs. A combination of candidates and policies will make a difference. Policies designed to appeal to specific constituencies are more effective overall, but sometimes individual candidates can help immensely.
Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2015, 10:49:49 AM
It worked for them before.
Well, we've had this conversation before, but in 2020 or 2024, the Democrat crew will be led by Julian Castro, Joaquin Castro, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and maybe Hakeem Jeffries. Their whitest future leader looks to be jazz composer, part-Mexican, and NAACP Man of the Year Eric Garcetti.
I came here to post this picture because it amuses me. I don't mean it to be against any particular person or group. More like all of 'em.
(http://i.imgur.com/x0PyYnQ.jpg)
I love the talking heads on Fox who consider that the debate was a failure, because the candidates didn't devolve into a food fight but chose instead to, erm, debate. I think it borderline sad that everybody (yes, that's probably a rhetorical exaggeration) in the media seem to be playing Sanders' line as "a defense of" Hillary, rather than what it plainly seemed to me: a polite-ish refusal to engage in a dogfight, and a call for the discussion of issues.
(I disagree that this has "neutralized" the scandal for Hillary; I do think it was characteristically decent of Sanders.)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 14, 2015, 11:05:17 AM
I love the talking heads on Fox who consider that the debate was a failure, because the candidates didn't devolve into a food fight but chose instead to, erm, debate. I think it borderline sad that everybody (yes, that's probably a rhetorical exaggeration) in the media seem to be playing Sanders' line as "a defense of" Hillary, rather than what it plainly seemed to me: a polite-ish refusal to engage in a dogfight, and a call for the discussion of issues.
(I disagree that this has "neutralized" the scandal for Hillary; I do think it was characteristically decent of Sanders.)
The difference in tone/tenor between the two parties' debates is simply massive. Especially if you ignore Jim Webb's weirdness. With the exceptions of Kasich, Rubio, and Webb, it's almost as if the two sets of debaters are running for entirely different offices.
Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2015, 10:57:20 AMWell, we've had this conversation before, but in 2020 or 2024, the Democrat crew will be led by Julian Castro, Joaquin Castro, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and maybe Hakeem Jeffries. Their whitest future leader looks to be jazz composer, part-Mexican, and NAACP Man of the Year Eric Garcetti.
2020 is too soon for the people mentioned to be the senior-most Democrats, though at least one or two will be more influential. 2024 is two lifetimes away.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 14, 2015, 11:05:17 AMI love the talking heads on Fox who consider that the debate was a failure, because the candidates didn't devolve into a food fight but chose instead to, erm, debate.
Since I watched only part, I can't say it was a failure. In fact, I see it as something of a success. The gun control debate portion was great in that this is one area where Sanders is closer to the middle than the others on stage. If Sanders stays a threat, Hillary can go after him on that in her own party, but then the Republicans have something (else) they can use against her next year. They will have to avoid going too far, and they should be careful not to go whole hog with idiotic ideas like arming teachers, but it can become a 2016 issue. Democrats have tried to keep this less of an issue for a while.
Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2015, 11:12:19 AM
The difference in tone/tenor between the two parties' debates is simply massive. Especially if you ignore Jim Webb's weirdness. With the exceptions of Kasich, Rubio, and Webb, it's almost as if the two sets of debaters are running for entirely different offices.
I did not watch but for about 15-20 minutes. During that time I saw Jim Webb speak but he did not come off as weird. What are you referring to, maybe I missed it.
Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2015, 10:49:49 AM
It worked for them before.
Apparently running a non-white candidate is only cynical when Democrats do it.
Quote
The demography argument, as it is typically presented, is based on identity politics. Since minority/marginalized group X votes for Democrats now, the Republicans are doomed as the white population shrinks. There is some truth to it. Native born blacks are not likely going to vote for Republicans, for instance.
The GOP started losing the African-American vote when they started to court the segregationist vote (starting at least as early as 64 with Goldwater and continuing with the Southern Strategy). Trying to appeal to both is not possible.
Quote
However, the bigger electoral prizes of Hispanics for the next two or three decades, and then native born and immigrant Asians along with African immigrants thereafter are more up for grabs. A combination of candidates and policies will make a difference. Policies designed to appeal to specific constituencies are more effective overall, but sometimes individual candidates can help immensely.
The GOP would have to tone the xenophobia way down first. Unfortunately, I think the pressure will be to ramp it up even more hysterically.
Quote from: Daverz on October 14, 2015, 12:23:00 PMApparently running a non-white candidate is only cynical when Democrats do it.
Nope, it's wonderfully cynical when Republicans do it, too. Maybe even more so.
Quote from: Daverz on October 14, 2015, 12:23:00 PMThe GOP would have to tone the xenophobia way down first. Unfortunately, I think the pressure will be to ramp it up even more hysterically.
In the short term (next few cycles), nativism will continue play a big role nationally, and for a longer period in certain areas, but Republican organizational leadership knows the reality on the ground. Reince Priebus - like him, hate him, don't care about him - recently gave a speech to local Republicans, and one of the big foci of the RNC is winning Hispanic votes. There's sometimes a disparity between what's on TV and what's being done away from the cameras. It will take time, money, and effort, but it will happen, if gradually, and incompletely. The goal will probably never be to win a majority of <
insert minority voting block here>, but rather to target subsets sufficient to combine with the existing base to win elections. That's fine.
Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Ah, yes, the common lefty lament about how the Republican party has lost its way, and how if only the Republicans of old would come back, everything would be better.
It's not the lament only of lefties. I'd like to see Republican voters come back to Republicans and de-Gohmertize the party. I wouldn't think that if I only had ill will. My ill will is directed elsewhere. Besides, there's no issue that doesn't have a solution that favors one ideological segment or other. My positions mostly compose my ideology rather than the other way, so I'm free to be as much of a fukin' warmonger as I like without reference to what Bernie thinks, and support tax cuts because Art Laffer was partly right, proudly wave the flag of American Exceptionalism on a case by case basis. I'm a Red blooded Commie Patriot SuperCapitalist
and I want to see you dance! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
* * That's right, it's an old movie quote. Hint: Brian Cox played Trotsky, Tom Baker was Rasputin. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2015, 12:45:07 PMIt's not the lament only of lefties.
It pretty much is. You've mentioned Representative Gohmert twice now, indicating a notable level if interest in him. He won't be around forever, and in the interim he and others like him can prove useful.
Now that you have revealed that you not only support MMT theories, but also the Laffer Curve, it can be concluded that you decidedly prefer utterly reckless economic theories. Good to know.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 14, 2015, 11:20:43 AM
I did not watch but for about 15-20 minutes. During that time I saw Jim Webb speak but he did not come off as weird. What are you referring to, maybe I missed it.
He alluded to his experiences in the Vietnam War but for some reason decided to play them as a laugh line rather than a serious story.
Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2015, 01:04:42 PM
He alluded to his experiences in the Vietnam War but for some reason decided to play them as a laugh line rather than a serious story.
Refused to milk it the way some others might?
You can't disappear the Klown Kaucus that easily.There are bunch of these guys, I named one. They have been around forever, 10 minutes is too long.
It's not a Commie plot that Republicans are deemed to be evil shitheads and stupid to boot. They did a lot of work to accomplish that, so show some respect.
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2015, 01:08:37 PM
You can't disappear the Klown Kaucus that easily.There are bunch of these guys, I named one. They have been around forever, 10 minutes is too long.
It's not a Commie plot that Republicans are deemed to be evil shitheads and stupid to boot. They did a lot of work to accomplish that, so show some respect.
Right.
Quote from: Ken B on October 14, 2015, 01:06:18 PM
Refused to milk it the way some others might?
I like laugh lines, but they have to be, you know, funny, instead of being awkward and confusing.
Quote
In the short term (next few cycles), nativism will continue play a big role nationally, and for a longer period in certain areas, but Republican organizational leadership knows the reality on the ground. Reince Priebus - like him, hate him, don't care about him - recently gave a speech to local Republicans, and one of the big foci of the RNC is winning Hispanic votes. There's sometimes a disparity between what's on TV and what's being done away from the cameras. It will take time, money, and effort, but it will happen, if gradually, and incompletely. The goal will probably never be to win a majority of <insert minority voting block here>, but rather to target subsets sufficient to combine with the existing base to win elections. That's fine.
I don't think that will be possible in a world with Facebook and Fox News. There are probably more voter suppression angles to work, though.
Quote from: Daverz on October 14, 2015, 02:36:09 PMI don't think that will be possible in a world with Facebook and Fox News.
Both major parties engage in targeted campaigns right now, and Facebook is one tool they use. If anything, specific targeting will probably become more effective.
So-called voter suppression, by which I suppose you mean things like requiring people to show ID when voting and the like, will be off-set by the trend to tie voter registration to obtaining and renewing drivers licenses. So-called voter suppression tools are probably not as effective at limiting voter turnout as creating a nasty political environment that leads to apathy.
"Voter suppression" is mostly a bogus claim. The only active attempt at voter suppression I know of was the Gore-Lieberman campaign's attempt to get military votes in Florida tossed. Showing ID is not "suppression". It's SOP in places with cleaner elections than some in the USA.
Quote from: Ken B on October 14, 2015, 03:12:46 PM
"Voter suppression" is mostly a bogus claim.
It's not only voter ID laws, but: eliminating or greatly reducing early voting hours, reducing voting locations, elimination of same day registration, suppressing usually routine registration altogether (e.g. Florida's ridiculously draconian registration rules that forced even the League of Women Voters to stop registering people), purging voter rolls, voter caging, discarding registrations, and a host of election day dirty tricks.
The idea that someone somewhere waved a magic wand (maybe right after MLK's
I Have a Dream Speech) and voter suppression magically went away for ever, never to return, even though our voting system is still under the control of the individual state legislatures, and often under the control of partisan election officials at that... I thought that was only something Justice Roberts believed.
Voter ID is sold as a way to prevent in-person voter fraud. But in-person voter fraud is a practical non-issue. I don't see anyone going after absentee voting, and voter fraud is much more of an issue there. And voter ID laws don't do anything to prevent
election fraud. They are simply a cover for voter suppression. Voter ID laws are easy for politicans and partisan election officials to game by making it harder for certain classes of voters to get IDs: just shut down or reduce hours at DMVs in Democratic leaning areas. Or make it possible to use your concealed carry permit, but not your student ID.
I think laws requiring voter IDs could be made fair as part of a modernization of voting and voter registration.
Quote from: Todd on October 14, 2015, 12:54:27 PM
It pretty much is. You've mentioned Representative Gohmert twice now, indicating a notable level if interest in him. He won't be around forever, and in the interim he and others like him can prove useful.
Actually, since he is my congressman, I can tell you that he will likely be around until he dies. The moron vote, which has strong support here in East Texas, absolutely thinks his shit don't stink. This is the Bible Thumper district, and Gohmert is whispering in God's Ear, as far as they are concerned.
At the last primary, I decided to vote Republican just so I could vote against him and Cruz. Me and the 3 or 4 blacks who live in my small town were bulldozed into the mud... :-\
8)
Election Day should be a national holiday. Presidential and mid-terms.
Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2015, 05:50:04 PM
Election Day should be a national holiday. Presidential and mid-terms.
Amusing. Burn complains about ignorant voters; Brian wants to make it easier for them to vote.
Votes are opinions. Most people's opinions aren't well thought out. Not a problem most of the time, but it' stilly to make a fetish of getting more of these ill-considered opinions expressed at the ballot box.
Brian, you asked if none of the candidates listened to economists. Good question. I think the answer has implications.
Quote from: Ken B on October 14, 2015, 06:23:04 PM
Amusing. Burn complains about ignorant voters; Brian wants to make it easier for them to vote.
Votes are opinions. Most people's opinions aren't well thought out. Not a problem most of the time, but it' stilly to make a fetish of getting more of these ill-considered opinions expressed at the ballot box.
Brian, you asked if none of the candidates listened to economists. Good question. I think the answer has implications.
It might be silly to try and get ill-considered opinions expressed, but it's even sillier to impose tests or limitations on the quality of opinions. Sure, I might have criteria in mind (i.e., anybody whose favorite movie stars Adam Sandler can't vote), but such tests are necessarily unfair and useless.
Voting should be as easy and painless as possible. I did not say voting should be
compulsory - as it is in some fully-functioning countries! I only argue that,
for those who want to vote, voting should be as easy as it can, tearing down as many barriers as we can possibly tear down.
P.S. I don't suppose you'd like to argue that the idiot voters in your argument are partisan?
Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2015, 06:31:28 PM
P.S. I don't suppose you'd like to argue that the idiot voters in your argument are partisan?
Yes I would like to argue precisely that, most of them. Politics is mostly a matter of signaling membership in one group or another. That is practically the definition of partisan, and it is idiotic.
Your proposal would give even more power to party machines and professionals, who could more easily corral the requisite herds. I think we want thoughtful serious voters. We don't need literacy tests but we don't need an app for it either. Be careful what you wish for.
Quote from: Daverz on October 14, 2015, 04:48:10 PMIt's not only voter ID laws, but: eliminating or greatly reducing early voting hours, reducing voting locations, elimination of same day registration, suppressing usually routine registration altogether (e.g. Florida's ridiculously draconian registration rules that forced even the League of Women Voters to stop registering people), purging voter rolls, voter caging, discarding registrations, and a host of election day dirty tricks.
How many people have been deprived of the right to vote, and how many elections have had outcomes altered as a result of these practices?
Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2015, 05:50:04 PM
Election Day should be a national holiday. Presidential and mid-terms.
That's a great idea. Oregon has mail in ballots, so it would be a free day off. How to make this happen?
Quote from: Ken B on October 14, 2015, 06:23:04 PMVotes are opinions. Most people's opinions aren't well thought out. Not a problem most of the time, but it' stilly to make a fetish of getting more of these ill-considered opinions expressed at the ballot box.
Purest rubbish. Voting is a constitutionally protected right. There's no fetishism involved.
Quote from: Ken B on October 14, 2015, 06:46:00 PM
Yes I would like to argue precisely that, most of them. Politics is mostly a matter of signaling membership in one group or another. That is practically the definition of partisan, and it is idiotic.
Your proposal would give even more power to party machines and professionals, who could more easily corral the requisite herds. I think we want thoughtful serious voters. We don't need literacy tests but we don't need an app for it either. Be careful what you wish for.
Wow am I opposed to this. It's like Todd says. And I don't believe party machines corraling unwilling voters and telling them what to do is a real issue in this age. You can't just assume somebody doesn't have an opinion based on their class, race, or your stereotypes.
I think possibly your argument is the way it is because the uninformed idiots who don't vote lean Democratic, and the uninformed idiots who DO vote lean Republican. ;)
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/22/teachthecontroversy_devil.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg)
No, it's not Gohmert, who will disappear some day so doesn't count now (as if...). What about Carson?
Is Krauthammer yielding to Trump the Inevitable?... (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/06/krauthammer-on-donald-trump-hes-much-better-candidate-than-was-at-beginning/?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 15, 2015, 07:25:03 AM
Is Krauthammer yielding to Trump the Inevitable?... (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/06/krauthammer-on-donald-trump-hes-much-better-candidate-than-was-at-beginning/?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite)
A party led by the worst will be followed by the worst, and the excuse makers will excuse the worst. All of them together know to expect from each other exactly what they dish out. All of Podunk Hell belong to them. That's something, right?
Quote from: Brian on October 15, 2015, 04:30:11 AM
Wow am I opposed to this. It's like Todd says. And I don't believe party machines corraling unwilling voters and telling them what to do is a real issue in this age. You can't just assume somebody doesn't have an opinion based on their class, race, or your stereotypes.
I think possibly your argument is the way it is because the uninformed idiots who don't vote lean Democratic, and the uninformed idiots who DO vote lean Republican. ;)
You and Todd seem to be reading impaired today. That usually happens on discussions of totems, shibboleths, and fetishes. You are
"opposed" to *what* exactly for instance? Is there a policy I outlined? No. What you are opposed to is the observation that
most people do not hold political opinions for cogent reasons but as part of their social signalling.
Todd's point is obtuse. My contention is that people are making a fetish about *getting more people to vote*. The constitution is irrelevant to discussing whether that's a useful or useless goal, and whether people defend it (ahem) reflexively.
You don't get the corralling bit either. "Turn out" machines that offer rides, babysitting, lunches -- anything up to the line of bribery -- were common in some places in the past. It's largely how Tammany Hall operated. Your proposal would increase the influence of such programs, right? Using big data to identify likely supporters and seek them out. You really believe that would make politics better?
Speaking of ...
Y'all realize there is no constitution right to vote for president? Not even to vote for the electors from your state?
Quote from: Ken B on October 15, 2015, 08:49:55 AM
You and Todd seem to be reading impaired today. That usually happens on discussions of totems, shibboleths, and fetishes. You are
"opposed" to *what* exactly for instance? Is there a policy I outlined? No. What you are opposed to is the observation that most people do not hold political opinions for cogent reasons but as part of their social signalling.
What I am opposed to is any barrier, hurdle, or bureaucratic irritant which makes it harder for people who have the right to vote, to vote.
Quote from: Ken B on October 15, 2015, 08:49:55 AM
You don't get the corralling bit either. "Turn out" machines that offer rides, babysitting, lunches -- anything up to the line of bribery -- were common in some places in the past. It's largely how Tammany Hall operated. Your proposal would increase the influence of such programs, right? Using big data to identify likely supporters and seek them out. You really believe that would make politics better?
First you mention whether the Constitution has a say on the issue of more people voting being a good thing - well, of course, the people of that time thought that only wealthy, well-educated, land-owning white males should vote. We don't believe that anymore. So, yes, you're right, of
course the Constitution is irrelevant.
But this Tammany Hall argument is far-fetched. 2015 is not the same as 1885. Yeah, we may still have the occasional (or frequent!) crook, and we may have a rigged system of gerrymandered districts where no incumbent is unsafe, but innumerable things are different about the political atmosphere, the nature of the voting public, and the culture as a whole.
I think the philosophical difference at the core is, I think a "turn out machine" that offers a bus ride and a free lunch is good if it helps people to vote when they otherwise would be prevented from doing so
only by inconveniences/impracticalities, whereas you assume that these people are political ignorami who are being exploited and who do not, in fact, deserve the right to vote.
Quote from: Ken B on October 15, 2015, 08:49:55 AM
You don't get the corralling bit either. "Turn out" machines that offer rides, babysitting, lunches -- anything up to the line of bribery -- were common in some places in the past. It's largely how Tammany Hall operated. Your proposal would increase the influence of such programs, right? Using big data to identify likely supporters and seek them out. You really believe that would make politics better?
I do. I want it to be a big party with free beer. It should be communal and fun with speeches and placards, pickpockets with cops chasing them and the unruly children. How does this help democracy be better? Any decent politics has an element of community spirit building and a criminal enterprise, like the ancient Roman precincts and Tammany ones. I want politicians to eat hot dogs and kiss babies, promise to help a loafer get a disability check, and other useful things that come from a closer relation to people. People need to be included and politics needs to include them for that to happen or it's an abstract exercise. Just as in economics so in politics, there's no group of people we don't need. Gohmert can mow my lawn.
Quote from: Ken B on October 15, 2015, 08:49:55 AMIs there a policy I outlined?
More rubbish. The implication of what you wrote is absolutely clear: you fear people you deem to have "ill-considered" opinions voting. You clearly think you are in a position to know just how many people have such opinions, just how gullible most people other than yourself are, why people hold their opinions (as if this even matters), and that you are capable of making such a judgment.
Your use of language (eg, "fetish"), your purposely misleading
partial reference to the Constitution (four amendments do include voting specifically, and were expressly designed to expand the franchise, for instance), and your irrelevant mention of Tammany Hall (a classic red herring) are really quite feeble and don't mask the truth. They do not persuade.
Voter ID laws may improve the legitimacy of the voting process. Hand-wringing about "ill-considered" opinions of the unwashed masses and unfounded fears of get out the vote drives and other such activities, by way of contrast, are intrinsically anti-democratic.
In a democracy, people get to fight for their ideas. Conservatives or libertarians or whatever you fancy yourself to be need to get in the mix and sell your ideas and persuade. If modern conservative/libertarian/whatever views don't win, so be it.
Quote from: Brian on October 15, 2015, 09:00:57 AM
What I am opposed to is any barrier, hurdle, or bureaucratic irritant which makes it harder for people who have the right to vote, to vote.
First you mention whether the Constitution has a say on the issue of more people voting being a good thing - well, of course, the people of that time thought that only wealthy, well-educated, land-owning white males should vote. We don't believe that anymore. So, yes, you're right, of course the Constitution is irrelevant.
But this Tammany Hall argument is far-fetched. 2015 is not the same as 1885. Yeah, we may still have the occasional (or frequent!) crook, and we may have a rigged system of gerrymandered districts where no incumbent is unsafe, but innumerable things are different about the political atmosphere, the nature of the voting public, and the culture as a whole.
I think the philosophical difference at the core is, I think a "turn out machine" that offers a bus ride and a free lunch is good if it helps people to vote when they otherwise would be prevented from doing so only by inconveniences/impracticalities, whereas you assume that these people are political ignorami who are being exploited and who do not, in fact, deserve the right to vote.
"you assume that these people are political ignorami who...do not ... deserve the right to vote."
See? That's what I mean by reading impairment. I said no such thing, nor anything which implies it. And I have stated that explicitly already.
But
you are suggesting that we incur the cost of a national holiday, yet another day in November, just to further the (to me silly) goal of getting more idiots to vote.
(FWIW I *already* 'get' , that is must take, election day off, because I work for a company that has that in their contract with the union. )
"First you mention whether the Constitution has a say on the issue of more people voting being a good thing ..."
See? That's what I mean by reading impairment. Todd tossed the constitution into this, not I. Go back, read the comments in order. I noted the constitution is irrelevant to the point,
pace Todd.
Quote from: Todd on October 15, 2015, 11:07:39 AM
More rubbish. The implication of what you wrote is absolutely clear: you fear people you deem to have "ill-considered" opinions voting. You clearly think you are in a position to know just how many people have such opinions, just how gullible most people other than yourself are, why people hold their opinions (as if this even matters), and that you are capable of making such a judgment.
Your use of language (eg, "fetish"), your purposely misleading partial reference to the Constitution (four amendments do include voting specifically, and were expressly designed to expand the franchise, for instance), and your irrelevant mention of Tammany Hall (a classic red herring) are really quite feeble and don't mask the truth. They do not persuade.
Voter ID laws may improve the legitimacy of the voting process. Hand-wringing about "ill-considered" opinions of the unwashed masses and unfounded fears of get out the vote drives and other such activities, by way of contrast, are intrinsically anti-democratic.
In a democracy, people get to fight for their ideas. Conservatives or libertarians or whatever you fancy yourself to be need to get in the mix and sell your ideas and persuade. If modern conservative/libertarian/whatever views don't win, so be it.
The reason I don't talk to Todd is that he cannot debate, or even disagree, without impugning motives. It is perfectly clear that is what he is doing in this quote.
Quote from: Ken B on October 15, 2015, 11:17:13 AM
"First you mention whether the Constitution has a say on the issue of more people voting being a good thing ..."
See? That's what I mean by reading impairment. Todd tossed the constitution into this, not I. Go back, read the comments in order. I noted the constitution is irrelevant to the point, pace Todd.
Your accusations re: reading impairment are hypocritical here.
Quote from: Brian on October 15, 2015, 09:00:57 AM
So, yes, you're right, of course the Constitution is irrelevant.
The rest of your post is at least as cognitive-dissonant and silly, and it's clear that arguing with you is a waste of time, but before I depart, one more thing:
Quote from: Ken B on October 15, 2015, 11:17:13 AMyet another day in November
If we were to completely revamp the election process, holid-ize Election Day, institute other reforms, etc., that would likely require a constitutional amendment. And, while you're in there, might as well move Election Day to a month where nothing else is happening, like August. Or would August not suit you because it makes it easier for liberal college students to vote in their hometowns?
Quote from: Brian on October 15, 2015, 11:36:41 AM
And, while you're in there, might as well move Election Day to a month where nothing else is happening, like August.
Answer 1: Horrors! You mean I'll have to disrupt my holiday! Shivers...
Answer 2: Us Gentleman Farmers won't take kindly to that Mister, which is why we chose a date after the harvests in the first place...
Quote from: Brian on October 15, 2015, 11:36:41 AM
Your accusations re: reading impairment are hypocritical here.
The rest of your post is at least as cognitive-dissonant and silly, and it's clear that arguing with you is a waste of time, but before I depart, one more thing:If we were to completely revamp the election process, holid-ize Election Day, institute other reforms, etc., that would likely require a constitutional amendment. And, while you're in there, might as well move Election Day to a month where nothing else is happening, like August. Or would August not suit you because it makes it easier for liberal college students to vote in their hometowns?
Brian, you really should learn to answer what people say, not what you wish they said. It seems you cannot even imagine that *I am not proposing making any fucking changes at all*.
In any case you have rebutted nothing of what I said, nor admitted you were wrong to claim I was saying people don't deserve the right to vote. You misread, you make accusations, you call names.
...wow, seriously? ::)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 15, 2015, 11:41:16 AM
Answer 1: Horrors! You mean I'll have to disrupt my holiday! Shivers...
Answer 2: Us Gentleman Farmers won't take kindly to that Mister, which is why we chose a date after the harvests in the first place...
;D I was born in August so as a kid I was always grumpy that we didn't get a holiday and all the other months did.
Quote from: Brian on October 15, 2015, 12:02:22 PM
...wow, seriously? ::)
;D I was born in August so as a kid I was always grumpy that we didn't get a holiday and all the other months did.
Move to France. They get all of August as a holiday! :)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 15, 2015, 12:09:12 PM
Move to France. They get all of August as a holiday! :)
I'd love to! Any French people reading this looking to hire a guy who doesn't speak French?
Quote from: Ken B on October 15, 2015, 11:20:18 AMThe reason I don't talk to Todd is that he cannot debate, or even disagree, without impugning motives. It is perfectly clear that is what he is doing in this quote.
Yet you quoted my post and referred to me by name. This is similar to tactics used by my teenage daughter.
I'm not talking to her! She did <insert outrage here>. (Arms crossed, stern look.)
Quote from: Ken B on October 15, 2015, 11:49:44 AMIt seems you cannot even imagine that *I am not proposing making any fucking changes at all*.
Perhaps not, but your disdain for popular democracy is evident in what you write. Actually advocating for restricting the franchise would be very hard to defend, so best to stick with the 'masses is dumb' shtick.
Quote from: Todd on October 15, 2015, 01:05:38 PM
Actually advocating for restricting the franchise would be very hard to defend...
On the contrary, it's very easy to defend, as the past several years have shown. All you have to do is assert that the restrictions are for "preventing fraud."
Quote from: Todd on October 15, 2015, 01:05:38 PM
Perhaps not, but your disdain for popular democracy is evident in what you write. Actually advocating for restricting the franchise would be very hard to defend, so best to stick with the 'masses is dumb' shtick.
The last few pages are littered with this tactic. It's very clear what opinions Ken held, but he couldn't actually say them because if he did, we'd jump all over him. So instead he couched them in carefully evasive language so that he could deny thinking what he really thinks.
I thought I was registered as an independent but found out last year that I'm actually a libertarian. What the hell happened to Rand Paul? I guess Trump ate him up.
Let's see what we have here. We had 8 years of pathetic leadership with Bush and the ever-dysfunctional Congress; that was followed by another 8 years of crap. I'm very tired of professional politicians, their clones and politically correct garbage. I'll be voting for a person with little to no political history. Maybe Trump or Carson, maybe not. One thing about Trump - he's very entertaining. If the best we can expect from our politicians is boring incompetence, I'd rather go with incompetence that's entertaining and interesting.
Quote from: Sammy on October 15, 2015, 03:26:00 PMIf the best we can expect from our politicians is boring incompetence, I'd rather go with incompetence that's entertaining and interesting.
Like (http://cdn.siasat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/berlusconi_14.jpg) ?
Quote from: Brian on October 15, 2015, 03:30:05 PM
Like (http://cdn.siasat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/berlusconi_14.jpg) ?
That guy's not even an American. I think I remember something about an affair he was having, but know nothing about him beyond that.
Quote from: Sammy on October 15, 2015, 04:54:05 PM
That guy's not even an American. I think I remember something about an affair he was having, but know nothing about him beyond that.
You are better off that way. To witness that the stunts this guy pulled for more than 20 were possible in a "western democracy" (and the 4th important country in Europe in terms of population and economic power) may lead to severe depression regarding all kinds of controls one thought would or should be in place...
(Of course you guys might be able to "trump" him...)
Quote from: Sammy on October 15, 2015, 03:26:00 PM
I thought I was registered as an independent but found out last year that I'm actually a libertarian. What the hell happened to Rand Paul? I guess Trump ate him up.
Let's see what we have here. We had 8 years of pathetic leadership with Bush and the ever-dysfunctional Congress; that was followed by another 8 years of crap. I'm very tired of professional politicians, their clones and politically correct garbage. I'll be voting for a person with little to no political history. Maybe Trump or Carson, maybe not. One thing about Trump - he's very entertaining. If the best we can expect from our politicians is boring incompetence, I'd rather go with incompetence that's entertaining and interesting.
Welcome back, dude!
Rand Paul . . . in that twilight realm of [ pretty sure he hasn't dropped out, yet ] and [ so where the blazes is he, then? ]
You've something of a point . . . Trump will make the White House so interesting, we'll get bored with interesting!
Wasn't their that old Chinese malediction: May you live in interesting times! ...?
Quote from: karlhenning on October 16, 2015, 01:34:12 AM
Trump will make the White House so interesting, we'll get bored with interesting!
Well played.
Why not have a "disenfranchisement lottery"? Everyone has their name put on the list, we decide how many to remove to "prevent fraud" and a computer randomly chooses the honorary fraudsters.
Advantage: No individual or party interest is hurt except for one cycle the honorees, and no one wastes time pretending to look for something that's not there.
QuoteJim Webb Withdraws From 2016 Democratic Nomination Fight to Consider Independent Bid.
Um,
really?
Quote from: karlhenning on October 20, 2015, 10:46:32 AM
Um, really?
Don't laugh: he could garner three, maybe four votes.
In case we wondered if the circus operated at all levels, highest to lowest.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 21, 2015, 04:10:44 AM
In case we wondered if the circus operated at all levels, highest to lowest.
I assume that 'circus' is not a reference to MI6 in this instance. 8)
Hah!
Where Joe go? Joe no go. The Lincoln-osaurus has room to run.
I saw this on Politico:
The Freedom Caucus' Unprecedented Insurgency
At least since the Civil War, there hasn't been a faction fighting both parties at the same time. (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/the-freedom-caucus-historic-rebellion-213256)
The Freedom Caucus, rather than breaking from Republican ranks, has forced Republican leaders to break from them. It's a perverse sort of political jujitsu. One of outgoing Speaker John Boehner's supposed crimes was that he went begging Democrats for help passing legislation when he couldn't find the votes within his own caucus. Some rank-and-file Republicans, meanwhile, have made a separate peace with Democrats on reviving the Export-Import Bank. Normally the opposite would happen and it would be the insurgents reaching across the aisle. But that presupposes an interest in governing.
Donald Trump Says He Would Be Open to Closing U.S. Mosques to Fight ISIS
Mr. Trump then said that he was not sure about the legality of closing mosques, but that it was certainly something that should be looked at.
"It depends if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear," he said.
"I love the Muslims," he said in September. "I think they're great people." (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/22/donald-trump-says-he-would-be-open-to-closing-u-s-mosques-to-fight-isis/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur)
"loaded for bear"?
Quote from: Brian on October 23, 2015, 09:24:04 AM
"loaded for bear"?
Equipped with enough firearms to kill a bear, I suppose.
Who could have seen this coming? (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lincoln-chafee-2016-election-dnc-meeting/)
Quote from: Todd on October 24, 2015, 07:04:37 AM
Who could have seen this coming? (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lincoln-chafee-2016-election-dnc-meeting/)
Proof if needed that Lincoln could never be elected today.
Hillary wins! (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/29/hillary-clinton-won-third-gop-debate-heres-why.html?intcmp=hpbt1)
The important debate was between Hillary and Rep. Gowdy. Gowdy looked uncomfortable being the Last Shithead Standing while denying that he was acting as part of the Repub campaign apparatus. How was he supposed to do that? He was supposed to be able to do so, a former prosecutor, not a crazy etc. No, that has it wrong. Gowdy had to know how bad he would look. He was being a good soldier in a cause he had to deny any part in, because that's what a good soldier in his situation does. So he took one for the team, the one he's (heh!) not on.
Thin the herd? (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4586373618001/gutfeld-is-it-time-to-thin-the-herd-of-gop-candidates/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 30, 2015, 06:16:56 AM
Thin the herd? (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4586373618001/gutfeld-is-it-time-to-thin-the-herd-of-gop-candidates/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips)
Lambs to the slaughter.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 30, 2015, 06:16:56 AM
Thin the herd? (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4586373618001/gutfeld-is-it-time-to-thin-the-herd-of-gop-candidates/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips)
For those who don't want to click a Fox News link, Politico asked a bunch of people which candidates they think oughta quit (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/which-candidates-are-doomed-213309).
It's clear Bush should go. With all the advantages he had coming in, especially in terms of money, he has shown that he is a terrible candidate who can't close the deal. Besides, it really is bad form to have two Bushes from the same generation become President. George P is next in line.
Quote from: Brian on October 30, 2015, 08:01:34 AM
For those who don't want to click a Fox News link, Politico asked a bunch of people which candidates they think oughta quit (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/which-candidates-are-doomed-213309).
I did think the Fox guy amusing (just saying).
Quote from: Todd on October 30, 2015, 08:21:17 AM
It's clear Bush should go. With all the advantages he had coming in, especially in terms of money, he has shown that he is a terrible candidate who can't close the deal. Besides, it really is bad form to have two Bushes from the same generation become President. George P is next in line.
"He doesn't want to be this cycle's Tim Pawlenty – the Minnesota governor remembered for his quick exit in 2012." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/1030/GOP-race-Why-it-s-getting-late-early)
Jeb Bush Releases E-Book, Reboots Campaign
Biden's 80 Days of Indecision
8)
Quote from: karlhenning on November 02, 2015, 10:00:44 AM
Jeb Bush Releases E-Book, Reboots Campaign
I thought that was a joke of yours,
Karl - but it seems to be Jeb's own.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/jeb-bush-hopes-e-book-sends-campaign-reboot-message-n455611
Quote from: North Star on November 02, 2015, 10:09:00 PM
I thought that was a joke of yours, Karl - but it seems to Jeb's own.
It is a difficult time for satire.
Quote from: Pat B on November 03, 2015, 06:17:50 AM
It is a difficult time for satire.
The best of times, and the worst of times . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2015, 07:04:54 AM
The best of times, and the worst of times . . . .
. . . we were all going direct the other way
And the Jeb thought he was getting in a cheap gag:
Jeb Bush had to apologize for insulting France. This chart shows why. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/05/jeb-bush-had-to-apologize-for-insulting-france-this-chart-shows-why/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_bush-955pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: karlhenning on November 05, 2015, 03:14:03 AM
And the Jeb thought he was getting in a cheap gag:
Jeb Bush had to apologize for insulting France. This chart shows why. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/05/jeb-bush-had-to-apologize-for-insulting-france-this-chart-shows-why/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_bush-955pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Well, to be fair, the ultra-right wing Republican Party is certainly against anything so close to centrism as France, so insulting them should be a good way to get some votes out of the
Bible Money Belt.
Quote from: North Star on November 05, 2015, 03:36:37 AM
Well, to be fair, the ultra-right wing Republican Party is certainly against anything so close to centrism as France, so insulting them should be a good way to get some votes out of the Bible Money Belt.
Like Trump with his whingeing about the reporter
du jour: bash the media today, deposit a check written by an angry pinhead tomorrow.
The graphs aren't surprising, but that doesn't mean that they aren't scary.
https://www.youtube.com/v/9Tji1g0WrPw
The fever will break, but yes, we're monitoring the patient closely . . . .
Quote from: North Star on November 05, 2015, 04:23:45 AM
The graphs aren't surprising, but that doesn't mean that they aren't scary.
https://www.youtube.com/v/9Tji1g0WrPw
They aren't scary in the least.
The TPP has been published. (https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/TPP-Full-Text) (Don't be suckered by the New Zealand government's web-site that offers a zip file download; the link is broken - just what are they hiding?)
Perusing the 290 page Canada Tariff Elimination Schedule, I found this sinister entry:
Tariff Item 0703.10.41. Description: Dry shallots: Imported during such period, which may be divided into two separate periods, specified by order of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or the President of the Canada Border Services Agency, not exceeding a total of 46 weeks in any 12 month period ending 31st March. Base Rate: 2.81¢/kg but not less than 12.5%.
Where do Trump and Hillary stand?
Quote from: Todd on November 05, 2015, 06:58:01 AM
The TPP has been published. (https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/TPP-Full-Text) (Don't be suckered by the New Zealand government's web-site that offers a zip file download; the link is broken - just what are they hiding?)
Perusing the 290 page Canada Tariff Elimination Schedule, I found this sinister entry:
Tariff Item 0703.10.41. Description: Dry shallots: Imported during such period, which may be divided into two separate periods, specified by order of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or the President of the Canada Border Services Agency, not exceeding a total of 46 weeks in any 12 month period ending 31st March. Base Rate: 2.81¢/kg but not less than 12.5%.
Where do Trump and Hillary stand?
I'm sure The Donald will tell you that when it comes time for him to take a stand, he will know more about than anyone else. Right now, there is just some small-time Canadian bureaucrat and you that know it; soon, you will be overshadowed by The Boss... ;)
8)
Uh, what? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-carsons-unusual-theory-about-pyramids/)
Quote from: Todd on November 05, 2015, 08:19:44 AM
Uh, what? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-carsons-unusual-theory-about-pyramids/)
My theory is that the pyramids were juicers for when the earth was orbited by a crop of gigantic lemons.
Quote from: Brian on November 05, 2015, 08:50:14 AM
My theory is that the pyramids were juicers for when the earth was orbited by a crop of gigantic lemons.
Brian, you should be our next president. Is it too late to join the Republican circus?
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on November 05, 2015, 09:34:00 AM
Brian, you should be our next president.
Let us pray to The Great Lemon Tree!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on November 05, 2015, 09:34:00 AM
Brian, you should be our next president. Is it too late to join the Republican circus?
Sarge
Too early - I'm 9 years too young.
Although one might wonder if emotional age is what the requirement
ought to be.
GOP lineup for next debate: It's fair, get over it (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/1106/GOP-lineup-for-next-debate-It-s-fair-get-over-it)
Quote from: Todd on November 05, 2015, 08:19:44 AM
Uh, what? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-carsons-unusual-theory-about-pyramids/)
Mixing corpses in all that grain meant for consumptions offers an elegant explanation for how the ancient Egyptian rule came to an end. I think he is on to something there.
Trump reminds me somehow of a US version of Zhirinovsky, who BTW (according to Wiki for example), is also getting more and more clownish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky
Top Google Search on Jeb: "Is Jeb Still Running?" (http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-milwaukee/2015/11/google-search-is-jeb-bush-still-running-for-president-215683)
Other nuggets showing the state of the American voter:
- Other queries about Bush include: "Where is Jeb Bush today?" and "What does Jeb stand for?" as well as, "Is Jeb Bush Republican?"
- In the case of Marco Rubio, the top two queries are whether the Florida senator is a Republican or a Democrat.
- A popular Google search is the inexplicable "Why is Donald Trump right?"
Jeb Bush
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/9ed6aaa9fd9d2bbb1f222b377bbb73cd/tumblr_inline_nwsolxofKo1s7ww91_500.gif)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--I6xsKVTT--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1514536001235881252.jpg)
Could they elbow Bernie out of New Hampshire? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1112/Is-Bernie-Sanders-eligible-to-run-in-New-Hampshire)
Quote"We have to be much tougher," [Lenin] said in another interview on CNBC, reports the AP. "We are going to have to give up certain privileges that we've always had."
Is Donald Trump fanning Islamophobia in the US? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1116/Is-Donald-Trump-fanning-Islamophobia-in-the-US-video)
But he was doing so well . . . (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/17/bobby-jindal-suspends-campaign-republican-presidential)
"Time for a doer" it says. What did he do? Or was it more of a diddly doo?
Through the whole campaign, he never made as much news, as the day he withdrew from the campaign.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 18, 2015, 01:50:19 AM
Through the whole campaign, he never made as much news, as the day he withdrew from the campaign.
"Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it."
Everything is to be found in Shakespeare.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 18, 2015, 05:27:18 AM
"Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it."
Everything is to be found in Shakespeare.
Aye, I echoed deliberately 0:)
(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-11/10/17/enhanced/webdr15/anigif_original-16567-1447193663-1.gif)
Ben Carson's Foreign Policy Adviser Goes on the Record, Name Attached, Saying Carson's Policy Grasp is Weak, Goes on to Call Russia "Soviets" and Use Racial Slurs; Carson Campaign, in Response, Says Reporters Exploited "Elderly Gentleman" (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html)
(http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-11/10/17/enhanced/webdr15/anigif_original-16567-1447193663-1.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/v/PX9reO3QnUA
Trump said appalling things about how he'd treat Muslims after the Paris attack. Seemingly no damage done. Now he mocks a dude with a disability. (Though to be fair, Wendy Davis got there first on the disability front.) It's hard to see how this hurts him in light of everything else he's said. Like him, love him, hate him, find him perpetually amusing, whatever, Trump is setting the standard for shamelessness, you've got to give him that.
Quote from: Todd on November 26, 2015, 10:14:14 AM
Trump said appalling things about how he'd treat Muslims after the Paris attack. Seemingly no damage done. Now he mocks a dude with a disability. (Though to be fair, Wendy Davis got there first on the disability front.) It's hard to see how this hurts him in light of everything else he's said. Like him, love him, hate him, find him perpetually amusing, whatever, Trump is setting the standard for shamelessness, you've got to give him that.
(http://rlv.zcache.com/anti_donald_trump_big_mouth_dartboard-r3f91c1582c7046888350a2677487d875_fomu6_8byvr_512.jpg)
Quote from: Greg on November 26, 2015, 05:47:48 PM
(http://rlv.zcache.com/anti_donald_trump_big_mouth_dartboard-r3f91c1582c7046888350a2677487d875_fomu6_8byvr_512.jpg)
Trump is a cruel hoax and a sham- but not for the reasons most people may think.
Bilderberg is running him as a spoiler for Hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tzEhdaRxck
This is something all the candidates can get behind without delay.
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/ed20c8407be20133222c005056a9545d)
Ah, wasn't clear from the subject, you are talking about the US.
Looks like you can stump the Trump. (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/12/ted-cruz-donald-trump-iowa-caucus-republican-poll) That it's the Latino Nixon doing it does not necessarily offer much comfort. Perhaps the predictive power of the caucus with be more like 2012 than 2000.
Quote"To those people who think Obama's a Muslim who was born in Kenya, I lost you a long time ago," [South Carolina Sen. Lindsey] Graham said Wednesday on CNN's "New Day." "There's a dislike of Obama in my party that's unhealthy, there was a dislike for President (George W.) Bush in the Democratic party that was unhealthy. He is my President."
RTWT
here (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/lindsey-graham-obama-unhealthy/index.html).
Love fest! (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/politics/russia-putin-trump/)
Cruz outed as the "m@son's choice"- did you see his "napoleon salute" during the pledge??
and then Paul mentioned the "secret handshake" between dem and repub....
mm hmm
Welcome back, snypsss.
We have a presidential election in Spain, too. This happened yesterday during the campaign:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/16/spanish-pm-punched-during-election-walkabout (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/16/spanish-pm-punched-during-election-walkabout)
Quote from: Abuelo Igor on December 17, 2015, 11:35:26 AM
We have a presidential election in Spain, too.
Really? I must have missed the proclamation of the Third Spanish Republic... ;D
(http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/BQZmCYWdkncLUTA2zirFyA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9NzAwO2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTExMzQ-/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2015-12-17/ad4bb0b0-a500-11e5-80dc-53dd5d8b474a_AP_307290255972.jpg)
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham suspends presidential campaign (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/lindsey-graham-2016-campaign-drops-out/index.html)
QuoteMike Huckabee's presidential campaign has slashed senior staffer's salaries, a move that comes amid the former Arkansas governor's struggles to gain traction in his second White House bid.
How [guess who?] has shaken the Republican Party
Yet, at the same time, [El Tupé] also embodies the headlong race toward the politics of fear . . . . (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1216/How-Donald-Trump-has-shaken-the-Republican-Party)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 21, 2015, 05:54:33 AM
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham suspends presidential campaign (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/lindsey-graham-2016-campaign-drops-out/index.html)
For the record, this means that there are now 0 Republican candidates left whose climate change plan is something other than "buy a couple new tank top shirts".
Republicans find consensus candidate to oppose Trump
Analysts say "baggage" won't harm viability
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d5Z-Av4xWUY/Vnc8nj0MfLI/AAAAAAAANvM/WFVuK-vL3oE/s1600/childhoodsendkarellen.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on December 21, 2015, 12:09:28 PM
For the record, this means that there are now 0 Republican candidates left whose climate change plan is something other than "buy a couple new tank top shirts".
:) ;D :laugh: If, indeed, one can smile at this. Do they have a plan for anything? Beyond destroying the middle class, that is. So much seems sleight of hand, sound bite, sucker born every minutey...
Quote from: Florestan on December 17, 2015, 12:24:44 PM
Really? I must have missed the proclamation of the Third Spanish Republic... ;D
We have
local elections too, to choose the people who run for office at the town hall and the regional government. As someone I know usually says, your attempt at cleverness is duly noted. :)
As for the Third Spanish Republic, we never lose hope.
Quote from: drogulus on December 21, 2015, 01:04:28 PM
Republicans find consensus candidate to oppose Trump
Analysts say "baggage" won't harm viability
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d5Z-Av4xWUY/Vnc8nj0MfLI/AAAAAAAANvM/WFVuK-vL3oE/s1600/childhoodsendkarellen.jpg)
Karellen, an Overlord from the new SyFy production of
Childhood's End (that's Charles Dance under all that makeup!). The Overlords are supposedly benevolent, so I imagine they would be too far to the left of the Republican base.
http://www.shmoop.com/childhoods-end/karellen-overlords.html
Quote from: Brian on December 21, 2015, 12:09:28 PM
For the record, this means that there are now 0 Republican candidates left whose climate change plan is something other than "buy a couple new tank top shirts".
Not true. George Pataki favors market based solutions (eg, carbon trading), admits that climate change is real, and was, by current campaign standards, nearly a pinko at one point on the topic. (Sure, he has missed filing deadlines in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia, but he's still in it to win it!) If he stays in, he will get 17 votes.
John Kasich has waffled mightily on the subject. If he stays in, he will get 117 votes.
Okay, you got me. I forgot George Pataki was running in this race. ;D
As a side remark, it can be a peculiar experience reading about the money and business relations involved among US candidates.
Here´s a photo of the house of our local current PM; he is right-wing and ardently associated with the main business-sector orientated party, but has a rather non-successful personal economy, including debt:
And here's our prime minister at home:
(http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/281/281153/28115393/jpg/active/978x.jpg)
Definitely "of the people, for the people", a concept I strongly believe in, even though I didn't vote for her.
Quote from: Abuelo Igor on December 21, 2015, 01:25:34 PM
We have local elections too, to choose the people who run for office at the town hall and the regional government. As someone I know usually says, your attempt at cleverness is duly noted. :)
The only cleverness was that of those who drafted the post-Franco Spanish Constitution. They probably thought that substituting "president of the government" for "prime minister" is republican enough. :) But there is the whole difference in the world between being president of the Spanish government (ie prime minister of Spain) and being president of Spain. :laugh:
Yeah, don't get me started on the cleverness of the people who wrote the Spanish constitution. Especially since the official wisdom seems to be that it's a sacred text, written in stone, and that even to contemplate the possibility of altering it is folly pure and simple. Not to mention the much-vaunted "transition", which was basically a way of allowing all the evil guys of the Franco regime to walk away scot-free.
Quote from: Abuelo Igor on December 22, 2015, 12:34:09 PMthe much-vaunted "transition", which was basically a way of allowing all the evil guys of the Franco regime to walk away scot-free.
I know what you mean. The post-Ceaușescu "transition" meant basically the same for Romania.
Quote from: Abuelo Igor on December 22, 2015, 12:34:09 PM
the official wisdom seems to be that it's a sacred text, written in stone, and that even to contemplate the possibility of altering it is folly pure and simple.
To get back ontopic: the Spanish constitution is not the only one to be treated like that...
Disclosure: Robinson is a commentator on the left
Quote from: Eugene RobinsonTrump has given voice to the ugliness and anger that the party spent years encouraging and exploiting. He let the cat out of the bag, and it's hungry.
The party might nominate Trump, in which case the establishment will have lost all control. Or party leaders might somehow find a way to defeat him, in which case they will have lost the allegiance of much of the base. In either event, the GOP we once knew is irredeemably a thing of the past.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2015, 06:56:58 AM
Disclosure: Robinson is a commentator on the left
Even George Will is warning about the potential end of the party. (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will122315.php3) It could happen. But then, with most delegates meted out based on proportion of the vote, and with the remainder in the hands of the party (three per state), the party could very well select the appropriate establishment guy at the convention, even if Trump gets 49.99% of the vote. I forgot where I read it, but Haley Barbour basically stated that some establishment Republicans are willing to support Hillary, and some big donors may not even engage in the general election if Trump somehow gets the nod. An outlandish scenario has Trump winning the Republican nomination and Jeb Bush running as a third party candidate to split the vote. The most fun could still be in front of us!
It's hard to see a way for Republicans to win the White House in 2016, so I would think they focus on the House and Senate and preventing Trump from getting the nod and preparing for 2020. Rubio is young, after all.
But what happens when Donald doesn't win a state?
Quote from: Brian on December 21, 2015, 06:51:11 PM
Okay, you got me. I forgot George Pataki was running in this race. ;D
If you would have waited eight days to write your original post . . . (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/12/29/former-new-york-gov-george-pataki-drop-presidential-bid/78040880/)
Quote from: Todd on December 29, 2015, 07:17:17 AM
I forgot where I read it, but Haley Barbour basically stated that some establishment Republicans are willing to support Hillary, and some big donors may not even engage in the general election if Trump somehow gets the nod. An outlandish scenario has Trump winning the Republican nomination and Jeb Bush running as a third party candidate to split the vote. The most fun could still be in front of us!
It's hard to see a way for Republicans to win the White House in 2016, so I would think they focus on the House and Senate and preventing Trump from getting the nod and preparing for 2020. Rubio is young, after all.
I still don't think Trump will be the nominee. I'm back to thinking it will be Cruz (and regretting that I didn't stick to my guns after the first debate). His biggest liability, supposedly, has been that a bunch of people in his party hate him. But Trump's apparent staying power may have those Republicans reconsidering. They are running out of options.
Barring a (wildly unlikely) Kasich nomination, I agree about winning the White House.
Do you think Rubio has what it takes? He comes across as wooden and scripted to me. I am skeptical that he can fix that before 2020.
Quote from: Pat B on December 29, 2015, 09:14:09 PMDo you think Rubio has what it takes?
Of the current crop, he has the best shot nationally and within the party.
Cruz is smart, ruthless, and based on all reports has probably the best organization among Republicans. Organization may be the key to the nomination, so it is not out of the question. He's too conservative to win the big job.
The only way I see Trump getting the nod is if he gets well over 50% of the delegates before the convention. I seriously doubt that will happen.
Quote from: Pat B on December 29, 2015, 09:14:09 PM
Do you think Rubio has what it takes? He comes across as wooden and scripted to me. I am skeptical that he can fix that before 2020.
Doesn't absolutely resolve your concerns . . . when Geo. W. Bush began his campaign in earnest, a co-worker who was going to vote Republican in all events, and who therefore (we might say) wished to believe, came away from the broadcast of a Bush event feeling that the candidate was (in his words)
an empty suit. And of course, we know how that campaign concluded.
Breaking news! George Pataki has left the race!
Quote from: Todd on December 29, 2015, 07:24:13 PM
If you would have waited eight days to write your original post . . . (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/12/29/former-new-york-gov-george-pataki-drop-presidential-bid/78040880/)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 30, 2015, 06:05:32 AM
Breaking news! George Pataki has left the race!
Another Vanity Candidate Out (http://spectator.org/blog/65060/another-vanity-candidate-out)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 30, 2015, 07:02:55 AM
Another Vanity Candidate Out (http://spectator.org/blog/65060/another-vanity-candidate-out)
Ah, for a moment I indulged in the hope that Trump had withdrawn from the race.
You must admit he puts a whole new dimension to the phrase "Vanity Candidate".
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 30, 2015, 07:16:24 AM
Ah, for a moment I indulged in the hope that Trump had withdrawn from the race.
You must admit he puts a whole new dimension to the phrase "Vanity Candidate".
All vanity candidates in my opinion. There are twelve left, including The Hair. If Republicans were smart and wanted to counter The Donald, they'd coalesce around one or two other "acceptable" candidates to create a viable opposition. As of now, the field is so splintered that no other candidate is making a strong enough showing to displace him.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 30, 2015, 09:23:32 AM
All vanity candidates in my opinion. There are twelve left, including The Hair. If Republicans were smart and wanted to counter The Donald, they'd coalesce around one or two other "acceptable" candidates to create a viable opposition. As of now, the field is so splintered that no other candidate is making a strong enough showing to displace him.
This is, for the most part, worth reading, gents:
The Great Republican RevoltThe GOP planned a dynastic restoration in 2016. Instead, it triggered an internal class war. Can the party reconcile the demands of its donors with the interests of its rank and file?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/)
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/2015/12/15/WEL_Frum_GOP_Trump2/1920.jpg?1450201830)
No sane person could want him in the White House rather than any of the other clowns and minor devils, but I must say that Carly Fiorina and Hilary Clinton nearly tie Trump on my worry-meter. And in a way I think that Trump is so horrifying as a potential president (not that I think he gets the nomination by a long shot...) because of the precedent it would set... not because he would prove to have any efficacy in office. On that count, Hilary Clinton, assuming one disagrees with her policies, or Fiorina, assuming she figures out what policies she might have, could be much more influential and potentially damaging. But *tone* is important in politics and sets the scene for years and decades to come, which is why Trump should scare us. Not for who he is, but for who we have become where he is acceptable and not a clown.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 30, 2015, 09:52:28 AM
This is, for the most part, worth reading, gents:
The Great Republican Revolt
The GOP planned a dynastic restoration in 2016. Instead, it triggered an internal class war. Can the party reconcile the demands of its donors with the interests of its rank and file?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/)
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/2015/12/15/WEL_Frum_GOP_Trump2/1920.jpg?1450201830)
No sane person could want him in the White House rather than any of the other clowns and minor devils, but I must say that Carly Fiorina and Hilary Clinton nearly tie Trump on my worry-meter. And in a way I think that Trump is so horrifying as a potential president (not that I think he gets the nomination by a long shot...) because of the precedent it would set... not because he would prove to have any efficacy in office. On that count, Hilary Clinton, assuming one disagrees with her policies, or Fiorina, assuming she figures out what policies she might have, could be much more influential and potentially damaging. But *tone* is important in politics and sets the scene for years and decades to come, which is why Trump should scare us. Not for who he is, but for who we have become where he is acceptable and not a clown.
Quote from: David FrumWould you be upset if your child married a supporter of a different party from your own? In 1960, only 5 percent of Americans said yes. In 2010, a third of Democrats and half of Republicans did.
Quote from: David FrumRecognize that the gimmick of mobilizing the base with culture-war outrages stopped working at least a decade ago.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 30, 2015, 09:52:28 AM
No sane person could want him in the White House rather than any of the other clowns and minor devils, but I must say that Carly Fiorina and Hilary Clinton nearly tie Trump on my worry-meter.
What I haven't yet seen from anyone on this thread, is that The Donald, at least as compared to the other major-party contenders, is actually the
peace candidate. Consider:
http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/12/28/who-is-the-arch-racist-trumporclinton/
For us peaceniks and anti-interventionists, Trump looks like the only sane choice. What does it say about the Republicrats that is has come to this?
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 30, 2015, 10:35:55 AMFor us peaceniks and anti-interventionists, Trump looks like the only sane choice. What does it say about the Republicrats that is has come to this?
I'm not a peacenik, but I do lean toward anti-interventionism of a more cold-hearted variety, and Trump ain't my candidate. One could always go with Rand Paul. I can't do that either. Kasich's actual voting record is not too bellicose (eg, kill the B2), so he may be sensible. (He's by far my preferred candidate, but he cannot win.) Cruz is all bellicose bluster, and this is where Rubio loses some attractiveness for me. He talks tough. He might put himself in a position where he has to act to placate this or that group. Of course, he is a flexible politician and could say the facts on the ground changed his mind, but rhetorically almost all the Republican candidates are too fond of war, as is our probable next president, Mrs Clinton.
I actually appreciate Obama's current Syria policy, and his deal with Iran, and his relative inaction over Ukraine (the only sane response), but he screwed up on Libya, and his red-line debacle previously on Syria cost him internationally, and he is too eager to put boots on the ground in parts of Africa, which will not end well. The small acts of saber rattling in the East China Sea and South China Sea are so far not too aggressive, but that is something that could escalate quickly. Best not to maneuver the country into a position where confrontation is inevitable. I'm not convinced whoever comes next will show enough restraint here.
Nor does restraint seem at all one of El Tupé's hallmarks.
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 10:58:06 AM
I'm not a peacenik, but I do lean toward anti-interventionism of a more cold-hearted variety, and Trump ain't my candidate. One could always go with Rand Paul. I can't do that either. Kasich's actual voting record is not too bellicose (eg, kill the B2), so he may be sensible. (He's by far my preferred candidate, but he cannot win.) Cruz is all bellicose bluster, and this is where Rubio loses some attractiveness for me. He talks tough. He might put himself in a position where he has to act to placate this or that group. Of course, he is a flexible politician and could say the facts on the ground changed his mind, but rhetorically almost all the Republican candidates are too fond of war, as is our probable next president, Mrs Clinton.
I actually appreciate Obama's current Syria policy, and his deal with Iran, and his relative inaction over Ukraine (the only sane response), but he screwed up on Libya, and his red-line debacle previously on Syria cost him internationally, and he is too eager to put boots on the ground in parts of Africa, which will not end well. The small acts of saber rattling in the East China Sea and South China Sea are so far not too aggressive, but that is something that could escalate quickly. Best not to maneuver the country into a position where confrontation is inevitable. I'm not convinced whoever comes next will show enough restraint here.
A good encapsulation of my own feelings. Hard to see any Republican candidate who can become the convention consensus winner without being ready to declare war on someone, anyone, pretty darn soon. Restraint ain't gonna feed the bulldog, especially with the Trump supporters out there. :-\
8)
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 10:58:06 AM
I actually appreciate Obama's current Syria policy, and his deal with Iran, and his relative inaction over Ukraine (the only sane response), but he screwed up on Libya, and his red-line debacle previously on Syria cost him internationally, and he is too eager to put boots on the ground in parts of Africa, which will not end well.
I agree with this too. At least in foreign policy, Obama appears to be the closest thing we have to an Eisenhower Republican.
I think his chances are not very good. (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/martin-omalley-iowa-event-217193)
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 10:58:06 AM
I'm not a peacenik, but I do lean toward anti-interventionism of a more cold-hearted variety, and Trump ain't my candidate. One could always go with Rand Paul. I can't do that either. Kasich's actual voting record is not too bellicose (eg, kill the B2), so he may be sensible. (He's by far my preferred candidate, but he cannot win.) Cruz is all bellicose bluster, and this is where Rubio loses some attractiveness for me. He talks tough. He might put himself in a position where he has to act to placate this or that group. Of course, he is a flexible politician and could say the facts on the ground changed his mind, but rhetorically almost all the Republican candidates are too fond of war, as is our probable next president, Mrs Clinton.
I actually appreciate Obama's current Syria policy, and his deal with Iran, and his relative inaction over Ukraine (the only sane response), but he screwed up on Libya, and his red-line debacle previously on Syria cost him internationally, and he is too eager to put boots on the ground in parts of Africa, which will not end well. The small acts of saber rattling in the East China Sea and South China Sea are so far not too aggressive, but that is something that could escalate quickly. Best not to maneuver the country into a position where confrontation is inevitable. I'm not convinced whoever comes next will show enough restraint here.
This is the problem, he screwed up in all of them and you are praising his waffling and weakness. His actions will bring us less security down the line. I don't think he could have handled foreign policy much worse in Ukraine or Syria. Of course, some of the candidate positions are even worse, but then it is too early to tell if they believe all of what they say.
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 04:58:37 PM
I think his chances are not very good. (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/martin-omalley-iowa-event-217193)
I swear to god, Todd, for a moment I had a feeling I was reading The Onion... ??? Well, it's Iowa.
8)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 05:09:58 PM
This is the problem, he screwed up in all of them and you are praising his waffling and weakness. His actions will bring us less security down the line. I don't think he could have handled foreign policy much worse in Ukraine or Syria. Of course, some of the candidate positions are even worse, but then it is too early to tell if they believe all of what they say.
Really, Neal? You see an upside to going into Ukraine? Even Syria would be a black hole for thousands of soldiers, but Ukraine? Some of the stuff Obama said was screwy, but the overall strategy of not being goaded into putting troops there is as sound as you could hope for in an impossible situation. Seriously, there IS no upside.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 30, 2015, 05:29:35 PM
Really, Neal? You see an upside to going into Ukraine? Even Syria would be a black hole for thousands of soldiers, but Ukraine? Some of the stuff Obama said was screwy, but the overall strategy of not being goaded into putting troops there is as sound as you could hope for in an impossible situation. Seriously, there IS no upside.
8)
Did I suggest invading in either place? That is not what I wrote and not the only interpretation. Certainly in Syria and the region, we waited too long to deal with/respond to ISIS, don't you think? And in Ukraine, what are we doing there, besides providing a little money and a little training?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 05:09:58 PMThis is the problem, he screwed up in all of them and you are praising his waffling and weakness. His actions will bring us less security down the line. I don't think he could have handled foreign policy much worse in Ukraine or Syria. Of course, some of the candidate positions are even worse, but then it is too early to tell if they believe all of what they say.
He did waffle in Syria early on. And he flubbed badly on Libya. So you're right, he made mistakes. Just not the ones you claim.
Unfortunately, Obama has also dispensed with any pretext of democratic or Constitutional rule by continuing limited operations in Syria and surrounding countries without even an AUMF or even trying to comply with the War Powers Resolution timelines. Increased efforts there would/will only make this worse. Obama has also continued extralegal/illegal drone strikes, though now at a decreased level, for far too long, which has damaged the US more than the supposed mistakes you mention.
Escalating tensions in Ukraine would have been, and would be, totally insane. Even tough guy Bush knew to offer only a few tough words over Georgia. Providing a little money and a little training is more than sufficient in Ukraine. It would be best if the next President killed that off.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 05:46:06 PM
Did I suggest invading in either place? That is not what I wrote and not the only interpretation. Certainly in Syria and the region, we waited too long to deal with/respond to ISIS, don't you think? And in Ukraine, what are we doing there, besides providing a little money and a little training?
"couldn't have handled it much worse" doesn't leave a lot of latitude beyond doing the opposite of what he did. Basically he tried diplomacy and sanctions. Look at Russia's economy to decide whether that is working. As for ISIS, since they aren't a nation-state, there is little room for standard diplomatic efforts or sanctions, although we have crippled a good deal of their money supply. There is no group on the ground in Syria that we can trust to deal with except the Kurds. Who are also embroiled in a decades old war with one of our few allies in the region, Turkey. To whom can we offer assistance with any assurance that we aren't arming our enemies?
In addition to all the uncertainties in both of those areas, let us not forget that a very large percentage of the American people don't
want to invest a huge amount of money and lives in a war in either one of those places. Any president we had in this time, no matter what political party he belonged to, would have been in a lose/lose situation both in Syria and in Ukraine. We could piss away billions in either of those places and we would still lose both, plus there is no political will here to back those kinds of moves, and he would have lost any sort of support here at home too.
Please demonstrate a strategy which, if followed, would have had us come out in a stronger position than we are now. I think, even with the benefit of hindsight (let us not forget that!) you will be hard-pressed to do so. I'm not being hostile about this, I'm looking for answers as much as anyone is. Berating the President for not putting us into a situation where we could have no idea of a positive outcome can only be a good thing.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 30, 2015, 06:04:13 PMBasically he tried diplomacy and sanctions. Look at Russia's economy to decide whether that is working.
OPEC's ongoing overproduction of oil is doing more damage than US sanctions. And not just to Russia.
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 06:09:05 PM
OPEC's ongoing overproduction of oil is doing more damage than US sanctions. And not just to Russia.
Yes, now, But even before
that became a crisis, Russia was in the shitter economically, and allied sanctions had a fair amount to do with it.
8)
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 05:54:23 PM
He did waffle in Syria early on. And he flubbed badly on Libya. So you're right, he made mistakes. Just not the ones you claim.
Unfortunately, Obama has also dispensed with any pretext of democratic or Constitutional rule by continuing limited operations in Syria and surrounding countries without even an AUMF or even trying to comply with the War Powers Resolution timelines. Increased efforts there would/will only make this worse. Obama has also continued extralegal/illegal drone strikes, though now at a decreased level, for far too long, which has damaged the US more than the supposed mistakes you mention.
Escalating tensions in Ukraine would have been, and would be, totally insane. Even tough guy Bush knew to offer only a few tough words over Georgia. Providing a little money and a little training is more than sufficient in Ukraine. It would be best if the next President killed that off.
He made mistakes all right. Interestingly, you just added more examples of the mistakes he made. it just strengthens my argument - thanks.
Escalating tensions in Ukraine - well we've had this argument before. His response was pathetic. Ukraine and the world will suffer for it. There is a lot more that could have been done, even in non-combat areas. Of course, Ukraine continues to shoot itself in the foot, which really makes it harder to support them. But letting Russia do what it wants isn't exactly a proactive foreign policy either. We should certainly be doing more.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 30, 2015, 06:13:19 PM
Yes, now, But even before that became a crisis, Russia was in the shitter economically, and allied sanctions had a fair amount to do with it.
Certainly it had a significant impact, and it is or should be the preferred approach, especially where the only meaningful alternatives include armed conflict with
Russia. In
Ukraine.
But I am also becoming more skeptical of the American use of economic sanctions and laws as tools of foreign policy. The US not only imposes sanctions against what some people consider bad guys (eg, Russia), but through various laws (eg, FACTA), the US is also engaging in heavy-handed action that makes even some of our allies unhappy. It works now, and will for a decade or two or three to come, but it also sets precedents that may not be so welcome in the not too distant future.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 06:16:03 PMit just strengthens my argument - thanks.
Please elaborate. Your statement is opaque to the point of meaninglessness.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 06:16:03 PMUkraine and the world will suffer for it.
Ukraine will. So what? How will the US, or Japan, or India, or Brazil, or Nigeria, or other parts of the world? Most important from an American standpoint is how the US will suffer for it.
Also, what is a "proactive" foreign policy, and why is it to be desired?
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 06:23:51 PM
Certainly it had a significant impact, and it is or should be the preferred approach, especially where the only meaningful alternatives include armed conflict with Russia. In Ukraine.
But I am also becoming more skeptical of the American use of economic sanctions and laws as tools of foreign policy. The US not only imposes sanctions against what some people consider bad guys (eg, Russia), but through various laws (eg, FACTA), the US is also engaging in heavy-handed action that makes even some of our allies unhappy. It works now, and will for a decade or two or three to come, but it also sets precedents that may not be so welcome in the not too distant future.
It is the fascination with bright and shiny things which leads to their overuse. Note how the "drone solution" followed that path. It's new and currently indefensible, has a big upside, so let's ignore the downside. I'm still rather keen on drones, but I know there will be a large and difficult-to-handle backlash when it comes. Same with sanctions. They work because we have the innate power to
make them work. Their indiscriminate use will force the rest of the world to devise a defense, which they have every right to do, and the result will be a negative for us, probably on our economic system.
It is a normal human trait to use what works until it doesn't work any longer, whether it is the best thing to do or not. It is easy + we are lazy = that's what we're gonna do. :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 30, 2015, 06:31:41 PMTheir indiscriminate use will force the rest of the world to devise a defense, which they have every right to do, and the result will be a negative for us, probably on our economic system.
The main defense is the gradual replacement of the dollar as the primary reserve currency. We're at least a generation away from that since it is clear that current Europeans are entirely incapable of formulating a sensible monetary policy combined with political policy coordination, and China will need to open its capital markets substantially before it can become a meaningful rival.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 30, 2015, 06:04:13 PM
"couldn't have handled it much worse" doesn't leave a lot of latitude beyond doing the opposite of what he did. Basically he tried diplomacy and sanctions. Look at Russia's economy to decide whether that is working. As for ISIS, since they aren't a nation-state, there is little room for standard diplomatic efforts or sanctions, although we have crippled a good deal of their money supply. There is no group on the ground in Syria that we can trust to deal with except the Kurds. Who are also embroiled in a decades old war with one of our few allies in the region, Turkey. To whom can we offer assistance with any assurance that we aren't arming our enemies?
In addition to all the uncertainties in both of those areas, let us not forget that a very large percentage of the American people don't want to invest a huge amount of money and lives in a war in either one of those places. Any president we had in this time, no matter what political party he belonged to, would have been in a lose/lose situation both in Syria and in Ukraine. We could piss away billions in either of those places and we would still lose both, plus there is no political will here to back those kinds of moves, and he would have lost any sort of support here at home too.
Please demonstrate a strategy which, if followed, would have had us come out in a stronger position than we are now. I think, even with the benefit of hindsight (let us not forget that!) you will be hard-pressed to do so. I'm not being hostile about this, I'm looking for answers as much as anyone is. Berating the President for not putting us into a situation where we could have no idea of a positive outcome can only be a good thing.
8)
Who said it was easy? And sure, it is easy to be an armchair critic. But surely all the money we spent in Syria and Iraq to date could have been spent more wisely? And surely part of the problem was that we seem to think that throwing money at the problem will make it go away. And surely recognizing that policy was not working and then changing course would have been better?
The problem with our current President, in my opinion, is that he is weak. He avoids conflict, and this drives his policy to some degree (or large degree as he himself has been candid about his views on the limitations of his office).
In Ukraine, there are numerous steps he could have taken, all across the spectrum. Some as simple as PR related steps all the way up through military assistance (which does not mean military invasion). But I cannot agree that leaving the situation be - meaning letting Russia keep Crimea and continue to do as it pleases in eastern Ukraine without some sort of repercussion is the way to go.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 06:48:32 PMIn Ukraine, there are numerous steps he could have taken, all across the spectrum.
As Gurn mentioned, sanctions were put in place, and the US has armed and funded various groups. What additional, specific steps would yield your desired outcome? And more important, just what is the desired outcome?
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 06:54:50 PM
As Gurn mentioned, sanctions were put in place, and the US has armed and funded various groups. What additional, specific steps would yield your desired outcome? And more important, just what is the desired outcome?
Arms have been limited to defensive only, which I am sure you aware of. Specifically (for example), Russia was using highly sophisticated drones that Ukraine was not able to stop. Some help, in this area, would have yielded significant military results for Ukraine (both technology to detect and offensive drones to counter). And you and I both know that sanctions were cursory at best, limited to a few individuals. This was not enough.
The desired outcome should initially be a united Ukraine. It would be nice if Crimea were returned to Ukraine but at this point I think a monetary solution is the only realistic solution. Nevertheless, Russia has not paid any real price for its actions in Crimea and so the longer it stays this way, the harder it becomes. But Russia continues to control what happens in the militarized regions of Ukraine, and at a minimum, they should be encouraged (if possible) or forced (if necessary) to withdraw their military support from there. The long term outcome should be a prosperous Ukraine.
My suggestion is to either take this conversation elsewhere or let it lie as we are derailing the thread. My apologies for that.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 07:08:47 PMThe desired outcome should initially be a united Ukraine.
I see no US interests involved in a united Ukraine, nor do I see US security being put at risk, so the US has no compelling reason to do much.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 07:08:47 PMor forced (if necessary) to withdraw their military support from there.
Seeing the word "forced" applied to Russia is always cause for concern for me. Russia can be of more assistance with other issues (the Iran nuclear deal, negotiating a political solution in Syria), and a temporarily or permanently dismembered Ukraine is an acceptable price to pay in my view.
No need to apologize for going over foreign policy in the US election thread. Turns out it will be important this time, and for the most part I've heard or read comparatively little of interest from the candidates.
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 07:28:34 PM
I see no US interests involved in a united Ukraine, nor do I see US security being put at risk, so the US has no compelling reason to do much.
Seeing the word "forced" applied to Russia is always cause for concern for me. Russia can be of more assistance with other issues (the Iran nuclear deal, negotiating a political solution in Syria), and a temporarily or permanently dismembered Ukraine is an acceptable price to pay in my view.
I'm embarrassed to read this and sure our allies will take comfort in such a position. Not much more to say I guess. Good night.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 07:39:44 PM
I'm embarrassed to read this and sure our allies will take comfort in such a position. Not much more to say I guess. Good night.
Just a quick question before you go to bed: What
specific interests does the US have in Ukraine?
The desired outcome is a Sunni ruled Syria cutting the Shia link between Hezbollah and Iran. It's the religious balance of power after ISIS is destroyed as a caliphate that will concern us. Iran and Russia are in alliance in supporting the Alawites, we support any Sunnis that will renounce terror and cooperate in Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan. The tricky bit is the Shia government in Iraq. We need each other when that thing you all don't want to happen happens, that is more than it's happening now.
While all of you decide for peace or war I want to know what I can find out about what wars we're fighting and what the next one will be.
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 07:44:35 PM
Just a quick question before you go to bed: What specific interests does the US have in Ukraine?
Our interest is to bleed the Russians white at the lowest cost to us.
Quote from: drogulus on December 30, 2015, 08:01:45 PMOur interest is to bleed the Russians white at the lowest cost to us.
Why?
Quote from: Todd on December 30, 2015, 08:03:43 PM
Why?
Our policy is to extract the maximum cost for their actions in the Crimea and the Ukraine, Syria and Iran. Our interest is the interest of holding the system of cooperation together by punishing defectors.
Quote from: drogulus on December 30, 2015, 08:30:44 PMOur policy is to extract the maximum cost for their actions in the Crimea and the Ukraine, Syria and Iran.
That is not our policy. That is what you want the policy to be.
Your statement is divorced from a more complicated reality. Russian actions with regard to Syria include aiding the US in ridding Syria of chemical weapons. Though you no doubt hate it, Russian actions now to bolster Assad will, or could, help set the stage for a long-term political settlement that will help the US end its illegal war in Syria. Russian actions with regard to Iran include working with the US to secure a nuclear deal and within the last couple weeks taking delivery of Iranian nuclear material.
Quote from: drogulus on December 30, 2015, 08:30:44 PMOur interest is the interest of holding the system of cooperation together by punishing defectors.
Written like a true Imperialist.
Quote from: Todd on December 31, 2015, 05:54:00 AM
That is not our policy. That is what you want the policy to be.
Your statement is divorced from a more complicated reality. Russian actions with regard to Syria include aiding the US in ridding Syria of chemical weapons. Though you no doubt hate it, Russian actions now to bolster Assad will, or could, help set the stage for a long-term political settlement that will help the US end its illegal war in Syria. Russian actions with regard to Iran include working with the US to secure a nuclear deal and within the last couple weeks taking delivery of Iranian nuclear material.
Written like a true Imperialist.
I don't disagree with any of that. We are a kind of imperialist power. That will include rewards and punishments. Idealists in both camps are afraid there will be too much war or peace. I'm concerned with timing and preparation. What it will be like when a war we don't want happens matters as much as wanting the wrong war, and a bad choice doesn't prevent the same choice from presenting itself soon. History doesn't end.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 30, 2015, 05:09:58 PM
This is the problem, he screwed up in all of them and you are praising his waffling and weakness. His actions will bring us less security down the line. I don't think he could have handled foreign policy much worse in Ukraine or Syria. Of course, some of the candidate positions are even worse, but then it is too early to tell if they believe all of what they say.
The question is, how could he have done better in the Ukraine. I think the only way to keep Putin from doing what he wants in the Ukraine is to actually have a war, with everything that entails, because Putin seems to disregard anything else--and he knows no one will go to war with him in his own backyard.
In Syria, too, the same question: how to do better? The choice among groups that are effective at opposing Assad all seem to be one or another type of jihadi, with the secular groups rather ineffective. And remember when there seemed to be the possibility that we would actually do something against Assad militarily, a whole bunch of people from both right and left popped up in opposition to it.
I don't like the Iran deal. I don't think we are in a position to go to war with them (again, I think anything less would not dissuade the mullahs), but in this case, we had a third choice--to have no deal and not give formal acquiescence in their plans.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 31, 2015, 08:50:17 AM
I don't like the Iran deal. I don't think we are in a position to go to war with them (again, I think anything less would not dissuade the mullahs), but in this case, we had a third choice--to have no deal and not give formal acquiescence in their plans.
It's better to have the deal and let Iran break it. As for war with them, they have room to maneuver to avoid triggering it. They can talk to Israel through intermediaries.
Quote from: drogulus on December 31, 2015, 08:40:23 AMWe are a kind of imperialist power.
You can drop "kind of".
I'm not sure what "a war we don't want" is supposed to mean, other than, perhaps, a recognition that the US engages in wars of choice - that is, wars of aggression - in all but the rarest cases.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 31, 2015, 08:50:17 AMand he knows no one will go to war with him in his own backyard.
If Bush wouldn't do it, nobody will do it.
Quote from: Todd on December 31, 2015, 09:13:52 AM
You can drop "kind of".
I'm not sure what "a war we don't want" is supposed to mean, other than, perhaps, a recognition that the US engages in wars of choice - that is, wars of aggression - in all but the rarest cases.
Of course it does. All wars are wars of choice. It's not always our choice, at least at first, but someone chooses for war or it won't happen. Our task is to figure out when to choose for war or when to let it be the choice of someone else.
Quote from: drogulus on January 04, 2016, 08:19:38 AM
Of course it does. All wars are wars of choice. It's not always our choice, at least at first, but someone chooses for war or it won't happen. Our task is to figure out when to choose for war or when to let it be the choice of someone else.
I like what you attempted to do here. It failed, but nice try.
QuoteBernie Sanders raised more than $33 million in the last fundraising cycle, $4 million shy of Democratic frontrunner Clinton's total. More significantly, with a sturdy base of supporters, Sanders's average donation amounts to $27.
RTWT
here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0103/Bernie-Sanders-raises-33-million-Will-his-money-talk).
Does 'GOP establishment' really exist? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/0106/Does-GOP-establishment-really-exist)
Trump injures neck in campaign stunt
Candidate heard to shout "It's all for you, Damien!"
Spokesperson claims "He's just fucking with you."
Trump is third behind Rubio and Cruz, Sanders is only at a 15% chance to win the nomination
http://electionbettingodds.com
(Prediction markets arent perfect, but better than polls or pundits)
Quote from: bwv 1080 on January 07, 2016, 06:07:36 PM
(Prediction markets arent perfect, but better than polls or pundits)
Hillary better be careful. Down three points in a week to a lowly 87% chance of getting the Democratic nod . . .
I think that's still Coronation range.
Separately: The clear choice of the White Supremacist (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0112/Why-are-white-supremacists-backing-Trump)
Mind you, it's an Op-Ed piece:
Quote from: Mary Brigid McManamonDonald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
RTWT
here.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 10:41:57 AM
Mind you, it's an Op-Ed piece:
RTWT here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html).
SCOTUS has never ruled on it, so no one can say for sure. In order for a court ruling to be issued, Cruz would have to win the Presidency, because until that point, no has standing to sue. I suspect even with Scalia and Thomas on the court, someone like Cruz (or McCain) would be considered eligible.
I do find the ending a bit too imprecise:
"And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States."The first seven presidents, along with William Henry Harrison, were all born in British colonies, not an independent United States. If you're gonna split hairs, split 'em right.
Quote from: Todd on January 12, 2016, 11:29:38 AM
SCOTUS has never ruled on it, so no one can say for sure. In order for a court ruling to be issued, Cruz would have to win the Presidency, because until that point, no has standing to sue. I suspect even with Scalia and Thomas on the court, someone like Cruz (or McCain) would be considered eligible.
I do find the ending a bit too imprecise: "And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States."
The first seven presidents, along with William Henry Harrison, were all born in British colonies, not an independent United States. If you're gonna split hairs, split 'em right.
Agreed, that it may not be clear in quite the ways the writer suggests.
Quote from: Todd on January 12, 2016, 11:29:38 AM
I do find the ending a bit too imprecise: "And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States."
The first seven presidents, along with William Henry Harrison, were all born in British colonies, not an independent United States. If you're gonna split hairs, split 'em right.
Hah!
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The clause states that EITHER a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the US (and presumably a naturalized citizen is still a citizen, as stipulated in the 14th amendment) is eligible. But what about the "at the time of the adoption of this constitution," which was 1787? Would that not disqualify anyone born or living in other than the original 13 states? Take that, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 02:22:59 PM
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The clause states that EITHER a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the US (and presumably a naturalized citizen is still a citizen, as stipulated in the 14th amendment) is eligible. But what about the "at the time of the adoption of this constitution," which was 1787? Would that not disqualify anyone born or living in other than the original 13 states? Take that, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln!
The portion "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" of course means that all citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were eligible to be President. Anti-Hamilton sorts argue that the language "or a Citizen of the United States" was used specifically so that Hamilton could be President. My beef was with the original author's fastidiousness regarding interpretation early in her piece, but her less fastidious closer.
Congress could solve this problem, if it's a problem, by passing legislation that once again defines what a natural born citizen is. Since we've gone since 1795 without a statutory definition, it may not be the most pressing matter. Unless you're Ted Cruz.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 02:22:59 PM
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The clause states that EITHER a natural born citizen, OR a citizen of the US (and presumably a naturalized citizen is still a citizen, as stipulated in the 14th amendment) is eligible. But what about the "at the time of the adoption of this constitution," which was 1787? Would that not disqualify anyone born or living in other than the original 13 states? Take that, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Barack Obama, Abraham Lincoln!
I diagram this sentence as
No person shall be president except
1. a natural born citizen, OR
2. a citizen at the time of the adoption
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 02:52:50 PM
I diagram this sentence as
No person shall be president except
1. a natural born citizen, OR
2. a citizen at the time of the adoption
It depends on whether you read "at the time" to modify Citizen or the United States. But if your reading is correct, then option 2 is a moot point and only natural-born citizens are eligible. Where does that leave Ted Cruz? or for that matter John McCain?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 03:19:15 PMWhere does that leave Ted Cruz?
Brian's reading is correct. Where it leaves Ted Cruz was the whole point of the original article, and several other articles. If Cruz wins the White House, his holding of office could be challenged in court. Of course, Congress could pass legislation between election day and inauguration day specifically defining what a natural born citizen is. As dysfunctional as Congress can be, I would have to think that would happen, especially given current Republican control. (Filibusters may not sound so bad now, to some.)
McCain was in a somewhat different position since he was born to two US citizens. I believe he was born on a military base over which the US exercised sovereignty. It would be very surprising to see any substantive challenge to such a person becoming President.
The 1790 Naturalization Act, since partly repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act, did include the following language:
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."However, the laws also contained literal paternal components, and Cruz's father was not a citizen when Ted was born.
Interesting, Barry Goldwater also had issues since he was born in Arizona before it was a state. What is it with Republicans born someplace else?
Quote from: Todd on January 12, 2016, 03:38:05 PM
(1) Brian's reading is correct. Where it leaves Ted Cruz was the whole point of the original article, and several other articles. If Cruz wins the White House, his holding of office could be challenged in court. Of course, Congress could pass legislation between election day and inauguration day specifically defining what a natural born citizen is. As dysfunctional as Congress can be, I would have to think that would happen, especially given current Republican control. (Filibusters may not sound so bad now, to some.)
(2) McCain was in a somewhat different position since he was born to two US citizens. I believe he was born on a military base over which the US exercised sovereignty. It would be very surprising to see any substantive challenge to such a person becoming President.
The 1790 Naturalization Act, since partly repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act, did include the following language:
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
However, the laws also contained literal paternal components, and Cruz's father was not a citizen when Ted was born.
(3) Interesting, Barry Goldwater also had issues since he was born in Arizona before it was a state. What is it with Republicans born someplace else?
(1) May well be, but given the vagaries of 18th-century punctuation, the alternative reading is not implausible.
(2) I am inclined to agree. He was born in the Canal Zone, and his eligibility was never challenged.
(3) Don't forget, Barack Obama was born in Kenya. And he's a Muslim.
This article will perhaps lay out the possibilities for you: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/07/ted-cruz-constitutions-natural-born-citizen-clause/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/07/ted-cruz-constitutions-natural-born-citizen-clause/)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 12, 2016, 04:56:38 PM
This article will perhaps lay out the possibilities for you: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/07/ted-cruz-constitutions-natural-born-citizen-clause/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/07/ted-cruz-constitutions-natural-born-citizen-clause/)
The article references Tribe holding an opinion that Cruz is natural born, but Tribe has stated that Cruz's eligibility is unsettled. It also indicates that Trump could file suit, but that may not be accurate. Cruz is not President, nor has he won the nomination, so it is likely Trump has no standing. Cruz would at least have to be the nominee, and one Congressman (Alan Grayson, a Democrat, so no partisanship is involved) has already pledged to file suit if Cruz wins the nomination. Even then it's unclear if the Congressman would have standing because the President must be a natural born citizen, but the nominee of a party does not have to be. But, as usual, there's too much focus on the courts. Congress literally has the power to resolve this.
Howard Kurtz: Could Bernie Sanders pull this off? (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/media-buzz/index.html#/v/4700819926001)
Quote from: karlhenning on January 13, 2016, 09:39:20 AM
Howard Kurtz: Could Bernie Sanders pull this off? (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/media-buzz/index.html#/v/4700819926001)
Yes, if Sanders comes close in S. Carolina or wins he has a real shot. Hillary has wide, thin support that depends on inevitability, that is until she gets the nomination. Before that, though, I sense a fragility in her campaign, a lack of a substantial "true believer" core. The true believers, the ones who wanted Warren, moved to Sanders. I still think that's not enough for him, even if his appeal is wider than anyone, including me, thought when he got in.
I do feel that Sanders has a better chance (a much better chance) than the punditocracy give him credit for; but I am shy of sounding that note too often, lest I seem to echo the Trumpistas.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 13, 2016, 09:39:20 AM
Howard Kurtz: Could Bernie Sanders pull this off? (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/media-buzz/index.html#/v/4700819926001)
Howie Kurtz? A "media critic" who loses his other gigs one by one and finally lands at Fox? You expect me to click on that?
Quote from: Daverz on January 13, 2016, 02:15:47 PM
Howie Kurtz? A "media critic" who loses his other gigs one by one and finally lands at Fox? You expect me to click on that?
As one may wish, of course.
He's no Bill O'Reilly, that's sure 8)
He's no Bill O'Reilly, that's sure 8)
He's no Bill O'Reilly, that's sure 8)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 13, 2016, 03:29:18 PM
What I tell you three times is true ;D
Sarge
The Henning posts go in, the Henning posts go out; you can't explain that.
Seriously, Karl, I worry about what your web reading is doing to your soul.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 13, 2016, 03:29:18 PM
What I tell you three times is true ;D
Sarge
Tapatalk went higgledy-piggledy.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 13, 2016, 03:44:10 PM
Tapatalk went higgledy-piggledy.
Don't you just hate it when things go piggledy? :D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 13, 2016, 03:50:19 PM
Don't you just hate it when things go piggledy? :D
Sarge
Karl is reading Fox News and shopping at the Piggly Wiggly? Now I'm very concerned.
Florida ditches surgical standards after failing hospital donates to GOP (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/florida-ditches-surgical-standards-after-failing-hospital-donates-to-gop/)
Either this is just an unfortunate "correlation isn't causation" instance or it really is all for you Damien! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
WaPo says do away with the Natural Born Citizen requirement. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-remove-the-natural-born-citizen-requirement-from-the-constitution/2016/01/15/ac2c9ae8-b589-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html) Will this now join the calls to abolish/reform the Electoral College that pop up about every four years?
The special relationship potentially in peril? (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/europe/uk-parliament-debates-trump-ban/)
(You'd think this combined with a Comedy Central roast would informally disqualify any candidate . . . )
Sarah Palin will endorse Donald Trump in Iowa tonight.
Quote from: Brian on January 19, 2016, 12:34:41 PM
Sarah Palin will endorse Donald Trump in Iowa tonight.
The Kiss of the Spiderwoman.... :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 19, 2016, 01:17:52 PM
The Kiss of the Spiderwoman.... :)
8)
Reportedly, over the summer somebody asked her if Trump or Cruz were going to ask for her endorsement, and she said "Not if they're smart." Which might be the brightest thing she's ever said.
I hope Palin gets State.
Quote from: Todd on January 19, 2016, 01:22:11 PM
I hope Palin gets State.
OK let's hear it. What is your Maximum Chaos Cabinet?
I almost don't like to think what planet the people are on, who care whom La Palin endorses.
State would be Bolton. Bundy for interior.
...you know, Bolton may be getting a bit old, so Pam Geller for State. And that's Ammon Bundy for Interior.
Quote from: Brian on January 19, 2016, 01:33:42 PM
OK let's hear it. What is your Maximum Chaos Cabinet?
Maximum Chaos is an empty cabinet, with Congress refusing to advise and consent on the top jobs.
The biggest risk at the cabinet level is Defense. Get a neo-con like Wolfowitz or Graham for the Republicans, or a committed liberal interventionist like Power for the Democrats, then the level of activist chatter reaching the President's ear goes up, as does the number of bombs dropping.
At Treasury, the worst case scenario would be on the Democratic side, and would be Warren. Paul would be the nightmare scenario on the Republican side. (I get it, people don't like Wall Street, etc, but this is a big job that can shake the confidence of equity markets and debt markets alike, and erode the power of the dollar. Please, no ideologues, here.)
At State, Bolton on the Republican side (Christie if you have a sense of humor). On the Democratic side, it's hard to see anyone with as much of an axe to grind here, at least among those who might plausibly angle for the job. Chuck Schumer, maybe.
Quote from: Todd on January 19, 2016, 02:38:41 PM
At Treasury, the worst case scenario would be on the Democratic side, and would be Warren.
Too hard on fraudsters.
Quote from: Daverz on January 19, 2016, 03:14:42 PM
Too hard on fraudsters.
I'm more concerned about her fiscal policy proposals than enforcement actions. International business tax coordination - fuggedaboutit!
Quote from: Todd on January 19, 2016, 04:20:15 PM
I'm more concerned about her fiscal policy proposals than enforcement actions. International business tax coordination - fuggedaboutit!
I think the idea is from Piketty. His own solution to the problems outlined in his book. Unobjectionable IMO, but as you say, not going to happen.
A British MP called Donald Trump a "wazzock".
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2016/jan/19/why-wazzock-may-be-ideal-term-abuse-donald-trump
The northern England slang term allegedly derives from the medieval practice (again, alleged) of pooping onto a shovel and then using the shovel to toss your poop out the window. The wazzock was the shovel.
Quote from: Daverz on January 19, 2016, 04:35:17 PM
I think the idea is from Piketty. His own solution to the problems outlined in his book. Unobjectionable IMO, but as you say, not going to happen.
I assume you mean the international wealth tax. That's pie in the sky. That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to coordinating/converging rates, loopholes, etc - that is, real world policy changes. Wouldn't happen under Warren, whether POTUS is Hillary or Sanders. Corporate tax rates are too low, corporations are bad, and so forth.
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-569ed783/turbine/ct-donald-trump-endorsement-sarah-palin-20160119)
That is one shiny outfit! That cinches it: Trump for President!
Trump appears to have done the graphic design of his campaign signs himself. He certainly didn't entrust it to a professional.
Further choices for the Mad Cab:
Justice: Joe Arpaio
Treasury: Stephen Moore
Education: Megan Fox (not the hot one) (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Megan_Fox)
Ah, Energy: Don Blankenship
Health and Human Services: Jenny McCarthy
Quote from: Todd on January 19, 2016, 04:51:30 PM
I assume you mean the international wealth tax. That's pie in the sky. That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to coordinating/converging rates, loopholes, etc - that is, real world policy changeso. Wouldn't happen under Warren, whether POTUS is Hillary or Sanders. Corporate tax rates are too low, corporations are bad, and so forth.
I have to say, Todd, that while I find your politics too cynical and lacking in empathy, you know your stuff.
Quote from: Daverz on January 19, 2016, 05:54:18 PMI have to say, Todd, that while I find your politics too cynical
Me, cynical?
Quote from: Todd on January 19, 2016, 06:07:02 PM
Me, cynical?
At least you don't dispute the "lacking in empathy" part.
Best cabinet choices:
Republicans
Education - Rick Perry
Commerce - Rick Perry
? - Rick Perry
Democrats
Justice - Rahm Emanuel
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 19, 2016, 06:08:18 PM
At least you don't dispute the "lacking in empathy" part.
"Empathy" is a word and concept that I've always had a problem with. Sympathy? Sure, that I get. Empathy? From a knowledge/ability to know standpoint, I'm not sold on the idea that I (or anyone) would be able to put myself in someone else's shoes, as it were. While emotions are more or less the same from person to person (for the sake of argument), the totality of experience and the resulting response to events make what I would consider to be true empathy practically impossible. Or, I'm just fine with being a cold-hearted bastard.
Quote from: Brian on January 19, 2016, 05:54:09 PM
Health and Human Services: Jenny McCarthy
You beat me to it.
Trouble is, she's probably a Democrat, as is my other Mad Cab choice, Betsy McCaughey. I can't think of any Repubs who have health and human services in their wheelhouse. Will think on it.
Quote from: Daverz on January 19, 2016, 06:54:31 PM
You beat me to it.
Trouble is, she's probably a Democrat, as is my other Mad Cab choice, Betsy McCaughey. I can't think of any Repubs who have health and human services in their wheelhouse. Will think on it.
Hey, every administration needs a token crossover pick or two! Call Jenny McCarthy the Chuck Hagel Honorary Opposition.
Quote from: Todd on January 19, 2016, 06:08:36 PM
Best cabinet choices:
Republicans
Education - Rick Perry
Commerce - Rick Perry
? - Rick Perry
Heehee.
Quote
Democrats
Justice - Rahm Emanuel
Certainly on my shortlist of worst Dems evah.
Quote from: Daverz on January 19, 2016, 06:54:31 PMI can't think of any Repubs who have health and human services in their wheelhouse.
Ben Carson.
Continuing the Mad Cab:
Defense: Rumsfeld is still alive
EPA: Rick Snyder, experienced child poisoner
HUD: Charles Murray or Steve Sailer
Quote from: Todd on January 19, 2016, 07:10:17 PM
Ben Carson.
I thought about it, but he actually has medical knowledge, which I think may be a disqualification.
Ok, I've got it. Try not to punch your monitor.
(http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2015/09/29/12/Martin-Shkreli.jpg)
Quote from: Daverz on January 19, 2016, 07:16:12 PM
I thought about it, but he actually has medical knowledge, which I think may be a disqualification.
Ok, I've got it. Try not to punch your monitor.
(http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2015/09/29/12/Martin-Shkreli.jpg)
oh shit
A "RideWithBernie" app! (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0118/Why-the-calendar-could-be-Bernie-Sanders-greatest-Iowa-asset)
Is Kasich Surging? (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/upshot/a-kasich-surge-even-a-suspect-poll-can-help-this-time-of-year.html) (perhaps not)
Quote from: Brian on January 19, 2016, 08:00:47 PM
oh shit
Sorry, I'll give a trigger warning next time. :-[
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2015/imwithstupid.jpg)
Sarge
Part of the process of the world being turned on its head:
There's evidence that when weighing Donald Trump versus rival Ted Cruz, many Republican leaders have become more concerned about Senator Cruz. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/0121/Is-GOP-establishment-learning-to-like-Donald-Trump)
Quote from: Jennifer RubinIn some ways the Donald Trump-Sarah Palin team is the perfect comeuppance to the far-right — including the loudest talk show hosts, the anti-immigrant propagandists, the inside-the-Beltway groups that make money from political chaos and the pols who take advantage of all of those voices, politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). The far-right did all in their power to undermine compromise, to promote know-nothingism on immigration and to root for government failure (as in the 2013 shutdown). Beltway groups, armed with score cards and vitriol, demeaned anyone but those like the Freedom Caucus, those who had no responsibility for governance and no risk of electoral defeat. They even took to savaging Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
RTWT
here.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 21, 2016, 03:18:22 PM
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2015/imwithstupid.jpg)
Sarge
BTW, notice the bottom story. Sarah says her son has PTSD and it is Obama's fault for not supporting the troops.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 22, 2016, 12:32:03 PM
BTW, notice the bottom story. Sarah says her son has PTSD and it is Obama's fault for not supporting the troops.
Yes.
You can't make this stuff up.
Not one, but two NY billionaires in the running? (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=0) A Sanders, Trump, Bloomberg debate could quite possibly be the most entertaining spectacle in the history of American politics - and that includes Bryan ending his Cross of Gold speech in the Christ pose.
Trump's latest bon mot, evidence of both his insensitivity and megalomania : "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." But the truly sad aspect of it is that he is right. His supporters are blind to the sickness that is Donald Rump; all they see is someone who will "take on" a government they revile. A national disgrace.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on January 23, 2016, 02:37:30 PM
Trump's latest bon mot, evidence of both his insensitivity and megalomania : "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
I'm disappointed in The Donald. I would have hoped for more something more outrageous, something to top the Edwin Edwards classic: "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." If you're going for the top job, and you're going this route, I say do it right.
Quote from: Todd on January 23, 2016, 03:41:11 PM
I'm disappointed in The Donald. I would have hoped for more something more outrageous, something to top the Edwin Edwards classic: "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." If you're going for the top job, and you're going this route, I say do it right.
:laugh:! No doubt Rump is just warming up - sigh no more, i'm certain he will best any previous idiocy with something more outrageous and ensure we are the laughing stock of the world.
The problem with Donald Trump is that he's Donald Trump. The guy is absolutely disgusting and people who support him are doing so because he tells people supposedly what they want to hear. The fact of the matter is Trump is in it for himself and he's, first and foremost, mainly concerned with building his empire. It has nothing to do with righting wrongs from the alleged incompetence of the Obama administration and administrations past. This is not someone you want rubbing his finger over the nuke button. He's a hot-head and changes positions to fit whatever the current political mold happens to be faster than he can run his comb through that orange weave he calls a hairdo.
Go watch Idiocracy, and cry when you see that the president of our future idiot nation (some things never change) is actually more articulate, makes more sense, and has a greater command of the English language than Sarah Palin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA
Trump, like Hillary is a gigantic whore, who will say anything that is expedient. The difference is that while Hillary lusts for the presidency, Trump is just playing a game.
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on January 23, 2016, 08:59:49 PM
Trump, like Hillary is a gigantic whore,
Of course that is the ultimate result of any market where everything is for sale, including political support.
I guess the story is pretty well documented in US media. But not over here - Trump campaigners used photos of Soviet veterans when campaigning for the neglect of US ones, not realizing the difference:
http://www.rferl.org/content/trump-veterans-soviet-soldiers-campaign-ad-removed/27506388.html
Quote from: Turner on January 24, 2016, 01:54:01 AM
I guess the story is pretty well documented in US media. But not over here - Trump campaigners used photos of Soviet veterans when campaigning for the neglect of US ones, not realizing the difference:
http://www.rferl.org/content/trump-veterans-soviet-soldiers-campaign-ad-removed/27506388.html
This happens from time to time. The DNC did something similar in 2012, using pictures of Russian warships at an event saluting the troops. (http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20120911/NEWS/209110321/Russian-ships-displayed-DNC-tribute-vets) Fact checking is tough stuff for members of both major parties.
The Double Whammy. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/26/donald-trump-jerry-falwell-jr-endorsement-iowa-evangelicals-liberty-university/79348252/)
(This is for Trailer Park Boys fans.)
A Lump of Trump Rump (from the National Review, and no, I don't look at it as a general rule).
Trump is boycotting the next debate. I think this is likely to backfire on him - attention is his oxygen, and if he's not onstage, he's not getting as much attention.
Of course, that could change if the Fox moderators decide to ask everybody else lots of Trump-themed questions.
It will backfire on El Tupé, if now the debaters focus on issues . . . that will make a sharp contrast with the frontrunner.
Not that it will make any difference to his adoring fans . . . .
Nope, sorry guys, his followers will see it as yet another way in which he is " bucking the system." Indeed, it should redound to his discredit, but like all or most of what trump does, it will not.
Quote from: Brian on January 27, 2016, 10:17:34 AM
Trump is boycotting the next debate. I think this is likely to backfire on him - attention is his oxygen, and if he's not onstage, he's not getting as much attention.
Of course, that could change if the Fox moderators decide to ask everybody else lots of Trump-themed questions.
I'm not sure that Trump thumbing his nose at Fox works against him. It could make him look bigger, he doesn't need Fox as much as the network needs him. From the network standpoint a declaration of independence carries an implicit threat.
Imagine Trump owing nothing to the Repub establishment or its Ministry of Propaganda. I think he might appreciate the room to freewheel.
Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on January 27, 2016, 11:22:33 AM
Nope, sorry guys, his followers will see it as yet another way in which he is " bucking the system."
I'm sure you're right.
Then there is the matter of Cruz and the Lilliputians. Do they attack the absent frontrunner? Do they engage each other in "substantive debate"?
If I'm a little guy I'd ignore Trump and launch Cruz missiles to fluster the Great Debater and raise my profile.
Finally, an unbiased analysis. (http://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/noam_chomsky_the_gop_is_a_threat_to_human_survival_partner/)
Quote from: Todd on January 27, 2016, 07:08:06 PM
Finally, an unbiased analysis. (http://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/noam_chomsky_the_gop_is_a_threat_to_human_survival_partner/)
Well, Noam might be exaggerating, but if the GOP wins this year, I'd say the odds that the sun devours us all in a galaxy-melting tempest of fire is fair-to-middlin'.
Damn the Repubs for making Chomsky right about something!
A bunch of Florida mayors asked to meet with Jeb and Rubio to get their support for taking climate change more seriously. It seems their region of southeast Florida is going under water at an alarming rate. The liberal hoax is strong there. Rubio has a climate position which doesn't exactly say political operatives are better scientists than scientists are, but doesn't exactly say not that, either.
One more observation on Trump/Fox is that it looks like Trump is unofficially a third party candidate. What extinction are we counting down towards?
How unlikely is this?...Repubs nominate Cruz, Trump founds an America First party and gets on the ballot everywhere, Hillary is exposed as a psychopathic lesbian murderer (not a big negative, but still...), Sanders is nominated, Bloomberg runs as a centrist......
Quote from: drogulus on January 28, 2016, 05:32:01 AM
One more observation on Trump/Fox is that it looks like Trump is unofficially a third party candidate. What extinction are we counting down towards?
America's. This is the most important election ever, or a watershed, or something like that.
Quote from: Todd on January 28, 2016, 05:43:13 AM
America's. This is the most important election ever, or a watershed, or something like that.
What, again?
I think the Trump constituency will follow him where he goes (less true for Sanders IMO). While GOPsters are afraid of Fox, Trump isn't. That makes him not a GOP, which in his "heart" he never was.
Like Bonaparte he'll crown himself. If the GOPs want a piece he'll give it them at a price. It's like "everything you'll have will come from me". Can GOPS make a deal with Dems to fight him? What could they offer? Nonono, it's the Dems who'll deal. They still know how, and as the party of government it'll be in their interest.
Quote from: drogulus on January 28, 2016, 09:19:44 AM
I think the Trump constituency will follow him where he goes (less true for Sanders IMO).
I think you're right, in part because those who are enthusiastic for Sanders are not, as a rule, irrational 8)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 28, 2016, 09:02:10 AM
What, again?
The end is nigh, or at least potentially nigh. Check out the Chomsky piece.
I thought we'd had an end of Chomsky.
Quote from: drogulus on January 28, 2016, 05:32:01 AMHillary is exposed as a psychopathic lesbian murderer (not a big negative, but still...)
;D :D ;D
Sarge
Quote from: karlhenning on January 28, 2016, 12:02:39 PM
I thought we'd had an end of Chomsky.
Not yet, though we did hit Peak Chomsky in the 90s.
I think everyone should vote for Sanders. If anything else, we'll get to see Larry David imitate him for the next for years.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 28, 2016, 12:02:39 PM
I thought we'd had an end of Chomsky.
You are getting confused with Fukuyama; mind you, he has not come to an end of himself either.
Mike
He didn't even wait until all the votes were counted. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/martin-omalley-suspends-his-campaign-218587)
Quote from: Todd on February 01, 2016, 06:11:59 PM
He didn't even wait until all the votes were counted. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/martin-omalley-suspends-his-campaign-218587)
Nor has Mike Huckabee, also gone. I suppose Rick Santorum will also call it quits tonight.
Quote from: Todd on February 01, 2016, 06:11:59 PM
He didn't even wait until all the votes were counted. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/martin-omalley-suspends-his-campaign-218587)
And he was doing so well.
Rubio is making a victory speech now. It's Cruz 28%, Trump 24%, Rubio 23% as it now stands.
Hillary 50%, Bernie 49%........TCTC
Even if Bernie does not "win," this showing is a triumph.
Can someone explain to me please? The analysis on radio in the UK today was suggesting that we have seen the effective end of Trump. I don't understand, surely the next primaries might swing in a different direction?
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on February 02, 2016, 04:15:38 AM
Can someone explain to me please? The analysis on radio in the UK today was suggesting that we have seen the effective end of Trump. I don't understand, surely the next primaries might swing in a different direction?
Mike
"The end of El Tupé" is certainly overstating the case; even granting that he had been crowing about winning in Iowa, his second-place showing is strong. And he's more nearly a "local boy" for the next primary in New Hampshire, which may play to his advantage. He also has plenty of money, so he can be part of the circus for as long as he chooses.
I'm apt to agree that his withdrawal from the race is a matter of time; but (as one talking head put it this morning) his support is real, it's just not enough. The primaries after New Hampshire will clarify his fate, I should say.
Thanks Karl, it seems that the Cruz team did well in spending where it would be effective. Whereas Trump as president would make me want to distance myself....to Mars, for Cruz, perhaps Central Africa would be far enough.
Mike
If the GOPs won't coalesce behind Rubio and grab this opportunity to save themselves, the voters may force their hand. In the finest "causation runs both ways" tradition, it will be voters that break the "who's our guy to thwart the barbarians?" dilemma, and now the GOPs will force Bush, Kasich, Christie to bow out, at which point the Great Aggregation can commence and the Barbarous Two will face a unified party that should triumph all the way to the general election slaughter by Mommie Dearest.
Hillary is not well liked. Personally she's charming and makes friends easily. It doesn't come across to the public, though. Her presentation is wooden. No one can make the truth sound like a lie or an evasion like she can. So when she lies or evades people think she's always doing it. What about the emails? She certainly broke the rules and the law, I suppose. The election will effectively pardon her, which is OK by me.
Quote from: Todd on February 01, 2016, 06:11:59 PM
He didn't even wait until all the votes were counted. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/martin-omalley-suspends-his-campaign-218587)
I saw his little speech this morning, hilarious:
"I'm not withdrawing because of the lack of votes, I'm withdrawing because of illness: the voters are sick of me"! That really is a spot-on analysis, the first one he has made in months. :)
8)
Quote from: knight66 on February 02, 2016, 04:26:13 AM
Thanks Karl, it seems that the Cruz team did well in spending where it would be effective. Whereas Trump as president would make me want to distance myself....to Mars, for Cruz, perhaps Central Africa would be far enough.
Mike
As much as I dislike Trump and his politics, I would vote for him in a heartbeat in a 2 man race with Cruz.
8)
Quote from: knight66 on February 02, 2016, 04:26:13 AM
Thanks Karl, it seems that the Cruz team did well in spending where it would be effective. Whereas Trump as president would make me want to distance myself....to Mars, for Cruz, perhaps Central Africa would be far enough.
Mike
Yes, but you don't have to live here. We do.
My brother attended a Sanders rally, where someone asked "how are you going to do what you say you're going to do?" He sad "I won't, you will".
And of course he's right. If voters elect a Wall St candidate from either party, Wall St will "do it". If voters elect a candidate with no big money backing, it will be a massive thumb off the scale.
Voters must force change, and it doesn't end with the election, it starts there. Sanders promises that progressives will have a shot with him in the WH. A big obstacle will be, at least for a time, held in check.
Sanders will peak in N.H., and after that the boom will go bust.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2016, 05:17:00 AM
As much as I dislike Trump and his politics, I would vote for him in a heartbeat in a 2 man race with Cruz.
8)
I think I would experience an atrial fibrillation in such a case.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2016, 05:17:00 AM
As much as I dislike Trump and his politics, I would vote for him in a heartbeat in a 2 man race with Cruz.
8)
Non sanz droict.
Quote from: drogulus on February 02, 2016, 05:25:24 AM
Sanders will peak in N.H., and after that the boom will go bust.
That is a very reasonable expectation (and Hillary must be hoping, and machinationing). We shall see.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2016, 05:17:00 AM
As much as I dislike Trump and his politics, I would vote for him in a heartbeat in a 2 man race with Cruz.
8)
+1, even though With European eyes they are both from Mars.
Cruz should think on Presidents Santorum and Huckabee. They won Iowa.
Rubio should think on his climate change denialism, and how to pivot away from it if he gets the nomination. If he doesn't he gives a chunk of the electorate in the middle to Hillary. No Repub can give away more chunks.
Trump will eventually founder on his rhetorical extremism, Cruz on his genuine extremism. Rubio needs to navigate a narrow channel. It's doable for him. After he gets the nomination he can meet with the Florida mayors who selfishly want to keep their towns above water, and be "persuaded" that the Liberal Hoax is not so hoaxy as he had thought.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 02, 2016, 05:25:51 AM
I think I would experience an atrial fibrillation in such a case.
I damn near had one just writing that. :-\
8)
Quote from: knight66 on February 02, 2016, 04:15:38 AMCan someone explain to me please? The analysis on radio in the UK today was suggesting that we have seen the effective end of Trump.
The white trash vote wasn't big enough to carry Trump to victory in Iowa. It might be in New Hampshire.
Quote from: drogulus on February 02, 2016, 05:25:24 AM
My brother attended a Sanders rally, where someone asked "how are you going to do what you say you're going to do?" He sad "I won't, you will".
And of course he's right. If voters elect a Wall St candidate from either party, Wall St will "do it". If voters elect a candidate with no big money backing, it will be a massive thumb off the scale.
How charmingly naïve.
Quote from: The new erato on February 02, 2016, 05:54:27 AM
+1, even though With European eyes they are both from Mars.
Yes, I can see that, although there is a fair share of extremism in Europe too, as my friend in Zurich has recently apprised me.
Cruz isn't from Mars, the really sad thing is he is from Texas. He ran for senator here when our only moderate representative retired, not because he wanted to be a senator but because he saw Obama take that bridge to the presidency, which is his only interest. In the 4 years he has held that seat, he has not done 1 single thing for the people of this state except for bringing embarrassment with his constant demagoguery. He is the poster child for the Party of No.
In addition, I have no interest in a person's religion, I couldn't care less that he is a so-called Evangelical Christian. But he is using that as his qualification for office! So now I am interested because I have to be, and even though I already despised him, now he has made it a religious war. He has advocated carpet-bombing ISIS (to use his own words) which is the sort of policy which directly states that collateral damage doesn't matter (since they are Muslims anyway).
I have never understood the politics of hate. It is Un-American and against everything this country stands for. If this sort of cheap, rabble-rousing rhetoric actually carries this douchebag to the highest office in the Land, I will have to seriously consider alternatives. :-\
Oh wait, you said Mars? Ooops... 0:)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2016, 05:15:33 AM
I saw his little speech this morning, hilarious:
"I'm not withdrawing because of the lack of votes, I'm withdrawing because of illness: the voters are sick of me"!
That really is a spot-on analysis, the first one he has made in months. :)
8)
On the BBC site it used the term 'suspending' his campaign. Is that like hanging it precariously over the South Rim of the Grand Canyon?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2016, 05:17:00 AM
As much as I dislike Trump and his politics, I would vote for him in a heartbeat in a 2 man race with Cruz.
8)
That is as grisly a thought as I have seen expressed on this site.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on February 02, 2016, 06:43:32 AM
On the BBC site it used the term 'suspending' his campaign. Is that like hanging it procariously over the South Rim of the Grand Canyon?
:) I don't know. Rick Perry did the same thing a few months ago, and now he is talking about un-suspending it. So I suppose anything is possible. In Huckabee's case, I hope he meant suspending it until 2020... ;)
8)
Well, once Wiggy suspends himself, let's hope that the Evil Texan gets dumped. We have nutters here, but none I think who will get power any time soon and want to do the likes of carpet bomb areas of the Middle East, (now known as the Near East). Would the military follow that kind of instruction? 'I was just following orders' did not wash for the Germans after WWII.
Mike
Quote from: Todd on February 02, 2016, 06:35:50 AM
How charmingly naïve.
Of course such changes are naive, and it's thinking that reform is naive in advance of its enactment that makes you look smart. It can't happen, so right up to the point where it does happen, it won't. But Sanders is correct that politicians have to be pushed, even in the direction they want to go, mainly because they need help from other politicians who don't want to go that way but will if they're pushed, too. Consider also that it's not just a matter of what reformers want, it's the relative power of the BushClinton antireformists. The potential constituency for a pro growth policy isn't confined to left activists, it could be very broad, with Trumpists, labor, centrist Repubs, and most of the Dems. Sanders is only saying what FDR might have said: you have to make me do what I want to do.
I don't think Sanders can get the nomination. That's too bad, because I think he could win the general.
Krauthammer feels that only the top three should stay in the race; but Jeb is holding a town hall in the Granite State even as we speak.
Quote from: Janie Valencia & Hilary FungJeb Bush spent $2,800 per vote in Iowa and received less than 3 percent of the vote. ... That's about 18 times as much money as first-place winner spent for each vote he received.
Quote from: knight66 on February 02, 2016, 06:55:26 AM
Well, once Wiggy suspends himself, let's hope that the Evil Texan gets dumped.
He may get to see if Texan sand glows . . . .
Quote from: knight66 on February 02, 2016, 06:55:26 AM
Well, once Wiggy suspends himself, let's hope that the Evil Texan gets dumped. We have nutters here, but none I think who will get power any time soon and want to do the likes of carpet bomb areas of the Middle East, (now known as the Near East). Would the military follow that kind of instruction? 'I was just following orders' did not wash for the Germans after WWII.
Mike
Actually, I read an article just this morning from an Lieutenant General going on at length about what a heedless concept it all is. That said, the refusal to obey direct orders is the stuff of courts-martial and Hollywood movies.
I hope they would refuse. :-\
8)
My tone may have been light; but the question is serious. It would be a huge dilemma for the senior professionals to go along with it and the front line military may equally have qualms. Let's hope it never comes close.
Mike
They'd probably face a trial too, when the US loses a war and is invaded. . .
Quote from: knight66 on February 02, 2016, 07:07:38 AM
My tone may have been light; but the question is serious. It would be a huge dilemma for the senior professionals to go along with it and the front line military may equally have qualms. Let's hope it never comes close.
Mike
Quote from: North Star on February 02, 2016, 07:23:06 AM
They'd probably face a trial too, when the US loses a war and is invaded. . .
Hard to believe there is even reason to talk about this. I am dismayed that the subject was ever broached by someone aspiring to the highest level of authority. As I said earlier; the Politics of Hate. Is a Christian Jihad still called a Crusade? ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2016, 07:49:39 AM
Hard to believe there is even reason to talk about this. I am dismayed that the subject was ever broached by someone aspiring to the highest level of authority. As I said earlier; the Politics of Hate. Is a Christian Jihad still called a Crusade? ::)
8)
I believe it is spelled with a 'z' nowadays. 8)
Quote from: knight66 on February 02, 2016, 06:43:32 AM
On the BBC site it used the term 'suspending' his campaign. Is that like hanging it precariously over the South Rim of the Grand Canyon?
It is the difference between deleting your account and simply becoming a Missing Member.
Quote from: North Star on February 02, 2016, 08:05:23 AM
I believe it is spelled with a 'z' nowadays. 8)
That works for me. It will be called the Ted Cruzade. Hell, I'm surprised he hasn't already adopted that for his campaign bus signage... ::)
8)
www.loser.com
(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/56b084d8c08a80880e8be4d6-971-729/ted%20cruz%20speech.jpg)
Tail Gunner Ted
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Donald_Trump_star_Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame.JPG)
Trump has already won the Big One.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 02, 2016, 08:07:51 AM
It is the difference between deleting your account and simply becoming a Missing Member.
$:) ::)
Mike
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2016, 07:49:39 AM
Hard to believe there is even reason to talk about this. I am dismayed that the subject was ever broached by someone aspiring to the highest level of authority. As I said earlier; the Politics of Hate. Is a Christian Jihad still called a Crusade? ::)
8)
Populism leads down strange paths, Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford and Hearst all went down that road, and failed. Hearst latterly discovered his press influence probably exceeded the power he would have had as president. Murdoch certainly has a baleful grip on a lot of politicians.
Mike
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2016, 06:43:10 AM
Cruz isn't from Mars, the really sad thing is he is from Texas. He ran for senator here when our only moderate representative retired
I would add that as an underdog in the primary, his main campaign strategy was to attack the favorite (Dewhurst) for being a "moderate" (complete with ominous background music in the TV ads). Dewhurst was actually quite conservative, but elections are won and lost on labelling.
I wonder if sane Republicans are starting to regret their success in turning "liberal" into a pejorative, now that the same playbook is being used against them.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/f/f2/Pazuzu-statue.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120102232936)
Cruz persuades undecided voter to be "in here, with us".
Quote from: Pat B on February 02, 2016, 09:37:47 AM
I would add that as an underdog in the primary, his main campaign strategy was to attack the favorite (Dewhurst) for being a "moderate" (complete with ominous background music in the TV ads). Dewhurst was actually quite conservative, but elections are won and lost on labelling.
I wonder if sane Republicans are starting to regret their success in turning "liberal" into a pejorative, now that the same playbook is being used against them.
Yes, and even Dewhurst was a tad too conservative for me. I voted in the Republican primary that time precisely to vote against Tailgunner Ted. Don't suppose it helped. He just hopped on the Jesus Train and got the votes from those deluded souls who couldn't see past that to the devil within. This isn't a knock on religion, it's a knock on the Bible Belt more than anything else. There are a lot of people here who can't see past it... :-\
8)
Aye, US quadrennial politics does cast a lurid light on The American Church-Goer . . . .
I know SomeOne who is a Unitarian. She came home from church on Sunday and told me about the sermons. I really didn't need to know, it's all Save the Whales for all whale like beings, even tiny ones so long as they're not mosquito whales or microbe whales. There's a bias I detect towards cute animals like cow cats, less so for Gila Monsters.
(http://www.reptilesofaz.org/Graphics/Lizards/HELSUS-ATH-09.jpg)
A not entirely cute animal grudgingly accorded theological protection.
Another one bites the dust. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675)
What do you think: Jeb! drops out after the Granite State?
Quote from: karlhenning on February 03, 2016, 07:01:11 AM
What do you think: Jeb! drops out after the Granite State?
Jeb! has a totally disproportionate amount of cash lying around, and a very personal vendetta against Marco Rubio that's growing increasingly awkward. I think Jeb! stays in for a few more weeks.
Kasich said that if he does poorly in New Hampshire, he's "going home". Christie said he expects people to quit after NH, but did not name names.
Santorum is only a matter of time. He said he wanted to take a few days to pray first.
Ben Carson probably quits after South Carolina.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 03, 2016, 07:01:11 AM
What do you think: Jeb! drops out after the Granite State?
I give him until mid-March. Lots on money and hope springs eternal.
No election should be this entertaining. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-hits-cruz-fraud-calls-do-over-iowa-n510431)
Quote from: Todd on February 03, 2016, 08:12:17 AM
No election should be this entertaining. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-hits-cruz-fraud-calls-do-over-iowa-n510431)
We're getting our meltdown after all!
Quote from: Todd on February 03, 2016, 06:55:07 AM
Another one bites the dust. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675)
He wants to fight for the cause of liberty.....is liberty still delayed then?
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on February 03, 2016, 08:25:29 AM
He wants to fight for the cause of liberty.....is liberty still delayed then?
Mike
There is a substantial faction in this country which believe that any form of governmental regulation whatsoever is an infringement on their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (by God, constitutionally guaran-freaking-teed)
Of course, they sure are happy to have a bridge over that river, or a road to that city they want to go to. Speaking of roads, I should just be able to go the speed I want on that road, and I also don't believe in paying a tax on this liquor I drink while driving along... ::)
8)
So to obtain liberty you need to join government and be paid to salami-slice it into impotency, whilst continuing to draw the full salary, health insurances etc. A very bourgeois way of going about it. More arranging rather than fighting.
Mike
People like liberty in the abstract while distrusting the Trojan Horseyness of it. Shit in a liberty wrapper is still shit.
Quote from: knight66 on February 03, 2016, 08:37:28 AM
So to obtain liberty you need to join government and be paid to salami-slice it into impotency, whilst continuing to draw the full salary, health insurances etc. A very bourgeois way of going about it. More arranging rather than fighting.
Mike
Quote from: drogulus on February 03, 2016, 09:04:18 AM
People like liberty in the abstract while distrusting the Trojan Horseyness of it. Shit in a liberty wrapper is still shit.
There you have it. 2 very different ways of saying the same thing. In my view, we are all liberals in what we want from government and all conservatives when it comes to paying for it.
Although, to take Ernie's metaphor a step further towards reality: life is like a shit sandwich; the more bread you got, the less shit you have to eat. It's the American Way :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 03, 2016, 10:17:26 AM
In my view, we are all liberals in what we want from government and all conservatives when it comes to paying for it.
I fully subscribe to :
as much liberty as possible, as much constraint as neccesary, while being acutely aware that the degrees of possible and necessary vary heavily from country to country.
QuoteThe median American is no Nazi, but he is a moderate national socialist ... The same psychological force that thwarted the masses' wishes before 2012 continues to shield us. What is that force? For want of a better term, ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Populist policy preferences go hand-in-hand with intellectual laziness and intellectual impatience. As a result, populist voters fail to hold their leaders' feet to the proverbial fire - allowing wiser, elitist heads to prevail.
i.e. we are saved from the Trumps and Sanders of the world by lazy voters with a short attention span, otherwise we would look like Argentina
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/02/adhd_shall_save_1.html
New, expanded schedule: 4 upcoming Democratic debates. And with O'Malley's exit, it's Clinton-VS.-Sanders, head to head.
I have choir rehearsal tomorrow, so I cannot help missing this first one.
After 2 terms governed by a towel snapping retahd, then 2 terms of governance by a law professor who'd make a good hermit, what now? Cruz and Rubio, if it comes to that, will vie for the honor of being a human sacrifice to the Queen of Hell. Not that there's anything wrong with that....
Dubbing Hillary the Q of H might be a little grandiose considering what a monumental bore she is. Repubs can't bear being chewed to pieces by a nice old lady in a nice old lady pants suit, so she'll have to do. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
They're dropping like flies. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rick-santorum-ends-2016-run-endorses-marco-rubio-n510581)
Quote from: Todd on February 03, 2016, 05:00:35 PM
They're dropping like flies. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rick-santorum-ends-2016-run-endorses-marco-rubio-n510581)
About damn time! >:D
8)
Just change your leaders every time the wind changes, like we do in Oz.
We've had 5 in 5 years, good going I say- don't let 'em settle into anything they can only cause harm......
Outgoing PM Tony Abbott's words, "a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery"?
You gotta love the way pollies speak
Death of a Diacritic? (http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1779751-20160204-video-accent-circonflexe-ognon-nenufar-orthographe-reforme) (Okay, different sort of extinction . . . .)
The campaign would be aimed at "reshaping the Democratic Party," not upending it, said Sanders's close friend Sugarman. "The kind of socialism he is advocating, it's a kind of minimalist socialism." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/02/05/his-most-radical-move/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sandersdecider-12pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
A few Years ago Sanders talked for over 8 hours on the Senate floor, a filibuster. Today it's known as "the speech". A few of you may have heard of it. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
The Punishment Begins:
https://www.youtube.com/v/VLNKNq9soLE
Fair disclosure: a Fox News commentator 8)
The Quinnipiac University national poll shows Clinton's support has collapsed since the last survey in December, losing nearly 20 points to fall into a statistical tie with Sanders. Clinton is still popular with Democrats, but hard sentiment seems to be growing. Some 22 percent of Democrats hold unfavorable views of Clinton, more than double Sanders. The Vermont senator also holds the highest overall favorability among any candidate in either party at 44 percent and performs better in the general election matchup against all Republicans than Clinton. That's strong evidence that her electability argument isn't working.
Clinton's battering of Sanders in Thursday's debate suggests she is aware of her predicament. But she likely worsened her plight as she not only went scorched earth after Sanders but also made several head-scratching claims including that she was not part of the Democratic establishment. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/05/edge-iowa-loss-turns-down-trumps-volume-in-n-h.html)
National polls are useless at this stage. What matters now is that Hillary has a firewall in South Carolina. The last poll in late January had it Clinton 63% Sanders 33%. If things run true to form Sanders has picked up a bump to 38-40%, and a win in N.H. could move it up a little more. But I don't see Sanders going much above 40% in a two person race. He should lose by at best 55-45, more likely 60-40.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 05, 2016, 11:43:42 AMbut also made several head-scratching claims including that she was not part of the Democratic establishment.
It's also odd that Senator Sanders and Senator Cruz tout their anti-establishment/outsider bona fides. This entirely new phenomenon will probably not happen in future elections.
Wait just a minute! (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/05/iowa-democratic-party-altered-precinct-caucus-results-clinton-sanders) I thought only Republicans engaged in dirty tricks. Who does Hillary think she is? LBJ?
(Of course, it could be simple incompetence, in which case it would be all better.)
Quote from: Todd on February 05, 2016, 12:16:33 PM
It's also odd that Senator Sanders and Senator Cruz tout their anti-establishment/outsider bona fides. This entirely new phenomenon will probably not happen in future elections.
You have to be impressed that someone with a bachelor's from Princeton and a Harvard law degree, who clerked for Rehnquist, then spent his entire career working for major law firms, the Bush administration, and the Texas government before becoming a U.S. Senator, and whose campaign is funded by at least three $10M+ donors, can convince
anyone that he is an "outsider."
Quote from: Pat B on February 06, 2016, 09:26:02 AMYou have to be impressed that someone with a bachelor's from Princeton and a Harvard law degree
Insiders get law degrees from Yale.
Quote from: Todd on February 06, 2016, 09:32:35 AM
Insiders get law degrees from Yale.
Sometimes I forget to look at things from the perspective of a Republican.
God, I love identity politics! (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0)
Quote from: Todd on February 07, 2016, 08:00:47 AM
God, I love identity politics! (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0)
albright satanic... flabbergasted!!
Did anyone hear that the robot playing Rubio malfunctioned at the debate when Christie attacked him? Rubio became a classic broken record repeating the same programming over and over.
"Obama knows exactly what he's doing"
???
Saw Trump call out the audience of Jebby's donors, which then booed him... thaaat was actually kinda tasty... Trump knows how to relish disdain... I mean, you have to admit...
Jebby: "Please clap"
i HAPPENED ON THE cHOMSKY "talking aboiut "anarchy" for 5 mins. OK, now I now how the "elite" do it. They get you to a point where you're talking about something like anarchy----on a comy couch----with him drawling on like the Bueller guy----- oh, and he just bla blas on and on about -talking about a topic' where I wonder is he's ever seen anything resembling an atrocity, I mean, Chomsky sounds just like the lecturer-in-chief the way they just go on and on about their learning.
Sure, Chomsky uncovers just as much truth as Limbaugh does,LOL, wow, I just figured it out, didn't I???? LOL!! Left = Right....right??? SAME FLIPPIN BIRD!!!!!
The Left EQUALS The Right
THE WINGS ARE BOTH PART OF THE SAME BIRD.!!
IT'S THE SAME BIRD!!
Quote from: snyprrr on February 07, 2016, 08:56:18 AMRubio became a classic broken record repeating the same programming over and over.
It's called staying on message. Most professional politicians learn how to say the same thing over and over. Better politicians have a quiver full of rhetorical arrows to shoot. Rubio just needs to memorize a few more lines.
Quote from: Todd on February 07, 2016, 08:00:47 AM
God, I love identity politics! (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0)
Not me, hate 'em. Of course, I know that's what you meant. Sarcasm is wonderful :)
Speaking of which, the high point for me, several times over is when my guy, Chris Christie (I keep telling y'all) spanked Marco (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/chris-christie-marco-rubio-gop-debate.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-2&action=click&contentCollection=Politics®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article) (Short Pants) Rubio like the naughty little bitch he is. about time, too. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 07, 2016, 09:31:21 AM
my guy, Chris Christie (I keep telling y'all)
I was trying to forget. Do you live in New Jersey, Gurn?
Quote from: Daverz on February 07, 2016, 05:31:48 PM
I was trying to forget. Do you live in New Jersey, Gurn?
Nope. That argument doesn't work with me: I have Ted Cruz. You can't scare me with how bad someone else has it. :D
Actually, I live so far out in the country that I don't have any local TV, and all my satellite networks since 1995 have come out of NYC, so I see him a lot, since they treat Jersey (and Conn.) like part of their metroplex. So I see him regularly.
You have to remember what a weapons grade shitstorm the Republican field is: Christie looks brilliant in company like that.
8)
Hillary trailing Bernie among women in the Granite State, says Howie Kurtz.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 08, 2016, 06:53:29 AM
Hillary trailing Bernie among women in the Granite State, says Howie Kurtz.
there's a special place in hell for women who dont support hillary!!!!!!
Hillary's muddled message (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4741567823001/kurtz-hillarys-muddled-message/?playlist_id=2636605067001#sp=show-clips).
Quote from: snyprrr on February 08, 2016, 07:48:52 AM
there's a special place in hell for women who dont support hillary!!!!!!
Verily, they will feel ye Bern!
Quote from: snyprrr on February 07, 2016, 08:58:10 AM
The Left EQUALS The Right
THE WINGS ARE BOTH PART OF THE SAME BIRD.!!
IT'S THE SAME BIRD!!
Got it, the earth is round, the earth is flat, opinions differ, that's all, and as the phenomenally wise Thos. Friedman says, we just have to stop all this partisan bickering.
Those bimbos! 8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 07, 2016, 09:31:21 AM
Speaking of which, the high point for me, several times over is when my guy, Chris Christie (I keep telling y'all) spanked Marco (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/chris-christie-marco-rubio-gop-debate.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-2&action=click&contentCollection=Politics®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article) (Short Pants) Rubio like the naughty little bitch he is. about time, too. :)
Please read this (https://theintercept.com/2015/06/25/fort-dix-five-terror-plot-the-real-story/) before voting.
Oh fuck, the end really is nigh. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/)
Quote from: Todd on February 09, 2016, 06:01:07 PM
Oh fuck, the end really is nigh. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/)
My turn is coming up: Florida is a month away. I will vote for Sanders, because he is not Hillary.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 09, 2016, 06:20:24 PM
My turn is coming up: Florida is a month away. I will vote for Sanders, because he is not Hillary.
A sound reason. By the time the Oregon primary happens, it will be too late to cast a meaningful vote, and Oregon will go blue in November even if the Democrats nominate a soggy mop, so my vote then won't matter. Maybe time for a write-in.
Trump has 65,000 votes, Hillary 65,000, Sanders 100,000, with 68% of Dems counted, 70% of Repubs. This reflects the fragmented Repub field somewhat, but mostly the fact that Sanders in N.H. is by far the most popular candidate in either party. Sanders has more votes than Trump and Kasich combined. That's remarkable.
Quote from: drogulus on February 09, 2016, 07:20:45 PM
Trump has 65,000 votes, Hillary 65,000, Sanders 100,000, with 68% of Dems counted, 70% of Repubs. This reflects the fragmented Repub field somewhat, but mostly the fact that Sanders in N.H. is by far the most popular candidate in either party. Sanders has more votes than Trump and Kasich combined. That's remarkable.
Probably also reflects the fact that Sanders is, as they say in Brooklyn, a nextdoorikeh. Instead of a favorite son, a favorite nephew.
Quote from: Todd on February 09, 2016, 06:01:07 PM
Oh fuck, the end really is nigh. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/)
Quote from: BernieThey are throwing everything at me except the kitchen sink and I have the feeling that the kitchen sink is coming pretty soon as well.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 09, 2016, 06:20:24 PM
My turn is coming up: Florida is a month away. I will vote for Sanders, because he is not Hillary.
Indeed, that is reason enow.
So, what do we think? True to the thread's title, could El Tupé be sailing to the nomination?
Quote from: Dan BalzBut Trump moves to the next rounds with two advantages. After months of concentrating on individual battles in Iowa and New Hampshire, the campaign shifts gears into one in which the states come thick and fast.
"That benefits a guy with a dominant national lead," said independent analyst Matthew Dowd. "The only way that changes is if somebody disrupts him in South Carolina." That primary will be held Feb. 20.
Trump's other advantage is his fractured opposition. The longer the field includes four or five other candidates, Trump can win states with roughly the same one-third of the vote that brought him a big victory here.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 10, 2016, 04:28:03 AM
So, what do we think? True to the thread's title, could El Tupé be sailing to the nomination?
The prediction markets seem to be changing their collective minds. (https://electionbettingodds.com/) (Kind of calls into question the long-term value of a prediction market.)
If he gets it, who will be his running mate?
Palin!
Quote from: karlhenning on February 10, 2016, 05:53:26 AM
Palin!
(http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/images/smilies/banana.gif)
Kasich is getting his moment. In his favor is that he won't crack like Rubio. His disadvantage is that he's widely respected. Can he overcome that?
Ramesh Ponnuru makes some interesting points:
What's the Anti-Trump Strategy Now? (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-10/republicans-have-no-anti-trump-strategy-now)
This could indeed be an extinction level event for the GOP. If Trump can't be stopped because he has a third or more of the Repub voters under any circumstances and against any opponents, then all that's left to beat him is a united front of conservative opposition and that means Cruz.
Quote from: Todd on February 10, 2016, 05:47:16 AM
If he gets it, who will be his running mate?
It will have to be someone who'd make a plausible President if.........OK, scratch that.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 10, 2016, 05:53:26 AM
Palin!
Which one do you have in mind? I know which one I'd like to see.
Ben Carson did say he was open to being Trump's VP . . .
Quote from: North Star on February 10, 2016, 06:00:02 AM
(http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/images/smilies/banana.gif)
That banana is definitely feeling mavericky!
Quote from: karlhenning on February 10, 2016, 04:28:03 AM
So, what do we think? True to the thread's title, could El Tupé be sailing to the nomination?
Right now it looks like the Rs are headed towards a brokered convention. Christie, Carson, and probably Fiorina will drop out soon, and I think the last debate was a Howard Dean moment for Marco Rubio (which might take him a while to compute), but I don't expect their supporters to coalesce around any of the remaining candidates.
But he might actually win a brokered convention. If he has a plurality of delegates, then that gives him a very credible threat to run as an independent, which is a lot of leverage. And if the #2 finisher is Cruz, the establishment doesn't like him either. In that scenario their choices will be Trump, or their #3 finisher in a 3-way race with whichever D and Trump. The latter choice would look a lot like a punt.
On the D side, check this (http://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/) out. If Clinton wins the nomination without winning the primaries it could get very ugly.
I lean towards Bloomberg over any of the Rs and Ds. But the only way he could actually win would be a 3-way race with Trump or Cruz and Sanders (not a 4-way race with Trump).
Quote from: Pat B on February 10, 2016, 06:32:55 AM
On the D side, check this (http://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/) out. If Clinton wins the nomination without winning the primaries it could get very ugly.
Yes. The Coronation will not be televised.
The thread title could turn out more true than probably envisaged, particularly on the GOP side. Rallying around a candidate that very few really wants and believes able to carry the election simply because of the impossibilty to collect support around a alternative, seems like a recipe for disaster. However, the Democrats have their own potential bombs in their luggage, though there is till all reason to believe that they can be defused.
Quote from: drogulus on February 08, 2016, 11:56:21 AM
Got it, the earth is round, the earth is flat, opinions differ, that's all, and as the phenomenally wise Thos. Friedman says, we just have to stop all this partisan bickering.
If one's a Vampire
And the other's a Werewolf....
HEEEY!!
YOU'RE STILL THE FOOD FOR BOTH!!!!!!
TWO WINGS---IT'S THE SAME BIRD!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HE WHO COUNTS THE VOTES WINS
Diebold Electronic Voting Machines = Israeliiiiiiiiiiiii
drrrrr...........
http://www.youtube.com/v/3txJzdRDJRA
Quote from: The new erato on February 10, 2016, 07:05:36 AM
The thread title could turn out more true than probably envisaged, particularly on the GOP side.
I had the idea (some months ago (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif) ) that the GOP had indulged its nihilistic tendencies to the point that, as notorious shithead Thomas More might have warned, the devil would turn on them, the party being flat and all. So, it was envisaged.
That sentiment is I think Bolt's rather than More's. I have been thinking more The Bacchae.
Mike
Christie is about to go bye bye. If I'm Kasich I'm feeling prett-y prett-y good about now. Not that I believe he's going to
go all the way and win. What he'd need to stand a decent chance is for Bush and Rubio to go really soon. Hey, Bloomberg, don't run, endorse Kasich.
Quote from: knight66 on February 10, 2016, 09:23:48 AM
That sentiment is I think Bolt's rather than More's. I have been thinking more The Bacchae.
Mike
Oh, you're probably right. I did say "might have"....
Whichever; I hope the electorate regain their collective minds and step back from the abyss.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on February 10, 2016, 09:37:50 AM
Whichever; I hope the electorate regain their collective minds and step back from the abyss.
Mike
Since psychopathic lesbian murderousness isn't much of a negative these days, I think voters will see reason.
As for Bill, there may be a chemical solution. After all, we are not monsters....
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
It looks like I'm finally getting my long-held wish of seeing the Republican and Democratic parties get destroyed by their own voters. Time to break out the popcorn!
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 10, 2016, 12:41:24 PM
It looks like I'm finally getting my long-held wish of seeing the Republican and Democratic parties get destroyed by their own voters. Time to break out the popcorn!
That's a false symmetry. No matter what happens with Sanders or the next election, the Dems are a coherent national party that can govern.
Quote from: Pat B on February 10, 2016, 06:32:55 AMI lean towards Bloomberg over any of the Rs and Ds. But the only way he could actually win would be a 3-way race with Trump or Cruz and Sanders (not a 4-way race with Trump).
I can't seriously consider a man who wants Government to control the size of soft drinks.
Quote from: knight66 on February 10, 2016, 09:37:50 AM
Whichever; I hope the electorate regain their collective minds and step back from the abyss.
Voters are facing no abyss. Fortunately, presidents have only
influence domestically, and have to rely on Congress for funding, etc. Now, of course, with Obama having abandoned all semblance of legality in terms of military intervention overseas, various foreign lands could feel the practical manifestation of actual presidential
power. Even with all the bluster and promises, I see no candidate who would do much more than send some additional special forces and extra planes to the Middle East. Well, maybe they could move some troops from Kuwait to Iraq.
On the plus side for the Republicans, Fiorina and Christie have officially dropped out. A bit more thinning before Super Tuesday could reveal the real challenger to Trump. If Trump doesn't get majority victories going forward, he can be stopped.
Well, we do all rely on Hillary to restore the semblance of legality 8)
Trump: here is what he is clearly sanctioned in Aberdeen. THe item misses out on the most unpleasant example; that of an 80 year old woman whose water supply was cut off several years ago by Trump's contractors and who now has to obtain water manually. He really is a specil kind of shit.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/residents-fear-donald-trump-will-launch-1403310#mjhrMMm5FDSuVhpz.97
Mike
Bernie Sanders is the future of the Democratic Party (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10940718/bernie-sanders-future-demographics)
Quote from: knight66 on February 11, 2016, 04:04:36 AMTrump: here is what he is clearly sanctioned in Aberdeen. THe item misses out on the most unpleasant example; that of an 80 year old woman whose water supply was cut off several years ago by Trump's contractors and who now has to obtain water manually. He really is a specil kind of shit.
This trend is much bigger than Trump, and applies to the rich, left, right, and center. Here in Portland, we have no Trumps, but we have lesser evil men who engage in gentrification development projects, with the full backing and support of
very liberal/progressive politicians, which force poor people out of neighborhoods all the time. It even had the effect of making Portland a whiter city in 2010 than it was in 1990 (per the Census), the only major US city to have that happen. (The poorer minorities moved to the east side, the wealthier ones to the west side.) It is even embedded in the legal system. Kelo v. City of New London from 2005 allows the use of eminent domain for
private development. Trump is merely taking advantage of the system, and given that he's a public celebrity, he gets more attention.
Quote from: drogulus on February 11, 2016, 05:10:52 AM
Bernie Sanders is the future of the Democratic Party (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10940718/bernie-sanders-future-demographics)
That's wishful thinking. Kids grow up.
Quote from: Todd on February 11, 2016, 05:44:56 AM
That's wishful thinking. Kids grow up.
The point of the article is that a more ideological party is a real possibility, and might be the best move. How has Obama/Clinton centrism fared? No, Repub hand biting might require more of a "choice not an echo". The Repubs are at the fringe as things stand, the Dems are nowhere near that. They have room to go left and I think the article has a good point that they should use that room. If people want reform, offer it.
This isn't about Sanders, it's about a template for the future. Yes, kids grow up, like the Vietnam era Dems grew up and changed the party. They didn't grow up into Hubert Humphrey. The Sanders babies won't grow up to become Hillaryites.
Quote from: drogulus on February 11, 2016, 06:02:42 AMYes, kids grow up, like the Vietnam era Dems grew up and changed the party.
Yes, they drifted right and grew up to be or support Bill Clinton. They also stopped protesting after Nixon stopped the draft. Maybe Dems can take a page from his playbook and give college kids what they are clamoring for now - "free" tuition so they can drop out or study for 6, 7, 8, 9, 10+ years without consequence - and they will be placated. Handouts represent one type of reform, I guess.
I suspect Democrats will become more ideological, which, when combined with the increasing importance of racial politics going forward and substantially reduced fiscal policy options as transfer payments become even more important, means domestic politics will get even nastier. Bring it on.
Yes, that's what I want, a real fight. What sense does it make to work with Repubs whose program is never ever working with you? What has that got Obama? What will it get Hillary? If she won't fight, the party must be transformed from below to force her hand. I suspect it will happen. I think it should happen. Whether it produces better or worse results is an open question.
Quote from: Todd on February 11, 2016, 05:44:56 AM
This trend is much bigger than Trump, and applies to the rich, left, right, and center. Here in Portland, we have no Trumps, but we have lesser evil men who engage in gentrification development projects, with the full backing and support of very liberal/progressive politicians, which force poor people out of neighborhoods all the time. It even had the effect of making Portland a whiter city in 2010 than it was in 1990 (per the Census), the only major US city to have that happen. (The poorer minorities moved to the east side, the wealthier ones to the west side.) It is even embedded in the legal system. Kelo v. City of New London from 2005 allows the use of eminent domain for private development. Trump is merely taking advantage of the system, and given that he's a public celebrity, he gets more attention.
Well, yes, in London money is the only thing that talks in terms of building permissions, especially foreign money, and the Scottish government was supine. Trump comes over here and pisses on us and imagines we should enjoy it. I read recently that where his supporters are shown how his bankruptcies, unpaid debts and employment damaging behaviours have been explained to them; fewer feel inclined to vote for him. I hope my Government has woken up now. I think that Salmond's replacement has not yet caught the near inevitable celebrity fever.
Mike
Quote from: drogulus on February 11, 2016, 06:46:41 AM
Yes, that's what I want, a real fight.
Based on what you've written over the years, I'd have to disagree. You want a fight on certain things that you feel comfortable with. Are you ready for more frequent, more intense race baiting from both parties? It's coming.
Quote from: Florestan on February 11, 2016, 12:03:17 PM
Democracy is the political regime in which the citizen entrusts the public interests to those men to whom he would never entrust his private interests.
A moderately fancy sound-bite equivalent from a reactionary. Big whoop.
Incidentally, I would have entrusted some of my money to Mitt Romney. I just didn't have enough to invest.
Quote from: Todd on February 11, 2016, 05:36:43 PM
Based on what you've written over the years, I'd have to disagree. You want a fight on certain things that you feel comfortable with. Are you ready for more frequent, more intense race baiting from both parties? It's coming.
You may not get the fight you want either. Anyway
Helter Skelter won't save the Repubs. As for the Dems indulgence of identity politics, practically its unavoidable. I don't care for it. And I particularly don't think labeling people who disagree as racist/sexist/homophobes on the flimsiest evidence is kosher. I played the role of not so innocent bystander when a particularly poisonous version of this conflict tore though the New Atheist movement a few years back. So actually I have a fairly educated opinion of what a witch hunt looks like.
I doubt witch hunting will be a big factor. Repubs were innocent until proved guilty by their own actions. What do you want, a mistrial? Why bother, the punishment is being known for what they are, what they insist on being taken for. If they're your guys, the stink's on you.
I saw it on Facebook, so it must be true:QuoteEveryone who knows Hillary trusts her.
This seems to have slipped away, unnoticed
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/carly-fiorina-drops-out-suspends-campaign/
Okay: who can name all ten of those who have now dropped out of the GOP primarypalooza? 8)
Quote from: drogulus on February 11, 2016, 08:03:04 PMYou may not get the fight you want either.
I like all political combat, so I will get what I want: Discord between the parties.
I have to say, you are on a different wave length, with helter skelter, witchhunts, etc. When I talk about race baiting, I mean both the typical Democratic accusation of racism, as well as Lee Atwater style agitation.
Now, back to this race. Last night I learned two main things:
1.) My debate viewing limit is about 20 minutes for either party. After that, my mind wanders.
2.) Democrats' magic number is $100 billion/year. Both Sanders and Hillary claimed that amount in annual revenue and/or savings each year that can be spent on various programs, most notably health care. Details were fuzzy to the point of nonexistence, almost hinting at the politicians just making things up, not that they would do that.
Apparently, Bernie is also innumerate and or completely clueless as to how the criminal justice system works. He said during his first term, the US would no longer imprison more people than any other country on earth. That would require about 500K prisoners being released in a penal system where about 200K are federal prisoners. Surely, Bernie knows presidents cannot simply issue dictates to states to release state prisoners. Right? Well, maybe not. But his supporters seem to include a disproportionate number of people who just like nice sounding things.
Quote from: Todd on February 12, 2016, 05:43:01 AM
But his supporters seem to include a disproportionate number of people who just like nice sounding things.
What, you mean like, English horns? 8)
Quote from: Todd on February 12, 2016, 05:43:01 AMApparently, Bernie is also innumerate and or completely clueless as to how the criminal justice system works. He said during his first term, the US would no longer imprison more people than any other country on earth. That would require about 500K prisoners being released in a penal system where about 200K are federal prisoners. Surely, Bernie knows presidents cannot simply issue dictates to states to release state prisoners. Right? Well, maybe not. But his supporters seem to include a disproportionate number of people who just like nice sounding things.
I suspect he meant that the number of people
put in prison per year in the US would go down. Obviously it's still bloody unlikely that the rate could drop that much so suddenly.
Quote from: North Star on February 12, 2016, 06:25:55 AMI suspect he meant that the number of people put in prison per year in the US would go down.
Here's what he said:
"Here's my promise: At the end of my first term as president we will not have more people in jail than any other country"*
If one uses the lexical definition of the words he used, or even more flexible common usage, he promised to reduce the prison population to be lower than China's. If so, he lives in la-la land. If he meant something else, he's a typical dishonest politician. (I suppose he may not actually know what he means to say - that's certainly a very real possibility.)
* Here's the full blurb:
"We have got to make sure that local police departments look like the communities they serve in their diversity. And, where we are failing abysmally is in the very high rate of recidivism we see. People are being released from jail without the education, without the job training, without the resources that they need to get their lives together, then they end up -- we're shocked that they end up back in jail again. So, we have a lot of work to do.
But, here is a pledge I've made throughout this campaign, and it's really not a very radical pledge. When we have more people in jail, disproportionately African American and Latino, than China does, a communist authoritarian society four times our size. Here's my promise, at the end of my first term as president we will not have more people in jail than any other country.
We will invest in education, and jobs for our kids, not incarceration and more jails."Not only will the US reduce its prison population by 500K, but police forces will become more racially diverse, because, as all left-leaning sorts know, the race of police officers is the determining factor in their ability to justly police. This, of course, requires implementing straight-up quotas in public employee hiring. That's another long-standing dream of the left, though they do not want to stop at public employees.
Alright, that is indeed unambiguous, and not going to happen. Thanks.
Yesterday, I had to smile as I listened to John Lewis' endorsement of Hillary and smackdown of Bernie.
https://www.youtube.com/v/CZ7GyYP9WAA
Quote from: Todd on February 12, 2016, 07:07:01 AM
If one uses the lexical definition of the words he used, or even more flexible common usage, he promised to reduce the prison population to be lower than China's. If so, he lives in la-la land. If he meant something else, he's a typical dishonest politician. (I suppose he may not actually know what he means to say - that's certainly a very real possibility.)
Maybe he plans to negotiate with China to massively increase
their prison population.
Well, this news will add a new dimension to this election year . . . (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35571868)
Quote from: Todd on February 13, 2016, 01:43:02 PM
Well, this news will add a new dimension to this election year . . . (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35571868)
Holy shit. That's easily as important as who becomes the next POTUS.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 13, 2016, 02:26:10 PM
Holy shit. That's easily as important as who becomes the next POTUS.
It will be interesting to see how long Obama takes to name a successor, and when confirmation hearings might take place. Before or after the conventions? Will it impact presidential debate schedules? Will Republicans obstruct as never before?
Quote from: Todd on February 13, 2016, 02:42:54 PM
It will be interesting to see how long Obama takes to name a successor, and when confirmation hearings might take place..... Will Republicans obstruct as never before?
From what I see sprayed across my Twitter feed; the answer is a resounding yes. Nice to know thy will toil at something I suppose.
Mike
Quote from: Todd on February 13, 2016, 02:42:54 PM
It will be interesting to see how long Obama takes to name a successor, and when confirmation hearings might take place. Before or after the conventions? Will it impact presidential debate schedules? Will Republicans obstruct as never before?
"Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader and Republican of Kentucky, backing the sentiments of Senator Ted Cruz, said in a statement that the next president, not President Obama, should appoint a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."
Does the Constitution forbid the president from nominating a successor in the last year of his administration? First I heard of it.
Balderdash.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 13, 2016, 02:51:50 PMDoes the Constitution forbid the president from nominating a successor in the last year of his administration? First I heard of it.
No, but the Senate must offer "advice and consent", and consent may be withheld by the Senate. The political angle is more interesting than normal depending on who does become president. If Hillary wins, will the Senate face a more appealing nominee? If Republicans do block the process now, do they destroy their Senate majority in the process? (Congressional majorities are more important than the presidency in my view.) Not that they'll ask me, but I'd maneuver hearings on the nominee(s) until after the conventions, and push the final vote as close to election day as practicable while still ensuring the court operates on the first Monday in October. If needed, perhaps one or two nominees' reputations and/or careers could be demolished in the process, but that's politics.
If the court is hobbled, that means a short period with 4-4 votes on contentious issues, which in practice means lower court rulings would stand. Depending on which appellate court is involved, that could be good or bad for Democrats or Republicans.
As I wrote before, this adds a new dimension to this election year.
"We don't want Obama to do this," rather than, "the President shouldn't."
Quote from: Todd on February 12, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Yesterday, I had to smile as I listened to John Lewis' endorsement of Hillary and smackdown of Bernie.
https://www.youtube.com/v/CZ7GyYP9WAA
Lewis has walked this back somewhat:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/john-lewis-berne-sanders-soften
It was a cheapshot to begin with. Bernie never claimed to be a leader or important in the movement.
Quote from: Daverz on February 13, 2016, 03:44:18 PMIt was a cheapshot to begin with.
Which is why I smiled as I watched it.
Quote from: Todd on February 13, 2016, 03:50:33 PM
Which is why I smiled as I watched it.
A cheapshot I forgive him for. The man took blows to the head on the Edmund Pettis bridge for all of us.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 13, 2016, 02:51:50 PM
"Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader and Republican of Kentucky, backing the sentiments of Senator Ted Cruz, said in a statement that the next president, not President Obama, should appoint a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."
Does the Constitution forbid the president from nominating a successor in the last year of his administration? First I heard of it.
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he [McConnell] said.
No surprise that the Senate Rs will spend the next 11 months obstructing everything they can, but what an idiotic way of expressing that. Maybe somebody should remind him that the American people elected Barack Obama for this purpose. Twice.
Also have to wonder whether having a SCOTUS vacancy at the forefront of a Presidential campaign really benefits Republicans.
The best thing Obama can do is nominate a highly regarded jurist and insist on regular order, no speed up or slow down, just handled in a timely manner. Let the obstructionists obstruct and be seen doing it. But you know, they might not. The bright light of the election might send the cockroaches scurrying for cover. They might "reason" that this isn't the time to make trouble.
Quote from: Pat B on February 13, 2016, 04:18:40 PM
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he [McConnell] said.
No surprise that the Senate Rs will spend the next 11 months obstructing everything they can, but what an idiotic way of expressing that. Maybe somebody should remind him that the American people elected Barack Obama for this purpose. Twice.
Also have to wonder whether having a SCOTUS vacancy at the forefront of a Presidential campaign really benefits Republicans.
That's just the kind of courageous statement I'd expect from the cockroach-in-chief. On behalf of America, I thank him.
Quote from: Todd on February 13, 2016, 03:04:46 PM
No, but the Senate must offer "advice and consent", and consent may be withheld by the Senate. The political angle is more interesting than normal depending on who does become president. If Hillary wins, will the Senate face a more appealing nominee? If Republicans do block the process now, do they destroy their Senate majority in the process? (Congressional majorities are more important than the presidency in my view.) Not that they'll ask me, but I'd maneuver hearings on the nominee(s) until after the conventions, and push the final vote as close to election day as practicable while still ensuring the court operates on the first Monday in October. If needed, perhaps one or two nominees' reputations and/or careers could be demolished in the process, but that's politics.
If the court is hobbled, that means a short period with 4-4 votes on contentious issues, which in practice means lower court rulings would stand. Depending on which appellate court is involved, that could be good or bad for Democrats or Republicans.
As I wrote before, this adds a new dimension to this election year.
It's a foregone conclusion that Republicans will block any Obama nomination. They've been blocking his ambassadorships, judges, etc., for years. But in a Court where so many decisions have been decided 5-4, are we to risk a full year where the Court is basically inert?
Hillary: "The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."
Quote from: drogulus on February 13, 2016, 04:37:34 PMThat's just the kind of courageous statement I'd expect from the cockroach-in-chief. On behalf of America, I thank him.
Mitch McConnell is great. That he elicits a phrase like "cockroach-in-chief" from a blind partisan is proof of his greatness.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 13, 2016, 04:43:45 PMHillary: "The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."
Such a touching plea for adherence to the Constitution from a woman who supported and helped formulate unconstitutional military policies.
Quote from: Todd on February 13, 2016, 04:56:35 PM
. . . from a woman who supported and helped formulate unconstitutional military policies.
Irrelevant.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 13, 2016, 05:12:08 PM
Irrelevant.
No, completely relevant. Hillary's attempt at high-mindedness as it pertains to what she considers "constitutional responsibility" is undermined by her demonstrated willingness to ignore the same document when supporting and formulating unconstitutional and illegal military actions. In short, she is a hypocrite.
Quote from: Todd on February 13, 2016, 05:15:37 PM
No, completely relevant. Hillary's attempt at high-mindedness as it pertains to what she considers "constitutional responsibility" is undermined by her demonstrated willingness to ignore the same document when supporting and formulating unconstitutional and illegal military actions. In short, she is a hypocrite.
No, it is not relevant, Todd. It's ad hominem argument. What Clinton may or may have not done otherwise does not dispel the validity of her position on this particular point.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 13, 2016, 05:29:10 PM
No, it is not relevant, Todd. It's ad hominem argument. What Clinton may or may have not done otherwise does not dispel the validity of her position on this particular point.
Yes, it is relevant. Her position on matters constitutional is, like the Republicans', political in nature. That is not ad hominem; that is a recognition of the nature of politics and a person running for the office in which an elastic interpretation of the Constitution presents real-world dangers. I find it difficult to believe that you take what she said at face value or some type of objective pronouncement, though maybe you did.
Besides, her interpretation is but one interpretation. The Senate must consent to any nominee. If it does not, it does not. That may not be constitutionally irresponsible.
Quote from: Todd on February 13, 2016, 05:37:24 PM
Yes, it is relevant. Her position on matters constitutional is, like the Republicans', political in nature. That is not ad hominem; that is a recognition of the nature of politics and a person running for the office in which an elastic interpretation of the Constitution presents real-world dangers. I find it difficult to believe that you take what she said at face value or some type of objective pronouncement, though maybe you did.
Besides, her interpretation is but one interpretation. The Senate must consent to any nominee. If it does not, it does not. That may not be constitutionally irresponsible.
If the same statement had been made by someone of peerless Constitutional rectitude, would you dispute it? Your argument is based on the character of the person making the statement: she's a hypocrite, quoth Todd. Ad hominem by definition.
I don't what's more fun, this or the Repub debate. Donald going after Jeb! is too delish for words. Or the ad that is now playing in the background with the Verdi Dies Irae.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 13, 2016, 05:42:34 PMIf the same statement had been made by someone of peerless Constitutional rectitude, would you dispute it? Your argument is based on the character of the person making the statement: she's a hypocrite, quoth Todd. Ad hominem by definition.
Hillary is a candidate who helped formulate unconstitutional and illegal actions while holding an official position of influence. (This assumes, of course, one believes pursuing a policy of removing an existing head of state without an AUMF or any other Congressional mandate is unconstitutional and illegal. I'm not even concerned about international law here.) This actual behavior calls into question her judgment on constitutional matters. This is the case whether or not I use the word "hypocrite" to describe her.
Perhaps you can provide a statement substantially similar to hers uttered by a person of peerless Constitutional rectitude?
Quote from: Todd on February 13, 2016, 05:52:08 PM
Hillary is a candidate who helped formulate unconstitutional and illegal actions while holding an official position of influence. (This assumes, of course, one believes pursuing a policy of removing an existing head of state without an AUMF or any other Congressional mandate is unconstitutional and illegal. I'm not even concerned about international law here.) This actual behavior calls into question her judgment on constitutional matters. This is the case whether or not I use the word "hypocrite" to describe her.
Perhaps you can provide a statement substantially similar to hers uttered by a person of peerless Constitutional rectitude?
I've said as much as I care to on the subject.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Islington_Punch_and_Judy.JPG)
Let's see, McConnell "thinks" voters should have a voice, but somehow also thinks they didn't when they elected Obama. But wouldn't having a voice apply equally to all Presidents? And how would having a voice affect timing? How do you decide which Presidents have 3 years or 7 years to give voice to America's choice and which ones have 4 or 8 years? Is there a principled means of deciding or is it cockroach-y all the way down?
Quote from: drogulus on February 14, 2016, 06:51:23 AMBut wouldn't having a voice apply equally to all Presidents?
No. See below.
Quote from: drogulus on February 14, 2016, 06:51:23 AMIs there a principled means of deciding
Yes. The principle is to impede Obama on everything, all the time.
I have to think Obama has nominees in mind - given that the Notorious RBG looks like walking death, he's probably had them queued up for years - so now it's his turn to make a move. How soon will he announce a nominee? While Republicans blocking a nomination can be bad for them, a SCOTUS nomination will have the effect of putting more attention on Obama, which will be good and bad for both parties. This summer could be among the awesomest ever, politically speaking.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 13, 2016, 02:51:50 PM
"Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader and Republican of Kentucky, backing the sentiments of Senator Ted Cruz, said in a statement that the next president, not President Obama, should appoint a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."
Does the Constitution forbid the president from nominating a successor in the last year of his administration? First I heard of it.
They may not have thought this through.
The court was in effect liberals 4 conservatives 4 and Justice Kennedy who sometimes goes conservative.
Now at best the conservatives will get ties (which means either affirm the lower court or wait to rehear when the court is back to full complement), or be definitely outvoted 5-3.
And this situation would last for at least the next 12 months (assuming Obama's replacement nominates someone on Jan 21, 2017 and that person is confirmed at the speed of light in Senate terms).
And mind you, Scalia was the most effective writer on the court, the one best able to state the conservative view, and slip in some quote worth snark while he was doing so. Not many people available to truly fill his shoes.
McConnell is placing a triple bet, of which only the first component is a safe bet.
1)The GOP will maintain a safe hold on the Senate
2) A conservative president will be elected in November
3) Said president will nominate a truly conservative judge (like Scalia was) and get him through the Senate.
As opposed to Obama nominating someone now, in a state of political weakness.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 14, 2016, 12:01:12 PM
McConnell is placing a triple bet, of which only the first component is a safe bet.
1)The GOP will maintain a safe hold on the Senate
2) A conservative president will be elected in November
3) Said president will nominate a truly conservative judge (like Scalia was) and get him through the Senate.
I don't think that's it. I see McConnell as playing out a strategy that continuously trades off the future for a win now. He stuck Obama with a default conservative fiscal policy that had to fail, and in the process educate the country about just how dreadful "shrink to grow" really is. How did he know shrinkonomics would be this bad? We'll maybe he did or he didn't, but it was what Obama didn't want and that was the point, the short term win at any cost to the country, to the reputation of Congress, or his own rotten self.
The Supreme Court fight will be the same, frustrate Obama for a short term win and pay the consequences later. It's all part of the extinction dynamic, the demographic decline of the base, the inability to appeal to the people you hate, so short term is it baby. Who knows if there will even be a long term?
Have you thought of immigrating to somewhere else....................
Quote from: EddieRUKiddingVarese on February 14, 2016, 03:30:39 PM
Have you thought of immigrating to somewhere else....................
What, leave the land of the free and the home of the brave?
O Canada, if you must.......
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 13, 2016, 04:43:45 PM
Hillary: "The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."
Well, that's just the usual b.s. that Hillary throws our way on a regular basis. Actually, most of the politicians are doing like-wise. Obama should do this or that, the Senate is required to whatever.
There are no shoulds and very little in the way of requirements. Obama has the right to nominate in his last year; he will or he won't. If he does, the Senate can do what it likes with the nomination. I think it's likely that Obama will nominate and that the Senate will kick the name to the curb.
Quote from: Sammy on February 14, 2016, 05:10:48 PM
I think it's likely that Obama will nominate and that the Senate will kick the name to the curb.
Sounds about right.
Quote from: EddieRUKiddingVarese on February 14, 2016, 05:03:19 PM
O Canada, if you must.......
Canadians move here (Alex Trebek, the Biebs), not the other way around. We only used to move there to escape the draft. :)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 14, 2016, 05:16:01 PM
Canadians move here (Alex Trebek, the Biebs), not the other way around. We only used to move there to escape the draft. :)
Jeopardy and Justin Bieber, the Canadians are a clever lot. Are you sure they moved Voluntarily?
The Repubs might think twice. Obama will nominate a respected moderate. Srinivasan, the likely nominee, was confirmed 97-0 in 2013 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. For Repubs it won't get better. The Queen of Hell will get who she wants when Ginsburg steps down. Hey Mitch, let's play two!
Quote from: EddieRUKiddingVarese on February 14, 2016, 06:09:36 PM
. . . . Justin Bieber, the Canadians are a clever lot. . . .
Stop there.
Interesting rumor going around that Justice Scalia recommended Elena Kagan for the court. It makes sense - in terms of writing style, she comes closest to his verve and dashing argumentation.
Quote from: Brian on February 15, 2016, 08:35:53 AM
Interesting rumor going around that Justice Scalia recommended Elena Kagan for the court. It makes sense - in terms of writing style, she comes closest to his verve and dashing argumentation.
I believe this is the source of the "rumor": http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/).
Assuming it's true, and I have no reason to believe it's not, it's not surprising at all. Scalia repeatedly said in interviews and speeches that he loved to argue. Can't argue much with people you agree with, and at that level, the smarter the better.
I have to say, I've been most amused by the bile and hatred I've seen in various online comments sections from lefties regarding Scalia's death. It gives me hope for the future.
(http://img2-3.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/150406/hookers-1024.jpg)
Apparently a bit dated, originating from mid-last year, but this is getting recycled in the press now. Did Bill secure the endorsement?
Quote from: Todd on February 15, 2016, 08:59:25 AM
I have to say, I've been most amused by the bile and hatred I've seen in various online comments sections from lefties regarding Scalia's death. It gives me hope for the future.
What hope do you see in this? I just find it depressing. The country seems polarized to a dangerous extent.
Quote from: Todd on February 15, 2016, 08:59:25 AM
I have to say, I've been most amused by the bile and hatred I've seen in various online comments sections from lefties regarding Scalia's death.
Comments sections are usually toxic. Even the vaunted Washington Post has comments that are usually a toxic sludge of racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. So I don't think one should make any conclusions from comments.
But isn't refraining from saying what we really think of the recently dead that Political Correctness thing we keep hearing is so pernicious. I've never accepted the custom of not speaking ill of the dead, especially a public persona like Scalia. There are some nice things that can be said about him (he seemed to have a good sense of humor), but at the end of the day, Scalia was an extreme right-wing asshole who did real damage to the country.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 15, 2016, 11:06:00 AMWhat hope do you see in this?
Hope for future entertainment, and low-quality Democratic politicians who will attempt to cater to such people. These candidates will, or should, make easy targets.
Quote from: Daverz on February 15, 2016, 11:39:21 AMI've never accepted the custom of not speaking ill of the dead, especially a public persona like Scalia.
Your word choice is intriguing. I assume you selected the word persona for a reason. That's a critical distinction, at least for me. I've read comments about not just Scalia's decisions and opinions, but comments attacking him for reasons as variable as the number of children he had to his weight to his religion. I get disliking his opinions, but actually hating him as a person is rather silly. He's dead. Everyone who is alive won. Time to move on to a battle among the living to replace him. If people choose to speak ill of the dead, that's fine by me, but I've never seen much of a point to it since I'm not politically active, and therefore have nothing tangible to gain. Sure, a dead opponent may come in handy at some point in the future, but right after they die, not so much. Of course, I also don't care enough about political figures as people to dwell on them enough to actively like or dislike them as people since I only know about their public selves.
I disagree about Scalia causing harm, and at the very least, when he was on the losing side, he forced the winning side to sharpen their thinking and writing, and his dissents have value. Even my uber-liberal con law professor way back when admitted that Scalia helped keep liberal jurists sharper. SCOTUS must have sharp conservative voices. Nothing is worse that ideological uniformity in public institutions.
Incidentally, all I draw from comments sections is entertainment, and occasionally, an entertaining limerick.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on February 14, 2016, 12:01:12 PM
They may not have thought this through.
McConnell is placing a triple bet, of which only the first component is a safe bet.
1)The GOP will maintain a safe hold on the Senate
2) A conservative president will be elected in November
3) Said president will nominate a truly conservative judge (like Scalia was) and get him through the Senate.
As opposed to Obama nominating someone now, in a state of political weakness.
Not thinking things through is par for the course for McConnell.
The Senate looks like a toss-up. There are a lot of R-held seats in purple states, and they look especially vulnerable in Illinois and Wisconsin. The presidential election will boost turnout compared to 2010, and being the undercard to Trump or Cruz could be uncomfortable for the likes of Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Kelly Ayotte. (Toomey endorsed Rubio just days before the latter's wiring malfunctioned.)
I think McConnell made a strategic blunder in obviously politicizing the nomination up-front, as opposed to waiting for it and then pretending his opposition is about the nominee's record or character. The only explanation I can think of is that he's worried about keeping his leadership position next year. It will be interesting to see what effect that has, if any.
The worst-case scenario for McConnell will be to successfully obstruct Obama (which will ensure that the vacancy is a major issue in the Presidential election), fail to capture the White House, lose the Senate while pushing his caucus further away from the center, then rely on the filibuster to prevent a Democratic nominee immediately after an election in which that specific nomination was a major issue
because of the Rs' own actions.
Given the state of the R Presidential primary, I'm not even sure what the best-case scenario for McConnell is.
I am assuming that he is not attempting to sabotage his own party, though there are certain advantages to being the minority party.
Quote from: Todd on February 15, 2016, 12:13:36 PM
Your word choice is intriguing. I assume you selected the word persona for a reason. That's a critical distinction, at least for me.
Classic Todd. Always closely parsing what others say to reflect his own resentments. Please just fuck off, I'm not interested in playing.
EDIT: Sorry, that was uncalled for for just the usual nonsense on this thread. Was misdirecting some stupid family shit I'm dealing at the moment.
EDIT: And no, I wasn't referring to Scalia's
person, but to his
public persona, the kulturkampf trolling he liked to indulge in in written opinions and public appearances.
Quote from: Daverz on February 15, 2016, 11:39:21 AM
But isn't refraining from saying what we really think of the recently dead that Political Correctness thing we keep hearing is so pernicious. I've never accepted the custom of not speaking ill of the dead, especially a public persona like Scalia. There are some nice things that can be said about him (he seemed to have a good sense of humor), but at the end of the day, Scalia was an extreme right-wing asshole who did real damage to the country.
I can't recall any damage he's done to the U.S. I sure wouldn't want all the Justices to have the same legal, social and political views. Scalia was an "originalist", and that's a position that is as viable as any other I've heard about.
Quote from: Daverz on February 15, 2016, 11:39:21 AM
Scalia was an extreme right-wing asshole
Sounds like a man after my own heart. I should have really liked to buy him a beer or two.
Quote from: Pat B on February 15, 2016, 12:21:08 PM
Not thinking things through is par for the course for McConnell.
The Senate looks like a toss-up. There are a lot of R-held seats in purple states, and they look especially vulnerable in Illinois and Wisconsin. The presidential election will boost turnout compared to 2010, and being the undercard to Trump or Cruz could be uncomfortable for the likes of Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Kelly Ayotte. (Toomey endorsed Rubio just days before the latter's wiring malfunctioned.)
I think McConnell made a strategic blunder in obviously politicizing the nomination up-front, as opposed to waiting for it and then pretending his opposition is about the nominee's record or character. The only explanation I can think of is that he's worried about keeping his leadership position next year. It will be interesting to see what effect that has, if any.
The worst-case scenario for McConnell will be to successfully obstruct Obama (which will ensure that the vacancy is a major issue in the Presidential election), fail to capture the White House, lose the Senate while pushing his caucus further away from the center, then rely on the filibuster to prevent a Democratic nominee immediately after an election in which that specific nomination was a major issue because of the Rs' own actions.
Given the state of the R Presidential primary, I'm not even sure what the best-case scenario for McConnell is.
I am assuming that he is not attempting to sabotage his own party, though there are certain advantages to being the minority party.
McConnell is not acting out of concern for the immediate present out of short-sightedness, but more likely because he sees clearly how bleak the long term outcomes are. Preserving his leadership requires that he keep one step ahead of of the maniacs he enabled. These people devour their former leaders at an alarming rate.
Quote from: Daverz on February 15, 2016, 12:35:52 PM
Classic Todd. Always closely parsing what others say to reflect his own resentments. Please just fuck off, I'm not interested in playing.
OK, so you don't, or can't, make the distinction. Can't say I'm surprised.
Quote from: drogulus on February 15, 2016, 12:59:47 PM
McConnell is not acting out of concern for the immediate present out of short-sightedness, but more likely because he sees clearly how bleak the long term outcomes are. Preserving his leadership requires that he keep one step ahead of of the maniacs he enabled. These people devour their former leaders at an alarming rate.
Yes, that's what I meant when I said: "the only explanation I can think of is that he's worried about keeping his leadership position next year."
But how many days of their tolerance does this stunt buy him?
Rubio goofs again, shows Vancouver as an example of a beautiful American city
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/marco-rubio-campaign-ad-vancouver-1.3449589
and yes, Canada, particularly out west, has had its number of eccentric politicians.
From 2012:
(https://images.newrepublic.com/0dbea8429d2291674153d6aff711237ac768b2f7.jpeg)
The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia (https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism)
By Richard A. Posner
From the TNR blog today:
There's no way President Obama gets his Supreme Court nominee through the Senate.
It just isn't happening, despite some wishful thinking on the part of Democrats like Chuck Schumer who believe voters will be incensed by Republican obstructionism. Even if Democrats nominate a guy who was sent to a federal appellate court on a 97-0 Senate vote, even if they thoroughly discredit the bogus notion that it is "common practice" for presidents to refrain from making Supreme Court appointments in election years, and even if all this hurts Republicans in the fall, it doesn't change the basic dynamic of conservative politics, which is dominated by an angry, revanchist base.
As Scott Lemieux argues in the New Republic, citing recent elections: "Actions that are bad for the Republican Party as a whole aren't necessarily bad for individual Republican members of Congress." All the incentives lie in preventing Obama from putting a liberal on the court—no one gets points for being a deal-maker or respecting the actual words of the Constitution.
Will Dodd-Frank/Big Banks become a hot topic once again? (http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/blog/banking/2016/02/minneapolis-fed-ceo-kashkari-banks-too-big-to-fail.html) And is Neel angling for Treasury, or does he want Yellen's job?
Experience as a bailer out isn't such a bad thing. Who would know better?
(http://img.thegearpage.net/board/data/avatars/l/132/132769.jpg?1432055263)
Our national network showed this Matt Frei documentary about Trump; recommended.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-mad-world-of-donald-trump/on-demand/63576-001
http://alistairreignblog.com/2016/01/29/full-documentary-the-mad-world-of-trump-with-matt-frei/
Some hints at a few actual policies of his can be deduced from here, but not much:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Quote from: drogulus on February 16, 2016, 06:10:23 AM
From the TNR blog today:
There's no way President Obama gets his Supreme Court nominee through the Senate.
It just isn't happening, despite some wishful thinking on the part of Democrats like Chuck Schumer who believe voters will be incensed by Republican obstructionism. Even if Democrats nominate a guy who was sent to a federal appellate court on a 97-0 Senate vote, even if they thoroughly discredit the bogus notion that it is "common practice" for presidents to refrain from making Supreme Court appointments in election years, and even if all this hurts Republicans in the fall, it doesn't change the basic dynamic of conservative politics, which is dominated by an angry, revanchist base.
As Scott Lemieux argues in the New Republic, citing recent elections: "Actions that are bad for the Republican Party as a whole aren't necessarily bad for individual Republican members of Congress." All the incentives lie in preventing Obama from putting a liberal on the court—no one gets points for being a deal-maker or respecting the actual words of the Constitution.
I understand it better now, and may have underestimated McConnell on this. He and the other Rs are obviously appealing to their base, but they're also trying to limit their damage in the center by inventing a myth that Presidents have traditionally avoided making appointments in election years.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/playthings (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/playthings)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/)
Quote from: Pat B on February 17, 2016, 06:19:31 AMbut they're also trying to limit their damage in the center by inventing a myth that Presidents have traditionally avoided making appointments in election years.
Whatever works. From a PR standpoint, Republicans should just focus on the once in the last century for SCOTUS factoid, come up with a lofty sound-bite or two to defend their stance, and not bother with lower courts at all. SCOTUS is more important, final, and all that. Maybe dig up FDR appointee Robert Jackson's famous quip "
We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final" as rhetorical evidence of just how crucial the appointment is, and how Obama's choice could ruin the country, poison the judiciary, and make apple trees stop producing fruit.
Rick Perry's championed reform (ie, eighteen year terms for SCOTUS justices with one cycling out every two years) is looking better all the time . . .
Quote from: Todd on February 17, 2016, 06:47:22 AM
Rick Perry's championed reform (ie, eighteen year terms for SCOTUS justices with one cycling out every two years) is looking better all the time . . .
That was Rick Perry? I wonder who he got to do the math for him? It's a pretty good idea, after all... :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 17, 2016, 07:12:30 AM
That was Rick Perry? I wonder who he got to do the math for him? It's a pretty good idea, after all... :-\
He publicly supported the idea. It wasn't his originally. It has been around for years, and has supporters left and right.
The El Tupé tipping point?... (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/0217/Is-Donald-Trump-nearing-a-victory-tipping-point)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 17, 2016, 10:25:43 AM
The El Tupé tipping point?... (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/0217/Is-Donald-Trump-nearing-a-victory-tipping-point)
The good news from the article: "
The eventual winning nominee will have to amass 1,237 delegates. Right now Mr. Trump has 17."
Here's hoping the news stays that good 8)
Quote from: Todd on February 17, 2016, 06:47:22 AM
Whatever works. From a PR standpoint, Republicans should just focus on the once in the last century for SCOTUS factoid, come up with a lofty sound-bite or two to defend their stance, and not bother with lower courts at all. SCOTUS is more important, final, and all that. Maybe dig up FDR appointee Robert Jackson's famous quip "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final" as rhetorical evidence of just how crucial the appointment is, and how Obama's choice could ruin the country, poison the judiciary, and make apple trees stop producing fruit.
This situation is rare. "Once in the last century" sounds significant, but what they are demanding from Obama -- to intentionally leave a seat vacant for at least 11 months -- has happened
zero times in the last century.
There is no historical or constitutional justification for preemptively blocking this nomination. What I think they should have done is:
1. Pretend to mourn Scalia at least until rigor mortis set in, or better yet, wait for the Ds to raise the issue of nomination.
2. Wait for an actual nomination before opposing it, and accuse the specific nominee of liberalhood and/or character flaws.
3. Not mention the lower courts, as you mentioned, because the history there is very clearly not on their side.
They will surely still do #2, but now only Rs and the gullible (apologies for redundancy) will believe that their opposition is sincerely about the nominee.
It will be interesting to see whether the press accepts their myth. That's the only way I can see their statements benefiting them. It won't increase hatred for Obama among their base because that is already maxed out.
Beyond all that, I'm still doubtful that a Supreme Court vacancy as a campaign issue is a winner for them. My sense is that moderates tend to side with Rs on economic and tax issues (and foreign policy until W totally botched that) and with Ds on the sorts of issues that the SC hears.
Obama probably won't nominate an atheistic transgender abortionist. But would it matter if he did? It might create a bit of a stir and enthusiasm in some quarters, but as far as opposition goes, I can't see it mattering much.
Quote from: Pat B on February 17, 2016, 11:38:39 AM"Once in the last century" sounds significant
That's all that matters. It's just spin, spin, spin from here on in. The liberal media bias! Obama power grab! And so forth. Liberals will support the President, and Conservatives oppose him, leaving the undecideds and less politically oriented voters to be besieged. How much general voter interest is there in a SCOTUS nomination, really?
I say Obama go the novelty route and nominate Sri Srinivasan. The first Asian American, checking a heretofore unchecked protected class box, will surely garner more press attention, and Dems can crank up the warm-hearted, immigrant makes good American Dream type story. Plus, Democrats can play the race card. Republicans hate him because of his race! (Never mind his prior confirmation or fossil fuel friendliness.) He's a winner of a nominee, politically speaking.
Quote from: Pat B on February 17, 2016, 11:38:39 AMIt won't increase hatred for Obama among their base because that is already maxed out.
There's always something to be gained in maximizing turnout of the faithful, and getting people who only mildly dislike Obama to turn out.
"Clinton has every advantage and should win handily in South Carolina," University of Virginia political scientist Larry J. Sabato said on Tuesday in an email. "If she loses or it is close, the calls to [Vice President] Joe Biden will start." I think Biden could do it if he started in the next few weeks. He'd get a bushel of superdelegates quickly and could win in the south, midwest and the coasts. If Hillary falters (I'm still betting she won't), Biden will for sure be taking calls, and then making them, too.
Quote from: Todd on February 17, 2016, 12:13:03 PM
I say Obama go the novelty route and nominate Sri Srinivasan. The first Asian American, checking a heretofore unchecked protected class box, will surely garner more press attention, and Dems can crank up the warm-hearted, immigrant makes good American Dream type story. Plus, Democrats can play the race card. Republicans hate him because of his race! (Never mind his prior confirmation or fossil fuel friendliness.) He's a winner of a nominee, politically speaking.
A unanimous confirmation is about as good a sign of substantive suitability as one could hope for. Not that I don't think other considerations are relevant. He's 48.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 17, 2016, 10:25:43 AM
The El Tupé tipping point?... (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/0217/Is-Donald-Trump-nearing-a-victory-tipping-point)
This article talks about the delegate lead but ignores the possibility of a brokered convention (which seems most likely right now). It's hard to see a path for anybody to get 1,237 delegates.
According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016), the true winner-take-all states are Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Nebraska, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota for a total of 366 delegates. So assuming Trump gets a plurality in all of those states, he needs 900 of the other 2106 delegates (about 43%). That will be tough to reach. If he doesn't, then we get the intrigue and entertainment of convention shenanigans.
The economy gives us clues to what's going on among the extinctionoids.
Re-sizing U.S. Counties Based on Local Economies
(http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/usmap.gif)
Quote from: Todd on February 17, 2016, 12:13:03 PM
That's all that matters. It's just spin, spin, spin from here on in. The liberal media bias! Obama power grab! And so forth. Liberals will support the President, and Conservatives oppose him, leaving the undecideds and less politically oriented voters to be besieged. How much general voter interest is there in a SCOTUS nomination, really?
Usually, it's not much of an election issue, but usually, there isn't an open vacancy at the time of the election. And the Rs' rhetoric seems designed to make it an issue.
You may be right on the confused response of independents, though. Or, worded differently, I may have underestimated the numbers of the gullible.
Quote
There's always something to be gained in maximizing turnout of the faithful, and getting people who only mildly dislike Obama to turn out.
I think the hatred for Obama among the R faithful has been maxed out for a while.
Thanks, Obama.
Quote from: Pat B on February 18, 2016, 06:53:43 AM
I think the hatred for Obama among the R faithful has been maxed out for a while.
Just wait until, on his last day of office, he pardons Bowe Bergdahl!
Superdelegates help Clinton expand her lead despite NH loss (http://news.yahoo.com/despite-nh-loss-dem-insiders-boost-clintons-delegate-180158606--election.html#)
Looks like Trump is going to duke it out with the Pope. This sure is a crazy election cycle.
Well, doesn't practically everyone accept El Tupé as the authority on who is and who is not a Christian?
I saw him waving a bible about....the one my mother gave me when I was a kid.
He did not have the wit to make it look even marginally dogeared. In any argument with this pope, he loses whether or not he realises it.
Mike
Oh, he's a waver, no argument there ;)
Quote from: Sammy on February 18, 2016, 01:47:00 PM
Looks like Trump is going to duke it out with the Pope. This sure is a crazy election cycle.
Good way to show your credentials as a world leader. Insult one of the most highly respected religious figures today.
This hilarious article just came out, which leads off:
QuoteIn a recent interview with Donald Trump, Fox News' Greta van Susteren posed a simple question from a viewer: "Why don't you act more presidential?"
"I will be changing very rapidly," answered Trump, fresh from his smashing victory in the New Hampshire primary. "I'm very capable of changing to anything I want to change to."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-why-trump-voters-accept-the-bad-with-the-good/article/2583531
So much for genuineness and authenticity. Isn't a presidential campaign supposed to be like a job interview where you show how you can be expected to behave on the job?
Quote from: knight66 on February 19, 2016, 06:51:58 AM
I saw him waving a bible about....the one my mother gave me when I was a kid.
He did not have the wit to make it look even marginally dogeared. In any argument with this pope, he loses whether or not he realises it.
Mike
Perhaps he takes good care of his books, and don't forget, he called The Good Book his favorite, even above The Art of the Deal. But when pressed for a favorite Biblical passage, he demurred, saying that's too personal.
Now come on: any bona fide Bible thumper will always want to quote passages in your face. They love doing that.
I agree and I relished the authenticity article. A latter day carpetbagger in disguise.
Mike
Surely this is Trump's favourite bible passage...
Quote from: Mark 10:25 (KJV)It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Quote from: North Star on February 19, 2016, 08:01:51 AM
Surely this is Trump's favourite bible passage...
May be, but the point of that parable is specifically to discourage the acquisition of wealth, and to divest one's self of material possessions that one has.
Things just got a bit more fun. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/18/reports-chicago-court-hear-case-knock-cruz-off-white-house-ballot/80586608/)
What if Cruz loses the case?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 19, 2016, 08:06:25 AM
[T]he point of that parable is specifically to discourage the acquisition of wealth, and to divest one's self of material possessions that one has.
Yes.
QuoteIt is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
First, it's not a camel, it's a rope. Secundo, why the fuck would anyone rich want to go
there? I would think that part of the point of getting rich would be to eliminate any worries on that score. Let the poor go there is what I say. They can't buy their way out and they can bore each other shitless for eternity, which is no more than they deserve. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Male pander bear mauls female pander bear. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/bernie-sanders-attacks-hillary-clinton-bet/)
(I forgot, Dems don't pander, they offer thoughtful analyses and policies and genuine statements of concern.)
Bush drops out. Unfortunate. I hope this doesn't enable Rubio to surge to the fore. I really want to see Republicans with Trump as their candidate ::)
Can someone explain to me why Sanders seems to lag in obtaining Black support? He has been on the civil rights trail for decades, yet that has not convinced the black voters to support him.
Mike
Idaho bill calls for Bible in schools for astronomy, biology, geology (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/idaho-bill-calls-for-bible-in-schools-for-astronomy-biology-geology/)
Quote from: knight66 on February 21, 2016, 02:49:13 AM
Can someone explain to me why Sanders seems to lag in obtaining Black support? He has been on the civil rights trail for decades, yet that has not convinced the black voters to support him.
Mike
He's a Jew, in the way these things are understood, and he's from an all white state. Also, black voters are not progressives, they are substantially more churchy than any other Dem group and imbibe most of their liberalism from pastors, trusting the politicians with links to them. The socialist/labor end of the civil rights struggle has been submerged since 1968.
OK, thanks, I guessed he would not be impressing charismatic let alone fundamentalist Christians; but thought that was less of an issue amonget democrats. Oh well....
Mike
Quote from: drogulus on February 21, 2016, 05:57:03 AM
Idaho bill calls for Bible in schools for astronomy, biology, geology (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/idaho-bill-calls-for-bible-in-schools-for-astronomy-biology-geology/)
Je. H. Tap-dancin' Chr.
Why am I fated to live in the richest, yet stupidest, country on earth? I give up... :-[
8)
Quote from: knight66 on February 21, 2016, 02:49:13 AM
Can someone explain to me why Sanders seems to lag in obtaining Black support? He has been on the civil rights trail for decades, yet that has not convinced the black voters to support him.
Mike
Part of it is simply name recognition. Bill Clinton was called "the first black president" and Hillary has continued to do a truly outstanding job of outreach and collaboration with the black community. (Note: by "outstanding," I mean in the context of rich white politicians, so we're grading on a curve.) Hillary is also forthright about African-American issues, like in this speech, (https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/breaking-down-barriers-for-african-americans-d444f1c568b6#.hgwoiypk2) where she states that "There are still very real barriers holding back African Americans from fully participating in our society."
Bernie Sanders is less well-known, and his participation in the civil rights movement is something that he's had to tell everybody about, because not only do most African-Americans not know Bernie was on the civil rights trail - they just don't know who he is at all. But he also is more or less a one-issue candidate, focused on income inequality and breaking up banks. A lot of his outreach to African-Americans has been uncreatively lecturing them on how they need to care more about income inequality. The Black Lives Matter movement protested a few Bernie speeches last summer because he was very slow to talk about racial issues that weren't finance-related.
If you read that Hillary speech in the link above, you'll notice she takes a clear swipe at him: "it's not enough for your economic plan to be, "break up the banks." You also need a serious plan to create jobs, especially in places where unemployment remains stubbornly high. You need a plan to address the generations of underinvestment and neglect. Now even if we succeed on raising taxes on every millionaire and billionaire in America — and believe me, I do intend to succeed at that — we still need to face the painful reality that African Americans are nearly three times as likely as whites to be denied a mortgage. Something's wrong when the median wealth for black families is just a tiny fraction of the median wealth of white families. And when gun violence is by far the leading cause of death for young African American men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined, there is something deeply wrong."
Thanks Brian, she is expounding a plan. If she gets in I assume she would have to fight to get that funding passed. I think that Sanders single issue approach will catch up on him soon. I had not grasped that the Bill magic had in reality held good for Hillary. But I am not month by month close enough to understand what activities the various machines are rolling out and where they are making an impact.
I wonder if anyone is likely to start a thread on what is kicking off in the UK? Depressing on so many fronts.
Mike
Quote from: drogulus on February 21, 2016, 05:57:03 AMAlso, black voters are not progressives
It's actually simple. Progressivism focuses on economic justice, not racial justice. Despite what Progressives like to pretend, the two are not the same.
The Clintons know this. They tailor their politics accordingly.
Quote from: Todd on February 21, 2016, 06:43:58 AM
It's actually simple. Progressivism focuses on economic justice, not racial justice. Despite what Progressives like to pretend, the two are not the same.
Perhaps not the same, but surely related, in that blacks have been among the most economically deprived of all groups.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 21, 2016, 06:59:05 AM
Perhaps not the same, but surely related, in that blacks have been among the most economically deprived of all groups.
Of course economic justice and racial justice are
related, but they are not the
same. Sanders doesn't pay enough attention to non-economic racial issues. And sometimes when he does, he just makes up numbers and fantasy-land outcomes like he did with incarceration rates.
Somehow I missed this when it happened, but here is an amusing video of Jeb! asking one of his audiences to please clap for him (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/04/jeb-bush-audience-please-clap-new-hampshire-sot.cnn).
Quote from: Brian on February 21, 2016, 07:41:00 AM
Somehow I missed this when it happened, but here is an amusing video of Jeb! asking one of his audiences to please clap for him (http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/04/jeb-bush-audience-please-clap-new-hampshire-sot.cnn).
Jeb ruins the whole
Arrested Development analysis for this cycle. Obviously, Jeb is Gob, but George Sr said to Buster as it pertained to sports, "You were just a turd out there", and that obviously holds - I mean
held - true for Jeb on the campaign trail.
Quote from: Todd on February 21, 2016, 07:45:36 AM
Jeb ruins the whole Arrested Development analysis for this cycle. Obviously, Jeb is Gob, but George Sr said to Buster as it pertained to sports, "You were just a turd out there", and that obviously holds - I mean held - true for Jeb on the campaign trail.
Gob isn't Trump?!
I would go with something like
Trump - Gob
Kasich - Michael
Jeb! - Buster
Cruz - Lindsay
Carson - Oscar and/or Ann
Rubio - ?
Gilmore - Gene Parmesan
Quote from: Brian on February 21, 2016, 08:01:09 AM
Gob isn't Trump?!
Come on!(Gob = George Oscar Bluth; Jeb = John Ellis Bush)
Rubio's eligibility to serve as President is now being challenged. (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/18/cruz-rubio-presidential-candidacies-face-citizenship-challenges-indiana/80560572/) (Is Richard Carter just a cranky old white guy?) Trump then gets in on the action, raising the bar for shamelessness yet again. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-questions-rubios-eligibility-219586)
A sort of pre-natal birther movement perhps?
Mike
Quote from: Todd on February 21, 2016, 10:21:13 AM
Rubio's eligibility to serve as President is now being challenged. (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/18/cruz-rubio-presidential-candidacies-face-citizenship-challenges-indiana/80560572/) (Is Richard Carter just a cranky old white guy?) Trump then gets in on the action, raising the bar for shamelessness yet again. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-questions-rubios-eligibility-219586)
More properly, I believe he is
lowering the bar for shamelessness yet again, as every move he makes seems to make it easier to reach... :)
8)
On a personal note, a little 10-minute play of my own on the subject of the presidency was given two staged readings yesterday at Urban Stages in New York City. A spoof on the vagaries of constitutional interpretation, the play is about a Venezuelan-born, naturalized US citizen who argues that he is constitutionally more eligible to run for president than Lincoln, Reagan, or LBJ. The play was one of six given readings out of about 65 submissions.
How large a cast? Congratulations!
May I read the script? I'll PM you.
Hey Jeb!
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/9ed6aaa9fd9d2bbb1f222b377bbb73cd/tumblr_inline_nwsolxofKo1s7ww91_500.gif)
Quote from: Brian on February 22, 2016, 08:21:40 AM
Hey Jeb!
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/9ed6aaa9fd9d2bbb1f222b377bbb73cd/tumblr_inline_nwsolxofKo1s7ww91_500.gif)
This is what people spend $500 for orchestra seats?
I'm sure discussion will pick up once the Nevada caucus comes in, but trust me, Brian, I envy you having seen the hottest ticket on Broadway. I try every once in a while (always in vain) for the $10 lottery, but I expect that in a year or so when the fuss dies down, you'll be able to walk right in. Miranda will probably be gone by that point, but word has it he's planning to film the whole show with the original cast.
My God, Trump has taken Nevada with 46%, practically doubling Cruz and Rubio. The country has lost its mind.
That's the state which brought forth the Bundys, right? 8)
"... one click closer to an outcome once thought unfathomable" (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0224/Are-Republicans-finally-coming-up-with-a-plan-to-beat-Donald-Trump)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 24, 2016, 03:34:07 AM
That's the state which brought forth the Bundys, right? 8)
(http://images54.fotki.com/v77/photos/0/1888220/10635591/peggybundyoutfit3-vi.jpg)
What's wrong with the Bundys?
Ted Bundy was born in Burlington, Vermont. 0:)
Quote from: Brian on February 24, 2016, 09:56:12 AM
Ted Bundy was born in Burlington, Vermont. 0:)
I knew he couldn't be all bad... >:D
8)
Quote from: Brian on February 24, 2016, 09:56:12 AM
Ted Bundy was born in Burlington, Vermont. 0:)
But does he feel the Bern?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 24, 2016, 03:30:00 AM
My God, Trump has taken Nevada with 46%, practically doubling Cruz and Rubio. The country has lost its mind.
It's the Republican Party, not the country, and they have been heading this general direction for a while. In hindsight, the ascent of Trump looks like a natural step on the Rs' anti-government crusade of the past few decades.
Personally, I don't find Rubio or Cruz any less unappealing than Trump.
Quote from: Pat B on February 24, 2016, 01:32:39 PMIn hindsight, the ascent of Trump looks like a natural step on the Rs' anti-government crusade of the past few decades.
Except Trump isn't anti-government. He will and does advocate a variety of policies that horrify small government types - eg, no entitlement reform, punitive tariffs, an unknown but not exactly small-government health care revision. He's a right wing populist.
I have voted in every Presidential election since 1972.
I wish I were Canadian.
Quote from: geralmar on February 24, 2016, 06:21:03 PM
I have voted in every Presidential election since 1972.
Ditto
QuoteI wish I were Canadian.
Ditto
8)
Quote from: Pat B on February 24, 2016, 01:32:39 PM
It's the Republican Party, not the country, and they have been heading this general direction for a while. In hindsight, the ascent of Trump looks like a natural step on the Rs' anti-government crusade of the past few decades.
Personally, I don't find Rubio or Cruz any less unappealing than Trump.
Thank you for this.
I would only support a Republican if they met three very basic minimum requirements.
1. Treating opponents with civility, as if they were decent human beings.
2. Acknowledging that government does have an important function to play in society, and (relatedly) that there are some necessary domestic services which can best, or only, be provided by a government.
3. Acknowledging the necessity of action to prevent climate catastrophe.
This is a very basic minimum but a minimum which the party's candidates universally fail.
EDIT: added "domestic" to point #2
Quote from: Todd on February 24, 2016, 03:31:06 PM
Except Trump isn't anti-government. He will and does advocate a variety of policies that horrify small government types - eg, no entitlement reform, punitive tariffs, an unknown but not exactly small-government health care revision. He's a right wing populist.
Yes, but regardless of his position on various issues, part of his shtick is not knowing or caring how government actually works. Maybe he's planning to implement everything via executive action, which is very popular with Rs as long as the president is one of them. But even that won't convince Mexico to build us a border wall.
Quote from: Brian on February 24, 2016, 07:37:00 PM
Thank you for this.
I would only support a Republican if they met three very basic minimum requirements.
1. Treating opponents with civility, as if they were decent human beings.
2. Acknowledging that government does have an important function to play in society, and (relatedly) that there are some necessary domestic services which can best, or only, be provided by a government.
3. Acknowledging the necessity of action to prevent climate catastrophe.
This is a very basic minimum but a minimum which the party's candidates universally fail.
I started to type that "universally" was an exaggeration, then I looked at Kasich's primary results.
Quote from: Pat B on February 24, 2016, 09:38:44 PM
But even that won't convince Mexico to build us a border wall.
The idea is that we are to build the wall, and Mexico will pay for it. Fat luck trying to collect.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 25, 2016, 03:11:35 AM
The idea is that we are to build the wall, and Mexico will pay for it. Fat luck trying to collect.
Just you watch him!Perhaps the central irony of his campaign: He's touting himself as a sharp, successful businessman; but he doesn't much sound like even an intelligent businessman.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 25, 2016, 03:50:33 AMbut he doesn't much sound like even an intelligent businessman.
That's part of the appeal. He wants to appeal to people who are ignored, or who feel as though they are ignored. From his Nevada victory speech:
"We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated. We're the smartest people, we're the most loyal people, and you know what I'm happy about? Because I've been saying it for a long time. 46% were the Hispanics—46%, No. 1 one with Hispanics. I'm really happy about that." (Bold added.)
Another blurb from the same speech:
"[Don Trump, Jr] loves the rifle stuff. This is serious rifle. This is serious NRA, both of them, both of them. We love the Second Amendment folks. Nobody loves it more than us, so just remember that."
Trump's shamelessness and cynicism at times almost takes my breath away. As easily as one could view Trump as the logical conclusion of Republican anti-government bias, one could also view his candidacy as the logical outcome in a society that exalts celebrity, news cycles that rely on meaningless sound-bites and false or manipulated crises and controversies, and has an electorate more enamored of new cell phones than politics. And the irony here is that for all the hand-wringing over
Citizens United and his wealth, Trump has spent less than some of his rivals.
Sometimes I wonder if he has a camera crew following him around, filming the behind the scenes activity, for some post-election reality TV special, to air shortly after a loss, or after his Presidency ends.
Quote from: Todd on February 25, 2016, 05:50:05 AM
after his Presidency ends.
Is there any possibvility that he might really get elected?
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 05:55:00 AM
Is there any possibility that he might really get elected?
All bets are off.
If Hillary is really "the inevitable" Democratic Party nominee, and runs against El Tupé . . . there are analysts who feel that her negatives among not only the general electorate, but even
among Democrats, suffice to tip the general election in El Tupé's favor. That is an absolutely awful thought. But is it a possibility? Certainly.
The Sanders Case for More Spending and Faster Growth (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-24/the-sanders-case-for-more-spending-and-faster-growth)
I don't support Sanders, he's a flawed proponent of the causes I do support. His revolution from below doesn't depend on the fate of his candidacy. Just as Repubs are fed up with how their party fails to act in accordance with what it ostensibly believes, Dems are fed up, too, with a liberal party that compromises with itself because no one else will play ball. If Clintonian triangulation gets no better results that it has managed to get, shouldn't we try a little harder to go full FDR? I think so, and I think the perceived unpopularity of liberalism as program is being confused with liberalism as label, IOW tying the liberal brand to center right economics (Obama's "run out of dollars" gambit) has sullied the reputation of economic liberalism gratuitously. To me it looks like both parties wrap themselves in their social messages to protect themselves from their own economic policies.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 25, 2016, 06:03:32 AM
All bets are off.
If Hillary is really "the inevitable" Democratic Party nominee, and runs against El Tupé . . . there are analysts who feel that her negatives among not only the general electorate, but even among Democrats, suffice to tip the general election in El Tupé's favor. That is an absolutely awful thought. But is it a possibility? Certainly.
And if Sanders would get the nod, would the scenario of Trump winning be any less likely?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 25, 2016, 03:11:35 AM
The idea is that we are to build the wall, and Mexico will pay for it. Fat luck trying to collect.
The plan, apparently, is to that they will pay for it out of their
trade surplus. If there has been a battier proposal from some presidential campaign, I can't think of it.
Quote from: North Star on February 25, 2016, 06:07:48 AM
And if Sanders would get the nod, would the scenario of Trump winning be any less likely?
Well, I do not know. I've seen the odd piece suggesting so, but not yet from what I should consider an impartial source.
Anyway, the whole "superdelegate" rannygazoo has the process front-loaded for Hillary. And if she really does wind up the object of a Justice Department inquiry (I may be alarmist, but I almost think you need to be a Clinton partisan to believe that she is just going to breeze past this issue), her chances sink yet further.
What is the worst scenario in case Trump wins? WWIII?
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 05:55:00 AM
Is there any possibvility that he might really get elected?
Unfortunately, a very real one.
Quote from: Todd on February 25, 2016, 05:50:05 AM
As easily as one could view Trump as the logical conclusion of Republican anti-government bias, one could also view his candidacy as the logical outcome in a society that exalts celebrity, news cycles that rely on meaningless sound-bites and false or manipulated crises and controversies, and has an electorate more enamored of new cell phones than politics.
Right. I should have said anti-governing instead of anti-government.
QuoteAnd the irony here is that for all the hand-wringing over Citizens United and his wealth, Trump has spent less than some of his rivals.
Way, way less (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/super-pac-fec-campaign-spending-2016-219579). And that's a campaign message for him.
Quote
Sometimes I wonder if he has a camera crew following him around, filming the behind the scenes activity, for some post-election reality TV special, to air shortly after a loss, or after his Presidency ends.
Excellent idea! But why wait so long to air it? I'd expect its value to be highest sometime
before the election.
Quote from: Pat B on February 25, 2016, 07:09:40 AMExcellent idea! But why wait so long to air it? I'd expect its value to be highest sometime before the election.
Extra post-election/presidency income.
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 06:27:18 AMWhat is the worst scenario in case Trump wins? WWIII?
Nah. Trump likes Putin.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 25, 2016, 06:16:31 AMAnd if she really does wind up the object of a Justice Department inquiry (I may be alarmist, but I almost think you need to be a Clinton partisan to believe that she is just going to breeze past this issue), her chances sink yet further.
Imagine this scenario: Trump gets the Republican nod and Hillary gets the Democratic nod in July, then Hillary gets indicted sometime before the election. That this is plausible is simultaneously funny and disheartening.
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 06:27:18 AM
What is the worst scenario in case Trump wins? WWIII?
The American Conservative website rated the candidates for hawkishness in foreign policy and Trump came out as the least hawkish after Sanders.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/
Quote from: Todd on February 25, 2016, 07:24:19 AM
Nah. Trump likes Putin.
Quote from: Jo498 on February 25, 2016, 07:38:39 AM
The American Conservative website rated the candidates for hawkishness in foreign policy and Trump came out as the least hawkish after Sanders.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/
So, at least when it comes to foreign policy Trump is more likely to be guided by realism and pragmatism than other Republican candidates. Then I don´t get the panic. Can he really single-handedly do such harm to domestic economy and society as to bring USA to the brink of extinction?
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 07:52:27 AMCan he really single-handedly do such harm to domestic economy and society as to bring USA to the brink of extinction?
No.
Quote from: Todd on February 25, 2016, 07:34:20 AM
Imagine this scenario: Trump gets the Republican nod and Hillary gets the Democratic nod in July, then Hillary gets indicted sometime before the election. That this is plausible is simultaneously funny and disheartening.
Aye.
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 07:55:51 AM
Then what´s all the fuss about?
I thought you fancied yourself knowledgeable about American politics.
Quote from: Todd on February 25, 2016, 08:01:50 AM
I thought you fancied yourself knowledgeable about American politics.
You were wrong. I never pretended that.
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 08:10:09 AM
You were wrong. I never pretended that.
Oh, then you should probably read up on it a bit and then come back to this thread.
Quote from: Todd on February 25, 2016, 08:19:11 AM
Oh, then you should probably read up on it a bit and then come back to this thread.
Frankly, I´m not that interested in the topic as to do an in depth study. I just thought the problem could be stated in a few sentences but apparently I was wrong.
Robin Quivers, Stern's sidekick, then asked Trump whether he would choose to sleep with Anderson or Whoopi Goldberg.
"You know, right now, I have to go with Whoopi," replied Trump. "Look, it's a terrible thing. It's a sad thing. You know, it's a terrible thing." (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/donald-trump-said-a-lot-of-gross-things-about-women-on-howar#.tm4dZlVab)
Quote from: Jo498 on February 25, 2016, 07:38:39 AM
The American Conservative website rated the candidates for hawkishness in foreign policy and Trump came out as the least hawkish after Sanders.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/
That is useful, and tracks with my current understanding of the situation. As things currently stand, if it's Trump v. Sanders, I vote Sanders. If it's Trump v. Clinton, I vote Trump. Why? Because of these 3 candidates, Hillary is the one most likely to start World War III. Every other issue sort of pales in comparison.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 25, 2016, 08:43:08 AMBecause of these 3 candidates, Hillary is the one most likely to start World War III. Every other issue sort of pales in comparison.
Single issue voters . . .
Is there a candidate that can be safely voted for his own qualities and ideas and not just because the alternative is worse?
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 10:48:11 AM
Is there a candidate that can be safely voted for his own qualities and ideas and not just because the alternative is worse?
Not so far. I'm hoping Kasich might turn out that way, but there haven't been any pleasant surprises yet, so I don't know if there is a point in hoping for one now... :-\
8)
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 10:48:11 AM
Is there a candidate that can be safely voted for his own qualities and ideas and not just because the alternative is worse?
I refuse to understand the question. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: Florestan on February 25, 2016, 07:52:27 AM
Can he really single-handedly do such harm to domestic economy and society as to bring USA to the brink of extinction?
No, he'll have Congress to help him.
Quote from: Todd on February 25, 2016, 08:19:11 AM
Oh, then you should probably read up on it a bit and then come back to this thread.
He is entitled to post here whether he is well-read or not. Ignorance of a subject has never inhibited anyone else from posting to these forums.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 25, 2016, 02:51:53 PM
He is entitled to post here whether he is well-read or not. Ignorance of a subject has never inhibited anyone else from posting to these forums.
He can certainly post all day long on anything, that is true, though I suspect you could divine the rhetorical nature of his questions.
Quote from: Todd on February 25, 2016, 02:53:48 PM
He can certainly post all day long on anything, that is true, though I suspect you could divine the rhetorical nature of his questions.
I make no claims to divinity.
Quote from: Todd on February 25, 2016, 07:24:19 AM
Nah. Trump likes Putin.
There is China, however...
http://freebeacon.com/politics/china-warns-u-s-after-trump-wins-nevada-caucus/
A Trump v Clinton election might be defined as a race to the bottom.
Trump secures some crucial support. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-duke-trump-219777)
I just heard some "highlights" from the most recent Republican debate. My favorite (from Trump):
QuoteI don't repeat myself. I don't repeat myself.
Latest exclamation news:
A lot of people go for delusional 8)
Quote from: Turner on February 26, 2016, 08:50:45 AM
Latest exclamation news:
Well, Donald is a boner, in a sense... oh wait, 'honer'? :-[
8)
Quote from: Turner on February 26, 2016, 08:50:45 AM
Latest exclamation news:
Wonder whether he meant boner? :(
Mike
Gurn, I see, two minds with a single thought.
Quote from: knight66 on February 26, 2016, 12:50:25 PM
Wonder whether he meant boner? :(
Mike
Gurn, I see, two minds with a single thought.
This is one case, yer honer, where British spelling has us at an advantage.
I do tend to like the English English spelling; even though I am so useless at it.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on February 26, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
I do tend to like the English English spelling; even though I am so useless at it.
Mike
Yes, well, one is unlikelier to go with bonour than honour! So I prefer the Brit spelling also, although all my writing software tags it as boneheadedly incorrect... ;)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 26, 2016, 01:03:38 PM
Yes, well, one is unlikelier to go with bonour than honour! So I prefer the Brit spelling also, although all my writing software tags it as boneheadedly incorrect... ;)
8)
It is possible your software has a setting to correct for either American or British usage.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 26, 2016, 01:29:09 PM
It is possible your software has a setting to correct for either American or British usage.
Yes, I could set up to go for one or the other, not both. Depends on your system choice, I think. With you guys I can get away with it since most of you are smart. For some others I write for, it would be mind-boggling. ::)
Surprised there is not much here about the Christie endorsement of Trump. The newspersons think it's the news of the month. Of course, if we are going to relegate the media to the same trash heap as the establishment politicians, I guess it doesn't matter what they think. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 26, 2016, 02:49:24 PMSurprised there is not much here about the Christie endorsement of Trump.
Loudmouth likes loudmouth. Maybe Christie wants to be Secretary of Transportation.
I did like the barbed zingers Rubio hurled, though I'm not sure they will win him many votes.
Bad leadership + Bad followership = extinction.
Why have the bad leaders and bad followers who call themselves Republicans allowed their party to be taken over by Trump? Did multicultural transgender secret Muslims trap them into it? Were they somehow deceived by a pretty orange face?
Quote from: drogulus on February 26, 2016, 07:39:50 PM
Bad leadership + Bad followership = extinction.
Perhaps. What's troubling is what happens on the road to perdition.
QuoteWe are supposed to believe that Trump's legion of "angry" people are angry about wage stagnation. No, they are angry about all the things Republicans have told them to be angry about these past 7½ years, and it has been Trump's good fortune to be the guy to sweep them up and become their standard-bearer.
Robert Kagan (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html)
Quote from: Rinaldo on February 27, 2016, 01:47:14 AM
Robert Kagan (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html)
Let me quote from the Kagan piece:
QuoteWhen the plague descended on Thebes, Oedipus sent his brother-in-law to the Delphic oracle to discover the cause. Little did he realize that the crime for which Thebes was being punished was his own. Today's Republican Party is our Oedipus. A plague has descended on the party in the form of the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics. The party searches desperately for the cause and the remedy without realizing that, like Oedipus, it is the party itself that brought on this plague. The party's own political crimes are being punished in a bit of cosmic justice fit for a Greek tragedy.
His pappy Donald wrote a great book on the Peloponnesian War, not Thucydides great, maybe, but a good page flipper. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: The new erato on February 26, 2016, 11:11:58 PM
What's troubling is what happens on the road to perdition.
I think Kagan's point, and certainly mine, is that Trump
is the consequence of the Repub road to perdition. I knew the road would have dire consequences, I didn't know it would take the form of Trump, only that something bad was/is happening.
Quote from: drogulus on February 27, 2016, 08:25:15 AMI think Kagan's point, and certainly mine, is that Trump is the consequence of the Repub road to perdition.
So a common theme here is that people predisposed to military adventurism really don't like Trump.
Quote from: Todd on February 27, 2016, 08:41:13 AM
So a common theme here is that people predisposed to military adventurism really don't like Trump.
If you think the Trump problem is confined to warmongers, then it's not much of a problem what happens to Repubs or the country if Trump is elected. I didn't quote Kagan because of his warmongering, but because he's right. Trump isn't producing Repub disintegration, Repub disintegration is producing Trump.
Another view from outside the Kagan neocon camp is here:
The Uncomfortable Truths of Marco Rubio's Attacks (https://newrepublic.com/)
What Rubio and Cruz demonstrated last night (and what Rubio continued demonstrating, somewhat haltingly, today) is that the secret to getting under Trump's skin isn't to call him a liberal but to mock him, or call him a crook, and to not stop (as Jeb Bush did so frequently) after a single pop to the nose.
The downside of this revelation, though, is that it leaves open the question of how a crooked, risible demagogue managed to commandeer the Republican Party, almost without trying.
Yup yup yup, the point being that launching an effective anti-Trump blitz leads inexorably to the poisonous nihilism that is extinguishing the Repubs and has done so for years. We all saw it coming long before the identity of the "it" could be known.
Quote from: Todd on February 27, 2016, 08:41:13 AM
So a common theme here is that people predisposed to military adventurism really don't like Trump.
Indeed. Personally, I find Trump unstable, narcissistic and demagogic. But if a personage like Robert Kagan - who has devoted his whole career to promoting futile, wasteful and destructive wars - deems Trump unacceptable, then I figure Trump must be doing something right.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on February 27, 2016, 09:03:35 AM
Indeed. Personally, I find Trump unstable, narcissistic and demagogic. But if a personage like Robert Kagan - who has devoted his whole career to promoting futile, wasteful and destructive wars - deems Trump unacceptable, then I figure Trump must be doing something right.
If Trump thought Kagan was despicable would that make Kagan right about war? You're joking, I hope. But anyway I don't see how views on warfare, important as they are, bear significantly on the general case against Trump. My own view is like most campaigners against war Trump will bungle the practice of it. Even Churchill, patriarch of our clan, was episodically shitty at it. Being for or against war strikes me as besides the point when it bears down on you, one way if you decide to fight here, another if you decide not to and thus fight there.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 25, 2016, 02:37:28 PM
No, he'll have Congress to help him.
Okay then , here is another question and not rhetoric at all (
pace Todd)
If the President of the USA, with the full help and cooperation of the Congress of the USA, can severely and irremediably fuck up the economy and the social fabric of the USA (Trump) or bring about WWIII (Hillary Clinton) --- then what good is the USA Constitution, and what is there left of the "peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none" ideal of the FF?
Congressman demands more NOAA e-mails about climate study (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/congressman-demands-more-noaa-e-mails-about-climate-study/)
QuoteA new letter (initially acquired by the Union of Concerned Scientists) complains that "t seems unlikely that documents and communications would be so scarce," and Smith directs NOAA to cast a wider net. He requests e-mails and documents not just from officials in the offices that had been targeted by the previous requests but also from "agency employees" across a broad swath of NOAA. The list includes the National Centers for Environmental Information that houses the scientists behind NOAA's global temperature dataset—a group Rep. Smith has accused of manipulating data.
NOAA had apparently searched for e-mails including "hiatus", "global temperature", and "climate study", but Rep. Smith wants that list expanded dramatically. Now, he wants NOAA to hand over anything that contains "Karl" (the name of the lead NOAA scientist on the Science paper), "buoy", "ship", "Night Marine Air Temperature", "temperature", "climate", "change", "Paris", "U.N.", "United Nations", "clean power plan", "regulations", "Environmental Protection Agency", "President", "Obama", "White House", and "Council on Environmental Quality".
Those (very broad) terms reflect the fact that Rep. Smith hopes to find that climate data was manipulated due to a directive from the Obama Administration. (It should be noted that NOAA's dataset looks the same as everyone else's, and Smith already has access to the data and details on how it was analyzed.)
Isn't it just like a certain kind of pol to think you can fight a scientific consensus by digging for dirt? Mr. Smith goes to MIT.....he'll straighten those eggheads out!
Quote from: drogulus on February 27, 2016, 01:13:50 PM
Congressman demands more NOAA e-mails about climate study (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/congressman-demands-more-noaa-e-mails-about-climate-study/)
They're past the point of no return, long past. How is this not a severe form of mental disease? A political hack of the worst sort sees himself as competent to overrule the science community on a matter directly pertaining to their area of expertise, not a matter of policy where he arguably has responsibility. And yet no one, no one in his own party will publicly challenge this insanity. If this isn't evidence of the collapse of any kind of legitimate responsibility, then nothing would count as evidence. Will no Repub stand up to this. The party is dying from the disease, a disease they are afraid to try to cure. I don't know, maybe they're right, they are fatally boxed in by the path they chose.
When I was a child of seven winter in Bucharest meant on average minus twenty Celsius degrees and heavy snowfalls from late November to late March. Today, that is thirty-five years later, winter in Bucharest means on average two weeks of minus ten Celsius degrees and moderate snowfalls with no certain date, and plus twenty-something Celsius degrees from early January to just yesterday. AFAIC, global warming is a fact and anyone denying it is either an idiot or has vested interests in denying it.
"AFAIC, global warming is a fact and anyone denying it is either an idiot or has vested interests in denying it."
The vested interests are worth examining. If an oil company plans for climate change while promoting denial, do you pay attention to the words or the actions that speak louder? Do insurance companies think you don't need to plan for the Liberal Hoax? If I'm a Bangladeshi pol do I shut my ears to that rising seas propaganda?
There are plans to spend who knows how many billions to build a sea wall around Manhattan to protect $1.9 Trillion in real estate. Is this going to happen because scientific concepts are politically decided or because they are not?
Quote from: drogulus on February 27, 2016, 08:58:09 AMYup yup yup, the point being that launching an effective anti-Trump blitz leads inexorably to the poisonous nihilism that is extinguishing the Repubs and has done so for years. We all saw it coming long before the identity of the "it" could be known.
Whew, doggie! Poisonous nihilism does sound positively scary.
The Republican Party survived Goldwater. I'm guessing it will survive Trump. I'd be more concerned if the warnings of its imminent demise and irreversible decline didn't come from rabid partisans, pundits paid to fill column inches or seven minute TV time slots, or right wingers with an axe to grind (eg, George Will), or interested folks like Kagan. Perhaps November 9th will arrive and the party infrastructure will start unravelling, the professionals who work for the organization will disperse, the big donors will close their checkbooks, and the volunteers will shake their heads in disbelief and choose to take up gardening or some other wholesome activities instead. Or not.
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2016, 12:13:30 PMthen what good is the USA Constitution, and what is there left of the "peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none" ideal of the FF?
Uh oh, you're trying to mount that hobby horse again.
In something relevant to this thread, Clinton appears to have crushed Sanders in South Carolina. Maybe he'll do better in other Southern states.
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2016, 12:13:30 PM
Okay then , here is another question and not rhetoric at all (pace Todd)
If the President of the USA, with the full help and cooperation of the Congress of the USA, can severely and irremediably fuck up the economy and the social fabric of the USA (Trump) or bring about WWIII (Hillary Clinton) --- then what good is the USA Constitution, and what is there left of the "peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none" ideal of the FF?
This is a strange question.
The basic answer is that the Constitution is predicated on the principle that 51% of Americans (at the time it was written, 51% of land-owning American white males) will be sufficiently informed to make sure the country stays in its best interest.
Now the truth is, the US President and Congress have made plenty of very, very bad decisions. In fact you could say that they have "severely and irremidably fucked up the economy and the social fabric" or brought about unnecessary wars, several times. Andrew Jackson and the government of his time were responsible for a forced migration / genocide of racial minorities. The 1940s saw us put anybody descended from the Japanese into desert concentration camps. We have a considerable history of racism against the Chinese and various other ethnicities. In terms of unnecessary wars, well, the last one was 13 years ago next month.
Also for our first 80+ years of existence, we kept millions of people as slaves.
Also we fought a war with ourselves and around 700,000 people died.
It's called "the American Experiment" for a reason. Largely, it has been a success. Largely, the idea that when you group enough millions of people together, they will do the right thing, has been borne out. But the US is as fallible as every other country, and its people are as fallible as any other people.
Probably unlike most GMGers, I think the US Constitution has a lot of flaws which need to be addressed. But as Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government we've tried.
Quote from: Brian on February 27, 2016, 05:29:43 PMProbably unlike most GMGers, I think the US Constitution has a lot of flaws which need to be addressed.
That's what the amendment process is for.
O
Quote from: Todd on February 27, 2016, 04:33:23 PM
Whew, doggie! Poisonous nihilism does sound positively scary.
The Republican Party survived Goldwater. I'm guessing it will survive Trump. I'd be more concerned if the warnings of its imminent demise and irreversible decline didn't come from rabid partisans, pundits paid to fill column inches or seven minute TV time slots, or right wingers with an axe to grind (eg, George Will), or interested folks like Kagan.
It doesn't matter what it sounds like, it matters that the party has fallen so low that the excuse makers are comparing Trump,
Trump, to Goldwater! How nihilistic is that?
So the warnings are coming from leftists and rightists and pundits and even "interested folks" like Kagan. Only someone with an axe to grind would see that Trump is not Goldwater. But guess what, Trump is far worse than Goldwater. Goldwater was an ideological outrider, a fair comparison is with McGovern, or Sanders. These candidates threaten epic defeats, they are not signs of disintegration. They weren't a combination of circus freak and con man. They weren't even a little bit orange.
Quote from: Todd on February 27, 2016, 04:33:23 PM
Perhaps November 9th will arrive and the party infrastructure will start unravelling, the professionals who work for the organization will disperse, the big donors will close their checkbooks, and the volunteers will shake their heads in disbelief and choose to take up gardening or some other wholesome activities instead. Or not.
No, it will be more like the western Roman Empire in 476 CE. On Tuesday Romulus Augustulus runs things and Wednesday some guy called Odoacer is manning the phones saying Caesar stepped out, he'll be back in a few minutes.
Quote from: Todd on February 27, 2016, 05:32:24 PM
That's what the amendment process is for.
Yes, but the founders made the amendment process quite difficult, so that the Constitution has seen only 27 amendments in history including the original ten Bill of Rights. Two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve the amendment; then 3/4 of the states must ratify. That was undoubtedly done to prevent arbitrary and capricious changes (such as, er, Prohibition), but has had the effect of making substantive amendments virtually impossible in a sharply divided Congress.
It would be interesting to know what Brian and others would amend. I have my candidates, which I never expect to see in my lifetime or even my next 6-7 reincarnations.
Quote from: drogulus on February 27, 2016, 07:24:11 PMNo, it will be more like the western Roman Empire in 476 CE.
At least you know to compare the US to another empire. Empires come, empires go.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 06:54:16 AMYes, but the founders made the amendment process quite difficult, so that the Constitution has seen only 27 amendments in history including the original ten Bill of Rights.
And bless them for that. If the amendment process were easy, then the country would risk the Constitution becoming nothing more than a reflection of majoritarian whim. That would be bad. It would end up being almost as worthless as the Oregon Constitution, which is changed by voters pretty much every election cycle.
Godwin's Law hits the big time! (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/vicente-fox-donald-trump-hitler/)
Quote from: Todd on February 28, 2016, 07:05:02 AM
Godwin's Law hits the big time! (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/vicente-fox-donald-trump-hitler/)
"'I'm not going to pay for that f***ing wall,' Fox said in an interview with Fusion's Jorge Ramos."
How astonishing.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 07:13:19 AM
"'I'm not going to pay for that f***ing wall,' Fox said in an interview with Fusion's Jorge Ramos."
How astonishing.
You were astonished that a former president of Mexico found that unacceptable? A beef about that seems obvious. I was more amused by the reference to Hitler. I guess someone had to do it.
Quote from: Todd on February 28, 2016, 07:19:47 AM
You were astonished that a former president of Mexico found that unacceptable? A beef about that seems obvious. I was more amused by the reference to Hitler. I guess someone had to do it.
Guess irony has to flagged as such, or it will be missed. The Hitler reference is old news.
Quote from: Todd on February 28, 2016, 07:03:58 AM
At least you know to compare the US to another empire. Empires come, empires go.
The comparison is with the Repub empire, not the U.S. No, it won't be like the lobbyists will be unemployed. I'm sure they'll be just as busy. The office holders will adjust, join a new White Panther Party, or maybe it will still be called Republican, and it will be like Polaroid or Westinghouse.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 06:54:16 AM
It would be interesting to know what Brian and others would amend. I have my candidates, which I never expect to see in my lifetime or even my next 6-7 reincarnations.
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens recently wrote an excellent little book proposing six amendments. Though the book is a good one, it is legal and has technical language in the argumentation. You can read his exact language for the six amendments at this link. (http://joshblackman.com/blog/2014/03/04/what-are-justice-stevenss-proposed-six-amendments/) #2 is absolutely essential; #3 and #6 strike me as very good ideas; #1 and #4 do not have headline-writing public implications (aside from the odd Kim Davis) but are valuable safeguards; #5 might be a controversial point of view (death penalty).
In addition to those suggestions, I find it odd that judges are partisan political figures, frequently elected rather than appointed; I would prefer if judges and their selection process were less partisan. It might be good to effect rule changes which allow "third parties" to grow in strength and grow out of their current uselessness; it might also be a good idea for primary elections to be nonpartisan, and proceed with the top two vote-getters from any political party, although I think this can be done on the state level.
Quote from: Brian on February 28, 2016, 05:15:13 PM
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens recently wrote an excellent little book proposing six amendments. Though the book is a good one, it is legal and has technical language in the argumentation. You can read his exact language for the six amendments at this link. (http://joshblackman.com/blog/2014/03/04/what-are-justice-stevenss-proposed-six-amendments/) #2 is absolutely essential; #3 and #6 strike me as very good ideas; #1 and #4 do not have headline-writing public implications (aside from the odd Kim Davis) but are valuable safeguards; #5 might be a controversial point of view (death penalty).
In addition to those suggestions, I find it odd that judges are partisan political figures, frequently elected rather than appointed; I would prefer if judges and their selection process were less partisan. It might be good to effect rule changes which allow "third parties" to grow in strength and grow out of their current uselessness; it might also be a good idea for primary elections to be nonpartisan, and proceed with the top two vote-getters from any political party, although I think this can be done on the state level.
Here in Florida local judges are elected in nonpartisan contests and appellate judges are appointed by the governor from a list of candidates supplied by a supposedly nonpartisan commission.
As a result, partisanship is far more pronounced in appointed judgeships than elected ones. The GOP dominated legislature has been waging low level warfare against the state Supreme Court in particular. This is due to the fact that the SC tends to be more liberal... But also tends to actually pay attention to the law, something the legislature does not do.
We also have a fairly newish antigerrymandering amendment, which the legislature has been doing its best to ignore.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 07:38:26 AMThe Hitler reference is old news.
How many other heads of state have compared Trump to Hitler? I get it, lefties in the US have made this comparison before, but I'm referring to people of substance.
Quote from: drogulus on February 28, 2016, 09:33:43 AMThe comparison is with the Repub empire
You certainly live in your own world.
Quote from: Todd on February 28, 2016, 05:56:26 PM
How many other heads of state have compared Trump to Hitler? I get it, lefties in the US have made this comparison before, but I'm referring to people of substance.
Thank you for referring to us lefties as being without substance. I always thought my left-handedness was a sign of creativity.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 06:05:38 PMI always thought my left-handedness was a sign of creativity.
Neato.
Quote from: Brian on February 28, 2016, 05:15:13 PM
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens recently wrote an excellent little book proposing six amendments.
1 - Makes sense, though would run into opposition among people concerned with federalism.
2 - Assuming this is the language, it's DOA. I'm no fan of gerrymandering, but states set their own election rules, would fight to keep that power, and this would be an intense fight with not as much gain as hoped for.
3 - Too broad. There would need to be enacting legislation submitted in tandem to define such words as "supporters". As written, and without definitions, it should die a painful death.
4 - Don't see the need, and it could backfire on its supporters.
5 - Not needed. The death penalty is slowly dying. I oppose the death penalty, but see no need for an amendment.
6 - DOA.
That's a lot of amendments all at once, and would add fuel to culture war fires. Best to choose one or two, get those through, and then move from there.
Quote from: Todd on February 28, 2016, 06:17:37 PM
5 - Not needed. The death penalty is slowly dying. I oppose the death penalty, but see no need for an amendment.
Here I agree (surprise) with Todd. A SC ruling if it carried would cover the same ground, and indeed Breyer and Ginsburg in minority opinions have already interpreted the death penalty to be a likely violation of the eighth amendment as it now stands. Any amendment that simply tacks on a "such as" clause is not really amending the Constitution but rather interpreting it, which is the SC's role to start with.
As for amending the 2nd, my understanding is that the amendment originally applied to state militias, which all able-bodied men from any state were required to join (barring religious objections). "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States." While it seems to me that a truly originalist reading (unlike a Scaliaist reading) would restrict the amendment to service in these state militias (the amendment being written in the form of "X being true, Y is true"), it also seems to me that gun ownership for private use is also allowed under the 9th and 10th amendments, and so I reluctantly accept it as constitutional.
Don't like gerrymandering either, but don't know a solution. All I know is that as a resident of the NY 2nd, I awoke one day in 2013 to find I was no longer represented by Steve Israel (D), for whom I had voted, but by Pete King (R), for whom I had not. It's only since then that I found that, compared to some of the R crazies, King is relatively sane.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 06:58:02 PMAs for amending the 2nd, my understanding is that the amendment originally applied to state militias, which all able-bodied men from any state were required to join (barring religious objections).
Irrespective of original intent, or, more important, current views on the original intent, the Heller and McDonald decisions in practice interpret the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms. Now any attempt to curb perceived gun ownership rights can be viewed as antithetical to the Constitution, and a proposed amendment could be attacked as only the second one, after the Eighteenth, with the express purpose of curbing individual liberty. There are other, less divisive ways to approach gun control.
The obligation to regulate and restrict an individual right to bear arms does not rest on the assumption that no such right exists. If that were the case then the court would be obligated to respect a right to own a tactical nuclear weapon, if only for self defense. Now I might want to push the right that far, just for mischief, but I would think if an appeals court upheld a restriction on private ownership of plutonium weapons, the SC might not even review it. The precedent established, we can then confiscate the guns of Red State morons just like Obama planned all along. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 06:05:38 PM
Thank you for referring to us lefties as being without substance. I always thought my left-handedness was a sign of creativity.
Don't take it personally. When someone realizes that the party he is so committed to has chosen Donald Trump to be it's intellectual leader, there is bound to be some bitter lashing out. Of course it's a shock to everybody...imagine the party of Perry, Bachman, the pizza guy, Bush, Reagan, Palin, etc., choosing to be led by Trump?!
Now you're just being an ironic smartass! ;D
Quote from: Mookalafalas on February 28, 2016, 10:03:47 PM
Don't take it personally. When someone realizes that the party he is so committed to has chosen Donald Trump to be it's intellectual leader, there is bound to be some bitter lashing out. Of course it's a shock to everybody...imagine the party of Perry, Bachman, the pizza guy, Bush, Reagan, Palin, etc., choosing to be led by Trump?!
"We have created a monster, and he is us."
(For good measure, however, conservative columnist Ross Douthat in the NY Times yesterday had a piece on how Trump is also an outgrowth of Obama-politics: "But Trumpism is also a creature of the late Obama era, irrupting after eight years when a charismatic liberal president has dominated the cultural landscape and set the agenda for national debates. President Obama didn't give us Trump in any kind of Machiavellian or deliberate fashion. But it isn't an accident that this is the way the Obama era ends — with a reality TV demagogue leading a populist, nationalist revolt." Needless to say, Times readers soundly thrashed Mr. Douthat, as they always do: "This is without doubt THE dumbest column from Douthat yet. What a harebrained, ignorant, dumb way to try and deflect from the self-destruction of the Conservative movement . . . . ")
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 29, 2016, 03:39:54 AM
"We have created a monster, and he is us."
(For good measure, however, conservative columnist Ross Douthat in the NY Times yesterday had a piece on how Trump is also an outgrowth of Obama-politics: "But Trumpism is also a creature of the late Obama era, irrupting after eight years when a charismatic liberal president has dominated the cultural landscape and set the agenda for national debates. President Obama didn't give us Trump in any kind of Machiavellian or deliberate fashion. But it isn't an accident that this is the way the Obama era ends — with a reality TV demagogue leading a populist, nationalist revolt." Needless to say, Times readers soundly thrashed Mr. Douthat, as they always do: "This is without doubt THE dumbest column from Douthat yet. What a harebrained, ignorant, dumb way to try and deflect from the self-destruction of the Conservative movement . . . . ")
Yeah, I read it. Didn't find it very convincing, however. There have been lots of charismatic and influential presidents. Do we say FDR created McCarthy? Eisenhower caused JFK? JFK and LBJ somehow spawned Nixon? Reagan is the father of Clinton?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 06:58:02 PM
Don't like gerrymandering either, but don't know a solution.
Independent electoral commissions.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on February 28, 2016, 10:03:47 PMWhen someone realizes that the party he is so committed to has chosen Donald Trump to be it's intellectual leader
Two questions: 1.) When was this selection made? 2.) When are Presidents the intellectual leaders for either party?
Quote from: orfeo on February 29, 2016, 04:12:50 AM
Independent electoral commissions.
Hard to get in the US. The committees would invariably be bi-partisan.
Quote from: Todd on February 29, 2016, 05:32:23 AM
Two questions: 1.) When was this selection made? 2.) When are Presidents the intellectual leaders for either party?
Todd's post is rather terse, but he makes a good point. I doubt that the two parties' intellectual leaders have been the same as their political leaders at any point since 1960. Barry Goldwater did have a big influence on his party, but otherwise, the thinkers tend to stay offstage.
When Douhat gets into the deflection game you know how pervasive the sickness has become. Is Obama too charismatic for Repubs, did he drive them insane? I say Repubs can't escape responsibility for their derangement, blaming Obama for it is a symptom, not a diagnosis.
Quote from: drogulus on February 29, 2016, 06:33:30 AM
When Douhat gets into the deflection game you know how pervasive the sickness has become. Is Obama too charismatic for Repubs, did he drive them insane? I say Repubs can't escape responsibility for their derangement, blaming Obama for it is a symptom, not a diagnosis.
Well, Obama's demeanor is not entirely blameless. He has been consistently and rightly criticized for being aloof and unwilling to engage in the actual business of politics, and he never really covered for this by having Diamond Joe Biden do the PR legwork for him. To be sure, Obama has had it more difficult than any previous president, between 24-hour scrutiny and his race, and I think there's a lot of stuff he felt unable to say or do because he is a black man.
But I doubt the Republicans ever had it in mind to play fairly with him or to collaborate with him on major compromise legislation. The Tea Party's total disavowal of the principle of compromise - and of the principle of governance - thoroughly ended that hope, as did the probably 5-10% of voters who are genuinely unhappy with Obama's skin color.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 06:58:02 PM
Don't like gerrymandering either, but don't know a solution. All I know is that as a resident of the NY 2nd, I awoke one day in 2013 to find I was no longer represented by Steve Israel (D), for whom I had voted, but by Pete King (R), for whom I had not. It's only since then that I found that, compared to some of the R crazies, King is relatively sane.
Well, that was a bit of luck. Though much depends on the adverb
relatively . . . .
Quote from: Todd on February 29, 2016, 05:32:23 AM
2.) When are Presidents the intellectual leaders for either party?
Thomas Jefferson? Abraham Lincoln?
Quote from: karlhenning on February 29, 2016, 06:49:38 AM
Well, that was a bit of luck. Though much depends on the adverb relatively . . . .
My point of course was that Pete became my congressman through a redrawing of the district map, not through an election. And in many respects I still despise him.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 29, 2016, 06:51:27 AM
My point of course was that Pete became my congressman through a redrawing of the district map, not through an election. And in many respects I still despise him.
Ho capito.
Quote from: Brian on February 29, 2016, 06:10:07 AM
Todd's post is rather terse, but he makes a good point. I doubt that the two parties' intellectual leaders have been the same as their political leaders at any point since 1960. Barry Goldwater did have a big influence on his party, but otherwise, the thinkers tend to stay offstage.
I would say that it has been very rare in history. Even Washington himself wasn't the intellectual leader of the Federalists - that was Hamilton, to the extent there was
one intellectual leader at that time. Jefferson and Madison might have been during their presidencies. Lincoln maybe - a big maybe. After that, it's hard to see a President who served as political leader and intellectual leader. TR may have thought he was, but even he would have hesitated to tell that to Hay, Root, and Cabot Lodge.
Quote from: Brian on February 29, 2016, 06:45:59 AMTo be sure, Obama has had it more difficult than any previous president
Even Washington and Lincoln? I should think not.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 29, 2016, 06:51:27 AM
My point of course was that Pete became my congressman through a redrawing of the district map, not through an election. And in many respects I still despise him.
Yes, but wasn't that due to New York losing two seats in Congress? I didn't follow it closely, but my understanding is that Democrats controlled the process of redistricting in New York and purportedly went after King (his side of the story), but he held on, so you can't blame Republicans on this one. It's the process, of course.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 28, 2016, 06:58:02 PM
Don't like gerrymandering either, but don't know a solution.
On Arch Street, near the corner with Summer Street.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160229/cb12ce41853d3fb1e0d86ae38fb0c9c1.jpg)
Ah yes, American politics. In here we just add up all the votes...
This is a society which refuses to retire the penny, for goodness' sake! 8)
Quote from: Todd on February 29, 2016, 06:57:59 AM
I would say that it has been very rare in history. Even Washington himself wasn't the intellectual leader of the Federalists - that was Hamilton, to the extent there was one intellectual leader at that time. Jefferson and Madison might have been during their presidencies. Lincoln maybe - a big maybe. After that, it's hard to see a President who served as political leader and intellectual leader. TR may have thought he was, but even he would have hesitated to tell that to Hay, Root, and Cabot Lodge.
Not the "most intellectual person" in his party, but the "intellectual head". In fact, you don't have to be president, by merely by winning the primaries you become the de facto head, and the platform you determine becomes the official set of goals of the party. TR didn't have to listen to Hay, Root, and Lodge, and often didn't. Even George W. eventually stopped heeding Cheney. You have to go back to the 1920s to find a US president who really seemed not to be in charge of his own party apparatus, and even that is debatable. If the Republican party actually breaks with Trump after he has the nomination, it will be quite a show ;)
Quote from: Mookalafalas on February 29, 2016, 03:02:45 PM
If the Republican party actually breaks with Trump after he has the nomination, it will be quite a show ;)
Why would Trump break with them? He broke them! Trump has made the Repub remnants his toys, if he wants to crunch the broken pieces into gravel he can do that or (heh!)
show mercy, whichever is worse.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on February 29, 2016, 03:02:45 PM
Not the "most intellectual person" in his party, but the "intellectual head". In fact, you don't have to be president, by merely by winning the primaries you become the de facto head, and the platform you determine becomes the official set of goals of the party. TR didn't have to listen to Hay, Root, and Lodge, and often didn't. Even George W. eventually stopped heeding Cheney. You have to go back to the 1920s to find a US president who really seemed not to be in charge of his own party apparatus, and even that is debatable. If the Republican party actually breaks with Trump after he has the nomination, it will be quite a show ;)
OK, so the difference is that you mean the political leader, figurehead, voice, etc. while Todd and I meant the guy who comes up with all the ideas behind the scenes. In our definition, the "intellectual heads" of the last 30-40 years are more your Buckley, Norquist, Krugman types. Cheney probably counts, in fact.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on February 29, 2016, 03:02:45 PMNot the "most intellectual person" in his party, but the "intellectual head". In fact, you don't have to be president, by merely by winning the primaries you become the de facto head
The nominee for each party is in fact the party leader, but that's not the same thing as the intellectual head of the party. The intellectual head of a party - or more accurately, heads of a party since there is really no intellectual head of a party - will help set the party platform and the policy ideas from which nominees and Presidents choose, for a variety of reasons, sometimes on principle, sometimes out of expedience. To take an extreme example, William Jennings Bryan was not really the intellectual head of the Democratic party three times, he happened to get the nod three times.
If Trump gets the nod, and wins the White House, and the party breaks with Trump, it will be unusual but not entirely unprecedented (eg, Tyler, though under very different circumstances), and it will certainly be entertaining.
Quote from: Brian on February 29, 2016, 04:15:29 PM
OK, so the difference is that you mean the political leader, figurehead, voice, etc. while Todd and I meant the guy who comes up with all the ideas behind the scenes. In our definition, the "intellectual heads" of the last 30-40 years are more your Buckley, Norquist, Krugman types. Cheney probably counts, in fact.
You think Obama is just a figurehead, voice, parroting journalists sentiments or party orthodoxy? Or that Clinton was? Or Nixon? The "types" you reference are hardly the motors of party change. They are, in fact "the voices"--because they are the ones we hear. They are rarely ahead of the curve--although they may seem like it, because we hear them before we hear the actual policies and decisions which are formulated in countless meetings behind closed doors. Cheney probably does count, but only because W leaned on him so heavily for a time.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/bill_weld_says_donald_trump_rhetoric_could_be_an_act
I've wondered this myself. This could make The Donald a contemporary analogue to Shakespeare's Prince Hal, who tells us:
"So, when this loose behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off."
But somehow I doubt it.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on February 29, 2016, 07:30:53 PMYou think Obama is just a figurehead, voice, parroting journalists sentiments or party orthodoxy? Or that Clinton was? Or Nixon?
Presidents have power and exercise power, to varying degrees, and they may have original policy ideas of varying significance. That is not the same thing as being the intellectual head of the party, the person or persons responsible for formulating policies and positions on everything from the degree of militancy of foreign policy, to civil rights, to energy policy unrelated to foreign policy, etc. The only practical way that either nominees or Presidents are the intellectual head of their parties is that they select the options to pursue. That is, they exercise political judgment and decision making.
Perhaps Keynes summed it up better:
"
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 01, 2016, 05:33:26 AMBut somehow I doubt it.
Is there any doubt that a lot of what Trump does is an act? He has honed his act after years in the spotlight and on TV. Look at the David Duke situation. Trump addressed this very topic, quite differently, when he considered running for the Reform Party nomination. Clips from back then have been running, showing he is fully aware of Duke and his positions. Perhaps he misjudged the Duke situation - but then he made the gaffe/stumble/whatever you call it the weekend before a lot of white southerners vote. Could be coincidence.
What are Trump's real stances on issues? Does anyone know, other than Trump?
Quote from: Mookalafalas on February 29, 2016, 07:30:53 PM
You think Obama is just a figurehead, voice, parroting journalists sentiments or party orthodoxy? Or that Clinton was? Or Nixon? The "types" you reference are hardly the motors of party change. They are, in fact "the voices"--because they are the ones we hear. They are rarely ahead of the curve--although they may seem like it, because we hear them before we hear the actual policies and decisions which are formulated in countless meetings behind closed doors. Cheney probably does count, but only because W leaned on him so heavily for a time.
Luckily, that's a false dichotomy. If the world divided only into intellectuals and parrots, we'd all be a sorry lot. :)
Quote from: Brian on March 01, 2016, 06:28:37 AM
Luckily, that's a false dichotomy. If the world divided only into intellectuals and parrots, we'd all be a sorry lot. :)
Separately, John Oliver effacing himself as
a short-sighted parrot who works in a bank was one of the best lines in that show.
Quote from: Todd on March 01, 2016, 06:24:05 AM
Is there any doubt that a lot of what Trump does is an act? He has honed his act after years in the spotlight and on TV. Look at the David Duke situation. Trump addressed this very topic, quite differently, when he considered running for the Reform Party nomination. Clips from back then have been running, showing he is fully aware of Duke and his positions. Perhaps he misjudged the Duke situation - but then he made the gaffe/stumble/whatever you call it the weekend before a lot of white southerners vote. Could be coincidence.
What are Trump's real stances on issues? Does anyone know, other than Trump?
As John Oliver put it on Sunday, "you are either racist, or you are pretending to be, and at some point, there is no difference there. And sure, he disavowed David Duke later in the day, but the scary thing is, we have no way of knowing which of his inconsistent views he will hold in office."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ
EDIT: Hey, Karl just mentioned John Oliver too! It was a great, great, great segment!
A piece by (let us say) an interested party opines that Clinton's goal is to land Sanders a political knockout punch today.
Quote from: Brian on March 01, 2016, 06:32:03 AM
As John Oliver put it on Sunday, "you are either racist, or you are pretending to be, and at some point, there is no difference there. And sure, he disavowed David Duke later in the day, but the scary thing is, we have no way of knowing which of his inconsistent views he will hold in office."
Trump's garbled speechifying and responses are tailor made for later denials and flip-flops. If he gets the nomination, and Democrats attack him on this issue - which they should - he'll no doubt change his approach, and take on something closer to, but not exactly like, his prior opinion on the matter.
If this campaign has revealed anything, it's that Trump can literally say anything he wants and get away with it. Scott Adams' analysis of Trump is turning out to be more accurate than expected.
It's obvious that there is no way to know which views Trump will adhere to, because his views are purposely vague or non-sensical. I mean, aside from winning and making America great again.
Quote from: Donald Short FingersEverything is negotiable. Especially my morals.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism)
Quote from: Pat B on March 01, 2016, 07:12:56 AM
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism)
There's some truth to the article. This quote is useful, its platitudinous opening notwithstanding:
"This is, after all, a time of social change in America. The country is becoming more diverse, which means that many white Americans are confronting race in a way they have never had to before. Those changes have been happening for a long time, but in recent years they have become more visible and harder to ignore. And they are coinciding with economic trends that have squeezed working-class white people."I suspect increasing racial diversity will lead not to a more peaceful, accepting society, but rather a more fractured, divided one in coming decades. Trump isn't the first, nor the worst, politician to capitalize on this. More will follow, in both major parties, or in the Democratic party and the Republican party replacement(s) should it disappear. It will be more prominent in right-wing parties, but beware the left-wing authoritarian when he or she appears.
Quote from: Todd on March 01, 2016, 07:43:26 AM
I suspect increasing racial diversity will lead not to a more peaceful, accepting society, but rather a more fractured, divided one in coming decades.
History suggests that's the way to bet (see under: Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc.). The USA is not officially constituted as an empire, but it often functions like one.
Quote from: Todd on March 01, 2016, 07:43:26 AM
I suspect increasing racial diversity will lead not to a more peaceful, accepting society, but rather a more fractured, divided one in coming decades.
This is a book you might find rewarding - and which will partially confirm that sentiment.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41YoC7oKLKL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
http://www.amazon.com/Racism-without-Racists-Color-Blind-Persistence/dp/1442220554/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
One of the salient arguments is that our society will integrate new arrivals into our currently existing race systems - so the "white" bracket might include "honorary whites" like the Japanese, while Vietnamese and other migrants might be lumped into the bottom tier. In other words, we'll be a more diverse society, but that will also entail the opportunity to discriminate subtly against an ever-greater number of people.
Quote from: Brian on March 01, 2016, 07:53:02 AMso the "white" bracket might include "honorary whites"
The inclusion of the currently intellectually fashionable concept of "honorary whites" kills off the appeal of any such work immediately and completely.
Quote from: Todd on March 01, 2016, 07:55:23 AM
The inclusion of the currently intellectually fashionable concept of "honorary whites" kills off the appeal of any such work immediately and completely.
Uh...well in his defense, that quote came from me. I read the book 2 years ago, I don't recall the specific language he used in that kind of detail.
Quote from: Brian on March 01, 2016, 08:09:44 AM
Uh...well in his defense, that quote came from me. I read the book 2 years ago, I don't recall the specific language he used in that kind of detail.
Well, that improves the chances I might read the work. Did I mention that I detest the phrase "honorary whites"?
Quote from: Todd on March 01, 2016, 07:43:26 AM
There's some truth to the article.
I found it interesting, but I'm not sure why. A lot of it actually seemed pretty obvious (e.g. that the old law-and-order crowd, those who prioritize obedience in child-raising, the gay marriage opponents, and the racial profilers are all largely the same people).
Quote from: Pat B on March 01, 2016, 08:43:38 AM
I found it interesting, but I'm not sure why. A lot of it actually seemed pretty obvious (e.g. that the old law-and-order crowd, those who prioritize obedience in child-raising, the gay marriage opponents, and the racial profilers are all largely the same people).
I'm halfway through it now. And like you, I find a lot of it pretty obvious - there is definitely past research which shows that certain political leanings value loyalty, faith, and law-and-order more than certain other political leanings. Also, the author's tic-like habit of saying "this is perfectly expressed in...Donald Trump!!!" every three paragraphs suggests that the argument is not as cogent as it could be. But there is, regardless, a lot in here which is very compelling.
EDIT: One thing that's interesting is how the article serves as a reminder that political parties can change, often dramatically. The emphasis that this "authoritarian" bent is a result of the Southern Strategy underscores how we can all have generalizations about the political parties, but those generalizations weren't necessarily always true, and they may not be true 15-20 years from now. Parties do realign. A companion piece over at 538 this week suggests that if Trump wins the nomination, the Republican Party may be realigning again.
This comes from a London pub. That must feel really good to relieve oneself there ....
Quote from: Todd on March 01, 2016, 06:24:05 AM
Is there any doubt that a lot of what Trump does is an act? He has honed his act after years in the spotlight and on TV. Look at the David Duke situation. Trump addressed this very topic, quite differently, when he considered running for the Reform Party nomination. Clips from back then have been running, showing he is fully aware of Duke and his positions. Perhaps he misjudged the Duke situation - but then he made the gaffe/stumble/whatever you call it the weekend before a lot of white southerners vote. Could be coincidence.
What are Trump's real stances on issues? Does anyone know, other than Trump?
Does Trump know?
I despise Hillary and this time last year was looking forward to voting GOP for the first time. Now it looks like I will be voting for Hillary simply because she at least knows what being President involves. I can't envisage as President a man who seems to think serial bankruptcy is a good business strategy and intemperate insults and bluster are the best form of diplomacy. (Perhaps he is modelling himself on the Kims of Pyongyang.)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 01, 2016, 05:24:07 PMI despise Hillary and this time last year was looking forward to voting GOP for the first time. Now it looks like I will be voting for Hillary simply because she at least knows what being President involves.
If Trump wins the nomination, I'm going the write-in route. I can never vote for Hillary, though she would be better than Trump.
Quote from: Todd on March 01, 2016, 06:19:55 PM
If Trump wins the nomination, I'm going the write-in route. I can never vote for Hillary, though she would be better than Trump.
The last three outings I voted for Libertarian. I might do it again. But living in Florida I do not have the luxury of being in an overwhelmingly blue or red state.
But since I am registered as a Democrat, I will vote for Sanders next week (early voting starts on Saturday) simply because he is not Hillary.
I voted for Sanders today, though all things considered I prefer Hillary as the eventual nominee. See, the Bernie revolution from below doesn't have to have much Bernie in it, but it has to have Bernie voters in it. So it's Bernie today to bolster the liberals who favor liberal policy, then Hillary in Nov. for the win. The liberal policy part is a bank shot. No one knows for sure what it will take, so you have to try stuff. The left is trending strong now for the Dems and a measure of dissatisfaction with stand-patty defensive liberalism is putting some wind in our sails.
I like Hillary, I like her unlikeability, which is reassuring. It means something that such a disliked pol is so respected, possibly as much by her enemies as her idolatrous inner circle. How does she do it? Big Bill had charisma to burn, Hillary has none to spare (though I have to admit she was in good form tonight, she looked positively human!).
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 01, 2016, 06:57:00 PM
The last three outings I voted for Libertarian. [...] I am registered as a Democrat.
That´s like being registered as a
New Atheist and voting for
Christian Democracy. ;D
One of the many memes doing the rounds today suggests that Sanders is what the Democratic Party ought to be like, and Clinton is what the Republican Party ought to be like.
Cruz's wins in Texas, Oklahoma & Alaska mean that it probably will not winnow down to a two-man race—and Trump will continue rolling to the nomination.
Clinton had a strong but not crushing day. One pundit was trying to build a projection on the fact that Sanders, speaking in Vermont, did not mention any other state where he expected to win.
Quote from: Todd on March 01, 2016, 06:19:55 PM
If Trump wins the nomination, I'm going the write-in route. I can never vote for Hillary, though she would be better than Trump.
Similarly, I enjoy the luxury of being to write in Bernie, and Massachusetts will nevertheless fall right in line behind The Inevitable (
If As Yet Un-Indicted) One. There'll be Klondike Bars in Hell before the Commonwealth votes for President Drumpf.
The disintegration of of the Repub party was preceded by the derangement of what is charitably called the Repub mind. There's an explanation for the Trump phenomenon and that's it. Repubs are no more clued in than anyone else about what it is to be "us" and not "them". The remnants of Repub leadership hate the frontrunner and hate the strongest challenger even more. Kasich and Rubio have strength in pinprick spots here and there, but they no longer matter. Cruz will not benefit from further winnowing of the field.
What's said in private will soon be said in public. The movement of Repubs to Hillary is beginning and will pick up steam. The choice will be stay at home or vote for the Queen of Hell, an increasingly attractive choice in relative terms.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 02, 2016, 04:36:04 AM
Similarly, I enjoy the luxury of being to write in Bernie, and Massachusetts will nevertheless fall right in line behind The Inevitable (If As Yet Un-Indicted) One. There'll be Klondike Bars in Hell before the Commonwealth votes for President Drumpf.
Even if I lived in the Heart of Dixie, I would not be able to vote for Hillary. Or Trump.
The headlines across the normal news sites I visit are reporting a variant of a Trump blowout or major victory. While true, just as true is that his delegate count stands at 285. If he can be kept to 1286 or fewer, an open convention is possible.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 05:38:27 AM
The headlines across the normal news sites I visit are reporting a variant of a Trump blowout or major victory. While true, just as true is that his delegate count stands at 285. If he can be kept to 1286 or fewer, an open convention is possible.
Yes, a degree of hype for both El Tupé's and Clinton's victorious evenings.
If third place were occupied by Cruz, I should agree that he should drop out. Do you think,
Todd, that the race is better off with Rubio staying in, even with the ongoing dilution? Even Kasich won 25 delegates yesterday, against Carson's eight . . . but I suppose it is too much to hope that Carson will drop out. Kasich will hang on through to Ohio, one expects.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 02, 2016, 04:36:04 AM
Similarly, I enjoy the luxury of being to write in Bernie, and Massachusetts will nevertheless fall right in line behind The Inevitable (If As Yet Un-Indicted) One. There'll be Klondike Bars in Hell before the Commonwealth votes for President Drumpf.
You may write in Ludwig van Beethoven or Porky Pig for all you like, but your vote goes for nothing other than personal satisfaction. I have Republican friends in NY who are agonizing over their vote, as if NY ever went other than blue.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2016/03/01/president-donald-trump-likely-the-next-occupant-of-the-white-house
Money quote, as they say:
QuoteThe truth is this: presidential elections are now fought and won in just seven states. The other 43 (with a few rare exceptions) are largely pre-ordained. States that vote Democratic or Republican in presidential elections have remained that way since John F. Kennedy's era. There have been only a handful of exceptions in states such as Indiana or North Carolina.
But those exceptions are rare. If the party's leadership supports their candidate (and I would argue that the GOP leadership will eventually swing in behind the Trump candidacy, because to fail to do so would end their party), then historical patterns and political data all show that the real presidential election is confined to just seven states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire.
And, based on recent Clinton vs. Trump head-to-head polls in these seven states and the likelihood that the white vote may increase in 2016, Trump is within striking distance of winning a general election against Clinton. For those who believe a Trump presidency is not really possible in today's America, you may want to re-think that proposition.
This is why the amendment to the Constitution I'd most like to see is to repeal the Electoral College and change to a popular vote.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 02, 2016, 05:55:26 AM
You may write in Ludwig van Beethoven or Porky Pig for all you like, but your vote goes for nothing other than personal satisfaction.
True enough.
Separetely: the superdelegate apportionment from yesterday:
Capsule analysis from today's NY Times:
QuoteDonald J. Trump could lock the nomination in May if he keeps winning by the same margins. If all the candidates stay in, Mr. Trump could still win with just a third of the vote in remaining states. Ted Cruz could challenge Mr. Trump if all other candidates drop out soon. Marco Rubio could also win in a one-on-one race with Mr. Trump if the field narrows quickly.
If Hillary Clinton keeps winning with similar margins, Bernie Sanders won't be able to catch up.
Enjoy.
Not sure enjoy is quite the right verb, but the good wishes are appreciated 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on March 02, 2016, 06:08:45 AM
Not sure enjoy is quite the right verb, but the good wishes are appreciated 8)
It's what they tell you in a bad restaurant when they bring the food, as if it's a command and you have no choice. Good restaurants never have to say, "Enjoy!"
Quote from: orfeo on March 02, 2016, 12:40:09 AM
One of the many memes doing the rounds today suggests that Sanders is what the Democratic Party ought to be like, and Clinton is what the Republican Party ought to be like.
That would put us squarely in line with Europe, definitely. Unfortunately, it seems like about 18-20% of the American electorate (Trump and Cruz supporters) are embracing a political position which is not just anti-big government but anti-
governance. If America had a multi-party parliamentary system, we might have 10% Europe-style leftists, 35% America-style leftists, 30% white-collar conservatives, 5% libertarians, and 15% far right loonies.
I doubt Trump can beat Hillary. If Repubs vote for Trump and Dems for Hillary she wins, if turnout is normal. It will not be normal. The Repub turnout will be weak. Evangelicals will be split with those who support Trump now voting for him and most of the Cruz supporters staying home or supporting a write in theocon. The establishment types will split among Trump, Hillary and stay home.
Hillary will get all Dems minus a negligible fragment of HillHaters. She will get a good portion of the uncommited, both the low and high information centrists, and as a bonus she'll get more Repubs than anyone would have thought before Trump became inevitable.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24159.0;attach=45445;image)
Yes, that's it exactly.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 02, 2016, 05:55:26 AM
This is why the amendment to the Constitution I'd most like to see is to repeal the Electoral College and change to a popular vote.
It baffles me, and not only me but all other non-US people here, I am sure, that such a simple and common-sense concept as
let anyone run who wants and fulfills the constitutional requirements, and let the one who has at least 50% plus one of the votes win, or if none has, let the first two go to the run off needs a revolutionary and improbable amendment to the constitution in order to be implemented. ;D ;D ;D
It seems like political thinking in the US has more or less written off any thought of a constitutional amendment. You can't amend the political Bible (American Constitution) any more than you can eliminate one of the 66 Books.
............................................................................
Is there any chance of an independent candidate running ? Talks of a Bloomberg candidacy surface now and then. What would be the likely effect on the election ?
Quote from: André on March 02, 2016, 06:47:27 AM
It seems like political thinking in the US has more or less written off any thought of a constitutional amendment.
The mechanism for changing it makes it unlikely if the amendment is not widely popular.
The experience with Prohibition has, if anything, increased Americans' caution against amendments.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 02, 2016, 06:52:19 AM
The mechanism for changing it makes it unlikely if the amendment is not widely popular.
Are the Americans forever bound to move strictly within the limits of a markedly 18-th century-ish political concept, even if the religious, social and economical reality has changed beyond recognition since then? That is the question. ;D
Well, the process to amend the Constitution can be changed . . . only by a Constitutional amendment.
Whether that's a forever thing . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on March 02, 2016, 05:49:14 AMIf third place were occupied by Cruz, I should agree that he should drop out. Do you think, Todd, that the race is better off with Rubio staying in, even with the ongoing dilution?
I think so. If Kasich wins Ohio and Rubio wins Florida, then the convention route appears set. In most states, Trump seems to be hovering around a third of the vote, and in theory it would be easier for native sons to win in such a situation. After Ohio and Florida, everyone but Rubio or Kasich would have to drop out. (I guess I could say everyone but Cruz, but Cruz is as unpleasant a choice as Trump.)
Let's say an open convention happens: Who will the party regulars rally around? Rubio seems the most palatable option, but that could force Cruz to align with Trump: Trump/Cruz 2016.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 02, 2016, 05:55:26 AMThis is why the amendment to the Constitution I'd most like to see is to repeal the Electoral College and change to a popular vote.
You have as good a chance of winning the lottery in your lifetime as this happening. Almost every small state would oppose it. A constitutional convention would be needed for this to pass, and then it would be decided only by majoritarian steamrolling.
Quote from: André on March 02, 2016, 06:47:27 AMIt seems like political thinking in the US has more or less written off any thought of a constitutional amendment.
Ideas for amendments are floated all the time. A lot of the time, they are more for political show than any actual desire to get them passed, and they can take a long time to be ratified. (The 27th took 202 years to be ratified.) If there is enough enthusiasm for an idea, an amendment is possible.
Quote from: André on March 02, 2016, 06:47:27 AMIs there any chance of an independent candidate running ? Talks of a Bloomberg candidacy surface now and then. What would be the likely effect on the election ?
Time is running out for an independent to get in the race. Bloomberg would probably hurt Clinton more than Trump, making the race even tighter.
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2016, 07:00:57 AMAre the Americans forever bound to move strictly within the limits of a markedly 18-th century-ish political concept
Americans have never been
strictly bound by the Constitution.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 07:08:54 AM
Americans have never been strictly bound by the Constitution.
Indeed, and never more so by our opera-loving late professed "originalist," who like any literary critic, decided what he wanted the Constitution to mean, and then forced the text to meet his interpretation.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 07:08:54 AM
Americans have never been strictly bound by the Constitution.
Fair enough, my bad. I should have written "bound by the latest 5-people-out-of-9-majority interpretation of the Constitution". ;D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 02, 2016, 07:14:58 AM
Indeed, and never more so by our opera-loving late professed "originalist," who like any literary critic, decided what he wanted the Constitution to mean, and then forced the text to meet his interpretation.
You beat me to it. :D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 02, 2016, 07:14:58 AM
Indeed, and never more so by our opera-loving late professed "originalist," who like any literary critic, decided what he wanted the Constitution to mean, and then forced the text to meet his interpretation.
I certainly disagree with the "never more so" part. Executive Order 9066 comes to mind.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 07:25:19 AM
I certainly disagree with the "never more so" part. Executive Order 9066 comes to mind.
That was FDR's 1942 order to intern Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, for those not up on their executive orders. (And yes, I had to look it up.) But Heller, Citizens United, and Bush v. Gore also come to mind . . . .
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2016, 07:24:54 AMFair enough, my bad. I should have written "bound by the latest 5-people-out-of-9-majority interpretation of the Constitution".
Let's see, Dale didn't sail into the Mediterranean supported by a declaration of war, and SCOTUS never wrote a word about that. Must be more complicated than you let on.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 02, 2016, 07:31:57 AM
That was FDR's 1942 order to intern Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, for those not up on their executive orders. (And yes, I had to look it up.) But Heller, Citizens United, and Bush v. Gore also come to mind . . . .
Interesting, you are attempting to equate three court decisions, following standard judicial process, to the imprisonment of over 100,000 people without due process. Hmm. How about the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863? Is
that as egregious as Scalia's opinions?
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 07:39:12 AM
Interesting, you are attempting to equate three court decisions, following standard judicial process, to the imprisonment of over 100,000 people without due process. Hmm. How about the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863? Is that as egregious as Scalia's opinions?
It's not a competition, Todd, and you know it. Should we start a poll for "your top 5 Constitutional violations in American history"? Suffice it to say there's plenty of blame to go around from each of the three branches.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 07:32:28 AM
Let's see, Dale didn't sail into the Mediterranean supported by a declaration of war, and SCOTUS never wrote a word about that. Must be more complicated than you let on.
No, it´s actually as simple as I think it is: a Constitution which operates (or is made / allowed to operate) selectively; which is overlooked whenever it is convenient or expedient to do so; and on whose 5-out-of-9-people´s interpretation (or lack thereof) a whole nation is supposed to base its entire legal fabric --- such a constitution is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. And make no mistake (as G. W. Bush would have said): this is the intrinsic condition of each and every written constitution past, present and future, the several constitutions Romania have had since 1866 until today included.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 02, 2016, 07:49:39 AM
It's not a competition, Todd, and you know it. Should we start a poll for "your top 5 Constitutional violations in American history"? Suffice it to say there's plenty of blame to go around from each of the three branches.
Start a poll if you wish.
There is certainly blame to go around (Plessy v Ferguson comes to mind on the judicial side), but you mention decisions that were decided according to standard judicial processes. You disagree with them, I get that, but that doesn't mean that they are egregious or anti-constitutional or contrary to existing political processes, except maybe Bush v Gore. The specific acts I mentioned were. And it is
always the Executive branch that poses the greatest danger when it comes to subverting or ignoring restraints imposed by the Constitution. A decision can be overturned; years spent unjustly imprisoned cannot be returned, and the dead cannot rise from the grave, with one possible exception.
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2016, 07:50:33 AM
No, it´s actually as simple as I think it is: a Constitution which operates (or is made / allowed to operate) selectively; which is overlooked whenever it is convenient or expedient to do so; and on whose 5-out-of-9-people´s interpretation (or lack thereof) a whole nation is supposed to base its entire legal fabric --- such a constitution is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. And make no mistake (as G. W. Bush would have said): this is the intrinsic condition of each and every written constitution past, present and future, the several constitutions Romania have had since 1866 until today included.
Yes, there you are, now having mounted your hobby horse. And now you've thrown in a major error as it pertains to US law. SCOTUS decisions, Marbury v Madison possibly aside, do not affect the entire legal fabric of the nation. There are literally thousands of laws across the country that SCOTUS decisions do not influence, and some Constitutional rights still do not apply to states. You don't have your facts right, and that does call into question your assertion about the worth of a constitution.
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2016, 07:50:33 AM
No, it´s actually as simple as I think it is: a Constitution which operates (or is made / allowed to operate) selectively; which is overlooked whenever it is convenient or expedient to do so; and on whose 5-out-of-9-people´s interpretation (or lack thereof) a whole nation is supposed to base its entire legal fabric --- such a constitution is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. And make no mistake (as G. W. Bush would have said): this is the intrinsic condition of each and every written constitution past, present and future, the several constitutions Romania have had since 1866 until today included.
In addition to Todd's valid critique, there are more points to argue with here. The government is deliberately divided into three separate entities to ensure that if one overlooks or ignores the Constitution, another will stop it. The times in history when all three bodies of federal government have joined in a common abandonment of constitutional principle have been very rare and dramatic.
Also, for all the famed contention of 5-to-4 rulings on the Supreme Court, almost every ruling has more consensus than that. In 2014, only 14% of rulings were "5-out-of-9", and indeed around 65% were unanimous. This rate has fluctuated throughout history, of course, but I think it is important to underscore that, in this era when compromise is allegedly impossible, two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases end with the 9 judges agreeing.
Quote from: Brian on March 02, 2016, 08:22:32 AM
The times in history when all three bodies of federal government have joined in a common abandonment of constitutional principle have been very rare and dramatic.
Okay, but what matters at the end of the day is which of the bodies prevails. What use is the Congress´ or the Supreme Court ´s declaring the unconstitutionality of this or that action of the US Government
after or even
as its effects are calculated in number of killed or maimed people, disrupted societies and fucked-up economies?
Quote
Also, for all the famed contention of 5-to-4 rulings on the Supreme Court, almost every ruling has more consensus than that. In 2014, only 14% of rulings were "5-out-of-9", and indeed around 65% were unanimous. This rate has fluctuated throughout history, of course, but I think it is important to underscore that, in this era when compromise is allegedly impossible, two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases end with the 9 judges agreeing.
Okay, but what I object to is the principle, not its particular incarnations: the idea that an assembly, be it elected or self-appointed, of only a tiny fraction of the whole people, acting in accordance with all the prejudices and limitations of their time, can legislate for all future generations, which are bound to act, albeit losely, within the limits set by the said assembly and as interpreted by another assembly, much more tinier than the original one and whose composition is heavily influenced by the transient political situation of the country at this or that moment --- and legislate in such a manner as to make any essential change virtually impossible.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 08:11:54 AM
it is always the Executive branch that poses the greatest danger when it comes to subverting or ignoring restraints imposed by the Constitution. A decision can be overturned; years spent unjustly imprisoned cannot be returned, and the dead cannot rise from the grave[...].
Hear, hear!
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2016, 08:40:41 AMOkay, but what I object to is the principle, not its particular incarnations: the idea that an assembly, be it elected or self-appointed, of only a tiny fraction of the whole people, acting in accordance with all the prejudices and limitations of their time, can legislate for all future generations, which are bound to act, albeit losely, within the limits set by the said assembly and as interpreted by another assembly, much more tinier than the original one and whose composition is heavily influenced by the transient political situation of the country at this or that moment --- and legislate in such a manner as to make any essential change virtually impossible.
Legislation is amended or superseded all the time, every session, at every level of government, at least in the US. A set of governing principles and limitations included in the Constitution, or a constitution, does not preclude that at all. Very, very few laws face judicial scrutiny. It is only contentious ones that do, and it is precisely those that a judiciary should hear.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 08:11:54 AM
except maybe Bush v Gore.
Good heavens, a partial (if grudging) concession from Todd! This calls for a celebration. I will almost refrain from posting here for the next couple of days as a result (which I can't do anyway, as I have other plans).
Quote from: Brian on March 02, 2016, 08:22:32 AM
Also, for all the famed contention of 5-to-4 rulings on the Supreme Court, almost every ruling has more consensus than that. In 2014, only 14% of rulings were "5-out-of-9", and indeed around 65% were unanimous. This rate has fluctuated throughout history, of course, but I think it is important to underscore that, in this era when compromise is allegedly impossible, two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases end with the 9 judges agreeing.
That may be, Brian, but not all decisions are of equal consequence, and on some of the most important ones, the 5-4 split has obtained.
The field thins by one. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carson-to-tell-supporters-he-sees-no-path-forward-for-campaign/2016/03/02/d6bef352-d9b3-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html)
Quote from: drogulus on March 02, 2016, 04:54:44 AM
The disintegration of of the Repub party was preceded by the derangement of what is charitably called the Repub mind. There's an explanation for the Trump phenomenon and that's it. Repubs are no more clued in than anyone else about what it is to be "us" and not "them". The remnants of Repub leadership hate the frontrunner and hate the strongest challenger even more. Kasich and Rubio have strength in pinprick spots here and there, but they no longer matter. Cruz will not benefit from further winnowing of the field.
What's said in private will soon be said in public. The movement of Repubs to Hillary is beginning and will pick up steam. The choice will be stay at home or vote for the Queen of Hell, an increasingly attractive choice in relative terms.
There are other choices; I'll likely be voting for Gary Johnson who was a 2-term Governor here in Mew Mexico. He's on the libertarian side, a good man, full adult and a fine athlete. He's pro-choice, believes in limited foreign excursions, advocates for legalization of pot and really loves infrastructure work. Johnson is a reasonable man for the job; of course, he won't win anything.
Quote from: Sammy on March 02, 2016, 12:26:40 PM
There are other choices; I'll likely be voting for Gary Johnson who was a 2-term Governor here in Mew Mexico. He's on the libertarian side, a good man, full adult and a fine athlete. He's pro-choice, believes in limited foreign excursions, advocates for legalization of pot and really loves infrastructure work. Johnson is a reasonable man for the job; of course, he won't win anything.
Can I vote for him too? :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 02, 2016, 12:45:17 PM
Can I vote for him too? :)
8)
He has my vote too...that's three. How many electoral votes is that? :D
Sarge
Quote from: Sammy on March 02, 2016, 12:26:40 PM
There are other choices; I'll likely be voting for Gary Johnson who was a 2-term Governor here in Mew Mexico. He's on the libertarian side, a good man, full adult and a fine athlete. He's pro-choice, believes in limited foreign excursions, advocates for legalization of pot and really loves infrastructure work. Johnson is a reasonable man for the job; of course, he won't win anything.
I voted for him in 2012 as a protest vote, and also because he scored highest for me on one of those "I Side With" questionnaires. I think libertarianism is a naive ideology, but Libertarians are good for protest votes if nothing else.
I just took the "I Side With" quiz for this year, and my top 3 results were Sanders (85%), Jill Stein (80%) and Trump (75%). My lowest was Carson at 60%.
Yes, there are other choices, for example:
(https://36.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll8bc3XRrb1qk7w5oo1_500.jpg)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 02, 2016, 12:47:08 PM
He has my vote too...that's three. How many electoral votes is that? :D
Sarge
Hey, I'm starting to notice a Gary Johnson for President surge - start your engines! It's a pity the man has zero charisma.
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 07:07:08 AM
If Kasich wins Ohio and Rubio wins Florida, then the convention route appears set. In most states, Trump seems to be hovering around a third of the vote, and in theory it would be easier for native sons to win in such a situation.
Polls show Trump leading in Ohio and by double digits in Florida. Obviously polls are imperfect but I have doubts that he will lose both -- and am starting to think he will get to 1237 delegates.
https://twitter.com/ericsmithrocks/status/704841254174117888
Signed: Senna the Soothsayer
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on March 02, 2016, 12:51:56 PM
I just took the "I Side With" quiz for this year, and my top 3 results were Sanders (85%), Jill Stein (80%) and Trump (75%). My lowest was Carson at 60%.
If you side with Sanders on 85% of the issues and with Trump on 75% of the issues, then it follows logically that they side with each other on 75% of the issues and it really doesn´t make much of a difference voting for one or the other. ;D
FWIW, my results: Trump 78%, Sanders 76%, Hillary Clinton 71% and the lowest Ben Carson 60%. :D
Quote from: Todd on March 02, 2016, 08:52:02 AM
Legislation is amended or superseded all the time, every session, at every level of government, at least in the US.
Yes, there is the same legislative frenzy here in Romania as well. It is part of the problem, though, because
legislation (ie, inventing "laws", creating them
ex nihilo and then endlessly modifying, ammending or repelling them*) is quite different from
law itself.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.* actually, how something as volatile, changing and unstable as a typical piece of legislation can be called
law is beyond me)
I got 98% Hillary, 95% Bernie, Kasich somewhere in the middle, Trump around 5%. :D
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2016, 08:40:41 AM
Okay, but what I object to is the principle, not its particular incarnations: the idea that an assembly, be it elected or self-appointed, of only a tiny fraction of the whole people, acting in accordance with all the prejudices and limitations of their time, can legislate for all future generations, which are bound to act, albeit losely, within the limits set by the said assembly and as interpreted by another assembly, much more tinier than the original one and whose composition is heavily influenced by the transient political situation of the country at this or that moment --- and legislate in such a manner as to make any essential change virtually impossible.
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2016, 12:58:48 AM
Yes, there is the same legislative frenzy here in Romania as well. It is part of the problem, though, because legislation (ie, inventing "laws", creating them ex nihilo and then endlessly modifying, ammending or repelling them*) is quite different from law itself.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
* actually, how something as volatile, changing and unstable as a typical piece of legislation can be called law is beyond me)
So which do you want - legislation that changes over time, or one that doesn't?
Quote from: Sammy on March 02, 2016, 05:59:13 PM
Hey, I'm starting to notice a Gary Johnson for President surge - start your engines! It's a pity the man has zero charisma.
I should have said just the same of Donald Short Fingers . . . .
Quote from: North Star on March 03, 2016, 01:21:24 AM
So which do you want - legislation that changes over time, or one that doesn't?
What I want is no more constitutional / legislative mysticism and superstition. ;D
Fewer legislation and more law would be nice, too. :D
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2016, 01:41:32 AM
What I want is no more constitutional / legislative mysticism and superstition. ;D
Fewer legislation and more law would be nice, too. :D
Law, like money, serves the society whose law/money it is. Let me pervert Hume a little with his "bundle theory". Hume says that an entity is nothing more than the bundle of properties it has, known and unknown as they might be. That is, there is nothing to the proposition that when all the properties are accounted for we get to the "thing" to which they are attached. No, Hume says, any further description would be another property. A thing is the association of the relevant properties and can be nothing else in addition. It's the association that counts as a "thing", all the attachment there can be. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2016, 12:58:48 AM
Yes, there is the same legislative frenzy here in Romania as well. It is part of the problem, though, because legislation (ie, inventing "laws", creating them ex nihilo and then endlessly modifying, ammending or repelling them*) is quite different from law itself.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
* actually, how something as volatile, changing and unstable as a typical piece of legislation can be called law is beyond me)
This post is seriously non-sensical. Legislation is law.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 06:30:31 AM
This post is seriously non-sensical. Legislation is law.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/920 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/920)
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2016, 06:39:36 AM
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/920 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/920)
One obscure philosopher's work is not a fount of unassailable truth.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 06:43:12 AM
One obscure philosopher's work is not a fount of unassailable truth.
The fact that you have never heard of him doesn´t automatically make him obscure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Leoni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Leoni)
http://www.brunoleoni.it/ (http://www.brunoleoni.it/)
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2016, 12:51:11 AM
If you side with Sanders on 85% of the issues and with Trump on 75% of the issues, then it follows logically that they side with each other on 75% of the issues and it really doesn´t make much of a difference voting for one or the other. ;D
Also shows that labels don't mean much. In 2012, I Sided With a libertarian and this year I Side With a socialist. But my views have not changed in those 4 years.
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2016, 07:09:59 AMThe fact that you have never heard of him doesn´t automatically make him obscure.
And because you dwell on him doesn't make him one of the greats.
What is the crib note version of his theory? What you provided so far is a false distinction between legislation and law, so surely there must be more to creating such a false distinction.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on March 03, 2016, 07:16:34 AM
Also shows that labels don't mean much. In 2012, I Sided With a libertarian and this year I Side With a socialist. But my views have not changed in those 4 years.
That´s kind of paradoxical though, because libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. :)
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 07:18:57 AM
What is the crib note version of his theory? What you provided so far is a false distinction between legislation and law, so surely there must be more to creating such a false distinction.
Apparently I am not very good at reducing theories to their crib note version. If you have time and interest you can read the book, it´s a free pdf. All the details of the distinction between law and legislation are there.
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2016, 07:24:59 AM
That´s kind of paradoxical though, because libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. :)
Not to Libertarian Socialists (eg, Chomsky).
Quote from: Florestan on March 03, 2016, 07:33:47 AM
Apparently I am not very good at reducing theories to their crib note version. If you have time and interest you can read the book, it´s a free pdf. All the details of the distinction between law and legislation are there.
Right. I think I'll go ahead and read things focused on practical matters. Philosophy is too heavy, man.
1) Hillary Qlinton: CAREER CRIMINAL, MURDERER, LIAR,
2) Bernie Sanders: Lets the BLM chick bully him off his own stage. Can't wait to see him cave on something important. I seriously question anyone taking a... forgive me... a
Socialist for President of the USA... I mean, it goes against the sheer concept of the Western... it's just un-American.... I don't get you people at all.
3) Trump: ppppphhhhhh.... everyone know who he is for the last 2-4 decades. I just think this dog and pony show is hilarious. Trump scares you? LOL!! Compared to WHAT?
4) Rubio: sorry, he's just a Miami fagboy... poppin lots of those pills lately... manchurian candidate... totally compromised... just waiting to show the pic of him on his knees at
the foam party. This guy would seiously do ANYTHING the overlords told him to- attack Iran ex post facto
5) Cruz: ppppppppppppppphhhhhhhhh.... really? Mark Levin... "the modern incarnation" of some super conservative, bank fueled insider (GS wife)... totally on board with the
current jew-first Christian Theology... not to mention his religious talk (endtimes) is the typical Hagee inspired... well, again, it's yissyrel first with Cruz, AS WITH
THE OTHERS
6) Kasich: the mob choice
YEA, THE ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL SUCK THE BIG GIANT ONE FROM TELL A VIVE... NOT ONE RAY OF SUNLIGHT (DISINFECTANT) BETWEEN THE TWO WRETCH WRETCH WRETCHES ALL
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 07:36:55 AM
Right. I think I'll go ahead and read things focused on practical matters. Philosophy is too heavy, man.
Whatever you say.
Beware of charging RINO. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-mitt-romney-donald-trump-a-phony-a-fraud/)
Quote from: snyprrr on March 03, 2016, 07:39:41 AM
2) Bernie Sanders: Lets the BLM chick bully him off his own stage. Can't wait to see him cave on something important. I seriously question anyone taking a... forgive me... a
Socialist for President of the USA... I mean, it goes against the sheer concept of the Western... it's just un-American.... I don't get you people at all.
I agree - Sanders is as un-American as, say, Teddy Roosevelt.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 07:42:22 AM
Beware of charging RINO. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-mitt-romney-donald-trump-a-phony-a-fraud/)
Does Romney think that any Trump supporter will change their mind because of anything Romney says? If so then he is even more clueless than I realized.
I liked this line: "Panicked GOP leaders say they still have options for preventing the billionaire from winning the GOP nomination - just not many good ones." If they're trying to get Rick Perry to run on a 3rd party ticket then their options must be poor indeed. What's next, trying to lock Trump up at Guantanamo?
Quote from: Pat B on March 03, 2016, 11:41:40 AMDoes Romney think that any Trump supporter will change their mind because of anything Romney says?
I think Romney is being a team player. I'd bet he'd be the third party candidate the Republicans would put up if they go that route. The goal would be to deny Trump the White House. Romney (or Perry or anyone else) wouldn't need much of the vote to accomplish that. Romney has the advantage of being well-known nationwide, if not well-liked. If Romney tries to take Trump on at the convention, that will only work if Trump doesn't have the majority of delegates. It also saves Rubio for 2020 and beyond.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 06:30:31 AM
This post is seriously non-sensical. Legislation is law.
Well, seeing as this has slipped into my own professional area... legislation is one part of the law.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 12:45:47 PM
Well, seeing as this has slipped into my own professional area... legislation is one part of the law.
Perhaps you might have an understanding of Mr Leoni's theory? As described previously in this thread, legislation is considered different from law itself. A nutshell description would be helpful.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 12:57:13 PM
Perhaps you might have an understanding of Mr Leoni's theory? As described previously in this thread, legislation is considered different from law itself. A nutshell description would be helpful.
Well, I don't know anything about Mr Leoni, but even from the little bits on Wikipedia about him and that book, I can see some of the issues. I can just raise some of my own thoughts.
Legislation (which I write for a living) is the law on the books. But then you have to consider, what are people actually doing? Is anyone enforcing the law? Are administrators literally following what's written down, or doing something a little different? Over time things get changed because of convenience and no-one going back and checking. Sometimes things change because the written law is impractical, or even illogical.
Then you've got courts interpreting what the legislation means. Ideally everyone read the text the same way, but in practice that will never happen, even without allowing for the fact that people try to read things to their own advantage.
Does the general population support the law, does it have legitimacy in their eyes? If you want to see what happens when people are not interested in supporting the law, the rise of Uber is a perfect example. Personally I despise the company's tactics of having people disobeying the law and portraying themselves as on the side of right, and of arguing for law reform while ignoring the current law, but there's no doubt it's been highly successful.
At its core, law is supposed to be a tool for modifying and controlling human behaviour, but it doesn't always work, and sometimes politicians and others make laws mostly for the sake of being seen to have "done something" without really thinking about what they're trying to achieve and whether a law is going to help achieve it. A considerable part of my job of "writing legislation" actually involves saying to people that there are things that
don't need to go into the text.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 12:45:47 PM
Well, seeing as this has slipped into my own professional area... legislation is one part of the law.
Yes, my understanding is that all legislation is law, but that laws are also created outside of legislation, for instance common law or case law.
Mike
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 01:13:52 PMAt its core, law is supposed to be a tool for modifying and controlling human behaviour, but it doesn't always work, and sometimes politicians and others make laws mostly for the sake of being seen to have "done something" without really thinking about what they're trying to achieve and whether a law is going to help achieve it.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I would think the selected part of your response is self-evident.
Not being a lawyer, I generally only make a distinction between legislation, common law, administrative law, and maritime law, though I know there is more to it than that. Given Florestan's prior response, displaying significant dislike for the malleable nature of legislation (and by extension, one would think, modern administrative law), that would leave common law, and sure enough the Wiki page indicates that Mr Leoni focused on common law and Roman law, or more broadly, historical law.
Now, being an opponent of efficient government - few things cause me more fear than the thought of an efficient US Federal Government - I not only have no problem with legislation that doesn't mean anything, or doesn't work as designed, or contains ambiguous language, or, better yet, contradicts other laws, I obviously see the legislative process and legislation as good things. (And no, I don't care about frugal government and balanced budgets.)
As a related aside, I was therefore somewhat disappointed when I read the full text of the new Oregon tiered minimum wage law yesterday (Oregon Senate Bill 1532) as the law is only three pages long, including signature page, and precisely defines which areas fall into which tiers. I was hoping for at least some ambiguity that could result in lawsuits.
Lawsuits cost time and money. If you are in favour of inefficient government and ambiguous law, you are actually in favour of a sizable chunk of your economy being wasted on arguments.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 01:45:30 PM
Lawsuits cost time and money. If you are in favour of inefficient government and ambiguous law, you are actually in favour of a sizable chunk of your economy being wasted on arguments.
Todd is a - anarchist is not the correct term, but maybe dysfunction-maximalist.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 01:45:30 PM
Lawsuits cost time and money. If you are in favour of inefficient government and ambiguous law, you are actually in favour of a sizable chunk of your economy being wasted on arguments.
I am fully aware of that. One benefit is that it can delay laws being implemented. I take the view that laws will be passed no matter what, and for bad laws, if it is not possible to prevent their passage, the next best option is to water them down/poison them/make them vague and easily actionable, to prevent efficient implementation. Maybe courts can strike down part or all of a law.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 01:51:19 PM
I am fully aware of that. One benefit is that it can delay laws being implemented. I take the view that laws will be passed no matter what, and for bad laws, if it is not possible to prevent their passage, the next best option is to water them down/poison them/make them vague and easily actionable, to prevent efficient implementation. Maybe courts can strike down part or all of a law.
A perfect example of what I battle against every day: identifying a problem then picking an entirely inappropriate solution for it.
If you hope for inefficient legislation; you have also to hope you are never the victim of it not working when you need it to.
Roman law was not exactly efficiently enacted. The Senate made suggestions and then the populace voted those into law, or not. Often there was a delay. Later, Senate edict was usually just deployed and after that the emperors usurped the entire process initially doing away with the general voting rights, then telling the Senate what it was to accede to. And in general, their laws were tilted towards the needs and problems of the rich.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on March 03, 2016, 01:55:06 PMIf you hope for inefficient legislation; you have also to hope you are never the victim of it not working when you need it to.
Except for legislation pertaining to emergency services (eg, fire, police), the legislation and administrative law that affects me now and will affect me in the future is almost solely centered around receiving an economic benefit of some sort, and all of the programs I would qualify for are already inefficient. I merely advocate for a variant of what is already happening.
You have a machine. It's producing poor results.
You decide the best way to prevent poor results is to try to wreck the machine.
You don't ask yourself why you had a machine in the first place.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 11:51:44 AM
I think Romney is being a team player. I'd bet he'd be the third party candidate the Republicans would put up if they go that route. The goal would be to deny Trump the White House. Romney (or Perry or anyone else) wouldn't need much of the vote to accomplish that. Romney has the advantage of being well-known nationwide, if not well-liked. If Romney tries to take Trump on at the convention, that will only work if Trump doesn't have the majority of delegates. It also saves Rubio for 2020 and beyond.
A fascinating idea that I had not considered until today. Disjointed thoughts:
Romney would be a risk because he might actually pull some moderate votes from Clinton. Ditto Kasich. Perry would be better, or anybody from the Religious Right crowd. Or Rand Paul.
The GOP has convinced much of their base that Obama and Clinton represent the end of civilization as we know it. If they turn around and actively enable her to take office then I think they will have a full-fledged revolt on their hands. I think they're more likely to work towards the same goal (a Trump loss) via more subtle means -- if they think there's any danger of him actually winning -- then blame the Liberal Media (as usual) for Clinton's election.
Could a Trump nomination lead more Rs to support Gary Johnson in lieu of a Romney/Perry type? He's already in the race, and his history as a Republican governor might give them some cover. With better backing and going against Trump and Clinton I could see him getting 5% or more.
If the Rs want to win in 2020 then they better plan on finding somebody who is better at this than Rubio.
How will a Trump candidacy (and a possible 3rd-party candidacy) affect down-ballot races?
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 02:26:03 PM
You have a machine. It's producing poor results.
True.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 02:26:03 PM
You decide the best way to prevent poor results is to try to wreck the machine.
Not true. Many attempts to fix the machine may or definitely will make things worse.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 02:26:03 PM
You don't ask yourself why you had a machine in the first place.
I know why the machine exists.
Then articulate the machine's purpose for me.
Quote from: Pat B on March 03, 2016, 02:30:47 PMHow will a Trump candidacy (and a possible 3rd-party candidacy) affect down-ballot races?
That's by far the most important question. The Presidency is important; Congress is more important. I would hope Republican leadership starts focusing on how to minimize damage in Senate races.
Johnson may gain something from this, but 0.01 + 0.01 is only 0.02. The Republicans may have to hijack the Constitution party this election season, put Romney or <insert sacrificial lamb here> in as their candidate, and steal enough votes from Trump to insure a Clinton win. This would be a last ditch effort. Blaming the liberal media is a safer approach.
At this point, it's Hillary's lose. If Trump gets the nomination, and if she loses, Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. This should be a slam dunk victory now.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 02:35:05 PM
Then articulate the machine's purpose for me.
The specific machine I most worry about is the US Federal Government. It's purpose:
1. Establish justice
2. Insure domestic tranquility
3. Provide for the common defense
4. Promote the general welfare
5. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Think the Mexicans better start building the fence now, before Trump to stop the flood heading to the south.
More evidence that a vote for Hillary is a vote for war:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 02:43:18 PM
The specific machine I most worry about is the US Federal Government. It's purpose:
1. Establish justice
2. Insure domestic tranquility
3. Provide for the common defense
4. Promote the general welfare
5. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
A lovely set of platitudes, I'm sure. The Federal Government doesn't make laws, though. The Federal Congress does.
At least, that's one of its formal functions when members don't decide that their job is to just block anything and everything if Obama thought of it.
From my perspective, the Tea Party is a pretty neat illustration of what happens when you decide to break the machine because you don't like what the machine is doing.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 03:11:42 PM
A lovely set of platitudes, I'm sure. The Federal Government doesn't make laws, though. The Federal Congress does.
It's from the preamble of the Constitution.
Congress is the legislative branch of the US Federal Government, and passes legislation. Congress has assigned much administrative law making authority to the executive branch.
But I'm sure you knew that.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 03:11:42 PMFrom my perspective, the Tea Party is a pretty neat illustration of what happens when you decide to break the machine because you don't like what the machine is doing.
If you think I am a member of the so-called "Tea Party", you are incorrect.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 03:11:42 PM
From my perspective, the Tea Party is a pretty neat illustration of what happens when you decide to break the machine because you don't like what the machine is doing.
Yes, that's the case, but not in an exclusive sense. Mitch McConnell is as far from a libertarian or Tea Partyist as one can get. Nihilism can be sheer careerism if you make your living "leading" these scumbags from behind. I suppose he has no choice, from his rotten perspective.
From whatever self interest vantage point, or team player perspective, what Romney did was pretty fine. I watched him speak and I was impressed. Of course one should take in stride that opposing Trump doesn't require heroism. It's part of being decent in a very ordinary way. Still, it was a good thing to do, even a good Machiavellian thing, so doubleplusgood for me. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Democrat or Republican supporter ?
So, I get home today, and check my mail, and what did I receive but a Democratic Presidential Strategy Survey from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They want money. I'm mulling it over . . .
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 04:30:45 PM
So, I get home today, and check my mail, and what did I receive but a Democratic Presidential Strategy Survey from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They want money. I'm mulling it over . . .
I got the same thing from the Republicans, and sent mine back in. Even found a friend willing to pay for the stamp.
Quote from: EddieRUKiddingVarese on March 03, 2016, 04:07:57 PM
Democrat or Republican supporter ?
I thank Fox every day for
infromming it's loyal viewers. Yet, something tells me, the shape of that cloud, perhaps, that a Repub is trying to thank Fox for something else entirely. I don't know what that would be. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
I'd consider giving some "go away" money to the Repubs except as things stand I don't know if it would be cruel or kind....they might take it the wrong way. I don't know, I can't tell about these things.... (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: EddieRUKiddingVarese on March 03, 2016, 04:07:57 PM
Democrat or Republican supporter ?
Neither one; Faux News shareholder. ;)
8)
Todd, I wasn't intending to imply you were a Tea Party member. I was largely reflecting on something I read recently about what caused the rise of 'outsiders' to the system and ultimately to Trump.
The fantasy of the libertarians is that they will promote the general welfare by not promoting it. It's not as clever as it might seem to the adolescent minds so strongly attracted to the idea. You can test an idea and see it succeed or see it fail, or fail to test it. It's hard to say whether libertarianism is formally untestable because it would be a crime to run such an experiment, but if that barrier could magically be crossed, proponents of a priori systems just aren't testers. An a priorist runs a test only to see if the idea falsifies the world. They should get along well with theocratic types, but rival mysticisms generally don't, so that's an idea falsified by the world! What did I do wrong?
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 02:39:54 PM
Johnson may gain something from this, but 0.01 + 0.01 is only 0.02. The Republicans may have to hijack the Constitution party this election season, put Romney or <insert sacrificial lamb here> in as their candidate, and steal enough votes from Trump to insure a Clinton win. This would be a last ditch effort. Blaming the liberal media is a safer approach.
The reason I mentioned Johnson is that Ben Sasse and his ilk might find it politically easier to support him than Romney. If he were to get some significant endorsements, and some resulting money and mainstream attention, then he could make a much bigger mark than any previous L (including himself in 2012).
As wild as this race has been, I just can't envision Mitt Romney running as a third-party candidate. But I certainly won't be surprised if most of those folks eventually fall in line behind the nominee.
Quote from: drogulus on March 03, 2016, 07:34:44 PM
The fantasy of the libertarians is that they will promote the general welfare by not promoting it. It's not as clever as it might seem to the adolescent minds so strongly attracted to the idea. You can test an idea and see it succeed or see it fail, or fail to test it. It's hard to say whether libertarianism is formally untestable because it would be a crime to run such an experiment, but if that barrier could magically be crossed, proponents of a priori systems just aren't testers. An a priorist runs a test only to see if the idea falsifies the world. They should get along well with theocratic types, but rival mysticisms generally don't, so that's an idea falsified by the world! What did I do wrong?
The main difference seems that there have been working theocracies in history (at least I think so) but never ever anything close to libertarian pipe dreams. Most vulgar libertarians simply seem to ignore the forces and structures that made seemingly more libertarian societies possible in the first place.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 01:13:52 PM
Sometimes things change because the written law is impractical, or even illogical.
If it´s impractical, then those who have written it are ignorant of, or deliberately ignore, the specific conditions of the society they write the law for; if it´s illogical, then they need to be send back to school. Shouldn´t that automatically disqualify them from ever writing another law? Is not the constant passing of impractical, illogical or bad laws the surest way to discredit the very idea of law?
QuoteDoes the general population support the law, does it have legitimacy in their eyes?
If we talk about the formal legitimacy of laws being passed by an elected assembly, then I think few people would argue against it. But when it comes to moral legitimacy, things change drastically. A legislative assembly which consistently produce bad, impractical or illogical laws, or laws which are specifically designed to promote and protect vested interests, is bound (sooner or later) to discredit not only itself, but its very
raison d´etre. Representative democracy is less endangered by its avowed ennemies than by those who abuse it, ie many, if not most, of the lawmakers, politiicians and lobbysts.
QuoteAt its core, law is supposed to be a tool for modifying and controlling human behaviour
I´m not sure I can subscribe to that, actually I am sure I cannot subscribe. It presupposes that human behavior is in need to be modified and controlled --- and that immediately raises the question: by whom? Those who make the laws are human themselves and share all the flaws and imperfections of other humans and then what reason can they claim for their being in the position of modifying and controlling the behavior of others? What makes their own behavior exempt from the need to be controlled and modified itself? Then, another question: modify in which direction, and control in which way? Well, of course in the direction, and in the way, in which those who make the laws seem fit --- and this is the blueprint for authoritarianism at best and totalitarianism at worst.
In my view the purpose of the law should be neither to modify nor to control human behavior, but to keep its bad consequences at the lowest possible level, and the purpose of the lawmakers should be to discover (as opposed to invent) those rules and regulations whose general, uniform and impartial enforcement promote a humane society with as much liberty as possible and as much coercion as necessary.
Quote from: knight66 on March 03, 2016, 01:55:06 PM
If you hope for inefficient legislation; you have also to hope you are never the victim of it not working when you need it to.
One of the many problems, indeed.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 02:08:22 PM
Except for legislation pertaining to emergency services (eg, fire, police), the legislation and administrative law that affects me now and will affect me in the future is almost solely centered around receiving an economic benefit of some sort, and all of the programs I would qualify for are already inefficient. I merely advocate for a variant of what is already happening.
In other words, you don´t mind inefficient legislation, bad, impractical and contradictory laws as long as they don´t affect you personally, moreover, you want legislation and laws to be precisely that because as such their chances of affecting you personally are very small.
With all due respect, sir, and please excuse my using the Marxist jargon: this is petty bourgeois narrow-mindedness of the worst kind. ;D
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 02:31:28 PM
Many attempts to fix the machine may or definitely will make things worse.
Oh yes, the eternal conservative argument against change. Had mankind followed it we would still live in caves and fear the fire.
Quote from: orfeo on March 03, 2016, 03:11:42 PM
A lovely set of platitudes
Amen, brother!
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2016, 03:17:09 PM
It's from the preamble of the Constitution.
It could be from the Bible itself, it´s still a collection of platitudes.
They have been proclaimed as the goal of their government by people as diverse as, say, Frederick the Great, Robespierre, Napoleon, Bismarck, Mussolini and Stalin.
To proclaim that you want justice for all, law and order, peace, liberty and prosperity is easy. What matters at the end of the day is the concrete and
efficient rules and regulations one adopts and enforces in order to create, protect and promote them.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 01:45:10 AM
In my view the purpose of the law should be neither to modify nor to control human behavior, but to keep its bad consequences at the lowest possible level, and the purpose of the lawmakers should be to discover (as opposed to invent) those rules and regulations whose general, uniform and impartial enforcement promote a humane society with as much liberty as possible and as much coercion as necessary.
Discover as opposed to invent?
Ah. A natural lawyer.
A distinction without a difference when it comes to the actual process of making laws.
Donald has always been a bully, that's well documented. His voters, who in many instances wants a better chance if a more fair society, really should ask themselves if that is likely in a system where you can bully yourself to the absolute top. One of the many ironies of todays situation.
Quote from: orfeo on March 04, 2016, 02:05:22 AM
A distinction without a difference when it comes to the actual process of making laws.
Fair enough.
Anyway, be it discovered or invented, I doubt that an ineffective, impractical, illogical, contradictory or partisan legislation is of much help in promoting and protecting justice, liberty and general welfare.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 02:17:20 AM
Fair enough.
Anyway, be it discovered or invented, I doubt that an ineffective, impractical, illogical, contradictory or partisan legislation is of much help in promoting and protecting justice, liberty and general welfare.
I never it suggested it
was. I'm pointing out the issues that arise, not recommending them.
Quote from: orfeo on March 04, 2016, 02:21:07 AM
I never it suggested it was.
I know. I wasn´t addressing that at you, just thinking aloud. :)
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 01:45:10 AMIf it´s impractical, then those who have written it are ignorant of, or deliberately ignore, the specific conditions of the society they write the law for; if it´s illogical, then they need to be send back to school. Shouldn´t that automatically disqualify them from ever writing another law? Is not the constant passing of impractical, illogical or bad laws the surest way to discredit the very idea of law?
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 01:45:10 AMOh yes, the eternal conservative argument against change. Had mankind followed it we would still live in caves and fear the fire.
Society is in a constant state of change, and it follows that laws must be as well.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 01:45:10 AMI´m not sure I can subscribe to that, actually I am sure I cannot subscribe. It presupposes that human behavior is in need to be modified and controlled --- and that immediately raises the question: by whom? Those who make the laws are human themselves and share all the flaws and imperfections of other humans and then what reason can they claim for their being in the position of modifying and controlling the behavior of others? What makes their own behavior exempt from the need to be controlled and modified itself? Then, another question: modify in which direction, and control in which way? Well, of course in the direction, and in the way, in which those who make the laws seem fit --- and this is the blueprint for authoritarianism at best and totalitarianism at worst.
Nothing makes their own behaviour exempt. This is about as solid an argument as claiming that there shouldn't be referees in a sport as they're not necessarily any better human beings than the athletes, or about music critics can't play every instrument better than everyone else.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 01:45:10 AMIn my view the purpose of the law should be neither to modify nor to control human behavior, but to keep its bad consequences at the lowest possible level, and the purpose of the lawmakers should be to discover (as opposed to invent) those rules and regulations whose general, uniform and impartial enforcement promote a humane society with as much liberty as possible and as much coercion as necessary.
The only way to keep those "bad consequences at the lowest possible level" is by controlling and modifying human behaviour. But I agree that they are means to an end.
Quote from: North Star on March 04, 2016, 02:27:12 AM
The only way to keep those "bad consequences at the lowest possible level" is by controlling and modifying human behaviour.
I have lived in a society whose government practiced, and whose legislation was directed towards, exactly that. It´s probably the reason why I so strongly oppose it.
Look at it this way:the flaws and imperfections of human beings cannot be supressed by law; one cannot pass legislation prohibiting and prosecuting greed, lust, envy, resentment, stupidity, malice a.s.o; all that law can do is to prohibit and prosecute certain actions resulting from them, to establish institutions and regulations that minimize their effects and to promote and protect social practices and behaviors grounded in the better half of human beings. Any attempt to use law for supressing them (ie, for modifying human behavior) invariably ends up in tyranny and opression.
For El Tupé, wherever his hands may be . . .
http://www.youtube.com/v/HNnwrxrWXhU
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 03:05:50 AM
I have lived in a society whose government practiced, and whose legislation was directed towards, exactly that. It´s probably the reason why I so strongly oppose it.
Look at it this way:the flaws and imperfections of human beings cannot be supressed by law; one cannot pass legislation prohibiting and prosecuting greed, lust, envy, resentment, stupidity, malice a.s.o; all that law can do is to prohibit and prosecute certain actions resulting from them, to establish institutions and regulations that minimize their effects and to promote and protect social practices and behaviors grounded in the better half of human beings. Any attempt to use law for supressing them (ie, for modifying human behavior) invariably ends up in tyranny and opression.
Florestan, maybe this is an issue with your English, but "greed, lust, envy, resentment" are not behaviour. The actions resulting from them
are behaviour. You have now more than once argued against something then effectively restated the same thing.
Quote from: orfeo on March 04, 2016, 03:38:07 AM
Florestan, maybe this is an issue with your English, but "greed, lust, envy, resentment" are not behaviour. The actions resulting from them are behaviour.
Fair enough and I stand corrected. In my defense, though, I invoke again my personal experience, which raises a red flag whenever I hear about controlling people or making them act in a certain way.
A law against murder is designed to stop people acting a certain way.
Quote from: orfeo on March 04, 2016, 04:18:51 AM
A law against murder is designed to stop people acting a certain way.
Is it?
When and where did a law against murder actually stop people from murdering?
A law against murder is designed to legally enforce the moral notion that murder is wrong and to punish people who murder. To think that it can really prevent people from murdering goes contrary to the historical experience.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 04:25:24 AM
Is it?
When and where did a law against murder actually stop people from murdering?
A law against murder is designed to legally enforce the moral notion that murder is wrong and to punish people who murder. To think that it can really prevent people from murdering goes contrary to the historical experience.
orfeo did not say "A law against murder prevents murders." He said "A law against murder
is designed" to prevent murders. So he did not even need to prove anything about actual murder data; you just misunderstood. Which I understand, since this is all in English, etc. :)
But your argument that laws do not prevent lawbreakers is strange.
Murder rates are higher in countries - like certain countries in Central and South America - where law enforcement is weak or corrupt or unable to arrest murderers.
Additionally, the rise of rule of law, and the rise of a strong criminal justice system, has coincided with a historical decline of murder rates. There are other factors, too, of course. But if you claim that laws do not prevent people from murdering, you will need to cite actual evidence. http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence-rights/homicides/
There was hardly any society that did not have laws against murder (if it had any laws at all). Sure, it was sometimes different what counted as murder (e.g. exposing infants, killing slaves, killing in duels etc. were often not seen as murder).
The quality of law enforcement is an entirely different point, I think. I cannot quote exact statistics. But in arguments against death penalty it is often mentioned that death penalty and its enforcement are not correlated with murder rate. (I do not know it this is true, but I am sure I have read it several times from different sources.)
Naively to me it seems that fairly simple laws and strict enforcement would have the strongest impact. The more and more complex laws there are, the more difficult (and time and resource consuming) enforcement will be and the more loopholes one tries to close the more will be found by smart lawyers. (And it gives fairly bad incentives for smart people if a lot of money can be made by finding loopholes in tax laws or similar fields because this is not productive work but only redistribution towards the ones with the smartest lawyers)
In any case, to put it most simply, you and I will never know if murders may have been prevented by a law against them. I find it impossible to conceive that no one ever dissuaded himself from murder with the argument that "I could never get away with it, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life in prison".
I doubt this will be a factor in the upcoming election, apocalyptic though it may be... just sayin'.
8)
Quote from: Brian on March 04, 2016, 04:39:18 AM
Murder rates are higher in countries - like certain countries in Central and South America - where law enforcement is weak or corrupt or unable to arrest murderers.
Orfeo did not say "enforcement of the law against murder" but "law against murder" (my English is good enough for that, at least) and such laws exist in all the countries you mentioned.
Quote
Additionally, the rise of rule of law, and the rise of a strong criminal justice system, has coincided with a historical decline of murder rates. There are other factors, too, of course.
Precisely. It´s not the law
per se, it´s not
the law, the whole law and nothing but the law that is responsible for the decline of murder rates. (EDIT: I am talking strictly about the law against murder).
Besides, the English criminal justice system has been historically strong and very tough, with death penalty even for minor crimes, yet murder rates did not decline until 19th century, as your graph shows.
Quote
But if you claim that laws do not prevent people from murdering, you will need to cite actual evidence.
The evidence is all around you: every year, every month and every day murder is committed throughout the whole Western world. However small the rate today compared to 500 years ago, murder has not disappeared and will not disappear from the social landscape of even the most rule-of-law-ly societies.
Besides, today in those societies the vast majority of the people who do not murder do so not because they are afraid of the law but because they regard it as moral aberration and abomination. I am convinced that if all laws whatsoever against murder were to be repealled or cease being enforced, the vast majority of the people would still not commit murder.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 01:45:10 AMIn other words, you don´t mind inefficient legislation, bad, impractical and contradictory laws as long as they don´t affect you personally, moreover, you want legislation and laws to be precisely that because as such their chances of affecting you personally are very small.
You've got it all wrong. For instance,
all laws that involve public finances affect me, they just do not affect me very much. They also do not affect anyone else a whole lot. There is much hyperbole about the impact of a COLA adjustment or a marginal tax rate cut or increase. Incremental approaches to changing transfer payment programs are the best approaches. Bold approaches are, generally speaking, more driven by ideological impulses than actuarial prudence. Most other legislation has, at best, an almost imperceptible direct effect on me personally or most other people.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 01:45:10 AMOh yes, the eternal conservative argument against change. Had mankind followed it we would still live in caves and fear the fire.
Again, you've got it all wrong. At no point did I advocate against change. I am concerned with bad legislation. Bad legislation should ideally be stopped. If it cannot be stopped, it should be hobbled in the text of the law itself. For instance, the "three strikes" laws that passed all over the US are bad. They eliminate judicial discretion in sentencing, and resulted and continue to result in unjust prison sentences. They should have been diluted more when they were written. If they are not eliminated completely, any rewrite or amendment of the laws should contain provisions that effectively make it impossible to implement these types of sentencing rules. Incidentally, these laws do not directly affect me.
Good legislation should go forward and be adopted. For instance, the government should not deign to tell adults whom they should marry, so legislation that legalizes gay marriage is a good thing and should be passed and implemented. Incidentally, these laws do not directly affect me.
See how that works? Not all change is good, not all change is bad. I thought that was self-evident.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 01:45:10 AMIt could be from the Bible itself, it´s still a collection of platitudes.
Incorrect. It's literally a mission statement.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 03:05:50 AM
I have lived in a society whose government practiced, and whose legislation was directed towards, exactly that. It´s probably the reason why I so strongly oppose it.
Look at it this way:the flaws and imperfections of human beings cannot be supressed by law; one cannot pass legislation prohibiting and prosecuting greed, lust, envy, resentment, stupidity, malice a.s.o; all that law can do is to prohibit and prosecute certain actions resulting from them, to establish institutions and regulations that minimize their effects and to promote and protect social practices and behaviors grounded in the better half of human beings. Any attempt to use law for supressing them (ie, for modifying human behavior) invariably ends up in tyranny and opression.
Modifying behaviour and controlling people is what ALL law has been, and is, about. Obviously it may well not touch and alter attitudes, but has a deal of success in tempering the outward actions.
In Plato's Republic a question is asked; what would be your first action if you were given a ring to make you invisible? The answer was, that the base nature of man meant that if given such a ring, the wearer would go into the marketplace and theive, in the safe knowledge that there would be no consequences. The follow-on supposition was, that the only thing that kept men on the straight and narrow was a fear or retribution.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on March 04, 2016, 06:11:02 AM
Modifying behaviour and controlling people is what ALL law has been, and is, about.
Ever since (or, even before)
The Ten Non-Binding Suggestions.
About the debate last night: apparently Donald Trump doubled down on his promise to force the US military to commit war crimes. (In particular, murdering civilian family members of suspected terrorists.) When he was asked about military sources who said they are trained to disobey illegal orders, his response was that he'd force 'em anyway.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 04, 2016, 06:16:19 AM
Ever since (or, even before) The Ten Non-Binding Suggestions.
And fine suggestions they are, too. As we see below...
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 05:10:01 AM
Besides, today in those societies the vast majority of the people who do not murder do so not because they are afraid of the law but because they regard it as moral aberration and abomination. I am convinced that if all laws whatsoever against murder were to be repealed or cease being enforced, the vast majority of the people would still not commit murder.
This is so very true, it is beyond arguing. The law is not intended for the majority to whom it doesn't apply, it is for the 2% who lack innate moral values. When someone looks at the number of murders in the US, how many automatically weigh it against "yes, but there are over 300,000,000 people in the US"? 99.9% of those people don't murder anyone. Would they like to sometimes? Yes, I'm sure some of them would. At that point, which escape mechanism takes over? The moral fiber, the fear of legal repercussions, or a combination of both. I would suggest it is a blend of the two. Dostoevsky's conscience aside, I think not wanting to spend one's life in jail or being executed is equally compelling.
8)
Bilbo never did any mischief with his Ring of Invisibility.
Sméagol, though . . . .
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 04:25:24 AM
When and where did a law against murder actually stop people from murdering?
It would be easier to make a list of societies where the law and the consequences of breaking it does not deter than to list those where it does.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 04:25:24 AM
A law against murder is designed to legally enforce the moral notion that murder is wrong and to punish people who murder. To think that it can really prevent people from murdering goes contrary to the historical experience.
Law creates consequences for behavior the law targets. The moral theory of law sucks mightily. What's the moral argument against jaywalking? That there is usually a moral injunction involved with most law gives us a path to follow but neither a necessary or sufficient one. There are moral injunctions without law and law without moral injunctions.
Does the law prevent bad outcomes? Yes, by the elimination of of the least likely propositions we're led to the most likely, the "least bad". I'm unaware of studies by criminologists that say there is no deterrent effect. What is found is that law deters weakly, largely due to the uncertainty of punishment, the chief deterrence, and the high level of fucked-up-ness of lawbreakers generally.
I think the murder issue is the wrong one to use to argue about society as a whole; as so very few people commit murder. But for sure, if it was not against the law, the people who are in jail would be out and about and doin' more murderin'.
It seems to me more relevent to look at theft; who has not stollen something? It might be a pen from work, using the phone or photocopier at work. Seeing a restaurant has missed the wine off the bill...and staying silent. So theft is something much closer to us as something we might do and escalate. If there were no laws against theft, then a lot more of us would be thieving, openly and often. With no laws against murder, probably not many more of us would be indulging ourselves.
In 18th cent England the death penalty was handed down for anything from stealing a sheep, pickpocketing to repeated vagrency. Lots of each went on; but mainly through desperation not a lifestyle choice.
Mike
Quote from: Brian on March 04, 2016, 06:26:34 AM
About the debate last night: apparently Donald Trump doubled down on his promise to force the US military to commit war crimes. (In particular, murdering civilian family members of suspected terrorists.) When he was asked about military sources who said they are trained to disobey illegal orders, his response was that he'd force 'em anyway.
Trump pretty much always doubles down. Of course he'll do so here. I mean, it's the Middle East he's talking about. They chop off people's heads over there.
An article on Salon (http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/the_mitt_has_just_hit_the_fan_why_romneys_stunning_denunciation_of_trump_matters/) sez:
"The modern GOP has been focused almost exclusively on bumper-sticker sloganeering, rather than policy wonkery, for at least two decades, and Trump is merely squatting atop this rickety house of cards, built on specious nonsense rather than policy heft. Trump is leaning on the gas pedal and running the GOP style of politics through its paces. He's cynically pushing the limits of what the machine can handle, but make no mistake, the machine was there long before Trump arrived. There are millions of Republicans who've been whipped into anti-Obama frenzies, and are therefore millions of (white) Americans willing to support anything that will wrest the nation back from the clutches of the black president. Trump is the antidote. He's become the Mussolini of the GOP's Bubble Empire, and the party establishment made it all possible."
"For eight years, these voters have been told that no matter what happens, they must help destroy the Obama legacy by any means possible. It's practically a biblical calling to them. And now Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment are telling them they've made the wrong choice. They've chosen a false god. But now, months into it, they're emotionally and faithfully invested. Trump speaks to them, they say. He's just like them, they say. But the party knows that Trump must not become the nominee. He's not the true orange messiah of these three million voters, delivered from on high to "make America great again." Instead, he's the Great Satan who will destroy the party."
The suicide of the Repub party is not the death of the nation or anything close. It is nevertheless worrisome, because we're all riding along with these people, and they get worse and worse as time goes by. These people can't cure their obsessions because the Republi-sphere has been purged of fact recognition. What Repubs did to be unable to fend off Trump is what made them irrational enough to be vulnerable to his charms.
All laws essentially say one of three things: you must do this, you must not do this, you may do this (ie you have permission). The rest is detail about who is being addressed and the circumstances the rule applies.
Rules. They're just rules with a fancier name.
And then, as others have observed, comes enforcement. For the majority of people, the existence of the rule is enough to influence their behaviour. Most people want to follow most rules. A decent number of people will disobey a rule if they think the rule is wrong and the consequences of disobeying are trivial/unlikely to be enforced. Only a few people will disobey a rule just because it advantages them to do so.
To bring this back to the main topic, it seems to me that one of the characteristics of Trump is that he has very little patience for any suggestion that there are things he must not do. In his talk, at least, rules that constrain him are an annoyance and dismissed. I'm not saying he would break the law, but I do think that he would stretch it and that anything that wasn't clear and explicit would be ignored. The recurring question would be "where does it say I can't do that?" and it would be necessary to cite chapter and verse to dissuade him.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston link=topic=24159.msg959101#msg959101Dostoevsky's conscience aside, I think not wanting to spend one's life in jail or being executed is equally compelling.
For some people who contemplate murdering somebody, yes, but not for all of them, othwerwise the murder rate would be zero, which is not the case.
Quote from: knight66 on March 04, 2016, 06:55:18 AM
In 18th cent England the death penalty was handed down for anything from stealing a sheep, pickpocketing to repeated vagrency. Lots of each went on; but mainly through desperation not a lifestyle choice.
Well, precisely. Stealing a sheep, pickpocketing and vagrancy decreased dramatically in England in the last two centuries not because of the laws that punished them with death but because the economical and social condition of the people who did it out of desperation improved more and more as time went by. Laws that sought to redress inequality and poverty and to enable people to make an honest and decent living by their own work and diligence did much more to curb stealing and pickpocketing than the law prescribing death penalty for comitting them.
Quote from: orfeo on March 04, 2016, 12:37:21 PM
All laws essentially say one of three things: you must do this, you must not do this, you may do this (ie you have permission). The rest is detail about who is being addressed and the circumstances the rule applies.
Rules. They're just rules with a fancier name.
And then, as others have observed, comes enforcement. For the majority of people, the existence of the rule is enough to influence their behaviour. Most people want to follow most rules. A decent number of people will disobey a rule if they think the rule is wrong and the consequences of disobeying are trivial/unlikely to be enforced. Only a few people will disobey a rule just because it advantages them to do so.
Agreed on all points.
Quote
To bring this back to the main topic, it seems to me that one of the characteristics of Trump is that he has very little patience for any suggestion that there are things he must not do. In his talk, at least, rules that constrain him are an annoyance and dismissed. I'm not saying he would break the law, but I do think that he would stretch it and that anything that wasn't clear and explicit would be ignored. The recurring question would be "where does it say I can't do that?" and it would be necessary to cite chapter and verse to dissuade him.
And thus we are back to the importance and desirability to have legislation that is clear, explicit and non-contradictory.
Bernie proposes $15T in tax increases, for everyone (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-tax-increases-220267)
His total proposal is > 10 times the tax increase Hillary proposes, and his proposed increase even on the richest 1% is 10 times Hillary's.
I'm entirely in favour of clear and non-contradictory laws. But come do my job for a few years and you'll discover it's not as simple a proposition as it sounds.
Quote from: orfeo on March 04, 2016, 01:03:03 PM
I'm entirely in favour of clear and non-contradictory laws. But come do my job for a few years and you'll discover it's not as simple a proposition as it sounds.
I´m absolutely convinced it isn´t but I suspect it might have something to do with politicians and lobbyists...
Quote from: Brian on March 04, 2016, 12:59:22 PM
Bernie proposes $15T in tax increases, for everyone (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-tax-increases-220267)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r_yxAz0J9l8/UZi1FrMx4cI/AAAAAAAABdc/Y9LYyLnZ100/s1600/flying_pig.jpg)
Quote from: Todd on March 04, 2016, 01:18:59 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r_yxAz0J9l8/UZi1FrMx4cI/AAAAAAAABdc/Y9LYyLnZ100/s1600/flying_pig.jpg)
ROTFLMAOL :D :D :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Where on earth did you find that picture?
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 01:21:38 PM
Where on earth did you find that picture?
I just googled "pigs fly".
Terrific. I´m still laughing. :D
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2016, 12:45:23 PM
For some people who contemplate murdering somebody, yes, but not for all of them, othwerwise the murder rate would be zero, which is not the case.
Well, precisely. Stealing a sheep, pickpocketing and vagrancy decreased dramatically in England in the last two centuries not because of the laws that punished them with death but because the economical and social condition of the people who did it out of desperation improved more and more as time went by. Laws that sought to redress inequality and poverty and to enable people to make an honest and decent living by their own work and diligence did much more to curb stealing and pickpocketing than the law prescribing death penalty for comitting them.
Actually, you are factually incorrect. When the death penalty was restricted to crimes of murder, treason or setting fire to a dockyard; the crime rate exploded, much to the consternation of the middle classes.
Mike
Google states that info on 'how to emigrate to Canada' has exploded since the Super Tuesday wins by Trump. Same thing happened when W. Bush was reelected. The following year (2005) there was no change in the actual numbers of american emigrants to Canada.
Which goes on to prove that Americans may have strong sentiments and opinions, but remain firmly grounded on home soil none the less. In the end, a good understanding of the old saying 'time heals' helps surmount difficulties. When it's all said and done, 'working together in the best way we can' will be the catchphrase.
If Canada surmounted 10 years of ultra conservative Harper rhetoric and regularly unconstitutional legislation-making (*), then surely the US can live with either Trump or Clinton for 4 years.
(*) The Harper government policies' debunking by Canada's Supreme Court stands as an all-time record in this country.
Sanders is going about it the wrong way. Would higher taxes and higher spending be a net win? That would depend on how the tax increase part fell on savings (good) or spending (bad). He doesn't get that it's net spending that does the largest share of good, dollars spent into existence but not taxed back into the thin air they come from. The dollars that exist now haven't returned as tax, so they are available to do work (spending) or act as a buffer (savings). Both savings and tax removal require new spending. The savings (called the national debt on the liability side) are permanent and growing with the economy. Sanders doesn't get the circuit dynamics, and like most liberals and all conservatives thinks government must tax in order to spend, blind to the operational reality that governments must spend in order to tax.
Why does he think that the tax return must be accelerated even though the economy needs to see it slow down? Does he think, like uninformed people generally do, that if we don't get those dollars back now now now they'll refuse to come back? This is operationally impossible. It's largely the artifact of warring ideologies that only see the warts on the other side and not their own. The inconsistency is remarkable. Conservatives "know" that taxes come out of the economy and lower GDP, liberals "know" that spending goes into the economy and raises GDP. The most consistent view and the right one, is that on these points both are correct, and wrong that low taxing requires low spending on one side and high spending requires high taxing on the other. Both are one step away from understanding how deficits function, but each side from their own stubbornness won't take that step. In the case of Sanders, it's clear he is not listening to Stephanie Kelton in favor of the liberal version of orthodox economics.
Quote from: knight66 on March 04, 2016, 01:38:29 PM
Actually, you are factually incorrect. When the death penalty was restricted to crimes of murder, treason or setting fire to a dockyard; the crime rate exploded, much to the consternation of the middle classes.
Please explain me which where the factors responsible for the constant diminution until virtual disappearance, as time went by , of desperation-motivated stealing, pickpocketing and vagrancy in England.
No, I have a busy life to lead and you just pick away whenever you are confronted by facts you don't like. Here is my final word on this specific issue.
Most people are happily law abiding. But remove the laws and a substantial proportion of them will act very differently. If there were no such laws; society would become increasingly tough for those who did not take whatever opportunities life provided to them in order to survive.
It is happening right now; people under pressure are victimised and exploited immorally and illegally and many of the victims become difficult to integrate partly due to their unwillingness to play by the rules of the country they have landed in.
It is laws that keep society seemingly civilised by providing a framework with consequences that the majority of the population prefer to avoid. Some people are inherently good just as some seem to be inherently bad. But I believe the majority of us are creatures of circumstance and will act according to the pressure their society is under.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on March 05, 2016, 01:23:56 AM
No, I have a busy life to lead and you just pick away whenever you are confronted by facts you don't like.
Most interesting explanation --- and very helpful too. Thank you.
Quote from: André on March 04, 2016, 04:58:21 PM
If Canada surmounted 10 years of ultra conservative Harper rhetoric and regularly unconstitutional legislation-making (*), then surely the US can live with either Trump or Clinton for 4 years.
I enjoyed your post - and respect your perspective as a Canadian, especially since I'm one of the people who quickly Googled "move to Canada" - but I do not think Stephen Harper is a good analogue for Donald Trump. Trump is more like a Silvio Berlusconi - and although Italy did "live with" Berlusconi, he caused them extraordinary economic damage (http://www.economist.com/node/18805327), his policies helped cause Italy's current stagnant labor market, and he several times passed new laws which were designed solely to help himself escape fraud convictions.
You might have missed this - I forgive anyone and everyone for missing things Trump has said, because paying attention to Trump is such a depressing and disgusting thing to do - but Trump recently called for the US military to target for assassination the wives and children of suspected terrorists (which is a war crime). When told in a debate that the military disobeys illegal orders, he said he would force them to do it anyway.
Quote from: André on March 04, 2016, 04:58:21 PMSame thing happened when W. Bush was reelected. The following year (2005) there was no change in the actual numbers of american emigrants to Canada.
Some people get excited about politics, and say bold things, but the day after the election, they still have jobs to go to, and families, and so on. The truth is that Presidents really don't have much direct impact on most people's daily lives. Even Trump can't change that.
Quote from: drogulus on March 04, 2016, 06:39:08 PMIn the case of Sanders, it's clear he is not listening to Stephanie Kelton in favor of the liberal version of orthodox economics.
On your MMT soapbox again?
Sanders deserves credit for being honest about who and what he is: a Socialist. He attempts to soften that up with the Democratic qualifier, but as his plan shows, he's a Socialist.
Quote from: Todd on March 05, 2016, 05:48:34 AM
Some people get excited about politics, and say bold things, but the day after the election, they still have jobs to go to, and families, and so on. The truth is that Presidents really don't have much direct impact on most people's daily lives. Even Trump can't change that.
On your MMT soapbox again?
Sanders deserves credit for being honest about who and what he is: a Socialist. He attempts to soften that up with the Democratic qualifier, but as his plan shows, he's a Socialist.
We're all socialists to a greater or lesser extent. Sanders is a hairs width more socialist than a typical conservative. Libertarian rhetoricians don't have a real playbook so it doesn't matter how much more socialist everyone else is.
My view of economics rests as much on pre MMT practice and thought as it does on Mosler, Wray and Kelton. MMT was just a gleam in Warren's eye when Canadian economist William Vickrey published his critique,
Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism (http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/econ/vickrey.html). MMT is called theory but it's really an operational description. What it says is what a good theory, past good theories included,
must say in order to be coherent and faithful to facts. MMT just rounded up what's true and took out the trash. I'd say the "theory" of MMT is all preexising theory that passed muster by the highest standard, correspondence of a model to the phenomena being modeled. It's a shame more economists don't do this, many of them seem to think the world should correspond to their model, so when it doesn't, that's proof of too many socialists or some other hyper-bad thing.
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2016, 06:43:41 AMWe're all socialists to a greater or lesser extent.
True.
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2016, 06:43:41 AMSanders is a hairs width more socialist than a typical conservative.
False.
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2016, 06:43:41 AMLibertarian rhetoricians don't have a real playbook so it doesn't matter how much more socialist everyone else is.
False. Milton Friedman provided both an intellectual and popular framework that can still be used for those who wish to try. The freshwater school still has a fair number of heavy-hitters on economic matters, but on political and social matters there is no real analog. Diehards can revert to the Austrian School, but the ones who do often seem to lack gravitas. Better to stick with the Windy City.
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2016, 06:43:41 AMMMT was just a gleam in Warren's eye when Canadian economist William Vickrey published his critique
False. There is a reason - several reasons - why MMT is also referred to as neochartalism. There is nothing new under the sun.
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2016, 06:43:41 AM
We're all socialists to a greater or lesser extent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/what-socialism (http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/what-socialism)
Count me out. I have never been, I am not, and I will never be a socialist.
Quote from: Todd on March 05, 2016, 06:55:01 AM
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2016, 06:43:41 AM
MMT was just a gleam in Warren's eye when Canadian economist William Vickrey published his critique
False. There is a reason - several reasons - why MMT is also referred to as neochartalism. There is nothing new under the sun.
That's my point. As theory it draws on earlier formulations. MMT-ers didn't call it a theory for that reason. The name came from people who were unaware of prior theoretical foundations. Anyway, what's done is done, so now it's a theory.
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2016, 07:48:59 AM
Count me out. I have never been, I am not, and I will never be a socialist.
Got it, you don't call yourself a socialist and never will, so you attribute your socialism to something else. Even libertarians do that, rhetoric aside. For me rhetoric is aside a lot. I count what people do and expect, how they operate, as evidence, sometimes better evidence, than what they say.
Quote from: drogulus on March 05, 2016, 07:59:10 AM
Got it, you don't call yourself a socialist and never will, so you attribute your socialism to something else.
If it suits your fancy to call someone who does not subscribe to any of the main tenets of socialism a socialist, then by all means feel free to do so --- but you might as well call pope Francis a new atheist.
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2016, 08:15:18 AM
If it suits your fancy to call someone who does not subscribe to any of the main tenets of socialism a socialist, then by all means feel free to do so --- but you might as well call pope Francis a new atheist.
I wouldn't call him that. Many Christians are operationally atheistic in the old way, just as working economists are all Keynesian when they need to be right about something. If they don't need to be right, though, they will say what they want. Look, some people care more that what they say is true, and other people think what's true is what they say. It often depends on your job. If I'm paid to be right, I'll try to say what's true, if I'm paid to say something, I'll say that and call it true.
Sanders is a good guy, but one of the things that bothers me about him is that he never has anything good to say about capitalism, suppy/demand, etc. He only talks about the bad stuff and seems ready to throw out the entire system.
Quote from: Sammy on March 05, 2016, 10:39:00 AM
Sanders is a good guy, but one of the things that bothers me about him is that he never has anything good to say about capitalism, suppy/demand, etc. He only talks about the bad stuff and seems ready to throw out the entire system.
Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders' Socialism. He's a socialist, not a liberal—and there's a big difference. (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-2016-socialism-213667)
Quote from: Florestan on March 05, 2016, 10:44:58 AM
Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders' Socialism. He's a socialist, not a liberal—and there's a big difference. (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-2016-socialism-213667)
Good article. In addition to Liberals, a few Cons and Neo-Cons ought to read it too.
8)
I don't have RBO. What is John Oliver saying about the latest developments ? Any youtube goodies? ;)
As we say in French, 'better laugh over this than cry about it'.
Quote from: Sammy on March 05, 2016, 10:39:00 AM
Sanders is a good guy, but one of the things that bothers me about him is that he never has anything good to say about capitalism, suppy/demand, etc. He only talks about the bad stuff and seems ready to throw out the entire system.
That might explain why he won't listen to Kelton. My desire for a Bernie revolution minus Bernie meant I supported the people who persuaded Sanders to employ Kelton. If Sanders is a paleo-socialist he shares the view of paleo-capitalists that they are separate and don't mix. The real world and history say exactly the opposite, they're evolutionarily bound and do nothing
but mix. There's no pure capitalism and no pure socialism left anywhere on earth. Dead lineages don't spring back to life.
Quote from: André on March 05, 2016, 01:12:58 PM
I don't have RBO. What is John Oliver saying about the latest developments ? Any youtube goodies? ;)
As we say in French, 'better laugh over this than cry about it'.
John Oliver just did Trump last week, coincidentally!
http://www.youtube.com/v/DnpO_RTSNmQ
The whole of American politics is right wing compared to other developed countries such as In Western Europe and Australia and New Zealand. There are all sorts of things that will create cries of "socialism" in the US that would be considered perfectly normal elsewhere.
It's also bemusing when bizarrely distorted versions of other countries get thrown into US political debates. The politicians are often trusting that the audience doesn't know enough about those other countries to point out the falsehoods.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 05, 2016, 11:16:54 AM
Good article. In addition to Liberals, a few Cons and Neo-Cons ought to read it too.
8)
The article is correct about some details of socialism, but ignores some context.
It says socialists opposed Roosevelt and the New Deal, while Roosevelt rescued capitalism with his reforms. It didn't say opposition to Roosevelt was a matter of party politics at a time when Socialists could envision winning major offices.
It didn't say, what
I am saying, that Roosevelt adopting the New Deal on the advice of his own "in house" socialists was not a refutation of capitalist/socialist evolutionary entwinement but evidence for it. Why would anyone think both 1) socialism could help save capitalism and 2) capitalism was worth saving?
Repub investigators have discovered a surprising fact. According to them, Donald Trump is more than averagely vulgar. Is this picking nits? What are nits? See, I can't imagine saying to a Trump supporter "You shouldn't vote for Trump because he's too vulgar to be President" but then I can't imagine saying anything to a Trump supporter.
Maybe it's just me but Trump support looks a whole lot like the secondary phase of some evil affliction. First is a slight tremor, then its Trump, then you're eating a guys head. So yeah, it's better not to say anything. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: orfeo on March 05, 2016, 01:20:36 PM
It's also bemusing when bizarrely distorted versions of other countries get thrown into US political debates. The politicians are often trusting that the audience doesn't know enough about those other countries to point out the falsehoods.
I just read about a poll where 30% of Rs and 19% of Ds supported bombing Agrabah.
Quote from: orfeo on March 05, 2016, 01:20:36 PM
There are all sorts of things that will create cries of "socialism" in the US that would be considered perfectly normal elsewhere.
This is a point worth stressing (which is exactly what the article I linked to does).
In most of these debates, "socialism" is a word without a meaning. As far as I understand e.g. policies following Catholic social philosophy as favored by the current pope (and probably also supported by Florestan, although he is not Roman Catholic) would be described as "socialist" by libertarians and conservatives in the US.
As far as I understand Sanders's positions he is what would be called a slightly left leaning "social democrat" in most European countries. That is, of course no "system change" or hanging aristocrats from lantern posts, but a slight tempering of the worst ravages of capitalism by welfare, strong unions etc.
Except for Hayekian crazies nobody believes that such policies lead to "serfdom" (or to Moscow as centrist conservative parties put it in election campaign slogans in 1960s Germany, despite favoring social policies and tax rates that would be considered fringe leftist today, it was merely trying to smear the social democrats by association with soviet communism).
Historically, the opposite seems true. The "socialist" policies with strong unions, high marginal tax rates etc. led to wealth and comparably equal, free and safe societies in the Western nations between the 1950s and 80s. Whereas the recurrence of neoliberalism and naked capitalism in the last 30 years has in many countries led to a new underclass, to a completely detached top 1%, to one financial crises on the heels of another, to the rise of rightwing (or sometimes leftwing as in Greece) populist parties, to Trump, you name it.
Sanders would be considered a middle of the road moderate conservative in Norway (and I believe in Germany and France as well, but the Sarge may well have a view here?),
I thought Sanders was slightly more leftist than that. But of course, e.g. in Germany "moderate conservatives" and "moderate social democrats" are almost undistinguishable and many policies (healthcare, welfare etc.) that are deemed "socialist" by US commentators from libertarian or conservative stances have not been in doubt even among otherwise rightwing conservative politicians for decades.
Surely a distinction needs to be made between the welfare type of objectives Sanders promotes; which are indeed middle of the road in Europe, and his suggested methods of funding. The funding suggestions are extremeist left wing ideas that would by default involve a number of services being pulled into public ownership. The funding would also gum up the works of the economy, which only an extremist or an idiot would attempt.
Mike
Ha!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35739042?ocid=socialflow_twitter
Quote from: Jo498 on March 05, 2016, 11:55:42 PM
In most of these debates, "socialism" is a word without a meaning.
True, but this fact should not obscure that socialism
does have a meaning The basic, the main, the first and foremost tenet of socialism is the abolition of privately owned and run businesses, factories and banks and their replacement with socially / publicly /collectively owned and run ones (this, in theory only, because in practice it invariably results in their being owned and run by the State, ie, the rulling class, ie the top echelon of the Party and their acolytes). That is socialism, no more, no less --- and that´s why I am not a Socialist and neither is Sanders, probably.
Quote
As far as I understand e.g. policies following Catholic social philosophy as favored by the current pope (and probably also supported by Florestan, although he is not Roman Catholic) would be described as "socialist" by libertarians and conservatives in the US.
Speaking in strictly Romanian political context and terminology, I identify myself as a Liberal, ie a supporter of that branch of liberalism which developed in Romania since the 1848 Revolution* (so I guess that historically and technically I am man of the Left). You are correct, though: without being Roman Catholic I do subscribe to those tenets and policies of the Catholic social philosophy which converge with the said liberalism, and there are many, because Romanian liberalism has never embraced atheism and the social practice encouraged and promoted by the Eastern Orthodox Church are not markedly different from the Roman Catholic ones, although it lacks a clearly defined political philosophy and a party ideologically grounded on it. In terms of general European politics, that would make me a Christian Democrat, that is a man of the Right. So much for political labels and categories.
* (its political incarnation is the National Liberal Party, the oldest active European liberal party, established 1875. A full member of the Liberal International, in the EU Parliament it sides within European People´s Party).
Quote
As far as I understand Sanders's positions he is what would be called a slightly left leaning "social democrat" in most European countries. That is, of course no "system change" or hanging aristocrats from lantern posts, but a slight tempering of the worst ravages of capitalism by welfare, strong unions etc.
That is my impression, too, although I would use "heavily" instead of "slightly"--- and another point worth stressing is that social-democracy is different from socialism.
Quote
Except for Hayekian crazies nobody believes that such policies lead to "serfdom" (or to Moscow as centrist conservative parties put it in election campaign slogans in 1960s Germany, despite favoring social policies and tax rates that would be considered fringe leftist today, it was merely trying to smear the social democrats by association with soviet communism).
Historically, the opposite seems true. The "socialist" policies with strong unions, high marginal tax rates etc. led to wealth and comparably equal, free and safe societies in the Western nations between the 1950s and 80s.
See above: the post-war European prosperity was brought about by a pragmatical agreement between liberals, christian democrats and social-democrats, none of which were socialists.
EDIT 1: typos corrected.
EDIT 2: Hayek himself was much less "crazy" than Hayekians. As a self-styled Romanian liberal, I generally subscribe to
Hayek´s Why I Am Not A Conservative (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf).
Quote from: knight66 on March 06, 2016, 01:12:59 AM
Surely a distinction needs to be made between the welfare type of objectives Sanders promotes; which are indeed middle of the road in Europe, and his suggested methods of funding. The funding suggestions are extremeist left wing ideas that would by default involve a number of services being pulled into public ownership. The funding would also gum up the works of the economy, which only an extremist or an idiot would attempt.
Hear, hear!
Quote from: Jo498 on March 05, 2016, 11:55:42 PMHistorically, the opposite seems true. The "socialist" policies with strong unions, high marginal tax rates etc. led to wealth and comparably equal, free and safe societies in the Western nations between the 1950s and 80s. Whereas the recurrence of neoliberalism and naked capitalism in the last 30 years has in many countries led to a new underclass, to a completely detached top 1%, to one financial crises on the heels of another, to the rise of rightwing (or sometimes leftwing as in Greece) populist parties, to Trump, you name it.
This is a fairly standard outlook among some left-leaning people. Policies X, Y, and Z were used during the early post-war and Cold War era. Certain outcomes were perceived as superior – and let's assume they were – therefore, they should be followed again to achieve the same outcomes. This ignores some fundamental differences in the world today as compared to the halcyon days of the past, be they demographic (ie, aging societies with transfer payment regimes imposing ever greater economic burdens on taxpayers), financial (eg, Bretton Woods is long dead), or cultural (eg, just why do married couples have better economic outcomes than non-married couples?). The impact of top marginal rates, in particular, at least as it pertains to the US, are severely misinterpreted, as well. Because something worked in the past, when conditions were different, does not mean that it will work as well, or at all, today. Of course, it doesn't mean it won't work at all, but to ignore the significant differences in conditions is intellectually sloppy.
As to definitions of the word Socialism, there have always been different definitions. Bolshevism represents an extreme, and then there is a variety of less extreme versions, including something purportedly more palatable called Democratic Socialism. Bernie Sanders has been very clear that he is a Democratic Socialist, and his policy proposals support that. First and foremost, he openly supports creating a government monopsony in health care, thereby socializing the demand side of about a sixth of US GDP. He supports publicly funded college education, taking to its logical conclusion free education that was not the standard in the past and was so famously called for in the Communist Manifesto. He wants to impose a 64% top rate on capital gains and 0.5% transaction tax, which will ostensibly reduce financial speculation, though that much is not certain, but it will impose greater government involvement in one of the largest sectors of the economy. And he wants to introduce greater government confiscatory powers when wealthy (?) people die, reducing inheritance. Now, people can argue about the attractiveness of these and other proposals, but these go much further than merely imposing a few more regulations, as Democratic candidates usually propose, and in some instances represent actual Socialism.
It is also true, as has been pointed out by multiple posters, that the US is different from European nations, and it is more to the right, and that the policies Sanders proposes are moderate or standard fare in other countries. That's a
good thing. The US isn't Europe, nor should it strive to be like Europe.
Back to the point of the thread: with his wins last night, Cruz now has 300 delegates to Trump's 382. Perhaps Cruz can stop Trump if Republicans rally around him. What a choice. It's like being forced to choose between genital warts and rectal warts.
Quote from: knight66 on March 06, 2016, 01:12:59 AM
The funding would also gum up the works of the economy, which only an extremist or an idiot would attempt.
Mike
To some extent high taxes could gum up an economy via transitional price shocks, even when the spend rate keeps the circuit topped up, but if history is a guide not as much as one might think. I'm not enthused about the Nordic model. I understand big government/low deficits, small government/big deficits pretty well, the Nordic uses a smaller buffer. As for models working. they do, it's required. Nordic countries don't get poor faster than U.S. style, either way of provisioning a money economy works to the extent it's managed for that purpose. Manage it to not work, that works, too.
Remember when people thought Sweden would get poor from too much demand from government spending? Or was it high taxes, was that supposed to be the cause? Or, was it the size of the government sector that would consign them to poverty? Not everyone knew how bigger government sectors make cyclical management easier with enhanced countercyclicality ("flywheel effect"). Many insist on not knowing this even now, and I guess that can't be helped.
Anyway, all that's gone, not forgotten, just put on hold until "fiat money" collapses. People just
luuv their weak ideas and super strong beliefs.
I understand, I totally do.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif) A few years back I began looking into post-Keynesian economics, partially to understand how bad models produce colossal repeated uncorrected errors. What allows this, what permits this, why's it tolerated and encouraged by the bad followership going over the cliff with bad leaders?
I worked my way to MMT and to my surprise it consisted largely of an explanation of the consequences of well established operational facts, which being facts and uncontroversial enough to be widely accepted by the various schools, left me with conclusions to ponder. I assure everyone that this wasn't exactly a smooth ride. There were a few "it can't be true!" moments, not the kind of reaction you have to gold fetishism, recognition of garden variety foolishness easy to dismiss. I had to do some work, mostly fun stuff but not all of it.
The best thing I can do is recommend interested parties look into it and keep a mind open enough to follow through. Well, don't keep it, you'll have to give it back.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Drogulus, I think his CGT hike proposals would gum up the works as, should this Alice in Wonderland with Knives idea be put into action: elements of the economy would stagnate as capital disposals sit in permafrost due to confiscatory tax rates and the normal reinvestments would colapse. That is one way in which he would damage the economy for the duration of his administration.
Mike
Quote from: Todd on March 06, 2016, 08:37:43 AM
Back to the point of the thread: with his wins last night, Cruz now has 300 delegates to Trump's 382. Perhaps Cruz can stop Trump if Republicans rally around him. What a choice. It's like being forced to choose between genital warts and rectal warts.
OK, a $20 dollar book token is on its way to you young man, well done.
Mike
Quote from: Todd on March 06, 2016, 08:37:43 AM
Back to the point of the thread: with his wins last night, Cruz now has 300 delegates to Trump's 382. Perhaps Cruz can stop Trump if Republicans rally around him. What a choice. It's like being forced to choose between genital warts and rectal warts.
Unfortunately, quite an apt simile.
Quote from: knight66 on March 06, 2016, 09:12:05 AM
Drogulus, I think his CGT hike proposals would gum up the works as, should this Alice in Wonderland with Knives idea be put into action: elements of the economy would stagnate as capital disposals sit in permafrost due to confiscatory tax rates and the normal reinvestments would colapse. That is one way in which he would damage the economy for the duration of his administration.
Mike
Yes, but this doesn't happen or countries couldn't simultaneously stay rich for generations with such widely varying tax rates. So, let's think of other reasons, ones that explain how bumblebees fly, not how they don't.
What was the top CGT back when the economy was getting richer faster, and what's it now? Tell me you know where the optimal CG tax lies, and I promise not to believe you.
I've seen some work on the consequences of optimal CG taxes. I can't say I've processed it much, not to (heh!) my satisfaction, but the figure quoted was ~28%. But like I say, I haven't processed the methodology, so I don't know if this is a Laffer cost/benefit number or something more one-sided. I'll try and keep somebody's open mind.
His suggestion is to have it at double that 'optimum' number. It will never happen of course, he would not get it through the senate. But it is also relevant to look at it in comparison to other G20 countries and such a hike would be completely out of line. So would put the US at a considerable disadvantage.
Mike
Quote from: Jo498 on March 05, 2016, 11:55:42 PM
In most of these debates, "socialism" is a word without a meaning. As far as I understand e.g. policies following Catholic social philosophy as favored by the current pope (and probably also supported by Florestan, although he is not Roman Catholic) would be described as "socialist" by libertarians and conservatives in the US.
As far as I understand Sanders's positions he is what would be called a slightly left leaning "social democrat" in most European countries. That is, of course no "system change" or hanging aristocrats from lantern posts, but a slight tempering of the worst ravages of capitalism by welfare, strong unions etc.
Except for Hayekian crazies nobody believes that such policies lead to "serfdom" (or to Moscow as centrist conservative parties put it in election campaign slogans in 1960s Germany, despite favoring social policies and tax rates that would be considered fringe leftist today, it was merely trying to smear the social democrats by association with soviet communism).
Historically, the opposite seems true. The "socialist" policies with strong unions, high marginal tax rates etc. led to wealth and comparably equal, free and safe societies in the Western nations between the 1950s and 80s. Whereas the recurrence of neoliberalism and naked capitalism in the last 30 years has in many countries led to a new underclass, to a completely detached top 1%, to one financial crises on the heels of another, to the rise of rightwing (or sometimes leftwing as in Greece) populist parties, to Trump, you name it.
Completely agree with your analysis.
Quote from: Todd on March 06, 2016, 08:27:50 AM
The US isn't Europe, nor should it strive to be like Europe.
Heavens, no. You wouldn't want to catch up with all those left-leaning places that beat you on the majority of social indicators.
Quote from: knight66 on March 06, 2016, 11:55:05 AM
His suggestion is to have it at double that 'optimum' number. It will never happen of course, he would not get it through the senate. But it is also relevant to look at it in comparison to other G20 countries and such a hike would be completely out of line. So would put the US at a considerable disadvantage.
Mike
You should care a little more about why it is that "out of line" matters so little. The wide variation of tax rates between countries of approximate equal and very high per capita GDPs, IOW the most advanced countries, cause me to think that whatever optimal is, the curve must be shallow so that a higher or lower rate does the job pretty well. But then tax rates will be less important than distribution, where the tax falls. You can't mess around with distribution the way you can with rates. What ever rates say, far more tax must fall on savings than spending to run an optimal production/consumption cycle.
Quote from: orfeo on March 06, 2016, 12:51:41 PM
Heavens, no. You wouldn't want to catch up with all those left-leaning places that beat you on the majority of social indicators.
Leaving aside whatever indicators you refer to, the U.S. has its own history, culture and traditions (as do other countries). Using a European template to address American issues won't cut it.
Quote from: orfeo on March 06, 2016, 12:51:41 PM
Heavens, no. You wouldn't want to catch up with all those left-leaning places that beat you on the majority of social indicators.
Perhaps the US can strive to catch up with sophisticates from around the world in some areas. Maybe a Trump administration could take some immigration policy pointers from Australia.
(http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/10/Australia-Immigration_02-420x620.jpg)
Quote from: Todd on March 06, 2016, 02:47:44 PM
Perhaps the US can strive to catch up with sophisticates from around the world in some areas. Maybe a Trump administration could take some immigration policy pointers from Australia.
(http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/10/Australia-Immigration_02-420x620.jpg)
Not recommendable in my view. And Trump already seems to have got the idea.
Quote from: Todd on March 06, 2016, 02:47:44 PM
Perhaps the US can strive to catch up with sophisticates from around the world in some areas. Maybe a Trump administration could take some immigration policy pointers from Australia.
(http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/10/Australia-Immigration_02-420x620.jpg)
That kind of ad is directed at the local 'market' (those who vote), not to any would-be future australians. What are the chances such a poster will reach the shores of Lattaqieh or the various turkish/syrian/lybian launching places ? And finally, what makes one think they will be read by potential refugees, 5% of which (if that) understand English?
An ad in Arabic, posted in the right places will make me believe in the meaning of 'fair warning'.
Quote from: André on March 06, 2016, 05:01:27 PM
That kind of ad is directed at the local 'market' (those who vote), not to any would-be future australians. What are the chances such a poster will reach the shores of Lattaqieh or the various turkish/syrian/lybian launching places ? And finally, what makes one think they will be read by potential refugees, 5% of which (if that) understand English?
An ad in Arabic, posted in the right places will make me believe in the meaning of 'fair warning'.
The main launching places are in Indonesia, and to some extent Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and the advertising has definitely made its way to those countries. I can't swear to translated versions.
Though Arabic would be largely irrelevant for us. They don't speak Arabic in our source countries.
In order to understand how Nordic models can run as well or badly as the U.S. model, falsifying the "socialism causes poverty and tooth decay" hypothesis, read up.
Read, thank me profusely later:
The Great Scandinavian Divergence (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3956284-great-scandinavian-divergence)
Is what Sanders proposes Nordic "sociocapitalism"? Yes, I think so. He gets that taxes individuals and businesses pay don't determine after tax income for the same reason governments don't take dollars from the private sector when they spend. It's the net effect of what's added and removed that counts. Since the tax removes inflation and the savings burden, it reduces income less than government spending raises it. If it didn't aggregate income couldn't go up. Oh, that's why deficits, too, what they're for.
I judge Sanders to be economically unsophisticated. That's not a crime. FDR wanted to balance the budget! You'd think if anyone thought the economy needed to be balanced more than the fukin' budget it would be him. At least he was a learner.
Quote from: orfeo on March 06, 2016, 03:34:46 PMAnd Trump already seems to have got the idea.
There's a key difference here: Trump is bloviating about his ideas. Australia has actually done it. Way to lead the world, Australia!
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2016, 06:08:02 AM"socialism causes poverty and tooth decay"
Socialism doesn't cause tooth decay or poverty, it causes misallocation of economic resources and infringes on private property rights. For those two reasons, it must be resisted and, preferably, rolled back. The US holds its own in government spending at about 39% of GDP. If Sanders gets his way, even the French will blush at American government spending.
I have trouble to think up worse misallocations than burning billions in the financial casino and seducing some of the best and brightest to waste their talents in the "financial industry" (a misnomer, if there ever was one), a branch that does not produce anything but only shifts existing wealth to the already very wealthy and tends to produce financial crises.
There is, of course, a direct relationship between too much money in the hand of a few and a bloated "financial industry". To rein in such excesses and liberate politics from the dictates of Wall Street has nothing to do with socialism.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2016, 06:52:33 AM
Socialism doesn't cause tooth decay or poverty, it causes misallocation of economic resources and infringes on private property rights. For those two reasons, it must be resisted and, preferably, rolled back. The US holds its own in government spending at about 39% of GDP. If Sanders gets his way, even the French will blush at American government spending.
To some extent private poverty rights are infringed upon, and that does infringe on property rights. But that's a little like complaining that regulations are bad because we include benefits with costs, which we do when we enact them. "Reformers" want to forget this and count costs. Sometimes we buy this, sometimes we don't. On balance deregulation turns out to be a mistake too often, the original benefit repealed to rid us of a cost turns out to be a bad deal, like, oh, financial deregulation since the '80s.
Sanders has a tax/spend plan which won't blush anyone if I understand the net position. He wants to raise both sides, which nets out for all sectors roughly where we are. That's the point of the Sweden/U.S. comparison I make and you don't. But I don't want to stabilize Nordic style or U.S. style, I want to destabilize with higher spending and lower taxes to shift the economic balance in favor of the private sector. This is economic balance with a goal, to moderate the business/policy cycle in favor of higher growth. Of course an economy always balances somewhere, just like a dollar of government spending always returns as tax, it's just a question of where you want the economic balance to settle, high or low, it's going to be somewhere that you've chosen. And so it is when tax returns dollars to thin air, the question is when, not if. That's two views of the same phenomenon. The limits that guarantee that tax returns tolerably soon, but not too soon and that the economy balances within a tolerable range will always be severe recession and intolerable inflation.
If we can shrink by not doing this, and we do exactly that with "run out of dollars" fiscal policy, we can go the other way. I suggest we do. Sanders isn't exactly helping me do this with his paleo understandings.
Quotemisallocation of economic resources
Once again, regulation cost/benefits are "in there", there's no unique case to be made later on the basis of interests thinly disguised as "principle". That fight played out in the process of regulating and allocating. Only substantive points matter now. Show me the money, all of it, costs and benefits, then I'll listen.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 07, 2016, 07:41:13 AMTo rein in such excesses and liberate politics from the dictates of Wall Street has nothing to do with socialism.
If the government interjects itself into the operations of the financial industry with ever greater taxation and regulation, the effect is a degree of socialization of the financial industry. Of course, the bailout was the socialization of private losses. That's why big banks should be broken up, investment banking should be separated from commercial banking completely, and, perhaps at the same time, commercial banking should have higher capital requirements. It would be possible to have a simpler regulatory regime with less of a tax burden while still making the system more stable. (It would also be nice if the government would reduce its role in the mortgage market in the US. Tighter lending standard contribute to fewer defaults. But that doesn't coincide with equalitarian dreams of home ownership so precious to the American left.) One goal should be to set up a framework where private losses remain private, and regulatory capture makes that more difficult, and regulatory capture is more common the more heavily involved the government is on a detailed level. A simpler framework also reduces the opportunities for gaming the system (eg, Beal Bank). This is one area where I actually do agree with Sanders, though for different reasons, and hoping for a slightly different outcome, and even then Sanders is not satisfied, as he wants to impose punitive taxes on people who dare to invest.
Sanders is about much more than taking on the devils of Wall Street, though. (Wall Street has been a favorite target of the left for well over a century now - they must be doing something right in downtown NYC!) He is about socializing healthcare outright. He is about forking over billions upon billions to higher education, which in some areas has become more about increasing budgets than educating kids. He is about reducing the work week. He opposes trade deals. He is anti-nuclear power. He is about every dream the left in the US has had for generations.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2016, 08:16:45 AM
If the government interjects itself into the operations of the financial industry with ever greater taxation and regulation, the effect is a degree of socialization of the financial industry. Of course, the bailout was the socialization of private losses. That's why big banks should be broken up, investment banking should be separated from commercial banking completely, and, perhaps at the same time, commercial banking should have higher capital requirements. It would be possible to have a simpler regulatory regime with less of a tax burden while still making the system more stable. (It would also be nice if the government would reduce its role in the mortgage market in the US. Tighter lending standard contribute to fewer defaults. But that doesn't coincide with equalitarian dreams of home ownership so precious to the American left.) One goal should be to set up a framework where private losses remain private, and regulatory capture makes that more difficult, and regulatory capture is more common the more heavily involved the government is on a detailed level. A simpler framework also reduces the opportunities for gaming the system (eg, Beal Bank). This is one area where I actually do agree with Sanders, though for different reasons, and hoping for a slightly different outcome, and even then Sanders is not satisfied, as he wants to impose punitive taxes on people who dare to invest.
Sanders is about much more than taking on the devils of Wall Street, though. (Wall Street has been a favorite target of the left for well over a century now - they must be doing something right in downtown NYC!) He is about socializing healthcare outright. He is about forking over billions upon billions to higher education, which in some areas has become more about increasing budgets than educating kids. He is about reducing the work week. He opposes trade deals. He is anti-nuclear power. He is about every dream the left in the US has had for generations.
(bolded your pertinent phrase)
Not just the left. It was a prominent goal of Bush 43's Compassionate Conservatism™.
Quote"He is about socializing healthcare outright."
Let's take another look at the (heh!) "Republican alternative" to see if Bernie has a point. Oh wait......
It's always a question of what can only be fixed by socializing, or if something short of that will work. If you think that less socializing is a possible path it can only be because the goal is something other than getting health care to everyone. We need to examine that goal a little to see if we want to follow a path that leads away from universal coverage.
So it comes down to changing our methods to reach our goal (some amount of socializing) or changing our goal to meet a method (a kind of health care that entrenches views on who "deserves" it).
When the social system no longer tolerates the view that health care should be segregated (gerrymandered) so that nothing can approximate everyone having it, we will seek a method that can achieve the goal. That method will be some kind of socializing, with the weak Romney version easiest to attain.
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2016, 08:15:28 AMTo some extent private poverty rights are infringed upon, and that does infringe on property rights.
Department of the Redundancy Department calling.
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2016, 08:15:28 AMHe wants to raise both sides, which nets out for all sectors roughly where we are.
If we can shrink by not doing this, and we do exactly that with "run out of dollars" fiscal policy, we can go the other way. I suggest we do. Sanders isn't exactly helping me
do this with his paleo understandings.
There's no "both sides". GDP (Y) = C + I + G + (X - M). (MMT has not rendered this obsolete.) G = government spending. If that goes up, other things must drop, at least initially. Sanders wants to vastly increase taxes so he can vastly increase government spending - ie, he wants to significantly expand the role of the government in the economy, and he's been plain about that.
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2016, 08:44:12 AM
Let's take another look at the (heh!) "Republican alternative" to see if Bernie has a point. Oh wait......
It's always a question of what can only be fixed by socializing, or if something short of that will work. If you think that less socializing is a possible path it can only be because the goal is something other than getting health care to everyone. We need to examine that goal a little to see if we want to follow a path that leads away from universal coverage.
So it comes down to changing our methods to reach our goal (some amount of socializing) or changing our goal to meet a method (a kind of health care that entrenches views on who "deserves" it).
When the social system no longer tolerates the view that health care should be segregated (gerrymandered) so that nothing can approximate everyone having it, we will seek a method that can achieve the goal. That method will be some kind of socializing, with the weak Romney version easiest to attain.
Non sequiter.
But getting health care for everyone does not necessarily require single payer or other forms in which the government is completely dominant.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 07, 2016, 08:32:36 AM
It was a prominent goal of Bush 43's Compassionate Conservatism™.
Yes, and look how that turned out.
Government intervention in lending policies has its current roots in ECOA and the Federal Fair Housing Act, and various other laws, amendments, and changes implemented from time to time. (It started as part of the New Deal with the FHA, of course.) From an enforcement standpoint, the "disparate impact" standard can be used to, if not force, then encourage a lender to make sure that even neutral policies end up being changed to make sure that no one is "denied" a loan.
Rubio won Puerto Rico.
QuoteIf that goes up, other things must drop, at least initially.
Absolutely, for a fixed value of Y. If an economy really was zero sum, though, capitalism would be zero sum for the same reason. If GDP was fixed, profits, on the same principle, would cause the economy to cycle down just like the thrift paradox causes. I mean they're both savings, so.... What is it that doesn't allow this? The injection of sufficient new money to cover savings and facilitate growth is what. Government spending adds, and guess what, prepare yourself, it's taxation that removes! So net spending, where it's set, is what's doing the equalizing if its run to approximate a zero sum, and permits a growing GDP if it isn't. Understanding the difference between a static representation the equation shows and the dynamic balance of a positive sum money system (like the only ones we know) clears up the confusion.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 07, 2016, 08:54:15 AM
Non sequiter.
I don't understand what non sequiter refers to in my comment.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 07, 2016, 08:54:15 AM
But getting health care for everyone does not necessarily require single payer or other forms in which the government is completely dominant.
Is this an empirical determination? If not, why would I care about something as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard producing a B2 bomber?
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2016, 09:37:42 AMUnderstanding the difference between a static representation the equation shows and the dynamic balance of a positive sum money system (like the only ones we know) clears up the confusion.
I am fully aware of the difference between static formulae and dynamic growth. This does not alter the fact that Sanders wants to significantly increase the government role in the economy (G goes up) at the direct expense of other portions of the economy (C and I go down). He wants that to be a permanent change. This is what he says literally all the time. Nor does it alter the fact that you are advocating something (permanent debt monetization, essentially) that no responsible person advocates, and with good reason.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
I am fully aware of the difference between static formulae and dynamic growth.
Not on the evidence of your comments, you don't.
Why would C and I go down in theory if they don't in practice? This looks exactly like you don't understand a positive sum money system. Your GDP is fixed so if one factor goes up you have to lower another to get the same Y. Economies never get the same Y because even conservatives know better than to shrink an economy to prove it's possible. When they want to pray to their god and make people not like them suffer they invoke "shrink to grow" shit (your static Y) then even they can't stand what they've done and remember how to grow with whatever new money is needed. How they manage to keep their dumb ideas and the recovery ideas straight baffles me. It must be exhausting!
To sum up, you can run the economy zero sum and keep Y constant (for a while anyway) but nothing tells you to do that, it's just describing a state, not its change or rate of change. The expansion factor is net new financial assets from government spending, assets for the deposit holder recorded as liabilities, the national financial savings/debt that grows C, I, and Y just like the GDP equation says. This is money/monetization or debt/debtization, whatever. It's how the system works. It's why nobody in their right mind would think we should claw back trillions in private sector savings. That savings/debt is a functional property of the money system expanding with the economy to facilitate that expansion, not people behaving badly or a $19T accident.
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2016, 11:40:49 AM
Why would C and I go down in theory if they don't in practice?
To sum up, you can run the economy zero sum and keep Y constant (for a while anyway)
I'd swear you knew exactly what I meant when looking at these two sentences. Attempting to obfuscate how standard models are used with clumsy language does not hide the fact that Sanders wants a whole lot more government and less private sector activity as a proportion of GDP now and forever. It's not just an economic choice, but an ideological one. And your clumsy language doesn't mask the fact that you ignore the risks of permanent debt monetization.
QuoteSanders wants a whole lot more government and less private sector activity as a proportion of GDP
Well if the Swedes can't keep the private sector from growing along with the public sector Sanders probably won't either. All he might achieve is a bigger slice of a growing pie, and I'm sure he does want that, both bigger slice and bigger pie. I'm with the MMT-ers in thinking the growth of the pie for everyone should use as must government sector as it needs but not more, which will be well short of what Bernie wants.
I'm not trying to obfuscate the dumbth in standard model interpretation, just reveal it. No one should get away with saying the government gets dollars from the private sector to spend, so no one should imagine that taxes add to private sector spending. We're trying to be consistent right, spending subtracts, taxes add, correct? Ah no, not correct, something else is. Spending
adds, taxes
subtract dollars from the private sector. Government spends and taxes the excess, it doesn't tax to get dollars, or there wouldn't be any dollars to tax. The $19T in net financial savings is the confirmation of this. As Warren Mosler puts it in his typical banking /finance way, first you have to do the add then you can do the drain.
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2016, 12:56:50 PMAll he might achieve is a bigger slice of a growing pie, and I'm sure he does want
Yes, his ideology drives him to expand the role of the state. That much is plain and clear.
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2016, 12:56:50 PMThe $19T in net financial savings is the confirmation of this.
It might make sense for you to audit a course on public finance at a local community college.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2016, 01:25:51 PM
It might make sense for you to audit a course on public finance at a local community college.
I'm not sure I could do any good. If they wouldn't listen to the economists who know this stuff I doubt they'd listen to me.
From the wikipedia on public finance:
"The main objective of taxation is raising revenue."
You can't recover from that.
Quote from: drogulus on March 07, 2016, 01:37:28 PM
I'm not sure I could do any good. If they wouldn't listen to the economists who know this stuff I doubt they'd listen to me.
Right.
Bloomberg reports Bloomberg won't run. (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-07/michael-bloomberg-says-he-won-t-run-for-president-in-2016)
I always get fascinated when people talk about things like socialisation of healthcare without outlining in detail why that would be bad.
There's so much ideology about government good or government bad without considering the specific subject matter. To me, general healthcare is a perfect example of a service that is more effectively provided centrally, rather than requiring each individual to purchase their own doctors and hospitals and treatment.
People proudly declare how the USA has fantastic healthcare, and it absolutely does but only for those who can afford to access it. And need for health services is random, it doesn't correlate to ability to pay for health services.
When people basically don't want government in anything, it's easy to point out things like roads, fire departments, sewage pipes and other infrastructure where it clearly makes sense to provide the service on a collective basis. I would put a large amount of healthcare in the same category.
Quote from: orfeo on March 07, 2016, 03:48:58 PM
I always get fascinated when people talk about things like socialisation of healthcare without outlining in detail why that would be bad.
There's so much ideology about government good or government bad without considering the specific subject matter. To me, general healthcare is a perfect example of a service that is more effectively provided centrally, rather than requiring each individual to purchase their own doctors and hospitals and treatment.
People proudly declare how the USA has fantastic healthcare, and it absolutely does but only for those who can afford to access it. And need for health services is random, it doesn't correlate to ability to pay for health services.
When people basically don't want government in anything, it's easy to point out things like roads, fire departments, sewage pipes and other infrastructure where it clearly makes sense to provide the service on a collective basis. I would put a large amount of healthcare in the same category.
Amen! :)
Quote from: orfeo on March 07, 2016, 03:48:58 PM
I always get fascinated when people talk about things like socialisation of healthcare without outlining in detail why that would be bad.
There's so much ideology about government good or government bad without considering the specific subject matter. To me, general healthcare is a perfect example of a service that is more effectively provided centrally, rather than requiring each individual to purchase their own doctors and hospitals and treatment.
People proudly declare how the USA has fantastic healthcare, and it absolutely does but only for those who can afford to access it. And need for health services is random, it doesn't correlate to ability to pay for health services.
Testimonial from a Republican who voted twice against Obama and then admitted the Affordable Care Act saved his life:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/03/03/brents-letter-president-you-saved-my-life
Quote from: orfeo on March 07, 2016, 03:48:58 PMI always get fascinated when people talk about things like socialisation of healthcare without outlining in detail why that would be bad.
I'm always fascinated by the intellectual dishonesty of those who deny that many Democrats actively pursue socialization of healthcare. This is almost entirely a phenomenon of the American left. I have read, and heard, more than one person deny what Sanders proposes is the socialization of healthcare. As if Medicare for all could be anything else.
Socialization of healthcare, as it would and perhaps will be practiced by the US federal government through expanding power in the insurance market, using Medicare and Medicaid as practical guides, will, by necessity, involve rationing. It will also involve HHS using its monopsony power to pay prescribed rates for defined goods and services, which may be below the standard price healthcare delivery firms or private practitioners charge, and it maybe even below cost. This is done to force certain procedures or products to no longer be used. This is done today. Another aspect of the socialization of healthcare in the US has to do with the strictly clerical side. HHS is phasing in mandates to use ICD-10 coding standards for billing purposes, and if healthcare providers do not comply, they do not get paid. (This has been proposed for years, but is only now rolling out. It is independent of, but coincidental with, the ACA roll-out. I've been reading about it since the early-90s; I'm somewhat surprised it is happening now, though I know for certain it will take longer than predicted.) Now, some may cheer this development, and say its about time that record keeping becomes standardized, but there is an immediate negative impact to smaller providers, who cannot afford specialized staff for coding, even though such staff members do not get paid an exorbitant amount on average, and there is an outsize impact to smaller communities. These changes will also require investment in IT infrastructure and greater reliance on digital records, with the security concerns that brings up. So, to put it briefly, the government will use monopsony power to achieve desired prices, decrease or eliminate certain practices, both of which are forms of rationing, and also uses its mandate power to force other, non-healthcare delivery activities to take place. Single payer coverage would exacerbate these practical concerns. Some people think these would be bad things, others think they would be good things.
Now none of this is to say that private insurance does not impose rationing of its own, because it does. However, in terms of reimbursement and services provided, private companies are often, but not always, more flexible, and they do not have the power to mandate, at least to larger healthcare providers. There is less of an imbalance of power.
One other development, also underway, is that with ever greater government involvement on the insurance side comes the emergence of ever larger corporations and not-for-profit entities on the delivery side. This, in theory, would allow for economies of scale (one of the most misused economic concepts ever outside of manufacturing and only applicable here in terms of purchasing power) and should make standardization of record keeping and service delivery easier, but I know for certain with one gigantic healthcare delivery firm, well know for its efficiency, that is not entirely the case.
Now perhaps a purely market based solution would be better, but evidence shows that not to be the case. Pre-existing conditions are excluded, some insurers exit markets entirely, and so forth. But a better answer may be something along the lines of allowing individuals the option to self-insure (usually the young and indestructible) or to be able to choose among a variety of plans that meet certain coverage and premium mixes that are more palatable rather than being forced to use a government mandated plan. And then there are the lies that were told about how ACA would work – people could keep their plans, their doctors, etc, when that was never the case – and that leads one to wonder about promises made about even more ambitious programs.
Personally, I'm not wedded to any particular arrangement. I have little faith that the US government will or could deliver health insurance efficiently (nor would I want it to) – and its record of healthcare delivery is poor – but I doubt it could be much worse than the private market, with its market failures. I'm mostly disappointed in the lack of imagination of business leaders and moderate Republicans in using legislative momentum to extract concessions on unrelated business regulations and using this as an opportunity to remove one employee related financial burden for employers, which would have the great benefit of making US labor markets even more flexible. And workers themselves would benefit by no longer, or at least less probably, being stuck in jobs for health insurance. But without concessions, Republicans should do everything in their power to block or destroy additional plans for universal coverage.
"Socialization" ? That is a rather odd term...
You mean designing it as a (partly) collective arrangement (like in may European countries) or providing it as a public service (NHS in the UK)?
In the Netherlands we have "hybrid" system. Basic health care is mandatory for both sides, so you have to have an insurance and the (private) insurance company has to accept you. Anything outside of the "basic" package is left to the free market. Any unequal distribution of "bad" risks between the insurance companies (clients that elderly, or have a permanent condition) are "equalized" between the companies trough an special equalization fund. People with a low income receive a tax benefit to help pay for the insurance costs.
The system seems to work pretty well....
What doesn't work well are the privatized hospitals: inefficient and poorly managed.
Q
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2016, 07:43:19 PM
There is less of an imbalance of power.
Well, you're focusing on the power balance between the private companies and the government. I'm focusing on the power balance between the private companies and the people who actually need healthcare.
Healthcare as a product is particularly ill-suited to market forces because it's a product that you most need when you as an individual are not in a position to bargain. And that's the thing that utterly baffles me about the US system. I've got no problem with private health insurance for elective surgery, or for getting your choice of doctor, or maybe for getting something done faster, but when push comes to shove and it's basically a question of receive treatment or face death/permanent injury, I find it completely absurd that a business negotiation might have to take place in those circumstances. I find it horiffic that a person might have to deal with financial issues in an emergency room.
I also find it completely bizarre that one of the things that Americans have to consider when seeking employment or choosing a job is the health care plan that comes with the job. That's a clear sign that the health insurance market simply doesn't work for individuals. Individuals have to rely on companies to negotiate something for them. Why individuals relying on companies to negotiate is better than individuals relying on the government to negotiate for them, I've no idea. You're worried about the government wanting to keep costs down, but not a corporate employer wanting to keep costs down? I know which I'd be more comfortable with: the government doesn't have a profit motive.
Though credit where it's due. I love the television series Breaking Bad, and it could never have happened without the American healthcare system.
Quote from: orfeo on March 07, 2016, 11:54:57 PM
Though credit where it's due. I love the television series Breaking Bad, and it could never have happened without the American healthcare system.
This wins the thread, or at least the healthcare portion. :laugh:
I admit that I have no idea what the US could do now to improve its healthcare system. I do not know how the structures there could be adapted to systems like in European countries (and there are several quite different ones here). But fact is that the US expends more on healthcare as GDP % than all or most other countries and it also has more people without adaequate (or any) health insurance than most comparable 1st world countries and despite the huge expenses a comparably low life expectancy (and a huge poor-rich gap in life expectancy, although this gap is also astoundingly big in e.g. Germany).
To claim that this situation should be anywhere near a local optimum and developing it more in direction of the European models would like make the situation worse strikes me as odd.
Quote from: orfeo on March 07, 2016, 03:48:58 PM
I always get fascinated when people talk about things like socialisation of healthcare without outlining in detail why that would be bad.
That's the point when you should stop being fascinated. The notion that people need to be informed about the degree of socialism in a particular plan so they can oppose or support it, or that they need to know how socialist they "are" if they do support it has no useful information in it. The details of the plan carry information you need. The other stuff is name calling, the kind of thing you say if you have nothing substantive to offer.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 08, 2016, 12:10:15 AM
This wins the thread, or at least the healthcare portion. :laugh:
I admit that I have no idea what the US could do now to improve its healthcare system. I do not know how the structures there could be adapted to systems like in European countries (and there are several quite different ones here). But fact is that the US expends more on healthcare as GDP % than all or most other countries and it also has more people without adaequate (or any) health insurance than most comparable 1st world countries and despite the huge expenses a comparably low life expectancy (and a huge poor-rich gap in life expectancy, although this gap is also astoundingly big in e.g. Germany).
To claim that this situation should be anywhere near a local optimum and developing it more in direction of the European models would like make the situation worse strikes me as odd.
There are two goals:
1) Raise efficiency. The U.S. system is too expensive for the results it obtains. Much of that comes down to gouging of the insured, the rest due to the high costs of health care for the uninsured or underinsured. Does the "socialist" label tell you whether efficiency should be a goal?
2) Cover everyone. In spite of efforts to the contrary ethical notions do enter into politics. My view is this has its strongest justification where what's ethical wins on efficiency, too. Is it more efficient to cover everyone? Yes, that's asked and answered. Does there remain an ethical justification strong enough to counter the imperative to provide health care for all?
A Darwinian view is helpful. Human beings and human societies will evolve. We might, as the philosophers say ("in principle"), evolve back into dinosaurs, yet this doesn't happen. The future of societies and species always builds on the present. Time can't be run in reverse. The best we can do with social systems is pick out a feature from a past society and find a way to bring it back. Some features can't be brought back, like absolutist notions of private property that depended on the notion that the great bulk of the populace were disposable tools for the deserving view. We think differently now and private property ideas change with everything else.
An example of private property, almost the founding notion among absolutists, is slavery. This is the paradigmatic version where those who seized slaves have absolute control over those who were seized. Property rights afficiandos today would prefer to call this "states rights" to make the principle go down easier with a little strategic forgetfulness, but its there in attenuated form as the Red States stand on principle to deny health care to their subjects. Are the states acting on behalf of property rights, as vessels for what dare not speak its name? A little history helps here, and more history helps more. Slavery and states rights were argued for via theology (what a surprise!). Yes, it's so, a transcendent being implacably hostile to human beings minus the elect, was, a book said, author of property rights! And you know historians say the slave faction had better theologians than the abolitionists! Oh yes, I'm sure they did.
Some versions of property rights have ethical justification. I pay taxes, that could violate a property right if I thought the idea applied to money. I know why it doesn't so I have to build my case on other grounds if I decide my taxes are not what they should be. I do that. Now that our slaves are gone (or, that we're not slaves), we're going to have to circle the wagons to protect the rights we have left. No doubt states can be hungry beasts, particularly for property rights that cause suffering for many people who can't exercise them.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2016, 07:43:19 PM
Personally, I'm not wedded to any particular arrangement. I have little faith that the US government will or could deliver health insurance efficiently (nor would I want it to) – and its record of healthcare delivery is poor – but I doubt it could be much worse than the private market, with its market failures. I'm mostly disappointed in the lack of imagination of business leaders and moderate Republicans in using legislative momentum to extract concessions on unrelated business regulations and using this as an opportunity to remove one employee related financial burden for employers, which would have the great benefit of making US labor markets even more flexible. And workers themselves would benefit by no longer, or at least less probably, being stuck in jobs for health insurance. But without concessions, Republicans should do everything in their power to block or destroy additional plans for universal coverage.
It's always easy to argue for a vague platitude when your opponent has a specific policy, and that has clearly been the R's general strategy since 2010. They thought they'd hit Obama so hard that he'd lose to whoever they put up in 2012. Instead, they riled up their own base to the extent that they mostly can't ask for concessions; they are obligated to seek a full replacement with... something else.
I do credit Burr-Coburn-Hatch for producing an actual proposal, but I discredit them for its terribleness and utter political unviability. It was a stark reminder (to those who heard about it) of how much more difficult things get when you move from chanting "market-driven" to trying to write an actual policy.
Many of their moderates have been primaried or intimidated. No R wants to be known as the one who compromised with Obama.
Quote from: orfeo on March 07, 2016, 11:54:57 PM
I also find it completely bizarre that one of the things that Americans have to consider when seeking employment or choosing a job is the health care plan that comes with the job. That's a clear sign that the health insurance market simply doesn't work for individuals. Individuals have to rely on companies to negotiate something for them. Why individuals relying on companies to negotiate is better than individuals relying on the government to negotiate for them, I've no idea. You're worried about the government wanting to keep costs down, but not a corporate employer wanting to keep costs down? I know which I'd be more comfortable with: the government doesn't have a profit motive.
Another implication is that bigger employers have more bargaining leverage than smaller employers. It is, in effect, a codified way of making it difficult to compete.
ETA: yet another problem is that for people with employer-provided insurance, the interested parties are:
1. Employee
2. Employer
3. Insurance company
4. Doctor or other provider
Which is probably too many, especially when the only party with a real interest in controlling costs (the employer) is completely detached from care/cost decisions.
Quote from: Pat B on March 08, 2016, 05:52:03 AM
I do credit Burr-Coburn-Hatch for producing an actual proposal, but I discredit them for its terribleness and utter political unviability. It was a stark reminder (to those who heard about it) of how much more difficult things get when you move from chanting "market-driven" to trying to write an actual policy.
I think you know what Repub alternatives are for. They're placeholders. They have a plan! If it was any good they wouldn't have it. When Obama adopted the Repub plan, real because it was filtered through the legislative process of Massachusetts, that left Repubs with nothing but the leavings, a plan suited to Outer Dingbatville where Repubs mentally reside these days. I haven't seen the plan, but I'll bet it's got lots of property rights in it.
Quote from: Que on March 07, 2016, 10:16:46 PMYou mean designing it as a (partly) collective arrangement (like in may European countries) or providing it as a public service (NHS in the UK)?
Sanders' vision, and the dream of a fair number of those on the American left, is for a federal monopsony on the insurance side: that is, the socialization of health insurance. Basically, Medicare for all. Other frameworks are available, including the type you describe and the broadly similar ACA. But in the US system, no matter what, the federal government is already the largest single purchaser of healthcare, and it uses that fact, plus its ability to mandate practices under the law, to set reimbursement rates and to require defined practices in reimbursement (eg, electronic submission for reimbursement using ICD-10 coding standards), which has the unintended/intended (not sure which) effect of forcing some smaller healthcare providers out of business altogether or into larger healthcare delivery organizations. The US is currently moving toward ever greater government involvement in healthcare right now, and it will not be reversed.
Quote from: orfeo on March 07, 2016, 11:54:57 PMfind it completely absurd that a business negotiation might have to take place in those circumstances.
The negotiation happens when purchasing insurance, not when receiving care. If someone goes to the emergency room without insurance, they must be treated under federal law, and the squabbling about reimbursement comes later. Billions are written off every year due to uninsured people receiving care this way, which means that the insured are already covering a portion of the uninsured indirectly.
Quote from: orfeo on March 07, 2016, 11:54:57 PMYou're worried about the government wanting to keep costs down, but not a corporate employer wanting to keep costs down? I know which I'd be more comfortable with: the government doesn't have a profit motive.
I'm concerned about both. The difference is that I can switch employers or buy my own insurance. I cannot switch governments. Well, unless I move to a different country. And while it is true that the government has no profit motive, various government agencies do have bureaucratic motivations (budgets, power) and inertia, which can create similar pressures.
Quote from: Pat B on March 08, 2016, 05:52:03 AMthey are obligated to seek a full replacement with... something else.
That was a blunder both with the population of voters and with companies involved with healthcare. There are now vested interests with billions at stake. ACA will not die. Sanders would run into the same reality were he to win and attempt to impose Medicare for all.
What Republicans' 'Demographic Death Spiral' Looks Like (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-07/what-republicans-demographic-death-spiral-looks-like)
Quote from: Todd on March 08, 2016, 06:21:22 AM
Billions are written off every year due to uninsured people receiving care this way, which means that the insured are already covering a portion of the uninsured indirectly.
Oh, if only there was a way to get the entitled to see their own stake in this process! I guess nobody is entitled to be smart about such things. You have to do the work, not let your property interests do it for you.
I could act like Mr. Property and do the tunnel vision thing, kill all my neighbors goats or make sure they don't have any, but what if law, and a little of that nasty ethics shit say
I have to pay anyway? Why does the world have to be so unfair to the entitled?
In practical terms, as well as vindicate our sacred rights, why not instruct our party to come up with a way to
not pay for health care for the unentitled? Wouldn't that make the issue clearer? If only we could get all the Elect to sing from the same hymnal, maybe we could win!
Quote from: Todd on March 08, 2016, 06:21:22 AM
That was a blunder both with the population of voters and with companies involved with healthcare. There are now vested interests with billions at stake. ACA will not die. Sanders would run into the same reality were he to win and attempt to impose Medicare for all.
You're talking about (maybe among others) the insurance industry, right? Let's be clear then: that predated ACA by a long shot. Otherwise agree completely. They had a sweet deal in 2010, have a somewhat different but similarly sweet deal now, and will spend a whole bunch of money making sure legislators don't make things significantly worse for them.
Quote from: Pat B on March 08, 2016, 08:58:04 AM
They had a sweet deal in 2010, have a somewhat different but similarly sweet deal now, and will spend a whole bunch of money making sure legislators don't make things significantly worse for them.
No proper insurance company could do less. After all, we are not Communists.....until I hear otherwise from the Caller of Names.
Everybody has to decide for themselves how much a sweet deal for insurance companies should be in a health plan that's supposed to be for everyone. Is it better to just pay the "we're not Communists" mafiosi fuck you money and shove them aside? Should we allow them to be
part of the solution? Is it safe to do that? Is it sane to do that?
What I'd do, I'd pay the walk away money and build a good system on available models. Something has to be done to put health care for everyone out of reach of the Red State scumbags. Red State nullification is doing real damage. So I say "you shat all over your own plan and did great harm to your own constituents to destroy the Kenyan Socialist (ah, the power of names!), now you're going to lose your right to do even more damage."
Quote from: Pat B on March 08, 2016, 08:58:04 AMYou're talking about (maybe among others) the insurance industry, right?
A variety of corporate interests have a stake in ACA. Insurance companies get millions of new customers, some forced. But that's not the only industry impacted. M&A activity has accelerated in the past few years in other areas of healthcare, especially on the delivery side among larger hospitals and other providers (eg, HMOs). Some of the requirements of ACA favor larger organizations that can consolidate administrative functions - eg, consolidating and managing electronic medical records, which is a
massive undertaking. I have more specific knowledge about the area where I live, where a good number of smaller providers have closed up shop while the largest providers are consolidating into basically four main providers, and a good portion of those smaller providers (mainly individual practitioners) now are part of the larger companies. I suspect that trend will continue. In the last few years, one enterprising delivery company specializing in treating Spanish-speaking Medicaid patients has gone from one main facility to eight facilities, plus mobile units, with contracts with multiple larger providers. More medium and large entities on the delivery side (and the medical supply side, in certain areas) will also make sure to spend buckets full of money on lobbying since they stand to gain from the now current system.
Quote from: Todd on March 08, 2016, 06:21:22 AM
The difference is that I can switch employers or buy my own insurance. I cannot switch governments.
What do you mean, you can't switch governments? This is an election thread.
And the notion that you would switch employers to switch health plans is exactly what I find so outrageously bizarre.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/floridas-sun-sentinel-no-gop-candidate-worth-163139142.html?clear=cache (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/floridas-sun-sentinel-no-gop-candidate-worth-163139142.html?clear=cache)
Quote from: orfeo on March 08, 2016, 12:12:27 PMWhat do you mean, you can't switch governments? This is an election thread.
When Obama leaves office, a very small portion of the executive branch will go with him. Almost all members of Congress will return, SCOTUS remains, and millions of federal employees, thousands of laws, and an untold number of federal programs will remain.
Quote from: Todd on March 08, 2016, 10:42:55 AM
A variety of corporate interests have a stake in ACA. Insurance companies get millions of new customers, some forced. But that's not the only industry impacted. M&A activity has accelerated in the past few years in other areas of healthcare, especially on the delivery side among larger hospitals and other providers (eg, HMOs). Some of the requirements of ACA favor larger organizations that can consolidate administrative functions - eg, consolidating and managing electronic medical records, which is a massive undertaking. I have more specific knowledge about the area where I live, where a good number of smaller providers have closed up shop while the largest providers are consolidating into basically four main providers, and a good portion of those smaller providers (mainly individual practitioners) now are part of the larger companies. I suspect that trend will continue. In the last few years, one enterprising delivery company specializing in treating Spanish-speaking Medicaid patients has gone from one main facility to eight facilities, plus mobile units, with contracts with multiple larger providers. More medium and large entities on the delivery side (and the medical supply side, in certain areas) will also make sure to spend buckets full of money on lobbying since they stand to gain from the now current system.
Thanks for the clarification.
Meanwhile, The Donald seems to have recovered from Saturday (not a huge surprise) and Rubio is just getting zapped. He's behind Kasich in Michigan and even in Mississippi.
Quote from: Todd on March 07, 2016, 08:16:45 AM
big banks should be broken up, investment banking should be separated from commercial banking completely, and, perhaps at the same time, commercial banking should have higher capital requirements.
How can all that be done without infringing on property rights and expanding governmental powers?
Quote from: Todd on March 08, 2016, 01:15:58 PM
When Obama leaves office, a very small portion of the executive branch will go with him. Almost all members of Congress will return, SCOTUS remains, and millions of federal employees, thousands of laws, and an untold number of federal programs will remain.
I don´t get it. Would you like that, on every change of President, all laws passed and all federal programs established under the former President be repealed and abolished, all federal employees be fired, all congressmen be forbidden to run again and all member of the Supreme Court replaced?
Re: Sanders. Suppose he wins the Presidency. Now, either he wishes to expand governmental powers within the limits prescribed by the Constitution --- in which case you shouldn´t have any, or much, problem with that, right?; or he wishes to expand governmental powers beyond the constitutional limitations, in which case he will undoubtedly be prevented from doing so by the Congress and the Supreme Court, right?
Quote from: Todd on March 08, 2016, 01:15:58 PM
When Obama leaves office, a very small portion of the executive branch will go with him. Almost all members of Congress will return, SCOTUS remains, and millions of federal employees, thousands of laws, and an untold number of federal programs will remain.
Whereas you seem to think that changing employers within the same profession and having a new health plan will transform your world utterly. Hmm.
Trump Is Too Poor for a Third-Party Run (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-07/donald-trump-doesn-t-have-enough-money)
The article says he doesn't have enough liquid assets, he'd have to mortgage property to lose an election. Who thinks he'd do this? We're talking hundreds of millions of debt, one hard recession away from
another bankruptcy.
QuoteHow can all that be done without infringing on property rights and expanding governmental powers?
How can we infringe on property rights and expand governmental powers if we don't do all that?
QuoteI don´t get it. Would you like that, on every change of President, all laws passed and all federal programs established under the former President be repealed and abolished, all federal employees be fired, all congressmen be forbidden to run again and all member of the Supreme Court replaced?
It sounds like you do get it. Don't sell yourself short.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Florida's Sun Sentinel: No GOP candidate worth endorsing (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/floridas-sun-sentinel-no-gop-candidate-worth-163139142.html?clear=cache)
It may seem strange when talking about partisan (usually) institutions like newspapers to think one of them might take the position that "no GOP candidate is worth endorsing" because no GOP candidate is worth endorsing and not because they endorse a candidate from the other party, but the quaint practice of choosing the best from each party on some not entirely partisan criteria still exists. Papers do that even now, and for one of them to deviate from this practice even to the extent of shitting on the favorite son by noticing how unqualified he is, that's notable.
OK, to be crystal clear, newspapers don't matter much as causes, they change few minds. But as effects, as measures of what has happened, they matter as supporting evidence. If people (nondollar voters) begin to think they have to vote for one kind of unsuitable candidate or another to "send a message" to the agents of the status quo in both parties and government, the consequences will be a huge victory for the politician most firmly associated with the status quo. Only a Trump/Sanders chimera could defeat her. Can a mythological beast serve as President? Someone fetch me an originalist who's not dead. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: Florestan on March 08, 2016, 11:44:55 PMHow can all that be done without infringing on property rights and expanding governmental powers?
It will infringe on property rights, to be sure, but depending on how such regulation is structured, it could actually reduce direct governmental powers and oversight at the federal level. The pre-GLBA regulation regime was less onerous than what came after, which has become even more cumbersome after Dodd-Frank. Compliance costs for financial companies are higher than ever, and yet the largest institutions still pose systemic risk. States also had more of a say in regulation prior to GLBA, and that can be a worthwhile tradeoff.
Quote from: Florestan on March 08, 2016, 11:44:55 PMI don´t get it. Would you like that, on every change of President, all laws passed and all federal programs established under the former President be repealed and abolished, all federal employees be fired, all congressmen be forbidden to run again and all member of the Supreme Court replaced?
Not at all. I have no idea how you would have concluded that I would desire such outcomes. I merely pointed out that a change in President does not mean that the
government changes, and that I cannot change governments.
Quote from: orfeo on March 09, 2016, 02:53:00 AMWhereas you seem to think that changing employers within the same profession and having a new health plan will transform your world utterly. Hmm.
It is possible to switch employers, and receive better benefits packages, which includes more than just healthcare. In tight labor markets, and especially for skilled employees, improved benefits packages is one of the major ways that employers lure talent here in the US. It is unlikely to transform a person's world "utterly", but that is not what I wrote.
Quote from: Pat B on March 08, 2016, 08:52:26 PM
Meanwhile, The Donald seems to have recovered from Saturday (not a huge surprise) and Rubio is just getting zapped. He's behind Kasich in Michigan and even in Mississippi.
The Donald is up to 458 delegates to Cruz's 359. If Rubio drops out and gives Cruz his delegates, then Cruz would lead Trump. It may be time for Rubio to go, especially if he wants to have a role in government. VP seems unlikely. Maybe a nice cabinet post.
Clinton is still comfortably out front even after Michigan, but only because of the undemocratic superdelegates. Could Hillary lose again?
Just imagine a Cruz-Sanders race. Ugh.
Quote from: Todd on March 09, 2016, 06:59:50 AM
The Donald is up to 458 delegates to Cruz's 359. If Rubio drops out and gives Cruz his delegates, then Cruz would lead Trump. It may be time for Rubio to go, especially if he wants to have a role in government. VP seems unlikely. Maybe a nice cabinet post.
Chris Stirewalt eschews any sugar-coating:
DEAR REPUBLICANS, IT'S TED CRUZ
What is the rationale for Marco Rubio's candidacy?
The latest poll out from the classiest and most reliable Florida pollster, Quinnipiac University, says there is none. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/09/dear-republicans-its-ted-cruz.html)
Quote from: karlhenning on March 09, 2016, 08:59:44 AM
Chris Stirewalt eschews any sugar-coating:
DEAR REPUBLICANS, IT'S TED CRUZ
What is the rationale for Marco Rubio's candidacy?
The latest poll out from the classiest and most reliable Florida pollster, Quinnipiac University, says there is none. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/09/dear-republicans-its-ted-cruz.html)
I can see from a Fox perspective it must be Cruz.
While there was a wintertime flirtation with Trump as the more establishment-friendly and malleable candidate for the GOP, springtime has brought a new realization that Trump could mean not just a general election wipeout, but also generational damage to the party's brand. How is Trump the cause, not the effect of self-inflicted generational damage to the party? This would be puzzling if taken seriously. How could a party
not suffering generational damage to its brand seriously consider nominating Trump? I mean they aren't junkies, they merely overdosed on heroin. Nobody's perfect.....
Trump Descends Into Steak-Fueled Madness After Winning More States
Here's how many here think the race will end up like:
(http://images.lpcdn.ca/924x615/201603/09/1153609-9-mars.png)
Says the Prez: "And I'd be moving next January" (he's holding a leaflet ad about http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/05/cape-bretons-new-slogan-waiting-for-americans.html (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/05/cape-bretons-new-slogan-waiting-for-americans.html)
Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia).
Top pollster: 'I have never seen anything like' what happened in Michigan (http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-bernie-michigan-win-results-hillary-clinton-2016-3)
I've worked it out. If Trump wins we all move to Canada, that's the plan. Does something, logical entailment perhaps, mean if Sanders wins we all move to Mexico?
I live in Massachusetts. Thousands of miles away past the corn and pigs and oil wells with people tending them, over a mountain range, is California. Though Larry David lives and works there it's not supposed to be Sanders country, it's supposed to be Hillary country, all four hundred and something electoral votes of it. Now, here's where Mexico comes in.
What if, that's all I'm saying is what if the polls are wrong and something so crazy Nate Silver can't detect it is going on? *
* Why The Polls Missed Bernie Sanders's Michigan Upset (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/)
Quote from: Todd on March 09, 2016, 06:59:50 AM
The Donald is up to 458 delegates to Cruz's 359. If Rubio drops out and gives Cruz his delegates, then Cruz would lead Trump. It may be time for Rubio to go, especially if he wants to have a role in government. VP seems unlikely. Maybe a nice cabinet post.
I'm not sure that a dropping-out candidate gets to choose where his delegates go (link (http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-race-u-presidential-nominations-delegates-selected-004259671.html)).
There's clearly some animosity between Rubio and Trump, but I wonder whether Rubio likes Cruz any better. If he wants to have a role in government his best bet is to endorse Clinton.
Quote from: Pat B on March 09, 2016, 02:32:13 PMI'm not sure that a dropping-out candidate gets to choose where his delegates go (link (http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-race-u-presidential-nominations-delegates-selected-004259671.html)).
This is where horse-trading comes in. Rubio agrees to work his delegates and steer them toward Cruz in exchange for, I don't know, Defense, or whatever. This would only matter in a contested convention. If Trump hits the magic number, it's all over anyway.
Quote from: drogulus on March 09, 2016, 06:30:54 AM
Florida's Sun Sentinel: No GOP candidate worth endorsing (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/floridas-sun-sentinel-no-gop-candidate-worth-163139142.html?clear=cache)
It may seem strange when talking about partisan (usually) institutions like newspapers to think one of them might take the position that "no GOP candidate is worth endorsing" because no GOP candidate is worth endorsing and not because they endorse a candidate from the other party, but the quaint practice of choosing the best from each party on some not entirely partisan criteria still exists. Papers do that even now, and for one of them to deviate from this practice even to the extent of shitting on the favorite son by noticing how unqualified he is, that's notable.
OK, to be crystal clear, newspapers don't matter much as causes, they change few minds. But as effects, as measures of what has happened, they matter as supporting evidence. If people (nondollar voters) begin to think they have to vote for one kind of unsuitable candidate or another to "send a message" to the agents of the status quo in both parties and government, the consequences will be a huge victory for the politician most firmly associated with the status quo. Only a Trump/Sanders chimera could defeat her. Can a mythological beast serve as President? Someone fetch me an originalist who's not dead. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
In fact, the SunSentinel is being snitty because Jeb! is out. Wah! Wah!
I did my early voting yesterday. For Bernie, as I said I would.
Everyone I talk to thinks Hillary is a horrible person. But if Trump is nominated, they will all vote for her because Trump as President would be horrible.
Donald v Hillary. Time to vote for the lesser of two demons.
Quote from: Todd on March 09, 2016, 05:55:51 PM
This is where horse-trading comes in. Rubio agrees to work his delegates and steer them toward Cruz in exchange for, I don't know, Defense, or whatever. This would only matter in a contested convention. If Trump hits the magic number, it's all over anyway.
Makes sense, for states that don't have re-binding rules. I guess it's reasonable to expect most of the released delegates to follow him. But if his endorsement might be decisive, then he could be the subject of a bidding war. Cruz is a formidable campaigner but not much of a negotiator from what I've seen.
I was mostly kidding about Clinton, but if Rubio feels that either Trump or Cruz would be doomed in the general, and that he still has a future in politics, then he might choose not to hitch his wagon to any horse this year.
Stand up for the Bern!
http://www.youtube.com/v/Nl0YXx_SjHQ
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/silver-gop-five-ring-circus-liveblog-03031.png?w=575&h=578)
People and newspapers outside the US view Clinton rather favorably. Why is she considered a 'horrible person' at home ?
Quote from: André on March 10, 2016, 05:43:22 AM
People and newspapers outside the US view Clinton rather favorably. Why is she considered a 'horrible person' at home ?
She has been so demonized by the Republicans that even her natural support base has come to believe it. I have no problem voting for Hillary, versus a commie and a freaking loonie! (disclaimer: No Canadians were harmed in the making of that phrase, Trump really IS a loonie, no dollar coins need worry!). :)
8)
Quote from: André on March 10, 2016, 05:43:22 AM
People and newspapers outside the US view Clinton rather favorably. Why is she considered a 'horrible person' at home ?
Throughout the 90s she was portrayed as a robotic, nakedly ambitious careerist who would do anything to accumulate power, including marriage.
...so basically, she was America's Stephen Harper.
I think now at least a handful of people are starting to recognize that sexism played an accidental or intentional role in this. (There was a time when trashier Republicans joked that she was a lesbian, or even a man.) After all, one of our inherent biases is to think poorly of ambitious women, relative to how we view ambitious men. Hillary's never done anything worse than, say, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney, but a certain segment of society still expect women to stay in a certain place and maintain a certain "ladylike" attitude. Hillary will definitely never be mistaken for Eliza Doolittle.
EDIT: To be clear, Hillary is not perfect by any means. She supports NSA spying, voted for the Iraq War, is moving to a populist position on free trade and protectionism, and occasionally makes very callous, tone-deaf remarks (I think recently a black student asked why politics wasn't more diverse and Hillary responded, "Well why don't you run for office?").
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 06:05:24 AM
Hillary will definitely never be mistaken for Eliza Doolittle.
Not sure what this means, as Shaw's Eliza Doolittle becomes quite independent and assertive towards the end of
Pygmalion. But among the criticisms of Hillary are that she's untrustworthy (apparently unlike The Donald) and lacking spontaneity (again unlike The Donald). If it's spontaneity you want, vote for Trump. Personally, I can live without all the spontaneity.
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 06:05:24 AM
EDIT: To be clear, Hillary is not perfect by any means. She supports NSA spying, voted for the Iraq War, is moving to a populist position on free trade and protectionism, and occasionally makes very callous, tone-deaf remarks (I think recently a black student asked why politics wasn't more diverse and Hillary responded, "Well why don't you run for office?").
To be clear, I also supported the Iraq war at the time, based on the facts we were given. Bernie is disingenuous when he says he was against it because it was a bad war; he was against it because he is against foreign entanglements in general and was against Bush in particular. SO even if it had been a highly justified war he would have voted against it.
I support NSA spying. Sorry about that.
Why
doesn't he run for office instead of complaining about lack of diversity?
I am not being pro-Anyone here, but I have no problem with most of the things you brought up there. I am against protectionism though.
8)
Hillary's better than El Tupé. (Why do I feel I just typed the equivalent of Lyme's Disease is better than Ebola?)
In my impression, Clinton is viewed rather favorably in Europe because with her it will be business as usual in foreign policy.
We do not really care about your domestic mess, unless you drag down the rest of the world (like in the subprime crisis) or start WW III. She seems also the most competent and experiences in foreign policy. Furthermore a large part of Western European politicians and press usually fall in line behind the Leader of the Free World even in dubious warmongering policies in the near East, Libya etc. so they do not care that HRC is more hawkish than Sanders or Trump.
Sanders was, of course, virtually unknown in Europe until very recently so nobody really knows what to expect from him. Trump appears even more crazy for us than for US citizens although we (not I, we in Europe) had Berlusconi in Italy and should not be that surprised.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 10, 2016, 06:15:51 AM
To be clear, I also supported the Iraq war at the time, based on the facts we were given. Bernie is disingenuous when he says he was against it because it was a bad war; he was against it because he is against foreign entanglements in general and was against Bush in particular. SO even if it had been a highly justified war he would have voted against it.
I support NSA spying. Sorry about that.
Why doesn't he run for office instead of complaining about lack of diversity?
I am not being pro-Anyone here, but I have no problem with most of the things you brought up there. I am against protectionism though.
8)
I supported the Iraq War, but I was 13 years old 0:)
And the student in question was only 17 or 18. Not too young for some trailblazing school board members, and that one Michigan mayor who was 18, but...
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 06:19:06 AM
I supported the Iraq War, but I was 13 years old 0:)
And the student in question was only 17 or 18. Not too young for some trailblazing school board members, and that one Michigan mayor who was 18, but...
Yes, I didn't want to bring that up as a low blow... :)
I'm sure she didn't know that. I have seen a lot of late-teen men who look in their 20's. It was a one-off probably. Doesn't compare with "I could shoot someone in the street and not lose any voters...". :D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 10, 2016, 06:15:51 AM
To be clear, I also supported the Iraq war at the time, based on the facts we were given. Bernie is disingenuous when he says he was against it because it was a bad war; he was against it because he is against foreign entanglements in general and was against Bush in particular. SO even if it had been a highly justified war he would have voted against it.
I agree (nor do I much mind) that he was against the war essentially on principle; I disagree that this negates his claim to have been against it because it was a bad war. I watched Colin Powell's presentation, and I do not think it is revisionist of me to remember a visceral feeling that the "evidence" was being sexed up (in Tony Blair's apt phrase . . . at least, I
think it was his phrase). Maybe I was fixated upon viewing the venture as Dubya playing out a revenge fantasy on behalf of his Pa. Subsequent facts bore that fixation out 8)
Quote from: Jo498 on March 10, 2016, 06:18:22 AM
In my impression, Clinton is viewed rather favorably in Europe because with her it will be business as usual in foreign policy.
We do not really care about your domestic mess, unless you drag down the rest of the world (like in the subprime crisis) [...]
Now, you see, I see that as a case against Hillary, High-Paid Guest Speaker to the Asset Wealth Movers of New York.
Quote from: André on March 10, 2016, 05:43:22 AM
People and newspapers outside the US view Clinton rather favorably. Why is she considered a 'horrible person' at home ?
No, I don't think you can explain it like that. If Hillary is hated she
must be horrible. You're just making trouble asking why, and I suspect you're doing it on purpose. :blank:
Quote from: André on March 10, 2016, 05:43:22 AMPeople and newspapers outside the US view Clinton rather favorably. Why is she considered a 'horrible person' at home ?
Depends on the person. I don't think she's a terrible person, but she's far too hawkish. She also has learned how to present facts and policy options selectively, like her husband, but without the slickness. It makes her seem too calculating.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 10, 2016, 06:15:51 AMI support NSA spying. Sorry about that.
What type of NSA spying? The domestic component is what troubles me. The part about spying on the rest of the world is fine. That's what the NSA exists to do.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 10, 2016, 06:24:33 AM
Now, you see, I see that as a case against Hillary, High-Paid Guest Speaker to the Asset Wealth Movers of New York.
I completely agree. But this is not something that is immediately connected with Hillary in Europe. As I said, probably it is mostly that Trump appears crazy, the others are virtually unknown, and Clinton stands for stability/business as usual.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 10, 2016, 06:31:22 AM
I completely agree. But this is not something that is immediately connected with Hillary in Europe. As I said, probably it is mostly that Trump appears crazy, the others are virtually unknown, and Clinton stands for stability/business as usual.
That stark contrast is fair enough.
Quote from: drogulus on March 10, 2016, 06:28:13 AM
If Hillary is hated she must be horrible.
This is not the sharpest facetiousness of the day 8)
Clinton fatigue is real. I'll disagree with our
Gurn that the disaffection of Democrats themselves for the frontrunner is VRWC [
Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy] after-market; she wins the distrust, all on her own, time and time again . . . .
Question(s) for our American fellow GMGers: who is the most ideologically rigid of Trump, Sanders and Hillary? I mean, who is the most likely to push his/her agenda with little, if at all, consideration for the economical, political and geopolitical reality which does not fit his/her worldview? Who is the least likely to seek a reasonable compromise with adverse parties and factions, at home and abroad?
Quote from: Florestan on March 10, 2016, 07:16:45 AM
Question(s) for our American fellow GMGers: who is the most ideologically rigid of Trump, Sanders and Hillary? I mean, who is the most likely to push his/her agenda with little, if at all, consideration for the economical, political and geopolitical reality which does not fit his/her worldview? Who is the least likely to seek a reasonable compromise with adverse parties and factions, at home and abroad?
I would go with Sanders. Trump is the most
personally rigid, and the most stubborn, but his ideology changes daily, sometimes hourly. Trump arguably has no ideology whatsoever except the accumulation of more power for himself.
Quote from: André on March 10, 2016, 05:43:22 AM
People and newspapers outside the US view Clinton rather favorably. Why is she considered a 'horrible person' at home ?
Here's one reason:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/03/03/libya-how-hillary-clinton-destroyed-a-country/
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 07:20:16 AM
I would go with Sanders. Trump is the most personally rigid, and the most stubborn, but his ideology changes daily, sometimes hourly. Trump arguably has no ideology whatsoever except the accumulation of more power for himself.
That is the same answer I would have given...
8)
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 07:20:16 AM
I would go with Sanders. Trump is the most personally rigid, and the most stubborn, but his ideology changes daily, sometimes hourly. Trump arguably has no ideology whatsoever except the accumulation of more power for himself.
Quote from: Todd on March 10, 2016, 07:30:32 AM
I agree with this.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 10, 2016, 07:40:06 AM
That is the same answer I would have given...
Then I infer that in case of Trump vs Sanders you guys would either vote Trump (which is the pragmatic way to deal with the situation) or write-in another candidate (which is perhaps more moral a way to deal with the situation, but wouldn´t change the reality or the net result). Is that correct?
Quote from: Florestan on March 10, 2016, 07:47:12 AMThen I infer that in case of Trump vs Sanders you guys would either vote Trump (which is the pragmatic way to deal with the situation) or write-in another candidate (which is perhaps more moral a way to deal with the situation, but wouldn´t change the reality or the net result). Is that correct?
I'm at the write-in/not voting for President stage already.
Quote from: Florestan on March 10, 2016, 07:47:12 AM
Then I infer that in case of Trump vs Sanders you guys would either vote Trump (which is the pragmatic way to deal with the situation) or write-in another candidate (which is perhaps more moral a way to deal with the situation, but wouldn't change the reality or the net result). Is that correct?
Long time between now and election. Unlike others, I
want someone who will reach
detente with the opposition and get some issues resolved. We are arguing about the same shit now we were arguing about at the end of the Vietnam War, in one guise or another. I want to settle most of it and start arguing about new shit, like adopting Romania... >:D
8)
Quote from: Todd on March 10, 2016, 07:49:48 AM
I'm at the write-in/not voting for President stage already.
Me too. Vote for me, Todd. I'll put a chicken in every damned pot! 0:)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 10, 2016, 07:52:50 AM
Me too. Vote for me, Todd. I'll put a chicken in every damned pot! 0:)
I do like chicken.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 10, 2016, 07:51:55 AM
Long time between now and election. Unlike others, I want someone who will reach detente with the opposition and get some issues resolved. We are arguing about the same shit now we were arguing about at the end of the Vietnam War, in one guise or another. I want to settle most of it and start arguing about new shit, like adopting Romania... >:D
Aren´t things in the US bad enough? Do you really want us to worsen the mess? ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on March 10, 2016, 06:22:51 AM
I agree (nor do I much mind) that he was against the war essentially on principle; I disagree that this negates his claim to have been against it because it was a bad war. I watched Colin Powell's presentation, and I do not think it is revisionist of me to remember a visceral feeling that the "evidence" was being sexed up (in Tony Blair's apt phrase . . . at least, I think it was his phrase). Maybe I was fixated upon viewing the venture as Dubya playing out a revenge fantasy on behalf of his Pa. Subsequent facts bore that fixation out 8)
It was obvious at the time that the "evidence" had been cooked. Also, the notion that
not invading Iraq would cause Saddam Hussein to give chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda was patently ridiculous to anyone who had a wikipedia-or-better understanding of the Middle East and who spent 30 seconds thinking it through. Clinton should have known better.
8 years later she, as Secretary of State, advocated supporting the Libyan Revolution which has also been a disaster. (The R criticism, fixated on her handling of the
aftermath of the embassy attack, has missed the point to a comical extent.)
All that said, if the Rs nominate Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, I will vote for her (then rush home to take a shower).
Quote from: Todd on March 10, 2016, 07:49:48 AM
I'm at the write-in/not voting for President stage already.
I can perfectly understand that. I voted in all Romanian presidential elections since 1990 until 2014 with one single exception: 2000, when the choice was really between plague (a former President who was also a former Communist, the one single man directly and principally responsible for the severe delay in economic, political and social reforms in 1990s Romania, not to mention several hundreds or even thosuands of deaths during Revolution and later) and cholera (a poet and journalist, former but unrepentant big-time adulator of Ceausescu and his wife, turned rabid foul-mouthed nationalist after 1989). The fact that (almost) all liberals and democrats rallied behind the former, presenting him as a saviour of democracy despite all his sins and shortcomings did not make things easier for me --- a vote for him would have really meant my renouncing my most cherished principles and ideas about politics, economics and society. So I did not vote. The former Communist won (as I expected all along) and things began to improve slowly not because, but in spite of him.
So I do understand your position.
Quote from: Pat B on March 10, 2016, 08:09:11 AM
It was obvious at the time that the "evidence" had been cooked. Also, the notion that not invading Iraq would cause Saddam Hussein to give chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda was patently ridiculous to anyone who had a wikipedia-or-better understanding of the Middle East and who spent 30 seconds thinking it through. Clinton should have known better.
Indeed. Also, if a country actually has large stocks of weapons of mass destruction that it can use, nobody seriously considers invading it. This suggests that they didn't believe their own BS. (My favorite ridiculous argument was that Saddam had actually moved his weapons to Syria.)
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 07:20:16 AM
I would go with Sanders.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708)
Quote from: Pat B on March 10, 2016, 08:26:54 AM
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708)
Yes.
For myself, the operable distinction between Sanders and El Tupé is, the Senator from Vermont has made a career of actually working in the interests of others, i.e. the voters, where the other guy works only in his own interests.
Yeah, in Trump v. Sanders, I would vote for Sanders, no doubt about it.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on March 10, 2016, 07:21:56 AM
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/03/03/libya-how-hillary-clinton-destroyed-a-country/
Very good article. Antiwar.com used to be one of my favorite websites and Justin Raimondo one of my favorite columnists. I have lost interest in them long time ago, though --- after all, reading all day long about wars and their effects is depressing --- but every time I revisit their website I still feel the thrill.
Related but on a more general and intellectual vein:
The Truth About Our Libertarian Age. Why the dogma of democracy doesn't always make the world better (https://newrepublic.com/article/118043/our-libertarian-age-dogma-democracy-dogma-decline)
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 08:41:17 AM
Yeah, in Trump v. Sanders, I would vote for Sanders, no doubt about it.
I can only hope the reason is not your sharing in his ideological intransigence. ???
Quote from: Florestan on March 10, 2016, 08:55:11 AM
I can only hope the reason is not your sharing in his ideological intransigence. ???
What ideological intransigence?
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 08:41:17 AM
Yeah, in Trump v. Sanders, I would vote for Sanders, no doubt about it.
I would as well, though I fear Sanders would have the same issues facing a recalcitrant Congress that Obama has had. But though I live in a heavily Democratic state (home to Niagara Falls, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Donald Trump) where my personal vote makes absolutely no difference (and not in one of the small number of states where my state's electors will actually determine the election), the real issue for me will be whether to vote for Clinton or Sanders in my state's Democratic primary where my vote might actually matter. And here my dilemma would be to support a candidate whose unrealistic positions I like, versus one I believe would have a greater chance of being elected and governing effectively.
Ironically considering the resentment much of the country feels towards New York, Trump vs. Clinton would pit the businessman from NY against the senator from same.
I won't hold El Tupé against New York State, we all make the odd mistake . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 10, 2016, 09:02:31 AMBut though I live in a heavily Democratic state (home to Niagara Falls, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Donald Trump) where my personal vote makes absolutely no difference ... the real issue for me will be whether to vote for Clinton or Sanders in my state's Democratic primary where my vote might actually matter.
I faced this same thought in my heavily Republican state. I crossed party lines and voted for John Kasich.
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 09:12:33 AM
I faced this same thought in my heavily Republican state. I crossed party lines and voted for John Kasich.
New York, however, only lets me vote in the primary for which I am registered.
In Mass., if I register as Independent, I can vote in one or the other.
The best president this country has had in my voting lifetime was senior G Bush (the kid was a disaster). Next to him the most important republican in my time is Trump. About 20 years ago the GOP re Grinch and other got all huffy and puffy and told other Americans they also can be toughie. Weak people bought into this and even truck drivers pretended to an understand economics.
The GOP used the same human weakness (Pleasure of Pride) that Hitler and the Japanese Fascists used to recruit their follower. It worked but it is now out of control. (Do you do agree Todd and Blanston?)
Trump is a lance to let the poison and puss out of the GOP so that it can try to go back to being the Grand Ole Party.
Quote from: Johnll on March 10, 2016, 09:28:55 PM
Trump is a lance to let the poison and puss out of the GOP so that it can try to go back to being the Grand Ole Party.
This is a very difficult bank shot IME. Trump will empty the toxic contents of the bag and fill it with his nontoxic self, then the party will be more like what it was decades ago.
I think it's a better fit to say that Trump is the result of party disintegration, and his rise is best viewed as a stage in that process, a kind of coinfection like pneumonia following influenza.
I'm amused that Sanders having a clear and coherent worldview now becomes "ideological intransigence".
Earlier today I read how Sanders has become known as the 'amendment king'. He has a better record than almost anyone else in Congress at getting things he wants inserted into legislation in return for his support. How the hell is that intransigence? That's a guy who knows how to work in the system to get things done.
EDIT: For example - http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you
Half the problem with many politicians these days is that they don't stand for anything. They see which way the opinion polls and the focus groups and money are blowing and act accordingly. This is exactly why both Sanders AND Trump are gaining traction. Sanders because he has a clear and consistent approach that he's stuck with for many years, and Trump because people think he just doesn't give a shit about whether people like what he has to say.
Quote from: Pat B on March 10, 2016, 08:57:15 AM
What ideological intransigence?
Quote from: orfeo on March 11, 2016, 09:18:40 PM
I'm amused that Sanders having a clear and coherent worldview now becomes "ideological intransigence".
Guys, this is what I asked:
Quote from: Florestan on March 10, 2016, 07:16:45 AM
Question(s) for our American fellow GMGers: who is the most ideologically rigid of Trump, Sanders and Hillary? I mean, who is the most likely to push his/her agenda with little, if at all, consideration for the economical, political and geopolitical reality which does not fit his/her worldview? Who is the least likely to seek a reasonable compromise with adverse parties and factions, at home and abroad?
In my book, that is the very definition of ideological intransigence.
Three times the answer was
Sanders:
Quote from: Brian on March 10, 2016, 07:20:16 AM
I would go with Sanders.
Quote from: Todd on March 10, 2016, 07:30:32 AM
I agree with this.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 10, 2016, 07:40:06 AM
That is the same answer I would have given...
So there.
Well, the evidence I've read today about what he's actually got done in Congress says they're wrong. It lists numerous examples of him having reached agreement with Republicans. So there.
Quote from: orfeo on March 12, 2016, 01:39:52 AM
Well, the evidence I've read today about what he's actually got done in Congress says they're wrong. It lists numerous examples of him having reached agreement with Republicans. So there.
Hey, I just took at face value the answers I´ve got. If they were wrong, then I was wrong too.
Well, I wasn't intending to target you specifically, more the general tenor of the conversation.
Quote from: orfeo on March 12, 2016, 03:33:06 AM
Well, I wasn't intending to target you specifically, more the general tenor of the conversation.
The article you linked to is interesting because it shows that not only is Sanders more pragmatic than portrayed in the media, but also that so are the Republicans. :)
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2016, 03:47:46 AM
The article you linked to is interesting because it shows that not only is Sanders more pragmatic than portrayed in the media, but also that so are the Republicans. :)
Well, I'm sure some of them are. But are they the ones running for President? Ted Cruz in particular seems fond of burning bridges, not building them.
I can't remember where I read it in the last few days, but it wasn't the first time I'd seen something saying a real concern with the leading Republican candidates is they simply have no idea about what it takes to govern. Kasich is the only one still in the race who has solid credentials in that area, and he's losing.
Quote from: orfeo on March 12, 2016, 04:01:04 AM
Well, I'm sure some of them are. But are they the ones running for President? Ted Cruz in particular seems fond of burning bridges, not building them.
I was talking about Republican congressmen, which the article portrays as quite pragmatic and open to compromise, with an avowed socialist no less.
Quote
I can't remember where I read it in the last few days, but it wasn't the first time I'd seen something saying a real concern with the leading Republican candidates is they simply have no idea about what it takes to govern. Kasich is the only one still in the race who has solid credentials in that area, and he's losing.
Well, that´s why I inquired about ideological rigidity. Someone who has no idea about what it takes to govern but also has no ideological axe to grind and changes his mind according to the reality he has to face is less dangerous, and might eventually prove to be a better choice, than someone who is clueless about governing yet has inflexible ideas and notions about what government must do.
As an aside, interestingly enough, the accusation of being clueless about what it takes to govern, which liberals throw at conservatives nowadays, was also used by conservatives against liberals in the past. For instance, when in 1876 the Romanian Liberal Party took power after 5 years of turbulent and quite demagogic opposition, one of the leaders of the Conservative party told journalists: "Mark my words, gentlemen! This government will not stay in power more than two months because they have not one single experienced statesman!" Yet the Liberal government stayed in power until 1888 and presided over proclaiming Romanian independence and defending it at war with the Ottoman Empire (1877-78), upgrading Romania from principality to kingdom (1881) and passing legislation which changed the country for better.
Quote from: orfeo on March 12, 2016, 04:01:04 AM
Well, I'm sure some of them are. But are they the ones running for President? Ted Cruz in particular seems fond of burning bridges, not building them.
That's what I was thinking too. When he was running for Senate, he was one of several underdogs to then-Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in the R primary. Cruz won by attacking Dewhurst for being a "moderate" who was willing to compromise with Democrats. The "moderate" part wasn't even true -- Dewhurst is quite conservative -- though it was fair to say that he was willing to work across the aisle. It says a lot about the Texas electorate that such willingness is now seen as undesirable.
Accordingly, Cruz has spent his time as a Senator pandering to his base with symbolic gestures that accomplish nothing. It might win him the R nomination but I don't think it will get him to the White House.
Quote
I can't remember where I read it in the last few days, but it wasn't the first time I'd seen something saying a real concern with the leading Republican candidates is they simply have no idea about what it takes to govern. Kasich is the only one still in the race who has solid credentials in that area, and he's losing.
Yes. I mentioned that several pages back. Republicans, consciously or not, seem to
want somebody who is incapable of governing.
If liberals are mostly oriented towards making the present more like the future, and conservatives to make it more like the past, you would expect them to be intransigent "differently". Then there's the intransigence attributed to the ideology itself versus the person "trying" to hold it. Since I seem to be a cartoon character laying down track just in front of the train I'm riding, I must be a liberal in the modern U.S. sense.
It follows from common sense and observation that both liberals and conservatives have a great deal to defend as well as attack, goats to kill and goats to protect from killers.
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2016, 05:05:01 AM
I was talking about Republican congressmen, which the article portrays as quite pragmatic and open to compromise, with an avowed socialist no less.
Your original question -- Clinton, Sanders, or Trump, and omitting Cruz -- almost seemed designed to make Sanders the answer, despite his actual record. Why omit Cruz? At this point he is more likely to win nomination than Sanders.
Quote from: Pat B on March 12, 2016, 07:18:11 AM
Your original question -- Clinton, Sanders, or Trump, and omitting Cruz -- almost seemed designed to make Sanders the answer, despite his actual record. Why omit Cruz? At this point he is more likely to win nomination than Sanders.
My question too. Cruz is a weapon grade shit-weasel, he would win any "who is the most f****-up" question you cared to pose, and yet he was left off the list. Curious omission. :blank:
8)
Quote from: Pat B on March 12, 2016, 07:18:11 AM
Your original question -- Clinton, Sanders, or Trump, and omitting Cruz -- almost seemed designed to make Sanders the answer, despite his actual record. Why omit Cruz? At this point he is more likely to win nomination than Sanders.
You´re wrong. I was actually expecting Clinton to be the answer. ;D
Apparently, Sanders´ record is his best kept secret: three people who seem to be well informed about American politics nominated him as a rigid ideologue. Once again, that is not my fault.
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2016, 08:20:40 AM
You´re wrong. I was actually expecting Clinton to be the answer. ;D
Apparently, Sanders´ record is his best kept secret: three people who seem to be well informed about American politics nominated him as a rigid ideologue. Once again, that is not my fault.
I didn't say he was an idiot, just an ideologue. No one can or will last long or accomplish anything in congress without reaching compromise on something. However, you have to pick and choose very carefully in what you reach compromise on. Sanders was a freaking Independent in the Senate. The only one, at that. Of course he compromised. ::) But that wasn't necessarily by choice,it was expedient for him to do so. There would always be a
quid pro quo. If he became the leader, he could be more independent because that's what leaders do. Not that congress wouldn't Obaminate him, but he could try... :)
8)
Sanders will need to compromise more as President, not less. There are no protest Presidents. The question would be is he likely to be a good compromiser for widely shared goals? Obama was temperamentally a compromiser but operationally a bad one. He didn't get "I welcome their hatred" as an opening salvo. He thought it would look radical, something he tried to avoid. That explains his effort to build a bridge to the bridge burners, and adopt the Repub health plan as his own, his most radical move in the eyes of the burners. How dare he?
Quote from: drogulus on March 12, 2016, 08:45:32 AM
Sanders will need to compromise more as President, not less. There are no protest Presidents. The question would be is he likely to be a good compromiser for widely shared goals? Obama was temperamentally a compromiser but operationally a bad one. He didn't get "I welcome their hatred" as an opening salvo. He thought it would look radical, something he tried to avoid. That explains his effort to build a bridge to the bridge burners, and adopt the Repub health plan as his own, his most radical move in the eyes of the burners. How dare he?
Yes, but you are talking about what he would have to do to somehow get along. I'm talking about what I expect he will do. I think he will be less interested in going along to get along if he became President than he did when he was a Lone Ranger legislator. Which was the original question, I think. :-\
8)
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2016, 05:05:01 AM
I was talking about Republican congressmen, which the article portrays as quite pragmatic and open to compromise, with an avowed socialist no less.
Which makes it all the more peculiar that you're ignoring Senator Ted Cruz while talking about Senator Bernie Sanders.
You can't point to something that talks about Republican congressmen compromising and decide it means ALL Republican congressmen. That's the point: that Cruz has campaigned on criticising other Republicans for ever compromising.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 12, 2016, 09:17:09 AM
Yes, but you are talking about what he would have to do to somehow get along.
President Sanders won't go it alone, not because of something about him, it will be something about President, like they can't do that.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 12, 2016, 09:17:09 AM
I'm talking about what I expect he will do.
If he's elected he will serve, if he serves he'll try to get Congress to go along. That's what I expect. I also expect he won't get much of what he wants, because Congress won't just hand it to him, and no charm offensive can alter that much. I object to the notion, for which there's no evidence, that Sanders will be particularly intransigent because of his socialism, paleo as it seems to be.
Quote from: Florestan on March 12, 2016, 08:20:40 AM
You´re wrong. I was actually expecting Clinton to be the answer. ;D
Apparently, Sanders´ record is his best kept secret: three people who seem to be well informed about American politics nominated him as a rigid ideologue. Once again, that is not my fault.
No, they said he was more of a rigid ideologue than Clinton or Trump, which is a non-statement since Clinton and Trump's ideology is limited to their perceived path of least resistance. That is different than your concept of "changes his mind according to the reality he has to face." The latter requires leadership, not just a sense of which way the wind is blowing at the moment. Clinton was spineless on the Iraq War, supporting it when it was popular, then opposing it when it was unpopular. Trump abandoned a boatload of his previous positions for the Republican primary and will undoubtedly change them after the convention, not as adaptations to a new reality, but for political expedience in the general election. Romney caught heat 2012 when his advisor compared running for President to shaking an Etch-a-Sketch. I consider myself moderate, but I see nothing admirable in being a wind puppet.
And again, if you had included Cruz in the question, you would have gotten a different answer.
I don't think any of the other three have done anything like Sanders's negotiation on the VA reform bill.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 12, 2016, 07:27:02 AM
My question too. Cruz is a weapon grade shit-weasel, he would win any "who is the most f****-up" question you cared to pose, and yet he was left off the list. Curious omission. :blank:
8)
Shame we still living in the Trump style huffie and puffie I am ever so toughie world. Maybe someday it will travel to the plant unseen.
Quote from: Pat B on March 12, 2016, 07:09:46 AMYes. I mentioned that several pages back. Republicans, consciously or not, seem to want somebody who is incapable of governing.
Incapable is the wrong word. Some Republicans consciously want someone who will, in domestic matters only, contribute to gridlock, inefficiency, and partisanship.
Quote from: Pat B on March 12, 2016, 04:43:25 PMI don't think any of the other three have done anything like Sanders's negotiation on the VA reform bill.
True. Sanders is reasonably principled - he adheres to the wrong principles, but that's a different issue - whereas Clinton and even more so Trump are more like weathervanes. Cruz strikes me as a true-blue conservative, and one who will resort to any tactic to achieve his goals.
Quote from: Johnll on March 12, 2016, 07:26:06 PM
Shame we still living in the Trump style huffie and puffie I am ever so toughie world. Maybe someday it will travel to the plant unseen.
I'm afraid that element will always be there, though, because it is basically a part of human nature which can't be nurtured or legislated out. This latest "I'm going to have my supporters show up at your rallies" rhetoric is right out of 1930 Munich. Not to be overly dramatic about it, but we better be damned careful where our support goes, or we might all be in a world of shit before the thinkers are done thinking about it. :-\
8)
It's a rare example of utter falsehood to posit that Repubs are acting on a "bad government is good government" model or "no government is blah etc". Given the overwhelming priority of sticking it to the Kenyan Socialist by sticking it to America, the plausible explanation is that Repubs understand that bad government is bad government, and that's the only explanation that fits their strategy. If they were doing good by their own lights, they'd have to stop before any good was done. But see, they know that there's no danger of any accidental good.
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2016, 07:59:26 AM
It's a rare example of utter falsehood to posit that Repubs are acting on a "bad government is good government" model or "no government is blah etc". Given the overwhelming priority of sticking it to the Kenyan Socialist by sticking it to America, the plausible explanation is that Repubs understand that bad government is bad government, and that's the only explanation that fits their strategy. If they were doing good by their own lights, they'd have to stop before any good was done. But see, they know that there's no danger of any accidental good.
That's certainly what I think, and have done since the period between Obama's election and his inauguration, when they came right out and said this is what they were going to do. At least they weren't liars... ::)
8)
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 07:19:46 AM
Incapable is the wrong word. Some Republicans consciously want someone who will, in domestic matters only, contribute to gridlock, inefficiency, and partisanship.
Maybe that's how it looks in Oregon. In Texas, where the Senate is now run by an angry-Christian talk radio host and the governor panders to the Jade Helm Conspiracy crowd, it would be a bit optimistic to think that gridlock is their goal.
ETA: I almost forgot about the AG who has been indicted for securities fraud.
Quote from: Pat B on March 13, 2016, 11:42:32 AM
Maybe that's how it looks in Oregon. In Texas, where the Senate is now run by an angry-Christian talk radio host and the governor panders to the Jade Helm Conspiracy crowd, it would be a bit optimistic to think that gridlock is their goal.
ETA: I almost forgot about the AG who has been indicted for securities fraud.
Roger, roger roger... I had that thought later on, that maybe Oregonians aren't subjected to the sort of gloating bullshit that we are here, in the land of the anti-Obama cement head. My congressman (Gohmert) comes right out and brags about it on local news.
8)
Quote from: Pat B on March 13, 2016, 11:42:32 AMMaybe that's how it looks in Oregon.
How it looks here in Oregon is that Democrats are incapable of managing anything properly. Democrats have held the governorship since admitted child rapist Neil Goldschmidt was elected in 1986. (I should be fair though, his admission came only years later, long after the statute of limitations had passed, and even then he claimed he had had a "relationship" with the at the time 13 year old girl - he was in his mid-30s at the time.)
Some recent highlights of the governance of the Democratic party here in Oregon include, but are not limited to: pouring money into the $175 million Columbia River Crossing project to select a bridge design to cross the Columbia and failing to do that - the Commission, among other things, forgot to consult the Army Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard to make sure the selected design met federal requirements; spending $350 million on Cover Oregon, to comply with the ACA, and deploying a web-site that enrolled exactly zero (0) people; Governor John Kitzhaber resigned last year, shortly after reelection, due to corruption involving his girlfriend; unelected Governor Kate Brown, within just the last two weeks, sent a written request to the Oregonian newspaper asking it to retract an editorial about how her administration is acting with inappropriate secretiveness regarding state energy policy; and Oregon's high school graduation rate stands at a mighty 76%. Go Team D!
How could anyone possibly want to see Republicans obstruct the effective, beneficent, their-heart-is-in-the-right-place Democratic party? I mean, it is the party of good governance.
(Now, it is true, the Republicans have controlled one state house or the other from time to time since 1986, so I guess it's probably all their fault.)
Oregon does have its share of far right nuts, too. It might be a good thing to have at least one of them achieve a position of influence. They could not possibly do worse no matter how hard they tried.
Quotean angry-Christian talk radio host
For a moment I thought I'd read "anti-Christian talk radio host".
As if....(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 13, 2016, 12:19:28 PM
My congressman (Gohmert) comes right out and brags about it on local news.
8)
Let me try that on......
my Congressman (Gohmert)...... what he don't get is how you pack people together like sardines and they turn into liberals. Texas is transforming right out from under him. I saw some of it when I went back and ordered "N.Y. pizza". A decade earlier I ate pizza in Texas and it was awful. Now I go back and my dad takes me to his hangout, the Big Apple Cafe in Ft. Worth where he says they have the real thing and oh my yes, it's totally Nassau County pizza! A little piece of the Enlightenment flourishes far from home base. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
(https://b.zmtcdn.com/data/pictures/3/16939713/e38b1fb71ccb2e4405a359e48fac3b81_200_thumb.jpg)
Dems
can govern badly. It even happens from time to time. But as long as Repubs can't govern goodly, they're out of the running. I would say the present extinctionist trend is to a great extent about exactly that.
In Massachusetts we frequently elect Repub governors as a counterbalance to a one party Dem legislature. I should mention, though, that a Massachusetts Repub is one of the out of date kind. We haven't had a worthless clod Repub since Ed King roamed the earth.
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2016, 02:11:21 PM
it's totally Nassau County pizza!
Are you from Nassau, drogulus? I grew up in Nassau myself and now live in Suffolk.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 13, 2016, 03:08:26 PM
Are you from Nassau, drogulus? I grew up in Nassau myself and now live in Suffolk.
I lived in Levittown as a teenager, prime pizza years, spent a few years in Suffolk (Rocky Point), and ended up in the Boston area.
Bolshevik propaganda from Bloomberg Business:
How Local Politicians Scuttled a Crucial Federal Bridge Upgrade (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-08/columbia-river-bridge-replacement-killed-by-politics)
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2016, 03:35:52 PM
I lived in Levittown as a teenager, prime pizza years, spent a few years in Suffolk (Rocky Point), and ended up in the Boston area.
No kidding. I'm a graduate of Island Trees High School myself.
Quote from: drogulus on March 13, 2016, 03:35:52 PMBolshevik prop,aganda from Bloomberg Business:
Oh, holy shit, 'Metro' politics has made its way to GMG. Drogulus, your
absolute ignorance of the Portland area's regional politics is coming into play. You really ought not to type even one more letter, let alone word. You have not one clue about what you are writing. Metro is "elected", but almost no one in the Portland area gets it. It literally excludes Washington State (ie, Clark County, Washington), so therefore, despite its pretensions, it is undemocratic. Portland area politicians pushed hard, and still push hard, for an integrated, interstate transportation solution, but Washington politicians push back. How dare they, right?
(As it happens, I personally knew one person who literally
died for Metro's expansion plans about twenty years ago. But that's progress, and all that. Right?)
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 05:40:30 PM
It literally excludes Washington State (ie, Clark County, Washington), so therefore, despite its pretensions, it is undemocratic.
Eh?
I don't think democracy means what you think it means. And I say that as someone who lives near a border. It doesn't mean "I'm affected, so I get a vote".
Inter-jurisdictional cooperation is undoubtedly a helpful thing when one lives near the boundary between two jurisdictions, but the lack of cooperation doesn't make something
undemocratic.
I mean, I don't get to vote for the President of the United States despite the potential impact on my part of the world.
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 06:21:04 PMInter-jurisdictional cooperation is undoubtedly a helpful thing when one lives near the boundary between two jurisdictions, but the lack of cooperation doesn't make something undemocratic.
The voters of Clark County, Washington have
repeatedly voted against Metro expansion. At what point does a 'no' vote matter? ''Never'', is the proper answer to the left, because the left hates democracy. (Like drogulus, you don't let your absolute ignorance on the subject get in your way.)
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 06:21:04 PMI mean, I don't get to vote for the President of the United States despite the potential impact on my part of the world.
And thank goodness for that. Your input literally doesn't matter
at all. You are not American. Your 'voice' doesn't matter at all, just like the 80% of Norwegian voters who opposed Bush in 2004 didn't matter. You get that, right? Australia as a whole is less important than one rural county in Mississippi.
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 06:35:06 PM
The voters of Clark County, Washington have repeatedly voted against Metro expansion. At what point does a 'no' vote matter? ''Never'', is the proper answer to the left, because the left hates democracy. (Like drogulus, you don't let your absolute ignorance on the subject get in your way.)
And thank goodness for that. Your input literally doesn't matter at all. You are not American. Your 'voice' doesn't matter at all, just like the 80% of Norwegian voters who opposed Bush in 2004 didn't matter. You get that, right? Australia as a whole is less important than one rural county in Mississippi.
The deep irony in the two parts of your response is fascinating. You're very eager to tell me how I don't matter because I'm not in America, but if someone says that the voters of Clark County don't matter because they're not in Oregon, look out!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 13, 2016, 07:45:11 AM
I'm afraid that element will always be there, though, because it is basically a part of human nature which can't be nurtured or legislated out.
8)
This huffie and puffie stuff is not me nor I suspect the nature of the great majority of people on this earth. This comes from you and please do not try to associate it with mankind. All of us like our ego and other organs to squirt. We all enjoy the pleasure money provides. But I believe our shared human nature alerts us that while pursing these pleasures hurting others, including bulling, is wrong. I must assume yours does too even though we both know we have prisons full of those who ignored that voice.
I can remember a society light years ago when America was shocked (or pretended to be) by Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" statement. American civil discourse ended two decades ago when the Pharisee style 'Christian" bullying poison start from the Right. It is actually a shame since there is occasional merit to some positions expressed by Trump along with the I want to be Nero stuff.
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 06:44:33 PMbut if someone says that the voters of Clark County don't matter because they're not in Oregon, look out!
Voters in Clark County, Washington matter in American politics, national, state, and regional. People in Australia literally don't matter at all in American politics - nor should they. I would have thought that self-evident. How could Australian people matter
at all in American politics? It's as though you are acting dense on purpose.
I would very much appreciate your ''theory'' on democracy.
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 06:52:02 PM
Voters in Clark County, Washington matter in American politics, national, state, and regional.
They matter in Washington state politics. To say that they matter in OREGON state politics, or Multnomah County politics, which appears to be what you're arguing, is quite illogical. If you're going to exclude Canadians from American politics for living outside the boundary, then the only logical thing is to exclude Clark County, Washington residents from Oregon and Multnomah politics on the same basis.
To say they matter in "American state politics" without identifying which state is just woolly thinking. Do they matter in Massachusetts state politics? Nevada state politics? Florida state politics? Nope.
How could people not in Portland matter in Portland politics? People in Washington literally don't matter at all in Oregon politics - nor should they. I would have thought that self-evident.
Quote from: Johnll on March 13, 2016, 06:50:20 PM
321391290
This huffie and puffie stuff is not me nor I suspect the nature of the great majority of people on this earth. This comes from you and please do not try to associate it with mankind. All of us like our ego and other organs to squirt. We all enjoy the pleasure money provides. But I believe our shared human nature alerts us that while pursing these pleasures hurting others, including bulling, is wrong. I must assume yours does too even though we both know we have prisons full of those who ignored that voice.
I can remember a society light years ago when America was shocked (or pretended to be) by Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" statement. American civil discourse ended two decades ago when the Pharisee style 'Christian" bullying poison start from the Right. It is actually a shame since there is occasional merit to some positions expressed by Trump along with the I want to be Nero stuff.
Well, good luck with that. If you think you don't share a common human trait you are sadly mistaken. We may well be civilized to the point of having it under control, usually, but that's about the best that can be said.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I have some favor or sympathy for Trump, or indeed, for any of the so-called modern conservatives. If this is the case, you are wrong wrong wrong. I remember Goldwater quite well, and Nixon too for that matter. The upheaval in the Republican Party then is barely comparable to what it is now.
There was a day when I voted for Republicans if they were worthy, but that party left me far behind when they moved Right to the point of unrecognizability. By their lights, I am a far Leftie these days. I am what we called a Centrist back in the days when one could keep track.
8)
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 06:59:11 PM
They matter in Washington state politics. To say that they matter in OREGON state politics, or Multnomah County politics, which appears to be what you're arguing, is quite illogical.
I live in Washington County, Oregon. Clark County residents
do matter to citizens of Washington County. They oppose Metro's attempted expansion of power across state lines, county lines, and city lines. You do understand that Metro is unique, even in the US, in that it transcends traditional local jurisdictional boundaries? Oh, wait, of course you don't, because Metro is literally the only organization of its type on earth. My bad. Your ignorance is understandable.
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 07:04:28 PM
I live in Washington County, Oregon. Clark County residents do matter to citizens of Washington County.
Oh brother. The question wasn't whether they matter to their fellow-citizens. You've miraculously shifted form legal jurisdiction do-I-get-a-vote mattering to a touchy feely notion.
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 06:59:11 PMPeople in Washington literally don't matter at all in Oregon politics - nor should they. I would have thought that self-evident.
Here you are just plain wrong, using basic facts on the ground. But if you insist on expanding your original posts, do try to use basic, salient facts. Clark County, Washington voters did kill dead an expansion of light rail, which has implications for Oregon, Washington, and the United States federal government. I know you didn't know that, but you insist that you did. At least get your basic facts right before posting, sheesh. You literally don't have a clue what you are writing.
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 07:11:10 PM
Here you are just plain wrong, using basic facts on the ground. But if you insist on expanding your original posts, do try to use basic, salient facts. Clark County, Washington voters did kill dead an expansion of light rail, which has implications for Oregon, Washington, and the United States federal government. I know you didn't know that, but you insist that you did. At least get your basic facts right before posting, sheesh. You literally don't have a clue what you are writing.
I'm not running my own argument, I'm parodying yours.
You cannot get your logic consistent. You want to exclude people from countries other than America, on the basis that they don't "matter", but the simple fact is that despite your attempt to live in an American bubble people from other countries are perfectly capable of making decisions that impact America. Looked what happened when Canada talked about border controls. Americans flipped out.
You cannot have it both ways, and you're trying very hard to have it both ways. You're trying to exclude those you want to exclude, and include those you want to include, and you're running opposite arguments depending on which objective you're currently aiming for.
People living in Washington State don't live inside the boundaries of the Metro government. That's a fact. If how America organises its governance is no business of people in Canada or anywhere else outside the USA, then how Oregon decides to organise governance within Oregon is none of Washington State's business.
I don't get to vote in elections for places not 15 minutes drive away from me, and there's not even a river crossing, just a little ridge that marks the watershed boundary. My friends on the other side of the boundary don't get to vote here. Democracy does not consist of getting to vote for anywhere that you're interested in!
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 01:10:23 PM
How it looks here in Oregon is that Democrats are incapable of managing anything properly.
I get that. I'm not very keen on single-party dominance regardless of which party it is.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 12, 2016, 07:27:02 AM
My question too. Cruz is a weapon grade shit-weasel, he would win any "who is the most f****-up" question you cared to pose, and yet he was left off the list. Curious omission. :blank:
8)
Luck is not required. This is you in your own words.
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 07:19:42 PMYou want to exclude people from countries other than America, on the basis that they don't "matter"
No, you don't get it. Foreign opinions do not really matter in US elections, especially to the electorate. Nor should they. I'm sure there are a few sensitive lefty or quasi-lefty types who worry what foreigners think - be they sensitive Canadians or outright xenophobic Aussies - but Clark County, Washington voters, and some other local voters in the US in specific counties or cities, have greater impact stateside than the opinion of entire nations overseas. That's the way it should be. I'm not quite sure why it is hard for non-Americans to get that. Of course I expect Australian politicians to lick American boots and welcome American military bases. Australia is small and weak, America is powerful. That's the way of the world. Which nation do you think will win in a border dispute between the US and Canada, or more important, in an Arctic boundary dispute between the US and Canada? Canada is America's bitch, and if they think otherwise, one naval battle group will settle the dispute. You get that, right?
I get it. You simply will not admit that you are
fundamentally ignorant of local US politics. You do not understand, or choose to present that you do not understand, that something like a multi-billion dollar light rail deal dispute between Washington State and Oregon has greater domestic implications (and perhaps US-Swedish implications, since the light rail manufacturer is Swedish) than anything to do with Australia, a northern Australian military base perhaps excluded, could ever have. Clark County voters are much more important to my life than all of Australia. Voters in Illinois are far more important to my life than all of India. China and Russia excepted, the rest of the world is basically close to irrelevant come ballot time, soothing words not withstanding.
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 07:52:24 PM
No, you don't get it. Foreign opinions do not really matter in US elections, especially to the electorate. Nor should they. I'm sure there are a few sensitive lefty or quasi-lefty types who worry what foreigners think - be they sensitive Canadians or outright xenophobic Aussies - but Clark County, Washington voters, and some other local voters in the US in specific counties or cities, have greater impact stateside than the opinion of entire nations overseas. That's the way it should be. I'm not quite sure why it is hard for non-Americans to get that. Of course I expect Australian politicians to lick American boots and welcome American military bases. Australia is small and weak, America is powerful. That's the way of the world. Which nation do you think will win in a border dispute between the US and Canada, or more important, in an Arctic boundary dispute between the US and Canada? Canada is America's bitch, and if they think otherwise, one naval battle group will settle the dispute. You get that, right?
I get it. You simply will not admit that you are fundamentally ignorant of local US politics. You do not understand, or choose to present that you do not understand, that something like a multi-billion dollar light rail deal dispute between Washington State and Oregon has greater domestic implications (and perhaps US-Swedish implications, since the light rail manufacturer is Swedish) than anything to do with Australia, a northern Australian military base perhaps excluded, could ever have. Clark County voters are much more important to my life than all of Australia. Voters in Illinois are far more important to my life than all of India. China and Russia excepted, the rest of the world is basically close to irrelevant come ballot time, soothing words not withstanding.
I understand the local politics just fine. But you still don't grasp that democracy does not consist of
I'm interested so I get a vote.
And you trumpet the glories of American power in the most egregious fashion, while not grasping the power imbalance that exists between the Oregon and Washington sides of the river. Again, you completely fail to grasp how you are arguing against yourself at every turn.
The reasons that Canadians and Australians don't get to vote in American elections are exactly the same reasons why people in Clark County don't get to vote for governmental authorities in Oregon. It has precisely nothing to do with how much you like your neighbours or degree of interest. It's lines on a map. Democracy does not mean 'I care so I ought to get a vote'.
And it sure as hell doesn't mean "they're important so they get a vote"!!!
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 08:00:30 PMBut you still don't grasp that democracy does not consist of I'm interested so I get a vote.
The reasons that Canadians and Australians don't get to vote in American elections are exactly the same reasons why people in Clark County don't get to vote for governmental authorities in Oregon.
Looks like you forgot to get your facts straight. I will use small words: Clark County killed light rail north. It is dead. Clark County voters have a voice.
Get it now? Portland lefties, with their anti-democratic impulses, keep pushing for it. They keep losing. Democracy works in the US. It is Portland lefties who are frustrated at their inability to move "forward". I laugh at their failures. Yay for democracy!
And American power over European nations and their offshoots is something to be celebrated without restraint.
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 08:12:48 PM
Looks like you forgot to get your facts straight. I will use small words: Clark County killed light rail north. It is dead. Clark County voters have a voice.
Get it now? Portland lefties, with their anti-democratic impulses, keep pushing for it. They keep losing. Democracy works in the US. It is Portland lefties who are frustrated at their inability to move "forward". I laugh at their failures. Yay for democracy!
Get my facts straight? You simply seem to have no idea about the difference voting in an election and voting on something else. Your response to "people in Clark County don't get to vote for governmental authorities in Oregon" is to reply with "Clark County killed light rail north". How does that disprove what I said? It doesn't. Not in the slightest.
So let's get this straight: you're mad that Metro is 'undemocratic' because it doesn't include Clark County voters, yet happy that Clark County voters can defeat light rail... which they can do
precisely because they're in an area where Metro has no jurisdiction.
Do you have any idea how bizarre it is to simultaneously complain about the boundary of a jurisdiction as 'undemocratic', when it's exactly the same boundary that enables Clark County voters to say no? If Clark County was within Metro's jurisdiction, then Metro could make decisions for Clark County.
You can't seriously can't have it both ways. You can't have Clark County voters being able to vote in Metro elections unless Metro has power over Clark County. It doesn't though. There's nothing 'undemocratic' about Clark County being unable to vote in Metro elections.... because as you yourself now acknowledge, Clark County's separate power to vote on matters independently of Metro
is democracy in action.
Quote
And American power over European nations and their offshoots is something to be celebrated without restraint.
WTF.
Okay, that's it. You go on the ignore list. Until this thread I had no idea you were crazy, but you clearly are. And I have no desire to communicate with someone who repeatedly shows such utter contempt for anyone who doesn't live in the good ol' US of A. Apart from Beethoven, apparently.
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 08:43:22 PMDo you have any idea how bizarre it is to simultaneously complain about the boundary of a jurisdiction as 'undemocratic', when it's exactly the same boundary that enables Clark County voters to say no? If Clark County was within Metro's jurisdiction, then Metro could make decisions for Clark County.
Please point out where I stated that Metro has jurisdiction over Clark County. Metro has
attempted to impose its political will on Clark County. It has failed. This failure should be celebrated. It is really quite simple. This is a perfect example of lefties in one jurisdiction attempting to intimidate and/or pressure another jurisdiction to act a certain way, smug in their certainty they will succeed, and indignant in their deserved failure.
(It looks like you keep changing your post. Come on now, one answer at a time.)
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 08:43:22 PM
WTF.
Okay, that's it. You go on the ignore list. Until this thread I had no idea you were crazy, but you clearly are.
* chortle *
ADDENDUM: I find it scarcely credible that the same man who expresses hope in the paralysis of the United States Government wants to celebrate how the United States could squash other countries. There's some serious inner conflict right there.
Quote from: orfeo on March 13, 2016, 09:03:21 PMADDENDUM: I find it scarcely credible that the same man who expresses hope in the paralysis of the United States Government wants to celebrate how the United States could squash other countries. There's some serious inner conflict right there.
Wait, I'm on the ignore list, but not yet. A little bit of Augustine in ya?
I believe I've made it clear that domestic political inefficiency is one goal, and a reduction in international involvement, specifically wars, is another. Inefficient domestic rule and reasonably efficient or at least less inefficient foreign and military policy overseas are not at all incompatible. The US has lost too many young men to European wars to trust any European leaders ever again. Again, this is pretty simple stuff.
The road to extinction:
http://www.youtube.com/v/PuTe_sAI-UQ
Quote from: Johnll on March 13, 2016, 07:35:56 PM
Luck is not required. This is you in your own words.
I certainly don't withdraw that. He is.
8)
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 08:12:48 PM
And American power over European nations and their offshoots is something to be celebrated without restraint.
I don´t know if celebrated without restraint is the best way to put it, but I´d certainly rather live under American hegemony than Russian (or Chinese).
Quote from: Todd on March 13, 2016, 09:08:36 PM
The US has lost too many young men to European wars to trust any European leaders ever again.
Do you really want to go that route? Then how about an All Native American Tribes Conference issueing a declaration stating that they have lost too many young men to USA wars against them to trust any American leaders ever again? ;D
Kudos to Geo. Will for coining the term Vichy Republicans . . . .
Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right. And, my dear fellow Republicans, he's all your fault. (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572)
"Thanks, Obama."
QuoteThe voters of Clark County, Washington have repeatedly voted against Metro expansion.
What about fluoridation, creation science, concealed carry in schools and churches, is there a democratic position on each of these?
Should undemocratic bridges be built? Most of them are undemocratic, most should be built. The Metro thing is an oddity that causes voters to get involved. Nobody cares how "undemocratic" our democratic bridge builders act most of the time. We have bridges, too. Someone built them. I'll vote for politicians that favor that, and then vote against them if they have the temerity to ask my permission. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2016, 06:42:43 AM
What about fluoridation, creation science, concealed carry in schools and churches, is there a democratic position on each of these?
Of course there is. I can´t think of anything more democratic than a local community voting on what should be taught on the school which is financed on their money. Or the same community voting on whether they want or not their drinking water to be fluoridated.
The problem with (some part of) the Left, namely the statist Left, is their view of democracy: when the majority vote is in line with their ideology, then it is a triumph of the people; when the majority vote is against their ideology, then it is a triumph of the reaction and the vote must either be held again and again and again until the desired outcome obtains, in which case it is a triumph of the people, or, better still, disregarded altogether as irrelevant because some issues can´t possibly have a democratic position on each. IOW, democracy is good not
per se, but only insofar as it helps pushing the agenda.
Quote
Should undemocratic bridges be built? Most of them are undemocratic, most should be built.
I agree with that but then again I don´t pretend to be an unqualified democrat, nor do I sympathize, support or vote a party that called itself Democrat. ;D
Quote
I'll vote for politicians that favor that, and then vote against them if they have the temerity to ask my permission. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
IOW, you vote yourself into being told what´s good for you, accepting it and keeping your mouth shut. Three cheers for democracy!
http://www.garynorth.com/public/14855.cfm (http://www.garynorth.com/public/14855.cfm)
You people realize it's only mid-March, and the level of madness is clearly at record levels already.
Don't you think sooooooooomeone somewhere has bigBigBIG plans for this summer?
gulp, Ferdinand Moment??????????????
Those pesky Serbs at it again??
:P
A most esteemed poster here on GMG is Serb... ::)
Quote from: André on March 14, 2016, 08:55:39 AM
A most esteemed poster here on GMG is Serb... ::)
Drasko, yes... unfortunately he hasn´t been posting for quite a long time...
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2016, 07:11:23 AM
The problem with (some part of) the Left, namely the statist Left, is their view of democracy: when the majority vote is in line with their ideology, then it is a triumph of the people; when the majority vote is against their ideology, then it is a triumph of the reaction and the vote must either be held again and again and again until the desired outcome obtains, in which case it is a triumph of the people, or, better still, disregarded altogether as irrelevant because some issues can´t possibly have a democratic position on each. IOW, democracy is good not per se, but only insofar as it helps pushing the agenda.
What do you think of the statist leftists who vote to repeal Obamacare 18,976 times?
I don't think there a fixed number of times you are permitted to try to abolish slavery "undemocratically", or criminalize abortion, or adopt universal health care. Maybe the Obamacare votes just gives Red State morons something to do, like "look, Ma, I'm legislating!". Maybe it keeps them out of more serious trouble.
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2016, 07:11:23 AM
I agree with that but then again I don´t pretend to be an unqualified democrat, nor do I sympathize, support or vote a party that called itself Democrat. ;D
I don't pretend to be an unqualified democrat, so I sympathize with and support, in a qualified way, the party that calls itself Democratic.
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2016, 07:11:23 AM
IOW, you vote yourself into being told what´s good for you, accepting it and keeping your mouth shut. Three cheers for democracy!
No such thing happens, I vote for what's good for me, having a general idea of what that is, and who best fits the bill. If I'm wrong, I'll vote differently the next time, if the pol is wrong, same thing.
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2016, 07:11:23 AM
Of course there is. I can´t think of anything more democratic than a local community voting on what should be taught on the school which is financed on their money. Or the same community voting on whether they want or not their drinking water to be fluoridated.
The problem with (some part of) the Left, namely the statist Left, is their view of democracy: when the majority vote is in line with their ideology, then it is a triumph of the people; when the majority vote is against their ideology, then it is a triumph of the reaction and the vote must either be held again and again and again until the desired outcome obtains, in which case it is a triumph of the people, or, better still, disregarded altogether as irrelevant because some issues can´t possibly have a democratic position on each. IOW, democracy is good not per se, but only insofar as it helps pushing the agenda.
At the same time, the so-called conservatives who tout "states' rights" and "local control" when it comes to turning public schools into religious indoctrination centers, regulating abortion, or discriminating against gays (and going a bit further back, overt racism) are quick to overrule local ordinances that they don't like.
Quote from: Pat B on March 14, 2016, 11:41:22 AM
At the same time, the so-called conservatives who tout "states' rights" and "local control" when it comes to turning public schools into religious indoctrination centers, regulating abortion, or discriminating against gays (and going a bit further back, overt racism) are quick to overrule local ordinances that they don't like.
Don't states forbid local authorities from running their own internet services? Are these states acting on conservative principles about local control? No, it's probably property rights, so Comcast has a right to it's property, local subscribers to the state approved oligopoly. For every such abuse an abusive right can be found, count on it. The more abusive the practice, the more "principled" the argument. That's the way to go when the substantive argument goes against you. I tend to lead with substantive arguments about the desirability of programs from as neutral perspective as I can manage, and if I play dirty and allude to principles I frame it to get broad agreement, to convince others who aren't likely to agree out of the box. If that doesn't work, I call them names. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2016, 10:18:20 AM
Red State morons
So much for your democratic allegiance. Anyone who doesn´t vote as you vote is a moron. Three hails for democracy!
Quote
I don't pretend to be an unqualified democrat, so I sympathize with and support, in a qualified way, the party that calls itself Democratic.
Any party is undemocratic by definition. You can call yourself, sympathize with, and support, whatever party you want --- it doesn´t obscure the fact that what you basically mean and want is to force your worldview on anyone rejecting it by means of a majoritarian vote.
QuoteI vote for what's good for me, having a general idea of what that is, and who best fits the bill.
So does everybody else, including people who vote for Trump. If he wins, will you say it´s democracy in action?
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2016, 02:45:03 PMAny party is undemocratic by definition. You can call yourself, sympathize with, and support, whatever party you want --- it doesn´t obscure the fact that what you basically mean and want is to force your worldview on anyone rejecting it by means of a majoritarian vote.
Ah, democracy, as defined by Florestan: monarchy. 8)
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2016, 02:45:03 PM
So much for your democratic allegiance. Anyone who doesn´t vote as you vote is a moron. Three hails for democracy!
The polite term is "low information voters". Did you know morons vote in a democracy? Do you think a democracy is or could be moron free? A properly run democracy educates its morons up to world beating standards. Optimally they don't even want to be Communo-Fascists!
Oh, those Trump voters who are voting their interests
just like me, does that mean they can't be morons? In a democracy everyone is unmoronic by act of Congress, the Constitution, what?
Almost 8 months left before Election Day. Keep your salvos 'til the end ! They might be needed if a rally for Democracy is needed. Otherwise we all might be trumped, Americans or "strangers" :-\
After a little housekeeping I return to my post as rabid partisan:
(http://officialbeverlyhillspawn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Salon.png)
Bill Clinton's odious presidency: Thomas Frank on the real history of the '90s (http://www.salon.com/2016/03/14/bill_clintons_odious_presidency_thomas_frank_on_the_real_history_of_the_90s/)
Evaluating Clinton's presidency as heroic is no longer a given, however. After the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000, the corporate scandals of the Enron period, and the collapse of the real estate racket, our view of the prosperous Nineties has changed quite a bit. Now we remember that it was Bill Clinton's administration that deregulated derivatives, that deregulated telecom, and that put our country's only strong banking laws in the grave. He's the one who rammed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress and who taught the world that the way you respond to a recession is by paying off the federal deficit. Mass incarceration and the repeal of welfare, two of Clinton's other major achievements, are the pillars of the disciplinary state that has made life so miserable for Americans in the lower reaches of society. He would have put a huge dent in Social Security, too, had the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal not stopped him. If we take inequality as our measure, the Clinton administration looks not heroic but odious.
Pow! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: North Star on March 14, 2016, 03:03:11 PM
Ah, democracy, as defined by Florestan: monarchy. 8)
Monarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive: ask your Swedish neighbours. Republic and democracy are not mutually connected: ask your Russian neighbours. 8)
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2016, 03:25:16 PM
The polite term is "low information voters". Did you know morons vote in a democracy? Do you think a democracy is or could be moron free? A properly run democracy educates its morons up to world beating standards. Optimally they don't even want to be Communo-Fascists!
Oh, those Trump voters who are voting their interests just like me, does that mean they can't be morons? In a democracy everyone is unmoronic by act of Congress, the Constitution, what?
You call them morons. I call them
citizens just like you, with their own hopes and fears and with their own worldview.
Mashable has collected Trump´s calls for and appraisal of primitive, mob-like violence. As an outsider, one cannot but be repeatedly surprised by the level:
https://twitter.com/mashable/status/709472895651569664
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 14, 2016, 04:45:05 AM
I certainly don't withdraw that. He is.
8)
Good to see a professed conservative man up instead of run. Is it possible that poison is better ascribed to you and yours instead of your intended victim?
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2016, 03:34:04 PM
After a little housekeeping I return to my post as rabid partisan:
(http://officialbeverlyhillspawn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Salon.png)
Bill Clinton’s odious presidency: Thomas Frank on the real history of the ’90s (http://www.salon.com/2016/03/14/bill_clintons_odious_presidency_thomas_frank_on_the_real_history_of_the_90s/)
Evaluating Clinton’s presidency as heroic is no longer a given, however. After the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000, the corporate scandals of the Enron period, and the collapse of the real estate racket, our view of the prosperous Nineties has changed quite a bit. Now we remember that it was Bill Clinton’s administration that deregulated derivatives, that deregulated telecom, and that put our country’s only strong banking laws in the grave. He’s the one who rammed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress and who taught the world that the way you respond to a recession is by paying off the federal deficit. Mass incarceration and the repeal of welfare, two of Clinton’s other major achievements, are the pillars of the disciplinary state that has made life so miserable for Americans in the lower reaches of society. He would have put a huge dent in Social Security, too, had the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal not stopped him. If we take inequality as our measure, the Clinton administration looks not heroic but odious.
Pow! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Clinton fatigue: this time, it's personal.
Quote from: Florestan on March 15, 2016, 12:33:22 AM
You call them morons. I call them citizens just like you, with their own hopes and fears and with their own worldview.
There's nothing paradoxical about citizens having hopes and fears and worldviews while acting like morons. Some of this is a matter of the decline of Red State economies, with the rise of declinist pessimism. A Red State is not a good place to improve your circumstances, Red State politics both reflects and amplifies the downward trend. It encourages the gifted and ambitious to move to urban centers where there are better jobs, intellectual and cultural synergy, a virtuous circle.
Look at it from a Red State proto-moron perspective. One imagines they want Blue State jobs and schools with Red State taxes. The only way to get them is higher subsidy from the hated liberal bastions, but that would require non zero sum analysis. Pessimists don't do that, all pies either expand into other pies or they don't expand. The practical experience of pies not expanding stifles the imagination. Red State politicians fan the flames, as they constantly remind their constituents that politics is about taking from the undeserving to give to the "real Americans". People only climb ladders by kicking other people off, never ever by helping each other up. If you're a low information voter who are you going to believe, the politician appealing to your fears, or your stifled hopes? Optimism looks "expanding pie" in the sky, easily caricatured, nothing on the ground looks like it. The pessimists look like truth tellers, and so the vicious spiral goes.
Quote from: Johnll on March 15, 2016, 02:57:06 AM
Good to see a professed conservative man up instead of run. Is it possible that poison is better ascribed to you and yours instead of your intended victim?
If it makes you happy to wish me dead rather than accept our differing POV, more power to you.
8)
"... a minor negative."
http://www.youtube.com/v/zWlUgI4cB4M
No Cure for Stupid: Seattle Min Wage Edition (http://ritholtz.com/2016/03/158477/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29)
http://tinyurl.com/h4srk3a
What an asshole.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 15, 2016, 08:05:47 AM
http://tinyurl.com/h4srk3a
What an asshole.
And he
needs them to call him "the king."
Quote from: karlhenning on March 15, 2016, 08:10:31 AM
And he needs them to call him "the king."
But don't forget, he's "one of us."
All those now gone who, in hindsight, partly enabled El Tupé >:D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 12, 2016, 07:27:02 AM
My question too. Cruz is a weapon grade shit-weasel, he would win any "who is the most f****-up" question you cared to pose, and yet he was left off the list. Curious omission. :blank:
8)
This is your ego poison that you squirted on the assembled. It is incredibly dishonest that someone objects wishes you dead you poor pitiful pretend victim. This will be my last comment unless you squirt again.
Quote from: Johnll on March 15, 2016, 03:01:15 PM
This is your ego poison that you squirted on the assembled. It is incredibly dishonest that someone objects wishes you dead you poor pitiful pretend victim. This will be my last comment unless you squirt again.
Back at'cha.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 15, 2016, 09:04:47 AM
All those now gone who, in hindsight, partly enabled El Tupé >:D
One may now add a senator from Florida to that assembly.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/15/marco-rubio-2016-presidential-campaign-republicans/81653420/
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 15, 2016, 06:30:40 PM
One may now add a senator from Florida to that assembly.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/15/marco-rubio-2016-presidential-campaign-republicans/81653420/
Saw his concession speech; it was the most eloquent he has been since day 1. Pity for him he couldn't tap into that before now, he wouldn't have been in the position he is, I think.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 15, 2016, 06:36:31 PM
Saw his concession speech; it was the most eloquent he has been since day 1. Pity for him he couldn't tap into that before now, he wouldn't have been in the position he is, I think.
8)
He was handicapped by being for a sane immigration policy before he was against it.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 15, 2016, 06:45:53 PM
He was handicapped by being for a sane immigration policy before he was against it.
Yes, it is strange times when I have to concede without argument that being sane is a major handicap... :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 15, 2016, 06:57:23 PM
Yes, it is strange times when I have to concede without argument that being sane is a major handicap... :-\
8)
No comment as I promised
I think we passed the fail safe point tonight. Trump will be the nominee. It's not so much the delegates Trump has, it's the percentage of those remaining Cruz needs has gone above any number he plausibly could win. Cruz can't do it and there's no one else.
The GOP's Establishment 'Lane' May Have Always Been A Dead End (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-establishment-lane-may-have-always-been-a-dead-end/)
In a rare and candid interview in October, the top consultant to the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC Right to Rise USA laid out his theory of the GOP race. Mike Murphy told Bloomberg's Sasha Issenberg, "I think we are the campaign who can consolidate the winning largest lane in the party," adding that Donald Trump was a "false zombie front-runner. He's dead politically."
As it turns out, the "lane" Murphy conceptualized — the one populated by less confrontational Republicans favored by the party's DC elites, and the one John McCain and Mitt Romney traveled to the nomination in 2008 and 2012 — didn't just bottleneck in 2016. It might as well have had a "Dead End" sign at its entrance.
In fact, if these types of Republicans want to contend for the presidency, they might be better off ditching the GOP and starting a third party.
Maybe, but if the Repubs have been torn to pieces between ultraconservatives and populists, how are the evicted remnants supposed to matter any more? Not only were the old GOP stalwarts crushed, they looked like they barely resisted until it was too late to do anything but die quietly. What great cause would signal their rebirth? Who can they outflank to grab votes? Hillary has the run up the middle thing locked down. No, if I'm the Repub establishment I go home and rebuild at the local level, hoping to de-extinct the party after the deluge.
Quote from: Todd on March 09, 2016, 05:55:51 PM
This is where horse-trading comes in. Rubio agrees to work his delegates and steer them toward Cruz in exchange for, I don't know, Defense, or whatever. This would only matter in a contested convention. If Trump hits the magic number, it's all over anyway.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-15-primaries-ohio-florida-results-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-10017581 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/march-15-primaries-ohio-florida-results-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-10017581)
I wish she had mentioned Minnesota, Georgia, Virginia, and Oklahoma (the states where Rubio had the most delegates) but that will probably be covered soon by somebody.
ETA: oh, and Puerto Rico.
The geographical spread of primaries still to come is quite different to those that have already happened (and this applies to both parties). It's this that makes me think there is still room for some surprises.
Somebody please explain me the logic behind all this primaries stuff. Why is it better than simply having all candidates run in November and let the one who gets more than 50% of the votes win, or if nobody gets that, let the first two go for the runoff?
Quote from: Florestan on March 16, 2016, 01:09:39 AM
Somebody please explain me the logic behind all this primaries stuff. Why is it better than simply having all candidates run in November and let the one who gets more than 50% of the votes win, or if nobody gets that, let the first two go for the runoff?
But that would take all the show and fun out of it? I.e the same reason that a finale in an US cup in some sport never is one match, but five or seven, and that each match has lots of breaks so you can have some fun, celebrations, hot dogs and TV Commercials. So it would go against the grain to keep it that simple, so to say.
Quote from: The new erato on March 16, 2016, 01:23:32 AM
But that would take all the show and fun out of it? I.e the same reason that a finale in an US cup in some sport never is one match, but five or seven, and that each match has lots of breaks so you can have some fun, celebrations, hot dogs and TV Commercials. So it would go against the grain to keep it that simple, so to say.
Well, when the system was designed, and for more than a century thereafter, there were no Superbowl, no celebrations, no hotdogs and no commercials. There must be more than that behind it, don´t you think?
EDIT: timeframe expanded.
Quote from: Florestan on March 16, 2016, 01:28:58 AM
Well, when the system was designed, and for more than a century thereafter, there were no Superbowl, no celebrations, no hotdogs and no commercials. There must be more than that behind it, don´t you think?
EDIT: timeframe expanded.
I guess at that time, there were a meeting by a very limited number of men in a few constituencies who decided who their representative were to be and that it were a good system.
With time it blew out of all proportions, but as it seemed perfectly fit to the US Entertainment industry, it was impossible to change it. Why give people bread when they can have cake instead?
Quote from: Florestan on March 16, 2016, 01:09:39 AM
Somebody please explain me the logic behind all this primaries stuff. Why is it better than simply having all candidates run in November and let the one who gets more than 50% of the votes win, or if nobody gets that, let the first two go for the runoff?
Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/zqn7cup
You do understand, first of all, that the US president is not elected by popular vote (otherwise Al Gore would have become president), but by each state's electors, the total number of which is equivalent to the total number of members (currently 538) of Congress? So to become president, the candidate must win 270 electoral votes, and when people vote for president in November, they vote for whichever electors carry their own state. And so the whole convoluted, labyrinthine system of primaries and caucuses is designed eventually for each party to choose its candidate, and then it's the electors who actually cast the deciding votes.
And if you think this is difficult to you to understand, believe me, it's every bit as difficult for most of us.
Quote from: Florestan on March 16, 2016, 01:09:39 AM
Somebody please explain me the logic behind all this primaries stuff. Why is it better than simply having all candidates run in November and let the one who gets more than 50% of the votes win, or if nobody gets that, let the first two go for the runoff?
An appeal to logic as prior cause for social evolution doesn't work very well.
Karma Still a Bitch: Seattle Min Wage Edition (http://ritholtz.com/2016/03/158565/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29)
There are 1,079 unallocated delegates on the Repub side, then you have 156 pledged to the walking and stationary dead (Kasich will hold on to the convention and make a deal for something, make a king, whatever).
Trump has 661, and needs 576 more. Cruz has 406 and needs 831 more. I don't see enough chances for Cruz to get close. Trump is approaching a first ballot nomination.
Can an establishment conspiring with Cruz steal back the nomination from Trump? If Trump falls a few delegates short, as he might, and if the procedural machinations now underway pry a few more Trump delegates loose, the convention itself will become a festival of blatant corruption beyond anything in human memory. It's not, so I've read, against the law to offer or take cash bribes for political convention votes. There are many, many Trump delegates than can barely afford to pay their own bills to attend the convention. Me, I'd take money from both sides and when the whips came around it would be like "make me a final offer". I don't know if I'd have the brass to say it twice, though, principled as I am. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Trump foresees (pledges?) riots if he falls short by a few votes and is eliminated at the Convention.
From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/16/donald-trump-warns-of-riots-if-party-blocks-him-at-convention/?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/16/donald-trump-warns-of-riots-if-party-blocks-him-at-convention/?_r=0)
http://www.youtube.com/v/cRly-0wwl_g
Quote from: André on March 16, 2016, 09:11:44 AM
Trump foresees (pledges?) riots if he falls short by a few votes and is eliminated at the Convention.
Trump opponents are unlikely to riot over his defeat, so who's supposed to riot? Say what you will about Trump supporters, I don't think they are the sort that will riot on cue.
Given the course of his campaign, it's really hard to tell when Trump is saying something too outlandish even for his supporters. He could threaten a "biblical plague" to rain down concrete bibles on Cruz supporters. Some Trumpists might say this would go too far.
Quote from: drogulus on March 16, 2016, 06:59:00 AM
Can an establishment conspiring with Cruz steal back the nomination from Trump?
For this to succeed it will need near-complete unity. I'm not sure Cruz, an abrasive extremist with no experience in dealmaking, will get that.
Quote from: Pat B on March 16, 2016, 10:14:11 AM
For this to succeed it will need near-complete unity. I'm not sure Cruz, an abrasive extremist with no experience in dealmaking, will get that.
The effort will be led by the party apparatchicki, all hands on deck. Cruz will agree to be their tool. After the election he'll be told to piss off.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 16, 2016, 03:26:41 AM
Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/zqn7cup
Thank you. Most helpful.
Quote
And if you think this is difficult to you to understand, believe me, it's every bit as difficult for most of us.
Well, the mechanism in itself is not that complicated, although it takes some headscratching to figure it out. My question is rather --- why should it be so? Why is not the popular vote enough by itself? If the Electoral College does nothing more and nothing else than ratifying the popular vote then it is superfluous; if it nullifies the popular vote then it is undemocratic. In both cases there is no logical or moral reason for its existence. ???
I have no idea whence the party election process began to take form. But I suspect it was drafted in the late 18th Century or early 19th - when there were no highways, no 'national' roads, and when communications from one outpost to the nearest city took some time. And every vote counted, down to the last. In the end, a State being what it was, a few weeks were necessary to connect all the dots and tally the popular votes. And then, on to the next state or group of states, and so on.
Is it possible that the process began form some 200 years ago and has not really been changed since ?
Sorry for any oversimplification, but that's how it looks from the outside :-X.
Quote from: Florestan on March 16, 2016, 12:55:32 PM
Thank you. Most helpful.
Well, the mechanism in itself is not that complicated, although it takes some headscratching to figure it out. My question is rather --- why should it be so? Why is not the popular vote enough by itself? If the Electoral College does nothing more and nothing else than ratifying the popular vote then it is superfluous; if it nullifies the popular vote then it is undemocratic. In both cases there is no logical or moral reason for its existence. ???
Historicallly it was difficult to collect/count votes I guess, much easier if each district elected a representative who travelled, cumbersomely, and represented his district. That was how the Norwegian constitution was decided, and I guess the US one as well.
Edit: Seems Andre has the same idea as me.
Why they have kept the system is quite another matter, you Americans seem quite wedded to your founding fathers ideas (as in gun legislation); not recognizing that the world has moved on?
Quote from: André on March 16, 2016, 01:08:46 PM
I have no idea whence the party election process began to take form. But I suspect it was drafted in the late 18th Century or early 19th - when there were no highways, no 'national' roads, and when communications from one outpost to the nearest city took some time. And every vote counted, down to the last. In the end, a State being what it was, a few weeks were necessary to connect all the dots and tally the popular votes. And then, on to the next state or group of states, and so on.
Is it possible that the process began form some 200 years ago and has not really been changed since ?
Sorry for any oversimplification, but that's how it looks from the outside :-X.
In America, anything is possible, even if it is nothing at all! :) Yes, the process was instituted at the Beginning of Time, and is essentially unchanged since then. Ain't life grand? :D
8)
Quote from: Florestan on March 14, 2016, 05:05:11 AMDo you really want to go that route? Then how about an All Native American Tribes Conference issueing a declaration stating that they have lost too many young men to USA wars against them to trust any American leaders ever again?
Many Native American leaders do not trust the US Federal Government, and with good reason. I don't blame them one bit.
Quote from: drogulus on March 14, 2016, 06:42:43 AMShould undemocratic bridges be built? Most of them are undemocratic, most should be built. The Metro thing is an oddity that causes voters to get involved. Nobody cares how "undemocratic" our democratic bridge builders act most of the time. We have bridges, too. Someone built them. I'll vote for politicians that favor that, and then vote against them if they have the temerity to ask my permission. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
You are conflating two separate issues. The CRC was an unelected commission, with Oregon delegates appointed by Democrats, that, due to incompetence, could not even select a bridge design to replace the current I5 crossing which has been in place for a century. They considered many proposals, including a mega-project that would result in a huge bridge for cars and light rail, but then plans got scaled back, and then scaled back again, until they finally picked a design for cars only that couldn't be built for both engineering and legal reasons. It took years and $175 million of taxpayers' money to reveal the full scope of incompetence involved in the project. Bridges is tough, even for Dems. Alas, for the Dems, another Dem, then Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler (the probable next mayor of Portland, and then Governor after that) publicly called into question the economic assumptions backers of the project used.
Metro, which is elected, pushed to build a light-rail extension into Clark County both in tandem with the CRC for a while, and then separately. This would require at least another bridge, even without the CRC. But Clark County voters did not support it, nor did Clark County elected officials. And with bridge funding dead right now, it is going nowhere.
But fear not, the choo-choo cuckoos in Metro did see fit to build a light-rail line right up to Jantzen Beach, directly across the Columbia from Vancouver. Part of the thinking was and is if they build it, the northern extension will come. The dream will never die. Plus, they pushed through another eastside line, are pushing for another westside line, and they are even looking to expand the boondoggle that is WES (at a per-ride subsidy rate of $13.50) from one small suburb down to the state capitol in Salem at a proposed initial cost of a mere $10 million/mile. Based on the experience with WES, I would guess 3-4 times that would actually be needed. Wasteful, useless public projects are alive and well, drogulus, count on it.
Quote from: The new erato on March 16, 2016, 01:12:47 PMWhy they have kept the system is quite another matter, you Americans seem quite wedded to your founding fathers ideas (as in gun legislation); not recognizing that the world has moved on?
All that's needed to swap out the Electoral College with a popular vote is one Amendment to the Constitution. Should be easy.
Incidentally, incorporation of the Second Amendment only occurred this century. A proper court balance, depending on one's views, can reverse that.
QuoteYou are conflating two separate issues. The CRC was an unelected commission, with Oregon delegates appointed by Democrats, that, due to incompetence, could not even select a bridge design to replace the current I5 crossing which has been in place for a century. They considered many proposals, including a mega-project that would result in a huge bridge for cars and light rail, but then plans got scaled back, and then scaled back again, until they finally picked a design for cars only that couldn't be built for both engineering and legal reasons. It took years and $175 million of taxpayers' money to reveal the full scope of incompetence involved in the project. Bridges is tough, even for Dems. Alas, for the Dems, another Dem, then Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler (the probable next mayor of Portland, and then Governor after that) publicly called into question the economic assumptions backers of the project used.
I see, routine mismanagement is liberal idiocy. These things happen all the time. They are ideological because Dems fight nimbyism and other forms of hostile localism, while the Repubs are safe behind their private sector cowardice. In Massachusetts there are 2 kinds of public infrastructure, the Dem kind that get built and often sucks (the Big Dig) on its way to becoming great, or not great like the next partial tunnel collapse, and then the other kind, the "Repub alternative", also known as "no such thing as a public good".
QuoteWasteful, useless public projects are alive and well, drogulus, count on it.
That's a net win for everyone, including you. It's a risk you have to take. The bridge to nowhere is the price you pay for all the bridges the Repub "no such thing as the public good" geniuses cross to get to work. Too bad the Dems aren't more competent, and too bad the Repubs are gutless with their "high principles" fronting for their shallow interests.
Quote from: drogulus on March 16, 2016, 03:51:23 PMI see, routine mismanagement is liberal idiocy.
Now you're getting it.
Quote from: drogulus on March 16, 2016, 03:51:23 PMThat's a net win for everyone, including you.
No, it's not. Such programs harm social welfare, eroding confidence in government (not so important) and misallocating limited resources (very important).
Of course, I will admit that one of Metro's policies does benefit me directly: Metro's artificial urban growth boundary helps inflate home prices. These policies contributed to the Portland area having the highest in the nation 11%+ property value growth in the last year. Educated, middle-income and upper-middle-income and upper-income families who own homes reap a substantial economic benefit for doing nothing. (And thanks to three ballot measures, voted on by The People directly, property tax increases are capped each year, budgetary needs be damned.) Of course, the poor and young are priced out of the housing market, and now average rent in the area is the same as my mortgage payment - and I increase my equity each installment paid whereas renters get squat. Here in the Portland area, the Left is doing more to hurt the poor and young than Republicans ever dreamed of! Go team D!
Quote from: Todd on March 16, 2016, 04:23:12 PM
No, it's not. Such programs harm social welfare, eroding confidence in government (not so important) and misallocating limited resources (very important).
Of course, I will admit that one of Metro's policies does benefit me directly: Metro's artificial urban growth boundary helps inflate home prices. These policies contributed to the Portland area having the highest in the nation 11%+ property value growth in the last year. Educated, middle-income and upper-middle-income and upper-income families who own homes reap a substantial economic benefit for doing nothing. (And thanks to three ballot measures, voted on by The People directly, property tax increases are capped each year, budgetary needs be damned.) Of course, the poor and young are priced out of the housing market, and now average rent in the area is the same as my mortgage payment - and I increase my equity each installment paid whereas renters get squat. Here in the Portland area, the Left is doing more to hurt the poor and young than Republicans ever dreamed of! Go team D!
Better public infrastructure is a better solution than poor infrastructure taken as proof that no building is better. The net win comes from all the building, good and bad, since the good can only come with the bad. Of course you know this, but you like the safety of maintaining that failure to succeed means deliberate failure is smart. No, the liberal idiots are right to try and sometimes fail. All public infrastructure had to be built. It doesn't get better by not building the good liberal idiot projects,
all the good ones, to prevent the bad ones.
Quote from: drogulus on March 16, 2016, 04:42:27 PMAll public infrastructure had to be built. It doesn't get better by not building the good liberal idiot projects, all the good ones, to prevent the bad ones.
Patently false. What you apparently don't know about some of the Portland programs is that some rely on existing
private infrastructure. There were also alternative public programs, proposed by Liberals, that focused on the far less expensive option of using buses and increased budgets for road maintenance. But choo-choo cuckoos here, they can't get enough. To be fair, cost-benefit analyses can be hard to read through ideologically tinted glasses.
Is it too early to ask the evangelical ones to don a brown shirt to be ready to riot? You know just in case.
Today in work, my Muslim coworker (from Bangladesh), who became a citizen last year, asked me, "Why do all those people vote for Trump?"
Me: Wave hands in frustration because I can't really figure it out, antiTrump that I am.
She: "If he wins, I'll have to go back to my country!"
Me: "If he wins, I may have to go to your country!"
Quote from: Todd on March 16, 2016, 04:52:15 PM
Patently false. What you apparently don't know about some of the Portland programs is that some rely on existing private infrastructure. There were also alternative public programs, proposed by Liberals, that focused on the far less expensive option of using buses and increased budgets for road maintenance. But choo-choo cuckoos here, they can't get enough. To be fair, cost-benefit analyses can be hard to read through ideologically tinted glasses.
That's quite a concession, some liberal idiot projects are actually a good idea. I never said none of the liberal idiot plans were bad. I though I made that clear. I merely said that all the good plans were liberal idiot plans. But that point can be hard to read through ideologically tinted glasses.
Look, it's not that people want liberals to build bridges, it's that they want those bridges built, and liberals will build them and conservatives make excuses for not building them. They're better at strategically running out of dollars than building anything.
Quote from: drogulus on March 16, 2016, 07:03:41 PMThat's quite a concession, some liberal idiot projects are actually a good idea.
I didn't say it was a good idea. It was a more cost effective choice than what was selected. The best choice for reducing congestion - the goal that that was being sought - would have been an expansion of the existing access controlled bypass highway and the construction of a new one farther to the west. No choo-choos in that option, though.
Quote from: drogulus on March 16, 2016, 07:03:41 PMThey're better at strategically running out of dollars than building anything.
Odd, I see the fully private construction taking place at the Nike headquarters almost everyday, with rapid progress and ample funding, and, less than two miles away, a fully funded state project to repave a 1/4 mile stretch of road has already been going on since last summer and is not complete. I believe it is slated for complete this summer. Clearly liberal statists have got their stuff together.
Quote from: Todd on March 16, 2016, 07:34:07 PM
Odd, I see the fully private construction taking place at the Nike headquarters almost everyday, with rapid progress and ample funding, and, less than two miles away, a fully funded state project to repave a 1/4 mile stretch of road has already been going on since last summer and is not complete. I believe it is slated for complete this summer. Clearly liberal statists have got their stuff together.
There's nothing odd about private interests taking advantage of existing public infrastructure. If a liberal idiot builds something, of course they'll take advantage, they're supposed to. Bad planning and execution can only reduce public confidence from the high level prior building inspired. Nature created liberal idiots to run and populate cities just like it created everyone else to fly over. We all play our part.
I don't know how the choo-choo factor plays out everywhere. The general case is it's better to have them than not, though it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. A city gets big enough to build a light rail system, even a subway, and it becomes affordable, it's built, the city gets richer and pulls away from similar cities that run out of dollars instead. In this case it looks like ObamaHate played a role, maybe only as an excuse, to spurn the federal money. I get the conflict between hate the highways, hate the choo-choo, but these are opening salvos, shitty things you say before you get to the real trading. Another factor played a role this time. ObamaHate tends to take on a life of its own, a factor that can distort outcomes as the Bloomberg article showed. Is "Christian" infrastructure a real thing? How badly do Repubs want people to fly over them?
The Athenians called the free riders of their day "idiots". That's where we get the word. Repubs think its smart and principled to free ride today. Let the idiots build, if it works we'll give credit to private enterprise that takes advantage, as they were meant to, and if we scuttle the project, well hooray. Thanks, Obama.
Quote from: jlaurson on March 17, 2016, 05:18:56 AM
We might be closer in politics than most here on this board (seeing that we are into limited government and share the same distrust in the ability of people creating havoc - unintended or not - when they spend other people's money), but this is not a good argument.
Well, it's not, but there aren't any good arguments against the public good, particularly in urban areas where so much of all good is public by necessity. It's clearer there than anywhere else that private enterprise can't build on a public substrate that is not built.
Pretty damn funny, so long as you don't consider the consequences:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/17/opinion/take-the-trump-quiz.html
Quote from: Florestan on March 16, 2016, 12:55:32 PM
Thank you. Most helpful.
Well, the mechanism in itself is not that complicated, although it takes some headscratching to figure it out. My question is rather --- why should it be so? Why is not the popular vote enough by itself? If the Electoral College does nothing more and nothing else than ratifying the popular vote then it is superfluous; if it nullifies the popular vote then it is undemocratic. In both cases there is no logical or moral reason for its existence. ???
There was a lot of debate in the early days over whether the President should be elected by Congress, by a popular vote, or some alternative. The Wikipedia article on the Electoral College is pretty informative if you care to slog through it. But I don't think there has ever been any valid reason to believe the US was a total democracy; rather it has always been a representative democracy. The EC generally follows the popular vote, but not necessarily. What happens is that the popular vote in each state determines which electors will ultimately cast their votes for their party's candidate.
Gore came close with 266 electoral votes, and there was a lot of confusion about how Florida designed its ballots. I know staunch Floridian Democrats who feared they had unintentionally voted for Pat Buchanan. And so the final outcome was held up for weeks until that old originalist Antonin Scalia participated (on what Constitutional basis I have no idea) in a 5-4 decision (which he later claimed was a 7-2 decision) that effectively gave the prize to Dubya with what results we all know. "Get over it," chuckled that great lover of the Constitution in a 2012 speech about the outcome, to laughter from the audience. At least there weren't any riots.
Quote from: drogulus on March 17, 2016, 05:49:55 AM
There's nothing odd about private interests taking advantage of existing public infrastructure.
If private interests can legally take better and quicker advantage of existing public infrastructure than public interests can, then too bad for public interests and three cheers for private interests! Life is hard and if you´re stupid it is even harder! ;D And if you´re stupid on your own, that´s fine with me --- but being stupid on behalf of a whole community is a mortal sin. ;D
If I were to let you know how many Romanian government-financed infrastructure projects (highways, bridges, parking lots, housing residences etc) end up being either utter failures, or costing at least three times the market price, and how all those which eventually get being done are at least two years behind the schedule --- then you would accuse me of being a Red State moron. despite my being not American. So I will just keep my mout shut on the issue. ;D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 17, 2016, 07:45:30 AM
I don't think there has ever been any valid reason to believe the US was a total democracy
I am fully aware of the conservative / reactionary mantra that there is no mention whatsoever of "democracy" either in the US Independence Declaration or in the US Constitution --- although I haven´t checked them word by word. I am also myself not an unqualified democrat --- I do firmly believe that there are quite a lot of issues that cannot be decided democratically without running the real and present danger of a majoritarian tyranny. But why would the US conservatives think and proclaim that the USA is the most democratic, or the most politically enviable nation the mankind has ever known, has always been beyond my comprehensive powers. ;D
In Canada the elected Government is that issued from the party that garnered a win in most ridings. If the total ridings won exceeded 50% you had a majority government. Otherwise it was a minority government. With a bipartite House of Commons (Liberals and Conservatives) it ended most often with a majority government. The past 40 years has seen the emergence of a Left-of-Liberals party, the New Democratic Party (NDP). Initially socialist, it became more or less a 'social democratic' outfit with a left wing.
In the last election, the NDP's position on most economic issues was squarely in the middle, whereas Trudeau's Liberals jumped on the leftist economic vacuum to advocate government deficits to bolster the economy. In the electorate's mind the NDP became more conservative, less innovative and the Liberals became the party of the families, the poor, the elderly, etc. The Conservatives were left stranded on the beach gasping for air.
All that to say that a strong majority for the Liberals was achieved with less than 40% of the popular vote.
Calls for 'representative' apportionment of the ridings has always been around for decades, but since the system favours a party (any party) that eventually wins the most ridings, talks for that change always emerge from the losers, with the consequence that they cry in the wilderness. Canadians are never so happy than when a majority governement is elected, which means the can continue to care about their daily routine without being subjected to agonizing questioning about Big Society, Fairness for All and other thorny issues.
QuoteIf private interests can legally take better and quicker advantage of existing public infrastructure than public interests can, then too bad for public interests and If private interests can legally take better and quicker advantage of existing public infrastructure than public interests can, then too bad for public interests and three cheers for private interests!
All public infrastructure is built for private interests to take advantage, that's its justification. Your free ridership is distorting your understanding. All government spending creates private sector dollars. The purpose of government is to do what the private sector can't or won't do for itself. The question becomes how broad or narrow the public interest is defined. Does it have regular people in it, who greatly benefit from public transportation? How are working stiffs
not in the private sector?
"Three cheers for the private sector" is my reason for public improvement, public finance, public health, armies, police forces, what have you. I want the private sector to be greedy for these things, and the public sector is the private sector's preferred way of getting them. It's the whole point, not a dirty trick.
McConnell, Ryan Challenge Trump to Disavow White Supremacists (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/speaker-ryan-challenges-trump-disavow-kkk-rare-comments/story?id=37308144)
See, no need to get Cruz into it. This is not a bad opening salvo for the counter coup plotters.
I don't know if Trump has been informed about the need for a slush fund to keep his delegates sweet. The heat is on, and it's going to get hotter as we get closer to Cleveland.
Quote from: drogulus on March 17, 2016, 10:06:50 AM
McConnell, Ryan Challenge Trump to Disavow White Supremacists (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/speaker-ryan-challenges-trump-disavow-kkk-rare-comments/story?id=37308144)
"This party does not prey on people's prejudices," [Ryan] continued. "We appeal to their highest ideals."
I have a new-found respect for Paul Ryan if he managed to keep a straight face while he said that.
Quote from: Pat B on March 17, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
"This party does not prey on people's prejudices," [Ryan] continued. "We appeal to their highest ideals."
I have a new-found respect for Paul Ryan if he managed to keep a straight face while he said that.
The delegate count is a damn good reason to keep a straight face. The magic number is 1237, Trump will either just get over that or just under, but the actual first ballot doesn't come until procedural challenges are resolved about who gets seated. I think they can strip away a few and it might be enough to throw the balloting into the Twilght Zone. After the first ballot Trump support will erode IME.
Quote from: drogulus on March 17, 2016, 09:40:36 AM
All public infrastructure is built for private interests to take advantage, that's its justification.
Exactly. Any time the government builds a road, it's so that private people will use it. It's not a government-employees-only road.
Quote from: André on March 17, 2016, 09:37:34 AM
In Canada the elected Government is that issued from the party that garnered a win in most ridings. If the total ridings won exceeded 50% you had a majority government.
Or simply put: Whomever Ontario and Quebec decide to vote for.
Quote from: orfeo on March 17, 2016, 01:59:47 PM
Exactly. Any time the government builds a road, it's so that private people will use it. It's not a government-employees-only road.
To my knowledge there is also very clear empirical evidence that most infrastructure is provided better and cheaper if build by "the government". Sure, states that were on the border of failing like Romania (sorry, Florestan, but this seems to be the case) going from a dictatorship to some metastable state teeming with corruption are simply not very good examples.
The best (public) infrastructure I have experienced was in countries like Germany, France and Switzerland. And the catastrophic failure of the privatization of e.g. trains and water in Britain is well known (Of course there are many "no-true-scotsman"-replies to that: These were corrupt government cronies, not "real" private enterprise).
Quote from: Jo498 on March 17, 2016, 11:53:05 PM
To my knowledge there is also very clear empirical evidence that most infrastructure is provided better and cheaper if build by "the government". Sure, states that were on the border of failing like Romania (sorry, Florestan, but this seems to be the case) going from a dictatorship to some metastable state teeming with corruption are simply not very good examples.
The best (public) infrastructure I have experienced was in countries like Germany, France and Switzerland. And the catastrophic failure of the privatization of e.g. trains and water in Britain is well known (Of course there are many "no-true-scotsman"-replies to that: These were corrupt government cronies, not "real" private enterprise).
The biggest problem is that empirical evidence is not often used. I think I may have already said it in this thread, but what ought to happen is an examination of each individual case - is this particular thing more efficiently provided publically, or privately?
The answer may very well different for different kinds of things. I would suspect that most physical infrastructure is more efficiently dealt with by the public sector, but I wouldn't assume it.
And it needs to be a proper examination of ALL the costs. It's far too easy to look at the costs that are easily quantifiable, reduce those, and declare that something is now cheaper when in fact all that's happened is that the costs have been externalised, and for society as a whole it isn't any cheaper at all. There's not much point in reducing taxes if society as a whole pays more for the service anyway.
One fairly simple point is that the government can borrow money usually much cheaper than any private company. Government also does not need to make a profit. There is a lot of talk about wasteful governmental bureaucracies but all big companies also contain "wasteful" structures.
Of course, general comparisons are very difficult and it is often not clear how much public infrastructure or research was actually used by successful private providers (or after privatization). Many privatizations were so obviously fraudulent; the infrastructure had been built before with publich money, then the company was privatized and let the infrastructure rot away and the government had to help out not to let the service cease altogether.
Today one of the most infuriating things is nuclear power. To my knowledge there has never been any nuclear power plant built without (usually huge amounts of) public money. Of course almost all of the nuclear research (that made such plants possible at all) was also funded with public money. Then energy providers were privatized. The plants had been paid for and provided very cheap energy, big payday for those companies and huge dividends. Now in Germany all plants are going to be shut down eventually. But the energy companies do not have enough money left for the huge costs the deconstruction and the care for nuclear waste etc. is goin to cost. That money rests now with the people who were paid dividends 10 years ago or so. So now the government tries to make deals that those companies are forced to pay at least some of the "external and (almost) eternal costs" of nuclear power but in light of the experiences we have had so far with the problems of storage of nuclear waste it is extremely likely that most of those costs will be paid by the taxpayers.
Privatization of profits, socialization of costs is the secret of much private wealth.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 18, 2016, 01:50:27 AM
Today one of the most infuriating things is nuclear power. To my knowledge there has never been any nuclear power plant built without (usually huge amounts of) public money. Of course almost all of the nuclear research (that made such plants possible at all) was also funded with public money. Then energy providers were privatized. The plants had been paid for and provided very cheap energy, big payday for those companies and huge dividends.
Moreover, the governments then guarantee to purchase the energy at a set, above-market rate, for x amount of years, further subsidizing the venture. And they don't oblige the companies that run these plants to care for the permanent disposal solutions.
I'm all for nuclear energy -- if for no other reason than keeping the science behind it from falling asleep, as there's always the realistic hope of attaining the technology for fusion energy one day (but also because energy needs to come from somewhere and alternatives have their various [non-calculated] disadvantages, too -- but my preferred solution, namely: No subsidies for ANY kind of energy production... while tracking the social/environmental/value* cost of ALL... would probably take care of the problem on its own. I don't think there's a private company that would care to run nuclear power plants for profit without getting its pockets lined by the government. (Granted, then we'd have to do all-state funded research on nuclear energy, rather than outsourcing at least some of the research and trials to the not-quite-free market...)
QuoteNow in Germany all plants are going to be shut down eventually. But the energy companies do not have enough money left for the huge costs the deconstruction and the care for nuclear waste etc. is goin to cost. That money rests now with the people who were paid dividends 10 years ago or so. So now the government tries to make deals that those companies are forced to pay at least some of the "external and (almost) eternal costs" of nuclear power but in light of the experiences we have had so far with the problems of storage of nuclear waste it is extremely likely that most of those costs will be paid by the taxpayers.
Here the companies are in the right of course; Germany, for populist, non-scientific reasons voided contracts with these companies which it should have been sued over until no tomorrow.
Quote from: Pat B on March 17, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
"This party does not prey on people's prejudices," [Ryan] continued. "We appeal to their highest ideals."
I have a new-found respect for Paul Ryan if he managed to keep a straight face while he said that.
;D
Quote from: The new erato on March 18, 2016, 02:17:07 AM
Privatization of profits, socialization of costs is the secret of much private wealth.
Yup.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 17, 2016, 11:53:05 PM
states that were on the border of failing like Romania (sorry, Florestan, but this seems to be the case) going from a dictatorship to some metastable state teeming with corruption
There´s nothing you should be sorry about: that
is the case.
I'm impressed by the prescience of the OP, recognizing the extinction of the GOP so far ahead of the rest of us. Does this mean that for the democratic party there will be the equivalence of an apotheosis?
Quote from: The new erato on March 18, 2016, 02:17:07 AM
Privatization of profits, socialization of costs is the secret of much private wealth.
Clinton tried socialization of profits, called a budget surplus, which ended the '90s boom. Privatization of profits isn't an imposition on private sector businesses, it's the public sector doing its "promote the general welfare" thing. Socialization of costs pays for private sector profits by covering the savings burden. The private sector that takes savings out of income subtracts it from spending (thrift paradox), spiraling the economy down. National financial savings (the "national debt") records the spending replacement as liabilities to the government. That's why you don't try to "fix the debt", the debt is the fix.
Quote from: drogulus on March 18, 2016, 06:06:13 AM
Clinton tried socialization of profits, called a budget surplus, which ended the '90s boom. Privatization of profits isn't an imposition on private sector businesses, it's the public sector doing its "promote the general welfare" thing. Socialization of costs pays for private sector profits by covering the savings burden. The private sector that takes savings out of income subtracts it from spending (thrift paradox), spiraling the economy down. National financial savings (the "national debt") records the spending replacement as liabilities to the government. That's why you don't try to "fix the debt", the debt is the fix.
There has to be a balance, though. Private profits ought not mean a very few people making very large amounts of money at the cost of everyone else. Promote the general welfare, yes. Promote the welfare of a select few, not so much please.
Quote from: orfeo on March 18, 2016, 06:38:37 PM
There has to be a balance, though. Private profits ought not mean a very few people making very large amounts of money at the cost of everyone else. Promote the general welfare, yes. Promote the welfare of a select few, not so much please.
I was referring to a more general view of private sector gain that includes higher wages and profits. In order that an economy grows the real production/consumption cycle, the money circuit is balanced for optimal performance, so the tax comes back late enough (salami-sliced as a deficit by budgeteers), and not too early (budget balance/surplus is economic imbalance). Where I differ a bit is in identifying efficiency with ideas of fairness. Economists know you raise efficiency in a dollar circuit by sending more dollars through the spending classes, for the reason I stated in my last comment. High spenders, low and middle income chiefly, raise GDP when they get up in the morning, high savers (rich "job creators") are the major source of the savings glut government spending replaces. High savings defines being rich. You don't have to spend all or near all of your income.
The economic justification for progressive taxation (it reduce the savings burden, spares live dollars by taxing dead ones) dovetails with the ethical justification. My general approach to ethical issues in economics and elsewhere that only ethical notions that can pass an efficiency test can operate for long, that is, if a society could somehow
not get richer by means of sending more dollars to spenders, we wouldn't dream of progressive taxation or public works. It's only because it satisfies
both ethical notions and efficiency tests that we continue for centuries to define a rich society as one with rich
people in it. Since I "conjoin" fairness and efficiency, I've accepted that there indeed has to be a balance of profit and wages, for both reasons.
Quote from: orfeo on March 18, 2016, 06:38:37 PM
Promote the general welfare, yes.
This sounds as good as it gets. The only difficulty is to define "general welfare".
Quote from: Florestan on March 19, 2016, 01:27:57 AM
This sounds as good as it gets. The only difficulty is to define "general welfare".
Indeed. There are theories about that, though, including one I came across in legal philosophy many years ago that suggests what you want is a system where you'd be reasonably with your individual lot if you didn't know your individual place in society - if you could wipe people's memory of whether they were rich or poor or presitigious or not, what would they be happy with?
The recently published annual Happiness Index certainly goes along with that notion, that the happiest, best-functioning societies are the ones that are the most equal.
Quote from: Florestan on March 19, 2016, 01:27:57 AM
This sounds as good as it gets. The only difficulty is to define "general welfare".
If that's the only difficulty, nobody need bother. If you decide you need a road and build it, "promoting general welfare" will be the explanation you apply.
Applying general welfare is not made easier or harder by the definitions. Do we need a tunnel connecting New York and New Jersey? Either yes or no, but I'll wager the practical application of this instance of "general welfare theory" depends not at all on Socratic definitions of the horse trader kind. Like you Socrates purported to think definitions came first, and argued that no one could be a horse trader without an absolute definition of a horse. OK, this is obviously Plato, but I doubt these guys ever once sat down to a meal after long deliberations on the absolute definition of food. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: orfeo on March 19, 2016, 04:24:22 AM
Indeed. There are theories about that, though, including one I came across in legal philosophy many years ago that suggests what you want is a system where you'd be reasonably with your individual lot if you didn't know your individual place in society - if you could wipe people's memory of whether they were rich or poor or presitigious or not, what would they be happy with?
A Theory of Justice by John Rawls is the source for the theory. It reminds me of MMT in that it's quite clearly a culmination of less comprehensive practical understandings. This theory simply completes, by explaining what we do, a "why".
Quote from: orfeo on March 19, 2016, 04:24:22 AM
The recently published annual Happiness Index certainly goes along with that notion, that the happiest, best-functioning societies are the ones that are the most equal.
What do you mean by "equal"?
Quote from: drogulus on March 19, 2016, 06:55:44 AM
If that's the only difficulty, nobody need bother. If you decide you need a road and build it, "promoting general welfare" will be the explanation you apply.
I got it: "promoting general welfare" means whatever government does, and whatever government does means "promoting general welfare". ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 19, 2016, 09:15:12 AM
What do you mean by "equal"?
I got it: "promoting general welfare" means whatever government does, and whatever government does means "promoting general welfare". ;D
Given that he is talking about a hypothetical 'perfect society', what would you speculate 'equal' means?
Of course, reality always intrudes, but that isn't what we are discussing here. Building a road is a perfect example of something which is good for the community as a whole, thus, the general welfare is promoted. It isn't a difficult concept, really... :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 19, 2016, 09:25:51 AMGiven that he is talking about a hypothetical 'perfect society', what would you speculate 'equal' means?
That´s not what I inferred from
orfeo´s post. I think, on the contrary, that he is talking about existing, real societies.
Quote
Building a road is a perfect example of something which is good for the community as a whole, thus, the general welfare is promoted.
That is true, but
drogulus seems to reject any notion that government should operate on, and within, principles, and to embrace the position that whatever is expedient is also legitimate. I respectfully disagree.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 19, 2016, 09:25:51 AM
Building a road is a perfect example of something which is good for the community as a whole . . . .
Except when it isn't. The Cross-Bronx Expressway in NY (conceived by power-broker Robert Moses), a perpetual traffic nightmare to this day, has been credited with disrupting an already poor neighborhood and increasing urban blight and crime in the notorious South Bronx area of the city. Other of Moses's plans, especially an expressway that would have sliced through lower Manhattan in the Canal Street/Chinatown area, were finally defeated after strenuous public opposition. (Apologies to those not intimately familiar with this part of US geography, but it's my area of the world and I care about it.)
Quote from: Florestan on March 19, 2016, 09:15:12 AM
I got it: "promoting general welfare" means whatever government does, and whatever government does means "promoting general welfare". ;D
Yes, I do mean that. An idea of government promoting general welfare is put into documents and speeches and critical responses because we agree on promoting general welfare and also agree that no a priori definition will suffice for what that is. It's defined "in use". What's your idea of general welfare? What's mine? You can see Plato doesn't tell you. He says there's an a priori Form of it. It's not that I don't take his word, it's that the words don't resolve to a meaning in use. They don't add to the discussion.
An a priori definition of public good is no more useful than an a priori definition of a tunnel connecting New York to New Jersey. All there are are plans, plans about plans, ethical/political descriptions of why plans, what kind, and
A Theory of Justice master plan, as an example. You argue about master plans in the same consequential way you do other plans that operate closer to the ground. Does it work? Is a modern democracy that's "by the people", a "government is instituted among men" that shall provide "equality before the law", and so on, what Rawls was describing in his master plan? It looks like it.
Quote from: Florestan on March 19, 2016, 09:51:19 AM
That is true, but drogulus seems to reject any notion that government should operate on, and within, principles, and to embrace the position that whatever is expedient is also legitimate. I respectfully disagree.
You're close, but I think you have to get a little closer. I do think legitimacy has to have a lot of expediency in it. I think I'm describing that.
Quote from: drogulus on March 19, 2016, 10:09:09 AM
Yes, I do mean that.
Then on what ground(s) would you have opposed Nicolae Ceausescu and his government? They talked all day and night, and put into documents and speeches, about how they promoted the general welfare of the Romanian people at levels unseen before not only in the country but also worldwide; they did build bridges, dams, roads, hospitals, schools, blocks of flats etc. I really do wonder: what faults could you have possibly find with them?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 19, 2016, 09:59:42 AM
Except when it isn't. The Cross-Bronx Expressway in NY (conceived by power-broker Robert Moses), a perpetual traffic nightmare to this day, has been credited with disrupting an already poor neighborhood and increasing urban blight and crime in the notorious South Bronx area of the city. Other of Moses's plans, especially an expressway that would have sliced through lower Manhattan in the Canal Street/Chinatown area, were finally defeated after strenuous public opposition. (Apologies to those not intimately familiar with this part of US geography, but it's my area of the world and I care about it.)
There will always be exceptions, and people who bend rules to their advantage. It doesn't invalidate the basic intent of the rule. If it did, every rule ever created would eventually be invalid!
In any case, the 'promote the general welfare' is an ideal. How often have ideals become long term realities? Isn't that why we change governments regularly? So that more 'general welfare promotions' are more evenly balanced? Christ, I hope so! :o
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 19, 2016, 11:05:07 AM
There will always be exceptions
Hardly an insignificant exception. The South Bronx became a major symbol in the 70s of urban blight and decay. Remember Jimmy Carter's visit in 1977?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 19, 2016, 11:16:39 AM
Hardly an insignificant exception. The South Bronx became a major symbol in the 70s of urban blight and decay. Remember Jimmy Carter's visit in 1977?
True, and yes, I do.
But if you have to build exceptions for corruption into every ideal you have, what's left? And why bother?
Nothing is going to be done about situations like that as long as the people who are in power remain in power. They think they are doing the right thing by doing nothing, so why would they change? I expect the justifications for it are right around the corner though; let's see. >:D
8)
let's see.... ::)
Europe in crisis....
The Middle East in flames....
And the US run by....... Donald Trump....
It is going to be sooooo much FUN! :laugh:
Q ???
Quote from: Florestan on March 19, 2016, 10:18:54 AM
Then on what ground(s) would you have opposed Nicolae Ceausescu and his government?
On what grounds did he oppose me? Did he oppose everyone only to the extent he had "grounds", or did the fucker need grounds to oppose everyone who wouldn't knuckle under?
Is it equally groundless to overthrow Ceausescu as it is for him to shoot you? Look, you're entitled to overthrow guys like him because you won't listen to anybody tell you you don't have a priori grounds. You don't even have to have an a priori Declaration of Independence, you can make one up like we did in the good ol' U.S. of A!
Quote from: Que on March 19, 2016, 12:56:27 PM
let's see.... ::)
Europe in crisis....
The Middle East in flames....
And the US run by....... Donald Trump....
It is going to be sooooo much FUN! :laugh:
Q ???
The Economist rates Trump presidency among its top 10 global risks (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/economist-trump-presidency-global-risk-220887)
A Donald Trump presidency poses a top-10 risk event that could disrupt the world economy, lead to political chaos in the U.S. and heighten security risks for the United States, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.
Until Trump, the firm had never rated a pending election of a candidate to be a geopolitical risk to the U.S. and the world. The firm has no plans to include Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz or John Kasich on future risk lists.
-
On the actual risk, Trump is ranked the #6 greatest global threat (https://gfs.eiu.com/Archive.aspx?archiveType=globalrisk).
#1: Chinese economy crashes hard
#2: Putin moves into "new cold war"
#3: "Currency volatility culminates in an emerging markets corporate debt crisis"
#4: European Union breakup
#5: Euro currency breakup
#6: Donald Trump
#7: ISIS destabilizes global economy
#8: UK votes to leave EU
#9: Warfare with China in South China Sea
#10: Oil industry collapse
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/e1711f6/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F0c%2F3d%2F8e70d9eb4b1d8652dc51dbd0c4cd%2Fap-203213068638.jpg)
"After Tuesday's primaries, it's looking like we can add one more entity to the Trump Marks list: the Trumpublican Party, LLC."
"But in truth the Trump takeover of the GOP occurred, to quote an old line from Hemingway, "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." What had to happen first, before Donald could step in and slap on his own brand in a short period of time, was the gradual "de-branding" of the party at the hands of its own leaders, especially over the past 7½ years since Barack Obama entered the White House. That's when the party decided to abandon any ideas about governing in favor of one singular, unifying idea: "No to Obama." "
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/how-trump-re-branded-the-gop-213745#ixzz43OObzCag
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
...........................................................................
Interesting read.
Quote from: Florestan on March 19, 2016, 09:51:19 AM
That´s not what I inferred from orfeo´s post. I think, on the contrary, that he is talking about existing, real societies.
Well I was talking about both. I was talking about Rawls (couldn't remember the name, I think there's a second name in the back of my mind as well). But I was also musing on the Happiness Index.
In terms of what that particular index seeks to measure, you can look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
You ask what I mean by "equal". Equality before the law, equal opportunity to make choices, equal access to important services regardless of money, they'd all factor into my notion of equality. It means money and power not mattering so much - that a lack of money and power does not put you at so great a disadvantage that life is a struggle.
And no, it is most assuredly not communism. Whatever the rhetoric of a man like Ceausescu, the fact was that the wealth of the country was held by a small number of individuals to the point where it made ordinary people struggle. And people's choices were restricted.
Quote from: Brian on March 19, 2016, 01:24:09 PM
The Economist rates Trump presidency among its top 10 global risks (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/economist-trump-presidency-global-risk-220887)
A Donald Trump presidency poses a top-10 risk event that could disrupt the world economy, lead to political chaos in the U.S. and heighten security risks for the United States, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.
Until Trump, the firm had never rated a pending election of a candidate to be a geopolitical risk to the U.S. and the world. The firm has no plans to include Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz or John Kasich on future risk lists.
I hate to be a Doomsday prophet, but all the ingredients for a geopolitcal disaster of epic proportions are currently present.... ::)
Q
It's impossible to tell because so far Trump is mostly/only rhetorics and it seems anyone's guess what he might do should he become president. But I think there is a higher probability that with him US foreign policy could become somewhat less meddlesome (more in line with their pre-WW-I-policy) than with Clinton...
Quote from: Jo498 on March 20, 2016, 03:37:05 AMsomewhat less meddlesome (more in line with their pre-WW-I-policy)
Our pre-WW-I policy where we annexed the American west, conceived the Monroe Doctrine, took land from Mexico by warfare, declared war on Spain, seized control of Puerto Rico and Cuba, created Panama by force so we could build a canal, and spent 40+ years ruling the Philippines as a colonial holding?
The United States has always had an assertive, indeed aggressive, foreign policy. Cases like Woodrow Wilson's reluctance to enter WWI are exceptions to the rule.
(A good book to read on this subject is "Dangerous Nation: America's Foreign Policy from Its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century", by Robert Kagan.)
Quote from: Brian on March 20, 2016, 05:57:21 AM
The United States has always had an assertive, indeed aggressive, foreign policy. Cases like Woodrow Wilson's reluctance to enter WWI are exceptions to the rule.
The U.S. is a young country, born with imperial ambition. Empire was not tacked on later (sorry Gore Vidal, there was no decline and fall from your ideal republic). When we got powerful enough we began to replace Britain as the maritime hegemon. Such a role is inconceivable for a country with pacifist assumptions about the "normalcy" of peace. We are not Swiss, we don't have pacifist mountain ranges! So we fought wars of expansion, world wars when they showed up, now we fight police actions including "wars of choice" the maritime power fights, choosing this one not that one, sometimes getting it wrong.
Pre WWI it was meddling only in the "own backyard". Which included all of Latin America and most of the Pacific, of course. It did not participate in the "Great Game" in the near/middle East.
I am well aware of the fact that Empires keep meddling, especially if they think (often rightly), others are weak. The main problem seems that some in the US think they are still like Rome in the first century AD, not in the fifth...
Quote from: Jo498 on March 20, 2016, 06:56:04 AM
Pre WWI it was meddling only in the "own backyard". Which included all of Latin America and most of the Pacific, of course. It did not participate in the "Great Game" in the near/middle East.
I am well aware of the fact that Empires keep meddling, especially if they think (often rightly), others are weak. The main problem seems that some in the US think they are still like Rome in the first century AD, not in the fifth...
The fifth century Romans were trying to stop their empire from invading them, and they failed. People moralize about this, but it really came down to the growing strength of the Romanized (even Christianized) Germans and Huns both inside and outside the imperial boundaries.
People want the fall of the Western empire to teach lessons. That's largely crap. If Napoleon collapsed in three years and Rome managed to survive the 4th and most of the 5th century, it looks to me very much like imperial systems differ greatly from each other according to a variety of factors. Unsuccessful empires expand and collapse quickly, successful ones play by M&A rules, Greek>Roman, Dutch>British>American.
Oh, hail Trump, I suppose. Other than the embarrassment factor, it's not clear to me what effect Trump-lesconi will have. Look at Italy, how embarrassed are they now? Of course they're out of practice at ruling the world, so I can understand how people outside the Galactic Center might be apprehensive. But consider that the U.S system that has thwarted a good President can be modified to deal with a nightmarish one. We will, I promise, govern around him.
Quote from: drogulus on March 20, 2016, 07:31:17 AM
Oh, hail Trump, I suppose. Other than the embarrassment factor, it's not clear to me what effect Trump-lesconi will have. Look at Italy, how embarrassed are they now?
Well, they're still cleaning up the gigantic economic mess his incompetence left behind.
EDIT: If you're trying to imply that Ted Cruz would be worse, I do agree that Ted Cruz would be worse.
Quote from: drogulus on March 19, 2016, 01:17:22 PM
On what grounds did he oppose me? Did he oppose everyone only to the extent he had "grounds", or did the fucker need grounds to oppose everyone who wouldn't knuckle under?
Is it equally groundless to overthrow Ceausescu as it is for him to shoot you? Look, you're entitled to overthrow guys like him because you won't listen to anybody tell you you don't have a priori grounds. You don't even have to have an a priori Declaration of Independence, you can make one up like we did in the good ol' U.S. of A!
I got this one too: you have no objection whatsoever to government having ever-expanding or downright unlimited power as long as it acts according to your own idea of what government should do.
Quote from: orfeo on March 19, 2016, 03:25:52 PM
Well I was talking about both. I was talking about Rawls (couldn't remember the name, I think there's a second name in the back of my mind as well).
Frankly, I have little patience with, and still less use for, theories about what "the perfect society" would look like and the proper way to get there. They might be interesting intellectual games but have zero practical relevance. No society is ever going to be voluntarily organized according to Rawls´ (or whoever else´s) ideas. And all the attempts of forcibly organizing the society according to some preconceived plans aimed at perfection have (predictably) resulted in tyranny.
Quote
You ask what I mean by "equal". Equality before the law, equal opportunity to make choices, equal access to important services regardless of money, they'd all factor into my notion of equality. It means money and power not mattering so much - that a lack of money and power does not put you at so great a disadvantage that life is a struggle.
That´s all good and I agree. Yet I know of no society past and present in which money and power did not / do not matter at all --- and I doubt there will ever be one such in the future. The only way to make power absolutely irrelevant is to have everybody hold the same power; the only way to make money absolutely irrelevant is to make everybody have the same income --- both of which are impossible.
Quote from: Florestan on March 20, 2016, 07:57:36 AM
I got this one too: you have no objection whatsoever to government having ever-expanding or downright unlimited power as long as it acts according to your own idea of what government should do.
The limits my objections impose are as stringent as yours, though I run the justifications through a different screening process. Anyway, I don't see how my own ideas of governance are at a disadvantage to your own. They are both based on past ideas and practices, though I tend to put practice horses before idea carts, on the grounds that only well understood practices can form a basis for useful reforms. I don't like the idea of idea carts pulling other idea carts while practice horses wait around for definitions.
Quote from: Florestan on March 20, 2016, 08:19:07 AM
Frankly, I have little patience with, and still less use for, theories about what "the perfect society" would look like and the proper way to get there. They might be interesting intellectual games but have zero practical relevance. No society is ever going to be voluntarily organized according to Rawls´ (or whoever else´s) ideas. And all the attempts of forcibly organizing the society according to some preconceived plans aimed at perfection have (predictably) resulted in tyranny.
So you must go on and can't go on, because if going on isn't perfect (a very important concept in the a priorist idea-sphere and not elsewhere), it will fail by the perfection standard.
Q: Did Rawls offer a plausible description for what a modern democratic society tries to do?
A: Yes, it's in both practice and theory, which in my view grow up together bootstrap like.
Q: Is it perfect?
A: What difference could it possibly make that it's not?
Quote from: Florestan on March 20, 2016, 08:19:07 AM
No society is ever going to be voluntarily organized according to Rawls´ (or whoever else´s) ideas.
On the contrary, the whole point is that many societies include these ideas.
Australia scores quite highly on these sorts of indexes. I can tell you that "fairness" is one of the strongest values in the Australian psyche. Yes, Australians have plenty of individualism at looking out for themselves, but they also have a very strong reaction to situations affecting other Australians in an unfair or adverse way. There's a definite undercurrent of "that could be me" that creates a desire to help.
Which is pretty much the essence of the idea I'm talking about - looking at the less well-off members of society and thinking "that could be me", not "they deserve it".
Same here. 'They deserve it' smacks of smugness.
Anyway, it doesn't matter exactly which things you measure, the same countries turn up again and again as the best places to live. The Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand fill out the top spots with monotonous regularity. All the different indexes keep saying it.
And the American response is usually to say "well, we're not a small non-diverse country". Which is based on notions of America from a long time ago. Did you know that several of these countries easily outstrip the USA for percentage of people born elsewhere? I know for sure Canada and Australia are way ahead on that statistic, and I've seen suggestions at least that several of the European countries also have more immigrants than the USA.
Quote from: orfeo on March 20, 2016, 01:33:00 PM
looking at the less well-off members of society and thinking "that could be me", not "they deserve it".
Once again, I generally agree with that --- but Rawls´ idea about how a perfect society should be organized is purely theoretical; IIRC, his theory is as follows: an individual is asked to design a perfect social, economical and political arrangement; the only condition he must bear in mind is that after setting it up he will be born again in that society but he knows not beforehand what his place and status will be. Rawls argues that this is the way to really achieve real perfection. Now please tell me if this is something you can safely call a realistic proposal / approach.
Solidarity, altruism, generosity, benevolence, liberality ---all these inborn human traits and propensities have manifested themselves long, long, long, loooooong before Rawls (or Marx, for that matter) was born. To wish and hope that they will prevail over (equally inborn) human traits of atomistic individualism, egotism, avarice, malevolence and illiberality and to personally act in such a manner as to promote them is one thing --- to pretend that one knows with certainty what and how must be done in order to achieve the perfect society is quite another. As long as people themselves will be imperfect --- that is, until Judgment Day --- society (any society) will be imperfect as well. That is not to say that any statu quo should be maintained and that reform, change and improvement should not be sought when possible.
Quote from: Florestan on March 20, 2016, 02:12:05 PM
Once again, I generally agree with that --- but Rawls´ idea about how a perfect society should be organized is purely theoretical; IIRC, his theory is as follows: an individual is asked to design a perfect social, economical and political arrangement; the only condition he must bear in mind is that after setting it up he will be born again in that society but he knows not beforehand what his place and status will be. Rawls argues that this is the way to really achieve real perfection. Now please tell me if this is something you can safely call a realistic proposal / approach.
Solidarity, altruism, generosity, benevolence, liberality ---all these inborn human traits and propensities have manifested themselves long, long, long, loooooong before Rawls (or Marx, for that matter) was born. To wish and hope that they will prevail over (equally inborn) human traits of atomistic individualism, egotism, avarice, malevolence and illiberality and to personally act in such a manner as to promote them is one thing --- to pretend that one knows with certainty what and how must be done in order to achieve the perfect society is quite another. As long as people themselves will be imperfect --- that is, until Judgment Day --- society (any society) will be imperfect as well. That is not to say that any statu quo should be maintained and that reform, change and improvement should not be sought when possible.
Let's review. Rawls describes both the project, humane government, and its realization, so how can that be purely theoretical? I mean if Rawls is correct he's simply summing up the direction governments have taken, how they might change and why they won't change back. I won't evolve back into a Ceausescu-saur but why not? Why doesn't it work that way? I think it's because there's more practice in plans and plans in practice when you get to the stage of modern democracy, like software on a chip. A huge amount of philosophical working out has been left behind because it's not needed any more. It's in the behavior now.
QuoteTo wish and hope that they will
How did so much wishing and hoping get enacted despite the lack of perfection? Are you saying our wishes and hopes to devise a humane democratic government were fruitless but all of the progress made just happened, maybe even
in spite of our attempts? Isn't that a pretty low plausibility, dare I say
conservative reading of history? How do tyrants get to be good at enacting their plans for tyranny and the anti-tyrants are limited to ineffectual wishes and hopes? History doesn't show any such thing.
Quote from: orfeo on March 20, 2016, 01:44:16 PM
Anyway, it doesn't matter exactly which things you measure, the same countries turn up again and again as the best places to live. The Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand fill out the top spots with monotonous regularity. All the different indexes keep saying it.
That´s precisely my point: lots of nations did not wait for Rawls and his utterly hypothetical "founding father" to teach them how to live.
Quote from: drogulus on March 20, 2016, 02:54:31 PM
How did so much wishing and hoping get enacted despite the lack of perfection? Are you saying our wishes and hopes to devise a humane democratic government were fruitless but all of the progress made just happened, maybe even in spite of our attempts?
I´m saying no such thing. I don´t even know where you got that notion. I can only notice that you left out the second part of the sentence:
and to personally act in such a manner as to promote them.
Quote from: Florestan on March 20, 2016, 10:14:21 PM
That´s precisely my point: lots of nations did not wait for Rawls and his utterly hypothetical "founding father" to teach them how to live.
But the relevance here is it's quite arguable that, for the last generation or two, the USA has not been one of these nations. And that Sanders, in particular, is arguing that it should be.
The USA seems to me to be built on a notion of "the great American dream" that is increasingly out of reach for most Americans. America is undoubtedly a fantastic place to be in order to become a great success. The problem is that that most people don't become a great success, and the USA does not do as good a job of dealing with those people who don't "make it".
A main point of Rawls' idea of the "veil of ignorance" (design a society before you know at which social position you might end up) is that it does NOT at all strive for a "perfect society". Its strength and weakness is that it does not presuppose an idea of a "good life".
Only the minimal aspect that most people are not gamblers is presupposed.
A daredevil gambler might design a very unequal society on the slight chance he might end up a billionaire. I think a part of the mindset of many people in the US is that they kid themselves the rags to riches story might become true of them. The chances for this were probably better, say 100 years ago in the US, so the idea stuck whereas in Europe people do not entertain such dreams.
That satisfaction with life and society seems a feature of more equal societies, even among those who are well off anyway, that is a comparison between the well off in Sweden vs. Brazil or so, is a fairly recent empirical finding.
Quote from: Florestan on March 20, 2016, 10:19:10 PM
I´m saying no such thing. I don´t even know where you got that notion. I can only notice that you left out the second part of the sentence: and to personally act in such a manner as to promote them.
Rawls posits a society of people personally acting in such a way that can be described by his theory. They don't do that because Rawls wrote it, Rawls wrote it because they do it, and because Rawls wrote it, people have a refined idea of what a democratic constitutional order is "trying" to do, that is, what people do in actualizing their ideas. Practice gets turned into ideas and turned into practice and so on, chicken and egg like.
The Republican Party Must Answer for What It Did to Kansas and Louisiana (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/gop-must-answer-for-what-it-did-to-kansas.html)
No, Repubs don't have to answer questions not posed by their own adherents. No "mainstream media" question about what happened in the Red State laboratory need be answered, and if it's posed it's an attack.
Red Staters have been huddled around their campfire for so long, do they know what to do if it goes out? Steal fire from a Blue State? What if Blues decide its time to saw off the Reds? We changed our ideals, we can't carry you no more, we're going Brownback! Thing is, that's hard, the Blues don't want to go Brownback on themselves. We don't even want to saw off the Reds, stupid ideals being what they are. They're still Americans, so we can't abandon them.
Quote from: drogulus on March 21, 2016, 07:05:01 AM
The Republican Party Must Answer for What It Did to Kansas and Louisiana (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/gop-must-answer-for-what-it-did-to-kansas.html)
No, Repubs don't have to answer questions not posed by their own adherents. No "mainstream media" question about what happened in the Red State laboratory need be answered, and if it's posed it's an attack.
We are a freaking Petri dish for social experimentation. And the claims made by the adherents of these plans (on both sides) are still being made as though the proven failures never happened. As long as you can tell people their taxes are being cut, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what other costs are involved. In the showdown between Assholes and Morons, can there even BE a winner?
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 21, 2016, 07:41:44 AM
In the showdown between Assholes and Morons, can there even BE a winner?
8)
This is exactly the season for this rhetorical question . . . .
March of the GOPs
Trump ata Trump a Trump a Trump
Trump ata Trump a Trump a Trump
Trump ata Trump
Trump ata Trump
Trump ata Trump ata Trump
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Trump can't really run and win as a third party candidate. It would come out of his own pocket. He won't spend hundreds of millions of his own money to be a human sacrifice to the Queen of Hell. The Repubs must foot the bill for their immolation, Trumps parting gift. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
In the wake of Brussels attacks:
Belgium is a failed state. Brussels' nest of radicalism is just one of the failings of a divided, dysfunctional country/ (http://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-failed-state-security-services-molenbeek-terrorism)
Molenbeek broke my heart. A former resident reflects on his struggles with Brussels' most notorious neighborhood (http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/)
Quote from: Florestan on March 23, 2016, 02:21:41 AM
In the wake of Brussels attacks:
Belgium is a failed state. Brussels' nest of radicalism is just one of the failings of a divided, dysfunctional country/ (http://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-failed-state-security-services-molenbeek-terrorism)
Molenbeek broke my heart. A former resident reflects on his struggles with Brussels' most notorious neighborhood (http://www.politico.eu/article/molenbeek-broke-my-heart-radicalization-suburb-brussels-gentrification/)
Well, if you're going to post this on the US Presidential election thread, let me respond the way I responded to both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz this morning:
My chances of being killed in a terrorist attack in Europe are far less than my chances of being killed with a gun in their country.
EDIT: I have no problem, by the way, with the proposition that there are some significant problems in Belgium and that Belgian political structures contribute to those problems. What I do have a problem with is American politicians who say "look at how awful Brussels is... we have to exclude or restrict Muslims to stop America becoming so bad" while ignoring that America is in fact far worse already.
An American is more likely to be shot by a
toddler than by a terrorist.
Quote from: orfeo on March 23, 2016, 02:34:39 AM
Well, if you're going to post this on the US Presidential election thread.
I posted here because it´s the only thread where people are interested in politics. I could have started a new thread but given the history of a similar one I decided not to.
Although there are a lot of people in the US killed accidentally by children playing with guns etc. there is a difference: Most of the people killed not accidentally with guns are young (often petty) criminals (frequently also wielding weapons). Whereas with terrorist attacks you can be a respectable citizen walking respectably around the train station and get shot or blown up.
That's why these suicide bombings are are more terrifying than shootings in the US. It's somewhat similar to the families killed by drone strikes in the near and middle east, although they have known for years now that they are in a war zone. Terrorist attacks are in the West still so rare that we don't believe that we are in a war zone as well.
But it's mainly the extension of the war zone from regions we only care about because there is oil there or they are geopolitically important and often let our allies do their dirty work.
http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/22/families-were-blown-up-scenes-from-a-saudi-led-bombing-in-yemen/
Quote from: Jo498 on March 23, 2016, 02:51:04 AM
Although there are a lot of people in the US killed accidentally by children playing with guns etc. there is a difference: Most of the people killed not accidentally with guns are young (often petty) criminals (frequently also wielding weapons).
Or, you know, you can be a child playing outside who gets shot by police. Or a person who pulls into the wrong driveway and gets blasted by the homeowner as you're reversing out again.
But hey, we can trade anecdotes until the cows come home, or you can just tell me how many notional "bad people" it takes to even up with 1 "good person". I think it's about 10,000 gun deaths a year in America, so let me know if that's enough to cover the apparent difference in value between human lives.
Quote from: Robert F. Kennedy, JrTwo years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh
False. Mosaddegh was prime-minister, not President, and he was elected by the Majlis (Parliament), not directly by the people.
Quote from: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
Mosaddegh was the first elected leader in Iran's 4,000-year history
False. His predecessor Hosein Alā was also elected by the Majlis.
Quote from: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi
False. Mohammad Reza Shah acceded to the throne on 16 September 1941, ten full years before Mosaddegh´s first term as prime-minister.
And BTW, Iranians are not Arabs.
I agree, however, that the US and European / EU policies in the Middle East (a misnomer, btw --- where is then the Near East?) have been an unmitigated disaster ever since the end of WWI.
Thread Duty:
Behold the power of The Clinton Machine—the facts: Clinton wins Arizona with 58% of the vote; Sanders wins Idaho and Utah with 77%-78% of the vote.
Pundit tweets: "Clinton wins AZ; pressure on Sanders to fold his cards"
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2016, 03:46:27 AM
Thread Duty:
Behold the power of The Clinton Machine—the facts: Clinton wins Arizona with 58% of the vote; Sanders wins Idaho and Utah with 77%-78% of the vote.
Pundit tweets: "Clinton wins AZ; pressure on Sanders to fold his cards"
;D ;D ;D
If it had been the other way around, it would have read "Clinton landslides Idaho and Utah; Sanders barely makes it in AZ".
Journalism would be, describing Sanders's path to the nomination as narrow.
Sucking up to The Machine is, describing it as incredibly narrow.
::)
Based on estimates Clinton has 111% of delegates needed to win, Sanders 88%.
Trump has 97% of delegates needed to win, Cruz has 53%.
Cruz is in a hopeless situation unless the party machinations start to pick off Trump delegates. I wonder, though, how unpledged delegates will behave. The party machine has no one in the race. It hates itself!
There is no means of pressuring Sanders in a race this close. The party machinery backs Clinton, the party consists largely of Clinton and Obama era loyalists, but many would like to see a more effective party acting not just to preserve gains but extend them. It's not so much Sanders/Warren as standard bearers, it's a party standard bearer pulled in their direction, with more peace in war policy, more health in health care, more wages in wage policy etc.
Quote from: Florestan on March 23, 2016, 03:29:05 AM
I agree, however, that the US and European / EU policies in the Middle East (a misnomer, btw --- where is then the Near East?) have been an unmitigated disaster ever since the end of WWI.
The Near East has been a disaster. We haven't come up with a policy that can undo it. I note though that oil policy has not caused us to incur a million casualties, and that the greatest loss of life came from the Iraq-Iran war.
Syrian dead are piling up. Obama was persuaded to be peaceful after he drew his line. That might have been for the best, except for Syrians. Our peace is not for them.
What we're doing to the Earth has no parallel in 66 million years, scientists say (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/21/what-were-doing-to-the-earth-has-no-parallel-in-66-million-years-scientists-say/)
Rep. Lamar Smith assures us that the Liberal Hoax is just a few emails away from being uncovered. Silly planet!
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 04:37:24 AM
Cruz is in a hopeless situation unless the party machinations start to pick off Trump delegates.
Not necessarily - not at all. Cruz is in a bad situation, but not a hopeless one. The reason it's bad is that Cruz needs more or less everything to go his way from here on out. He needs to win all of he states he's expected to win, and he needs to follow an every-delegate strategy where his campaign tactics in each state are dictated by how that state awards delegates. (e.g. some states are by congressional district, not statewide.)
Then, there are the dozens of uncommitted delegates. As of this morning, for instance, American Samoa decided its 9 are uncommitted. 9 is a lot in a race as close as this one. Cruz needs to win over some of these, and he needs the support of delegates who had pledged to Rubio and his newest endorser, Jeb!. A combination of delegate recruitment and performing slightly better than expected should keep Trump 60-70 delegates shy of the nomination, which is enough to force at least 2 votes at the convention. Unless Trump becomes the Art of the Deal impresario he claims to be.
Winning all the delegates from Utah is a decent start. But this is such a razor-thin race that Cruz has zero room for error. He needs to play all his cards perfectly and probably needs a bit of good luck, but he's not hopeless.
Quote from: Brian on March 23, 2016, 04:57:28 AM
Not necessarily - not at all. Cruz is in a bad situation, but not a hopeless one. The reason it's bad is that Cruz needs more or less everything to go his way from here on out. He needs to win all of he states he's expected to win, and he needs to follow an every-delegate strategy where his campaign tactics in each state are dictated by how that state awards delegates. (e.g. some states are by congressional district, not statewide.)
Then, there are the dozens of uncommitted delegates. As of this morning, for instance, American Samoa decided its 9 are uncommitted. 9 is a lot in a race as close as this one. Cruz needs to win over some of these, and he needs the support of delegates who had pledged to Rubio and his newest endorser, Jeb!. A combination of delegate recruitment and performing slightly better than expected should keep Trump 60-70 delegates shy of the nomination, which is enough to force at least 2 votes at the convention. Unless Trump becomes the Art of the Deal impresario he claims to be.
Winning all the delegates from Utah is a decent start. But this is such a razor-thin race that Cruz has zero room for error. He needs to play all his cards perfectly and probably needs a bit of good luck, but he's not hopeless.
I think that's fair. And may be an argument for having Kasich retire from the field.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2016, 05:22:05 AM
I think that's fair. And may be an argument for having Kasich retire from the field.
Sure, that would be perfect in this election cycle; get rid of the only sane guy.... ::) :D
8)
Quote from: Brian on March 23, 2016, 04:57:28 AM
Winning all the delegates from Utah is a decent start. But this is such a razor-thin race that Cruz has zero room for error. He needs to play all his cards perfectly and probably needs a bit of good luck, but he's not hopeless.
If every Kasich delegate goes to Cruz he has just over 600. I think it's hopeless
unless. If it's left to the results of primaries and caucuses Trump either wins outright or gets 96% (latest tally). One would have to think that there would be no substantial number of delegates hoping to throw the convention open to somehow avoid the Trump/Cruz choice. The party machine reluctantly has gone for Cruz as least extinctionary. Cruz risks national collapse, Trump is national collapse of the party. Unlike Warren/Sanders, Trump is a bottom up revolt. For the Dems, I think half or more of the party machinery who back Hillary for the win out of loyalty and pragmatism would like to see the party move towards the insurgent movement, which is actually closer to its historical commitments. The situation is therefore quite different than the hijacking of a party by a celebrity personality.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 23, 2016, 05:28:57 AM
Sure, that would be perfect in this election cycle; get rid of the only sane guy.... ::) :D
8)
Sanity isn't selling to the GOP electorate this cycle :P
3 years ago, Republicans released an 'autopsy report' — but Donald Trump already shattered it (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-gop-autopsy-report-2016-3)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 23, 2016, 05:28:57 AM
Sure, that would be perfect in this election cycle; get rid of the only sane guy.... ::) :D
8)
Are you sure he's sane? "John Kasich Hated Movie 'Fargo' So Much He Demanded Blockbuster Stop Renting It (http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kasich-fargo-blockbuster-2015-7)" ;)
Quote from: Brian on March 23, 2016, 06:23:55 AM
Are you sure he's sane? ;)
Sure, but as opposed to who? I can't even list the cons here... ::)
8)
Quote from: Brian on March 23, 2016, 06:23:55 AM
Are you sure he's sane? "John Kasich Hated Movie 'Fargo' So Much He Demanded Blockbuster Stop Renting It (http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kasich-fargo-blockbuster-2015-7)" ;)
Coen Bros. FTW! A deliciously subversive movie, that just got yet more delicious.
But if it takes comparison to El Tupé & Cruz for you to appear sane . . . .
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 04:53:47 AMOur peace is not for them.
Yep. American peace is more important than Syrian peace.
Quote from: Brian on March 23, 2016, 04:57:28 AMCruz is in a bad situation, but not a hopeless one.
Hope springs eternal.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 23, 2016, 07:12:00 AM
But if it takes comparison to El Tupé & Cruz for you to appear sane . . . .
When it comes to climate change and Islamic terrorism, he can be compared to a considerable number of members of his party and appear sane. It's not everything, but it's a good start.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 23, 2016, 06:24:59 AM
Sure, but as opposed to who? I can't even list the cons here... ::)
8)
uh... friends with Gary Condit... hint hint...
just look at kasich- he's got the "I know where bodies are buried" look-
puh-leeze
Quote from: Todd on March 23, 2016, 08:04:32 AM
Yep. American peace is more important than Syrian peace.
Yes, but not because it's peace, but because it's American. American war is more important than Syrian war. That doesn't tell you if the wars are the same or not. We left Iraq and Syria to ISIS for your kind of peace. Did we get peace? Sure, it's only Brussels now, who cares about them, they're only slightly more important than Syrians. Californians, though, are almost real Americans, some people would claim not to know the difference.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 08:18:04 AMWe left Iraq and Syria to ISIS for your kind of peace. Did we get peace?
Nope. The Second Iraq War was a disaster and is the root, or at least catalyst, of the current situation. It should not have happened, and it offers a warning against foolish interventionism, whether of the liberal interventionist, neo-con, or old fashioned imperialist sort. Obama's current strategy is better than anything else being offered publicly. But the urge to do more, to be
tough, is overwhelming. If Hillary is our next President, there will be more toughness. Maybe she will play The Fabulous Thunderbirds at her
coronation inauguration.
And I would have thought the Somalia strike from a couple weeks ago and the Yemen strike today was tough enough, but no, it's not tough enough.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 23, 2016, 02:51:04 AM
Although there are a lot of people in the US killed accidentally by children playing with guns etc. there is a difference: Most of the people killed not accidentally with guns are young (often petty) criminals (frequently also wielding weapons). Whereas with terrorist attacks you can be a respectable citizen walking respectably around the train station and get shot or blown up.
That's why these suicide bombings are are more terrifying than shootings in the US.
I disagree. The reason terrorist attacks are terrifying is that they are rare and therefore newsworthy. Gun accidents and car crashes are not terrifying; they are mundane. That doesn't mean they aren't relatively dangerous even for "respectable" citizens.
Quote from: Brian on March 23, 2016, 04:57:28 AM
Not necessarily - not at all. Cruz is in a bad situation, but not a hopeless one. The reason it's bad is that Cruz needs more or less everything to go his way from here on out. He needs to win all of he states he's expected to win, and he needs to follow an every-delegate strategy where his campaign tactics in each state are dictated by how that state awards delegates. (e.g. some states are by congressional district, not statewide.)
Then, there are the dozens of uncommitted delegates. As of this morning, for instance, American Samoa decided its 9 are uncommitted. 9 is a lot in a race as close as this one. Cruz needs to win over some of these, and he needs the support of delegates who had pledged to Rubio and his newest endorser, Jeb!. A combination of delegate recruitment and performing slightly better than expected should keep Trump 60-70 delegates shy of the nomination, which is enough to force at least 2 votes at the convention. Unless Trump becomes the Art of the Deal impresario he claims to be.
Winning all the delegates from Utah is a decent start. But this is such a razor-thin race that Cruz has zero room for error. He needs to play all his cards perfectly and probably needs a bit of good luck, but he's not hopeless.
My understanding is that the delegates are chosen by the party, not by the campaigns. In most states they are obligated to vote as bound for the first one or two ballots but not after that. I have heard that Cruz has been working to get his loyalists installed as Trump-bound delegates so that he can win a contested convention on the second or third ballot.
This could get really ugly.
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have gone full caveman (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/23/donald-trump-ted-cruz-full-caveman-wives-honor-presidential-campaign)
Quote from: Todd on March 23, 2016, 08:33:29 AM
Nope. The Second Iraq War was a disaster and is the root, or at least catalyst, of the current situation. It should not have happened, and it offers a warning against foolish interventionism, whether of the liberal interventionist, neo-con, or old fashioned imperialist sort. Obama's current strategy is better than anything else being offered publicly. But the urge to do more, to be tough, is overwhelming. If Hillary is our next President, there will be more toughness. Maybe she will play The Fabulous Thunderbirds at her coronation inauguration.
And I would have thought the Somalia strike from a couple weeks ago and the Yemen strike today was tough enough, but no, it's not tough enough.
It's forward defense, not toughness. We are not the world policeman because we decided to "get tough", that's neither here nor there, it's the set of circumstance an empire like ours inherits from previous occupants of the position. It involves a number of types of military action of the "we never should have occupied Hawaii" kind. The country inherited British continental imperialism from day one, and the last century saw us take over the British world role. When and if some other power is ready to take over, we'll quit.
If defense becomes less forward we have to worry about Brussels and Britain and Germany and not merely Syria. The closer it gets to Watertown, Massachusetts the more urgent it gets. I live here. Two blocks away a terrorist hid in a boat in a yard. We can choose war or it can choose us, and if it chooses us our options no longer include peace. It becomes a question of how much war, where and when.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 11:50:43 AMIt's forward defense
That reads just like one of my favorite euphemisms for wars of aggression: Preemptive Counter-Attack.
You embrace your imperialism - though the Hawaii analogy is woefully off, unless you are asserting that 1.) the Monroe Doctrine still holds, and 2.) it applies to the whole world - now you just need to embrace your taste for spilling foreigners' blood.
I don't think this is in any sense "my imperialism" as much as an understanding of the function imperial systems have. It's not set in stone that a city state or nation is the highest level of organization. Empires have advantages and disadvantages, too. You can't assume certain pacifists stances while being one, except as rhetoric people can safely disbelieve.
It would be foolish in the extreme to think we're not an empire because it makes our head hurt to think about it like that, and equally foolish to think that an empire can quit on itself.
There's no evidence that either the Monroe Doctrine nor its extension to the world are not descriptions of fact as they are. There's some room for maneuver about what kind of empire we are and no room at all not to be one.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 12:42:45 PMYes, it applies to the world.
Well, there you go. Were that all warmongers so clear-eyed and forthright in their adherence to outdated concepts. Incidentally, Secretary Kerry has publicly refuted your assertion.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 11:50:43 AM
It's forward defense, not toughness. We are not the world policeman because we decided to "get tough", that's neither here nor there, it's the set of circumstance an empire like ours inherits from previous occupants of the position. It involves a number of types of military action of the "we never should have occupied Hawaii" kind. The country inherited British continental imperialism from day one, and the last century saw us take over the British world role. When and if some other power is ready to take over, we'll quit.
If defense becomes less forward we have to worry about Brussels and Britain and Germany and not merely Syria. The closer it gets to Watertown, Massachusetts the more urgent it gets. I live here. Two blocks away a terrorist hid in a boat in a yard. We can choose war or it can choose us, and if it chooses us our options no longer include peace. It becomes a question of how much war, where and when.
This makes no sense to me. The Second Iraq War did not make us safer. It was a disaster both ethically and practically.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 11:50:43 AM
The country inherited British continental imperialism from day one, and the last century saw us take over the British world role. When and if some other power is ready to take over, we'll quit.
The US belief that the world needs it as its policeman is one of the most irritating things about the US.
It's also a fallacy, of course. You don't go places on behalf of the world, mostly you go there on behalf of yourselves. You secure your own interests. It might be oil. Helping Pinochet topple an elected government in Chile was about reassuring yourself about your copper supply.
And large parts of the unholy mess of the last several decades were driven by a total obsession with being against Iran because, you know, the 1979 hostage thing was so terrible that it has to dictate absolutely everything for a generation.
It's a chain reaction arguably reaching back to some time between the World Wars, and the one thing that seems impossible for you guys (and often us supporting you) is to
stop meddling. Because hey, you've got to be there, right? The world
needs you. Even if the world keeps repeatedly telling you that one of the most upsetting things in their life is the fact that you're shoving your presence in their faces.
Obama has actually being trying fairly hard to reverse this, but now you've got candidates declaring that no, what America really needs to do is carpet bomb places on the other side of the world, until the sand glows.
You're a country that's actually founded on the idea of local control, freedom from distant interference, and yet you do more distant interference than anyone else on the planet.
Quote from: Todd on March 23, 2016, 12:58:49 PM
Well, there you go. Were that all warmongers so clear-eyed and forthright in their adherence to outdated concepts. Incidentally, Secretary Kerry has publicly refuted your assertion.
He'd better. It makes people uncomfortable. However, this applies to Americans largely. Non-Americans know better.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 02:05:42 PM
He'd better. It makes people uncomfortable. However, this applies to Americans largely. Non-Americans know better.
Well, he did tell it to a group of Latin American leaders. By the way, the Monroe Doctrine cannot, strictly speaking, apply to the whole world since it is specific to Latin America. Current foreign policy foundations and military deployments are legacies of the Cold War more than anything else, as you well know. However, since Russians still insist on being "bad guys", breaking with the past is more difficult for some.
It's a shame that Trump has to be the one to bring up non-interventionism and scaling back on NATO. Sort of right message, wrong messenger.
Quote from: orfeo on March 23, 2016, 01:53:23 PM
The US belief that the world needs it as its policeman is one of the most irritating things about the US.
That's an interesting way of putting it. You're irritated by what we believe. What would you believe if the whole world looked to you for rescue by war or peace, as ultimate guarantor of any agreement, as we must be for any matter of significance anywhere. What would you think, and would it matter if you were "pro" or "anti"? In my case understanding must precede approval or disapproval.
I think it matters if we understand why Kerry says one thing and acts in a different way. I understand that this isn't cynical, ideals can shift reality to some degree. I don't believe what Kerry says and totally approve of what he means.
Quote from: Todd on March 23, 2016, 02:27:14 PM
By the way, the Monroe Doctrine cannot, strictly speaking, apply to the whole world since it is specific to Latin America.
Strictly speaking we are not an empire. Therefore we should not strictly speak, if we want to talk about reality without resorting to "neo-imperialism" every time. It's a kind of empire enforcing a kind of Monroe doctrine on a kind of world basis. The facts make the case, but you can believe anything you want. People will be so not irritated.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 02:48:31 PMStrictly speaking we are not an empire.
True. The US has not officially declared itself an empire, nor is the President officially an emperor. The US does, however, maintain a military presence throughout the world, with varying degrees of acceptance by host nations, manages the primary global reserve currency, relies on its own judiciary to issue rulings that affect foreign nationals and entities, and it replaces heads of state of sovereign nations from time-to-time. The US is global hegemon that uses coercive power, up to and including war, to obtain its political and economic goals. The US has a scope of power exceeding any empire in history, even in its comparatively diminished current state. You can pretend that it is not the same as an empire, just as you can pretend that James Monroe's "doctrine" was something other than a Presidential edict uttered to try to deter Europeans from acting in the Western Hemisphere and that the European leaders of the time cared, and you can also pretend that it still has meaning in the post-Trinity age.
Quote from: orfeo on March 23, 2016, 01:53:23 PM
You're a country that's actually founded on the idea of local control, freedom from distant interference, and yet you do more distant interference than anyone else on the planet.
Yes, it bears that interpretation, that we interfere for our own interests, distantly. Being the empire we are, while we say we're not, does change how self interest is defined. We are defending a system that benefits us, and many others who are not consulted as much as they'd like since they tend to free ride a little. That's something we accept, not liking it much, but it's in our self interest to defend others in the process of defending ourselves. We had better provide security all over the world if we want to defend our interests all over the world. And we have to be willing to have people under our protection think badly of the choices we make, sometimes rightly. A thick skin helps.
Quote from: Todd on March 23, 2016, 03:08:30 PM
True. The US has not officially declared itself an empire, nor is the President officially an emperor. The US does, however, maintain a military presence throughout the world, with varying degrees of acceptance by host nations, manages the primary global reserve currency, relies on its own judiciary to issue rulings that affect foreign nationals and entities, and it replaces heads of state of sovereign nations from time-to-time. The US is global hegemon that uses coercive power, up to and including war, to obtain its political and economic goals. The US has a scope of power exceeding any empire in history, even in its comparatively diminished current state. You can pretend that it is not the same as an empire, just as you can pretend that James Monroe's "doctrine" was something other than a Presidential edict uttered to try to deter Europeans from acting in the Western Hemisphere and that the European leaders of the time cared, and you can also pretend that it still has meaning in the post-Trinity age.
Exactly, we are that. The Monroe Doctrine ratified a set of facts in the style of the day. We don't do that, the doctrine is implicit in the actions. As much as we can we monopolize coercive force. Imagine if we didn't? I mean its only fair if we split fifty fifty with our enemies, while all the pacifists who hate us cower on the sidelines and plead for a fair outcome.
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 03:26:25 PMImagine if we didn't?
I do. The world becomes a better place in such thought experiments, with the greatest benefits accruing to Americans.
Lordy a little huffie and puffie Trump style sutffie.
Quote from: Todd on March 23, 2016, 03:08:30 PM
True. The US has not officially declared itself an empire, nor is the President officially an emperor. The US does, however, maintain a military presence throughout the world, with varying degrees of acceptance by host nations, manages the primary global reserve currency, relies on its own judiciary to issue rulings that affect foreign nationals and entities, and it replaces heads of state of sovereign nations from time-to-time. The US is global hegemon that uses coercive power, up to and including war, to obtain its political and economic goals. The US has a scope of power exceeding any empire in history, even in its comparatively diminished current state. You can pretend that it is not the same as an empire, just as you can pretend that James Monroe's "doctrine" was something other than a Presidential edict uttered to try to deter Europeans from acting in the Western Hemisphere and that the European leaders of the time cared, and you can also pretend that it still has meaning in the post-Trinity age.
Quote from: Johnll on March 23, 2016, 06:42:27 PM
Lordy a little huffie and puffie Trump style sutffie.
Huh?
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 02:38:27 PM
That's an interesting way of putting it. You're irritated by what we believe.
People are irritated by actions, not by beliefs. Beliefs may compound the irritation, however.
QuoteWhat would you believe if the whole world looked to you for rescue by war or peace,
Really? The "whole world" looks to us for rescue? Doesn't that contradict the notion that everyone is irritated with us?
"Rescue by war or peace" is a deliciously slippery phrase. In the last couple of decades, the "war" part seems to be the default mode.
The sooner we get out of the empire business, the better it will be for the American people - you know, the only people our government is constitutionally mandated to protect.
Quote from: Todd on March 23, 2016, 03:08:30 PM
True. The US has not officially declared itself an empire, nor is the President officially an emperor. The US does, however, maintain a military presence throughout the world, with varying degrees of acceptance by host nations, manages the primary global reserve currency, relies on its own judiciary to issue rulings that affect foreign nationals and entities, and it replaces heads of state of sovereign nations from time-to-time. The US is global hegemon that uses coercive power, up to and including war, to obtain its political and economic goals. The US has a scope of power exceeding any empire in history, even in its comparatively diminished current state. You can pretend that it is not the same as an empire, just as you can pretend that James Monroe's "doctrine" was something other than a Presidential edict uttered to try to deter Europeans from acting in the Western Hemisphere and that the European leaders of the time cared, and you can also pretend that it still has meaning in the post-Trinity age.
I suspect you would like to bury this huffie and puffie trump style stuffie. Please conservative up Todd.
Quote from: orfeo on March 23, 2016, 03:19:49 AM
Or, you know, you can be a child playing outside who gets shot by police. Or a person who pulls into the wrong driveway and gets blasted by the homeowner as you're reversing out again.
But hey, we can trade anecdotes until the cows come home, or you can just tell me how many notional "bad people" it takes to even up with 1 "good person". I think it's about 10,000 gun deaths a year in America, so let me know if that's enough to cover the apparent difference in value between human lives.
The number of guns owned by individuals in the US is roughly 270 million. In 2013, roughly 33,000 people died from gunshots, of whom about a third were suicides ( and therefore can be presumed to have killed themselves by other means if guns were not available). If my math is correct, that means 99.9% of the guns in the US were not used to kill people. In other words, 269 million guns were used safely.
Better enforcement of the gun laws now on the books to keep them out of reach of felons and mentally unstable is the only solution needed.
I might add that from a Yank perspective, the draconian laws of Australia are the crazy laws. If I understand them correctly, all guns must be approved by police and self defense is not a recognized reason. So if you find youself targeted by a crazy stalker, best option is move to the US.
Quote from: orfeo on March 23, 2016, 01:53:23 PM
And large parts of the unholy mess of the last several decades were driven by a total obsession with being against Iran because, you know, the 1979 hostage thing was so terrible that it has to dictate absolutely everything for a generation.
It would be more precise to say that the unholy mess is driven by the mullahcratic ideology in which America is the Great Satan and Israel must be destroyed.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on March 23, 2016, 07:05:24 PM
Really? The "whole world" looks to us for rescue? Doesn't that contradict the notion that everyone is irritated with us?
Yes, it's very strange. Sometimes I wonder about how in the ME the Americans are hated for supporting Israel, and how Muslims want us to help them remedy the situation. If only we
understood their plight! Why would it matter if people in a faraway country understood your plight? Why are we supposed to help people in trouble? I mean I know why, but why do so many people around the world with varying attitudes think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the U.S. to do some big important thing to make the world better?
Most of the world isn't asking for rescue at the moment, and we aren't always rescuing. But if they ask, they ask us, and if it's provided, we provide it. We even provide food and medical supplies to people who hate us. That might be a little irritating in a humiliating sort of way. Again I understand this and have no trouble explaining how self interest and wider interest have evolved over centuries. How to explain it with fairly unimpressive and largely emotive ideas commonly held, you can't. That's mostly good guy bad guy stuff with no structure in it.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 23, 2016, 07:11:46 PM
The number of guns owned by individuals in the US is roughly 270 million. In 2013, roughly 33,000 people died from gunshots, of whom about a third were suicides ( and therefore can be presumed to have killed themselves by other means if guns were not available). If my math is correct, that means 99.9% of the guns in the US were not used to kill people. In other words, 269 million guns were used safely.
Actually, a lot of those 269 million guns weren't used. Period.
You're talking about absolute numbers. I was also discussing relative ones. While we're talking numbers, let's discuss how a gun bought "for protection" will only achieve that purpose 1 time in every 23 uses. The other times it will be used for murder, suicide, sheer accident, or used against the owner by the person they thought they needed protecting from. A very recent study showed that owning a gun actually
increases many risks associated with home robbery.
We should also apply your math to Muslims. There are over a billion of them who didn't kill anyone in 2013.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 23, 2016, 07:22:27 PM
It would be more precise to say that the unholy mess is driven by the mullahcratic ideology in which America is the Great Satan and Israel must be destroyed.
How much do you know about pre-1979 Iranian history/politics? Do you think such ideology sprung out of thin air? I don't. I think it's just one of the cycles of exactly what I was just talking about, about the USA getting involved in other parts of the world... and then being terribly shocked and surprised when it blows up in their faces because people don't like what the USA was doing. Revolutionary Iran didn't hate the USA on a random whim, it hated the USA because the USA supported the Shah and it hated the Shah.
This is the great mystery in why the USA seems incapable of leaving well alone. There are so many USA interventions that simply
haven't advanced USA interests, and have created further and often greater disasters. It wouldn't be such an issue if the USA had demonstrated its
skill in doing these things, but so often you've just made things worse.
Take Afghanistan, for example. Many people actually supported US action in Afghanistan. But instead of doing the job properly, the US government at the time got completely distracted by Iraq and allowed the situation in Afghanistan to fester. Meanwhile Iraq was drastically weakened as a country, essentially splitting into 3 sections.
Quote from: orfeo on March 23, 2016, 11:40:52 PM
Revolutionary Iran didn't hate the USA on a random whim, it hated the USA because the USA supported the Shah and it hated the Shah.
That´ true but you shouldn´t equate the islamic radicals who overthrew the Shah and turned Iran from a secular and relatively Westernized country into a totalitarian theocracy with the Iranian people as a whole. I am sure many of those (especially women) who initially supported the Revolution out of sheer hatred for the Shah came to deeply regret the course their country took afterwards.
The UK was just as complicit in the Iranian situation. It's oil interests and determination to confine Russian influence lead to what happened.
In Afganistan, again the UK trotted along the USA like a poodle to impose democracy at the point of a gun. I can only think of a single success of that kind of action, Japan. No one took account of the history of Afghanistan, the terrain and the culture. Alexander the Great could not properly subdue it, nor anyone subsequently including the very determined Russians. It is a society that is not in the least Western or first world. It is a tribal medieval society and the terrain makes standard warfare impossible. I don't see that the efforts have brought any lasting fruit. It would have been more effective to have spent half as much money bribing the right people to act as we felt we needed them to.
I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The US has had a crucial role in saving Europe, we needed help, they gave it.
Mike
Quote from: Pat B on March 23, 2016, 09:35:56 AM
I disagree. The reason terrorist attacks are terrifying is that they are rare and therefore newsworthy. Gun accidents and car crashes are not terrifying; they are mundane. That doesn't mean they aren't relatively dangerous even for "respectable" citizens.
This is also an important point, sure. But at least in Europe, shootings are very rare and the likelihood that one is shot as a "respectable citizen" going about one's daily business is probably as small (or smaller) as falling victim to a terrorist attack. In Western Europe, getting shot is certainly
not something that "could happen to anyone" (like a car crash). (That's why we find the idea that widespread guns should be necessary or an inalienable right because of "personal safety" ridiculous. For most Europeans public safety has definitely failed if one feels one needs a weapon in the desk drawer for "personal safety.)
So while the fear of terrorist bombings is exaggerated it is not completely irrational. And I think another aspect is also that one cannot do much about someone as dedicated as a suicide bomber. The only option seems turning even more into a surveillance state which is almost as terrifying...
It is often said that islamic terrorism has got nothing to do with islam and everything, or very much, to do with the colonial past.
Let´s take precisely Belgium: the atrocities perpetrated in the so-called Congo Free State between 1885 and 1908 when it was ruled as a personal fiefdom by King Leopold II caused massive international outrage. How many terrorists attacks on Belgium do you know whose authors were or are Congolese?
Quote from: Florestan on March 24, 2016, 02:26:52 AM
It is often said that islamic terrorism has got nothing to do with islam and everything, or very much, to do with the colonial past.
Who is this said by? It is quite common to say it has nothing to do with Islam, but I cannot recall anyone linking it to past colonialism.
Quote from: orfeo on March 23, 2016, 11:40:52 PM
How much do you know about pre-1979 Iranian history/politics? Do you think such ideology sprung out of thin air? I don't. I think it's just one of the cycles of exactly what I was just talking about, about the USA getting involved in other parts of the world... and then being terribly shocked and surprised when it blows up in their faces because people don't like what the USA was doing. Revolutionary Iran didn't hate the USA on a random whim, it hated the USA because the USA supported the Shah and it hated the Shah.
This is the great mystery in why the USA seems incapable of leaving well alone. There are so many USA interventions that simply haven't advanced USA interests, and have created further and often greater disasters. It wouldn't be such an issue if the USA had demonstrated its skill in doing these things, but so often you've just made things worse.
Take Afghanistan, for example. Many people actually supported US action in Afghanistan. But instead of doing the job properly, the US government at the time got completely distracted by Iraq and allowed the situation in Afghanistan to fester. Meanwhile Iraq was drastically weakened as a country, essentially splitting into 3 sections.
Here we go. Who made the U.S. solely responsible for Afghan failure, or Iranian ideology? Why is it assumed that American imperial responsibility, acknowledged by its critics like you, operates alone? Is it assumed only for the purpose of condemning it? What does "doing the job properly"
mean if it doesn't mean what I say it does?
Quote from: Johnll on March 23, 2016, 07:08:17 PM
I suspect you would like to bury this huffie and puffie trump style stuffie. Please conservative up Todd.
Wow, there's a GMGer from Kerrville?!? I'm a Boerne HS grad.
Quote from: drogulus on March 24, 2016, 04:10:36 AM
What does "doing the job properly" mean if it doesn't mean what I say it does?
In the context of going to Afghanistan in 2001, it means not suddenly diverting most of your resources to Iraq on a flimsy pretext.
In fact not just a flimsy pretext, but a ridiculous one. The proposition that Saddam Hussein might give weapons of mass destruction to Al-Qaeda was utterly absurd to anyone who didn't decide that "all Muslims are alike". That's before you get to the minor question of whether there were any weapons.
Let me repeat: there was widespread support for the US going to Afghanistan. There was not nearly like the same support for going to Iraq (though my own government at the time did support it). There was a
reason for the difference in support.
Quote from: Brian on March 24, 2016, 04:31:10 AM
Wow, there's a GMGer from Kerrville?!? I'm a Boerne HS grad.
Yes, and drogulus and I are the same age and grew up in the same town, though he hasn't yet told me if he went to Island Trees HS or Division Avenue. It would be creepy indeed if we were HS classmates, as I have made a strict point (with one exception) of avoiding anyone I knew from that time.
Quote from: orfeo on March 24, 2016, 03:08:33 AM
Who is this said by? It is quite common to say it has nothing to do with Islam, but I cannot recall anyone linking it to past colonialism.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/02/11/french-british-colonialism-bred-root-terrorism/GSaZbcZuqXtbRE9CiwWPcO/story.html (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/02/11/french-british-colonialism-bred-root-terrorism/GSaZbcZuqXtbRE9CiwWPcO/story.html)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorism-originates-from-the-western-colonial-powers/24104 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorism-originates-from-the-western-colonial-powers/24104)
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/833/ (http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/833/)
Quote from: orfeo on March 24, 2016, 04:47:31 AM
In the context of going to Afghanistan in 2001, it means not suddenly diverting most of your resources to Iraq on a flimsy pretext.
In fact not just a flimsy pretext, but a ridiculous one. The proposition that Saddam Hussein might give weapons of mass destruction to Al-Qaeda was utterly absurd to anyone who didn't decide that "all Muslims are alike". That's before you get to the minor question of whether there were any weapons.
Let me repeat: there was widespread support for the US going to Afghanistan. There was not nearly like the same support for going to Iraq (though my own government at the time did support it). There was a reason for the difference in support.
That's an argument about cases that assumes I've correctly described the role of the maritime superpower, not an argument that assumes there must not be one. Is there such an argument that draws on real world dynamics and history? Do you want a stronger version, World Government, or a weaker version that abolishes not only the title of empire but the roles it plays so badly?
Re: the US "Empire"
The key to understand the reasons for its rise and the mechanisms whereby it was established is not the history of the Roman Empire, but that of the Roman Republic. Read Theodor Mommsen´s Roman History to see how a tiny agrarian state, founded upon, and officially devoted to, the strictest and most austere republican virtues, has become, step by step and quite often against her stated will, an empire in all but name. Once the first step, admittedly small and apparently benign, was taken, all others followed logically and Rome´s course was inexorably set in motion.
The Islamic empire was established by Arabs. It did not coexist within a great urban civilization for centuries like the Jews of Babylonia and the Greek world, and of course the Christians within the Greco-Roman civilization. Christians called the country people who still worshipped at the old shrines "pagans". Muslims hated the cities, urban culture and sophistication. Though Islam urbanized and sent out tendrils of accomodation with cosmopolitanism, every revolutionary movement in the culture has been one of purification. Until recently that has been less true of Persian Islam, now they are as backward looking as the Arabs. Pakistan too has turned its back on South Asian reformist Islam. The conflict between Islam and modern secularism is going global these days, even reaching Indonesia, which had never before been Arabized.
Quote from: Florestan on March 24, 2016, 05:52:54 AM
Re: the US "Empire"
The key to understand the reasons for its rise and the mechanisms whereby it was established is not the history of the Roman Empire, but that of the Roman Republic. Read Theodor Mommsen´s Roman History to see how a tiny agrarian state, founded upon, and officially devoted to, the strictest and most austere republican virtues, has become, step by step and quite often against her stated will, an empire in all but name. Once the first step, admittedly small and apparently benign, was taken, all others followed logically and Rome´s course was inexorably set in motion.
The documents the U.S. disgorged upon the world are certainly remarkable and enormously influential, but they were issued as explanations and justifications for actions taken for a rebellion against the British empire and the founding of our own. We brought representation closer to home. We didn't disallow empire, we stole it. I don't see anything strict or austere about it. It did have some virtue in it, enough for it to resonate around the world, even today. I don't think this would be the case if not for the understanding that Americans are still in some ways the same sort of people who initially were moved by what our documents told us. It's not just a matter of protecting commerce, travel and communication, though it's obviously that in large part, it's also comes down to wide acceptance that some powerful entity must have that role and it should be one that understands what that role is. Then you get down to cases like Afghanistan and Iraq, within the larger context.
On my reading list is
God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World (http://www.amazon.com/God-Gold-Britain-America-Making/dp/0375713735) by Walter Russell Mead. It's not an uncritical analysis, it wouldn't be any good if it were. If it doesn't irritate you, you're not reading it right. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
Quote from: Scarpia on March 24, 2016, 06:43:25 AM
If you're going to continue down this path at least re-name it the word salad thread.
Could you be specific? "Word salad" implies meaningless. I don't think anything in my comment is that, but you can tell me if you are in doubt about what anything means. I was going to say "I'm here to help", but that's not exactly true. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on March 24, 2016, 05:50:37 AM
That's an argument about cases that assumes I've correctly described the role of the maritime superpower, not an argument that assumes there must not be one. Is there such an argument that draws on real world dynamics and history? Do you want a stronger version, World Government, or a weaker version that abolishes not only the title of empire but the roles it plays so badly?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You seem to think I'm arguing about something completely different from what I'm actually arguing about.
The Arabs/muslims had huge cities and high culture in the middle ages, both "based on" previous Persian culture but also e.g. in Kairo or Cordova. Far more urban and "urbanized" than anything in Europe at that time (although maybe not than India or China).
The general instability of the middle east today seems the heritage of at least two events: The decline of the Osmanian Empire that, although already weak in the 19th century still kept some of the different tribal and religious faction somewhat in line. And following that the drawing of boundaries by the colonial powers that did not (maybe could not) respect those factions. This apparently made the situation worse. I have heard several historians who compare the situation there to Europe in the age of religious wars and a weakening Holy Roman Empire, and rather pessimistically concluded that a 30 years war could well be expected.
Postcolonial policies during the cold war did not improve the situation. Russia will not tolerate becoming encircled both on the European flank (as we tried with Ukraine) as well as between the Black sea and the Caspian.
Ironically, the most stable and reliable middle eastern country in the last years has been Iran. They also seem the only country going towards less religious extremism (of course this is not hard to do if one starts with 1980 Ayatollahs, but Iran was a fairly "modern" country before that). As opposed to Turkey that is our Nato ally, flattered by the EU (because we need it as some barrier against too many refugees) but is closing down critical newpapers, putting journalists in jail, overall moving into a totalitarian (mix of nationalism and islam) direction.
As for terrorism, it's probably not an accident that "assassin" derives from suicidal terrorists of the middle ages. But until the 70s/80s (I only dimly remember this as I was only a child) most of the terrorist acts by muslims/arabs were on the surface political (often Palestinians). (And back then, IRA, ETA and other European terrorist organizations made at least as many headlines as PLO.) So the "islamist suicide bomber" seems a fairly recent phenomenon.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 24, 2016, 07:29:17 AM
Ironically, the most stable and reliable middle eastern country in the last years has been Iran. They also seem the only country going towards less religious extremism (of course this is not hard to do if one starts with 1980 Ayatollahs, but Iran was a fairly "modern" country before that). As opposed to Turkey that is our Nato ally, flattered by the EU (because we need it as some barrier against too many refugees) but is closing down critical newpapers, putting journalists in jail, overall moving into a totalitarian (mix of nationalism and islam) direction.
Come, now, you exaggerate. Much as the situation has been deteriorating in Turkey, it is still far, decades ahead of Iran when it comes to secularism, human (especially women´s) rights and democracy.
Quote from: orfeo on March 24, 2016, 07:12:30 AM
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You seem to think I'm arguing about something completely different from what I'm actually arguing about.
I thought you were arguing about how we performed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether other countries supported our efforts or opposed them, and how support and opposition should cause us to reconsider policy and influence its future direction.
QuoteLet me repeat: there was widespread support for the US going to Afghanistan. There was not nearly like the same support for going to Iraq (though my own government at the time did support it). There was a reason for the difference in support.
Ah, I understood
you. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: Jo498 on March 24, 2016, 07:29:17 AM
The Arabs/muslims had huge cities and high culture in the middle ages, both "based on" previous Persian culture but also e.g. in Kairo or Cordova. Far more urban and "urbanized" than anything in Europe at that time (although maybe not than India or China).
My point about Muslim revolutions of purity is how they destroyed this highly promising phase of their history. There are various versions of how and why. Some have the Crusades in them, and afterward colonial imperialism. I'm unsatisfied with this. It takes away too much agency from people who almost conquered all of Europe, threatening to do so as late as the 17th century when they reached the outskirts of Vienna. If Arab Muslims can't reconcile with secular modernism, if they insist on having revolutions of purity century after century, I judge something other than manipulation by outsiders is at the root of it. All of the agency is not belong to us imperialist devils. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif) They had their own empires, a number of them, to take responsibility for their own cultural evolution.
Quote from: orfeo on March 23, 2016, 11:30:39 PM
Actually, a lot of those 269 million guns weren't used. Period.
You're talking about absolute numbers. I was also discussing relative ones. While we're talking numbers, let's discuss how a gun bought "for protection" will only achieve that purpose 1 time in every 23 uses. The other times it will be used for murder, suicide, sheer accident, or used against the owner by the person they thought they needed protecting from. A very recent study showed that owning a gun actually increases many risks associated with home robbery.
We should also apply your math to Muslims. There are over a billion of them who didn't kill anyone in 2013.
I do apply that math to Muslims. One of the many reasons I would not vote for Trump or Cruz.
Quote from: orfeo on March 23, 2016, 11:40:52 PM
How much do you know about pre-1979 Iranian history/politics? Do you think such ideology sprung out of thin air? I don't. I think it's just one of the cycles of exactly what I was just talking about, about the USA getting involved in other parts of the world... and then being terribly shocked and surprised when it blows up in their faces because people don't like what the USA was doing. Revolutionary Iran didn't hate the USA on a random whim, it hated the USA because the USA supported the Shah and it hated the Shah.
This is the great mystery in why the USA seems incapable of leaving well alone. There are so many USA interventions that simply haven't advanced USA interests, and have created further and often greater disasters. It wouldn't be such an issue if the USA had demonstrated its skill in doing these things, but so often you've just made things worse.
Take Afghanistan, for example. Many people actually supported US action in Afghanistan. But instead of doing the job properly, the US government at the time got completely distracted by Iraq and allowed the situation in Afghanistan to fester. Meanwhile Iraq was drastically weakened as a country, essentially splitting into 3 sections.
You seemed to be saying US was fixated on Iran, and caused problems thereby.
I am saying the fixation really runs the other way.
Your assessment of Iraq and Afghanistan is perfect imo.
WASHINGTON (AP) — America's substantial support for NATO, both in money and military aid, has long been a source of frustration for U.S. leaders, and some have questioned the organization as a throwback to the Cold War era. Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, in interviews this week, suggested the U.S. should scale back its role in NATO nearly seven decades after the North American-European alliance was launched in the aftermath of World War II. Complaining that the U.S. is spending too much money on NATO, Trump said the financial burden must change.
Trump is a dolt. The financial burden is where it needs to be for Europe to escape its responsibilities they way they like, and mostly, the way we like. What better way to escape responsibility is there than to say, for example, NATO is a front for American fillintheblank, an awful thing. How's that work if they pay for it? The last thing Europeans want is to render explicit the bargain they've struck and are determined to continue to strike until we no longer serve their purpose. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on March 23, 2016, 07:44:31 PM
Yes, it's very strange. Sometimes I wonder about how in the ME the Americans are hated for supporting Israel, and how Muslims want us to help them remedy the situation. If only we understood their plight! Why would it matter if people in a faraway country understood your plight? Why are we supposed to help people in trouble? I mean I know why, but why do so many people around the world with varying attitudes think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the U.S. to do some big important thing to make the world better?
Most of the world isn't asking for rescue at the moment, and we aren't always rescuing. But if they ask, they ask us, and if it's provided, we provide it. We even provide food and medical supplies to people who hate us. That might be a little irritating in a humiliating sort of way. Again I understand this and have no trouble explaining how self interest and wider interest have evolved over centuries. How to explain it with fairly unimpressive and largely emotive ideas commonly held, you can't. That's mostly good guy bad guy stuff with no structure in it.
It's a very strange, but classic relationship. In french there is a saying and a story about the 'pot de terre et le pot de fer' travelling together (that's the glass jar and the iron pot as road buddies). Obviously one is at a natural disadvantage, even if the iron pot means no harm.
That old story is often used as a metaphor in foreign policy. Unless the iron pot travels with another iron pot (Russia, China), it is more likely to do more damage than good, even with the best of intentions. And obviously, an iron pot from the Trump Iron Works would probably travel alone... ::)
Quote from: André on March 24, 2016, 10:41:33 AM
It's a very strange, but classic relationship. In french there is a saying and a story about the 'pot de terre et le pot de fer' travelling together (that's the glass jar and the iron pot as road buddies). Obviously one is at a natural disadvantage, even if the iron pot means no harm.
That old story is often used as a metaphor in foreign policy. Unless the iron pot travels with another iron pot (Russia, China), it is more likely to do more damage than good, even with the best of intentions. And obviously, an iron pot from the Trump Iron Works would probably travel alone... ::)
The book I linked to has a lot about the iron pot nature of the kind of policy the maritime power undertakes, and the unrealism of American expectations of its efficacy. Mead is quite critical of the way good intentions are deployed and how Americans often misread the situation. The book concentrates on foreign policy as it has developed in the English speaking world and the special circumstances of world and sea power.
Remember populist-demagogue Toronto Mayor Rob Ford ? He was the laughing stock of North America. He died of cancer this week, aged 46. Nothing to do with this thread except this: just like Trump, his statements, quotes and edicts were of the moment, instant kodaks of the populist mind set of an uncultured egotist. What kind of legacy to his country and to the world is that ? :-[
Quote from: André on March 24, 2016, 12:33:38 PM
Remember populist-demagogue Toronto Mayor Rob Ford ? He was the laughing stock of North America. He died of cancer this week, aged 46. Nothing to do with this thread except this: just like Trump, his statements, quotes and edicts were of the moment, instant kodaks of the populist mind set of an uncultured egotist. What kind of legacy to his country and to the world is that ? :-[
A better question is why do uncultured, egotistic, populist and demagogue politicians routinely get elected and reelected? After all, it´s the people who freely vote them into power.
Because we like to be entertained.
Seriously. I think that people think "I like this guy" and make their vote on that basis, without analysing WHY they like the guy and whether that like correlates to wanting the guy in charge.
Wildfire burns about 620 square miles in Kansas, Oklahoma
Thanks, Obama. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: Florestan on March 24, 2016, 01:01:22 PM
A better question is why do uncultured, egotistic, populist and demagogue politicians routinely get elected and reelected? After all, it´s the people who freely vote them into power.
It is because weak people find pleasure basking in their roughie and puffie ego juices. I NOMINATE TRUMP FOR GOD!
Quote from: Florestan on March 24, 2016, 01:01:22 PM
A better question is why do uncultured, egotistic, populist and demagogue politicians routinely get elected and reelected? After all, it´s the people who freely vote them into power.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
* (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Here's a better better question.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif) Why do people routinely
not vote for egotistic demagogues? It seems to have something to do with war and/or severe economic conditions causing a dramatic drop in confidence in the established political order. A Stage I crisis produces a Perot, a Stage II produces a Trump dismantling a major party, turning it into....who knows?
* Do you like my demagogic balloons? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: Johnll on March 24, 2016, 03:34:05 PM
It is because weak people find pleasure basking in their roughie and puffie ego juices. I NOMINATE TRUMP FOR GOD!
This is for them who got themselves all empowered up. This personal opinion before the assembled that working with others is not FEM.
I HAD AN AFFAIR WITH HILLARY!!
MOIST!
El Tupé put you up to this, didn't he?
I swear on a stack of Gödel, Escher, Bach hardcovers I had nothing to do with this!
More than 5,000 support petition to allow guns at Republican National Convention in Cleveland (http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/more-than-5-000-support-petition-to-allow-guns-at-republican-national-convention-in-cleveland-1.671384?xid=nl_daily)
Quote from: karlhenning on March 26, 2016, 05:10:23 PM
El Tupé put you up to this, didn't he?
There's going to be hell toupee!!
Quote from: drogulus on March 27, 2016, 01:20:55 PM
I swear on a stack of Gödel, Escher, Bach hardcovers I had nothing to do with this!
More than 5,000 support petition to allow guns at Republican National Convention in Cleveland (http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/more-than-5-000-support-petition-to-allow-guns-at-republican-national-convention-in-cleveland-1.671384?xid=nl_daily)
Gonna be another Love Fest!
Quote from: drogulus on March 27, 2016, 01:20:55 PM
I swear on a stack of Gödel, Escher, Bach hardcovers I had nothing to do with this!
More than 5,000 support petition to allow guns at Republican National Convention in Cleveland (http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/more-than-5-000-support-petition-to-allow-guns-at-republican-national-convention-in-cleveland-1.671384?xid=nl_daily)
They are demanding the GOP put its money where its mouth is, so to speak. Even Mayor Bloomberg ought to sign that petition. There is no way the party can say no without further alienating its base.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 27, 2016, 02:57:38 PM
There's going to be hell toupee!!
Toupee or not toupee, that's the question!
In the NC primary my brother voted Sanders and his wife, Clinton. My bro adheres to the Clinton murders theory. What's funny is that he is anything but a socialist. ???
Up here in Canada, a nationwide poll says that 77% view a Trump election as a very bad thing. 78% of those surveyed favour Clinton.
Quote from: André on March 28, 2016, 03:45:05 AM
In the NC primary my brother voted Sanders and his wife, Clinton. My bro adheres to the Clinton murders theory. What's funny is that he is anything but a socialist. ???
I know a number of instances where the husband supports Bernie, but the wife, Hillary.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 27, 2016, 05:43:59 PM
They are demanding the GOP put its money where its mouth is, so to speak. Even Mayor Bloomberg ought to sign that petition. There is no way the party can say no without further alienating its base.
Bloomberg is an ex-Republican.
It's up to 41k now and seems like one of the few things that Rs and Ds have agreed on recently.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on March 27, 2016, 05:43:59 PM
They are demanding the GOP put its money where its mouth is, so to speak. Even Mayor Bloomberg ought to sign that petition. There is no way the party can say no without further alienating its base.
So they just let it happen? This is insane.
What the fuck does this have to do with a party and its base? Quite a few of the conventioneers who would exercise this "right" are hotheads. Don't you think the provocateurs who disrupted Trump rallies know exactly what their Cleveland strategy will be? I know what mine is. Riot helmets and bullet proof vests sounds about right to me.
High time they had all those good guys with guns!
I'm really, really, really hoping that this whole thing ends with Trump and Cruz resorting to their fists.
Quote from: Brian on March 28, 2016, 07:48:48 AM
I'm really, really, really hoping that this whole thing ends with Trump and Cruz resorting to their fists.
Maybe the next debate can be scheduled in Texas and the NRA can demand that open-carry is permitted for participants on stage...
Quote from: Scarpia on March 28, 2016, 08:12:38 AM
Maybe the next debate can be scheduled in Texas and the NRA can demand that open-carry is permitted for participants on stage...
If Burr could get away with killing Hamilton . . . . .
Meanwhile, satirical site The Onion has published an article saying that hundreds of Cubans have reached America by clinging to Air Force One, large numbers of anti-Obama folk have believed it (no doubt they wouldn't normally read The Onion), and Snopes has published a finding that the article is false.
Let's just let that sink in for a moment: Snopes has actually had to comment on an article from The Onion. Because people believed that the hated Obama had brought hundreds of Cubans into the country attached to his plane.
Presumably these people are qualified to vote. The people who believed the article, I mean, not the Cubans.
Quote from: orfeo on March 28, 2016, 03:50:56 PM
Meanwhile, satirical site The Onion has published an article saying that hundreds of Cubans have reached America by clinging to Air Force One, large numbers of anti-Obama folk have believed it (no doubt they wouldn't normally read The Onion), and Snopes has published a finding that the article is false.
Let's just let that sink in for a moment: Snopes has actually had to comment on an article from The Onion. Because people believed that the hated Obama had brought hundreds of Cubans into the country attached to his plane.
Presumably these people are qualified to vote. The people who believed the article, I mean, not the Cubans.
I share your scorn, but not your incredulity. Snopes has had to 'debunk' dozens of Onion stories, as well as those from other satirical websites. It seems there is a huge contingent of people in this world who are conceptually vacant when it comes to satire. It makes me sad... sad that they not only vote, but on a more essential level, they are allowed to breed. :(
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 28, 2016, 04:16:33 PM
It seems there is a huge contingent of people in this world who are conceptually vacant when it comes to satire. It makes me sad... sad that they not only vote, but on a more essential level, they are allowed to breed. :(
8)
Thanks, Obama.
Quote from: Johnll on March 23, 2016, 07:08:17 PM
I suspect you would like to bury this huffie and puffie trump style stuffie. Please conservative up Todd.
Huh?
Quote from: drogulus on March 24, 2016, 06:34:45 AMOn my reading list is God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World (http://www.amazon.com/God-Gold-Britain-America-Making/dp/0375713735) by Walter Russell Mead. It's not an uncritical analysis, it wouldn't be any good if it were. If it doesn't irritate you, you're not reading it right. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
A good book, but it's too narrow in scope, too enamored of the rise of the English speaking world without seeing the impact of other influences.
Quote from: drogulus on March 24, 2016, 08:04:24 AMMy point about Muslim revolutions of purity is how they destroyed this highly promising phase of their history. There are various versions of how and why. Some have the Crusades in them, and afterward colonial imperialism.
Don't forget the role of the Pax Mongolica, particularly as it pertains to trade and the impact on the Islamic world.
Quote from: André on March 28, 2016, 03:45:05 AMUp here in Canada, a nationwide poll says that 77% view a Trump election as a very bad thing. 78% of those surveyed favour Clinton.
How many electoral votes does Canada have again?
Quote from: orfeo on March 28, 2016, 03:50:56 PM
Presumably these people are qualified to vote.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 28, 2016, 04:16:33 PM
It makes me sad... sad that they not only vote, but on a more essential level, they are allowed to breed. :(
I find it extremely amusing that when the outcome of the vote is in line with one´s own ideas democracy is a good and functional thing (Obama´s getting elected), but when the outcome of the vote is not in line with one´s own ideas (Trump´s getting nominated and perhaps even elected) then suddenly democracy becomes flawed and dysfunctional. And furthermore, voters who think and vote like one does are smart and responsible while voters who do not think (at all, in some cases) and vote like one does are irresponsible morons. (In the same vein I remember the shameful and dictatorial blackmail to which EU subjected Austria when the Freedom Party won the elections).
Now, either one accepts as sane and sound and beneficial the basic premise of democracy - ie, an irresponsible, uninformed, uneducated guy´s vote has the same weight and importance as the vote of a responsible, informed, educated guy´s vote (and in practice much more, because the former category vastly outnumbers the latter, irrespective of ideologies) - or one doesn´t. I know I don´t, but you gentlemen seem to do, so why then the surprise and sadness?
As an aside, we are often reminded that Hitler came to power through democratic elections and this fact should make us eternally apprehensive about the extreme right --- but it never crosses the mind of those who keep repeating it that it is also an argument for being eternally apprehensive about democracy itself. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 29, 2016, 01:00:00 AM
Now, either one accepts as sane and sound and beneficial the basic premise of democracy - ie, an irresponsible, uninformed, uneducated guy´s vote has the same weight and importance as the vote of a responsible, informed, educated guy´s vote
Yes, it would be nice if the
really important stuff was decided by vote and not by money. The US ought to try it.
It's somewhat misleading to claim that Hitler came to power because "(too much) democracy". He never had the majority of a popular vote (because the Reichskanzler was not elected by popular vote but appointed by the president who was the old/senile Hindenburg, a rightwing monarchist general with no love lost for democracy who was influenced by rightwing elites). Hitler gained a majority in parliament by coalition with another right wing party and was also helped by several un-democratic elements of the Weimar constitution.
Overall the unlucky 15 years (! this is such a short time, 9/11 is about as long ago now) of the Weimar republic are not a very good example of the dangers of democracy because of the complicated constitution (that gave a lot of power to the president), the difficult situation after a lost war and an overall dislike of democracy by both people and elites, the general climate of "street fighting" between rightists and leftists etc. There are just too many factors that have nothing to do with democratic procedure.
That's why I really dislike "Weimar America" (Rod Dreher is fond of the expression but he does not seem to know much about the 1920s Weimar Republic) as it is really misleading in almost every way.
But as you certainly know the problem of the "stupid voter" is not anything new and most defenders of democracy have either imposed checks and balances to counter it and/or hoped for education and enlightenment (which go only so far, especially if mass media don't really work in their favor).
Quote from: The new erato on March 29, 2016, 02:09:26 AM
Yes, it would be nice if the really important stuff was decided by vote and not by money. The US ought to try it.
In 1999 the Austrian Freedom Party came first with 26.9% of the votes. Was it then decided by vote who would be the next chancellor? No, it was dictated by the EU that it was not going to be Jorg Haider but someone else who was more ideologically palatable to the supernational and supranational Brussels bureaucracy that was elected by nobody.
In 2008 the Irish people rejected by referendum the Lisbon Treaty. That should have killed it off for good because it was decided by vote, right? Wrong. Ireland was pressured into holding a second referendum.
As of today, I know of no more important European problems than the refiugee crisis and the islamic terrorist menace. Would you agree that they be settled by vote, ie by referendum? Would you agree to asking the people if they want or not their country to accomodate more muslim immigrants, and are you willing to accept the result? Would you agree to asking the people if they want or not mosques where radical imams preach be shut down, and are you willing to accept the result? If no, why?
Quote from: Brian on March 28, 2016, 07:48:48 AM
I'm really, really, really hoping that this whole thing ends with Trump and Cruz resorting to their fists.
Sorry, Brian, but that is a rather piffling wish.
As true Republicans, they should settle it with their M16s or better.
Quote from: Florestan on March 29, 2016, 01:00:00 AM
I find it extremely amusing that when the outcome of the vote is in line with one´s own ideas democracy is a good and functional thing (Obama´s getting elected), but when the outcome of the vote is not in line with one´s own ideas (Trump´s getting nominated and perhaps even elected) then suddenly democracy becomes flawed and dysfunctional. And furthermore, voters who think and vote like one does are smart and responsible while voters who do not think (at all, in some cases) and vote like one does are irresponsible morons. (In the same vein I remember the shameful and dictatorial blackmail to which EU subjected Austria when the Freedom Party won the elections).
Now, either one accepts as sane and sound and beneficial the basic premise of democracy - ie, an irresponsible, uninformed, uneducated guy´s vote has the same weight and importance as the vote of a responsible, informed, educated guy´s vote (and in practice much more, because the former category vastly outnumbers the latter, irrespective of ideologies) - or one doesn´t. I know I don´t, but you gentlemen seem to do, so why then the surprise and sadness?
As an aside, we are often reminded that Hitler came to power through democratic elections and this fact should make us eternally apprehensive about the extreme right --- but it never crosses the mind of those who keep repeating it that it is also an argument for being eternally apprehensive about democracy itself. ;D
As always, you missed my point entirely. I hope you aren't one of the ones in the 'non-satire- group'. ::) I don't give a shit who agrees with me and who doesn't, honestly. Stupid is stupid, even when I make a stupid choice, usually half the country agrees with me. So what does that say?
However, if I read an article that said Obama smuggled back 200 Cubans in Air Force 1, I would like to think I would have been at least a little skeptical, yet I know people who would buy right into it. THEY are the ones who shouldn't be reproducing. See, it has nothing to do with Obama or Trump or Cruz or any of them. Or even agreeing with me. :D :D (BTW, and just as an aside, you, nor anyone else, even knows what my choice for president would be. So you can't make any conclusions about what I think or say based on what you know, since you don't know anything).
8)
Knowing what one does not know: priceless.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 29, 2016, 04:50:24 AM
THEY are the ones who shouldn't be reproducing.
Do you really mean it or is it just sarcastical rhetoric?
Quote from: Florestan on March 29, 2016, 02:51:11 AM
Would you agree that they be settled by vote, ie by referendum?
No. We have our regular election systems and I think settling evry issue by referendum would make it impossible to run a country. But the regular elections should be cast without the heavy preference given to candidates with money, manipulation by gerrymandering, by making people preregister or in other ways making it difficult to cast a vote for certain groups, etc, etc, etc.
Quote from: Florestan on March 29, 2016, 01:00:00 AM
I find it extremely amusing that when the outcome of the vote is in line with one´s own ideas democracy is a good and functional thing (Obama´s getting elected), but when the outcome of the vote is not in line with one´s own ideas (Trump´s getting nominated and perhaps even elected) then suddenly democracy becomes flawed and dysfunctional.
We knew about the flaws before Trump. Churchill had it right that democracy is the least worst. Once again, ideas of perfection prevent you from seeing how the good is derived. It's mostly not a contest between Thomas Jefferson and Mr. Hilter.
Did human beings have a "right to exist" before existing? What about ideas of the good, do they have to be good before they get to be ideas, or does life itself teach us what the good ideas are, and help us get better ones?
Quote from: The new erato on March 29, 2016, 05:10:15 AM
No. We have our regular election systems and I think settling evry issue by referendum would make it impossible to run a country.
I did not write "every issue" but you did write "really important stuff". In your opinion do the refugee crisis and the islamic terrorist menace qualify as really important stuff?
On the other hand, referenda and regular elections are not mutually exclusive; referenda (locval, cantonal or national) are held in Switzerland on a regular basis and on a wide variety of issues, despite the fact that they too have their regular election system.
Quote from: Florestan on March 29, 2016, 05:25:13 AM
I did not write "every issue" but you did write "really important stuff". In your opinion do the refugee crisis and the islamic terrorist menace qualify as really important stuff?
On the other hand, referenda and regular elections are not mutually exclusive; referenda (locval, cantonal or national) are held in Switzerland on a regular basis and on a wide variety of issues, despite the fact that they too have their regular election system.
No, and yes I know. I wouldn't want the Swiss system because I think the Norwegian system works reasonably well.
Quote from: The new erato on March 29, 2016, 05:27:45 AM
No
Just to be sure I understood you all right: in your opinion, the refugee crisis and the islamic terrorist menace are not really important problems. Is this correct?
Quote from: drogulus on March 29, 2016, 05:18:23 AM
Churchill had it right that democracy is the least worst.
Yep. No argument here.
Quote from: Florestan on March 29, 2016, 01:00:00 AM
I find it extremely amusing that when the outcome of the vote is in line with one´s own ideas democracy is a good and functional thing (Obama´s getting elected), but when the outcome of the vote is not in line with one´s own ideas (Trump´s getting nominated and perhaps even elected) then suddenly democracy becomes flawed and dysfunctional. And furthermore, voters who think and vote like one does are smart and responsible while voters who do not think (at all, in some cases) and vote like one does are irresponsible morons. (In the same vein I remember the shameful and dictatorial blackmail to which EU subjected Austria when the Freedom Party won the elections).
Now, either one accepts as sane and sound and beneficial the basic premise of democracy - ie, an irresponsible, uninformed, uneducated guy´s vote has the same weight and importance as the vote of a responsible, informed, educated guy´s vote (and in practice much more, because the former category vastly outnumbers the latter, irrespective of ideologies) - or one doesn´t. I know I don´t, but you gentlemen seem to do, so why then the surprise and sadness?
As an aside, we are often reminded that Hitler came to power through democratic elections and this fact should make us eternally apprehensive about the extreme right --- but it never crosses the mind of those who keep repeating it that it is also an argument for being eternally apprehensive about democracy itself. ;D
You seem to be making an enormous number of assumptions about my views that don't seem to be based on anything I can recall ever saying on this forum. I despair at stupidity even when it occurs on my part of the political spectrum.
And as a swinging voter (within the Australian political spectrum), I keep hoping to be persuaded by cogent argument, and it happens far too rarely. Politics for most people seems to be a mindless team sport. I don't even like my team sport mindless.
Quote from: Florestan on March 29, 2016, 05:06:13 AM
Do you really mean it or is it just sarcastical rhetoric?
Sarcastic rhetoric. I'm not big on eugenics... I'm also not big on people being voluntarily ignorant. Pleasure-seeking hedonists in school grow into people who believe their President would smuggle aliens into the country on his plane, while simultaneously praying towards Mecca. It may have always and everywhere been so, but that doesn't make it any easier to take when it is in YOUR country. >:(
8)
Quote from: orfeo on March 29, 2016, 05:53:41 AM
You seem to be making an enormous number of assumptions about my views that don't seem to be based on anything I can recall ever saying on this forum.
You wrote: "Presumably these people are qualified to vote. " --- which I took it to express frustration about the fact that such extremely stupid people have a say in the voting process. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
Quote from: Florestan on March 29, 2016, 05:57:31 AM
You wrote: "Presumably these people are qualified to vote. " --- which I took it to express frustration about the fact that such extremely stupid people have a say in the voting process. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
No, you understood that part just fine. It's all the assumptions you made about how I would be in favour of extremely stupid people so long as they voted the same way as me that I object to.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 29, 2016, 05:56:40 AM
Sarcastic rhetoric. I'm not big on eugenics... I'm also not big on people being voluntarily ignorant. Pleasure-seeking hedonists in school grow into people who believe their President would smuggle aliens into the country on his plane, while simultaneously praying towards Mecca. It may have always and everywhere been so, but that doesn't make it any easier to take when it is in YOUR country. >:(
There is a TV show in Romania during which people in the streets are asked all kind of questions, such as "Who wrote the Bible?", "Did you know that Adam and Eve were Romanians?", "What year are we living in?", "What is the last letter of the alphabet?", "What do we celebrate on Easter?" or "What country / continent are we living in?". They admittedly show only the stupid, absurd or ridiculous answers but it is enough to make one bang his head against the wall in despair. :laugh:
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 29, 2016, 04:50:24 AMObama smuggled back 200 Cubans in Air Force 1
Why isn't this getting more coverage?
Quote from: orfeo on March 29, 2016, 05:59:11 AM
No, you understood that part just fine. It's all the assumptions you made about how I would be in favour of extremely stupid people so long as they voted the same way as me that I object to.
I see. Well, I apologize for that, then.
Quote from: orfeo on March 29, 2016, 05:53:41 AM
I despair at stupidity even when it occurs on my part of the political spectrum.
And as a swinging voter (within the Australian political spectrum), I keep hoping to be persuaded by cogent argument, and it happens far too rarely. Politics for most people seems to be a mindless team sport. I don't even like my team sport mindless.
I agree with all of the above.
Quote from: Todd on March 29, 2016, 06:12:58 AM
Why isn't this getting more coverage?
The Onion broke the story. This whole tangent of the thread is due to the fact that Snopes actually had to print an explanation that it was satire, not reality. At least, that's what they're saying. Of course, Snopes
is run by the Illuminati... :o
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 29, 2016, 06:28:15 AMThe Onion broke the story.
I haven't been able to keep up with The Onion this cycle. Lately, I've been too caught up in important stories regarding candidates' spouses. Melania Trump is hot. Vote Trump.
Make America Hot Again!
Quote from: Todd on March 29, 2016, 06:33:36 AM
I haven't been able to keep up with The Onion this cycle. Lately, I've been too caught up in important stories regarding candidates' spouses. Melania Trump is hot. Vote Trump.
Well, you are right about that, his hands must be bigger than we thought!! 0:)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on March 29, 2016, 06:55:35 AMWell, you are right about that, his hands must be bigger than we thought!!
They're just big enough to open that wallet.
Quote from: Todd on March 29, 2016, 06:12:58 AM
Why isn't this getting more coverage?
Obviously, the Liberal Media doesn't want you to know about it.
The petition for open-carry at the RNC (50k and counting) is apparently satire (http://www.cnet.com/au/news/25000-sign-satirical-petition-to-allow-guns-at-republican-convention/). In this case it is really difficult to tell (http://www.youngcons.com/20000-people-sign-petition-to-allow-open-carry-at-rnc-convention/). It's a moot point since the Secret Service is in charge of security, but maybe it's not to late to get Ammon Bundy to replace them.
I became suspicious of democracy very early on. I would have been about 12 when the famous character of a popular soap, Ena Sharples of Coronation St, was writted out of the series with the death of the character. Granada, the TV station, was overwhelmed with flowers and wreaths that viewers had sent in sorrow. I thought then that I was going to be the victim of stupid people at the ballot box. Like was said above, although I would rather prefer if these dorks did not breed, I would not ultimately vote for it.
It is some kind of comfort that there are intensely stupid people in all corners of political opinion. Though they do seem to be rather more evenly spread in the UK than in the US.
Mike
Oh, it's Dick from the Internet... ::)
I love that guy!
8)
(http://arnoldzwicky.s3.amazonaws.com/ZippyBrooding.gif)
Quote from: The new erato on March 29, 2016, 02:09:26 AM
Yes, it would be nice if the really important stuff was decided by vote and not by money. The US ought to try it.
For better or worse, the two major US parties select their presidential candidate by having
all their registered members or sympathizers vote on the issue.
Does the Norwegian party you sympathize with, and vote for, ever ask
your opinion about who should be their candidate for the office of prime-minister?
I thought so.
Well, Norway ought to try it.
Well, yes, of course, that system is going so well in the US.
Mike
Quote from: Florestan on March 30, 2016, 12:43:24 PM
For better or worse, the two major US parties select their presidential candidate by having all their registered members or sympathizers vote on the issue.
Does the Norwegian party you sympathize with, and vote for, ever ask your opinion about who should be their candidate for the office of prime-minister?
I thought so.
Well, Norway ought to try it.
In Canada, delegates of each riding are elected according to their preference in terms of the candidate they want the delegate to vote for. Then there's a national convention. The whole process takes a few weeks. It may be different but the aim and result are the same as in the US, without the hoopla, drama and vulgarity.
How is it in Romania ?
Quote from: André on March 30, 2016, 01:43:06 PM
How is it in Romania ?
Why, the local and national top echelon of each party selects their candidates. The rank and file has no saying whatsoever. No primaries, no national convention, nothing. Needless to say, only people who are ingratiated with the local or national party leaders have chances of being nominated. It is not unusual, for instance, to have as candidate for the office of a city mayor a person who doesn´t even reside in that city and knows next to nothing about the needs and problems of the locals. Sweet, ain´t it'?
You are right, it is a flat out abuse. Here the Labour Party members elected their leader. So the now customary disenchantment meant we got someone who bucks the trend, an outsider in a sense. However, I doubt any party wearing his complexion could win over the number of voters needed to form a government, especially as Scotland, previously a Labour Heartland, has pretty much extinguished Labour representation.
The Tory Party elect their leader rather more as you describe. Its government is not doing at all well, the EU issue may even split it. So the future is pretty uncertain. We might end up with Boris as PM, a sort of Trump-Lite. EEK!
Despite the shortcomings you point out; I don't want the wider election of party leader and usually therefore Prime Minister. I don't like the way that the likes of Trump can hijack the process by appealing to the disaffected, who seem only to listen out for slogans that have little substance.
Neither system seems satisfactory, each can be corrupted in their different ways. But when the legislators have their heads on facing forward, I think there is more chance of a sensible outcome.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on March 31, 2016, 01:27:53 AM
slogans that have little substance.
That´s a fairly accurate description of
all Romanian major parties´ electoral tactic.
Quote from: Florestan on March 30, 2016, 12:43:24 PM
For better or worse, the two major US parties select their presidential candidate by having all their registered members or sympathizers vote on the issue.
Does the Norwegian party you sympathize with, and vote for, ever ask your opinion about who should be their candidate for the office of prime-minister?
No, because we've got a parliamentary system. The prime minister is selected by the king after a recommendation from the elected parliament. I seem to remember you have much faith in monarchs.
Quote from: The new erato on March 31, 2016, 04:33:42 AM
No, because we've got a parliamentary system. The prime minister is selected by the king after a recommendation from the elected parliament. I seem to remember you have much faith in monarchs.
Can your king reject the person recommended by the parliament and ask for his/her replacement? If his role is to merely give formal assent to whomever is recommended (under these circumstances, imposed is actually more apt a term) to him then having faith in his discernment and judgement is out of question because he is simply not allowed to exercise them.
Anyway, your faith in the wisdom and benevolence of your political elites seems to be absolute.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 12:04:53 AM
Why, the local and national top echelon of each party selects their candidates. The rank and file has no saying whatsoever. No primaries, no national convention, nothing. Needless to say, only people who are ingratiated with the local or national party leaders have chances of being nominated. It is not unusual, for instance, to have as candidate for the office of a city mayor a person who doesn´t even reside in that city and knows next to nothing about the needs and problems of the locals. Sweet, ain´t it'?
I think it worth pointing out that this is the sort of thing, against the perception of which El Tupé (and, rather more rationally, Senator Sanders) is running.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 02:33:48 AM
That´s a fairly accurate description of all Romanian major parties´ electoral tactic.
Make America Great Again!
Quote from: karlhenning on March 31, 2016, 05:00:58 AM
I think it worth pointing out that this is the sort of thing, against the perception of which El Tupé (and, rather more rationally, Senator Sanders) is running.
Well, at least the primaries system allows for open revolt against political cronyism and for non-establishment candidates to emerge within the major parties. This is downright impossible in Romania and I suspect that not only here.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 04:51:00 AM
Anyway, your faith in the wisdom and benevolence of your political elites seems to be absolute.
No, I just have another historical experience from you. You would do well to remember that extrapolating from Roumania may not be the best background to judge other systems. I don't believe that a system with direct voting would result in "less chaos", and I do believe that managing a country makes it necessary to make some compromises and long term judgments that not always is best left to "micromanaging" by he electorate, and I also have the experience that polticians that doessn't manage to do this while also taking into consideration popular feelings in the long run are voted out.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 05:07:29 AM
Well, at least the primaries system allows for open revolt against political cronyism.
Fair enough.
Quote from: The new erato on March 31, 2016, 05:11:45 AM
No, I just have another historical experience from you.
Fair enough.
Quote
You would do well to remember that extrapolating from Roumania may not be the best background to judge other systems.
Maybe Norway is exempt from that but in EU at least the discontentment with, and animosity towards, the establishment political elites from right to left is quite widespread and fully justified. And when traditional parties obstinately refuse to acknowledge the problems and tackle them, there is no wonder that extremism is on the rise.
Quotepolticians that doessn't manage to do this while also taking into consideration popular feelings in the long run are voted out.
In the long run yes, but how about all the damage they do to economy and society while they are still voted in? If the long run is something like 8 years, then some of that damage might even be beyond repair.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 05:16:46 AM
Maybe Norway is exempt from that but in EU at least the discontentment with, and animosity towards, the establishment political elites from right to left is quite widespread and fully justified.
Well I don't see much government toppling......and I surely believe that people aren't manipulated into not voting for those politicians you seem to agree with. The political flora in most EU countries also makes it much easier to vote for alternatives than in the US where you in effect have only 2 parties and massive pressures (as it seem) to preselect candidates, in that regard I understand both the support for Trump and Sanders. As for whether that is fully justified, that is a value judgement.
As for historical experiences doesn't it strike you as somewhat interesting that votes in Poland seem to follow the older prewar east/west borders with the west markedly more liberal, and the former east more nationalistic/religious etc (left map in picture below):
(http://i.imgur.com/cbX74QI.jpg)
I'll give you another example to reflect on; Norway is a member of Schengen. Popular opinion in Norway is that Roumania never should have been let inside Schengen as we have lots - and I mean really lots - of criminal activity related to Roumania (and also Latvia etc)....people whos movements we are not able to control or limit since they are inside Schengen. Yet I am still able to see that in a larger picture (eg restraining Russian influence) letting these countries inside Schengen may have been necessary. Right or wrong? Popular opinion can be remarkably shortsigted and onedimensional.
Yesterday, my faith in American politics and the American press was reaffirmed. Trump said something stupid about abortion. Lots of sound-bite sized condemnatory statements, from both pro- and anti-abortion folks, were played or quoted by various news outlets. Many thoughtful analyses were presented. Trump back-pedaled. Trump also said really stupid things about nuclear policy. This got coverage. The fact the South Korean and Japanese governments thought Trump's suggestions really stupid, though they of course did not phrase it that way, was reported. A few analyses were presented. No back-pedaling yet, though. In terms of precious airtime and column inches, stupid abortion statement trumps stupid nuclear policy statement. It's good to know that abortion is more important than American nuclear policy.
I never know with you US folks. Is this irony or not?
Quote from: The new erato on March 31, 2016, 06:52:44 AM
I never know with you US folks. Is this irony or not?
No, not irony as much as sadness... :(
8)
Quote from: The new erato on March 31, 2016, 06:52:44 AM
I never know with you US folks. Is this irony or not?
We are finally learning that the greatest gift our mother country gave us, before we rudely rebelled and kicked her back home to Britannia, was the gift of irony. Irony really does make it easier to get through this world...
I'm often defensively ironic when I'm sad, so I get your point. Still; they could have been discussing toupees.
https://gop.com/convention-facts/ (https://gop.com/convention-facts/?mid=68749&rid=13491920)
Quote from: The new erato on March 31, 2016, 06:02:06 AM
Well I don't see much government toppling......and I surely believe that people aren't manipulated into not voting for those politicians you seem to agree with.
I don´t know what politicians you think I agree with.
Quote
As for historical experiences doesn't it strike you as somewhat interesting that votes in Poland seem to follow the older prewar east/west borders with the west markedly more liberal, and the former east more nationalistic/religious etc (left map in picture below):
(http://i.imgur.com/cbX74QI.jpg)
If I were Pole, I would vote PiS, no doubt about it.
Quote
I'll give you another example to reflect on; Norway is a member of Schengen. Popular opinion in Norway is that Roumania never should have been let inside Schengen
Check your facts. Romania
is not a member of Schengen. And Schengen is dead, anyway.
Quote from: karlhenning on March 31, 2016, 08:48:19 AM
https://gop.com/convention-facts/ (https://gop.com/convention-facts/?mid=68749&rid=13491920)
Why mess up brilliant arguments with facts? :laugh:
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 10:53:40 AM
If I were Pole, I would vote PiS, no doubt about it.
Even with how gross their government has behaved so far this year??
Quote from: Brian on March 31, 2016, 11:05:52 AM
Even with how gross their government has behaved so far this year??
Their government did nothing more than trying to clean the mess of the PO and to get rid of the FSB influence in media, the judicial system and the secret services. I don´t know what your sources of information regarding Poland and PiS are but the mainstream media is not exactly the most trustworthy, unbiased and honest on this issue.
Quote from: The new erato on March 31, 2016, 06:02:06 AM
in the US where you in effect have only 2 parties and massive pressures (as it seem) to preselect candidates, in that regard I understand both the support for Trump and Sanders.
Exactly. What are the chances that a Trump or a Sanders pop up in a mainstream European party? Who is the Trump of France and the Sanders of Germany, or the other way around --- two countries that will hold elections in the near future? If the Republican Party and the Democratic Party had been functioning European style, the leadership of the former would have nominated Ted Cruz and the leadership of the latter would have nominated Hillary Clinton without bothering to ask anyone of the rank and file, much less allowing sympathizers have a say in the matter.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 11:23:01 AM
Their government did nothing more than trying to clean the mess of the PO and to get rid of the FSB influence in media, the judicial system and the secret services. I don´t know what your sources of information regarding Poland and PiS are but the mainstream media is not exactly the most trustworthy, unbiased and honest on this issue.
That can be thorny. 'Alternative media' often have an agenda (left or right, or whatever) and present things from their own perspective. Either the reader is of the same persuasion, or has to make adjustments...
Recently on vacation with my wife's sister and her companion, we had a somewhat tense exchange over dinner about the Middle East situation - specifically the refugee crisis in Europe. Sister-in-law snapped "We don't read from the same papers". ???
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 11:33:17 AM
Exactly. What are the chances that a Trump or a Sanders pop up in a mainstream European party? Who is the Trump of France and the Sanders of Germany,
What?!?!?
The Trump of France is Marine Le Pen.
The Sanders of Europe is probably 25% of all European politicians.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 11:33:17 AM
Check your facts. Romania is not a member of Schengen.
Well the point still stands; as soon as they have entered Schengen anywhere, any country inside Schengen has few measures to prevent them migrating anywhere. I still guess you get my point; despite the popular opinion against eastern European countries in many EU countries , should we have left you to "the sphere of Russian influence"? Will you concede that politicians sometimes have to take the "greater view" and go against popular opinion in favour of more long term, strategic goals?
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 11:33:17 AM
Exactly. What are the chances that a Trump or a Sanders pop up in a mainstream European party?
We have them, lots of them, already, and they are not vetted by any system. Still they never seen to garner a majority, though decidedely influencing policies. And whatever you may think, this is not because of any conspiracy to silence or manipulate them in a two party system.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 10:53:40 AM
If I were Pole, I would vote PiS, no doubt about it.
Which kind of proves my point about historical experiences.
Quote from: Brian on March 31, 2016, 11:58:55 AM
The Trump of France is Marine Le Pen.
Stylistically, I'd say Berlusconi is closer to Trump than Marine Le Pen. In terms of xenophobic ideas, Europe has more than a few names to choose from. (http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21679855-xenophobic-parties-have-long-been-ostracised-mainstream-politicians-may-no-longer-be)
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 11:33:17 AM
Exactly. What are the chances that a Trump or a Sanders pop up in a mainstream European party? Who is the Trump of France and the Sanders of Germany, or the other way around --- two countries that will hold elections in the near future?
Germany has never had a two-party-system, so there is more diversity through coalitions. Until the 1980s it was dominated by two big parties (social democrats and conservatives), but there was still a third party ("liberals") as well as some local and small ones around and federal governments had been based on coalitions of all possible combinations of those three. From the 1980s we had four parties in the Bundestag and the Greens were part of the government 1998-2005. By now there is also a leftist party in the parliament (and it has been in coalitions in regional governments several times) and very probably the new conservative AfD will be represented in the next Bundestag, so there will be at least 5 parties there.
So "Trumps" and "Sanders" might not be among the candidates of the biggest parties, but some analogues can be found in the leaders of smaller parties and while they are not likely to become chancellor, they can become minister, Ministerpraesident (regional governor, the first Green one has just been re-elected in the southwestern state Baden-Württemberg).
More generally, the smaller parties work as "valves for excess pressure" if people are not satisfied. Usually it does not change much. But the Greens everybody laughed about around 1980 changed by their very existence the stances of the other parties and now everybody claims to be ecological and environment-friendly.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 11:23:01 AM
Their government did nothing more than trying to clean the mess of the PO and to get rid of the FSB influence in media, the judicial system and the secret services. I don´t know what your sources of information regarding Poland and PiS are but the mainstream media is not exactly the most trustworthy, unbiased and honest on this issue.
"Getting rid of the mess" is dishonest. They're trying to gain unconstitutional powers for themselves.
7 Jan 2016
"The Council of Europe (CoE) has called on Poland's president not to sign a controversial law passed by the country's parliament on the grounds that it threatens press freedom.
"The new media law allows the government to appoint and dismiss the executives in charge of public TV and radio broadcasters.
"The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)...has warned that the law "will endanger the basic conditions of independence, objectivity and impartiality of public service broadcasters."
"Similar concerns have been expressed by major press freedom bodies, including the International Federation of Journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, Index on Censorship and Article 19.
"They believe Poland's ultra conservative government, led by Jarosław Kaczyński's Law and Justice party (PiS), is eager to stifle what it regards as unfair criticism. The legislation would enable it to exercise control over public broadcasters. They fear PiS will fire many executives at the country's public television and radio companies and appoint replacements of their own choice.
"The introduction of the media law follows the passing of a bill that undermines the ability of Poland's judiciary to maintain checks on parliament.
"According to the press freedom organisations, the law would be "wholly unacceptable in a genuine democracy" and was "put before parliament to be voted on without the necessary inclusive public debate.""
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jan/07/polish-president-urged-not-to-sign-controversial-media-law
13 Feb
"Poland is drawing up new regulations to punish use of the phrase "Polish death camps" in reference to wartime Nazi concentration camps on Polish soil, the justice minister, Zbigniew Ziobro, has said."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/13/poland-plans-ban-phrase-polish-death-camps
29 Feb
"Changes to Poland's supreme court endanger the rule of law, democracy and human rights, according to a draft opinion from Europe's leading constitutional experts.
"'As long as the situation of constitutional crisis related to the constitutional tribunal remains unsettled and as long as the constitutional tribunal cannot carry out its work in an efficient manner, not only is the rule of law in danger, but so is democracy and human rights,' the expert body concluded.
"Changes to the court removed 'a crucial mechanism which ensures that potential conflicts with European and international norms and standards can be resolved at the national level", it said."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/29/polands-changes-to-court-system-risking-democracy
Polish language article: "More Than Half of Poles Think Democracy Is Threatened" (http://www.tvp.info/23091481/sondaz-ponad-polowa-polakow-uwaza-ze-demokracja-w-kraju-jest-zagrozona)
"56 percent surveyed by Ipsos are convinced that the democratic system in our country is threatened. 37 percent there are no such worries."
- Opinion Article -
"So it's not the policies, the politics or even the ideology that requires all friends of Poland to sound the alarm; it's the winning team attempting unilaterally to change the rules of the whole democratic game.... Duda holds a doctorate in law, but his own doctoral supervisor says he has already violated the constitution three times. New legislation and judicial appointments will effectively neuter the constitutional court (formally constitutional tribunal); a new media law subordinates public service broadcasting directly to government; political appointees will be allowed at the highest level of the civil service, and so on."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/polish-democracy-destroyed-constitution-media-poland
Quote from: The new erato on March 31, 2016, 12:04:44 PM
Well the point still stands; as soon as they have entered Schengen anywhere, any country inside Schengen has few measures to prevent them migrating anywhere.
As per Wikipedia:
A 2011 report by Statistics Norway found that immigrants are overrepresented in crime statistics but that there is substantial variation by country of origin.[72] The report furthermore found that "the overrepresentation is substantially reduced when adjusting for population structure – for some groups as much as 45 per cent, but there are also some groups where the overrepresentation still is large."[72] According to the report, the data for 2009 shows that first-generation immigrants from Africa were three times more likely than ethnic Norwegians (or rather individuals who are neither first- nor second-generation immigrants) to be convicted of a felony while Somali immigrants in particular being 4.4 times more likely to be convicted of a felony than an ethnic Norwegian was. Similarly, Iraqis and Pakistanis were found to have rates of conviction for felonies greater than ethnic Norwegians by a factor of 3 and 2.6 respectively. Another finding was that second-generation African and Asian immigrants had a higher rate of convictions for felonies than first-generation immigrants. While first-generation African immigrants had conviction rates for felonies of 16.7 per 1,000 individuals over the age of 15, for second-generation immigrants the rate was 28 per 1,000 – an increase of over 60%. And for Asian immigrants an increase from 9.3 per 1,000 to 17.1 per 1,000 was observed. In 2010 13% of sexual crimes charges were filed against first generation immigrants who make up 7.8% of the population – a rate of overrepresentaion of 1.7. Unfortunately, no data is available on sexual crime that is broken down by ethnic background.[72]
In 2010, a spokesperson for the Oslo Police Department stated that every case of assault rapes in Oslo in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 was committed by a non-Western immigrant.[73] This picture has later been nuanced, as only perpetrators in the solved cases were counted, and 4 of the victims in the 16 unsolved cases described the perpetrator as being of Norwegian ethnicity.
A 2011 report by the Oslo Police District shows that of the 131 individuals charged with the 152 rapes in which the perpetrator could be identified, 45.8% were of African, Middle Eastern or Asian origin while 54.2% were of Norwegian, other European or American origin. In the cases of "assault rape", i.e. rape aggravated by physical violence, a category that included 6 of the 152 cases and 5 of the 131 identified individuals, the 5 identified individuals were of African, Middle Eastern or Asian origin. In the cases of assault rape where the individual responsible was not identified and the police relied on the description provided by the victim, 8 of the perpetrators were of African/dark-skinned appearance, 4 were Western/light/Nordic and 4 had an Asian appearance.[74]So, immigrants that are nominated as committing crimes in Norway come from Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan and are generally described as Asian, African or Middle Eastern. Why are Romanians and Latvians never mentioned, I wonder, if there is a lot of criminality related to them?
Quote
Will you concede that politicians sometimes have to take the "greater view" and go against popular opinion in favour of more long term, strategic goals?
Yes.
Quote from: Todd on March 31, 2016, 12:11:39 PM
Stylistically, I'd say Berlusconi is closer to Trump than Marine Le Pen.
Exactly.
Marine Le Pen´s ascension is the direct result of the mainstream French parties stubbornly refusing to acknowledge and discuss the issues she is capitalizing upon.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 31, 2016, 12:12:21 PM
So "Trumps" and "Sanders" might not be among the candidates of the biggest parties, but some analogues can be found in the leaders of smaller parties and while they are not likely to become chancellor,
Precisely my point: it is impossible for Trumps or Sanders to pop up in the big parties.
Quote from: Brian on March 31, 2016, 12:17:18 PM
"Getting rid of the mess" is dishonest. They're trying to gain unconstitutional powers for themselves.
Quoting The Guardian only proves my point about having only one side of the picture, namely the one the euro-leftist media wants you to have.
Too bad
Maciek is no longer active, he could have presented you with some interesting facts and data that are brushed under the carpet. In fact, if by any chance he reads this I urge him to do so.
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 12:34:58 PM
Quoting The Guardian only proves my point about having only one side of the picture, namely the one the euro-leftist media wants you to have.
Too bad Maciek is no longer active, he could have presented you with some interesting facts and data that are brushed under the carpet. In fact, if by any chance he reads this I urge him to do so.
But the Guardian is not fabricating those stories. The last link was an opinion article, but journalists are not liars.
Do you know Maciek's political views?! I do not think you should assume that, simply because he is Polish, he will be one of the 37% who said in that poll that there is no threat to democracy.
Quote from: Brian on March 31, 2016, 12:39:12 PM
Do you know Maciek's political views?!
Yes I do. Quite well, actually.
In Maciek's last 400 posts (going back over 6 years) not a single mention of politics. He only talks about music. Hmmm...maybe that's an example we should all follow!
Quote from: Brian on March 31, 2016, 12:44:37 PM
In Maciek's last 400 posts (going back over 6 years) not a single mention of politics.
Ever heard of something called personal messages? ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 12:46:50 PM
Ever heard of something called personal messages? ;D
I wasn't arguing with you ::)
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 12:29:55 PM
Precisely my point: it is impossible for Trumps or Sanders to pop up in the big parties.
But my point was that neither is it as necessary as in a two-party system.
And as others have already said: "We" had Berlusconi in Italy already 20 years ago and Sanders would be considered a slightly left of center social democrat in Europe, several of which have been chancellors and presidents in European countries (e.g. Mitterand) and even more ministers and what roughly corresponds to US state governors.
Come to think of it Orban is another good example of a European Trump, in terms of policy (Todd and Jo are right that Berlusconi is closest by personal character).
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 12:34:58 PM
Quoting The Guardian only proves my point about having only one side of the picture, namely the one the euro-leftist media wants you to have.
Too bad Maciek is no longer active, he could have presented you with some interesting facts and data that are brushed under the carpet. In fact, if by any chance he reads this I urge him to do so.
It's funny. One only ever sees leftist. Never rightist. And leftist so often gets combined into some other term to imply that leftist media is part of some bigger slightly conspiratorial worldview.
Of course, more often than not it seems to be used in a way that means "everyone to the left of me is in on a plot", aforesaid plot usually being what the rest of us would just call... The majority view.
As for "extreme" positions, Marine Le Pen's father has been around for ages and if not quite so far on the right, "tough" and loud-mouthed politicians on the conservative side were not at all rare. E.g. the bavarian Franz Josef Strauss who was one of the most powerful politicians in mid-60s through 80s Germany.
There have also been shifts what is *meant* with "left/right". 30 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable, but taxes e.g. in Germany were far higher with a conservative government than later with a "social democratic" one.
(Benefits and pensions were also higher, there was much less spread between the richest and poorest.) There was still cold war and the army was strictly for defense, today soldiers are sent to Afghanistan etc. Overall there has been a shift to the "left" on some social issues (women quota, gay marriage etc.) but to the "right" on economic ones and the post-bloc foreign policy is also not so easy to capture with the categories of former decades.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 31, 2016, 02:18:19 PM
There have also been shifts what is *meant* with "left/right".
Yes, and in some cases you have to wonder how on earth a particular position became associated with one end of the spectrum. Gay marriage, for example, still gets thrown around in Australia as a left/right issue despite the fact that in New Zealand and the UK it's been a leader from the right-hand side of the spectrum that has introduced gay marriage.
And why the hell does disbelief in climate change become a right-wing position? This is actually one of the issues that brings to the forefront this whole notion of leftist conspiracies. The only reason I can think of for assigning belief in climate change to the left side of politics is that scientists tell us it's a global problem that needs global solutions.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 31, 2016, 01:03:20 PM
Mitterand
Mitterand is actually a good example of a non-Sanders.
Bernie Sanders gives the vivid impression that he sides within the Democratic Party only
faute de mieux. He never held any powerful office unless you consider the mayorship of Burlington as one such. He is emphatically not a party man and his candidacy for the primaries is not the result of a combination between his ambitious schemes and machinations on one side and party politics and negotiations on the other. If he wins the nomination it will be due entirely to Democratic rank and file and sympathizers voting for him.
Contrast him with Mitterand: he shifted sides no less than three times, being a member in four parties, starting with the fascist Cross of Fire. He held numerous power positions as a minister, among which minister of Justice and minister of Interior. He was first secretary of the Socialist Party for ten years. He was an ambitious, consumated and legendary schemer and combinationist, a quintessential party man. His candidacy was established in a party congress rife with internal divisions and power struggles.
I fail to see any similarities between the two.
Quote from: Florestan on April 01, 2016, 01:44:41 AM
Mitterand is actually a good example of a non-Sanders.
I fail to see any similarities between the two.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 31, 2016, 01:03:20 PM
And as others have already said: [...] Sanders would be considered a slightly left of center social democrat in Europe, several of which have been chancellors and presidents in European countries (e.g. Mitterand) and even more ministers and what roughly corresponds to US state governors.
Apart from their politics, you mean?
Quote from: Florestan on April 01, 2016, 01:44:41 AM
Contrast him with Mitterand: he shifted sides no less than three times, being a member in four parties, [...] a quintessential party man.
Well that doesn't look quite right to me. 0:)
Quote from: North Star on April 01, 2016, 02:07:48 AM
Apart from their politics, you mean?
I mean what I meant from the beginning: the way the two major US parties select their candidate for the most powerful political position in the country is far more democratic than that of any major European party.
Quote from: North Star on April 01, 2016, 02:07:48 AM
Well that doesn't look quite right to me. 0:)
A quintessential party man is someone who use a party and its machinery in order to advance his political career and whose rise to power is due to internal combinations and schemes. And there is no contradiction that when the party he is currently a member of no longer satisifies his ambitions he switches to other which offers him more prospects of success without ever looking back.
You are right that Mitterrand was not an outsider. But this only illustrates that most European systems cannot really be compared to the US two-party-System. And as someone said differences between those two parties' positions are more like the distance between M and N but they are marketed as if it was A vs. Z.
My point with mentioning Mitterrand was of course that so-called "socialist" (rather social democratic) politicians with similar economical and political stances as Sanders have been mainstream in Europe for decades.
It's probably not an accident that another encrusted (almost)two-party system like Britain produced a Corbyn who is farther to the left than most mainstream labour/social democratic politician in countries with 4 or more parties. (These four are usually one mainstream conservative, one mainstream social democratic and one each to the "left" and "right" of these, at least in some issues.)
Another main difference at least in Germany is that in principle/theory one does not vote for a person at all (or more precisely, the decisive vote is for the party, the personal vote is not for the potential chancellor but for the member of parliament) Therefore it's not obvious that an "undemocratic" choice of candidate by the party is a fault at all.
Quote from: Jo498 on April 01, 2016, 03:01:49 AM
My point with mentioning Mitterrand was of course that so-called "socialist" (rather social democratic) politicians with similar economical and political stances as Sanders have been mainstream in Europe for decades.
That is true.
Quote
Another main difference at least in Germany is that in principle/theory one does not vote for a person at all (or more precisely, the decisive vote is for the party, the personal vote is not for the potential chancellor but for the member of parliament) Therefore it's not obvious that an "undemocratic" choice of candidate by the party is a fault at all.
Principles and theories are one thing, reality is another. And reality shows that in Europe a vote for the party X is actually a vote for that party´s boss or strong man. One votes for CDU and it all ends up with Frau Merkel deciding what should be done not only in Germany but in the whole EU. And she must have screwed things up big time if even her own party is dissatisfied with the outcome and openly warns her about that.
Quote from: Brian on March 31, 2016, 12:44:37 PM
In Maciek's last 400 posts (going back over 6 years) not a single mention of politics. He only talks about music. Hmmm...maybe that's an example we should all follow!
Quote from: Florestan on March 31, 2016, 12:46:50 PM
Ever heard of something called personal messages? ;D
Quote from: Brian on March 31, 2016, 12:51:26 PM
I wasn't arguing with you ::)
In fact, I see
Andrei underscoring
Brian's point hereby 8) 0:) :)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 01, 2016, 03:49:38 AM
In fact, I see Andrei underscoring Brian's point hereby 8) 0:) :)
Yes, indeed, but I guess it depends on everybody´s temperament. My username is Florestan, not Eusebius. :laugh:
EDIT: I see nothing wrong with people expressing their political views in a thread devoted exactly to politics and frankly I am rather unpleasantly surprised when suggestions are made that we´d better shut up on the issue. But maybe my firsthand experience with totalitarianism makes me particularly sensitive on this matter.
I observe a difference between telling someone he cannot express something, and finding for oneself that wisdom often resides in saying less.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 01, 2016, 04:36:43 AM
I observe a difference between telling someone he cannot express something, and finding for oneself that wisdom often resides in saying less.
Short post Karl?
Interesting:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-greatest-triumph-1459379804 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-greatest-triumph-1459379804)
He is six months away from destroying both the Republican Party and Reagan's legacy. (unfortunately requires login to read it all).
Quote from: The new erato on April 01, 2016, 05:14:46 AM
He is six months away from destroying both the Republican Party and Reagan's legacy. (unfortunately requires login to read it all).
It doesn't require a login. Just Google the title.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 01, 2016, 04:36:43 AM
I observe a difference between telling someone he cannot express something, and finding for oneself that wisdom often resides in saying less.
I observe a difference between seeing a lesson to learn, and calling for totalitarian action. (Hey, that's also the problem with the Polish government...)
Quote from: The new erato on April 01, 2016, 05:14:46 AM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-greatest-triumph-1459379804 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-greatest-triumph-1459379804)
He is six months away from destroying both the Republican Party and Reagan's legacy. (unfortunately requires login to read it all).
I don't know that I'd give Obama much credit for destroying the Republican Party. That's like giving George Bush Sr. credit for destroying the USSR. The credit belongs mainly to Norquist, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Cruz, Rubio, the Tea Party, and the whole gang of extremists who destroyed Reagan's legacy of pragmatism in the 1990s, destroyed his legacy of optimism in the 2000s, staked out no-compromise policy positions betraying their working-class voter base, and with their rhetoric and political positioning helped create the Trump monster.
So many differences to observe.
Quote from: Brian on April 01, 2016, 05:54:37 AM
I observe a difference between seeing a lesson to learn, and calling for totalitarian action. (Hey, that's also the problem with the Polish government...)
I don't know that I'd give Obama much credit for destroying the Republican Party. That's like giving George Bush Sr. credit for destroying the USSR. The credit belongs mainly to Norquist, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Cruz, Rubio, the Tea Party, and the whole gang of extremists who destroyed Reagan's legacy of pragmatism in the 1990s, destroyed his legacy of optimism in the 2000s, staked out no-compromise policy positions betraying their working-class voter base, and with their rhetoric and political positioning helped create the Trump monster.
Amen, little brother! As I have said before: I didn't leave the Republican Party, they left me! >:D
8)
http://www.lapresse.ca/international/dossiers/maison-blanche-2016/201604/01/01-4966544-trump-et-les-medias-des-journalistes-accuses-davoir-trahi-la-nation.php (http://www.lapresse.ca/international/dossiers/maison-blanche-2016/201604/01/01-4966544-trump-et-les-medias-des-journalistes-accuses-davoir-trahi-la-nation.php)
Although the article is in French, the graph (scroll down, down) speaks its numbers in any language.
Trump has been given a media coverage that amounts to a 1.9 billion $ free pass in ad money, about 6 times as much as the coverage given Cruz. All others trail in the dust.
The Huffington Post has taken to putting a 'warning' on all its Trump campaign articles, labeling him a compulsive liar, misogyne, xenophobe and racist.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 01, 2016, 06:11:20 AM
Amen, little brother! As I have said before: I didn't leave the Republican Party, they left me! >:D
8)
Sometimes a party will taken the opposite position to create a difference to fight over. There are ways to make it work, say if Obama steals your health plan, you come up with a better one. Repubs, though, are boxed in by their requirement that it be a bad plan. They can't make Obamacare better without endorsing their former position. They can claim the plan has been incompetently carried out, but that would require them to justify denying benefits the plan offers to citizens of Red states. That's the major flaw. How can they fight over how well the plan has been carried out without proposing the flaw be fixed?
The Repub electorate has finally come to the conclusion that the party has nothing to offer them. Paul Krugman says:
"After all, what is the modern GOP? A simple model that accounts for just about everything you see is that it's an engine designed to harness white resentment on behalf of higher incomes for the donor class." What Repubs disagree? Is a vote for Trump a disagreement?
Obamacare on Track (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/obamacare-on-track/)
OK, 2 cheers for Obamneycare. I withhold a 3rd on the grounds that it's failure was supposed to prove the necessity of a single payer system. Apparently it won't work that way. There's too much success in it for that, so we'll be committed to failure reduction inside the plan.
Quote from: drogulus on April 01, 2016, 07:40:48 AM"After all, what is the modern GOP? A simple model that accounts for just about everything you see is that it's an engine designed to harness white resentment on behalf of higher incomes for the donor class."
You mean who disagrees with you and Paul Krugman, two paragons of objective, non-partisan analysis?
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2016, 07:44:41 AM
You mean who disagrees with you and Paul Krugman, two paragons of objective, non-partisan analysis?
When you're right, you're right, even if you're partisan. Repubs are finding their own way to agree while hating the Krug. I'm OK with that, let them put it in their own words.
Quote from: drogulus on April 01, 2016, 07:55:51 AMWhen you're right, you're right, even if you're partisan.
Let us all know when you are right, because here you're not.
Quote from: Brian on April 01, 2016, 05:54:37 AM
the problem with the Polish government...)
Charles Crawford is the former UK ambassador to Warsaw, 2003-2007. Here´s what he says on the matter:
http://charlescrawford.biz/2015/11/12/poland-gets-a-new-government/ (http://charlescrawford.biz/2015/11/12/poland-gets-a-new-government/)
http://charlescrawford.biz/2016/01/31/poland-threatens-europe/ (http://charlescrawford.biz/2016/01/31/poland-threatens-europe/)
http://charlescrawford.biz/2016/01/13/poland-and-eu-again/ (http://charlescrawford.biz/2016/01/13/poland-and-eu-again/)
http://charlescrawford.biz/2016/01/07/pis-and-polands-democracy/ (http://charlescrawford.biz/2016/01/07/pis-and-polands-democracy/)
You might also find this comment by a Polish citizen interesting (long quote but very illuminating):
Contrary to the alarmist media reports we, the free citizens of Poland, want to reassure you that in Poland today there are no threats to democracy. The mainstream media in the West, taking cues from the Polish mainstream press and those connected to the last government (recently ejected from office for corruption) continue to criticise the current freshly, democratically elected government and deliver incomplete accounts of the actions on the ground. This active "spin" is meant to obfuscate the truth about the last 8 years as well as to "poison the well" for those elected with the largest democratic mandate in modern Polish history. (This is the first government elected with a unilateral mandate to govern without coalition partners.) This propagandist treatment is occurring at an unceasing and even increasing pace from those who cannot claim objectivity as they have been personally, professionally, and financially connected to those who have just been ejected from government for many years. No one in Poland denies that a free people are endowed with a right to public protest. This is self-evident in a modern democracy. But western press accounts strongly suggest that this is the case in Poland today.
It is important to set the record straight that during the last eight years in Poland this was NOT the case and these democratic ideals were not always upheld. It was during the ruling years of the Civic Platform and the Polish People's Party (PO-PSL) coalition that these standards, generally accepted by contemporary democracies, were frequently and brazenly violated. For the record, here are some examples of what transpired in clear breach of democratic norms under the PO-PSL ruling coalition years:
– Independent journalists were repeatedly harassed by the security agencies. The staff of, among others, Gazeta Polska Codzienne (GPC) had their homes searched. In May 2011, at 6:00 AM the agents of the Internal Security Agency entered the private residential apartment of an Internet user who operated a satirical website lampooning then President, Bronisław Komorowski.
– Independent journalists were dismissed from their posts when they pushed for a transparent investigation into the Smolensk crash. Tomasz Sakiewicz and Anita Gargas, among others, lost their jobs in the public media. Cezary Gmyz was dismissed from the editorial staff of "Rzeczpospolita" (a daily paper partly owned by the state) for publishing information indicating that there were traces of TNT found on the wreck of the plane that crashed in Smolensk in April 2010. This information was later confirmed by the prosecutors leading the investigation.
– In June 2014, agents of the Internal Security Agency raided the headquarters of the news weekly "Wprost" after the magazine published the transcripts of recorded conversations held by some of the highest level PO politicians in Warsaw's most expensive restaurants. During this raid the agents attempted to confiscate computers and data storage devices belonging to the journalists. The so called "tape scandal" ("afera taśmowa") that had erupted upon publication of the content of these tapes, provided evidence of many scandalous and criminal behaviours, including the revelation that state-owned companies actively subsidized those media platforms that were writing in favour of the ruling government. It was only the large scale mainstream media outlets, sympathetic to the ruling coalition government and by design NOT covering the government's corruption scandals, who were the recipients of lucrative advertising contracts from Poland's largest companies (which are in-part state-owned enterprises with large discretionary budgets). For this reason the independent media, regardless of readership or audience, were deprived of paid-for commercial advertising opportunities by government fiat.
– In December 2014, two journalists (Tomasz Gzela of the Polish Press Agency and Jan Pawlicki of Telewizja Republika) were arrested. They were covering the protest held at the headquarters of the National Electoral Commission after the local elections. For a week after the election the Commission would not certify the results of the elections which agitated many Poles with a material contingent deciding to protest by occupying the premises of the Commission in a demand for electoral transparency and oversight. The journalists were arrested even though they possessed press passes and were doing their job. They also had to face a lawsuit. All this was going on against the backdrop of the highest level PO politicians such as the then-President (Komorowski) and the Mayor of Warsaw (Waltz) giving public comments that it was an act of treason to question electoral processes and opacity. Likewise, the head of the Constitutional Tribunal, Andrzej Rzeplinski, despite having no legal right to do so, publically stated that there were no grounds to question the results of the election. To this very day the results of these last local elections remain highly questionable. The shining example of this pertains to PSL having received well more votes than expected (by a factor of 10) in a region (Gdynia) where they have had little historical support yet enough votes to give them the ability to preserve PO's ruling coalition. In addition, there still remain two thousand protest notes lodged in local courts.
– During the last 8 years the previous government kept journalists and citizens under surveillance as a routine practice. In 2014, the secret service applied to access 2,177,000 telephone bills. This is a Europe-leading level of prying into ordinary citizens' every-day lives. The District Public Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw is currently leading an investigation into the wiretapping of independent journalists. In all likelihood, the secret service had no court warrant to do so.
– In May 2015, after the Presidential election was lost by President Bronisław Komorowski, the PO-PSL coalition violated the constitution and appointed new members of the Constitutional Tribunal before the justices' terms were up. The politicians of the departing coalition wanted to appropriate the Tribunal by limiting the right of the new ruling party to elect judges of their choice. Today, after the reforms implemented by the democratically elected Law and Justice Party (PiS), the judges elected by the Civic Platform still constitute the majority. They occupy 9 of 15 seats in the Constitutional Tribunal.
These are just a few glaring examples of the way in which the last government subverted democracy to its will to engage in an attempted looting of the country (and in many ways having succeeded). Similar violations of civil liberties became the norm but they went unreported by a pliant media that was directly and indirectly on the previous government's payroll. The number of corruption scandals that occurred under this PO-PSL coalition government was staggering. These encompassed every sort of corrupt behaviour from bribes (to one minster in the form of expensive watches), to patronage, to bogus un-bid contracts, to self-dealing of bonuses and pensions, to preferential tax treatment for allies and supporters, and even the nationalization of the private sector managed segment of the pension system. Under their nose a pyramid scheme ("Amber Gold") flourished and many thousands of Poles were cheated out of their savings while the politically connected head of the National Bank said nothing despite having been fully aware of the scheme (also revealed in the "tapes scandal"). And all of this occurring with a media complex that could not be bothered to report on this institutionalized lawlessness. On October 25th this year the public said enough is enough and in a democratic election, with not a single allegation of any irregularities, rebuked and removed the PO-PSL coalition from power.
Democracy in Poland is the healthiest it has been in 25 years and certainly as compared to the eight years under the previous government. The people have finally purged, through democratic elections, the post-communist machine that was never held to account or reformed after 1989 and its accompanying corruption. The reform begins now and Poles are optimistic....despite what has been printed in the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2016, 08:03:37 AM
Let us all know when you are right, because here you're not.
Krugman is only saying that what the Repubs do fits the formula. You can infer motives about realistic expectations of the negative results for the economy. That's too much credit to award the Repub establishment. That would require them to
know how bad supply side "shrink to grow" is when they choose it. It's more like wanting to believe that this time it will work, and we can favor our interests by not looking too closely at the dismal outcomes. This time we
will neglect our way to prosperity! It's a very "beliefy" understanding, the world is wrong if the ideas don't pan out. Krugman doesn't make explicit whether the Repub program is the effect of actions or intentions, but I don't see this as a resolvable question. How much do Repubs know, and how much is the convenience of aligning beliefs with interests? "A simple model that accounts for just about everything you see" correctly leaves that question for another time.
Quote from: drogulus on April 01, 2016, 08:48:31 AMIt's a very "beliefy" understanding
I see. Sorta like belief in MMT.
Quote from: Florestan on April 01, 2016, 08:34:34 AMContrary to the alarmist media reports we, the free citizens of Poland, want to reassure you that in Poland today there are no threats to democracy.
I guess some of his compatriots didn't get the memo.
https://www.youtube.com/v/DKGoIvpL9sk
Florestan: The people getting their will is a good thing. The people's will is not always a good thing. That's democracy for you.
It's look to me like the Poles are currently milking as much as they can from the benefits of being an EU member without delivering on their obligations. They probably should be kicked out and left to be another Ukraine, but the desperately undemocratic EU politicians (according to you) don't want that.
Quote from: The new erato on April 01, 2016, 09:20:03 AMThe people getting their will is a good thing. The people's will is not always a good thing.
Which is exactly why a central government set up with checks and balances (eg, competing branches jealous of each other's power) and some convoluted election processes (eg, the Electoral College) can be viewed as very good things. Majoritarian tyranny is the worst because it can be seen as legitimate from a democratic standpoint.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2016, 09:39:13 AM
Which is exactly why a central government set up with checks and balances (eg, competing branches jealous of each other's power) and some convoluted election processes (eg, the Electoral College) can be viewed as very good things. Majoritarian tyranny is the worst because it can be seen as legitimate from a democratic standpoint.
Indeed, and why I dont support Florestans (to me) pretty naive view that major issues should be decided by referendum. It's much better to have a well balanced system with much transparency, little corruption, a free press and the real option of replacing politicians that don't perform both in the long and the short run. Which seem to be exactly the opposite direction in which Poland currently is heading.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 01, 2016, 09:18:47 AM
I guess some of his compatriots didn't get the memo.
https://www.youtube.com/v/DKGoIvpL9sk
Big deal! Supporters and sympathizers of the former government protest against the newly elected government. What is this supposed to prove, other than that democracy is alive and well in Poland? That the government is wrong? I can post videos of equally numerous supporters and sympathizers of PiS marching in support of the newly elected government. Would you accept that as a prove that the government is right?
Quote from: Florestan on April 01, 2016, 09:57:28 AMWhat is this supposed to prove, other than that democracy is alive and well in Poland? That the government is wrong? I can post videos of equally numerous supporters and sympathizers of PiS marching in support of the newly elected government. Would you accept that as a prove that the government is right?
All I'm saying is that Poles are divided and many feel their democracy
is threatened. That's not 'western reporting', that's reality.
Quote from: orfeo on March 31, 2016, 02:53:59 PM
Yes, and in some cases you have to wonder how on earth a particular position became associated with one end of the spectrum. Gay marriage, for example, still gets thrown around in Australia as a left/right issue despite the fact that in New Zealand and the UK it's been a leader from the right-hand side of the spectrum that has introduced gay marriage.
And why the hell does disbelief in climate change become a right-wing position? This is actually one of the issues that brings to the forefront this whole notion of leftist conspiracies. The only reason I can think of for assigning belief in climate change to the left side of politics is that scientists tell us it's a global problem that needs global solutions.
No, it's because leftist politicians are the ones pushing it, despite the fact that 1) the evidence that global warming is caused by human activity is far less conclusive than proponents of the idea claim (in part because we don't know a lot of things about how earth's climate change is driven by non human causes) and 2) there is no real evidence that the earth growing warmer is harmful to humans or to the environment in general. Earth has been much warmer than it is now, some of those warm times in relatively recent history, with no demonstrable harm to the geosphere (and no possibility of human actions causing it to be warmer). In fact, there is a substantial argument to be made that a warmer earth is better for humans (in large part because of it allows more areas to be used to grow food).
It does not help that a few (non US) officials have said from time to time that it's a great opportunity to force the First World to stop growing economically and give more subsidies to the Third World. Apparently Third World pollution does not hurt the globe as badly as First World pollution.
Plus the Left likes to claim any climate change skeptic is deluded or paid off by the Koch Brothers, while ignoring funding of their side from some of the standard financial supporters of the Left like Soros.
Quote from: The new erato on April 01, 2016, 09:48:26 AM
Indeed, and why I dont support Florestans (to me) pretty naive view that major issues should be decided by referendum.
Poor naive Swiss, literally breathing referendums.
Yes, I do think and believe that when it comes to major issues people should have the last word. It is not for Merkel and the EU bureaucracy that nobody anywhere ever elected to decide what Poland, Hungary and Romania --- or France, Spain and Denmark, for that matter --- should do in questions which regards the protection of the national territory, the security of their citizens and the preservation of their religious and cultural identity. The EU bureaucracy is not even capable of securing Brussels and is constantly pushing their multicultural agenda despite its obvious and tragic failure yet they pretend that they know best what is to be done for the security of the whole Europe: precisely to push it harder everywhere, even, or especially, where popular sentiment is firmly against it.
So I understand very well why the EU elites are afraid of national referendums : they might strike a deadly blow to their liberal-cosmopolitan agenda* and question their very existence and privileges.
*(which is questioned or downright ejected by an ever-increasing number of citizens, from Lisbon to Bucharest and from Stockholm to Athens --- but hey, they are just uneducated and unenlightened bigots, as opposed to the EU bureaucracy which is a beacon of wisdom and foresightedness...)
Quote
It's look to me like the Poles are currently milking as much as they can from the benefits of being an EU member without delivering on their obligations. They probably should be kicked out
Oh, please! I know what´s going on in Romania and I have serious reasons to believe it is not that much different in Poland: Austrian OMV in control of all oil resources of the country; another Austrian company deforestating the mountains big time; Italian and US companies building highways at three times the price and the time in their countries; IKEA making huge profits and paying risible taxes and shaneful wages, just like many more Western Europe big corporations and companies; a host of Western Europe big banks making equally huge profits and having onerous credit conditions; small businesses and small farmers ruined, big corporations thriving etc, etc, etc --- go tell all those I just mentioned that Romania or Poland (the two largest Eastern European markets) should be kicked out of EU.
And btw: when it comes to discouraging Russia from attacking Poland or Romania or the Baltic States militarily, NATO is the first and foremost deterrent. God help us if our protection depended first and foremost on EU.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 01, 2016, 10:22:16 AM
All I'm saying is that Poles are divided and many feel their democracy is threatened.
As Charles Crawford remarked in one of the articles I linked to above, that can be said about pretty much any country in Western Europe as well --- and by itself it constitutes no proof that this is so.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2016, 09:14:22 AM
I see. Sorta like belief in MMT.
It's more important to understand it. I don't waste my time "believing in" it. It sums up what's known to be true, not a theory so much as a handbook that corrects common errors. I can see why people at the believer pole of the spectrum don't much care for it. Other people who care about accurate descriptions of function see the point, which is not to be blinded by beliefs.
Quote from: The new erato on April 01, 2016, 09:48:26 AM
Indeed
Indeed?? I vividly remember you not being at all a fan of primaries or the Electoral Ciollege. What made you change your mind overnight?
Quote
It's much better to have a well balanced system with much transparency, little corruption, a free press and the real option of replacing politicians that don't perform both in the long and the short run. Which seem to be exactly the opposite direction in which Poland currently is heading.
Which is actually exactly what happened in Poland: corrupt, unperforming and unpopular politicians were replaced after free elections. Yet instead of rejoicing about democracy being served you cry "Danger!"
As for free press, it was exactly the former PO government which feared it, as shown by the frequent and flagrant violations of its freedom --- all well documented in numerous articles in the free Polish press, some of which were translated and offered to the public by the equally free Romanian press. Why the Norwegian press seem to have ignored them I will not venture to speculate.
Quote
The people's will is not always a good thing.
And just who is entitled to decide, and on what grounds, when it is good and when it is not?
Quote from: drogulus on April 01, 2016, 12:07:03 PMIt sums up what's known to be true
Written like a true
believer.
Only a true believer would think there is no knowledge, just opinion. I think otherwise. In the process of understanding money and economics, something that interested me, and became increasingly important for investor reasons, I investigated. What type of framework to adopt was the problem. I needed something more fact of the matter than the usual liberal/conservative beliefism. I found MMT, and learned how it wasn't a theory, but the culmination of a winnowing of theory through the filter of experience. The profession doesn't take kindly to the facts first approach, the enemy of opinionism. Economists tend to stick close to their early education, so when they learn that a money system gets its money from taxing the people that get their money from the selfsame money system, well, no wonder they never believe anything true again. How could they with a household view of the whole system?
An interesting point about the eternal war between liberals and conservatives is that where they disagree most strongly they are largely right, and where they tend to agree they are largely wrong.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 01, 2016, 11:02:39 AM
No, it's because leftist politicians are the ones pushing it, despite the fact that 1) the evidence that global warming is caused by human activity is far less conclusive than proponents of the idea claim (in part because we don't know a lot of things about how earth's climate change is driven by non human causes)
Have you checked the scientific (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus) consensus (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) recently?
Quote2) there is no real evidence that the earth growing warmer is harmful to humans or to the environment in general.
Not sure if the people of Maldives would agree. Also.. (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/03/30/great-barrier-reef-hit-by-widespread-coral-bleaching.html)
Quote from: drogulus on April 01, 2016, 04:29:30 PMI found MMT, and learned how it wasn't a theory, but the culmination of a winnowing of theory through the filter of experience.
That's not what MMT is (the 'T' gives it away), but clearly you've deluded yourself. Keep on keepin' on.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 01, 2016, 04:37:09 PMNot sure if the people of Maldives would agree. Also.. (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/03/30/great-barrier-reef-hit-by-widespread-coral-bleaching.html)
Long-term (ie, >25 years) real estate investment advice: do not invest in the Maldives or Florida coastal real estate. Southeastern Georgia (USA) looks good, though.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 01, 2016, 04:37:09 PM
Have you checked the scientific (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus) consensus (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) recently?
Not sure if the people of Maldives would agree. Also.. (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/03/30/great-barrier-reef-hit-by-widespread-coral-bleaching.html)
I did not say global warming is not happening. I think it is. The weather in Florida (where I live) has changed in ways that accord with it.
The two points to remember
1)The effects of warming are not really known, and the threats of disaster are based on speculation. Warm earth actually seems to be beneficial. Sea level rise, etc. are pure speculation, and the research is on both sides of that precise point rather weak.
2). The earth has been much warmer in the past, with both coral and polar bears surviving quite well. These warm periods were all by natural causes, and scientists do not have a firm idea of what factors were involved. Since they do not understand the natural causes, it is impossible for them to know what influence human activity has on climate. Anyone who says otherwise is departing from the facts, no matter how many scientific credentials they have.
Notice how many of the cites in that Wikipedia article hedge...they say it is "highly likely" etc. The recent ones also ignore the fact that at the moment climate is not moving in either direction. The last few years have seen a relative standstill. The other statements are merely proving that science is not immune to corruption and go-with-the-flow. But notice how often the argument for government action is made by the recipients of government funding. A couple of decades ago, the fad was that Earth was cooling too much: the same "solution" of government control was advocated then, in some instances by the same people yelling about warming now.
In truth, the medieval period was warm compared to now, followed by a much colder period that lasted into the 1700s, when it started to warm up. This happened to coincide with the start of the Industrial Age-- but was not caused by it. We are now approaching the warmth of the medieval era, but not all the way (Greenland had agriculture then), and there is no reliable data on how much warmer we will get. IOW, Mother Nature is doing her cyclical thing, and science does not really know much about it. I don't own beachfront property: too expensive.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2016, 05:18:59 PM
That's not what MMT is (the 'T' gives it away), but clearly you've deluded yourself. Keep on keepin' on.
I lost track....What is MMT?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 01, 2016, 06:12:19 PM
I lost track....What is MMT?
Modern Monetary Theory. Basically, the government of a monetarily sovereign nation like the US can print an unlimited amount of money to buy central government debt to purchase whatever central governments purchase, without negative consequences. A lefty wet-dream.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2016, 06:15:39 PM
Modern Monetary Theory. Basically, the government of a monetarily sovereign nation like the US can print an unlimited amount of money to buy central government debt to purchase whatever central governments purchase, without negative consequences. A lefty wet-dream.
I get it. A never ending Ponzi scheme.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 01, 2016, 06:22:56 PM
I get it. A never ending Ponzi scheme.
The description of how the government spends money into existence should not be confused with what is called Fed "printing". The money sovereign spends to add money to the private sector, taxes to remove excess and sells bonds for safe savings instruments. A central tenet of Post Keynesians including MMTers is that the government must spend in order to tax. It never taxes in order to spend. It can't "get" or have dollars, it only spends or taxes them. As a matter of precedence it must add before it removes. As for spending more than it taxes, it had better or there wouldn't be enough dollars as savings removes them. Saved dollars are replaced, and that replacement of national financial savings is called the national debt. Some people want to "fix" national savings by eliminating the liabilities that record them. They want to tax the savings/debt away. Most of these people are probably too far gone for MMT.
It's a Ponzi scheme when a currency user acts like a currency issuer. That's bad. But when a currency issuer acts like a currency user, that's worse. The whole economy is victimized by the "run out of dollars" myth.
We wouldn't have a debt limit law if there was some kind of economic limit on sovereign debt in its own money. We have such laws because, oh, something like "the government of a monetarily sovereign nation like the US can print an unlimited amount of money to buy central government debt to purchase whatever central governments purchase, without negative consequences."
Because what MMT says is functionally accurate,(for MMTers, this is a big thing), the outlandishly bogus debt limit is needed. There'd be no point otherwise.
If anyone is interested in simple but accurate descriptions you can read:
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT): How Fiat Money Works (http://dailyreckoning.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-fiat-money-works/)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 01, 2016, 11:02:39 AM
2) there is no real evidence that the earth growing warmer is harmful to humans or to the environment in general. Earth has been much warmer than it is now, some of those warm times in relatively recent history, with no demonstrable harm to the geosphere (and no possibility of human actions causing it to be warmer). In fact, there is a substantial argument to be made that a warmer earth is better for humans (in large part because of it allows more areas to be used to grow food).
This is a politics thread, not a science thread, but suffice to say I find this an utterly clueless remark. It's not merely the temperature,
but the rate at which it changes.
Because various animal and plant species (ones that have got to where they are without human intervention) are not going to be able to up and migrate to the appropriate climate area when their current location is no longer suitable. The notion that humans might be able to exploit new foodbowls is all very well so long as you have no concept of how important ecology and biodiversity are, and think everything's just fine so long as human beings have 50-odd species to live off.
The only people who say the science is not settled are people who don't want it to be settled. Meanwhile, actual scientists tell us that the key points of the science are settled, and now they're just filling out the details.
But people don't like change, and will find any possible excuse not to change their behaviour and to explain that it's perfectly fine for them to continue dumping copious amounts of gaseous waste into the atmosphere. Of course, once upon a time people thought nothing of dumping their liquid waste into rivers and their solid waste into the street. Until some crazy scientists somewhere declared that this was killing the fish and creating a public health risk in the cities.
Quote from: orfeo on April 01, 2016, 09:05:53 PM
The only people who say the science is not settled are people who don't want it to be settled. Meanwhile, actual scientists tell us that the key points of the science are settled, and now they're just filling out the details.
Quoted for truth.
Quote from: orfeo on April 01, 2016, 09:05:53 PM
actual scientists tell us that the key points of the science are settled, and now they're just filling out the details.
That´s exactly what physicists were confidently telling people just few years before Max Planck came up with the quantum theory and blew their settled physics up. ;D
::)
Okay, fine then. Pumping millions of tonnes of gases into the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever. Not only are they invisible, they're completely inert and have no physical or chemical properties of interest or relevance. They might as well not exist.
Also, you can eat as many calories as you want with no impact on your weight and I can show you how to spend all the money you want without draining your bank account.
That the earth was warmer in the past is a moot point. Of course it was. Even with global warming we will still be in a "cold" period in geological terms as long as the polar ice caps remain. But most of the US gulf coast, half of the Netherlands or Bangladesh becoming inundated, most of the US southwest and parts of California completely unable to sustain even a fraction of the current population due to drought etc. would have an impact exceeding World War III. (And southern Siberia or so becoming the world's breadbasket would also be non-negligible for such a devastated world.)
I am looking forward (I might be too old to live to see it, though) to when the ones now "coldly" balancing risks and changes of climate change and claiming it might be beneficial overall (and that of course the benefits of wasting fuel and poisoning the world for our current level of luxurious life in the west tops everything else) to keep telling this to 50 Million displaced Americans because of floods in the gulf regions and SW desertification...
Not to mention what will happen when the already dry parts of Africa and the Middle east becomes even less hospitable to those already living there....
Well, for starters there's some reasonable evidence that the Syrian civil war was triggered by a massive drought.
Quote from: orfeo on April 01, 2016, 11:18:08 PM
. . . and I can show you how to spend all the money you want without draining your bank account.
That would be really, really useful!
Quote from: orfeo on April 01, 2016, 11:18:08 PM
::)
Okay, fine then. Pumping millions of tonnes of gases into the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever. Not only are they invisible, they're completely inert and have no physical or chemical properties of interest or relevance. They might as well not exist.
Also, you can eat as many calories as you want with no impact on your weight and I can show you how to spend all the money you want without draining your bank account.
If you address all the above as an oblique criticism of my previous comment, then you are criticizing a
non sequitur: I have previously stated in plain English that anyone whio denies global warming is either an idiot or has vested interests in doing so. (Search GMG if in doubt)
Regardless, it is an objectively verifiable fact that physicists were confidently telling people that the key points of physics were settled, and at the time they were just filling out the details, just a few years before Max Planck came up with the quantum theory and blew their whole settled physics up.
And regardless still, if it were true that the key points of science are settled, and now [the scientists] are just filling out the details --- then it would amount to declaring that in a few years / decades time scientists will have reached the absolute limit of knowledge and there will be nothing more to be known besides what we already know, except a few details here and there. And here we go again, pointing back at the time when the physicists were confidently telling people that the key points of physics were settled, and they were just filling out the details, just a few years before Max Planck came up with the quantum theory and blew their whole settled physics up.
Once upon a time, there was a guy who stated "I know that I don´t know anything." Nowadays, there are a lot of guys who state "I know that I know everything." Pick your choice, gentlemen!
I know how science works, and how nothing is ever truly settled. It's all only as valid as the next contrary result.
The problem is you are utterly muddying the waters by bringing this up now, in this context. And in fact, despite your assertion that it is idiotic to deny global warming, it is exactly this kind of comment about science that gives validation to the idiots who deny global warming, and who don't understand how the scientific method works.
Quantum physics is not exactly the most useful comparison to something as practically oriented as climate science. For all practical purposes, the scientific consensus is in as you yourself agree. When I talk about filling in the details, there are a colossal number of 'details' to fill in. But by piping up with comments like yours, you're not helping the political debate about global warming in the slightest.
Okay?
Quote from: orfeo on April 02, 2016, 05:40:13 AM
I know how science works, and how nothing is ever truly settled.
I didn´t expect otherwise.
Quote
The problem is you are utterly muddying the waters by bringing this up now, in this context.
Do you imply that there is a
now and a
context for truth? Do you imply that there are truths which it is inconvenient to state
now and
in this context?
Quote
And in fact, despite your assertion that it is idiotic to deny global warming, it is exactly this kind of comment about science that gives validation to the idiots who deny global warming, and who don't understand how the scientific method works.
If my stating that two plus two equals four would result in someoone being put to death, should I refrain from stating that two plus two equals four?
Quote
you're not helping the political debate about global warming in the slightest.
I am not in the slightest interested in helping
the political debate. What I am interested in is
the purely scientific debate --- which is far from being settled.
Quote
Okay?
Fine with me, anyway. :laugh:
Quote from: drogulus on April 01, 2016, 07:36:48 PMThe description of how the government spends money into existence should not be confused with what is called Fed "printing".
Even in an MMT world, governments simply can't "spend". They must spend money. That money need not be printed. (Economists have long defined the money supply in a variety of ways, and literally no economist on earth confuses printed currency with the broader concept of money.) But that money must come from somewhere. Where it comes from is replacing open market operations by the treasury (ie, selling debt on the open market) with direct bond sales to the central bank. In its simplest form, in the US, MMTers want the Fed to keep doing what it has been doing since 2008 forever. What can go wrong? Well, if you listen to MMTers, nothing! If this sounds like one of those too good to be true things, it is.
Quote from: The new erato on April 01, 2016, 09:25:11 PM
Quoted for truth.
Let's assume the science is settled. The politics is not. That's practically far more important.
The big problem is that, using IPCC estimates, the long-term sustainable per capita carbon emissions per year is around two tons. Even in France, that will necessitate a 2/3rds decrease in carbon emissions per person. In the US, that requires a 90% decrease. Since there is an exceptionally strong correlation between carbon emissions and income and wealth, drastic reduction in measurable carbon emissions necessarily requires a reduction in income and wealth. (This assumes, of course, that policy makers would attempt a somewhat egalitarian set of policies that would distribute carbon emissions more equally around the globe.) Now, replacing fossil fuel as the main source of energy production will help to mitigate a decrease in income and wealth, but with existing technologies, and those on the drawing board, it will not offset the decrease. Politicians need to be clear that significantly reducing carbon emissions to stop anthropogenic climate change will necessarily require the rich modern world becoming significantly poorer. No one wants to do that. Often, politicians will say the opposite. They will say if only we switch to solar power and make a few, minor lifestyle changes, we can continue to be fat and happy and meet desirable CO2 emission goals, among other goals. We can have our cake and eat it, too.
But it's already too late. There are measures being taken by some countries and entities to mitigate climate change, but the measures are not enough to reach the IPCC's stated goals, let alone to prevent the most alarmist scientists' prognostications of doom. So we, meaning the world's population, are in a situation where policy trade-offs must be made between mitigation and adaptation, and we will witness some worsening scenarios throughout the world. The Maldives will literally cease to exist, possibly in my lifetime. Millions will die in poorer coastal areas and other areas hit by shifting climate patterns. To be sure, heroic efforts will (and should) be undertaken to save lives and to adapt, but it's already too late to stop significant changes. Wars will be fought over water; migration away from environmentally devastated areas will increase the world over; sea levels will continue to rise, destroying great cities (but making sea wall contractors rich in the short and medium term!); food prices will rise (this is how most richer people will be directly affected); great storms will wreak havoc; and so on.
But how many people in the rich world are really willing to give up their goodies? How many people on this very forum own not one internet enabled device, but two, or four, or ten? How many people in richer countries buy new cellphones every year or two? Own two, three, four, or more TVs? Own a car? Take airplane trips? Buy 50-100+ CDs a year? Attend concerts at plush concert halls with comfy environmental controls? I personally know almost no one who has taken steps to significantly reduce their carbon footprint, and I know of relatively few. I get it, it's corporations' fault, it's governments' fault. That makes it easier to gripe about it while typing away on a petrochemical reliant keyboard.
Quote from: Todd on April 02, 2016, 06:28:39 AM
Even in an MMT world, governments simply can't "spend". They must spend money. That money need not be printed. (Economists have long defined the money supply in a variety of ways, and literally no economist on earth confuses printed currency with the broader concept of money.) But that money must come from somewhere. Where it comes from is replacing open market operations by the treasury (ie, selling debt on the open market) with direct bond sales to the central bank. In its simplest form, in the US, MMTers want the Fed to keep doing what it has been doing since 2008 forever. What can go wrong? Well, if you listen to MMTers, nothing! If this sounds like one of those too good to be true things, it is.
I see no reason to think "somewhere" isn't the money sovereign spending more than it taxes. The government must spend dollars, then they can be the national savings/debt. The bonds are a monetary, not fiscal requirement. Having spent new dollars to cover the savings loss to the economy, dollar savings instruments equal to the deficit are needed. The economy wants liquid, safe savings in dollar instruments. This used to be a way to avoid paying gold, now that's gone. Providing safe savings is still here.
What can go wrong is an interesting question. Since MMT is descriptive of operations and draws conclusions known to actual theories, what goes wrong is quite familiar. The government will spend too much or too little for full function. Full function itself is not a matter for dispute, all the measures will tend to cluster.
Conventional economics is pulled in 2 directions, budget balance and economic balance, spending for full function or spending equal to annual tax removal. The results of this "split the baby" approach are unsatisfactory. My particular interest is in a feature of the spend/tax circuit, and the way budgeteers and even a few economists wish to force the sun to come up.
What I mean is this: Spending and taxing are governed functionally by the poles of recession and inflation, not hard limits, more a matter of how much punishment and who feels it. The implications for the spend/tax circuit is that what returns as tax will inevitably rise along with spending, and that the time lag determines the effective money supply. Dollars that are spent and not saved, then spent on "exist" in the lag. They are spent into existence as new dollars, fall into savings after doing some work or end life in tax.
Now we come to the lower life form I call the budgeteer. A budgeteer is someone who acts as though an economy exists to serve a budget, even though it may try to think a budget is merely a tool or record of the financial position, it can't help thinking it's a goal in itself. Budgeteers do not think tax dollars must return according to how the economy is balanced. They don't don't think
not that, either. It's more a "something bad will happen" of a monster in the closet kind. Real world good and bad outcomes are already accounted for, so if it's not in the closet it's under the bed. The solution is to force the sun to come up in an annual budget, not outside. It's nuts, tax ought to come back when its best for the economy, but its the only way a budgeteer can understand things.
Quote from: Todd on April 02, 2016, 07:04:59 AM
Let's assume the science is settled.
Let´s assume ISIS adopt Inagine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_%28John_Lennon_song%29) as their anthem.
Quote
The politics is not.
Nor will it ever be.
Quote
That's practically far more important.
Practically? You kidding, man? The only answer to all questions, from global warming to Brussel islamic terrorist attacks is only one... Inagine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_%28John_Lennon_song%29) (if in doubt about Brussels, Google is your friend)
Quote
How many people on this very forum own not one internet enabled device, but two, or four, or ten? How many people in richer countries buy new cellphones every year or two? Own two, three, four, or more TVs? Own a car? Take airplane trips? Buy 50-100+ CDs a year? Attend concerts at plush concert halls with comfy environmental controls?
Ah, yes, the good ol´ rightist, reactionary, conservative, fascist, populist and PiS-ish trick of placing a mirror in front of a caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal cosmopolitan humanist environmentalist ecologist whatever-ist... you, Sir, are a Nazi, by Godwin´s beard! ;D
Quote
I personally know almost no one who has taken steps to significantly reduce their carbon footprint, and I know of relatively few.
You, Sir, are too stuck in real life --- you should get out more in Neverland!
Quote
I get it, it's corporations' fault, it's governments' fault.
Finally, you´ve seen the light!
No doubt there will be successive iterations of the climate change model that will make early efforts look crude. In this familiar way the science is not settled. Models are being refined all the time. What will continue to be true though is that scientists are better judges of the facts and implications of climate change than political operatives that don't accept the best science as guide.
I differ with oil companies in this respect, that while we accept the science (provisionally, of course), I say so, while oil companies know one thing and say another. They plan for what science tells them (what else could they do?) but they say "science is unsettled" in a way that suggests it's false.
Quote from: drogulus on April 02, 2016, 07:21:32 AMI see no reason to think "somewhere" isn't the money sovereign spending more than it taxes.
That's what most governments do. It's called deficit financing. MMT simply bypasses the open market and goes straight to debt monetization. That's it. Your writing is abstract to the point of being disconnected from practical reality. In the context of the US, your abstract notions also fail to account for the appropriations process at the federal level.
Fortunately, MMT will not be adopted in the US as a result of the 2016 election. I say let a nation like the UK try it first, especially if it separates from the EU, and see how it goes before committing the US to such a path.
Quote from: drogulus on April 02, 2016, 07:48:43 AM
What will continue to be true though is that scientists are better judges of the facts and implications of climate change than political operatives
That is true.
Quote
political operatives that don't accept the best science as guide.
Science is an admittedly objective thing;
best science is as subjective as it gets --- what constitutes
worst science, pray tell? And why is one good (nay, best) and the other bad (nay, worst)?
IOW, those of you who are professional scientists or engineeers raise your hand.
Quote from: Todd on April 02, 2016, 07:04:59 AMHow many people on this very forum own not one internet enabled device, but two, or four, or ten? How many people in richer countries buy new cellphones every year or two? Own two, three, four, or more TVs? Own a car? Take airplane trips? Buy 50-100+ CDs a year?
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 07:33:41 AMAh, yes, the good ol´ rightist, reactionary, conservative, fascist, populist and PiS-ish trick of placing a mirror in front of a caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal cosmopolitan humanist environmentalist ecologist whatever-ist... you, Sir, are a Nazi, by Godwin´s beard! ;D
Boy, I love it when somebody else pushes his cynicism on me!
I vote for politicians who take science seriously, I vote for parties that push for sustainable, long-term progress. I am more than willing to be taxed more to ensure my grand-grandchildren won't inherit a scorched Earth. I don't have a car, I try to buy local and yeah, I practice thorough waste sorting, which is a hated chore in my household.
Sure, I also fly low-cost. Or use a cellphone. But that doesn't nullify my caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal tendencies at all.
Of course we are already partially screwed and people are already hurting. But the amount of screwage and hurt can be mitigated – and a possible worldwide cataclysm averted, if societies adopt stances, that are, first of all, friggin'
sensible.
(http://i.imgur.com/up6yu.jpg)
We don't have to climb back on trees to keep this planet livable for 8+ billion people. We only have to embrace solutions that are already on the table and need a political push to be implemented / strived for. But hey, enjoy your conservative sneering, the future generations will remember it fondly.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 02, 2016, 08:11:27 AM
I am more than willing to be taxed more to ensure my grand-grandchildren won't inherit a scorched Earth.
How much are you taxed now? How much are you going to be taxed in the future should the party you vote for have it their way?
Quote
I try to buy local
How many times do you succeed?
Quote
Sure, I also fly low-cost. Or use a cellphone. But that doesn't nullify my caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal tendencies at all.
Do you really love, and care for, the whole world?
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 02, 2016, 08:11:27 AM
Boy, I love it when somebody else pushes his cynicism on me!
Do you mean like when politicians gathered in Paris and signed a treaty where emission limits are not binding?
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 02, 2016, 08:11:27 AMBut that doesn't nullify my caring, loving, bleeding heart liberal tendencies at all.
It doesn't nullify it, but it shows that you enjoy the carbon emission heavy
luxuries of being rich. Consumption of these products and services must decline. That means for you, too.
Quote from: Rinaldo on April 02, 2016, 08:11:27 AMWe don't have to climb back on trees to keep this planet livable for 8+ billion people.
Straw man. No one is claiming that humans must regress to a State of Nature type setting. However, the rich world must become poorer to achieve the IPCC's preferred goals. And vast transfers of wealth from the developed world to the developing world must also take place.
Of course, this does assume that you support the IPCC and its findings and goals. Do you agree with the IPCC's long-term per capita emission goals? If you do, and you think it possible that reducing carbon emissions by between 66% and 90% is possible without making people poorer, can you elaborate on how that will work and the timelines needed to achieve it?
Quote from: Todd on April 02, 2016, 08:34:02 AM
Of course, this does assume that you support the IPCC and its findings and goals. Do you agree with the IPCC's long-term per capita emission goals? If you do, and you think it possible that reducing carbon emissions by between 66% and 90% is possible without making people poorer, can you elaborate on how that will work and the timelines needed to achieve it?
The stock answer here is "magical science discovery!" I'm not betting on the stock answer.
Quote from: Todd on April 02, 2016, 07:04:59 AMSo we, meaning the world's population, are in a situation where policy trade-offs must be made between mitigation and adaptation, and we will witness some worsening scenarios throughout the world. The Maldives will literally cease to exist, possibly in my lifetime. Millions will die in poorer coastal areas and other areas hit by shifting climate patterns. To be sure, heroic efforts will (and should) be undertaken to save lives and to adapt, but it's already too late to stop significant changes. Wars will be fought over water; migration away from environmentally devastated areas will increase the world over; sea levels will continue to rise, destroying great cities (but making sea wall contractors rich in the short and medium term!); food prices will rise (this is how most richer people will be directly affected); great storms will wreak havoc; and so on.
The prospect that worries me most, geopolitically, is mass migration. Imagine everyone in Iraq, Jordan, and the whole Arabian peninsula trying to move into Russia, or Europe. In 100 years, even lovable Canada might be an exclusive preserve of wealth with dozens of Donald Trumps vowing to keep oot the flood of Texans, eh?
EDIT: The last bit of which is to remind that even some of the world's wealthiest people - in Texas, Miami, Singapore, Hong Kong, London - will have their lives irrevocably changed, and their ability to live in those places stripped away, by some of the changes that might be happening over the next century.
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2016, 08:50:45 AM
The stock answer here is "magical science discovery!" I'm not betting on the stock answer.
I am:
(http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/htip_back_to_future_mr_fusion_replica.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2016, 08:50:45 AMThe prospect that worries me most, geopolitically, is mass migration.
It's certainly one of the top two or three, at most, biggest concerns for the rest of this century. (It's hard to rule out nuclear proliferation, but I'm something of an old-fashioned guy in that regard.) Mass migration will be intensified by the availability of potable water, which risks turning into the next oil, in that wars will increasingly be fought over it. Mass migration already is leading to political chaos. Hard to see it getting better. And it is literally impossible to see any solutions that don't require rich nations spending more money on foreign aid. Checkbook diplomacy will become more important. I admit it, accept it, and embrace it.
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2016, 08:50:45 AM
The prospect that worries me most, geopolitically, is mass migration. Imagine everyone in Iraq, Jordan, and the whole Arabian peninsula trying to move into Russia, or Europe.
That´s too catastrophic a scenario. Let´s keep it realistic: many in Iraq, Syria, Lybia and Afghanistan want to move into Europe, and many, many more just do that.
Quoteeven some of the world's wealthiest people - in Texas, Miami, Singapore, Hong Kong, London - will have their lives irrevocably changed, and their ability to live in those places stripped away, by some of the changes that might be happening over the next century.
True. But some of those in Texas, Miami and London would reap nothing else than what they sowed.
QuoteThat's what most governments do. It's called deficit financing.
Yes, exactly. The government deficit is viewed according to its function. What's it for? It's for economic balance, running the system so we don't get too much inflation or unemployment, growth instead of stagnation. It's what we do, and the MMT part is just explaining it. Government spending is the funding, it's not funded. Taxation remove the excess on the same principle as the spending is governed, you add first, then subtract, with inflation and recession as the boundaries. So MMT is just as aware of the real boundaries to spend/tax policy as the less aware formulations, they just remove the insolvency myth and leave operational reality as a guide. It shouldn't change things that much, though it could lead to victory over the budgeteers in an enlightened world. I have doubts, though, about what could lead to an enlightened world. Household budgeteering seems to be in the bloodstream, however false it is to the operations of the non-household sector.
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 09:13:18 AM
That´s too catastrophic a scenario. Let´s keep it realistic: many in Iraq, Syria, Lybia and Afghanistan want to move into Europe, and many, many more just do that.
Well, with projections saying that areas like Dubai will regularly be 125+ degrees for weeks at a time in 1-2 generations, it may simply not be possible to live there, unless they find a way to stay indoors 100% of the time (and save enough money to afford the electric bill).
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 09:13:18 AM
True. But some of those in Texas, Miami and London would reap nothing else than what they sowed.
In most cases, it will be their children and grandchildren. The sins of the fathers will be visited on the sons and daughters who never had a chance to sow a thing.
Quote from: drogulus on April 02, 2016, 09:15:46 AMand the MMT part is just explaining it.
No, it isn't. That's wishful thinking, in the strict use of that phrase.
Here's my favorite climate projection interactive map. You can choose low or high emissions scenarios, which decade you want to see, and an approximate time of year to see what it'll be like in that season. Data comes from NASA.
http://climateinternational.org/
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2016, 09:17:34 AM
Well, with projections saying that areas like Dubai will regularly be 125+ degrees for weeks at a time in 1-2 generations
I´ve never been too keen on Sci-Fi.
QuoteThe sins of the fathers will be visited on the sons and daughters
Sounds like you´re quoting The Bible.
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 09:26:16 AM
I´ve never been too keen on Sci-Fi.
I was being a dumb American and using Fahrenheit, sorry about that. ;D I did not mean 125° Celsius.
The record for Dubai is 49°. In August, the city already sees an
average of 43°, and doing some Google News searching, I see the UAE hit 50° in June 2015 and 51.2° in August 2013. It is quite likely that in 50-60 years, Dubai will spend weeks at a time above 50° Celsius.
Quote from: Todd on April 02, 2016, 09:18:26 AM
No, it isn't. That's wishful thinking, in the strict use of that phrase.
My wishes don't come into it until later. I want any theory (or "theory") to work. If not spending to unbalance the economy was better than spending to balance it, that discovery would be a very significant one. The evidence does not support that path, hence the necessity for artificial constructions in practice and thought like an insolvency myth and debt limits. Stupid ideas compensate for the unfortunate tendency of the real world to behave otherwise. But the thing is, it's hard not to notice how stupid these ideas are. They're hardly worth the punishment to growth and prosperity they inflict for the pleasure of indulging intuitions. We could govern the economy along functional lines and the efficiency gains would certainly be worth it. Excess unemployment is inefficient, ignoring chronic low demand conditions and neglecting infrastructure investment is inefficient. It's waste, real waste, not the fantasy waste of deficits.
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2016, 09:25:39 AM
Here's my favorite climate projection interactive map. You can choose low or high emissions scenarios, which decade you want to see, and an approximate time of year to see what it'll be like in that season. Data comes from NASA.
http://climateinternational.org/
As a homeowner in Portland Metro area,
I love this map! Under high and low emission scenarios, my neck of the woods stays comfy. More people will likely move here. Combine that with the artificial scarcity of homes promoted by the local urban growth boundary, and my home should be worth a boatload of money when I retire. I can sell it off and move to a cheaper location in northern Washington State or maybe Montana with money to spare. Keep on pumpin' out emissions folks. It's good for me.
(Of course, this requires that the inevitable Cascadia Subduction Zone quake doesn't hit in the interim and utterly destroy the region. It will be worse than the big one in CA.)
Quote from: drogulus on April 02, 2016, 09:40:05 AMMy wishes don't come into it until later.
Of course they do. You are peddling MMT like it's something other than a theory not embraced by the economics profession as a whole, and stating it is part of explaining deficit financing. Deficit financing has been around for half a millennium. It's basics are well known. I get it, you're a convert, and you are earnest and enthusiastic in your support of your preferred theory. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make MMT something more than it is.
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2016, 09:35:48 AM
I did not mean 125° Celsius.
I am very well aware of that.
Quote
The record for Dubai is 49°. In August, the city already sees an average of 43°, and doing some Google News searching, I see the UAE hit 50° in June 2015 and 51.2° in August 2013. It is quite likely that in 50-60 years, Dubai will spend weeks at a time above 50° Celsius.
What was the average temperature in Dubai 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 300 years ago? 400 years ago? In the times of Muhammad? Earlier than Muhammad?
Quote from: Brian on March 31, 2016, 01:04:56 PM
Come to think of it Orban is another good example of a European Trump, in terms of policy
Here is the Constitution of Hungary (http://www.kormany.hu/download/e/02/00000/The%20New%20Fundamental%20Law%20of%20Hungary.pdf) adopted by the Hungarian Parliament during Orban´s being prime-minister. What articles do you take issues with, and why?
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 10:19:07 AM
Here is the Constitution of Hungary (http://www.kormany.hu/download/e/02/00000/The%20New%20Fundamental%20Law%20of%20Hungary.pdf) adopted by the Hungarian Parliament during Orban´s being prime-minister. What articles do you take issues with, and why?
Here (http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/hungary/Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20FL%20-Eng%20Corrected.pdf) is the Fourth amendment of the Hungarian Constitution, and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Orb%C3%A1n_Government#International_Criticism_of_Fourth_amendment_of_the_Constitution) are citings of criticism of it.
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 09:51:27 AM
What was the average temperature in Dubai 100 years ago? 200 years ago? 300 years ago? 400 years ago? In the times of Muhammad? Earlier than Muhammad?
Um, who cares? Are you saying people should live in 50° heat all the time because maybe somebody 2000 years ago did, too?
Quote from: North Star on April 02, 2016, 11:18:29 AM
Here (http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/hungary/Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20FL%20-Eng%20Corrected.pdf) is the Fourth amendment of the Hungarian Constitution
And you object to this amendment because... because what?
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 10:19:07 AM
Here is the Constitution of Hungary (http://www.kormany.hu/download/e/02/00000/The%20New%20Fundamental%20Law%20of%20Hungary.pdf) adopted by the Hungarian Parliament during Orban´s being prime-minister. What articles do you take issues with, and why?
I never mentioned the Constitution. You just want me to waste a bunch of time arguing with you. Orban's stance toward immigrants is one example of a Trump-Orban similarity which is clear without reading any constitutions.
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 11:30:49 AM
And you object to this amendment because... because what?
Okay, I guess I will waste some time now cuz I'm trying to avoid work. But after this, I will do work, listen to music, plan a holiday, and generally not argue back.
I'm skimming North Star's link to the Fourth Amendment.
1. I object to the definition of marriage as being exclusively heterosexual.
2. I object to "Hungary shall also protect the institution of family..." because this is meaningless rhetoric with no use.
3. I object to the President's lack of a veto power.
4. Article 5, Section 2 contains some potentially alarming restrictions on free speech. "Violating another person's dignity" and "violating the dignity of the Hungarian nation" are very vague and I suspect certain powerful people will use this to prosecute their enemies for sedition or slander.
5. Why on earth should you be required to get a job in order to receive financial aid for college? Why is that in the Constitution?
I stopped at page 6. I agree with North Star's criticism that this is too long for a single amendment and it smells like they were trying to pack through every possible change at once, rather than allowing free and open debate on each individual point.
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2016, 11:29:10 AM
Um, who cares?
If you are concerned about global warming,
you should care, because if the average temperature 100, 200 or 700 years ago was the same, or even higher, than it is now then there is no global warming in the Dubai region, right?
Anyway, since there is no way to know what was the average temperature in the Dubai area 100, 200 or 700 years ago, the only scientific conclusion one can draw is that the data are insufficient to make any meaningful comparison. Dubai is hot today and might be even hotter in the future, but this in no way implies it has not been at least as hot, or even hotter, in the past. As far as the Dubai area is concerned, global warming is pure speculation.
Quote
Are you saying people should live in 50° heat all the time because maybe somebody 2000 years ago did, too?
That´s a typical
non sequitur. Science is not about what people should do, it is about what is, was and will be.
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2016, 11:31:31 AM
I never mentioned the Constitution. You just want me to waste a bunch of time arguing with you. Orban's stance toward immigrants is one example of a Trump-Orban similarity which is clear without reading any constitutions.
How is Orban´s stance toward immigrants at variance with the Treaty of Dublin, which is the current enforceable EU regulation on the matter?
Quote from: Brian on April 02, 2016, 11:41:04 AM
Okay, I guess I will waste some time now cuz I'm trying to avoid work. But after this, I will do work, listen to music, plan a holiday, and generally not argue back.
I'm skimming North Star's link to the Fourth Amendment.
1. I object to the definition of marriage as being exclusively heterosexual.
2. I object to "Hungary shall also protect the institution of family..." because this is meaningless rhetoric with no use.
3. I object to the President's lack of a veto power.
4. Article 5, Section 2 contains some potentially alarming restrictions on free speech. "Violating another person's dignity" and "violating the dignity of the Hungarian nation" are very vague and I suspect certain powerful people will use this to prosecute their enemies for sedition or slander.
5. Why on earth should you be required to get a job in order to receive financial aid for college? Why is that in the Constitution?
I stopped at page 6. I agree with North Star's criticism that this is too long for a single amendment and it smells like they were trying to pack through every possible change at once, rather than allowing free and open debate on each individual point.
You guys don´t get it at all, do you? You are a US citizen, North Star is a Finnish citizen. On what grounds are you two qualified to object to a constitutional amendment adopted by the freely and democratically elected parliament of a sovereign nation other than your own? The Hungarian Constitution applies to, and concerns, solely and exclusively the Hungarian nation.
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 12:05:20 PM
You guys don´t get it at all, do you? You are a US citizen, North Star is a Finnish citizen. On what grounds are you two qualified to object to a constitutional amendment adopted by the freely and democratically elected parliament of a sovereign nation other than your own? The Hungarian Constitution applies to, and concerns, solely and exclusively the Hungarian nation.
Mmmm...this written in a thread where people from all over the world comment on the politics of the US? Strange...
Quote from: ritter on April 02, 2016, 12:09:31 PM
Mmmm...this written in a thread where people from all over the world comment on the politics of the US? Strange...
US politics is one thing (and it has consequences all over the world), US Constitution is quite another thing.
Quote from: Todd on April 02, 2016, 09:48:55 AM
Of course they do. You are peddling MMT like it's something other than a theory not embraced by the economics profession as a whole, and stating it is part of explaining deficit financing. Deficit financing has been around for half a millennium. It's basics are well known. I get it, you're a convert, and you are earnest and enthusiastic in your support of your preferred theory. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make MMT something more than it is.
It explains deficit spending well, but not in a way off limits to sensible economists in general. Yes, pretty much everything MMT says has been known for a long time. Calling it a theory is something the proponents didn't do. Randall Wray wanted to call it neochartalism, which is sensible and historically valid. The name stuck, though. Try not to read too much into it. Actually, I see you don't when you make the point that it's functional analysis draws on earlier formulations. I don't see why this would be a point against MMT. For me it's a point in favor. There shouldn't be much innovation in economic thought, as MMT itself shows, there's not much reason for it. Drawing on the good points of actual theories and practices strikes me as a good thing.
I found a neochartalism Wiki that helps:
Modern Monetary Theory synthesises ideas from the State Theory of Money of Georg Friedrich Knapp (also known as Chartalism) and Credit Theory of Money of Alfred Mitchell-Innes, the functional finance proposals of Abba Lerner, Hyman Minsky's views on the banking system and Wynne Godley's Sectoral balances approach.[4]
So, it's a theory, an old theory, a synthesis of theories, whatever.
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 06:01:27 AM
Do you imply that there is a now and a context for truth? Do you imply that there are truths which it is inconvenient to state now and in this context?
If my stating that two plus two equals four would result in someoone being put to death, should I refrain from stating that two plus two equals four?
Yes, and yes.
The difference between being a young know-it-all and a functioning adult is understanding that there is a time and a place for opening your mouth, and the time and place and method for stating the truth makes a colossal difference to its impact and how it's received.
If you want to see the consequences of getting your timing and context wrong, the plays of Shakespeare and many others should provide you with illustrations. Heck, I'm sure there are TV shows that provide illustrations. Only a true fool thinks that their job is to pipe up and blab the truth anywhere any time, without thought of the consequences.
But hey, it seems maybe you're so self-centred that your need to speak the truth is more important than another person's execution.
Quote from: orfeo on April 02, 2016, 02:41:29 PM
But hey, it seems maybe you're so self-centred that your need to speak the truth is more important than another person's execution.
Granted, that was a rather stupid example. Of course I would keep my mouth shut in such circumstances, which are purely speculative anyway.
Trump finds giant stash of fairy dust. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/trumps-nonsensical-claim-he-can-eliminate-19-trillion-in-debt-in-eight-years/)
Trump couldn't eliminate the national debt in 8 centuries, nor would anyone else. What would function in its place, asteroids full of gold? Can we monetize asteroids instead of creating new debt? It's a lot of trouble to go to for the purpose of replacing our "fiat asteroids". So long as dollars pay taxes they'll be accepted. It's a matter of governing price/quantity. Even conventional economists know this, via what they do, and a few even say so.
The significance of MMT for the election is that one of its leading lights is advising Bernie Sanders. I doubt he could be made to understand, given his "old socialist" roots. The left tends to be disturbed by Post-Keynesian thought as much as the right. The left/right tussle is about guns versus butter more than big/small rhetoric would indicate. To the extent Kelton would weigh in on that, Sanders would not like what he'd hear.
(http://www.emblemetric.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/538.png)
It's Probably First Ballot Or Bust For Donald Trump At The GOP Convention (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-probably-first-ballot-or-bust-for-donald-trump-at-the-gop-convention/)
Trump's delegate problems stem from two major issues. One is his lack of organization: Trump just recently hired a strategist to oversee his delegate-selection efforts; Cruz has been working on the process for months. The other is his lack of support from "party elites." The people who attend state caucuses and conventions are mostly dyed-in-the-wool Republican regulars and insiders, a group that is vigorously opposed to Trump. Furthermore, some delegate slots are automatically given to party leaders and elected officials, another group that strongly opposes Trump, as evident in his lack of endorsements among them.
Trump recently hired a delegate selection strategist? That's pitiful....does he have a strategy strategist?
(http://i.imgur.com/VCFQ5w0.jpg)
Quote from: Florestan on April 02, 2016, 12:05:20 PM
You guys don´t get it at all, do you? You are a US citizen, North Star is a Finnish citizen. On what grounds are you two qualified to object to a constitutional amendment adopted by the freely and democratically elected parliament of a sovereign nation other than your own? The Hungarian Constitution applies to, and concerns, solely and exclusively the Hungarian nation.
For the record: Brian initially claimed some similarities between Orban and Trump. You specifically asked him for his opinion on Orban's constitution. He answered. Then you shot this how-dare-you-answer-my-question indignance at him.
I don't like making comments in political threads but....I REALLY wish Donald Trump would shut his ever-loving pie-hole! >:(
Trump reveals how he will make Mexico pay for the wall! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-would-seek-to-block-money-transfers-to-force-mexico-to-fund-border-wall/2016/04/05/c0196314-fa7c-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html) It kinda looks like extortion, but I'm no lawyer, so it is probably OK. One thing for is certain, if The Donald gets elected and attempts what he proposes, it will be smooth sailing.
I support the wall, with lots of guard towers staffed with former prison inmates convicted of minor drug offenses. Mexico doesn't need to pay, it's infrastructure.
Hmmm, what about a deal? Kongressional Kranks get a wall in exchange for big projects that are economically useful, like fixing and replacing everything that's broken, falling apart, obsolete....
But wait, maybe we should demand Mexico pay, and when they don't, the wall isn't built, the druggies get real jobs in a booming economy from increased public and private investment, and everybody wins except the Klowns.
Quote from: Todd on April 05, 2016, 06:28:11 AM
Trump reveals how he will make Mexico pay for the wall! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-would-seek-to-block-money-transfers-to-force-mexico-to-fund-border-wall/2016/04/05/c0196314-fa7c-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html) It kinda looks like extortion, but I'm no lawyer, so it is probably OK. One thing for is certain, if The Donald gets elected and attempts what he proposes, it will be smooth sailing.
For those interested, here's a direct link to Trump's memo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/memo-explains-how-donald-trump-plans-to-pay-for-border-wall/2007/?tid=a_inl) explaining his plan.
The big story according to 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/wisconsin-primary-presidential-election-2016/) is Cruz getting 49% of the vote.
Quote from: drogulus on April 06, 2016, 06:37:20 AM
The big story according to 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/wisconsin-primary-presidential-election-2016/) is Cruz getting 49% of the vote.
Bring on an open convention!
Why I won't vote for Boinie:
http://tinyurl.com/zotx2lv
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, my vote in the general election doesn't matter in the slightest, because New York state will go Democrat no matter what (unless of course a tidal wave thanks to global warming submerges all of New York City and its 8 million residents sometime before November). But my vote in the state primary on April 19 may make a small difference in helping decide the Democratic nominee, and I was on the fence between Boinie and Hillary up to now. No more. I fear that Boinie is the Democratic counterpart to Trump, offering lots of big talk and pie-in-the-sky revolutionary changes without the slightest idea how or even if they can be implemented.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 06, 2016, 06:41:01 AMI fear that Boinie is the Democratic counterpart to Trump, offering lots of big talk and pie-in-the-sky revolutionary changes without the slightest idea how or even if they can be implemented.
Ya think?
The Year of the Flawed Candidate
Quote from: Todd on April 06, 2016, 06:45:08 AM
Ya think?
Yes, Todd, I know this will come as a shock to you, but you are not the only person on this forum who is capable of rational thought.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 06, 2016, 06:54:45 AM
Yes, Todd, I know this will come as a shock to you, but you are not the only person on this forum who is capable of rational thought.
Rational people knew long before the Daily News interview.
Quote from: Todd on April 06, 2016, 06:58:08 AM
Rational people knew long before the Daily News interview.
Despite the obvious personal insult in that comment, I was well aware of that myself and said so when I commented last month.
Sometimes I wonder who is more dangerous, a clueless outsider or a business-as-usual insider? ;D
Quote from: Florestan on April 06, 2016, 07:10:45 AM
Sometimes I wonder who is more dangerous, a clueless outsider or a business-as-usual insider? ;D
That's sort of the dynamic this year . . . .
Quote from: Florestan on April 06, 2016, 07:10:45 AM
Sometimes I wonder who is more dangerous, a clueless outsider or a business-as-usual insider? ;D
Clueless outsider is worst. (Trump.) Clueless insider is next worst. (Sanders, unless you think a senator is an outsider.) Conniving insider is next worst. (Cruz.) Business-as-usual insiders are least worst. (Clinton, Kasich.)
Quote from: Todd on April 06, 2016, 07:15:29 AM
Clueless outsider is worst. (Trump.) Clueless insider is next worst. (Sanders, unless you think a senator is an outsider.) Conniving insider is next worst. (Cruz.) Business-as-usual insiders are least worst. (Clinton, Kasich.)
Nice line up. :D
So the final race will be between the worst and the least worst. IOW, bad anyway. :D
Quote from: Florestan on April 06, 2016, 07:24:04 AM
So the final race will be between the worst and the least worst. IOW, bad anyway. :D
There is still a chance that an open convention on the Republican side could result in two least-worst candidates duking it out. Dream little dreams
Quote from: Todd on April 06, 2016, 07:15:29 AM
Clueless outsider is worst. (Trump.) Clueless insider is next worst. (Sanders, unless you think a senator is an outsider.) Conniving insider is next worst. (Cruz.) Business-as-usual insiders are least worst. (Clinton, Kasich.)
An honest difference of opinion, but I think the conniving insider is worse than the clueless insider. Then again, I'd probably classify both Clinton and Cruz as conniving insiders.
Turd Blossom's Day
http://theweek.com/articles/616179/why-karl-rove-rooting-brokered-convention
Quote from: karlhenning on April 06, 2016, 07:34:29 AMAn honest difference of opinion, but I think the conniving insider is worse than the clueless insider.
Cruz does make it hard to offer a vigorous argument against your ranking.
Quote from: Todd on April 06, 2016, 07:15:29 AM
Clueless outsider is worst. (Trump.) Clueless insider is next worst. (Sanders, unless you think a senator is an outsider.) Conniving insider is next worst. (Cruz.) Business-as-usual insiders are least worst. (Clinton, Kasich.)
We'll never know since we'll only get one of them. I don't assume a Trump Presidency would be as bad as Trump. It would change the way the rest of the government reacts to his attempted use of his powers, should they depart from the norms. Sanders might surprise us, since he'd have a party behind him for much of what he wants to do. Liberal Presidents do manage to get Dems to go a little father than centrists, partly because centrism is mostly positioning for both parties. Then there's the question of where the House goes in terms of party representation. I don't expect the Dems to take the House, but significant Repub erosion might give party leaders reason to conduct Autopsy II, and this time take it a little more seriously than they did in after 2012.
In actual practice Cruz would face the same difficulties that Ryan faces now. He'll either be eaten alive by his own Freedom Caucus or......but he's not Ryan, he's more rigid. He can't govern with the crazies, and so far he doesn't appear to be inclined to govern without them. The other thing to consider is that a Cruz Presidency might mean validation of the far right and an increase in their power. This strikes me as an implausible course of events. A far right shift would mean Americans want more conflict to no good end, not what the rise of Trump/Sanders indicates voters want, the resolution of big issues important to their respective camps.
Hillary is the safest choice. She'll do what's expected almost all the time, probably communicate more effectively with the legislators than the Kenyan Introvert did, see the sense of moving to enact what she and Sanders share in the way of ideas of economic progress, and provide about as much warmongering as Americans can tolerate.
Quote from: drogulus on April 06, 2016, 08:43:35 AMWe'll never know since we'll only get one of them.
It's theoretically possible that two of them could serve. Trump/Cruz could segue to a Cruz/? administration in the future. I could also come into enough money to retain Mossack Fonseca.
I'm still hoping the convention results in Trump and Cruz getting in a literal fistfight...speaking of dreaming...
Quote from: Brian on April 07, 2016, 04:35:30 AM
I'm still hoping the convention results in Trump and Cruz getting in a literal fistfight...speaking of dreaming...
Dream big: why fistfight when they could use guns...
Quote from: Florestan on April 07, 2016, 04:44:25 AM
Dream big: why fistfight when they could use guns...
There you go, that's what I'm talkin' about!! I'm all over that! :) >:D
8)
Donald Trump Performs Shakespeare's Soliloquies (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/donald-trump-performs-shakespeares-soliloquies)
This made me indescribably happy.
Quote from: Brian on April 07, 2016, 05:57:16 AM
Donald Trump Performs Shakespeare's Soliloquies (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/donald-trump-performs-shakespeares-soliloquies)
This made me indescribably happy.
Goldarn it, there's some gems in there.
Don't mess with New Yorkers, Ted:
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CfZpQU0UkAAQyIN.jpg)
"New York Values" Ted was told to "get out of the Bronx," and had to cancel a school visit after students complained. Earlier:
(http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NY-Daily-News-Drop-Dead-Ted-620x800.jpg)
Gotta love this city.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 06, 2016, 06:41:01 AM
I fear that Boinie is the Democratic counterpart to Trump, offering lots of big talk and pie-in-the-sky revolutionary changes without the slightest idea how or even if they can be implemented.
Given the massive support this Sanders gets from people 19 to 35 years old, does anyone have any doubt that eventually a Sanders will win the US Presidency? ;D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 06, 2016, 06:41:01 AM
Why I won't vote for Boinie:
http://tinyurl.com/zotx2lv
I fear that Boinie is the Democratic counterpart to Trump, offering lots of big talk and pie-in-the-sky revolutionary changes without the slightest idea how or even if they can be implemented.
Poco, have you seen the ads Bernie is running now on TV? He runs down a list of what he considers issues; banks have too much power, top 1% making all the money, workers taking the hit, yada yada; then this "And that's my plan to help out the working class". Hell, that's not a plan, it's a list of goals to correct perceived offenses.
Here in Texas Bernie hasn't done any advertising so this is the first time I've seen his ads. I didn't know they were just a whine list. I don't think I would order off that list!
8)
(PS - all my "local" news comes from NYC because of satellite, I have no true locals. Thank god for that, too!)
Quote from: Florestan on April 08, 2016, 04:46:59 AM
Given the massive support this Sanders gets from people 19 to 35 years old, does anyone have any doubt that eventually a Sanders will win the US Presidency? ;D
You're assuming these 19-35 year olds will never grow up. Actually, probably a safe assumption.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 08, 2016, 04:54:44 AM
Poco, have you seen the ads Bernie is running now on TV?
Actually, I haven't. But I expect a deluge in the next two weeks as well as lots of phone calls, robo and otherwise. Hillary was in Manhattan yesterday and the high point was her inability to use an NYC metrocard on the subway. Some New Yorker. Trump has also invaded my area in fine form; a day after being shellacked in Wisconsin he appeared at a rally about 20 minutes from my home, and TV coverage made it clear nothing has fazed him. I thought of getting a ticket to see the phenomenon in person myself; fortunately after three seconds the impulse passed.
Quote from: Florestan on April 08, 2016, 04:46:59 AM
Given the massive support this Sanders gets from people 19 to 35 years old, does anyone have any doubt that eventually a Sanders will win the US Presidency? ;D
Well yeah, actually. Very slim hope of winning it this time, and he is 74 years old. That is already older than any other president at the time of his first election, I believe. Next election he would be 78...
Now, if you ask if he had a disciple to carry on and this electorate would go for him, it is certainly possible they would. But as Poco says, people grow up intellectually and things like American Style Socialism lose their appeal with age, unlike wine and cheese. So who can say?
8)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 08, 2016, 05:08:08 AM
Actually, I haven't. But I expect a deluge in the next two weeks as well as lots of phone calls, robo and otherwise. Hillary was in Manhattan yesterday and the high point was her inability to use an NYC metrocard on the subway. Some New Yorker. Trump has also invaded my area in fine form; a day after being shellacked in Wisconsin he appeared at a rally about 20 minutes from my home, and TV coverage made it clear nothing has fazed him. I thought of getting a ticket to see the phenomenon in person myself; fortunately after three seconds the impulse passed.
Yeah, there is a pill to take for little spasms like that. Beano is easiest... :D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 08, 2016, 05:12:05 AM
people grow up intellectually and things like American Style Socialism lose their appeal with age
When it comes to this generation, don´t hold your breath. ;D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 08, 2016, 05:08:08 AM
Actually, I haven't. But I expect a deluge in the next two weeks as well as lots of phone calls, robo and otherwise. Hillary was in Manhattan yesterday and the high point was her inability to use an NYC metrocard on the subway. Some New Yorker.
(* bites his tongue *)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 08, 2016, 06:11:04 AM
(* bites his tongue *)
I had a little trouble with the metrocard on my visit, too. Seems like everybody does - my friend had like 5 spare cards for such emergencies.
Shouldn't the metrocard bit have been rehearsed beforehand ? That kind of little misshap may become nagging when it makes the front page of the tabloids.
I like that the Dems are comparing who is qualified to be President. (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/07/bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-spar-over-presidential-qualifications/?_r=0) Makes for fodder for Republicans later, what, with ready-made sounds bites from the other side. But is there any question who is more qualified? It's Hillary, by several country miles. But that doesn't mean much. Excluding the Founding Fathers (ie, through Monroe), the most qualified people who became President didn't necessarily make for good Presidents. Think John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan. Or Tricky Dick. Hopefully, Ed Rendell's advice is not heeded.
Quote from: Todd on April 08, 2016, 06:36:52 AM
I like that the Dems are comparing who is qualified to be President. (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/07/bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-spar-over-presidential-qualifications/?_r=0) Makes for fodder for Republicans later, what, with ready-made sounds bites from the other side. But is there any question who is more qualified? It's Hillary, by several country miles. But that doesn't mean much. Excluding the Founding Fathers (ie, through Monroe), the most qualified people who became President didn't necessarily make for good Presidents. Think John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan. Or Tricky Dick. Hopefully, Ed Rendell's advice is not heeded.
This could be a fun question: who was the most
qualified nominee of a major party? Bonus: most qualified nominee who had not been a VP?
I think we gotta mention Henry Clay in the second category.
Quote from: Brian on April 08, 2016, 06:43:49 AM
This could be a fun question: who was the most qualified nominee of a major party? Bonus: most qualified nominee who had not been a VP?
I think we gotta mention Henry Clay in the second category.
Clay could certainly join the likes of Buchanan and JQA, both of whom meet your latter criterion. JQA had an unfair advantage, of course, being the first notable dynasty politician at the national level.
As contentious as the current election is, it is always informative to consider how nasty it was before. JQA vs Jackson (Old Hickory), Clay vs Jackson, Clay vs Polk (Young Hickory), Lincoln vs McClellan (imagine something similar today), the 1880 election (an inverse roadmap for this year's RNC convention?). We need elections more like those, I say.
Quote from: Brian on April 08, 2016, 06:13:53 AM
I had a little trouble with the metrocard on my visit, too. Seems like everybody does - my friend had like 5 spare cards for such emergencies.
I had occasional trouble with the thin card-stock Charlie Card, too. And there was one month when the MBTA (which, bottom line, is true to itself, and therefore frequently inept) sent me a monthly card, the new plastic variety, whose transponder didn't work. The thin card-stock replacement which they provided worked fine. The building I work in has the worst card-reading turnstile technology in New England.
Quote from: Brian on April 08, 2016, 06:13:53 AM
I had a little trouble with the metrocard on my visit, too. Seems like everybody does - my friend had like 5 spare cards for such emergencies.
Last time I was in NYC, I couldn't figure out how the damn thing worked, and had to submit to a patient lecture from the guy in the booth.
This is one of the few areas where I have some sympathy for Hillary.
I don't see why socialist concepts can't mature the way capitalist ones do. When I was young, like many people back then, I though the tendencies would merge, then as I "matured" I began to think they couldn't, finally I realized that they did, but neither side wanted to take credit, because they wanted to remain sides.
Hillary is most qualified, but Trump excepted the candidates are qualified enough so that level of qualification isn't much of an issue.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on April 08, 2016, 07:12:13 AM
Last time I was in NYC, I couldn't figure out how the damn thing worked, and had to submit to a patient lecture from the guy in the booth.
This is one of the few areas where I have some sympathy for Hillary.
I know, I know. I was being a bit snarky. With millions of cards going through those readers, cards can get dirty and the readers have to be frequently cleaned. And you have to swipe your card without bending it and at just the right pace for the reader to pick up your information. I've had my share of "Please Swipe Again" and "Please Swipe at this Turnstile" messages myself, usually just when my train is pulling into the station. Using the city buses is much easier.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 08, 2016, 08:04:53 AM
I know, I know. I was being a bit snarky. With millions of cards going through those readers, cards can get dirty and the readers have to be frequently cleaned. And you have to swipe your card without bending it and at just the right pace for the reader to pick up your information.
Sounds like she missed an opportunity to point out the importance of investing in infrastructure.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on April 08, 2016, 08:30:58 AM
Sounds like she missed an opportunity to point out the importance of investing in infrastructure.
Very well played, sir.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 08, 2016, 09:00:00 AM
Very well played, sir.
Good thought, as there's been talk for years of upgrading the system to accept smartcards of some kind. In 2014, we were told, "In the very near future (!) New York City commuters will no longer have to swipe disposable subway cards through a turnstile to access trains. By 2019, New York's MTA plans to implement a new, yet-to-be-announced system that will either involve "bank issued contactless cards" (i.e., credit or debit cards) or smartphones, Kevin Ortiz, an MTA spokesperson told Fast Company on the occasion of the MetroCard's 20th anniversary." Well, we've waited this long . . . .
Rachel Maddow on MSNBC had a merry quarter hour with the tabloid coverage of Cruz...but also the Daily News's treatment of Trump and Sanders. She explained at length what had been pixelated out of the Lady Liberty cover, and why.....
Seen online:
Quote from: karlhenning on April 11, 2016, 11:11:32 AM
Seen online:
"Two of Donald Trump's adult children — Ivanka and Eric — have spent months on the campaign trail trying to convince people to vote for their father in the Republican presidential primary. But when it comes time for New York's primary election next Tuesday, neither of them will be able to do the same.
New York has a closed primary system, which means that only voters registered as Democrats or Republicans can vote in their respective party's primary. Both Ivanka and Eric missed the deadline to change their registration from unaffiliated to Republican and therefore will have to sit out next week's election.
Trump addressed the matter during an appearance on Fox and Friends Monday. 'They had a long time to register and they were, you know, unaware of the rules,' Trump said. 'They feel very, very guilty.'"
Aw, shucks.
Waterboard them, I should think.
There Was no Republican Establishment After All (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/frank-rich-trump-didnt-hijack-gop.html)
The fiction that Trump's exploitation of racial resentments is a shocking breach of Republican values has been fiercely asserted by Romney, Ryan, and the rest of the GOP Establishment for the obvious reason: A nearly all-white party, staring down the barrel of a looming minority-white America, can't compete in national elections unless it can claim to have retained its founding identity as the party of Lincoln. That's why there have been so many recent revisionist histories in conservative publications (not to mention a book by Joe Scarborough) attempting to sanitize the racial animus of the Goldwater-Nixon "Southern strategy" of a half-century ago. As voters went to the polls on Super Tuesday, March 1, Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist at the Journal who loathes Trump, captured the Establishment's panic that Trump might now be sabotaging that elaborate airbrushing effort. "It would be terrible to think the left was right about the right all these years," he wrote, and to discover that its "tendentious" accusations of "racial prejudice" were validated by Trump's success among the Republican electorate of 2016.
(https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/espn-fivethirtyeight/assets/img/logo-fox-head-color.svg)
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/enten-aggregate-12.png?w=575&h=532)
I have a good friend (who sometimes lurks on GMG...hello!!) who describes himself as a "[Nelson] Rockefeller Republican." Which, I think, in this election cycle is basically a Hillary Clinton Republican?
Quote from: Brian on April 12, 2016, 06:22:00 AM
I have a good friend (who sometimes lurks on GMG...hello!!) who describes himself as a "[Nelson] Rockefeller Republican." Which, I think, in this election cycle is basically a Hillary Clinton Republican?
Pretty close to it.
Quote from: Brian on April 12, 2016, 06:22:00 AM
I have a good friend (who sometimes lurks on GMG...hello!!) who describes himself as a "[Nelson] Rockefeller Republican." Which, I think, in this election cycle is basically a Hillary Clinton Republican?
Hadn't thought of it like that before, but that probably describes ME pretty well, too! :)
8)
Quote from: Chris StirewaltTRUMP HELPS HILLARY SURVIVE A ROCKY YEAR
Today is the one-year anniversary of the official start of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, which she launched with a brief online video.
It was a revealing choice, as was her subsequent trip to Iowa in a blacked-out "Scooby van," including the seemingly furtive visit to an Ohio fast-food restaurant.
Keeping the candidate in the campaign equivalent of a hamster ball may have been about her team's desire for a cloistered Clinton and an avoidance of the sloppy mistakes of her first presidential run. But there was also a bigger consideration.
Clinton, who had unmistakably been preparing for a second run since the moment of her 2008 defeat, had toyed with the idea of a Jeb-esque protracted phony campaign, delaying the official launch – and official fundraising rules – until as late as July of last year.
But March blew a chill wind into Clinton's plan for conquest when it was revealed that the former secretary of state had engaged in some very dreggy electronic hygiene. Her efforts to put the matter to rest went, um, poorly.
The once and future frontrunner had a problem. She couldn't announce her run in the teeth of a scandalous gale, but neither could she afford to create any doubts in her party that she might be backing out because of her email woes. A viable rival might emerge. So she tried an announcement version of a "modified limited hang out."
It was not a hit, but it did achieve its apparent goals of crossing the legal threshold of candidacy while insulating the candidate from scrutiny and those pesky reporters. Team Clinton would try a do-over in June on New York's Roosevelt Island, but that only reinforced the thickness of the membrane around the candidate and campaign.
One year ago today, Clinton was broadly disliked, with real ethical concerns from her time as secretary of state and the proprietor of a heavy-handed and airless campaign. And she also looked quite inevitable.
And nothing seems to have changed...
Despite more scandals over the course of the year involving the Clinton's money-making machine, Benghazi, and the discovery of classified information on a private server, Clinton still remains the unquestionable Democratic frontrunner. Sen. Bernie Sanders still doesn't have a path to victory that doesn't involve the mass defection of his party's leadership.
But if we look a bit closer, some things have changed for Clinton.
At this time last year, Republicans were eagerly ticking off the days until the general election. With a strong primary field of contenders and another batch of Clinton scandals looming, the GOP figured Clinton would be easier to beat than they had once anticipated.
The debate among Republicans wasn't whether Clinton could be beaten, but rather about with whom they would trounce her. The reformist Midwestern governor? The charismatic Cuban-American senator? The time-tested scion of the old guard?
Nope.
Two months after Clinton's Scooby adventure, her fellow New Yorker and erstwhile friend Donald Trump declared his own candidacy on the GOP side. And what started out as a punch line or the threat of a third-party run would go on to take the dominant position in every national GOP primary poll by the end of the summer.
The words written about how and why Trump managed to eat the GOP nominating process are so numerous that their pixels might overwhelm even the data vaults at the NSA. The tyranny of multiplicity? The dislocation of millions of Americans by technological change? The ripeness of the issue of illegal immigration? And the failure of the existing Republican order to deliver on lavish promises? Yep, yep, yep and yep.
But whatever the reasons for his rise, Trump has been a boon to Clinton. Here we're not talking about surveys on the still-far-off general election that show Trump going down in a Hoover-sized landslide.
The immediate benefits to Clinton of Trumpism are that what should have been a damaging primary-election season has been substantially ignored. Rather than talking about Clinton scandals, restive liberals, Clinton's record or anything else, she has mostly been able to roll along in her Habitrail.
Who wants to talk about that dusty old server when you've got an outrage industry banking the furnaces of umbrage until they are white hot? And that means further opportunity for Clinton, who can jump in the news cycle from time to time by flaying Trump and his party.
Trump even takes the heat off of Clinton on the Democrat's undemocratic nominating process. Clinton's party is far more controlling than Republicans when it comes to the actual seating of delegates, but Sanders' complaints are buried under a pile of Trump accusations of corruption, illegality and misconduct.
Trump's supporters may be right that in the general election, he will break her down like a church table after a picnic. But so far, he has been the best part of her very rough year.
[Pro-GOP group America Rising is taking a victory lap for getting more than 1 million views with its online clip of Clinton's troubles navigating the New York subway system.]
What's our view? This is overthinking. Trump's not executing a clever plan to extricate himself from the race without appearing to quit. He's doing what he's always done: being Trump. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/0418/Is-Donald-Trump-actually-getting-ready-to-lose)
Hillary said in an interview that she carries hot sauce in her purse, and Donald responded that she was "pandering" to African-Americans and that "she carries hot sauce like I carry hot sauce." He's wrong again, of course. Hillary is a known spice lover and chomps raw jalapenos (http://www.delish.com/food-news/a45375/hillary-clinton-eats-raw-jalapeno-peppers/) before speeches. That same article claims she stocked the '90s White House with 100 kinds of hot sauce.
Ah, well
Not only can't two of his children vote in today's primary, but from today's NY Times:
"Over the past several months, Donald J. Trump has crisscrossed the country making dozens of campaign stops in places like Sioux City, Iowa, and Jackson, Miss., often in his sleek Cessna jet. There is just one hitch: The plane's registration is expired.
"Records kept with the Federal Aviation Administration show the aircraft's registration lapsed on Jan. 31. Laura J. Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, confirmed that the plane's registration was not in good standing and said the owner had not renewed it.
"The F.A.A. warned Mr. Trump that the Cessna's registration was set to expire, records show.
"On Dec. 1, DJT Operations CX L.L.C., the limited liability company owned by Mr. Trump that operates the Cessna, received a 'final notice' from the F.A.A., according to records reviewed by The Times. 'The aircraft's registration and airworthiness certificates no longer support the aircraft's operation,' the agency wrote."
He's so organized.
Forty minutes before the polls close in NY, a detailed and scathing analysis of Sanders's inadequacies:
https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.617u27w3o
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 19, 2016, 04:17:39 PM
Forty minutes before the polls close in NY, a detailed and scathing analysis of Sanders's inadequacies:
https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.617u27w3o
Yeah, I bet she was thrilled by Sanders...
http://www.beckerglynn.com/robin-l-alperstein/
Quote from: North Star on April 19, 2016, 09:23:50 PM
Yeah, I bet she was thrilled by Sanders...
http://www.beckerglynn.com/robin-l-alperstein/
And your point is?
This Thread is in the weeds
C'mon people, get the lead out!!
I refuse to acknowledge this corrupt system by voting for any of these choices which I didn't ask for. Andrew Jackson- get off the 20 and into my car NOOOW!!
I saw you selling artisanal banana chips at the Hillary rally in Chautauqua, you aren't fooling me.
Quote from: snyprrr on April 21, 2016, 07:20:09 AM
This Thread is in the weeds
How many different ways are there to say that after a brief illness Hillary will wake up and declare herself a goddess?
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: snyprrr on April 21, 2016, 07:20:09 AM
I refuse to acknowledge this corrupt system by voting for any of these choices which I didn't ask for.
The winners will be decided by those who decide to turn up, and the result will be binding on you whether you asked for it or not.
Quote from: orfeo on April 21, 2016, 02:39:34 PM
The winners will be decided by those who decide to turn up, and the result will be binding on you whether you asked for it or not.
One of democracy´s greatest flaws: turnout tyranny. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on April 22, 2016, 01:23:29 AM
One of democracy´s greatest flaws: turnout tyranny. ;D ;D ;D
Next you'll be telling me that it's not fair that employment requires attendance.
Quote from: orfeo on April 22, 2016, 02:30:53 AM
Next you'll be telling me that it's not fair that employment requires attendance.
I really don´t get this analogy. Are we the people the employees of the powers that be? And if voting is analogous to being employed, where are our paychecks for turning out?
Quote from: Florestan on April 22, 2016, 03:11:02 AM
I really don´t get this analogy. Are we the people the employees of the powers that be? And if voting is analogous to being employed, where are our paychecks for turning out?
Woody Allen: "80 percent of life is showing up."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 22, 2016, 03:15:18 AM
Woody Allen: "80 percent of life is showing up."
Frank Zappa: "Democracy only works if you participate in it."
Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2016, 03:18:35 AM
Frank Zappa: "Democracy only works if you participate in it."
Is this guy the same as that Frank Zappa who said that "politics is the entertainment branch of industry" and that "the United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced"?
Quote from: Florestan on April 22, 2016, 03:26:35 AM
Is this guy the same as that Frank Zappa who said that "politics is the entertainment branch of industry" and that "the United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced"?
Bet it was; shouldn't surprise me that he believed the only way to repair that was, participating in democracy.
(The
laws badly written and randomly enforced remark somehow strikes me as a possible paraphrase of something someone else had said/written; but we all do that, of course.)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2016, 03:29:46 AM
Bet it was; shouldn't surprise me that he believed the only way to repair that was, participating in democracy.
It would be interesting to know
when he said those things, because one might then conclude that, if after so many repairs the engine is still broke and needs yet more repairs, one might as well ask for a refund / replacement. :D
Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2016, 03:18:35 AM
Frank Zappa: "Democracy only works if you participate in it."
Indeed. When John Boehner was Speaker of the House, I sometimes sent him emails telling him to grow up and stop behaving like a three-year-old. My efforts bore fruit, as he started behaving like a two-year-old.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 22, 2016, 03:44:32 AM
Indeed. When John Boehner was Speaker of the House, I sometimes sent him emails telling him to grow up and stop behaving like a three-year-old. My efforts bore fruit, as he started behaving like a two-year-old.
:laugh:
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 22, 2016, 03:44:32 AM
Indeed. When John Boehner was Speaker of the House, I sometimes sent him emails telling him to grow up and stop behaving like a three-year-old. My efforts bore fruit, as he started behaving like a two-year-old.
:laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/v/xziPjrwtVII
Quote from: karlhenning on April 22, 2016, 03:29:46 AM
Bet it was; shouldn't surprise me that he believed the only way to repair that was, participating in democracy.
(The laws badly written and randomly enforced remark somehow strikes me as a possible paraphrase of something someone else had said/written; but we all do that, of course.)
Hey, I know, let's make Illegal Aliens Citizen, or not, but, hey, let's let them vote in this... err,humm...."democracy".... ANY idiot can "vote".... great.... now, let's just figure out, as (was it?) Jefferson pointed out that thing about voting for the candidate who promises the most LARGESSE...
Karl, please, stop acting like the Republic hasn't been taken over by Globalists who will.... WAIT...
HAVE YOU SEEN THE NEW VIDEO HOW EASY IT WAS TO HACK A VOTING MACHINE??????????????????
wHY doi you people PRETEND that we live in a "votes count" world, when we don't. What certain country makes and monitors those Diebold Voting Machines??? Do you care??/ prolly not.
EVERYONE DESERVES THE CANDIDATE THAT PUTS THE MOST FEAR IN THEM.
If Bill Clinton mostly followed Bush,Sr., and then Bush,Jr. mainly followed Clinton, and now Obama has mostlyALL followed Bush, how on earth do you people not believe that WHOMEVER "gets elected" isn't going to do EXACTLY WHAT THE POWERS THAT BE want them to do? (Brussels, UN, CFR, the Fled, etc.,..... Wall Street, etc..)
HOW?
HOW????
I CANNOT PROP UP CORRUPTION BY "VOTING".
There's a reason you can get "hitler" out of "hillary clinton".... ok.... "hitlar"...... that's close enough for a nickname....
Trump wouldn't be an issue if there were real people running for office, which there hasn't been... for long enough where it doesn't matter to them anymore...
DOOM 4 U
ALL DOOM
NOTHING BUT
DOOM
Even if your personal choice gets it, you don't think some well orchestrated event, or natural, I don't care, ("dont let any crisis go to waste"), you seriously dont think said person WILL FALL IN LINE QUICKLY??????????
suffering from BernOut
OK, who's going to clean up my verbal diary-ah!?
Quote from: snyprrr on April 24, 2016, 08:55:09 AM
Karl, please, stop acting like the Republic hasn't been taken over by Globalists who will.... WAIT...
Okay.
Quote from: snyprrr on April 24, 2016, 08:55:09 AM
DOOM 4 U
ALL DOOM
NOTHING BUT
DOOM
The Simpsons beat you to it.
https://www.youtube.com/v/EEA0EjMXsLc
(http://i.imgur.com/gnMm9Tl.jpg)
Quote from: snyprrr on April 24, 2016, 08:55:09 AM
There's a reason you can get "hitler" out of "hillary clinton".... ok.... "hitlar"...... that's close enough for a nickname....
Trump wouldn't be an issue if there were real people running for office, which there hasn't been... for long enough where it doesn't matter to them anymore...
OMG! You're right (or close enough) about Htiler/Hillary. And LOOK! From Trump you can get:
rump
ump
up
p u (as in when you smell something awful)
put
pur
Mut (German for "courage", but also almost the same as the English "mutt")
tum
I really think we're onto something!
Anybody have any thoughts on Cruz and Kasich announcing an open alliance?
It's all a fight for legitimacy, isn't it.
Quote from: Brian on April 25, 2016, 04:45:17 AM
Anybody have any thoughts on Cruz and Kasich announcing an open alliance?
Is there any precedent for this?
Quote from: Brian on April 25, 2016, 04:45:17 AM
Anybody have any thoughts on Cruz and Kasich announcing an open alliance?
2 freaking losers join ranks to become one giant freaking loser. Well, that's one thought...
Their political views are at the antipodes of current Republican thought, if such a process can currently be attributed to them. How can they possibly form an alliance when neither of their voter bases share any core values? OK, that's two thoughts. I'm worn out, someone else go...
8)
Quote from: Brian on April 25, 2016, 04:45:17 AM
Anybody have any thoughts on Cruz and Kasich announcing an open alliance?
Kasich is going to focus on Oregon? Perhaps he should have worked to get his name included in the Voter's Pamphlet.
It is still possible to deny Trump the nomination before the convention, and then at the convention. Perhaps Cruz/Kasich? Or is it Kasich/Cruz?
It's unusual to see such a coordinated effort to deny the frontrunner the nomination. It happened in 1880 to stop Grant from trying for a third term, and Elihu Root and the conservative Republicans prevented TR from getting the Republican nod in 1912 despite Roosevelt's primary wins, though primaries were not as universal as now.
Meet El Tupé Nuevo, d/b/a Mismo-Viejo (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/25/disgusting-trump-takes-aim-at-kasichs-eating-habits-alliance-with-cruz.html?intcmp=hpbt1)
It looks like the anti-Trump movement is collapsing. From a behavioral standpoint, Repubs are asked to vote for candidates they don't like to stop another one they don't like, so they stay home.
The Dems either like Hillary, or like Sanders, or like a winner.
Repub officials might be confronted soon with a choice they've dreaded, falling in line with the front runner. The strength of Trump isn't the only factor, just as significant, or more so, is that there appears to be no way of foisting Cruz on the convention. How do you convince convention delegates to nominate an intensely disliked sure loser?
Paul Ryan may have missed the chance of a lifetime. By the time the House Repubs finish with him he'll be damaged goods.
Quote from: drogulus on April 27, 2016, 05:29:00 AM
It looks like the anti-Trump movement is collapsing. From a behavioral standpoint, Repubs are asked to vote for candidates they don't like to stop another one they don't like, so they stay home.
Repub officials might be confronted soon with a choice they've dreaded, falling in line with the front runner. The strength of Trump isn't the only factor, just as significant, or more so, is that there appears to be no way of foisting Cruz on the convention. How do you convince convention delegates to nominate an intensely disliked sure loser?
Why all the effort, really, to supplant one intensely disliked sure loser, with another?
Quote from: karlhenning on April 27, 2016, 05:33:21 AM
Why all the effort, really, to supplant one intensely disliked sure loser, with another?
The best answer would be that whatever else Cruz is, he's a Republican and elected to the Senate as such. With him the Repubs lose an election. Trump is more of an existential threat.
Quote from: drogulus on April 27, 2016, 05:52:10 AM
The best answer would be that whatever else Cruz is, he's a Republican and elected to the Senate as such. With him the Repubs lose an election. Trump is more of an existential threat.
Fair enough.
. . . a Texan with the ideological nuance of paint thinner . . . .
(Chris Stirewalt, on Cruz)
Ted Cruz to Announce Running Mate: Carly Fiorina (http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-carly-fiorina-running-mate-453147)
This just keeps getting more and more crazy. If your whole strategy depends on wheeling and dealing at the convention, why announce a VP before that? And why announce a VP choice who flopped out of the race with tiny polling numbers?
Total desperation move. And kinda hilarious.
Quote from: Chris StirewaltNot only did Trump nearly match the showing of his 2012 counterpart, Mitt Romney, with 57 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania, but he did so with the same kind of late-primary shrunken electorate as Romney.
Turnout was something like 16 percent in Pennsylvania. It was 10 percent or less in the other states on Tuesday. Last week in New York, it was 6 percent.
The GOP electorate seems to be roughly divided bwteen Trumpsters who are motivated to turn out, and those who just wish it would all go away . . . .
Quote from: Brian on April 27, 2016, 09:47:43 AM
Total desperation move. And kinda hilarious.
A desperation move, but I'd say it displays a modicum of sense. He's almost dead from a delegate standpoint, and he needs someone less conservative than himself to try to get some votes that might otherwise go to Trump or Kasich.
I still hope for an open convention, but I've also decided that I must prepare for the contingency of a Clinton-Trump election and select my write-in candidate. I have settled on Puckered Starfish.
Quote from: karlhenning on April 27, 2016, 10:04:04 AM
The GOP electorate seems to be roughly divided bwteen Trumpsters who are motivated to turn out, and those who just wish it would all go away . . . .
Rhode Island is apparently 70,000 Republicans, 238,000 Democrats, and a very large number of independents. It is a sort of open ballot: independents can pick which primary to vote in.
The RI Republican chairman was crowing on TV about high GOP turnout: Trump on his own got more votes than were cast in the 2012 election for Romney.
What he chose not to notice is that Sanders, in the only state he won last night, got more votes than Trump, Cruz, Kasich combined.
Quote from: Brian on April 27, 2016, 09:47:43 AM
Ted Cruz to Announce Running Mate: Carly Fiorina (http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-carly-fiorina-running-mate-453147)
This just keeps getting more and more crazy. If your whole strategy depends on wheeling and dealing at the convention, why announce a VP before that? And why announce a VP choice who flopped out of the race with tiny polling numbers?
Total desperation move. And kinda hilarious.
It is on the desperate side, but Cruz has nothing to lose at this point. Also, he likely picked his VP mate as a move to change the conversation away from the fact that he lost five states in one day.
Quote from: Brian on April 27, 2016, 09:47:43 AM
Ted Cruz to Announce Running Mate: Carly Fiorina (http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-carly-fiorina-running-mate-453147)
This just keeps getting more and more crazy. If your whole strategy depends on wheeling and dealing at the convention, why announce a VP before that? And why announce a VP choice who flopped out of the race with tiny polling numbers?
Total desperation move. And kinda hilarious.
Desperation, but not unprecedented. Reagan did the same thing in 1976 when he was down in the primaries and announced PA Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. And then Ford won the nomination, and Carter the presidency. But Reagan of course was back in 1980, ready to become the Holy Saint of he Republican Party. IOW, there may be method in Cruz's madness.
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/aug11/rum.jpg)
Sweet!
(Entirely borrowing that for FB)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 28, 2016, 03:26:40 AM
Sweet!
It's the only sensible choice this primary season :D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 28, 2016, 04:20:30 AM
It's the only sensible choice this primary season :D
Sarge
"There'll be keelhauling. I mean, I hope they don't keelhaul anyone."
Yes! Embracing the Dark Side! (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0430/Accept-it-From-resignation-to-jubilation-GOP-slowly-warms-to-Trump)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 02, 2016, 03:15:20 AM
Yes! Embracing the Dark Side! (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0430/Accept-it-From-resignation-to-jubilation-GOP-slowly-warms-to-Trump)
https://www.youtube.com/v/KU_Jdts5rL0
Trump cruises to victory in Indiana. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruz-suspends-2016-campaign-indiana-primary-loss/story?id=38842769)
Now, when the general come around, will Trump be the flip-flopper to make all other flip-floppers look steadfast?
Cruz drops out. Kasich is only technically a hurdle. Donald Trump is officially the Republican choice for president.
What will the Republican Party look like in 12 months? Will it find any semblance of leadership from anyone in that time?
Quote from: Brian on May 03, 2016, 07:01:44 PM
Cruz drops out. Kasich is only technically a hurdle. Donald Trump is officially the Republican choice for president.
What will the Republican Party look like in 12 months? Will it find any semblance of leadership from anyone in that time?
Clearly too early to know how things will play out, but the Republican Party's repudiation of Trump, the clear choice of their constituency, is bizarre. If the party rejects its own constituency, what basis does the party have for existence?
Quote from: Scarpia on May 03, 2016, 10:34:16 PM
Clearly too early to know how things will play out, but the Republican Party's repudiation of Trump, the clear choice of their constituency, is bizarre. If the party rejects its own constituency, what basis does the party have for existence?
They just need a new people and everything is going to be fine.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s---8SR8Iju--/zmpzlbznqej5i6cflyhu.gif)
Quote from: Scarpia on May 03, 2016, 10:34:16 PM
Clearly too early to know how things will play out, but the Republican Party's repudiation of Trump, the clear choice of their constituency, is bizarre. If the party rejects its own constituency, what basis does the party have for existence?
The problem is that, for most of the process, Trump was the clear choice of only 30% of Republicans. That only changed once Trump's main rival was equally disgusting.
The Republican Party's main failure, to me, is courage - nobody had the balls to stand up and say that Trump was unacceptable, morally, and for most of September-February, nobody had the guts to even campaign against him. They were all afraid of his playground insults.
So let's assume 50% of Republicans are sane and 50% of Republicans are whackjobs. How do they negotiate the divorce? Will they have the courage to get one, or will the "establishment" sigh and file behind the lunatics and say "as long as it gets us more power"?
I quoted a Krugman piece a month ago:
"After all, what is the modern GOP? A simple model that accounts for just about everything you see is that it's an engine designed to harness white resentment on behalf of higher incomes for the donor class."
It looks like the voters are fed up. The point is that now
they accept this view. It's not just a liberal Dem saying so. If Repub voters feel betrayed, this is why.
Quote from: Brian on May 04, 2016, 06:00:18 AM
The Republican Party's main failure, to me, is courage - nobody had the balls to stand up and say that Trump was unacceptable, morally, and for most of September-February, nobody had the guts to even campaign against him. They were all afraid of his playground insults.
I disagree. The best arguments against Trump implicate the Repubs themselves. How are they supposed to "stand up" against themselves? How do they explain how little they care for their own constituents? They have no moral argument for the criminal negligence built into their governing philosophy. It's this amorality the voters are rebelling against. Populism is outrage, and demagogues are not typically moral paragons.
Quote from: Brian on May 04, 2016, 06:00:18 AMThe problem is that, for most of the process, Trump was the clear choice of only 30% of Republicans. That only changed once Trump's main rival was equally disgusting.
I doubt Trump will ever be liked by the majority of Republicans, but many Republicans will start to rally around him to defeat the even more disgusting Democrat candidate.
A lot of Republicans didn't think he would be able to get very far, precisely because of how he campaigned and what he said, but Trump proved them wrong. I sense that a lot of Democrats are taking a similar line. Some may even be gleeful. Trump is an easy target. Just look at what he has said! But what's to prevent someone not beholden to standard interest groups and campaigning from saying something along the lines of 'I said what I had to say to get the nomination, but here's what I really think' and then simply adopting a more palatable position? Calling Trump out on flip-flopping won't work as well as with other candidates. He speaks nonsense, but so does Bernie, and millions have voted for him. Nonsense is popular right now.
I'm assuming Hillary is going to be the next President, but this general election is going to be the most bruising in a long, long time. I look forward to it. It may even make her a weaker President out of the gate. That would be awesome. It would be even more awesome if it helps limit her to one term. We need more one term Presidents. Maybe it's time to bring back the notion floated not so long ago that a President can only serve one, six-year term, and then change that to one four-year term. The US needs a
weaker President.
More important for Republicans is Congress. Every effort must be made to keep the House. It would be good to keep the Senate, but at least one house must in the hands of the opposition party at all times. (In the unlikely event that Trump wins, the Senate must go to the Democrats.) There are already reports in the institutional press that some big-wig Republican donors and strategists have switched focus, so that is a good sign.
On a local level, I get to vote on the 17th. Kasich may not have worked to get in the Voter's Pamphlet, but he is on the ballot, so he gets my vote, even if he drops out. Even more entertaining are the down-ballot races. There are four Republicans vying to be curb stomped by Ron Wyden in the Senate race, whose biggest challenge is to see if he can win by more than thirty points. (Wyden is so secure that he hasn't started actively campaigning yet and he brushed away challenges/gripes from various liberal groups by ignoring them.) The governor's race is also a hoot. Oregon's last elected governor, a big-D Democrat, resigned amid scandal, but so undemocratic is the state that the next governor will be a Democrat even with that. To be sure, the Republican candidates are not an inspiring lot. I won't be voting for governor. Again.
Todd, will read your post momentarily, but quick update: Kasich has canceled his meetings & travel plans and scheduled a speech in Ohio this afternoon. Sounds like he gone.
Quote from: Brian on May 04, 2016, 08:00:55 AM
Todd, will read your post momentarily, but quick update: Kasich has canceled his meetings & travel plans and scheduled a speech in Ohio this afternoon. Sounds like he gone.
Literally yesterday I received a call from a Columbus, OH area code and the interlocutor inquired as to whether I would be voting for Mr Kasich. Oh well, all good things come to an end.
Now, who will Trump choose to be his running mate?
Quote from: Todd on May 04, 2016, 08:19:02 AM
Now, who will Trump choose to be his running mate?
Gotta be Palin!
Sad!
Quote from: Todd on May 04, 2016, 11:03:26 AM
No, no, no. Ted Nugent!
A lot of "credible" media sources are earnestly suggesting Newt Gingrich. That would truly be a gold mine.
Quote from: Brian on May 04, 2016, 11:17:02 AM
A lot of "credible" media sources are earnestly suggesting Newt Gingrich. That would truly be a gold mine.
If that happens, Trump had better check his seat every time he sits down to make sure a dagger or poisoned pin is not in it.
Assuming it's Trump vs. Clinton, then it all becomes a state by state battle. At the moment, Clinton leads in many of the key states and the GOP has to make up some ground as the Dems lead in the electoral map (assuming states that have historically voted for one party or another continue to do so). There is only a much smaller subset of states in play in this regard. Clinton, in the latest polls, is significantly ahead in many of these states (polls, and it's early, but it gives an indication of just how much work Trump has to do). For example:
Florida: 49-36
Penn: 54-39
Virginia: 44-35
Those three alone give her the White House with the above caveat (and that excludes Wisconsin).
Some are closer, like Ohio (45-42), Iowa (42-42). The difficulty for Trump is that he needs to win most of these, while the Dems only need 2-4 depending on the configuration. If Trump can 'turn' states that have been traditionally favoring the Dems, that would change things, but that would require a strong organization. Does Trump have that in place? I don't know.
Newt, as VP, would certainly galvanize the voters that love him and detest him, but I think he has too much baggage frankly (and he doesn't really bring electoral votes as GOP should retain Georgia). In his shoes, I might shoot big and get someone from California - maybe a popular actor, they usually present well. Nah, that will never work! :)
Just read that 73% of american women have a poor opinon of Donald Trump. Women represent more than half of the population and are more disciplined voters
....
At last, a much needed hatchet job on Melania Trump. (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/09/who-is-melania-trump)
My favorite quote: "Melania Trump, [Kati Marton] added, would be "the least experienced and the least prepared First Lady in history."" (Even including Frances Cleveland?)
My favorite line follows that: "If we take the office of First Lady seriously..."
God, this is gonna be an awesome election cycle!
Quote from: Todd on May 04, 2016, 06:41:47 PM
At last, a much needed hatchet job on Melania Trump. (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/09/who-is-melania-trump)
Man, next thing you know they'll be doing a hatchet job on little Barron.
Quote from: Todd on May 04, 2016, 06:41:47 PM
At last, a much needed hatchet job on Melania Trump. (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/09/who-is-melania-trump)
My favorite quote: "Melania Trump, [Kati Marton] added, would be "the least experienced and the least prepared First Lady in history."" (Even including Frances Cleveland?)
My favorite line follows that: "If we take the office of First Lady seriously..."
God, this is gonna be an awesome election cycle!
Good of them to put on this round of bread and circuses for you Todd.
Mike
'Fundamentals' suggest it's a GOP year. But Donald Trump is not your average Republican candidate. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/0504/Clinton-might-lose-to-average-Republican.-But-to-Trump)
The crisis in the Republican Party is even worse than it looks (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-nomination-gop-crisis-2016-5)
Trump is the candidate who finally figured out how to exploit the fact that much of the Republican voter base does not share the policy preferences of the Republican donor class, and that it is therefore possible to win the nomination without being saddled with their unpopular policy preferences.
He will not be the last candidate to understand this.
Future candidates will seek to rebuild Trump's coalition, and they will follow in his footsteps by opposing free trade, promising to protect entitlements from cuts, questioning the value of America's commitment to military alliances, and shrugging at social changes like the growing acceptance of transgender people.
All three of the supposed "legs" of the Republican coalition stool — libertarian economics, social conservatism, and militarism — are at risk from Trump and the populist-imitator candidates he will spawn.
"spawn of Trump"
320 million people, and the best we can come up with is an orange-haired buffoon and a pant-suited sociopath. What an advertisement for democracy!
Quote from: drogulus on May 05, 2016, 06:20:09 AM
The crisis in the Republican Party is even worse than it looks (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-nomination-gop-crisis-2016-5)
Robert Barro's kid, huh? Now I'm tempted to read some of his other writings to see how much his father's thinking rubbed off on him.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on May 05, 2016, 06:39:04 AM
320 million people, and the best we can come up with is an orange-haired buffoon and a pant-suited sociopath.
Bernie can still win the nomination!
Quote from: drogulus on May 05, 2016, 06:20:09 AM
All three of the supposed "legs" of the Republican coalition stool — libertarian economics, social conservatism, and militarism — are at risk from Trump and the populist-imitator candidates he will spawn.
Good analogy, the Republican belief system really is a stool. The trouble is, when you take that stuff away, you look remarkably like what the Democrats are supposed to be. Now you really DO have a stool!
8)
Meanwhile, the headlines which read (in effect): Sanders Upsets Clinton; But Don't Worry, Establishment—She's Still Inevitable
When Sarkozy won the nomination for the right wing coalition in France, many derided his presidential candidacy. He went on to become a one-term President. Then, from the left corner, Hollande was elected and he, too, will make only one term as President. And his successor's opponent for the right-wing coalition will be...Sarkozy !
What good is it to play ping pong with a big country's presidency ? ::)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 05, 2016, 06:33:55 AM
"spawn of Trump"
(http://cdn1-www.shocktillyoudrop.com/assets/uploads/gallery/best-to-worst-chucky/curse-of-chucky-2013-movie-image.jpg)
So on Thursday Bill Clinton popped up in Portland - Bernie country - to speak for his wife. The local TV stations carried at least some of it, and though hoarse and tired, Clinton delivered what one would expect him to deliver in the ten or so minutes I watched. He was pretty much preaching to the converted, but he can still do it very well.
Last night, Donald Trump held a rally in Eugene, Oregon, and one station aired the whole thing. I managed to watch about ten minutes of the speech. I was struck by how orange he looked, and he tried out his newest attack - Goofy Elizabeth Warren - and he blabbed about himself, but watching a non-sound bite portion of a speech made it clear why he's attracting so many voters. His style is seemingly off-the-cuff, he has ready made targets, and he offers vague solutions and hope for the seemingly disaffected. I knew all that before, but in extended doses his energy and purpose (real or fake) doesn't flag and he flatters the audience. He's a charlatan, but some people fall for charlatans. Alas, he couldn't pronounce "Oregon" properly, though a lot of east coasters have difficulties doing that for some reason. (No one should have him try to pronounce Couch Street if he comes to Portland.) It doesn't matter because in the general he should spend literally no time or money here. Oregon can be written off by Republicans in the general, no matter the candidate. No reason to flush money down the john.
Extinction is starting to take on an extra piquancy . . .
Donald Trump is reportedly considering Newt Gingrich as a vice presidential candidate. That might present problems. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2016/0506/The-doubtful-wisdom-of-a-Donald-Trump-Newt-Gingrich-ticket)
For those considering joining Listener, Andre and Chambernut after November
http://www.maplematch.com
Donald Trump Calls Climate Change a Hoax, but Worries It Could Hurt His Golf Course (https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-calls-climate-change-195945593.html?nhp=1)
Who says Trump isn't a real Repub?
Quote from: drogulus on May 24, 2016, 12:13:20 PM
Donald Trump Calls Climate Change a Hoax, but Worries It Could Hurt His Golf Course (https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-calls-climate-change-195945593.html?nhp=1)
Who says Trump isn't a real Repub?
Anyone not stupid enough to believe a CEO signs off on every document in every company?
Quote from: Ken B on May 24, 2016, 01:14:23 PM
Anyone not stupid enough to believe a CEO signs off on every document in every company?
Not arguing with you necessarily, but in a recent NYT Magazine article, the reporter sat by Trump on the campaign plane as he read, and complained about reading, hotel elevator repair contracts.
Quote from: Brian on May 24, 2016, 01:21:45 PM
Not arguing with you necessarily, but in a recent NYT Magazine article, the reporter sat by Trump on the campaign plane as he read, and complained about reading, hotel elevator repair contracts.
I am surprised to see you argue that Trump is the master of all subjects...
Basically I am just irked by ridiculous gotcha arguments, here in the form of gotcha by proxy. There's enough substance to criticize Trump on I'd venture.
Quote from: Ken B on May 24, 2016, 04:01:19 PM
Basically I am just irked by ridiculous gotcha arguments, here in the form of gotcha by proxy. There's enough substance to criticize Trump on I'd venture.
Yeah. I guess I'm used to it. In this election, I fully expect that the candidates, their surrogates, the media, and the social media masses will dredge up every single imaginable issue and a few dozen unimaginable issues. Who knows what silliness we'll endure in the next 5.5 months, or even after.
At last, a presidential race that isn't a popularity contest. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-majority-americans-dislike-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-n578926)
Quote from: Ken B on May 24, 2016, 04:01:19 PM
I am surprised to see you argue that Trump is the master of all subjects...
Basically I am just irked by ridiculous gotcha arguments, here in the form of gotcha by proxy. There's enough substance to criticize Trump on I'd venture.
The article was not about gotcha as much as that minions Trump employs to take care of his interests thought the golf course needed protection from a "liberal hoax". A sensible position, especially given the amount of erosion to the golf course from recent storm activity. The point is that this was a perfectly legitimate concern that Trump must affirm as a responsible human being, if only to himself. What makes this indelibly Repubbish is not denying climate change, or sensibly affirming it with money and property at stake, but doing both at once and disavowing neither.
Quote from: Todd on May 24, 2016, 05:45:20 PM
At last, a presidential race that isn't a popularity contest. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-majority-americans-dislike-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-n578926)
The fact that they're not popular doesn't stop it from being a popularity contest. The requirement is merely to be more popular than the other candidate(s), not to be popular.
Quote from: drogulus on May 24, 2016, 07:38:46 PM
The article was not about gotcha as much as that minions Trump employs to take care of his interests thought the golf course needed protection from a "liberal hoax". A sensible position, especially given the amount of erosion to the golf course from recent storm activity. The point is that this was a perfectly legitimate concern that Trump must affirm as a responsible human being, if only to himself. What makes this indelibly Repubbish is not denying climate change, or sensibly affirming it with money and property at stake, but doing both at once and disavowing neither.
So I gather from this that what's "Repubbish" is when one person disagrees with another.
Quote from: Ken B on May 25, 2016, 04:59:47 AM
So I gather from this that what's "Repubbish" is when one person disagrees with another.
You only get one bite, that's enough. I said what makes it Repub. Trump has climate change in his money plans, but not in yours because he tells you it's a hoax. Are you OK with that?
With a Texan here or there excepted, not one Repub with name recognition strikes me as a climate denier out of sheer ignorance. I'm not even sure about Lamar Smith!
So, denying science you not so secretly think is right is terminally Repubbish. It doesn't come from anywhere else.
Quote from: drogulus on May 25, 2016, 02:36:58 PM
You only get one bite, that's enough. I said what makes it Repub. Trump has climate change in his money plans, but not in yours because he tells you it's a hoax. Are you OK with that?
With a Texan here or there excepted, not one Repub with name recognition strikes me as a climate denier out of sheer ignorance. I'm not even sure about Lamar Smith!
So, denying science you not so secretly think is right is terminally Repubbish. It doesn't come from anywhere else.
Sigh. It appears you have no idea that some people are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change because they are not ignorant
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-climate-catastrophe-1-introduction.html
With links to later portions of the essay. He is actually more sympathetic to the idea of anthropogenic change than I am.
To oppose a popular scientific principle means that you may be unpopular, not unscientific
.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 25, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
Sigh. It appears you have no idea that some people are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change because they are not ignorant
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-climate-catastrophe-1-introduction.html
With links to later portions of the essay. He is actually more sympathetic to the idea of anthropogenic change than I am.
To oppose a popular scientific principle means that you may be unpopular, not unscientific
.
Plus of course this isn't Trump, it's a manager in one of his businesses. One advocating to an agency no less.
This was new for me: https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html)
It seems that, despite what many are saying, GOP delegates are not bound to vote for anyone unless the rules of the Convention will dictate it. I don't think it really matters, but I found it interesting because all the major GOP figures seem to be saying the same thing - delegates must vote for the candidate who won/earned their vote in the primaries. The reality seems to be that they can 'vote their conscience.'
Quote from: drogulus on May 25, 2016, 02:36:58 PM
Trump has climate change in his money plans, but not in yours because he tells you it's a hoax.
Hillary Clinton trumpets climate change on every opportunity, yet she flies all over the place in her private jet (as does another climate change superhero, Leonardo di Caprio). Are you OK with that? Or is it that the hypocrisy of the Left is okay while the hypocrisy of the Right is not?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 25, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-climate-catastrophe-1-introduction.html
Bah, humbug! Who needs facts & data and thinking, when science is settled?
Thank you very much for posting the link, most interesting.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on May 25, 2016, 11:50:12 PM
This was new for me: https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-18-inside-book-details-000000315.html)
It seems that, despite what many are saying, GOP delegates are not bound to vote for anyone unless the rules of the Convention will dictate it. I don't think it really matters, but I found it interesting because all the major GOP figures seem to be saying the same thing - delegates must vote for the candidate who won/earned their vote in the primaries. The reality seems to be that they can 'vote their conscience.'
At base parties are private clubs. They have no constitutional standing. A few states have laws about being bound on ballot 1 but I doubt they are enforceable. And if enough people want to just vitiate the first ballot they can anyway. Since parties want to win they generally respect the primary results. But if Trump is found in bed with a live boy and a dead girl after shooting someone on fifth avenue, look for the gop to find a way to dump him.
It was different long ago. In the 50s someone won nearly all the primaries and the party picked Adlai Stevenson anyway. The backroom gave us Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, FDR, Truman, Kennedy. Primaries gave us Bush, Kerry, Trump, Hillary.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on May 25, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
He is actually more sympathetic to the idea of anthropogenic change than I am.
He is in fact totally on board with that idea, as he outlines in his excellent precise introduction.
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 06:26:33 AM
He is in fact totally on board with that idea, as he outlines in his excellent precise introduction.
Read carefully through all the chapters up to, and including, the last. If after that you still praise the guy, then kudos to you for seeing the light... :)
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 06:37:11 AM
Read carefully through all the chapters up to, and including, the last. If after that you still praise the guy, then kudos to you for seeing the light... :)
I do still praise him, because he's making a careful and rational argument not merely based on wanting to outright deny that human beings pumping all of their gaseous waste into the atmosphere could possibly have an impact.
His argument is not about whether we are having an effect, but about the most likely extent of the long-term consequences. Which is a legitimate topic of scientific debate.
This is
very different from people who just stick their head in the sand and say "la la la, nothing's happening, I can go on thoughtlessly dumping my waste much in the same way that my ancestors dumped their liquid and solid waste anywhere they felt like without thinking about what it might do afterwards".
Of course, people still ARE dumping their waste without thinking about what will happen to it. That's why we have the North Pacific Gyre.
I really wish that the whole issue was thought of more often as one of waste management, rather than "how much can we get away with before the climate changes", because that would make it more obvious that it's a dumb idea to keep wishing and hoping that our waste has no consequence.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 03:01:00 AM
Hillary Clinton trumpets climate change on every opportunity, yet she flies all over the place in her private jet (as does another climate change superhero, Leonardo di Caprio). Are you OK with that? Or is it that the hypocrisy of the Left is okay while the hypocrisy of the Right is not?
Are they buying carbon offsets?
Would you like to suggest a (safe) alternative method of travel? The American train system is rudimentary, and bicycling is impractical.
EDIT: After doing some Google searching, it appears that Leo does practice carbon offsets, and there is even a whole forest planted with his funds in Mexico. But rough third-party calculations suggest that he is not 100% "carbon neutral" - just that he contributes somewhat less to climate change than the average American, despite his wealth.
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 06:47:47 AM
I do still praise him, because he's making a careful and rational argument not merely based on wanting to outright deny that human beings pumping all of their gaseous waste into the atmosphere could possibly have an impact.
His argument is not about whether we are having an effect, but about the most likely extent of the long-term consequences. Which is a legitimate topic of scientific debate.
Precisely.
Let me quote him in full:
Quote from: coyoteblog
The 97% number first appeared in a "study" by several academics who sent out a survey to scientists with some climate change questions. They recieved over 3146 responses, but they decided that only 77 of these respondents "counted" as climate scientists, and of these 75 of the 77 (97%) answered two questions about climate change in the affirmative.
[follows a slide that shows that questions shave been submitted to 10,257 out of 12,500 AUG members, answers have been received from 3,146 people, 77 of whom have been considered as coming from clkimate scientists]
We will get to the two questions in a second, but note already the odd study methodology. If the other 10,000 plus people sent the survey were not the targets of the survey, why were they sent a survey in the first place? It makes one suspicious that the study methodology was changed mid-stream to get the answer they wanted.
Anyway, what is even more fascinating is the two questions asked in the survey. Here they are:
When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The 97% in this survey answered the questions "risen" and "yes".
Do you see the irony here? If you have been following along with this series, you should be able to say how I would have answered the two questions. I would certainly have said "risen" to 1. The answer to question 2 is a bit hard because "significant" is not defined, but in a complex system with literally thousands of variables, I would have said one of those variables was a significant contributor at anything over about 10%. Since I estimated man's effect on past warming around 40-50%, I would have answered "yes" to #2! In fact, most every prominent science-based skeptic I can think of would likely have answered the same.
So you heard it right -- I and many prominent skeptics are part of the 97% consensus. Effectively, I am being told to shut up and not continue to say what I think, in the name of a 97% consensus that represents exactly what I am saying. This is so weird as to be almost Kafka-esque.
Quote
This is very different from people who just stick their head in the sand and say "la la la, nothing's happening, I can go on thoughtlessly dumping my waste much in the same way that my ancestors dumped their liquid and solid waste anywhere they felt like without thinking about what it might do afterwards"
.
Can we agree that global warming / climate change is one topic, and waste / garbage management another, and that they are not necessarily related?
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 06:47:47 AMI really wish that the whole issue was thought of more often as one of waste management
I would suggest approaching climate change from a risk management perspective. Certainty is not required to act, costs and benefits can be assessed and form a rational basis for policy making, and, as a side benefit, new financial products can be created to mitigate risk and make money.
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2016, 06:50:37 AMBut rough third-party calculations suggest that he is not 100% "carbon neutral" - just that he contributes somewhat less to climate change than the average American, despite his wealth.
Anyone who owns a private jet is not carbon neutral. And out of curiosity, what type of auditing is performed on the off-sets that are purchased? Mr DiCaprio is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to substantive policy matters, but he lends a pretty face to the cause, so I guess that helps.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 06:59:41 AM
Let me quote him in full:
How is that quote relevant? That's not remotely the bit of his writing that is about engaging with the science. That's just you going straight for the tiresome "they all lied" line of argument. The whole reason his writing impresses me is because criticising others forms such a
small part of his writing.
Quote
Can we agree that global warming / climate change is one topic, and waste / garbage management another, and that they are not necessarily related?
No we can't. Not unless we can agree that public health is one topic, and management of liquid waste going into the waterways is another, and that they are not necessarily related.
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2016, 06:50:37 AM
Would you like to suggest a (safe) alternative method of travel?
No. I am all for cars, planes, ships and other fossil-fuels burning transportation vehicles. What I am against is hypocrisy, both Right and Left.
Quote
EDIT: After doing some Google searching, it appears that Leo does practice carbon offsets, and there is even a whole forest planted with his funds in Mexico. But rough third-party calculations suggest that he is not 100% "carbon neutral" - just that he contributes somewhat less to climate change than the average American, despite his wealth.
Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of making a movie, especially a movie starring di Caprio? My right thumb tells me that we might be in for a big surprise.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 07:06:19 AM
Has anyone calculated the environmental impact of making a movie, especially a movie starring di Caprio?
Yes, because there are examples of movies (and other forms of entertainment) which have aimed to be carbon-neutral.
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 07:05:52 AM
How is that quote relevant? That's not remotely the bit of his writing that is about engaging with the science. That's just you going straight for the tiresome "they all lied" line of argument. The whole reason his writing impresses me is because criticising others forms such a small part of his writing.
Hmmm.... I just remembered that when I stated a very true fact --- namely that Max Planck blew the then settled science in the face of all the all-too-convinced settlers --- you reproached me for not helping
the political debate.
Can we at the very least agree that science is one thing and politics / policies another, and that they are not necessarily related?
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 07:10:03 AM
Yes, because there are examples of movies (and other forms of entertainment) which have aimed to be carbon-neutral.
All right. Please show me facts & figures & data showing that the latest di Caprio movie is carbon-neutral, or at least
more carbon neutral than 1,000 John Does driiving his car to job and back home over the same period as it was needed to make the said movie.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 07:12:54 AM
Can we at the very least agree that science is one thing and politics / policies another, and that they are not necessarily related?
No. They are related because one key measure of whether a policy is any good is the extent to which it was developed with science (or heck, just
facts) in mind.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 07:16:13 AM
All right. Please show me facts & figures & data showing that the latest di Caprio movie is carbon-neutral, or at least more carbon neutral than 1,000 John Does driiving his car to job and back home over the same period as it was needed to make the said movie.
You are in your argumentative mode, aren't you? You asked whether anyone had calculated the environmental impact of making a movie. I said yes. That doesn't mean I know where to get the facts and figures, in the same way that me saying a man has walked on the moon doesn't mean that I can supply you with a ticket.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 07:06:19 AMI am all for cars, planes, ships and other fossil-fuels burning transportation vehicles. What I am against is hypocrisy, both Right and Left.
Flying jets while advocating sustainable future is not hypocrisy. There's a Czech saying that goes something like 'You don't have to become a saint to talk about morals'..
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 07:19:11 AM
You are in your argumentative mode, aren't you?
Have you ever known me in any other mode? :laugh:
Quote
You asked whether anyone had calculated the environmental impact of making a movie. I said yes.
Okay, forget about di Caprio. Please show me one such calculation.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 26, 2016, 07:21:30 AM
Flying jets while advocating sustainable future is not hypocrisy. There's a Czech saying that goes something like 'You don't have to become a saint to talk about morals'..
Talk the talk is easy, but how about walk the walk?
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 07:19:11 AM
You are in your argumentative mode, aren't you? You asked whether anyone had calculated the environmental impact of making a movie. I said yes. That doesn't mean I know where to get the facts and figures, in the same way that me saying a man has walked on the moon doesn't mean that I can supply you with a ticket.
This is a classic troll tactic. "Please do lots of work that I could do myself using Google, but I want to make you do it, so that you will stop arguing because you realize you're wasting too much time."
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 07:26:17 AM
Please show me one such calculation.
Can't. I have access to numerous reports of such calculations being done (as do you, using Google). That doesn't mean I have access to the methodology that was used.
You still seem not to have grasped what it was I actually answered. There are a great many things that we all accept have occurred without having personally witnessed it or understanding the mechanism to the extent that we could replicate the effect.
I can, if you wish, point you to the methodologies used to calculate the energy output of various industrial processes as set out in Australian law, but frankly the calculations are so mind-numbingly boring I wouldn't wish such a fate on you. I don't know whether movie production in this country is legally required to account for its energy expenditure. I expect not.
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 07:36:09 AM
Can't.
I wasn´t quite holding my breath, to be honest.
Quote
I have access to numerous reports of such calculations being done (as do you, using Google). That doesn't mean I have access to the methodology that was used.
You´re moving the goalpost. I didn´t ask for
the methodology. I asked for
one such calculation. If Google is so generous, then it shouldn´t be difficult for you to send me
one link.
Quote
You still seem not to have grasped what it was I actually answered. There are a great many things that we all accept have occurred without having personally witnessed it or understanding the mechanism to the extent that we could replicate the effect.
That a continent named North America exists I do not doubt for a second, although I have never set my own own feet there. That an animal named unicorn exists I very much doubt, despite having read a lot of reports about its habits.
Quote
I can, if you wish, point you to the methodologies used to calculate the energy output of various industrial processes as set out in Australian law, but frankly the calculations are so mind-numbingly boring I wouldn't wish such a fate on you.
I am a mechanical engineer by trade. I have done more mind-numbingly boring calculations during my training years than you can imagine. I will survive. Try me.
Florestan, media reports don't usually contain calculations, any more than media reports of scientific studies contain a copy of the paper they're reporting on or media reports of a celebrity death include a facsimile of the medical examiner's report.
Brian's absolutely right. You're demanding I do the work of finding YOU a calculation. Go and use Google. If you claim it wouldn't be hard for me to supply you with one link, it wouldn't be hard for you to go and supply YOURSELF with a link. Heck, you can even do the search in more languages than I can.
The notion that you would doubt the existence of any such calculation, despite numerous film studios / filmmakers reporting that they have done such a calculation, seems quite preposterous. People do calculations of this sort quite frequently, including cases where they are legally required to do so. Why should it be impossible for movies if it's not only possible but mandatory for other fields of activity. Do you think movie greenhouse gases are different, unique chemicals?
As for the methodologies used to do the exact same kind of calculation in a non-movie setting: knock yourself out with the following examples. I'm off to bed because it's 2 am.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015C00525
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00537
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 08:00:34 AM
Florestan, media reports don't usually contain calculations, any more than media reports of scientific studies contain a copy of the paper they're reporting on or media reports of a celebrity death include a facsimile of the medical examiner's report.
Agreed 100%. Media reports are more often than not hearsay.
Quote
You're demanding I do the work of finding YOU a calculation. Go and use Google. If you claim it wouldn't be hard for me to supply you with one link, it wouldn't be hard for you to go and supply YOURSELF with a link.
[...]
The notion that you would doubt the existence of any such calculation, despite numerous film studios / filmmakers reporting that they have done such a calculation, seems quite preposterous.
You are a lawyer, right? Right! Then please tell me, on whom does the onus of proving a claim fall? On the one who says that the claim is true? Precisely, according to the Roman Law handbook (if I´m mistaken, please correct me). So, it is not for me to find any such calculation, but for you to provide one.
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2016, 07:34:06 AM
This is a classic troll tactic. "Please do lots of work that I could do myself using Google, but I want to make you do it, so that you will stop arguing because you realize you're wasting too much time."
See my reply to
orfeo.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 08:20:07 AM
You are a lawyer, right? Right! Then please tell me, on whom does the onus of proving a claim fall? On the one who says that the claim is true? Precisely, according to the Roman Law handbook (if I´m mistaken, please correct me).
This depends on the case and claim. For example, in a libel suit in the United States, the burden falls on the person who says the claim is false. In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, the person making the statement must verify that it is true.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 08:20:07 AM
So, it is not for me to find any such calculation, but for you to provide one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2016, 08:30:09 AM
This depends on the case and claim. For example, in a libel suit in the United States, the burden falls on the person who says the claim is false.
Do you mean that if someone accuses me of being a rapist, it is my burden to prove I am not, rather than his burden to prove I am? I just can´t believe it, sorry.
Quote
In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, the person making the statement must verify that it is true.
This is in keeping with both the Roman Law and the common sense.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 08:36:00 AM
Do you mean that if someone accuses me of being a rapist, it is my burden to prove I am not, rather than his burden to prove I am? I just can´t believe it, sorry.
lol no. That's not a libel case. If you want to learn how American libel suits work, you are more than welcome to do the research yourself.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 08:36:00 AM
This is in keeping with both the Roman Law and the common sense.
1. That system is notoriously harsh for the accused. UK politicians have proposed adopting the US system instead.
2. Who cares about Roman Law?
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2016, 08:52:35 AM
lol no. That's not a libel case.
If I´d claim "Btian is a necrophle", would it be a libel case? If yes, who would have to prove it?
Quote
If you want to learn how American libel suits work, you are more than welcome to do the research yourself.
1. That system is notoriously harsh for the accused. UK politicians have proposed adopting the US system instead.
Makes me doubly happy for not living in the US or the UK.
Quote
Who cares about Roman Law?
Any barbarian on the way to civilization.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 09:22:03 AM
If I´d claim "Btian is a necrophle", would it be a libel case? If yes, who would have to prove it?
Generally speaking, Btian, using a preponderance of evidence standard.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 26, 2016, 07:21:30 AM
Flying jets while advocating sustainable future is not hypocrisy. There's a Czech saying that goes something like 'You don't have to become a saint to talk about morals'..
Of course it's hypocrisy. He can "talk about morals", ie advocate for his preferred policies, without such flights. Flying isn't advocating.
Was it hypocrisy for Jimmy Swaggart to preach against adultery whilst committing it?
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2016, 09:42:36 AM
Of course it's hypocrisy. He can "talk about morals", ie advocate for his preferred policies, without such flights. Flying isn't advocating.
Was it hypocrisy for Jimmy Swaggart to preach against adultery whilst committing it?
Yes, of course it was. The difference is that adultery is an avoidable condition. Global warming is, at this point in time, inevitable. Despite Swaggart's hypocrisy, adultery is no less amoral. Despite the hand-wringing over global warming, it is no less unavoidable. So, does Trump = Swaggart? No, Swaggart is more entertaining, but just by an eyelash. ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2016, 10:06:05 AMNo, Swaggart is more entertaining, but just by an eyelash.
This is as contentious a claim about Trump as I have ever seen.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2016, 10:06:05 AM
Yes, of course it was. The difference is that adultery is an avoidable condition. Global warming is, at this point in time, inevitable. Despite Swaggart's hypocrisy, adultery is no less amoral. Despite the hand-wringing over global warming, it is no less unavoidable. So, does Trump = Swaggart? No, Swaggart is more entertaining, but just by an eyelash. ::)
8)
di Caprio flying a private jet is avoidable.
Added https://au.entertainment.yahoo.com/celebrity/news/a/31680753/leo-dicaprio-took-a-private-jet-to-accept-green-award/
It's official: Rectal Wart is the Republican nominee. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_2016_ELECTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-26-10-19-46)
Now, the Dems just have to finish choosing between Oral Herpes and Ocular Herpes.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 10:08:37 AM
This is as contentious a claim about Trump as I have ever seen.
Swaggart was OTT. If you appreciate the entertainment value of JTV, you know what I mean. He was a stud! :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2016, 10:29:06 AM
Swaggart was OTT.
Gotta say, I was more a fan of the subtleties of Jim and Tammy Faye back in the day.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 11:19:36 AM
You kidding, right?
Not at all. In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such cases.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 12:00:15 PM
Gotta say, I was more a fan of the subtleties of Jim and Tammy Faye back in the day.
I loved the way Tammy Faye could cry as easily as most of us breathe, and without ruining her mascara. But my current favorite is the aptly named Creflo Dollar.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 12:00:15 PM
Not at all. In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such cases.
Do you mean that, if I accuse you of being a child molester, the burden of proof that you are not is on you, not on me that you are one such? ???
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 12:00:15 PM
Gotta say, I was more a fan of the subtleties of Jim and Tammy Faye back in the day.
Not at all. In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in such cases.
Tammy was great, and Jim was suitably sleazy. I was thinking at one time of selling a line of Tammy Faye authorized silver plated mascara trowels, but my deal in China fell through when Jim confessed... :-\
8)
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 12:08:52 PM
Do you mean that, if I accuse you of being a child molester, the burden of proof that you are not is on you, not on me that you are one such? ???
Yes. For the third time.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 12:16:34 PM
Yes. For the third time.
Then justice in the US of A is seriously screwed. Actually, it is not justice at all. And I am only too glad I don´t live in the US of A.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 12:19:08 PMThen justice in the US of A is seriously screwed. Actually, it is not justice at all.
That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Good thing I didn't go into the difference between how private citizens and public personages are treated with respect to defamation.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 12:59:10 PM
I didn't go into the difference between how private citizens and public personages are treated with respect to defamation.
Is not justice the same for all?
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 12:19:08 PM
Then justice in the US of A is seriously screwed. Actually, it is not justice at all. And I am only too glad I don´t live in the US of A.
In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court."
- Wikipedia
Presumption of innocence is an ancient concept that holds true in numerous modern societies. Again Wikipedia: "This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 26, 2016, 01:09:18 PM
In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court."
- Wikipedia
Why, of course! Roman Law all the way!
Quote
Presumption of innocence is an ancient concept that holds true in numerous modern societies. Again Wikipedia: "This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions."
Common sense!
But the issue is not this! The issue is the following: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. Now, on whom falls the burden of proof' According to the Roman Law, it falls on me. According to Todd´s interpretation of the US law, it falls on you. If Todd is right, that I maintain justice in the USA is screwed.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 01:02:09 PMIs not justice the same for all?
Depends on what you define as justice. Having a higher burden of proof for public figures relates expressly to freedom of speech. That is, we can say mean and nasty things about politicians with what amounts to impunity. That's a good thing. I think it makes sense to show that a person has been harmed by false speech before stifling or punishing that speech. If someone wants to say that Obama is a Kenyan-born commie Muslim - all demonstrably false - they ought to be free to do so. But then, I'm one of those Americans who thinks the US has too many restrictions on speech, so of course I would think that.
Also, note that the presumption of innocence is more relevant in criminal proceedings than in civil proceedings - ie, when it is the state prosecuting an individual. Defamation suits are civil. They also usually get settled out of court, unless one party makes it a point to take it to trial.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 01:20:13 PMAccording to Todd´s interpretation of the US law, it falls on you.
It is not my interpretation of US law.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 01:25:09 PM
If someone wants to say that Obama is a Kenyan-born commie Muslim - all demonstrably false - they ought to be free to do so.
Absolutely. But should Obama take them to court for saying that, common sense and Roman Law (which is actually one and the same thing) dictate that the burden of proof is on anyone saying that, not on Obama having to disprove the claim.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 01:29:23 PMAbsolutely. But should Obama take them to court for saying that, common sense and Roman Law (which is actually one and the same thing) dictate that the burden of proof is on anyone saying that, not on Obama having to disprove the claim.
Roman Law's dictates regarding defamation are irrelevant in the US. Common sense may be defined differently in different societies. But you knew both those facts already.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 01:35:19 PM
Roman Law's dictates regarding defamation are irrelevant in the US.
True. Lots of things pertaining to civilization are irrelevant in the US.
Quote
Common sense may be defined differently in different societies. But you knew both those facts already.
Well, yes, I did. But I still maintain that any judicial system in which the burden of proof is on he who denies a claim is serioulsy screwed.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 01:41:05 PMWell, yes, I did. But I still maintain that any judicial system in which the burden of proof is on he who denies a claim is serioulsy screwed.
That's one way to look at it. The other is that it is the plaintiff who is making the claim of defamation. Using that approach, the burden of proof naturally falls on the accuser.
All this talk of Roman vs American law is moot. Once Hillary is elected the latter will have ceased to operate.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 01:45:39 PM
the burden of proof naturally falls on the accuser.
That is what I, based on the Roman Law, have been advocating all the way.
Once again: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to court. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 01:50:29 PM
That is what I, based on the Roman Law, have been advocating all the way.
Once again: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to court. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?
See the three prior answers. The fourth is the same.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 01:50:29 PM
That is what I, based on the Roman Law, have been advocating all the way.
Once again: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to court. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?
Neither. Todd must prove you have defamed him by a preponderance of the evidence. That is a palpable tipping of the scales, not remotely close to beyond reasonable doubt.
The standard is higher in some cases. If Todd is Trump, a public figure, it is higher. There are other cases that call for a higher standard too, but for garden variety cases this is it.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 01:56:42 PM
See the three prior answers. The fourth is the same.
Okay, then. Once and for all: if the burden of proof is on the person denying the accusation, then this is no justice at all. Better said, this is Communist justice:
any person shall be presumed guilty until found innocent by a final decision of the court.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 02:02:18 PM
Okay, then. Once and for all: if the burden of proof is on the person denying the accusation, then this is no justice at all. Better said, this is Communist justice: any person shall be presumed guilty until found innocent by a final decision of the court.
There's nothing "once and for all" about it. There are two different standards under discussion, which by definition means it's not "once and for all". Simple stuff here.
Quote from: Todd on May 26, 2016, 02:06:01 PM
There's nothing "once and for all" about it. There are two different standards under discussion, which by definition means it's not "once and for all". Simple stuff here.
Forgive me for being such a pain in the ass: I accuse you, Todd, of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to the court. Who must prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, I the accuser or you the defendant?
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 02:09:54 PM
Forgive me for being such a pain in the ass: I accuse you, Todd, of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to the court. Who must prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, I the accuser or you the defendant?
If you are a prosecutor then you must. If you are suing Todd for damages, as you were the child, you must prove it but not beyond a reasonable doubt, only by preponderance of the evidence. If Todd sues you for defamation then he must, again by preponderance.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 08:20:07 AM
You are a lawyer, right? Right! Then please tell me, on whom does the onus of proving a claim fall? On the one who says that the claim is true? Precisely, according to the Roman Law handbook (if I´m mistaken, please correct me). So, it is not for me to find any such calculation, but for you to provide one.
Well done. While I've been asleep, you've had everyone chasing this rabbit for a couple of pages now.
My answer is that your question "on whom does the onus of proving a claim fall" is so broad as to be meaningless. First thing to point out is that we're not talking about a court of law. Second thing to point out is the broad range of things that are so basic that any requirement to "prove" them can be established by simply stating them
in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. People aren't generally asked to prove that something that's been dropped fell to the ground. They're not even generally asked to prove which side of the road they were driving on - the working assumption is that they were driving on the usual side.
Third thing to point out is that you've asserted what the law is
without providing a link.
Fourth thing to do is to provide you with a single one of the many links that says a movie was carbon neutral. From 10 years ago. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-movie-idUSN2639166020061027
Your alleged skepticism on this particular point is absurdly wilful. You're not being skeptical about global warming, you're being skeptical about whether or not someone is capable of adding up a bunch of estimates of the greenhouse gas emitted by activities. That's the equivalent of being skeptical that someone can calculate the number of calories in your food, or do the sums as to how many calories you ought to eat per day to maintain your current weight.
It's the equivalent of denying the possibility that anyone would be able to work out how much exercise you need to do to work off a chocolate bar. http://www.kidspot.com.au/health/wellbeing/exercise/how-much-exercise-does-it-take-to-burn-off-your-fave-foods
Heck, it's the equivalent of being skeptical that anyone could calculate how much money you'll have to earn to pay off a debt.
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2016, 02:13:28 PM
If you are a prosecutor then you must.
Obviously.
Quote
If you are suing Todd for damages, as you were the child, you must prove it but not beyond a reasonable doubt, only by preponderance of the evidence.
Obviously.
Quote
If Todd sues you for defamation then he must, again by preponderance.
That is illogical. It is not for him to prove he is not a child molester, but for his accuser to prove he is.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 02:22:46 PM
That is illogical. It is not for him to prove he is not a child molester, but for his accuser to prove he is.
It appears perfectly logical to me...the burden of the proof is only applicable in a court of law. You defamate me, say, in a newspaper (as happens every day in every country around the world). You don't have to prove anything...I take you to court for slander. Now I am accusing
you of an offense, and
it is up to me to prove you gullty of the accusation I've made...
Quote from: ritter on May 26, 2016, 02:28:43 PM
It appears perfectly logical to me...the burden of the proof is only applicable in a court of law. You defamate me, say, in a newspaper (as happens every day in every country around the world). You don't have to prove anything...I take you to court for slander. Now I am accusing you of an offense, and it is up to me to prove you gullty of the accusation I've made...
Yep.
Quote from: ritter on May 26, 2016, 02:28:43 PM
I take you to court for slander. Now I am accusing you of an offense, and it is up to me to prove you gullty of the accusation I've made...
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. When is that not so?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 26, 2016, 02:32:40 PM
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. When is that not so?
Apparently it is not so in Romania :D, and the concepts of "slander" and "accustion in a court of law" appear to be one and the same thing there....
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 26, 2016, 02:32:40 PM
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. When is that not so?
When you're Florestan and your aim is simply to deny absolutely anything that anyone else says because you've lost sight of the actual goal, and are focused on the process of keeping a whole lot of people distracted.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 02:22:46 PM
Obviously.
Obviously.
That is illogical. It is not for him to prove he is not a child molester, but for his accuser to prove he is.
It makes more sense when you realize this trial is about defamation not pederasty. To prove the tort of defamation Todd must prove you made a false factual claim. So he must prove the falsity.
Look. When you accuse Todd on TV you do not ask the court to punish him. When he sues you he asks the court to punish you. The burden is always on the person asking the court to punish. As it should be.
What I forgot to add to my main post, Florestan, is how neatly you sidestepped the fact that I provided you with links to a method of calculation to continue demanding that I provide you with links.
There is, of course, absolutely no logical basis for arguing that one can't use the same exact mathematics for every kind of activity. To continue with the food analogy, if I provided you with an explanation of how the energy content of a chocolate bar is calculated, you'd apparently insist that this isn't acceptable because it doesn't mean anyone would know how to calculate the energy content of fruit and vegetables.
Well done. I almost missed that part of your slight of hand where you didn't quote the part of my post that provided you with links, and continued to demand links. You in fact said precisely nothing about the links that I did provide.
Having provided you with evidence of how calculations of energy are done, the evidentiary onus is on you to prove that the material I've provided is false. Have fun.
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 02:36:15 PM
When you're Florestan and your aim is simply to deny absolutely anything that anyone else says because you've lost sight of the actual goal, and are focused on the process of keeping a whole lot of people distracted.
On whom falls the burden of the proof of that accusation? Or is it defamation?...I'm soooo confused ;D
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2016, 02:40:22 PM
It makes more sense when you realize this trial is about defamation not pederasty. To prove the tort of defamation Todd must prove you made a false factual claim. So he must prove the falsity.
Look. When you accuse Todd on TV you do not ask the court to punish him. When he sues you he asks the court to punish you. The burden is always on the person asking the court to punish. As it should be.
Well, maybe this contretemps is making more sense to some of you than it is to me, but as far as I'm aware it's always the plaintiff - no matter what the nature of the suit - who must meet the burden of proof, else the defendant is not guilty. If this is not the case in anyone's eyes, kindly explain.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 26, 2016, 02:48:24 PM
Well, maybe this contretemps is making more sense to some of you than it is to me, but as far as I'm aware it's always the plaintiff - no matter what the nature of the suit - who must meet the burden of proof, else the defendant is not guilty. If this is not the case in anyone's eyes, kindly explain.
Florestan is conflating the
legal accusation - of slander - with the
slanderous accusation - of necrophilia or child molestation. Just another of the illogics with which to torture us.
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2016, 08:52:35 AM
2. Who cares about Roman Law?
I imagine the Romans do.
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2016, 01:50:29 PM
Once again: I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The case is taken to court. Who must prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?
Ah. I see the trick here. "The" case.
Which case? There are two.
CASE ONE: "I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. The police arrest you, you are charged with child molestation and brought to trial. Who must prove
the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?"
ANSWER ONE: Neither. The State must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The person who made the accusation is not a party to the case, merely a witness.
CASE TWO: "I accuse you of being a child molester. You deny the accusation. You take me to court suing me for defamation. Who must prove
the case beyond any reasonable doubt, I or you?"
ANSWER TWO: Neither. I must prove that you have defamed me on the balance of probabilities.
There's a whole lot of manufactured outrage here based on conflating two separate issues into one "case" when they aren't at all. All these claims about what Roman law says are bunkum as well of course, because Roman law understands perfectly well that a general principle about having to prove a claim can only be applied once you identify
which claim must be proven.
"You are a child molester" and "You said that I am a child molester" are two separate claims with entirely separate processes. Simple as that. If I sue you for defamation and fail, all that will happen to me is that I won't get any money. I will not be carted off to jail.
To tie this all together...
The most insane thing here is that Florestan is actually relying on the distinction between "X happened" and "someone said X happened" to insist that people reporting that calculations have been done to make movies carbon-neutral is no kind of proof that anyone has actually done calculations to make movies carbon-neutral.
And yet he then goes on to utterly conflate "X happened" and "someone said X happened" into a single topic.
Quote from: orfeo on May 26, 2016, 03:24:11 PM
To tie this all together...
The most insane thing here is that Florestan is actually relying on the distinction between "X happened" and "someone said X happened" to insist that people reporting that calculations have been done to make movies carbon-neutral is no kind of proof that anyone has actually done calculations to make movies carbon-neutral.
And yet he then goes on to utterly conflate "X happened" and "someone said X happened" into a single topic.
Sometimes I think that his real enemy here is our time, and his real goal is to occupy as much of our time as possible. That would account for the continuous, arbitrary addition of new tangents, new irrelevancies, new fallacies, and new accusations.
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2016, 03:31:38 PM
Sometimes I think that his real enemy here is our time, and his real goal is to occupy as much of our time as possible. That would account for the continuous, arbitrary addition of new tangents, new irrelevancies, new fallacies, and new accusations.
Look, I can't spend three hours going through old posts to see what makes sense to me in this thread and what doesn't, but I have good reasons to consider Florestan a friend, and I resent this kind of personal gang-up some of you are indulging in — just as I resent the kind of gang-up visited on James when he has the guts to stick his neck out and say some unpopular things. Can't we stay above board and knock off the personal attacks?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 26, 2016, 02:48:24 PM
Well, maybe this contretemps is making more sense to some of you than it is to me, but as far as I'm aware it's always the plaintiff - no matter what the nature of the suit - who must meet the burden of proof, else the defendant is not guilty. If this is not the case in anyone's eyes, kindly explain.
I believe that is what I just said. The plaintiff is the one asking the court to act against another.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 26, 2016, 03:56:14 PM
Look, I can't spend three hours going through old posts to see what makes sense to me in this thread and what doesn't, but I have good reasons to consider Florestan a friend, and I resent this kind of personal gang-up some of you are indulging in — just as I resent the kind of gang-up visited on James when he has the guts to stick his neck out and say some unpopular things. Can't we stay above board and knock off the personal attacks?
If that question is meant seriously then the answer is clearly no they cannot. Even to the extent of imputing bad motives to a foreigner asking in his third language about hypotheticals in various branches of American tort law.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 26, 2016, 03:56:14 PM
Look, I can't spend three hours going through old posts to see what makes sense to me in this thread and what doesn't, but I have good reasons to consider Florestan a friend, and I resent this kind of personal gang-up some of you are indulging in — just as I resent the kind of gang-up visited on James when he has the guts to stick his neck out and say some unpopular things. Can't we stay above board and knock off the personal attacks?
I regard Florestan as a friend. But he's a friend who at least twice has apologised to me for the way he behaves when he gets into an argumentative frame of mind, being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
This is exactly why I referred to him being in "argumentative mode". And I didn't answer his rhetorical question about whether I'd known him to be any other way, but I will now: yes, I've known him to behave in other ways, most especially when he comes to his senses and realises what he's been up to.
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2016, 04:21:15 PM
If that question is meant seriously then the answer is clearly no they cannot. Even to the extent of imputing bad motives to a foreigner asking in his third language about hypotheticals in various branches of American tort law.
Except no-one actually believes he's genuinely curious about American tort law. He's engaging in a rhetorical device. Am I the only one who remembers what was actually being discussed before Florestan managed to divert everyone into a discussion of American tort law?
This is actually a discussion about climate change, and Florestan is attempting to get people to declare the importance of proving things. Hence the horror if anyone suggests that something might not have to be proved. And he went to the law because he wants to get people to commit to legal levels of proof. He was then looking to apply those concepts to science.
It hasn't worked. Not least because I went to bed as promised. "You're a lawyer right?" was the opening bait, but I wasn't here to take it. This wasn't
about discussing law, it was about attempting to force me along a line of argument that would have woven round to requiring proof on scientific matters relating to climate. Because I wasn't here, you all took the bait instead.
I'm not sure if Florestan is aware that as well as being "a lawyer", I have a Science degree. Though I hasten to add I am not a climate scientist.
Imagine I say something damaging about you, that I claim is a matter of fact. You sue me. Here's a possible law: if you can prove that what I said is a factual claim and harms you then you win UNLESS I prove it is true. In other words, the only defenses are
1 I did not say it
2 it's an opinion
3 it is not harmful
Or
4 it is true
Is this an imaginable legal regime? I think so. It even seems defensible, doesn't it? I prefer our system because it defends speech rights more vigilantly, and I think that matters more than "reputation rights". But the reverse is defensible. AND IT MAY BE THE WAY OTHER LEGAL SYSTEMS WORK. I think it is closer to the law in the UK. It may be the way Roman law works or its descendant, the Napoleonic law, which governs much of the non Anglo world.
Just Asserting the burden automatically being on the plaintiff won't suffice here to justify our law. He has the burden to prove HARM and to prove it is a factual claim, and to prove it was made under certain circumstances. If the tort were not words that would suffice. If I keyed your car you wouldn't much. It is because we protect speech that we place the additional burden, and it is not brain dead to question it.
Note to self
Bring up the topic of climate change only when I want a thread derailment.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 26, 2016, 03:56:14 PM
Look, I can't spend three hours going through old posts to see what makes sense to me in this thread and what doesn't, but I have good reasons to consider Florestan a friend, and I resent this kind of personal gang-up some of you are indulging in — just as I resent the kind of gang-up visited on James when he has the guts to stick his neck out and say some unpopular things. Can't we stay above board and knock off the personal attacks?
You should see how I treat my enemies!
(No; point taken. Intention is the hardest thing to assess in internet text talk.)
Quote from: Ken B on May 26, 2016, 06:03:01 PM
Imagine I say something damaging about you, that I claim is a matter of fact. You sue me. Here's a possible law: if you can prove that what I said is a factual claim and harms you then you win UNLESS I prove it is true. In other words, the only defenses are
1 I did not say it
2 it's an opinion
3 it is not harmful
Or
4 it is true
Is this an imaginable legal regime? I think so. It even seems defensible, doesn't it? I prefer our system because it defends speech rights more vigilantly, and I think that matters more than "reputation rights". But the reverse is defensible. AND IT MAY BE THE WAY OTHER LEGAL SYSTEMS WORK. I think it is closer to the law in the UK. It may be the way Roman law works or its descendant, the Napoleonic law, which governs much of the non Anglo world.
Just Asserting the burden automatically being on the plaintiff won't suffice here to justify our law. He has the burden to prove HARM and to prove it is a factual claim, and to prove it was made under certain circumstances. If the tort were not words that would suffice. If I keyed your car you wouldn't much. It is because we protect speech that we place the additional burden, and it is not brain dead to question it.
It pretty well IS the way most legal systems work, so I honestly don't know where the rest of this comes from.
I'm not American. I'm certainly not here to defend the American legal system or its conception of free speech. And what you're saying doesn't help Florestan one bit. All he's interested in is saying "you've got to prove everything", and there isn't a legal system in the world that works that way.
Okay, guys, I am very sorry for mindlessly derailing the thread. Truth is, I was drunk, and when I´m drunk I´m even more of a contrarian than when sober. :laugh:
I guess I deserved all the remonstrations I got from orfeo and Brian, whom I consider as friends too. :-*
You won´t hear anymore "Roman Law" from me, I promise. :)
Getting back to the thread topic, what do you folks think of the proposed debate between Trump and Sanders?
Quote from: Sammy on May 27, 2016, 11:15:58 AM
Getting back to the thread topic, what do you folks think of the proposed debate between Trump and Sanders?
It will be worse than this one here, and they're not even drunk!
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2016, 12:34:46 AM
Okay, guys, I am very sorry for mindlessly derailing the thread. Truth is, I was drunk, and when I´m drunk I´m even more of a contrarian than when sober. :laugh:
I guess I deserved all the remonstrations I got from orfeo and Brian, whom I consider as friends too. :-*
You won´t hear anymore "Roman Law" from me, I promise. :)
All is forgiven! That is truly the best of excuses! I haven't always been a sober poster (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,23846.msg855019.html#msg855019).
Quote from: The new erato on May 27, 2016, 11:22:53 AM
It will be worse than this one here, and they're not even drunk!
Well, one is drunk with power, the other one is drunk with wild dreams.
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2016, 03:02:25 AM
the other one is drunk with wild dreams.
I'm sure the that's what some thought about our founding fathers.
Quote from: The new erato on May 27, 2016, 11:22:53 AM
It will be worse than this one here, and they're not even drunk!
Trump has already withdrawn the offer. He's so consistent.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on May 28, 2016, 03:40:49 AM
Trump has already withdrawn the offer. He's so consistent.
I wonder if this wasn't a ploy. It boosts Sanders a bit. There is no way any nominee would ever debate a challenger who isn't the other party nominee, so this would never happen, but it suggests Sanders is closer to being the candidate than he is. To enhance the let down from his supporters when crooked Hillary (I like Trump's phrase more than I do Trump!) steals the nomination from him ( as many Berniers will feel).
A glimpse of hell (In no small part because it goes down in SoCal--a vile and disgusting hellhole):
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-trumpian-divide/484619/
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on May 28, 2016, 07:21:57 PM
A glimpse of hell (In no small part because it goes down in SoCal--a vile and disgusting hellhole):
Not a big fan of Anaheim, but not all of Southern California is a hellhole.
Pasadena and (some) adjacent communities are acceptable, but the rest of it-- FLUSH!!!!!
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on May 28, 2016, 07:50:28 PM
Pasadena and (some) adjacent communities are acceptable, but the rest of it-- FLUSH!!!!!
This process in already underway.
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on May 28, 2016, 07:50:28 PM
Pasadena and (some) adjacent communities are acceptable, but the rest of it-- FLUSH!!!!!
Are you having a psychotic break?
Quote from: Ken B on May 28, 2016, 07:55:21 PM
This process in already underway.
Has been for quite some time...
No one normal to vote for this election season, everyone's a bad choice.
Trump was hijacked by the racists and even if he wasn't hijacked by them still he is a terrible and awful candidate.
Then you have Hillary who believes that she deserves to be the president because she is a woman.
Then you have Bernie, who tries to revive the dead horse of communism to no avail.
With candidates like this no wonder we shall stay this one at home....
Quote from: 28Orot on June 02, 2016, 07:23:40 PM
Then you have Hillary who believes that she deserves to be the president because she 'is' a 'women'.
I'm confused, why are 'is' and 'women' (spelled wrong) in quotations?
typo :(
El Tupé was not hijacked, he is leading in the ugliness full willing.
Yes, indeed: The Year of the Flawed Candidate. If Hillary wins, it can only be because the G.O.P. chose El Tupé. And all the G.O.P. establishment are embracing the presumptive nominee too thoroughly, not to conclude that they have choice in the matter.
The tendency (not just witnessed here) to label anyone who would manage to fit into the left wing of politics as "communist" is one of the more fascinating parts of the American political psyche.
Do y'all think the whole of Scandinavia is communist?
Why split hairs? 8) 0:)
Quote from: orfeo on June 03, 2016, 05:44:18 AM
Do y'all think the whole of Scandinavia is communist?
Heck, I'm sure they think that of all the Nordic countries. 0:)
I'm just putting this NYT article excerpt here for Florestan to enjoy:
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump, said he did not believe that the nation would be in danger under his presidency.
"I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations," Mr. McCain said. "We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We're not Romania."
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 05:57:29 AM
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump
Even the "losers" are caving in.
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2016, 05:56:40 AM
Heck, I'm sure they think that of all the Nordic countries. 0:)
Well
you're practically Russian, it's just a given. ::)
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 05:57:29 AM
I'm just putting this NYT article excerpt here for Florestan to enjoy:
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump, said he did not believe that the nation would be in danger under his presidency.
"I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations," Mr. McCain said. "We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We're not Romania."
;D McCain is a GMG member!! I love that!! C'mon, John, out of the closet. Which are you? I bet you're Drogulus, disguising your intentions. :D
8)
8)
Quote from: orfeo on June 03, 2016, 06:04:41 AM
Well you're practically Russian, it's just a given. ::)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 03, 2016, 06:05:23 AM
;D McCain is a GMG member!! I love that!! C'mon, John, out of the closet. Which are you? I bet you're Drogulus, disguising your intentions. :D
8)
8)
:laugh:
Yesterday I read in separate stories in the news media that Trump was endorsed by Paul Ryan and Kim Jong Un of North Korea.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-trump-idUSKCN0YN35S
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2016, 05:56:40 AM
Heck, I'm sure they think that of all the Nordic countries. 0:)
Much of Europe really. Certainly it is a claim many make of Obama too.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 03, 2016, 06:21:25 AM
Much of Europe really. Certainly it is a claim many make of Obama too.
When they don't claim he's Kenyan.
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2016, 05:56:40 AM
Heck, I'm sure they think that of all the Nordic countries. 0:)
See, this is how epistemic closure works. You make a statement like this about "they" believe, there being no referent for "they". Then everyone agrees that this is what "they" are like and goes away feeling like some of their ideas have been vindicated. When challenged (like I am doing now) it's easy to retroactively define some "they" and dismiss the challenge. The thing is, it would be easy to recognize if you saw it in another context.
Quote from: El TupéMaybe he's Kenyan, I don't know. I hope he's American.
Perhaps it is a comment added to the article by a reader, for I do not see it in the body of the article (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/oops-bernie-sanders-refers-to-sioux-falls-by-wrong-name.html), but a casual search on Google yielded a they:
QuoteSo if you like the way the communist roll then Sanders is your guy
Quote from: orfeo on June 03, 2016, 05:44:18 AM
The tendency (not just witnessed here) to label anyone who would manage to fit into the left wing of politics as "communist" is one of the more fascinating parts of the American political psyche.
Do y'all think the whole of Scandinavia is communist?
Its not so simple as you put it.
The idea that its not fair that most of the wealth goes to the top 1% as Bernie put it is a flawed argument. These people have made it, or were lucky or were blessed, or were not lazy and they accumulated all this wealth fair and square. Now unless they are criminals they shouldn't be blamed for making millions of dollars. There is nothing wrong with making lots of money, they didn't steal it from anyone, and they didn't take it from the poor. Bernie tries to paint a very obscure picture suggesting that the dire state of so many poor people in this country is because of the rich folks. Well its not. Since time immemorial there were always those who were poor and those who were rich. Trying to change this reality is nothing more then an inverted war declared by the communists/seculars against the notion that there is a higher power, aka God that controls who gets what depending on their behavior or destiny or duty/ task in this world.
That is why the communists were always secular or atheists. They reject the religious message that actions have consequences and if you don't live a life that is worthy in the eyes of God, he can hurt you financially until you fix your ways. If you note all these pure communist countries were ran by vicious and brutal dictators in the likes of Stalin and Kim il jong. They forced their people to view them as gods and worship them for they were the ones responsible for their well being. The result was that the Russians and the Koreans and many other nations that followed this creed suffered in the hands of their so called leaders and they were disproportionally poorer then many other western democratic countries.
Scandinavia, while not practicing pure communism, they do have some ideas that they incorporated into their governing and social systems. And if you note, the countries that make up Scandinavia are some of the most secular in all of Europe, again that affinity and unity between secularism and communism. And while Scandinavia is not suffering financially like other communist loving nations, they are nevertheless crumbling before our very eyes. The divorce rate in Sweden for example is more then 50%. Swedish politicians have opened the gates of their countries for unrestrained and uncontrolled immigration from the four corners of the world, especially from Muslim countries. Now these people do not even try to integrate into Swedish society and today in some cities in Sweden the local native Christians and Jews can't walk the streets without the fear of been brutally assaulted.
Now sometimes the result/punishment of following the communist secular dogma is not financial. Remember that Rome was destroyed because its moral compass was eroded even though they were very wealthy, and its empire controlled most of the world.
Now Bernie, who is trying to push his atheist communist dogma on the people of this country is bad in many ways.
In this free country you can believe what you want and you can also not believe, you can be an atheist and you can also be a religious person, but if someone stands up and tells everyone that his way is the highway, and that he has all the answers to all the problems, and the rich people are their enemies is rather fooling the people on a grand scale.
The problems that the united states has are not rooted in some rigged financial inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The problems are reminiscent of how all Great Empires of old have lost their way and influence and in the end simply disappeared. Assyria, Greece, Babylon, Persia and Rome all were Mighty and powerful empires with vast lands and enormous worldwide reach. But they all crumbled from within because their morality was eroded and when a nation lives a life of abominations and profanities it simply losses its right to exist, as simple as that.
No candidate has said anything about it seriously except for Ben Carson who mentioned the fall of rome due to moral bankruptcy, but even he had not made it his top priority because he would have been swallowed up by the masses of this country who don't want to hear anything about morality, they just want to blame the rich boogyman who stole all their wealth and they see Bernie as their prophet who will somehow by some magic trick will give them everything they want all for free...
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 06:54:32 AMRemember that Rome was destroyed because its moral compass was eroded even though they were very wealthy, and its empire controlled most of the world.
When did Rome control most of the world?
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 06:59:09 AM
When did Rome control most of the world?
It controlled the places were most of the worlds population lived.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 06:54:32 AM
Now Bernie, who is trying to push his atheist communist dogma on the people of this country [...]
Now, that is an irony in a post which began,
[It's] not so simple as you put it.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 06:54:32 AMNo candidate has said anything about it seriously except for Ben Carson who mentioned that fall of rome due to moral bankruptcy [...]
This does not materially address your point; but honestly, I have had trouble with the contention that Ben Carson says anything serious, since about the time he claimed that the pyramids at Giza were grain silos.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:00:31 AM
It controlled the places were most of the worlds population lived.
Good thing so few people lived in China and India, then!
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:00:31 AM
It controlled the places were most of the worlds population lived.
Oyveh. You could plausibly argue that Rome controlled most of the world known to themselves, and that you meant "known (to them) world" but you can't plausibly claim China was empty.
China at that time had about 40 million people...
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:00:31 AM
It controlled the places were most of the worlds population lived.
No, it didn't.
So this is what became of Eddie Munster :D
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2016/Eddie%20and%20Paul.jpg)
Sarge
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 07:04:56 AM
No, it didn't.
It was the greatest empire of its time, and controlled many countries and vast lands. All of Europe, Africa, and large parts of Asia... Australia and the Americas were not settled yet except maybe of its few natives...
Erm, all of Africa?
Quote from: karlhenning on June 03, 2016, 07:11:04 AM
Erm, all of Africa?
Carthage, Egypt but technically they could have conquered it all.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 06:54:32 AM
They reject the religious message that actions have consequences and if you don't live a life that is worthy in the eyes of God, he can hurt you financially until you fix your ways.
Anybody else notice this gem?
Listen, I try not to be rude to new GMGers because I really want this to be an open, welcoming forum, but when you write posts like these, you make it hard for me to be friendly.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:09:32 AM
It was the greatest empire of its time, and controlled many countries and vast lands. All of Europe, Africa, and large parts of Asia... Australia and the Americas were not settled yet except maybe of its few natives...
Rome did not control all of Europe. Rome did not control all of Africa. Rome controlled Asian territories between the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Red Sea, and the Arabian peninsula - in other words, the Near East, which geographically and demographically is a very small portion of Asia. It may have been the greatest empire of its time, but its geographic dominion was limited, and it never ruled most of humanity. These are basic, established facts. They do not coincide with what you initially wrote.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:18:39 AMCarthage, Egypt but technically they could have conquered it all.
How did you determine that they "technically" could have conquered it all?
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 07:20:37 AMListen, I try not to be rude to new GMGers
You certain he or she is new?
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 07:20:37 AM
Anybody else notice this gem?
Listen, I try not to be rude to new GMGers because I really want this to be an open, welcoming forum, but when you write posts like these, you make it hard for me to be friendly.
What this has to do with anything? this is something that millions of people believe. No one has told you to follow this, but I can't be the first one on this planet who has conveyed to you this classic conservative idea.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:18:39 AM
Carthage, Egypt but technically they could have conquered it all.
Well, you do understand,
Saul, the difference between "they controlled all of Africa" and the speculative assertion that they could have conquered it all.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 07:22:58 AM
Rome did not control all of Europe. Rome did not control all of Africa. Rome controlled Asian territories between the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Red Sea, and the Arabian peninsula - in other words, the Near East, which geographically and demographically is a very small portion of Asia. It may have been the greatest empire of its time, but its geographic dominion was limited, and it never ruled most of humanity. These are basic, established facts. They do not coincide with what you initially wrote.
How did you determine that they "technically" could have conquered it all?
You certain he or she is new?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_(Roman_province)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 03, 2016, 07:24:56 AM
Well, you do understand, Saul, the difference between "they controlled all of Africa" and the speculative assertion that they could have conquered it all.
Yes I do, I think you guys are a little too punctilious with what I said, but thats fine I wasn't trying to pass along a history lesson.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:28:41 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_(Roman_province)
Yes, the Romans controlled northern Africa. Africa is named for a Roman. Again, basic facts. Now, how far south of the Sahara did the legions march?
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2016, 06:30:20 AM
See, this is how epistemic closure works. You make a statement like this about "they" believe, there being no referent for "they". Then everyone agrees that this is what "they" are like and goes away feeling like some of their ideas have been vindicated. When challenged (like I am doing now) it's easy to retroactively define some "they" and dismiss the challenge. The thing is, it would be easy to recognize if you saw it in another context.
Well, for instance those people who interrogated my relatives when they moved to the US from Finland, thought they were communists simply because they were from Finland.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 03, 2016, 07:11:04 AM
Erm, all of Africa?
And all of Europe? Here's a map. I believe there's some more Europe in the north of the map, too.
(http://www.bible-history.com/maps/roman_empire_color.gif)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:29:58 AM
Yes I do, I think you guys are a little too punctilious with what I said, but thats fine I wasn't trying to pass along a history lesson.
Of course you weren't. However, if you can't present basic facts accurately, and if those misstatements of fact are supposed to lend weight to your argument - which they are - then factual errors begin to erode the strength of your argument.
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2016, 07:34:00 AM
And all of Europe? Here's a map. I believe there's some more Europe in the north of the map, too.
(http://www.bible-history.com/maps/roman_empire_color.gif)
He meant all the good bits.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 07:32:58 AM
Yes, the Romans controlled northern Africa. Africa is named for a Roman. Again, basic facts. Now, how far south of the Sahara did the legions march?
Oh fighting invisibles is not an argument. They basically controlled all of Africa.
What is Africa?
Egypt is Africa. You control the superpower of that continent you control the continent...
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:35:51 AMThey basically controlled all of Africa.
What is Africa?
Egypt is Africa. You control the superpower of that continent you control the continent...
Incorrect.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 07:35:17 AM
Of course you weren't. However, if you can't present basic facts accurately, and if those misstatements of fact are supposed to lend weight to your argument - which they are - then factual errors begin to erode the strength of your argument.
Ok, The Greatest empire of the world at that time, not the empire who controlled most of the world. But still I don't believe that that inaccuracy hurt my argument, I think my point still stands regardless.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 07:36:29 AM
Incorrect.
Egypt was controlled by Rome, it was a Roman province. Egypt in many ways is Africa. It was the most important and wealthiest country in that continent, and it was controlled by Rome. So if the most powerful country in Africa was under Roman Control, what does it say about the rest of Africa... you need to connect the dots a little.
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2016, 07:35:39 AM
He meant all the good bits.
The fool doesn't even appreciate Highland Whisky.
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2016, 07:34:00 AM
Well, for instance those people who interrogated my relatives when they moved to the US from Finland, thought they were communists simply because they were from Finland.And all of Europe? Here's a map. I believe there's some more Europe in the north of the map, too.
(http://www.bible-history.com/maps/roman_empire_color.gif)
Germania was controlled by Rome at that point, what little that is left of Europe is just that, little.
28Orot, your "religious" message is the kind of nonsense peddled by many people who seem to have lost the Book of Job from their Bible.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:43:00 AM
Germania was controlled by Rome at that point
The map shows the largest extent to which Rome controlled Europe, or Germania.
Quotewhat little that is left of Europe is just that, little.
At its height, the entire Roman Empire was 5 million km
2. Europe is a bit over 10 million km
2.
Quote from: orfeo on June 03, 2016, 07:48:07 AM
28Orot, your "religious" message is the kind of nonsense peddled by many people who seem to have lost the Book of Job from their Bible.
What the book of Job had to do with this?
Quote from: North Star on June 03, 2016, 07:49:49 AM
The map shows the largest extent to which Rome controlled Europe, or Germania.At its height, the entire Roman Empire was 5 million km2. Europe is a bit over 10 million km2.
And this map shows their reach was even deeper into Germania...
(http://www.humanjourney.us/images/RomanEmpireAugustusLg.jpg)
Quote from: orfeo on June 03, 2016, 07:48:07 AM
28Orot, your "religious" message is the kind of nonsense peddled by many people who seem to have lost the Book of Job from their Bible.
Let alone that annoying bit about a camel and a needle.
Also: so, this is Saul, huh? Oh dear...
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 07:55:48 AM
Let alone that annoying bit about a camel and a needle.
No I don't believe the teaching of Jesus about the camel and he needle...of course not.
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 07:56:12 AM
Also: so, this is Saul, huh? Oh dear...
:laugh: :D ;D ;)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:59:16 AM
No I don't believe the teaching of Jesus about the camel and he needle...of course not.
What is your objection to that teaching?
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:38:26 AMBut still I don't believe that that inaccuracy hurt my argument, I think my point still stands regardless.
You made several points. I will quickly examine just one:
"
The problems that the united states has are not rooted in some rigged financial inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The problems are reminiscent of how all Great Empires of old have lost their way and influence and in the end simply disappeared. Assyria, Greece, Babylon, Persia and Rome all were Mighty and powerful empires with vast lands and enormous worldwide reach. But they all crumbled from within because their morality was eroded and when a nation lives a life of abominations and profanities it simply losses its right to exist, as simple as that."This appears to be a false equivalency. While I agree that the US acts as an imperial power, or more accurately a global hegemon, I think the lessons that can be learned from antiquity are limited. First, the method of US imperial power is largely legalistic and economic in nature. The US can lose its sway overseas, but given the massive economic power of the Unites States, which it primarily domestic in nature, it is difficult to envision any scenario where weakening influence over other powers leads to the disappearance of the US or its lack of consequence in world affairs. Second, current security arrangements for many powers have the US and its hefty nuclear arsenal at the center. There will be an interest for other powers to see the US maintain at least some semblance of influence and power for decades to come. Third, and most important, I maintain that you are using the wrong imperial models. The British Empire is a better analog. As the Pax Americana fades over this century, and perhaps into the next, the US will almost certainly not cease to exist; rather, it will become relatively less powerful, comparatively less rich (when compared to other powers; it will stay rich), and it will still be protected by two oceans and a sizeable nuclear arsenal. So what if China rules the East and a unified, forceful EU rules Europe (don't laugh!)? The US will be fatter and maybe a little less happy. The average Briton today is better off in many ways than the lords of the Victorian era. Americans of the 22nd Century may not have the same relative improvement in material well-being, but I doubt they'll be suffering a whole lot. (This assumes the apocalyptic sufferings to be caused by global warming will be less than apocalyptic.)
I've yet to see a convincing argument that morality plays a significant role in maintaining power. At its peak, Rome was an empire. It relied on slave labor. It relied on actual blood sport for entertaining the masses. Pederasty was no big deal. Yet Roman power lasted for centuries. Maybe if MMA becomes bigger than the NFL or NBA I should start worrying. But I'm of the mind that economic and strategic matters are more important to the maintenance of national and/or imperial power.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:40:36 AMEgypt in many ways is Africa.
Incorrect.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 08:11:47 AM
I've yet to see a convincing argument that morality plays a significant role in maintaining power.
I think Saul must subscribe to the old myth about how Rome lost control of the world because they were too busy having orgies.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 08:11:47 AM
You made several points. I will quickly examine just one:
"The problems that the united states has are not rooted in some rigged financial inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The problems are reminiscent of how all Great Empires of old have lost their way and influence and in the end simply disappeared. Assyria, Greece, Babylon, Persia and Rome all were Mighty and powerful empires with vast lands and enormous worldwide reach. But they all crumbled from within because their morality was eroded and when a nation lives a life of abominations and profanities it simply losses its right to exist, as simple as that."
This appears to be a false equivalency. While I agree that the US acts as an imperial power, or more accurately a global hegemon, I think the lessons that can be learned from antiquity are limited. First, the method of US imperial power is largely legalistic and economic in nature. The US can lose its sway overseas, but given the massive economic power of the Unites States, which it primarily domestic in nature, it is difficult to envision any scenario where weakening influence over other powers leads to the disappearance of the US or its lack of consequence in world affairs. Second, current security arrangements for many powers have the US and its hefty nuclear arsenal at the center. There will be an interest for other powers to see the US maintain at least some semblance of influence and power for decades to come. Third, and most important, I maintain that you are using the wrong imperial models. The British Empire is a better analog. As the Pax Americana fades over this century, and perhaps into the next, the US will almost certainly not cease to exist; rather, it will become relatively less powerful, comparatively less rich (when compared to other powers; it will stay rich), and it will still be protected by two oceans and a sizeable nuclear arsenal. So what if China rules the East and a unified, forceful EU rules Europe (don't laugh!)? The US will be fatter and maybe a little less happy. The average Briton today is better off today in many ways than the lords of the Victorian era. Americans of the 22nd Century may not have the same relative improvement in material well-being, but I doubt they'll be suffering a whole lot. (This assumes the apocalyptic sufferings to be caused by global warming will be less than apocalyptic.)
I've yet to see a convincing argument that morality plays a significant role in maintaining power. At its peak, Rome was an empire. It relied on slave labor. It relied on actual blood sport for entertaining the masses. Pederasty was no big deal. Yet Roman power lasted for centuries. Maybe if MMA becomes bigger than the NFL or NBA I should start worrying. But I'm of the mind that economic and strategic matters are more important to the maintenance of national and/or imperial power.
Incorrect.
Greece and Rome were destroyed because they were busy themselves with profanities and abominations. As they say money comes and goes but if you're aint a mench you're in deep trouble. Yes the fall may take a while but one end meets them all. But enacting saintly laws, just, and having a strong family nucleus full of good family values is the best insurance for success and survival. But nations disappear when families lose their ways.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 07:49:59 AM
What the book of Job had to do with this?
It has to do with you thinking that rich people are rich because God has blessed them.
I don't have time to unpick all the rest of your reply to me several pages back, especially not when using my iPhone, but it's the same terrible theology that seems to run rampant in some parts of the USA. It's utterly not Biblical because the Bible pokes holes in it several times, including the entire Book of Job, and yet lots of Chtistians seem to think that rich people are good and poor people have done something wrong.
Quote from: orfeo on June 03, 2016, 08:22:42 AM
It has to do with you thinking that rich people are rich because God has blessed them.
I don't have time to unpick all the rest of your reply to me several pages back, especially not when using my iPhone, but it's the same terrible theology that seems to run rampant in some parts of the USA. It's utterly not Biblical because the Bible pokes holes in it several times, including the entire Book of Job, and yet lots of Chtistians seem to think that rich people are good and poor people have done something wrong.
I will explain this later on... busy with work now...
Its much complicated and deeper then your over simplification of the book of Job...
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 08:09:02 AM
What is your objection to that teaching?
Oh dear lord.
(https://moviemovieblogblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/bully.jpg)
Quote from: Ken B on June 03, 2016, 08:24:33 AM
Oh dear lord.
(https://moviemovieblogblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/bully.jpg)
;D ;D ;D ;D
Doth not the Lord, when He is pleased with thee, shower loot upon thee?
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 08:24:03 AM
I will explain this later on... busy with work now...
Its much complicated and deeper then your over simplification of the book of Job...
There is a grievous evil which I have seen under the sun: wealth kept by its owner to his harm. Ecclesiastes 5:13
King Solomon is saying that yes wealth can be a blessing but it can also be a curse. Bernie is a false prophet because he preaches that the financial success of men is his ticket for a great and enjoyable life which is a bogus and unfounded claim. If money was the cure you wouldn't have so many miserable rich people.
As for Job, its rather a philosophical discussion that has to do with reincarnation. No where it says that if you are good you will be wealthy, with wealth comes a separate blessing which says that God will make you or cause you to use the wealth he bestowed on you with wisdom to your everlasting success and joy. Riches without God are worthless, as for the case of Greece and Rome. Uniformity is also a great disease, there will be always those who are wealthy or poor, but these are not always blessings nor curses but tests that every person depending on his destiny must take.
Job was the reincarnation of Abrahams Father, he was an idol worshipping pagan who sold idols, he had a rebellious son who discovered the One True God of the Universe. At the end of his life Terach did repent but that was not enough to erase all his sins, so he was put back on this earth as Job and given all these punishments as a means to cleanse him from his grave transgressions.
The book of Job is a classic book that deals with reincarnation, the unrelenting confusion as to why the just suffer and the wicked prosper, it goes along to say that there is a calculation up there in Heaven that does not always meet the eyes of men. When someone is poor in this world and he seems like a very good individual and he lives next to a very wicked individual who happens to be very wealthy, for some people this seems very unjust, why should the saintly suffer and the wicked prosper?
Well, if they understood that sometimes a person needs to be poor in this world to atone for his past transgressions and that sometimes a wealthy person is given so much money just so that he will be forever cast away from God, just like the snake who was given his livelihood wherever he goes in the form of dust, dust is a very common thing , he can find his food wherever he may be, but he will never have any connection to God anymore, completely cut away from him. That so called wealth is 10 times folds a greater curse then been poor, cause a poor person can still have a relationship with God and can achieve great things, not so the wealthy wicked. This is not to suggest that there are no good people that are both wealthy and saintly, and the reason they are wealthy can be a blessing without a doubt, but as I said, everyone has their own way of worshipping God, whether with limited resources or an abundance of resources. All of this attests to the fact that there is a planner and a ruler in this world and everything is done with calculation and merit with thought and reason, while false prophets like Bernie try to disrupt this suggesting that there is no higher power that controls everything, and that men alone can achieve success without God having anything to do with it. That dark path has been tried many times to dire and awful consequences.
Well, the two great evils in the world, politics and religion, are now blended into one (screwy) thread. If we are going to have a religion thread, then lets move it to a religion thread. We can try to maintain the philosophical purity of the anti-Trump & Hilary thread here, please. Both at once is killing me... ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 03, 2016, 10:00:55 AM
Well, the two great evils in the world, politics and religion, are now blended into one (screwy) thread. If we are going to have a religion thread, then lets move it to a religion thread. We can try to maintain the philosophical purity of the anti-Trump & Hilary thread here, please. Both at once is killing me... ::)
8)
I don't accept the premise that religions and politics are evil, it is people who skew them, but as for themselves they are not evil...
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 10:03:12 AM
I don't accept the premise that religions and politics are evil, it is people who skew them, but as for themselves they are not evil...
Moot. Most people here are badly skewed.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 03, 2016, 10:00:55 AM
Well, the two great evils in the world, politics and religion, are now blended into one (screwy) thread. If we are going to have a religion thread, then lets move it to a religion thread. We can try to maintain the philosophical purity of the anti-Trump & Hilary thread here, please. Both at once is killing me... ::)
8)
Must you always spoil the fun?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 03, 2016, 10:17:29 AM
Must you always spoil the fun?
Yea what can be more fun and engrossing then politics and religion?
Hooray!
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 10:19:56 AM
Yea what can be more fun and engrossing then politics and religion?
Hooray!
This thread is truly the family reunion dinner table of the internet.
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 10:36:10 AM
This thread is truly the family reunion dinner table of the internet.
We are indeed the original dysfunctional family.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 10:19:56 AM
Yea what can be more fun and engrossing then politics and religion?
Orgies.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 10:53:14 AM
Orgies.
I was speaking of things that one can actually do on the internet and that is chat.
Orgies besides the fact that they are gross, can't be physically possible to do over the web...
::)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 03, 2016, 10:45:21 AM
We are indeed the original dysfunctional family.
I'm a regular at three internet discussion forums, and my best friend is a regular at a fourth. GMG has, by far, the weirdest/most inexplicable trolls. On my best friend's diet/fitness board, the trolls are agitated about normal diet/fitness things: veganism, body image, food fads, whether various celebs count as skinny or not. On my baseball board, the trolls are Mets fans. On the third board I visit, there aren't any trolls, except one mentally ill guy who keeps trying to stalk one of the women. (Edit to clarify: the mentally ill guy gets banned every time he is detected, but creates new accounts every month or two.)
But
here - it's not just Mets fans and militant vegans. We had the classic Mozart Hoax incident with Rob Newman, the ongoing "did Rome conquer all of Africa?" debate...for some reason our arguments just go all over the darn place in a way that is kind of unique to GMG.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 10:57:16 AM
Orgies besides the fact that they are gross, can't be physically possible to do over the web...
My dear fellow, when there's a will, there's a way!
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 10:57:16 AMOrgies besides the fact that they are gross, can't be physically possible to do over the web...
Buy a webcam. You'd be surprised.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 10:58:09 AM
Or tennis...
http://www.youtube.com/v/_tVFwhoeQVM
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 10:58:36 AMfor some reason our arguments just go all over the darn place in a way that is kind of unique to GMG.
You need to find some UK based sites. I've frequented some that make this forum seem narrow in scope.
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 10:58:36 AM
I'm a regular at three internet discussion forums, and my best friend is a regular at a fourth. GMG has, by far, the weirdest/most inexplicable trolls. On my best friend's diet/fitness board, the trolls are agitated about normal diet/fitness things: veganism, body image, food fads, whether various celebs count as skinny or not. On my baseball board, the trolls are Mets fans. On the third board I visit, there aren't any trolls, except one mentally ill guy who keeps trying to stalk one of the women. (Edit to clarify: the mentally ill guy gets banned every time he is detected, but creates new accounts every month or two.)
But here - it's not just Mets fans and militant vegans. We had the classic Mozart Hoax incident with Rob Newman, the ongoing "did Rome conquer all of Africa?" debate...for some reason our arguments just go all over the darn place in a way that is kind of unique to GMG.
My dear fellow, when there's a will, there's a way!
There should be a rule: all posters who wish to post in the Diner must have met the following criteria:
- have been registered for a full month.
- have written at least ten posts of no less than 50 words in no less than 5 different threads pertaining to MUSIC.
Then, and only then shold the be allowed to voice their "non Good-Music" opinions... ;D
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 10:58:42 AM
Buy a webcam. You'd be surprised.
Internet orgies through the webcam...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZ2X9znPxM
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 10:03:12 AM
I don't accept the premise that religions and politics are evil, it is people who skew them, but as for themselves they are not evil...
Doesn't matter if anyone accepts it. It is what it is.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 03, 2016, 10:17:29 AM
Must you always spoil the fun?
Yes. Fun is relative. We need to get it in smaller doses, not a great glut of mind-choking drudge all at once like this. :)
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 10:36:10 AM
This thread is truly the family reunion dinner table of the internet.
Now you know why I don't go home for Thanksgiving... ::)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 10:57:16 AM
I was speaking of things that one can actually do on the internet and that is chat.
Orgies besides the fact that they are gross, can't be physically possible to do over the web...
::)
You just haven't tried hard enough yet. If you can put Caesar over Namibia then you can orgy on the 'net... ;)
8)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 03, 2016, 11:08:15 AM
Internet orgies through the webcam...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZ2X9znPxM
YouTube is not the right website to use for this purpose.
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 10:58:36 AM
On the third board I visit, there aren't any trolls, except one mentally ill guy who keeps trying to stalk one of the women. (Edit to clarify: the mentally ill guy gets banned every time he is detected, but creates new accounts every month or two.)
And just what is this "third board," Brian?
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 11:17:41 AM
YouTube is not the right website to use for this purpose.
Especially when the link leads to Frank Sinatra singing "Fly Me to the Moon." No link should ever lead to Frank Sinatra.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 03, 2016, 11:20:14 AM
Especially when the link leads to Frank Sinatra singing "Fly Me to the Moon." No link should ever lead to Frank Sinatra.
Wisdom!
Back on topic:
https://www.youtube.com/v/0pex6o6f3YE
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 03, 2016, 11:18:07 AM
And just what is this "third board," Brian?
Hard to explain, but it's a group of commenters who splintered off the comments section of AVclub.com when AVC did a redesign to use more clickbait; they made their own little pop culture forum revolving around books, movies, TV, cooking, etc.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 11:22:40 AM
Back on topic:
https://www.youtube.com/v/0pex6o6f3YE
He sounds like someone who has lost his comb
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 05:57:29 AM
I'm just putting this NYT article excerpt here for Florestan to enjoy:
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump, said he did not believe that the nation would be in danger under his presidency.
"I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations," Mr. McCain said. "We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We're not Romania."
Oh, but he's right on some points. Romania does not have a Congress (it does have a Senate, though). It doesn't have a Supreme Court (it does have a High Court of Cassation and Justice and a Constitutional Court, though). And Romania is not the USA.
He might have meant (as wrongly as Romania) Poland but for some US politicians all those bloody Eastern European ex-communist countries are just the same, including in their names. Poland, Romania, Bucharest, Budapest...
But let's not be too harsh on poor McCain, after all even the allmighty Romans mistook Egypt for the whole Africa and Sub-Danube Germany for the whole Northern Europe, Scandinavia included. ;D
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 11:22:40 AM
Back on topic:
https://www.youtube.com/v/0pex6o6f3YE
Is this for real, or has it been 'soundshopped' ?? ??? He sounds for all the word like it's 1:00 AM and he's into his fifth cocktail after a partisan speach at 10:00pm...
Quote from: André on June 03, 2016, 01:20:19 PM
Is this for real, or has it been 'soundshopped' ?? ??? He sounds for all the word like it's 1:00 AM and he's into his fifth cocktail after a partisan speach at 10:00pm...
Any media editor can let you adjust the timing of an original file to any percentage of its original length (faster or slower), with or without altering pitch. None of this necessarily contradicts your second sentence.
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 10:36:10 AM
This thread is truly the family reunion dinner table of the internet.
Thankfully, my mother is going to rescue me from talking to the mad uncle about reincarnation.
Quote from: André on June 03, 2016, 01:20:19 PMIs this for real, or has it been 'soundshopped' ?? ???
The title says it all. His speech has been slowed down for comic effect. A local radio station plays a new bit every morning. It's sort of a thing now. (The Donald is apparently a teetotaler, BTW.)
There must be a word for intelligent people who think such videos prove anything except about themselves. The sad part is that we will read complaints here about how awful the campaign is.
Quote from: Brian on June 03, 2016, 11:26:24 AM
Hard to explain, but it's a group of commenters who splintered off the comments section of AVclub.com when AVC did a redesign to use more clickbait; they made their own little pop culture forum revolving around books, movies, TV, cooking, etc.
URL? I like the AVC comments, it seems to be a nicely varied group of people and to be mostly free of the usual misogyny, racism and general rancor, but I've never actually felt the need to comment there.
Quote from: Todd on June 03, 2016, 10:58:42 AM
Buy a webcam. You'd be surprised.
Yeah, by how fat I look on a webcam.
Quote from: Daverz on June 03, 2016, 08:11:46 PM
URL? I like the AVC comments, it seems to be a nicely varied group of people and to be mostly free of the usual misogyny, racism and general rancor, but I've never actually felt the need to comment there.
http://tolerabilityindex.freeforums.net/
(There are a couple of boards that are hidden to non-members.)
Personally, I love watching the Republican Party disintegrate right before my very eyes. It's been happening for years but this year we'll definitely want to pull up a chair and munch on some popcorn for the Republican National Convention. Sparks will fly. Stay tuned.
Fuckwits on parade
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-vote-to-regulate-political-jokes/article/2592922 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-vote-to-regulate-political-jokes/article/2592922)
Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2016, 06:59:56 AM
Fuckwits on parade
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-vote-to-regulate-political-jokes/article/2592922 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-vote-to-regulate-political-jokes/article/2592922)
For any readers who give up on this website because of its autoplay videos or poor writing:
TLDR: two Democrats nonsensically voted to investigate Mike Huckabee for cracking a joke, but thankfully the rest of the panel voted against it, so Huckabee's safe. (That fact is withheld until the sixth paragraph.)
Quote from: Brian on June 04, 2016, 07:35:03 AM
For any readers who give up on this website because of its autoplay videos or poor writing:
TLDR: two Democrats nonsensically voted to investigate Mike Huckabee for cracking a joke, but thankfully the rest of the panel voted against it, so Huckabee's safe. (That fact is withheld until the sixth paragraph.)
Correct. Two democrats voted for censorship (but people tell me Trump is the fascist). This is the lede though, right? The fact that this moronic behavior had no effect is hardly "withheld": the story isn't about the fate of Huckabee.
Quote from: Ken B on June 04, 2016, 07:44:10 AM
Correct. Two democrats voted for censorship (but people tell me Trump is the fascist). This is the lede though, right? The fact that this moronic behavior had no effect is hardly "withheld": the story isn't about the fate of Huckabee.
I do worry about the trendy political movement of trying to silence your opponents simply because they are your opponents. On the liberal side, the most alarming current example is on college campuses - "sensitive" students protesting all sorts of manifestations of free speech. I think Condi Rice was invited to speak at a campus but forced to cancel when students protested the very idea that she would appear, and this has surely happened to other conservative leaders. The rising new generation of college students seems especially open to the idea that offensive speech is unprotected, like the story of the Yale professor who got into controversy for suggesting students shouldn't wear tasteless Halloween costumes, or the more recent story of Pennsylvania students trying to change the name of Lynch Memorial Hall because the surname Lynch sounds racist.
On the conservative side, the most alarming current example to me (in North America; there are many truly alarming examples of conservative crackdowns in places like Turkey and Bangladesh) is government suppression of scientists' research findings. An American example is Rick Scott in Florida restricting the right of scientists to talk openly about climate and the efforts needed to protect Miami and other cities from rising seawaters and other climate crises. And, of course, Donald Trump has advocated for loosening libel laws so that you can sue critical journalists. Here in Texas, the Attorney General just sent a cease-and-desist to a critic.
This week's Economist has a leader on free speech suppression issues around the globe. Haven't read it yet, but it is an issue. More so in places like Bangladesh, but we can't let our guard down.
Quote from: Mirror Image on June 03, 2016, 08:47:08 PM
Personally, I love watching the Republican Party disintegrate right before my very eyes. It's been happening for years but this year we'll definitely want to pull up a chair and munch on some popcorn for the Republican National Convention. Sparks will fly. Stay tuned.
I think the democratic party doesn't exist anymore, it was ran over by a hoard of progressive fanatics who have absolutely nothing to do with the democratic party.
Bernie is a democrat?
Yea and as Don Rickles told Charlton Heston "If you were Moses, I was a Mau Mau fighter pilot"...
It's hers! (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-hits-magic-number-delegates-clinch-nomination-n586181) Now the real fun begins . . .
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2016, 06:58:29 PM
It's hers! (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-hits-magic-number-delegates-clinch-nomination-n586181) Now the real fun begins . . .
Don't get your bon bons out too early, she could still be indicted...
Quote from: 28Orot on June 06, 2016, 07:02:48 PM
Don't get your bon bons out too early, she could still be indicted...
As I wrote, now the real fun begins.
Quote from: Todd on June 06, 2016, 07:06:56 PM
As I wrote, now the real fun begins.
Her nomination is a sad day for America. How this worthless secretary of state who has done arguably the worst job possible throughout her infamous career got the nomination escapes all common sense.
LOL, and Bernie had this to say rite off the bat...
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-spokesman-for-bernie-sanders-criticizes-1465262243-htmlstory.html (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-spokesman-for-bernie-sanders-criticizes-1465262243-htmlstory.html)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 06, 2016, 07:09:11 PM
Her nomination is a sad day for America. How this worthless secretary of state who has done arguably the worst job possible throughout her infamous career got the nomination escapes all common sense.
So which of the 20ish candidates did you support?
Quote from: Brian on June 06, 2016, 07:22:49 PM
So which of the 20ish candidates did you support?
No one really...didnt really like anyone...
It's almost enough to appreciate the headline, alone:
Donald Trump's Campaign Is Already An Absolute Garbage Fire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-campaign-discord_us_5755dac4e4b07823f950ffe8)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 07, 2016, 05:32:05 AM
It's almost enough to appreciate the headline, alone:
Donald Trump's Campaign Is Already An Absolute Garbage Fire (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-campaign-discord_us_5755dac4e4b07823f950ffe8)
Would his hair catch some of the garbage fire I wonder?
Quote from: 28Orot on June 07, 2016, 05:59:01 AM
Would his hair catch some of the garbage fire I wonder?
I'm sure it is expensive enough it comes with some sort of fire-retardant material on it... ;)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 07, 2016, 06:06:24 AM
I'm sure it is expensive enough it comes with some sort of fire-retardant material on it... ;)
8)
Yes. In fact, Trump's hair is 100% asbestos.
Quote from: North Star on June 07, 2016, 07:12:13 AM
Yes. In fact, Trump's hair is 100% asbestos.
Oh, that isn't his hair, that was what his head is stuffed with... >:D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 07, 2016, 07:28:58 AM
Oh, that isn't his hair, that was what his head is stuffed with... >:D
8)
Good point...the hair is only the physical manifestation of his intellectual deficits that roam his head...
I thought it was accepted that it was his pants that were made of asbestos.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on June 07, 2016, 08:00:12 AM
I thought it was accepted that it was his pants that were made of asbestos.
Mike
They work in tandem.
Hillary's first day as President
(http://www.prunejuicemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Hillary-3-tired.jpg)
Longer-term: Georgia to turn blue by 2020 (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4931724729001/experts-georgia-likely-to-become-blue-state-by-2020/?#sp=show-clips)
Quote from: karlhenning on June 08, 2016, 11:09:30 AM
Longer-term: Georgia to turn blue by 2020 (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4931724729001/experts-georgia-likely-to-become-blue-state-by-2020/?#sp=show-clips)
I hope this doesn't make you happy...
Quote from: 28Orot on June 08, 2016, 11:57:51 AM
I hope this doesn't make you happy...
I can assure you most here hate Republicans. This shows they are tolerant.
Quote from: Ken B on June 08, 2016, 12:01:40 PM
I can assure you most here hate Republicans. This shows they are tolerant.
I'm a conservative, not a Republican, should the party be derailed, I wouldn't support it...I assume Karl is a Conservatives too, but I could be wrong...
Quote from: 28Orot on June 08, 2016, 12:03:50 PM
I'm a conservative, not a Republican, should the party be derailed, I wouldn't support it...I assume Karl is a Conservatives too, but I could be wrong...
I assure you many here hate conservatives. This shows they are tolerant.
FWIW I see Trump as having made a hostile takeover of the GOP. Just how hostile we have yet to see. Possibly too hostile for me. I remain undecided (Kang? Kodos? Kang? Kodos?). I am giving Gary Johnson a look. I like him and Weld in some ways, but presidents are finally about foreign policy, and what I see from them so far is not reassuring. Not so much with Trump either; I cannot tell what he would do. I must now imagine the unimaginable: supporting Hillary.
Quote from: Ken B on June 08, 2016, 12:22:27 PM
I assure you many here hate conservatives. This shows they are tolerant.
FWIW I see Trump as having made a hostile takeover of the GOP. Just how hostile we have yet to see. Possibly too hostile for me. I remain undecided (Kang? Kodos? Kang? Kodos?). I am giving Gary Johnson a look. I like him and Weld in some ways, but presidents are finally about foreign policy, and what I see from them so far is not reassuring. Not so much with Trump either; I cannot tell what he would do. I must now imagine the unimaginable: supporting Hillary.
I will never vote for Trump, but Hillary is worse then him, she is practically a witch...
(http://www.tvmix.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary_ducks-545x325.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/f2FP-_Mly6o/hqdefault.jpg)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 08, 2016, 12:31:58 PM
I will never vote for Trump, but Hillary is worse then him, she is practically a witch...
So what other loser are you going to waste your vote on? That is the real question. You can support anyone you choose to, but if they can't win a majority, it is merely political masturbation. Even
not voting is voting. Between those two, I will take the which over the... whatever the hell he is.... any time. Better the evil you know than one you cannot possibly ever figure out. :-\
8)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 08, 2016, 12:31:58 PM
I will never vote for Trump, but Hillary is worse then him, she is practically a witch...
This kind of sexism is unacceptable.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 08, 2016, 12:40:42 PM
So what other loser are you going to waste your vote on? That is the real question. You can support anyone you choose to, but if they can't win a majority, it is merely political masturbation. Even not voting is voting. Between those two, I will take the which over the... whatever the hell he is.... any time. Better the evil you know than one you cannot possibly ever figure out. :-\
8)
Je ne peux pas voter pour cette sorcière , et je ne peux pas voter pour ce crétin ...
Just found out that the word moron is both Cretin in Georgian and French, well what do you know...(well in Georgian its Cretini,but close enough)
Quote from: Brian on June 08, 2016, 12:43:39 PM
This kind of sexism is unacceptable.
Oh common...it has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman, where did you get that crazy idea from?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 08, 2016, 12:40:42 PMEven not voting is voting.
My preferred choice this year, though I may still go write-in. I thought '08 was bad, but now I long for those days.
Here's the real question now: Can it get worse in 2020?
Quote from: Todd on June 08, 2016, 12:54:00 PM
My preferred choice this year, though I may still go write-in. I thought '08 was bad, but now I long for those days.
Here's the real question now: Can it get worse in 2020?
That is a question I have learned never to ask. The answer, in short, is yes, it can always get worse. Just when you think there is no one worse than Trump, for example, then Ted Cruz comes along. And believe me, he will be back in 2020! ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 08, 2016, 01:02:07 PMJust when you think there is no one worse than Trump, for example, then Ted Cruz comes along.
I'm not convinced Cruz is materially worse. That's like saying being crushed to death by four tons of compressed cow dung is better than being crushed to death by five tons of compressed cow dung.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 08, 2016, 01:02:07 PM
That is a question I have learned never to ask. The answer, in short, is yes, it can always get worse. Just when you think there is no one worse than Trump, for example, then Ted Cruz comes along. And believe me, he will be back in 2020! ::)
8)
Cruz in my opinion was a better option then Trump, but unfortunately Trump was Hijacked by the racists and hillbillies of this country...I guess there is something really bad about Trump that they see him as their prophet... By the way that pompous paper waving :Look how much money I have odious press conference got to be one of the worst press conferences in the annals of the media...
Quote from: Todd on June 08, 2016, 01:07:42 PM
I'm not convinced Cruz is materially worse. That's like saying being crushed to death by four tons of compressed cow dung is better than being crushed to death by five tons of compressed cow dung.
That's a fair comparison. The word 'better' shouldn't show up in your statement in any guise at all, but I'll let it pass... :D
8)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 08, 2016, 01:10:33 PM
Cruz in my opinion was a better option then Trump,
You are wrong about that. He is a different option, he is not better than anything. He is my senator, I am quite familiar with him. I wouldn't wish him on the world, not even to get rid of him here.
He was elected here in 2012. If you got 50 people together to try to brainstorm a list of things he has done for Texas, they wouldn't even need a pencil. It is easy to count to zero. >:(
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 08, 2016, 01:21:40 PM
You are wrong about that. He is a different option, he is not better than anything. He is my senator, I am quite familiar with him. I wouldn't wish him on the world, not even to get rid of him here.
He was elected here in 2012. If you got 50 people together to try to brainstorm a list of things he has done for Texas, they wouldn't even need a pencil. It is easy to count to zero. >:(
8)
Maybe you're rite about him, so I digress.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 08, 2016, 12:48:22 PM
Oh common...it has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman, where did you get that crazy idea from?
The word "witch" and the mocking her physical appearance.
Quote from: Brian on June 08, 2016, 01:27:30 PM
The word "witch" and the mocking her physical appearance.
Don't worry, not only can Clinton take it, she will use such attacks or even whiffs of hints of such attacks as proof of the sexism - nay, the waging of the War on Women - of her opponent and the Republican party generally. She wants people to make such statements.
Quote from: Brian on June 08, 2016, 01:27:30 PM
The word "witch" and the mocking her physical appearance.
Trust me I would have said the same thing if she was a man. Her gender has absolutely nothing to do with this.
But do I care what you think about it?
No. You want to think its 'sexism' you think what you want, doesn't bother me the least.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 08, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
Je ne peux pas voter pour cette sorcière , et je ne peux pas voter pour ce crétin ...
Just found out that the word moron is both Cretin in Georgian and French, well what do you know...(well in Georgian its Cretini,but close enough)
Crétin peut-être mais surtout extraordinairement vulgaire.
L'éducation a ses vertus même pour un président
Quote from: Spineur on June 08, 2016, 01:46:17 PM
Crétin peut-être mais surtout extraordinairement vulgaire.
Well that's what Trump is...
Quote from: 28Orot on June 08, 2016, 01:38:31 PM
Trust me I would have said the same thing if she was a man.
When's the last time you saw a man compared to a witch?
Quote from: 28Orot on June 08, 2016, 01:10:33 PM
Cruz in my opinion was a better option then Trump, but unfortunately Trump was Hijacked by the racists and hillbillies of this country...I guess there is something really bad about Trump that they see him as their prophet... By the way that pompous paper waving :Look how much money I have odious press conference got to be one of the worst press conferences in the annals of the media...
F you. The one thing that pisses me off more than anything else in this election is the class prejudice aimed at Trump supporters. Trump is no president, but there is plenty of reason to feel betrayed and put down by the ruling class in America.
Rage against the political establishment is real, and undeniably justified.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Ken B on June 08, 2016, 03:21:24 PM
F you. The one thing that pisses me off more than anything else in this election is the class prejudice aimed at Trump supporters. Trump is no president, but there is plenty of reason to feel betrayed and put down by the ruling class in America.
I wrote this letter to Ann Coulter, as you know she is a outspoken Trump Supporter. Didn't expect her to reply, but she did to my surprise.
She was one of the first Trump supporters who had jumped in the Trump Band Wagon. Coulter had said what some may interpret (that's including myself), as blatant anti semitism. On two occasions, she called on for the Jews to 'be perfected', that statement was made during an interview with Donny Deutsch, a Jewish TV personality. In that exchange she said that she would like to see Jews to 'be perfected', meaning converted to Christianity. Then in a more recent outburst, she criticized rather distastefully the many questions the GOP candidates were answering about Israel, causing her to barb out: ""How many f---ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?"... after which I decided to compose her letter, got a hold of her email and sent her the following: (there's a screenshot of her response to me)
Hello there Ann,
I'm an Orthodox Jew living in NYC. I have been following your articles and comments for a number of years, and I understand your frustration on where America is being led.
Certainly, there is no shortage of people in this country who possess very limited intellect and talent but boast of just the opposite. This country has been going towards the wrong path for too long
and a real change is necessary. We both can dream and imagine a perfect America and World, where all our fears are gone and we are embraced with true understanding, direction and purpose. There are two vital elements here that need to be mentioned.
They are as followed:
Can the world become what we want it to become based on our desires, wishes, and intellect.
Does the world have a plan that was pre planed by the Master Creator.
If we look at the first element we can sit here and discuss just like politicians do what is the best course for this country and world, but given the limitations of human intellect and wisdom we would be speaking from a subjective posture, and each and everyone of us, be it Jew or Gentile, Liberal or Conservative has their own history and prejudices and our opinion are just that, opinions and there is absolutely no guarantee that any of the solutions that would be mentioned could work. That is the awesome limitation of the first element.
The second element is that the world has a direction, a path and a purpose with the culmination of a grand finale. But to find out what is the purpose is the greatest challenge.
For if you ask a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, what is that direction, you will get radically different answers. So the question is where is the truth? or rather what is The Truth?
About 4000 years ago when the entire world was populated by idol worshippers there stood one man that was strictly separate and different. That man was Abraham the Hebrew. In fact, the word Hebrew besides being known as a language it also has meaning, 'The Hebrew' literally means 'On the other Side'. Thus Abraham was called by his position of being on the other side, believing in the One and only God, diametrically standing in theological opposition from the entire world. We could therefore ask, how can One individual be standing on one side alone while the entire world stands on the other and still be correct?
We clearly see that truth doesn't necessarily stand with the multitudes, it can be perfectly be found even in the mind of one individual. The Great Abraham revealed this truth to the entire world, most of the peoples of the world ignored his message, for they couldn't leave their false gods. He then transmitted his faith and knowledge of God to his son Isaac, and Isaac to his Son Jacob, and Jacob transmitted the faith to his children, the Twelve Tribes of Israel. These 12 tribes, are the progenitors of the Jewish People, the word Jew comes from the name of the Tribe Judah and it means to give thanks, literally the word Jew means 'To give thanks to God'. Even though Jews today are composed of 3 major Tribes, majority from Judah, some from Benjamin and some from the Tribe of Levi, in general all of the Jews are called after the main kingly Tribe of Judah. For example, Mordecai is called 'The Jew' in the Book of Esther even though he belonged to the Tribe of Benjamin.
This transmission of the faith was done in a very careful and meticulous manner, Judaism sprang out from a blood connection, from one single man, one single family, who were extremely spiritually, emotionally and biologically connected. Therefore the faith was and remains extremely pure and whole. Even in the long exile of 2000 years, when the Jews were dispersed to the four corners of the world, all of the different Jewish communities returned to Israel with the same exact Torah, with absolutely not even one letter missing or added, or misplaced or misspelled. When there were no phones, or internet or any forms of communications, the Jew from Yemen and the Jew from England had the same exact Holy Book in their hands.
Lets look now at the Christian bible and the Koran. Researches conclude that there exists over 200,000 different versions of the Christian Bible, and the younger religion of Islam produced tens of thousands of different versions. What is striking is that both these religions were the antagonists in history and they were not chased around, massacred or brutalized by the masses, nor exiled from place to place, so they had less headache as they say, but that didn't stop them from creating countless different versions of the same book. Does one need further evidence to prove the human origin of these documents?
Furthermore, the God of Israel writes a number of times in the Hebrew Bible in the clearest possible terms, in fact, I don't know how he could have been clearer, that he is not a man or human, and has nothing of the physical : Numbers 23:19 " God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good'. He also continues in Samuel 15:29 : "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent".
One critical fact that you should consider is that its only the Jews that were entrusted by God to screen for Prophets. The Jewish people identified the True Prophets of God, weeded out all false ones. Thus this is the only reason you trust that Jonah, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Nahum, Habakuk, Ezekiel, Obadiah, Daniel, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi were True Prophets of God, precisely because the Jews screened them out of thousands of false prophets. How do you screen out prophets? do you know? does anyone know? This information was entrusted only and exclusively to the Jews directly by God. So its either you trust the Jews completely and fully or you don't at all, there is no middle-way here. This is a matter of trust and endowment, and only the Jews were endowed by this power and privilege.
You have to understand that for the Jewish people any attribution of physicality to the Almighty is blasphemous and is punishable by capital punishment. God had warned the Jews about it in the Ten Commandments saying : " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments". Exodus 20:4-6
Not only God was crystal clear to say that he is not a man or human in 2 places in the Hebrew Bible, he also said in the Ten Commandments not to attribute any physicality to him, whatever image that exists in the universe or whatever image that a man's imagination can conjure up should never be attributed to him. This is a clear and vital commandment by non other then God himself. So where does the argument even begin?
There is a Talmudic teaching that says: " The deeds of the fathers are a sign to their children', meaning that just as Abraham was the extreme minority that stood on the other side against the extreme majority and the Truth was with him regardless, so too his children the Jewish people, are much fewer in numbers then all of the nations and religions of the world, and the truth rests with us. It was our nation and our people that stood on that great mountain and witnessed God's direct revelation, no one told our people any stories, no one popped out from a cave with no witnesses saying claiming to experience divine revelations. Millions of our people stood at the foot of Sinai, a Grandfather, with his Son, his daughter and his grandchildren. Entire generations stood at the same place experiencing prophecy in a public manner.
And since that day God had promised the Jewish People that no nation from now on all the way to the end of time will experience a public revelation of God like this.
From the 10,000 religions and cults that exist today, it is only Judaism that was founded through a national revelation, while all others, with no exceptions begun with an individual claiming divine revelation with no witnesses, perfectly in tune with God's promise to the Jews that no such national revelation will ever take place.
So ann, the Jews don't need to be 'perfected', they simply need to continue holding on strong to their faith until the coming of the True and Real Jewish Messiah as was prophesied by the Jewish Prophets.
When he will come, he will bring the focus entirely on God, it is God's glory and honor that the Jews are interested in, and no man, angel or Seraphim no matter how great and powerful can carve out any of God's glory, for all belongs to him, he created them all and the honor and glory belongs to him alone.
" Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven. " Psalms 85:11, the Truth is now hidden for most of the world, there are so many lies and confusion, so many distortions and falsities, and the truth is hidden underground, but the Sweet Singer of Israel, the King of the Jewish People promises by the word of God, that a day will come that the Truth will reveal itself, and all the darkness the lies will disappear.
Ann, do you want to wait until that day, or can you imagine yourself throwing down the lies and realizing the Truth here and now?
Saul D.
NYC
Her Reply:
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13428573_1630193353973086_141165227446140525_n.jpg?oh=7cfc9d2294c4dd8da9930ef02af4608b&oe=580D06B2)
My Reply back at her:
Hi Ann, Thank you for your reply,
King Solomon Says : " Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.", even though you might have a totally innocent and non hateful/aggressive intention with your statement, it is always wider to choose correct words to express yourself rather then spend 10 times more time then that explaining what you didn't mean. Ecclesiastes 5:2
The King continues at Proverbs: " 18:21: " The tongue can bring death or life; those who love to talk will reap the consequences". And in the classic book of ethics :" The Ethics of our fathers", written about 2200 years ago by the Talmudic Giants of the Jewish people it says: " Shimon his son said: All my life I have been raised among the Sages, and I have not found anything better for the body than silence. It is not the theory that is the primary thing but action. Whoever talks excessively brings about sin.
So Ann, I know trust me I know that you have good intentions and you want to bring about a positive change to America and the world, but there is a rite way to do it and then there is a wrong way to do it. There is no need to make sweeping statements, generalizations, sometimes we feel an urge to say something it just stays on our belly we want to blob it out so urgently, but its always better and wiser to choose our words carefully as it says : " The softly spoken words of the wise are to be heard rather than the shouts of a ruler of fools. Ecclesiastes 9:17,
You know King Solomon had left us a real treasure, God says that Salomon was the wisest man ever. Its one thing if you get someone important say a good word or two about you, and its one thing to have the president to vouch for you, but when you have the God of the universe say that this man Solomon is the smartest man ever, then its up to those of us that value wisdom and intellect to heed and learn from.
I think you will be much successful in your goals if you will be less controversial and speak out your message with grace, let the content of your message stand on its own merit, if its the truth it will survive, if its not, no matter how many vilifications or distortions it will stand on it will in the end wither, for a lie a no legs and the truth is rock solid. Some biblical, talmudic and Kabbalah sources for this are :
"In the midst of My house shall not dwell a practitioner of deceit; one who tells lies shall not be established before My eyes (Psalms 101:7)." "Lips of falsehood are an abomination to God... (Proverbs 12:22)." "He who tells a lie is considered as an idolator (Sanhedrin 92a Talmud)." "Woe to people who allow false words to escape their mouths; it would have been better had they not come into this world (Zohar, classic book of Kabbalah)." "The remnant of Israel will not commit corruption, they will not speak falsehood, and a deceitful tongue will not be found in their mouth... (Zephaniah 3:13)."
So even though Ann, you had no negative intentions with the 'perfected' statement, still more sensitivity and responsibility is needed, cause before the words leave your mouth you're are the boss of those words, once they exist, the words themselves take an independent dimension and then they can rule over you, driving you crazy trying to explain to everyone countless of times what you 'didn't mean'.
As for the new controversy with regards to the latest GOP so called 'pandering to Jewish vote' were you mentioned 'those f***ing" Jews, you begun by saying that you believe that I am very smart, thank you for the very nice compliment, now let me offer in the same token that I believe that you're very smart too, and you won't be able to convince me that you didn't know that that statement was offensive.
Ann, its alright we all make mistakes, but its proper and wise to admit it, offer a genuine apology and move on. You won't win too many friends with that, many good people not only Jews were offended by that insensitive tweet, and a mature individual would have offered a swift apology to take care of the problem right there and then instead of let is fester, and I think that you will hopefully make the right decision and offer an unequivocal apology. That will not only cure much of the damage but bring about a greater and better image of yourself to the public. But we were all created with the freedom of choice, and I can't choose for you, that's your decision.
Regards
Saul
_______________________________________________________________________
Just to say, that there exists some really really intolerant racist and spiritual racists out there, and many of them support Trump.
The question is why? What do they see in the persona of Trump to sparks their curiosity?
But as I said before, even without this affinity, Trump is simply a terrible candidate, he simply lacks the calmness, personality, and wisdom to head this country into the future.
There is so very much he lacks.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: karlhenning on June 08, 2016, 05:23:03 PM
There is so very much he lacks.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
To be fair, he lacks a history of felonies, which cannot be said of his opponent.
http://trumpdonald.org (http://trumpdonald.org)
Use your mouse, be creative
I'm heartily sick of the accusations against Clinton, given the numerous reports of how various Republican figures used private email accounts in exactly the same fashion.
It feels like a tactic employed when people can't be arsed dealing with the policy positions. Most of the criticism of Trump I see is about his policies (or lack thereof). Whereas lots of the criticism of Clinton consists of assertions that she's a (non-convicted) criminal.
It's not much more substantial than Obama being a Kenyan Muslim, frankly. It's all about attempting to delegitimise a person, rather than engaging with the substance.
Quote from: orfeo on June 09, 2016, 03:02:11 AM
I'm heartily sick of the accusations against Clinton, given the numerous reports of how various Republican figures used private email accounts in exactly the same fashion.
It feels like a tactic employed when people can't be arsed dealing with the policy positions. Most of the criticism of Trump I see is about his policies (or lack thereof). Whereas lots of the criticism of Clinton consists of assertions that she's a (non-convicted) criminal.
It's not much more substantial than Obama being a Kenyan Muslim, frankly. It's all about attempting to delegitimise a person, rather than engaging with the substance.
Well, but as the recent Attorney General statement declares, Clinton's "work-around" is not simply equivalent to what Republican predecessors did.
I actually do not see much critique of El Tupé's policy positions, for the simple fact that he
has no policy positions. He just spouts his fool mouth off. His policy is, "I've got tons of money, so that proves that I can just fix anything." Most of the critique I read of him is, that he is a narcissistic, vulgar, bullying racist who would be a horrid disgrace to the White House; and corresponding critique of the G.O.P. establishment for readily lining right up behind him.
Clinton is genuinely a flawed candidate, this is not mere, spiteful invention; but it has been a season chock-a-block with flawed candidates.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 09, 2016, 03:16:22 AM
Most of the critique I read of him is, that he is a narcissistic, vulgar, bullying racist who would be a horrid disgrace to the White House; and corresponding critique of the G.O.P. establishment for readily lining right up behind him.
Why should that disqualify him?
No reason at all. I suppose that, compared to previous G.O.P. nominees, he is to be applauded for not hiding it.
Quote from: orfeo on June 09, 2016, 03:02:11 AM
I'm heartily sick of the accusations against Clinton, given the numerous reports of how various Republican figures used private email accounts in exactly the same fashion.
It feels like a tactic employed when people can't be arsed dealing with the policy positions. Most of the criticism of Trump I see is about his policies (or lack thereof). Whereas lots of the criticism of Clinton consists of assertions that she's a (non-convicted) criminal.
It's not much more substantial than Obama being a Kenyan Muslim, frankly. It's all about attempting to delegitimise a person, rather than engaging with the substance.
I'm sure you are heartily sick of it. That tells me more about you than the merits of the case.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2016, 04:50:31 AM
I'm sure you are heartily sick of it. That tells me more about you than the merits of the case.
::) Yeah, I'm sure that if people keep digging for another 5 years
there'll be something there.
Quote from: orfeo on June 09, 2016, 04:53:41 AM
::) Yeah, I'm sure that if people keep digging for another 5 years there'll be something there.
I'm not going to debate you. That response shows enough about your commitment to impartial discussion. There was a recent government report. You should check it out.
Hillary said she and her staff co-operated. That also was a lie, since the report noted they refused to be interviewed.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2016, 04:59:13 AM
I'm not going to debate you. That response shows enough about your commitment to impartial discussion. There was a recent government report. You should check it out.
Hillary said she and her staff co-operated. That also was a lie, since the report noted they refused to be interviewed.
Pleading the Fifth doesn't really tally as "coöperation" ....
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 09, 2016, 04:33:10 AM
Why should that disqualify him?
That's a good question! Gore Vidal said a profound thing "Presidents are the men we elect to make the commercials." The image projected by a leader is a huge part of why he is or is not elected. So whether it should matter, it will.
What bothers me about Trump's manner isn't the boorishness, it's the sense of emotional fragility. That may be a completely wrong impression. People who know him don't talk of him as if he were flighty. But it worries me. I think the boorishness will abate if he's elected.
I do not have a fix on his foreign policy yet except it looks worryingly like the "america first" stuff from the 30s.
One example of how: a friend from eastern Europe asked if the US would protect his country if invaded. Well, if he lived in Poland the answer is yes, any president any time. But for a small country near Russia with President Trump? If there was a surprise that cost Trump or America to lose face I think Trump would act, but what if there were "negotiations" and a trade on some issue.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2016, 04:59:13 AM
I'm not going to debate you. That response shows enough about your commitment to impartial discussion.
Does it?
I'm not an American. I don't have an allegiance to an American political party.
My skepticism is a direct result of
the length of time this topic has been in the public arena without anything leading to criminal charges. Okay, so there's been a recent report. Before that, there were hearings. This issue has been raked over, for far longer and in far more detail, than most criminal investigations would ever be. The average prosecutor would go weak at the knees at the thought of having these kinds of resources available.
And for what? For any actual effect? Where's the meaningful legal outcome?
The
political outcome is, of course, huge. The chance to say over and over again that Clinton is a crook is as far as I can see the entire purpose of the exercise.
And heck, it's hardly unique in that regard, Australia has its fair share of similar cases where the political benefits are of much more interest to the players than any legal result of a trial or conviction. I don't like it any more when it happens here.
In short, if you think my reaction has something to do with party politics, you are sorely mistaken. My reaction has to do with Politics, period. As a lawyer dedicated to the rule of law, I find this kind of use of the legal process to be highly objectionable, not to say tiresome. If they'd found something she would have been charged by now. The fact that she's not been charged would not, in any normal case, be the cue to continue looking.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2016, 05:07:51 AM
[...] I think the boorishness will abate if he's elected.
Oh, I hold no hope for that, at all.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 09, 2016, 05:28:54 AM
Oh, I hold no hope for that, at all.
Indeed. When boorishness is your main selling point, why give it up?
Quote from: karlhenning on June 09, 2016, 05:28:54 AM
Oh, I hold no hope for that, at all.
Well my reasoning is that it's partly a tactic. Once elected it is no longer a useful one. There are precedents: Truman was actually pretty nasty in the 48 campaign.
QuoteIndeed. When boorishness is your main selling point, why give it up?
As I said, no longer useful.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2016, 05:34:53 AM
Well my reasoning is that it's partly a tactic. Once elected it is no longer a useful one. There are precedents: Truman was actually pretty nasty in the 48 campaign.
As I said, no longer useful.
That's the Prince Hal approach I mentioned months before: once in office, my immaturities will melt away and you'll see the fine figure I truly am.
Difference was, Hal had the job sewn up from day one.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 09, 2016, 06:14:04 AM
That's the Prince Hal approach I mentioned months before: once in office, my immaturities will melt away and you'll see the fine figure I truly am.
Difference was, Hal had the job sewn up from day one.
I'm not predicting a maturing. I think what we see now is partly an act.
I hate "survey science", and recall mocking this study when it came out. Now I must exactly reverse all my mockery :laugh:
Quotehe authors regret that there is an error in the published version of "Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies" American Journal of Political Science 56 (1), 34–51. The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed.
Exactly reversed.
Exactly reversed.http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/epic-correction-of-the-decade.php (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/epic-correction-of-the-decade.php)
Who knew that nonsense on stilts was exactly the same after your reverse it??
Quote from: orfeo on June 09, 2016, 03:02:11 AM
It's not much more substantial than Obama being a Kenyan Muslim, frankly. It's all about attempting to delegitimise a person, rather than engaging with the substance.
Da Bush Years...
Remember what those so called substantive dems did to him?
After winning the California primary Hillary declared in somehow typical Tolkinian Lord of the Ring style rhetoric the following outburst:
"Thanks to you, we've reached a milestone," she said during a speech in Brooklyn. "Tonight's victory is not about one person. It belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible." CNN http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/)
Looks like someone was watching Aragon's speech at his crowning just a few many times:
https://www.youtube.com/v/4FPkVl_aeOM
Quote from: 28Orot on June 09, 2016, 04:04:25 PM"Thanks to you, we've reached a milestone," she said during a speech in Brooklyn. "Tonight's victory is not about one person. It belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible."
It's a communal effort, something bigger than herself, something that everyone can share in. It's collectivist. Democrats eat that shit up.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2016, 04:06:56 PM
It's a communal effort, something bigger than herself, something that everyone can share in. It's collectivist. Democrats eat that shit up.
Of course
Quote from: 28Orot on June 09, 2016, 04:04:25 PM
After winning the California primary Hillary declared in somehow typical Tolkinian Lord of the Ring style rhetoric the following outburst:
"Thanks to you, we've reached a milestone," she said during a speech in Brooklyn. "Tonight's victory is not about one person. It belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible." CNN http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/primary-results-highlights/)
Looks like someone was watching Aragon's speech at his crowning just a few many times:
https://www.youtube.com/v/4FPkVl_aeOM
It's the moment the seas start to recede, the planet starts to heal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hilary_(2011) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hilary_(2011))
The similarities are staggering...
Hurricane Hilary (2011)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hurricane Hilary was a very powerful and intense hurricane that developed during the 2011 Pacific hurricane season. The fourth Category 4 and major hurricane, seventh hurricane, and eighth tropical storm of the season, Hilary developed from an area of low pressure off the Pacific coast of Central America in mid-September. Organizing quickly, the system became a tropical depression on September 21, after gaining enough organization to be declared as such. While moving towards the west-northwest, the depression continued to gather strength, and was subsequently upgraded to a tropical storm just several hours later. On September 21, Hilary was declared as a Category 1 hurricane, while located close to the Mexican coastline, where the storm brought heavy rainfall and flooding. Undergoing rapid intensification, Hilary strengthened into a Category 4 hurricane on September 22, recognized with a distinct eye feature. Beginning to enter cooler Ocean temperatures, Hilary began to weaken by September 25, but briefly restrengthened into a Category 4 the following day. Atmospheric conditions became increasingly unfavorable late on September 26, and the system began to weaken. During the afternoon hours of September 30, Hilary became a remnant low, while located several hundred miles away from any landmasses.
Quote from: Todd on June 09, 2016, 04:06:56 PM
It's a communal effort, something bigger than herself, something that everyone can share in. It's collectivist. Democrats eat that shit up.
Right. Republicans prefer prostration to an overlord. I loved the Putin-envy thing last year "Why can't Obama be a real leader, like
him"
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 09, 2016, 08:37:32 PM
Right. Republicans prefer prostration to an overlord. I loved the Putin-envy thing last year "Why can't Obama be a real leader, like him"
Yea right, its not about her . Do you really believe even for a second that she did this for anyone but herself?
A dignified human being would have escaped the public life and restored herself to private life just from the sheer shame and humiliation of what her husband did. But the media together with the democratic establishment had unsurprisingly prostrated at the Clinton Family, trying to exonerate bill of any wrong doing, as if he was totally clueless at what he was doing with that intern. Some people even suggesting :" oh come on, what did he already do". To his great credit at that time Joe Lieberman had not prostrated and I believe he was the only one and he publicly rebuked clinton for his grave behavior and the terrible role model he has become for young people, and the cheapening of the office of Presidency.
So if you ask me, I would say that the Dems have invented prostration.
Quote from: Ken B on June 09, 2016, 08:22:35 AM
I'm not predicting a maturing. I think what we see now is partly an act.
Ken, weren't there a lot of people saying the same thing after he clinched the nomination--and then expressing shock when there was no change at all? I assumed he would be capable of a huge pivot--after all, he's been a wildly successful TV performer for years. But if he can adjust his style, why isn't he? His reading off the teleprompter the other night didn't strike me as a changing of hats; it was more like seeing a bear wearing a muzzle. Or an ADD kid dosed with prozac. King Kong chained up on stage. I don't think it's going to last very long--especially if Hillary gets a big bounce, and more attacks are made against him.
This would REALLY amaze me if it pans out. All of these struggling folks who feel abandoned by the economy are going to dig deep to help a guy who says he has 10 billion dollars and doesn't need any money?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-trump-donors-meet-amid-growing-concerns-campaign-143006199.html?ref=gs (https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-trump-donors-meet-amid-growing-concerns-campaign-143006199.html?ref=gs)
Yes indeed, but he's on telly, so he must be good!
Quote from: 28Orot on June 09, 2016, 08:46:35 PM
Yea right, its not about her . Do you really believe even for a second that she did this for anyone but herself?
A dignified human being would have escaped the public life and restored herself to private life just from the sheer shame and humiliation of what her husband did. But the media together with the democratic establishment had unsurprisingly prostrated at the Clinton Family, trying to exonerate bill of any wrong doing, as if he was totally clueless at what he was doing with that intern. Some people even suggesting :" oh come on, what did he already do". To his great credit at that time Joe Lieberman had not prostrated and I believe he was the only one and he publicly rebuked clinton for his grave behavior and the terrible role model he has become for young people, and the cheapening of the office of Presidency.
So if you ask me, I would say that the Dems have invented prostration.
I think you need to get your prostrate checked. Seriously, who, where, when how has anyone ever tried to exonerate Bill Clinton of being a dick-led philanderer?
More than that, though, who actually gives a f*ck at this late date whether he got a blowjob from some star struck intern back in 1996 or whenever that was? I am not voting for Bill Clinton, he isn't even running in this election. And no, I don't think Hillary is his meat puppet, about to give us another 8 years of Bill by proxy.
Do I think she is the perfect candidate? Hell no! But if it comes to voting for her or Trump, I think you can probably guess I ain't voting for Trump. If she is the only other viable choice, so be it. If you want to attack her on policy, have at it. I haven't heard anything yet from anyone about that. And you can't attack Trump on policy, because unlike Hillary, he hasn't put anything out there, other than when he gets in the White House, he's gonna be the greatest President of all time. Big fu**ing deal. How? What are you going to do? What will Congress let you do?
Frankly, if you can't talk anything other than personality issues, I really don't care what you have to say.
And yes, I
was a Republican for 30 years, until the assholes drove me away by collectively being the biggest bunch of douche bags Washington has ever seen. So don't give me this Liberal Leftie bullsh*t either. I was voting for Republicans when you were still in diapers. Real Republicans. >:(
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 05:07:52 AM
I think you need to get your prostrate checked. Seriously, who, where, when how has anyone ever tried to exonerate Bill Clinton of being a dick-led philanderer?
More than that, though, who actually gives a f*ck at this late date whether he got a blowjob from some star struck intern back in 1996 or whenever that was? I am not voting for Bill Clinton, he isn't even running in this election. And no, I don't think Hillary is his meat puppet, about to give us another 8 years of Bill by proxy.
Do I think she is the perfect candidate? Hell no! But if it comes to voting for her or Trump, I think you can probably guess I ain't voting for Trump. If she is the only other viable choice, so be it. If you want to attack her on policy, have at it. I haven't heard anything yet from anyone about that. And you can't attack Trump on policy, because unlike Hillary, he hasn't put anything out there, other than when he gets in the White House, he's gonna be the greatest President of all time. Big fu**ing deal. How? What are you going to do? What will Congress let you do?
Frankly, if you can't talk anything other than personality issues, I really don't care what you have to say.
And yes, I was a Republican for 30 years, until the assholes drove me away by collectively being the biggest bunch of douche bags Washington has ever seen. So don't give me this Liberal Leftie bullsh*t either. I was voting for Republicans when you were still in diapers. Real Republicans. >:(
8)
Regarding what little I know about current US politics; this sums it up very well. And a good summing up on other aspects on this thread as well. Kudos to you Gurn.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 09, 2016, 08:37:32 PM
Right. Republicans prefer prostration to an overlord. I loved the Putin-envy thing last year "Why can't Obama be a real leader, like him"
What Putin-envy thing?
Quote from: Todd on June 10, 2016, 05:31:56 AM
What Putin-envy thing?
Google, say, "Fox news Putin love"
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 05:07:52 AM
More than that, though, who actually gives a f*ck at this late date whether he got a blowjob from some star struck intern back in 1996 or whenever that was?
Only, perhaps, the Republican Congressmen who have turned out to be men's room sex offenders.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 09, 2016, 07:12:12 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hilary_(2011) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hilary_(2011))
The similarities are staggering...
Hurricane Hilary (2011)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hurricane Hilary was a very powerful and intense hurricane that developed during the 2011 Pacific hurricane season. The fourth Category 4 and major hurricane, seventh hurricane, and eighth tropical storm of the season, Hilary developed from an area of low pressure off the Pacific coast of Central America in mid-September. Organizing quickly, the system became a tropical depression on September 21, after gaining enough organization to be declared as such. While moving towards the west-northwest, the depression continued to gather strength, and was subsequently upgraded to a tropical storm just several hours later. On September 21, Hilary was declared as a Category 1 hurricane, while located close to the Mexican coastline, where the storm brought heavy rainfall and flooding. Undergoing rapid intensification, Hilary strengthened into a Category 4 hurricane on September 22, recognized with a distinct eye feature. Beginning to enter cooler Ocean temperatures, Hilary began to weaken by September 25, but briefly restrengthened into a Category 4 the following day. Atmospheric conditions became increasingly unfavorable late on September 26, and the system began to weaken. During the afternoon hours of September 30, Hilary became a remnant low, while located several hundred miles away from any landmasses.
The only thing that is staggering is your confidence that you can cut and paste great big slabs of meaningless text and everyone will understand what the hell you are thinking.
Quote from: orfeo on June 10, 2016, 06:00:45 AM
The only thing that is staggering is your confidence that you can cut and paste great big slabs of meaningless text and everyone will understand what the hell you are thinking.
Yeah, only James can cut and paste great big slabs of meaningless text.
"And yes, I was a Republican for 30 years, until ... "
The internet is surprisingly full of people who say they were Republicans for N years, until ... And yet if they were all telling the truth the GOP would never have lost an election.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 06:24:46 AM
"And yes, I was a Republican for 30 years, until ... "
The internet is surprisingly full of people who say they were Republicans for N years, until ... And yet if they were all telling the truth the GOP would never have lost an election.
If you leave out the Ross Perot effect, they won continually from 1978 to 1994, and then again won most of the time in the Bush era.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 09, 2016, 08:37:32 PM
I loved the Putin-envy thing last year "Why can't Obama be a real leader, like him"
Yeah, that bothers me too, but maybe for different reasons than you. It reveals Trump's idea of how to get stuff done. I think Trump has the idea that he can just solve problems by direct action. A strong forceful decisive leader blah blah. Trumpman! I do not worry he's about to introduce the Stasi but I think he will push executive orders and actions as far as Obama has, or further. I don't think he'd break black letter law but he'll push on stuff and it takes time to enforce restraint through the courts (if it can be done at all).
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 06:35:30 AM
Yeah, that bothers me too, but maybe for different reasons than you. It reveals Trump's idea of how to get stuff done. I think Trump has the idea that he can just solve problems by direct action. A strong forceful decisive leader blah blah. Trumpman! I do not worry he's about to introduce the Stasi but I think he will push executive orders and actions as far as Obama has, or further. I don't think he'd break black letter law but he'll push on stuff and it takes time to enforce restraint through the courts (if it can be done at all).
This is where my viewpoint is, except that I do think he will try to break black letter laws - not because of malevolence, but because he is clearly pretty clueless about many of the laws constraining presidential power.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 09, 2016, 10:50:50 PM
This would REALLY amaze me if it pans out. All of these struggling folks who feel abandoned by the economy are going to dig deep to help a guy who says he has 10 billion dollars and doesn't need any money?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-trump-donors-meet-amid-growing-concerns-campaign-143006199.html?ref=gs (https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-trump-donors-meet-amid-growing-concerns-campaign-143006199.html?ref=gs)
I bet you it will work very damn well indeed.
A keen issue for Trump voters is respect. Many feel -- and they are entirely correct -- that the elite treats them with contempt. (National Review wrote their communities "deserve to die"). You don't think that people will want to feel like part of the effort, and feel respected for their small contribution. A small example: During the attacks on Denmark over the Mohammed cartoons I ate more Havarti than I could stand. I doubt it made diddly squat difference to the Danes but it did to me.
Quote from: orfeo on June 10, 2016, 06:00:45 AM
The only thing that is staggering is your confidence that you can cut and paste great big slabs of meaningless text and everyone will understand what the hell you are thinking.
You sure have an interesting definition of 'big slabs'...
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 06:37:13 AM
This is where my viewpoint is, except that I do think he will try to break black letter laws - not because of malevolence, but because he is clearly pretty clueless about many of the laws constraining presidential power.
Possibly, but it's not his pattern. He pattern in business seems to be to try things, but respect legal limits when applied.
In any case we have seen relentless executive creep. It sped up under Bush II, and even more under Obama. I'm not sure it won't be just as bad under Hillary though. In either case I want divided government! That's my new gospel: the virtues of divided government.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 10, 2016, 05:39:03 AM
Google, say, "Fox news Putin love"
Ah, Fox News, I see.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 06:41:40 AM
I bet you it will work very damn well indeed.
A keen issue for Trump voters is respect. Many feel -- and they are entirely correct -- that the elite treats them with contempt. (National Review wrote their communities "deserve to die"). You don't think that people will want to feel like part of the effort, and feel respected for their small contribution. A small example: During the attacks on Denmark over the Mohammed cartoons I ate more Havarti than I could stand. I doubt it made diddly squat difference to the Danes but it did to me.
But as you say, they were under attack. Bernie got a zillion small checks, as did Obama 8 years ago, but they were seen as underdogs, and people wanted to help. If a guy says "Believe me, I have lots and lots of money. I don't need their money,"--and everybody sees his towers and planes with his name on them, who's going to be motivated to give? I think these struggling working class people are going to say "$10 is a lot to me. It's nothing to him." You may be right, but I don't see it happening. An article just came out about his fundraising, and it looks like not only is it a disaster, there is no movement afoot to get it operational. His ground game seems to be in similar shape.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 05:07:52 AM
I think you need to get your prostrate checked. Seriously, who, where, when how has anyone ever tried to exonerate Bill Clinton of being a dick-led philanderer?
More than that, though, who actually gives a f*ck at this late date whether he got a blowjob from some star struck intern back in 1996 or whenever that was? I am not voting for Bill Clinton, he isn't even running in this election. And no, I don't think Hillary is his meat puppet, about to give us another 8 years of Bill by proxy.
Do I think she is the perfect candidate? Hell no! But if it comes to voting for her or Trump, I think you can probably guess I ain't voting for Trump. If she is the only other viable choice, so be it. If you want to attack her on policy, have at it. I haven't heard anything yet from anyone about that. And you can't attack Trump on policy, because unlike Hillary, he hasn't put anything out there, other than when he gets in the White House, he's gonna be the greatest President of all time. Big fu**ing deal. How? What are you going to do? What will Congress let you do?
Frankly, if you can't talk anything other than personality issues, I really don't care what you have to say.
And yes, I was a Republican for 30 years, until the assholes drove me away by collectively being the biggest bunch of douche bags Washington has ever seen. So don't give me this Liberal Leftie bullsh*t either. I was voting for Republicans when you were still in diapers. Real Republicans. >:(
8)
Were you on Mars when all of this happened?
The entire Media and his democratic bedfellows stood at his side and supported this indecent human being, so for his wife to come out and have the audacity to run again as president after what her husband did, just shows her wicked and crud personality. I have no desire to elect someone who maybe has some great policy ideas (which she clearly doesn't, please tell me one good thing or policy she had done in all her long political career) but has a lousy and terrible personality. Yes personality is where it all begins and where it all ends.
Nothing can be more important.
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 06:37:13 AM
This is where my viewpoint is, except that I do think he will try to break black letter laws - not because of malevolence, but because he is clearly pretty clueless about many of the laws constraining presidential power.
In terms of constraints on use of military force, there appear to be no laws effectively constraining presidential power at the present time.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 06:46:24 AM
Possibly, but it's not his pattern. He pattern in business seems to be to try things, but respect legal limits when applied.
Headline today:
Dozens of lawsuits accuse Trump of not paying his bills, reports claim. Possibly not strictly illegal. And for El Tupé, anything he can get away with will serve for
ethical. Not paying your bills is a great way to control expenditures, I guess.
Quote from: Todd on June 10, 2016, 06:59:38 AM
Ah, Fox News, I see.
Mind you, two at least of El Tupé's most important supporters in the media, are at Fox.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 07:01:21 AM
Where you on Mars when all of this happened?
The entire Media and his democratic bedfellows stood at his side
I must say I agree on this point. Does Gurn really truly not remember when Lewinsky was attacked as a liar? When shills filled the airwaves denying Clinton did anything wrong? Sidney Blumenthal, Lanny Davis.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 10, 2016, 07:03:26 AM
Headline today: Dozens of lawsuits accuse Trump of not paying his bills, reports claim. Possibly not strictly illegal. And for El Tupé, anything he can get away with will serve for ethical. Not paying your bills is a great way to control expenditures, I guess.
Pffft. Lots of disputes go to court. I assume you are referring to the weak tea served by USA Today. In that article, way down, we find
"To be sure, Trump and his companies have prevailed in many legal disputes over missing payments, or reached settlements that cloud the terms reached by the parties."
And if we're going to believe every accusation I would like to discuss Juanita Broderick please.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 07:14:53 AM
Pffft. Lots of disputes go to court. I assume you are referring to the weak tea served by USA Today. In that article, way down, we find
"To be sure, Trump and his companies have prevailed in many legal disputes over missing payments, or reached settlements that cloud the terms reached by the parties."
And if we're going to believe every accusation I would like to discuss Juanita Broderick please.
Doesn't alter your point, but the headline is at Fox News.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 10, 2016, 07:04:26 AM
Mind you, two at least of El Tupé's most important supporters in the media, are at Fox.
Since Fox News is the most popular right wing television news source in the US, I would rather expect Trump has more support than that, either real or of the toe the line type. But the reach of Fox is limited. I believe its top rated show pulls in about three million viewers. Some of those viewers may even vote based on what they see and hear on Fox, though I suspect many are predisposed to vote that way anyway. I'm not sure what can be concluded from the goings-on at Fox News.
Quote from: Todd on June 10, 2016, 07:21:06 AM
I'm not sure what can be concluded from the goings-on at Fox News.
Nor me, to be sure.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 07:01:21 AMso for his wife to come out and have the audacity to run again as president after what her husband did, just shows her wicked and crud personality.
Just to be clear here, what you are saying is that it is "wicked" for Hillary to be a public figure because her husband slept with another woman??
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 07:39:14 AM
Just to be clear here, what you are saying is that it is "wicked" for Hillary to be a public figure because her husband slept with another woman??
Yes, because it shows a crud and shameless personality.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 07:08:45 AM
I must say I agree on this point. Does Gurn really truly not remember when Lewinsky was attacked as a liar? When shills filled the airwaves denying Clinton did anything wrong? Sidney Blumenthal, Lanny Davis.
Well, it's true, I don't hang on every word of 24 hour news coverage, and I haven't the vaguest idea who those 2 people are. In any case, when it comes to attaching importance to things, I start with whether they are actually important. The controversy I do remember was the big discussion over whether oral sex constituted 'sexual relations' or not.
All of which is fine, but as I said, who gives a shit? Bill is not running for anything. You can whine about his exploits till the cows come home, and all it is is a red herring which has nothing at all to do with her. Show me where SHE was blowing interns (I'll need the video with that) and I will reconsider. She is no MILF in MY book, or anyone else's, I think, so it is unlikely you will be able to do that.
It's funny to me how people who actually think they have a grip on how government needs to work, and who needs to be in charge and what they will do on the world stage, can't get past a little blowjob among friends. If I didn't think otherwise, I would be forced to say 'small minds'. Let's all grow up a little bit, shall we? ::)
8)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 07:44:13 AM
Yes, because it shows a crud and shameless personality.
I honestly do not understand this.
If you had a wife and she slept with another man, would you really say "I guess I can never be president"?
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 07:44:13 AM
Yes, because it shows a crud and shameless personality.
QED
8)
I found this Guardian op-ed amusing, the first half especially. (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/07/us-election-trump-clinton-africa-democracy) Demagogue vs former President's wife. Hillary as a Great Power Kirchner!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 07:49:58 AM
Well, it's true, I don't hang on every word of 24 hour news coverage, and I haven't the vaguest idea who those 2 people are. In any case, when it comes to attaching importance to things, I start with whether they are actually important. The controversy I do remember was the big discussion over whether oral sex constituted 'sexual relations' or not.
All of which is fine, but as I said, who gives a shit? Bill is not running for anything. You can whine about his exploits till the cows come home, and all it is is a red herring which has nothing at all to do with her. Show me where SHE was blowing interns (I'll need the video with that) and I will reconsider. She is no MILF in MY book, or anyone else's, I think, so it is unlikely you will be able to do that.
It's funny to me how people who actually think they have a grip on how government needs to work, and who needs to be in charge and what they will do on the world stage, can't get past a little blowjob among friends. If I didn't think otherwise, I would be forced to say 'small minds'. Let's all grow up a little bit, shall we? ::)
8)
Blow*** is a private thing between two consenting individuals, and is not what we the people expect of our leaders to see a front page in every capital in the world that our president has cheated on his wife and had taken a young girl's trust and confidence for his own personal pleasures.
This wouldn't be an issue if bill was a private citizen in some rural town in Arkansas...
Darn, I simply don't know why I have to explain the obvious....
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 07:55:27 AM
Blow*** is a private thing between two consenting individuals, and is not what we the people expect of our leaders to see a front page in every capital in the world that our president has cheated on his wife and had taken a young girl's trust and confidence for his own personal pleasures.
This wouldn't be an issue if bill was a private citizen in some rural town in Arkansas...
Darn, I simply don't know why I have to explain the obvious....
I don't disagree it was in issue in 1997. For it to be still an issue now boggles the mind. Damn, I simply don't know why I have to explain the obvious... ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 07:49:58 AMShow me where SHE was blowing interns (I'll need the video with that) and I will reconsider.
I wouldn't. Maybe it's cuz I'm younger, but really, if Hillary was getting some hot action, who cares? Good for her. Don't lie about it, or whisper state secrets to your lover a la Petraeus, or legislate against your secret kinks. But if you can have some bedroom fun times without influencing your ability to do your job, I really don't care.
P.S. Somebody tell Saul to never move to France...
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 07:50:33 AM
I honestly do not understand this.
If you had a wife and she slept with another man, would you really say "I guess I can never be president"?
If you are a decent individual who doesn't want to be the talk of the country and the world, you will not continue to have a public life. But if cheating, sexual promiscuity and indecent behavior is something that you can tolerate just like the clintons then by all means you wouldn't mind becoming the president.
Catch my drift?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 07:57:35 AM
I don't disagree it was in issue in 1997. For it to be still an issue now boggles the mind. Damn, I simply don't know why I have to explain the obvious... ::)
8)
If someone was busy stealing used tires from some nerd in the middle of nowhere and he was caught and persecuted and the entire nation knew that he was a thief, wouldn't this bother you a little if today this schmuck decided to run for office?
>:(
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 08:01:07 AM
If someone was busy stealing used tires from some nerd in the middle of nowhere and he was caught and persecuted and the entire nation knew that he was a thief, wouldn't this bother you a little if today this schmuck decided to run for office?
>:(
Umm.. Bill isn't running for office. There IS a schmuck running, but it isn't him. As I say, it is a non-issue. You really need to get past that and let your mind ripen a little bit. :)
8)
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 07:58:57 AMBut if you can have some bedroom fun times without influencing your ability to do your job, I really don't care.
I agree, but sexual indiscretions make for easy political pickings, and they can easily be used to call into question the judgment of the person engaging in such tomfoolery. Plus, it all makes for great entertainment.
And as pimp extraordinaire Dominique Strauss-Kahn, even the French have limits.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 08:05:48 AM
Umm.. Bill isn't running for office. There IS a schmuck running, but it isn't him. As I say, it is a non-issue. You really need to get past that and let your mind ripen a little bit. :)
8)
Oh so if the thief's wife was running that should be ok?
$:) Throw the ball I'm ready for a homerun....
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 07:58:57 AM
I wouldn't. Maybe it's cuz I'm younger, but really, if Hillary was getting some hot action, who cares? Good for her. Don't lie about it, or whisper state secrets to your lover a la Petraeus, or legislate against your secret kinks. But if you can have some bedroom fun times without influencing your ability to do your job, I really don't care.
P.S. Somebody tell Saul to never move to France...
No, I meant I would reconsider whether he was at least arguing a point worth talking about. As for if it would change my mind about her, no, not really. I am a grownup.
Yes, France or any other European country, where apparently there are grownups too. Don't forget, we live in the last bastion of religious fundamentalism. Puritanism is not confined to Xtians you know.
8)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 08:07:49 AM
Oh so if the thief's wife was running that should be ok?
$:) Throw the ball I'm ready for a homerun....
Well, if that is your issue for this election, good luck with it. I simply don't care enough about it to type any longer...
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 08:10:40 AM
Well, if that is your issue for this election, good luck with it. I simply don't care enough about it to type any longer...
8)
Its the only issue. The president should have fine qualities and principals, should have the fear of God upon him/her, and should be modest, humble, and moral.
Not Hillary and not Trump fit this description, that is why in my opinion they don't qualify.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 08:15:33 AM
Its the only issue. The president should have fine qualities and principals, should have the fear of God upon him/her, and should be modest, humble, and moral.
Um, has America
ever had a president like that? Most likely Jimmy Carter - but he wasn't a great president.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 07:59:05 AM
If you are a decent individual who doesn't want to be the talk of the country and the world, you will not continue to have a public life. But if cheating, sexual promiscuity and indecent behavior is something that you can tolerate just like the clintons then by all means you wouldn't mind becoming the president.
Catch my drift?
Your drift is insanely stupid. You're saying that Hillary should have given up her career because of shame of somebody else?
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 08:25:27 AM
Um, has America ever had a president like that? Most likely Jimmy Carter - but he wasn't a great president.
Anyway, fear of God as a requirement is neither enforceable, nor Constitutional.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 08:15:33 AM
Its the only issue. The president should have fine qualities and principals, should have the fear of God upon him/her, and should be modest, humble, and moral.
I thought your whole point was that Hillary had a principal instead of acting on her own principles?
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 08:26:16 AM
Your drift is insanely stupid. You're saying that Hillary should have given up her career because of shame of somebody else?
Husband is not a synonym for 'somebody else'.
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 08:25:27 AM
Um, has America ever had a president like that? Most likely Jimmy Carter - but he wasn't a great president.
I think John Adams.
Carter?
LOL, you can't be serious.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 10, 2016, 08:37:11 AM
Anyway, fear of God as a requirement is neither enforceable, nor Constitutional.
But that's what I prefer. Since the world doesn't run according to my liking, we shall sit this one at home... didn't I say that already?
Let me summarize.
People who object to Trump based on his character object to Saul objecting to Hillary based on her character.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 08:48:20 AM
Let me summarize.
People who object to Trump based on his character object to Saul objecting to Hillary based on her character.
:) good point
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 08:38:55 AM
I think John Adams.
Carter?
LOL, you can't be serious.
Carter is a modest, humble man who has devoted the last 35 years to charitable and diplomatic endeavors around the globe. He's a man of well-known, deep religious faith. He has never had any sex scandals or obvious "immoral" acts. He fits your description perfectly - although anybody who runs for president will have
some ego.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 10, 2016, 08:37:11 AM
Anyway, fear of God as a requirement is neither enforceable, nor Constitutional.
You mentioned ethics. Are those enforceable or constitutional?
I wonder at those missing Saul's point. Hillary's behavior in regard to Bill's philandering IS revealing of character. This is undeniable I think. Whether you argue it shows
- a disregard of decorum and morality
- a kind and forgiving nature
- a cynical decision to keep her wagon hitched to his
it does provide clues about Hillary's character.
Saul objects to the kind of character he sees revealed. You don't have to agree either with his inference or his judgment to understand it.
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 08:52:24 AM
Carter is a modest, humble man who has devoted the last 35 years to charitable and diplomatic endeavors around the globe. He's a man of well-known, deep religious faith. He has never had any sex scandals or obvious "immoral" acts. He fits your description perfectly - although anybody who runs for president will have some ego.
But he supports Hamas over Israel. You need to be monster to do that.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 08:59:43 AM
But he supports Hamas over Israel. You need to be monster to do that.
Not really.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 08:57:55 AM
You mentioned ethics. Are those enforceable or constitutional?
No, and a perfectly good point.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 08:59:43 AM
But he supports Hamas over Israel. You need to be monster to do that.
I think Brian was showing up a flaw in your argument. According to the criterion you stated
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 08:15:33 AM
Its the only issue. The president should have fine qualities and principals, should have the fear of God upon him/her, and should be modest, humble, and moral.
James Earl Carter III should be your man. He's a god-fearing, god-talking, whirling dervish of piety.
Quote from: The new erato on June 10, 2016, 09:01:35 AM
Not really.
Well if someone sides with a terrorist organization that has written on its charter to murder every single Jew on the planet, over a free and a democratic country is a monster.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 08:57:55 AM
I wonder at those missing Saul's point. Hillary's behavior in regard to Bill's philandering IS revealing of character.
Well, the difference here is that you articulated a point about character, while Saul simply raved incomprehensible and Puritan-sounding things. I think you're giving him too much credit by translating his posts in the most logical possible light.
This thread reminds me a Groucho Marx quote:
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
incomprehensible and Puritan-sounding things
:laugh:
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 09:06:15 AM
Well, the difference here is that you articulated a point about character, while Saul simply raved incomprehensible and Puritan-sounding things. I think you're giving him too much credit by translating his posts in the most logical possible light.
I err in comprehending the incomprehensible?
Parenthetically, the Lord of Misrule comes to Boston for a lunch just across the street Monday. Potential business disruption? You betcha.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ziwYbVx_-qg
"I can't stay forever . . . ."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 10, 2016, 10:03:12 AM
I apologize and withdraw. Will you withdraw your rejoinder?
You mean, will I delete mine if you delete yours? Yes.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 08:48:20 AM
Let me summarize.
People who object to Trump based on his character object to Saul objecting to Hillary based on her character.
Well, you aren't talking about me then. I object to Trump based on his stated political stands. The many character flaws are of no consequence to me.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 10:09:11 AM
Well, you aren't talking about me then. I object to Trump based on his stated political stands. The many character flaws are of no consequence to me.
8)
I think he might be talking about me, but of course, I'm not disagreeing with Saul's
right to criticize Hillary, only the content of his criticism; and there is no hypocrisy in simply having different values.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 10:09:11 AM
Well, you aren't talking about me then. I object to Trump based on his stated political stands. The many character flaws are of no consequence to me.
QuoteAnd you can't attack Trump on policy, because unlike Hillary, he hasn't put anything out there, other than when he gets in the White House, he's gonna be the greatest President of all time.
...
And yes, I was a Republican for 30 years, until the assholes drove me away by collectively being the biggest bunch of douche bags Washington has ever seen.
Issues! Not douchebaggery!
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 08:57:55 AM
You mentioned ethics. Are those enforceable or constitutional?
I wonder at those missing Saul's point. Hillary's behavior in regard to Bill's philandering IS revealing of character. This is undeniable I think. Whether you argue it shows
- a disregard of decorum and morality
- a kind and forgiving nature
- a cynical decision to keep her wagon hitched to his
it does provide clues about Hillary's character. Saul objects to the kind of character he sees revealed. You don't have to agree either with his inference or his judgment to understand it.
It does show one thing:
a woman who, finding herself the focus of intense public humiliation, with everyone in the world (possibly literally everyone in the world) knowing her husband was a serial adulterer, decided to fulfill her marriage vow of "until death do us part".
Now contrast that with Trump....
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 10, 2016, 10:22:39 AM
It does show one thing:
a woman who, finding herself the focus of intense public humiliation, with everyone in the world (possibly literally everyone in the world) knowing her husband was a serial adulterer, decided to fulfill her marriage vow of "until death do us part".
Now contrast that with Trump....
Just so that she would be president...
Puuuuuuuulize don't make a saint out of her 0:)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 07:01:21 AM
The entire Media and his democratic bedfellows stood at his side and supported this indecent human being, so for his wife to come out and have the audacity to run again as president after what her husband did, just shows her wicked and crud personality.
Quite the contrary. It shows a strong woman who didn't let her life to be overtaken by her husband's dick. I'm not a fan of Hillary the politician, but how she managed to live through all the humiliation and keep the family together, that's not shameful – it's inspiring.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 09:03:47 AMWell if someone sides with a terrorist organization that has written on its charter to murder every single Jew on the planet, over a free and a democratic country is a monster.
Sides with? Check your facts (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Jimmy-Carter-ICC-should-pursue-war-crimes-investigation-against-Israel-Hamas-387700), the reality is much more complicated, as is everything in that sad corner of the world.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 10, 2016, 10:22:39 AM
It does show one thing:
a woman who, finding herself the focus of intense public humiliation, with everyone in the world (possibly literally everyone in the world) knowing her husband was a serial adulterer, decided to fulfill her marriage vow of "until death do us part".
Now contrast that with Trump....
I was wondering if anyone else noticed that... let's see, she promised to stay till the end, so did he. He broke his promise and hurt her badly, but she hung on anyway because a vow is a vow. God, what an immoral witch she is! ::)
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 10:16:24 AM
Issues! Not douchebaggery!
Yes, that's my motto. Other than by being the greatest president ever, how does Trump plan on dealing with some of the issues facing the country. Pick one, tell me. :-\ And building walls doesn't count.
8)
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 10, 2016, 10:26:19 AM
Quite the contrary. It shows a strong woman who didn't let her life to be overtaken by her husband's dick. I'm not a fan of Hillary the politician, but how she managed to live through all the humiliation and keep the family together, that's not shameful – it's inspiring.
Sides with? Check your facts (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Jimmy-Carter-ICC-should-pursue-war-crimes-investigation-against-Israel-Hamas-387700), the reality is much more complicated, as is everything in that sad corner of the world.
A very strong woman she had been of course she will not let her husband's private parts to dominate her march to the white house.
As for carter, save it, nothing can exonerate him from siding with the enemies of freedom and tolerance.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 10:24:45 AM
Just so that she would be president...
Puuuuuuuulize don't make a saint out of her 0:)
Well, if your wife played around, what would you do? Divorce her? Or have her stoned? Or would you live up to your end of the deal, even if you came out the loser. You have no idea what her motives were, you presume much.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 10:09:11 AM
Well, you aren't talking about me then. I object to Trump based on his stated political stands. The many character flaws are of no consequence to me.
My own congressman (NY 2, Republican Pete King):
"@RepPeteKing on Trump: I don't accept that he's a racist... what he said last week was racist."
Can one say racist things without being a racist? Can you dissociate the "political stands" - whether building the wall, excluding Muslims, or criticizing the judge as Mexican - from the character flaws? And are all character flaws equal? Granted, Hillary has her share, including her strident personality and perhaps bizarre refusal to separate from or divorce Bill after the Lewinsky scandal, but are all character flaws of equal weight?
Even David Brooks states today in the NY Times: "Trump's personality is pathological. It is driven by deep inner compulsions that defy friendly advice, political interest and common sense.
"It's useful to go back and read the Trump profiles in Vanity Fair and other places from the 1980s and 1990s. He has always behaved exactly as he does now: the constant flow of insults, the endless bragging, the casual cruelty, the need to destroy allies and hog the spotlight. . . . [Such narcissists] hunger for a never-ending supply of admiration from outside. They act at all times like they are performing before a crowd and cannot rest unless they are in the spotlight.
"To make decisions, these narcissists create a rigid set of external standards, often based around admiration and contempt. Their valuing criteria are based on simple division — winners and losers, victory or humiliation. They are preoccupied with luxury, appearance or anything that signals wealth, beauty, power and success. They take Christian, Jewish and Muslim values — based on humility, charity and love — and they invert them.
"Incapable of understanding themselves, they are also incapable of having empathy for others. They simply don't know what it feels like to put themselves in another's shoes. Other people are simply to be put to use as suppliers of admiration or as victims to be crushed as part of some dominance display."
If all this is correct, do you think such a deep-seated array of character flaws will have no bearing on Trump's performance in the White House and the political stands he makes?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 10, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
My own congressman (NY 2, Republican Pete King):
"@RepPeteKing on Trump: I don't accept that he's a racist... what he said last week was racist."
Can one say racist things without being a racist? Can you dissociate the "political stands" - whether building the wall, excluding Muslims, or criticizing the judge as Mexican - from the character flaws? And are all character flaws equal? Granted, Hillary has her share, including her strident personality and perhaps bizarre refusal to separate from or divorce Bill after the Lewinsky scandal, but are all character flaws of equal weight?
Even David Brooks states today in the NY Times: "Trump's personality is pathological. It is driven by deep inner compulsions that defy friendly advice, political interest and common sense.
"It's useful to go back and read the Trump profiles in Vanity Fair and other places from the 1980s and 1990s. He has always behaved exactly as he does now: the constant flow of insults, the endless bragging, the casual cruelty, the need to destroy allies and hog the spotlight. . . . [Such narcissists] hunger for a never-ending supply of admiration from outside. They act at all times like they are performing before a crowd and cannot rest unless they are in the spotlight.
"To make decisions, these narcissists create a rigid set of external standards, often based around admiration and contempt. Their valuing criteria are based on simple division — winners and losers, victory or humiliation. They are preoccupied with luxury, appearance or anything that signals wealth, beauty, power and success. They take Christian, Jewish and Muslim values — based on humility, charity and love — and they invert them.
"Incapable of understanding themselves, they are also incapable of having empathy for others. They simply don't know what it feels like to put themselves in another's shoes. Other people are simply to be put to use as suppliers of admiration or as victims to be crushed as part of some dominance display."
If all this is correct, do you think such a deep-seated array of character flaws will have no bearing on Trump's performance in the White House and the political stands he makes?
No, I don't think that at all. I think it would be just a matter of time before he exploded like Mr. Creosote. But I am wanting to base my vote on something more than my instinctual revulsion for his character. There are plenty of people I don't like who can still do a hell of a job at something. My liking or not liking them or admiring their personality defects is not what governs their competence. If he was able to lay out a solid, positive plan for the country and had a reasonable expectation of implementing it, then I really wouldn't give two shits whether I liked him or not.
8)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 10, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
My own congressman (NY 2, Republican Pete King):
"@RepPeteKing on Trump: I don't accept that he's a racist... what he said last week was racist."
Can one say racist things without being a racist? Can you dissociate the "political stands" - whether building the wall, excluding Muslims, or criticizing the judge as Mexican - from the character flaws? And are all character flaws equal? Granted, Hillary has her share, including her strident personality and perhaps bizarre refusal to separate from or divorce Bill after the Lewinsky scandal, but are all character flaws of equal weight?
Even David Brooks states today in the NY Times: "Trump's personality is pathological. It is driven by deep inner compulsions that defy friendly advice, political interest and common sense.
"It's useful to go back and read the Trump profiles in Vanity Fair and other places from the 1980s and 1990s. He has always behaved exactly as he does now: the constant flow of insults, the endless bragging, the casual cruelty, the need to destroy allies and hog the spotlight. . . . [Such narcissists] hunger for a never-ending supply of admiration from outside. They act at all times like they are performing before a crowd and cannot rest unless they are in the spotlight.
"To make decisions, these narcissists create a rigid set of external standards, often based around admiration and contempt. Their valuing criteria are based on simple division — winners and losers, victory or humiliation. They are preoccupied with luxury, appearance or anything that signals wealth, beauty, power and success. They take Christian, Jewish and Muslim values — based on humility, charity and love — and they invert them.
"Incapable of understanding themselves, they are also incapable of having empathy for others. They simply don't know what it feels like to put themselves in another's shoes. Other people are simply to be put to use as suppliers of admiration or as victims to be crushed as part of some dominance display."
If all this is correct, do you think such a deep-seated array of character flaws will have no bearing on Trump's performance in the White House and the political stands he makes?
The democratic liberal establishment in its essence is racist and anti semitic. It has been so with its megalomaniacal affinity with all the enemies of Israel, and the United States for that matter. Its race bating, and taking advantage of the Blacks by constantly instigating problems that are not even there, like the shooting of Brown etc...
They are the most racist and vicious individuals, blaming all the ills on the rich and the fortunate. Barring free speech of people like Ben Shapiro and Alen Dershowitz. For example The Professor was not let inside any of the Norwegian universities because he is pro Israel, even though he is a democrat. In Scandinavia the very kind of 'progressive regimes' that hillary and bernie try to emulate those who have favorable views on Israel are shut out, and thought of giving a right winger to speak his mind is a persona non grata, they are the true fascists not Trump. Donald Trump is a baboon, but he is not a racist, the democrats and the liberals and their progressive handlers are the true racist, anti semitic bigots of our day.
Sad but True.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 10:31:55 AM
Well, if your wife played around, what would you do? Divorce her? Or have her stoned? Or would you live up to your end of the deal, even if you came out the loser. You have no idea what her motives were, you presume much.
8)
I would ask her to please not run for president.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 10:40:42 AM
Donald Trump is a baboon, but he is not a racist,
So you agree with my congressman: he's not a racist, but he just says racist things.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 10, 2016, 10:46:05 AM
So you agree with my congressman: he's not a racist, but he just says racist things.
Yes he is a dumb idiot, look at the things he said at the Jewish Republican coalition, all the Jewish stereotypes, but no one for a second thought that he is an anti semitic.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 10:37:27 AM
No, I don't think that at all. I think it would be just a matter of time before he exploded like Mr. Creosote. But I am wanting to base my vote on something more than my instinctual revulsion for his character. There are plenty of people I don't like who can still do a hell of a job at something. My liking or not liking them or admiring their personality defects is not what governs their competence. If he was able to lay out a solid, positive plan for the country and had a reasonable expectation of implementing it, then I really wouldn't give two shits whether I liked him or not.
8)
I've seen plenty of people who are highly competent despite their disagreeable personalities. I've worked for a number. But with Trump, the policy positions (building a wall, driving out millions of immigrants, excluding Muslims from entry) are not only not "solid, positive" in themselves or capable of implementation, but deeply rooted in the man's character flaws.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 10, 2016, 09:56:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/ziwYbVx_-qg
Why would anyone get up for that cipher?
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 07:01:21 AM
The entire Media and his democratic bedfellows stood at his side and supported this indecent human being, so for his wife to come out and have the audacity to run again as president after what her husband did, just shows her wicked and crud personality.
I find the insinuation that a woman should be ashamed and/or shunned because of the actions of her husband to be perverse and despicable. I am not thrilled with Hillary's candidacy, mainly because I think her foreign policy positions are excessively aggressive. I am also not happy with the idea that Bill Clinton, who I am sick to death of hearing about, will be involved in government again. But the fact that she can move forward from difficult situations is an indication of her personal strength, and she is certainly my preference among the choices left to us (Hillary or Trump). I find myself wishing that Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren had run.
Or Colin Powel. Now that would be a fantasy come true.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 10, 2016, 11:21:49 AM
I find the insinuation that a woman should be ashamed and/or shunned because of the actions of her husband to be perverse and despicable. I am not thrilled with Hillary's candidacy, mainly because I think her foreign policy positions are excessively aggressive. I am also not happy with the idea that Bill Clinton, who I am sick to death of hearing about, will be involved in government again. But the fact that she can move forward from difficult situations is an indication of her personal strength, and she is certainly my preference among the choices left to us (Hillary or Trump). I find myself wishing that Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren had run.
Or Colin Powel. Now that would be a fantasy come true.
For months I have been saying that if Hillary is indicted the dems should draft Biden. He'd win big, carried along on a huge collective sigh of relief. It's sad to think where we've reached the point of "maybe Biden will rescue us", but we have.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 10, 2016, 10:52:24 AM
I've seen plenty of people who are highly competent despite their disagreeable personalities. I've worked for a number. But with Trump, the policy positions (building a wall, driving out millions of immigrants, excluding Muslims from entry) are not only not "solid, positive" in themselves or capable of implementation, but deeply rooted in the man's character flaws.
You are right, if it is all true. If it is merely (highly successful) rhetoric intended to garner him enough attention to stomp his opponents, then it is not really something to judge by. I'm not disagreeing with you, whether it is rhetoric or his actual position, he clearly has pathological character defects. But if that's what it takes to successfully become POTUS these days, well, there is always New Zealand... :D
8)
Quote from: Scarpia on June 10, 2016, 11:21:49 AM
I find the insinuation that a woman should be ashamed and/or shunned because of the actions of her husband to be perverse and despicable. I am not thrilled with Hillary's candidacy, mainly because I think her foreign policy positions are excessively aggressive. I am also not happy with the idea that Bill Clinton, who I am sick to death of hearing about, will be involved in government again. But the fact that she can move forward from difficult situations is an indication of her personal strength, and she is certainly my preference among the choices left to us (Hillary or Trump). I find myself wishing that Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren had run.
Or Colin Powel. Now that would be a fantasy come true.
I would say the same thing if it was Hillary who cheated and her husband ran for president. Normal people would like to return to private life after the entire world witnessed their disgraceful actions. But, ignoring all that and seeking the office of the presidency regardless, renders them to be completely desensitized to everything we hold dear, and everything we value.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 11:19:51 AM
Why would anyone get up for that cipher?
Typically of a staunch moralist who is paranoid about prejudice aimed at himself, you are the first to condemn someone else, someone who is far more worthy of respect than some I might name.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa159/Gurn_Blanston/CD%20Covers/Obama.jpg)
and not just white supremacy either, eh?
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 11:36:06 AM
Typically of a staunch moralist who is paranoid about prejudice aimed at himself, you are the first to condemn someone else, someone who is far more worthy of respect than some I might name.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa159/Gurn_Blanston/CD%20Covers/Obama.jpg)
and not just white supremacy either, eh?
8)
So you're saying that I said that because he is black?
His skin color has nothing to do with the fact that he has been the worst president in the history of our country.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/6492/who-will-be-more-corrupt-hillary-or-trump-hillary-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=060616-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro (http://www.dailywire.com/news/6492/who-will-be-more-corrupt-hillary-or-trump-hillary-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=060616-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro)
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 11:39:12 AM
So you're saying that I said that because he is black?
His skin color has nothing to do with the fact that he has been the worst president in the history of our country.
That's your opinion. Much of it based (by a thousand things you have said) on his failure to get into bed with Israel and actually talk to Arabs. It isn't MY opinion. I think he has done some things that were long overdue. I favor health care reform. I favor rapprochement with Cuba. I favor 10 million + new jobs. I favor a lot of things he has accomplished, and I would have favored a whole bunch of things that Congress wouldn't allow to happen. I admire that he used executive powers to make things happen because no one had the political will to do things they all agreed needed done. And if you hate him for it, then it makes me that much happier.
Do YOU hate him because he is black? Probably not. Not being Jewish and maybe having a little Muslim in his background is plenty of reason for you to hate him. I can live with that.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 11:36:06 AM
Typically of a staunch moralist who is paranoid about prejudice aimed at himself, you are the first to condemn someone else, someone who is far more worthy of respect than some I might name.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa159/Gurn_Blanston/CD%20Covers/Obama.jpg)
and not just white supremacy either, eh?
8)
Another low in this thread. It's a low because it implies criticizing Obama can only be a sign of racism. It is a low because it use fatuous collective terms like "the right".
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 11:46:45 AM
. Not being Jewish and maybe having a little Muslim in his background is plenty of reason for you to hate him. I can live with that.
I am reporting this to the moderators. Another moderator please. One I can respect.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 11:46:45 AM
That's your opinion. Much of it based (by a thousand things you have said) on his failure to get into bed with Israel and actually talk to Arabs. It isn't MY opinion. I think he has done some things that were long overdue. I favor health care reform. I favor rapprochement with Cuba. I favor 10 million + new jobs. I favor a lot of things he has accomplished, and I would have favored a whole bunch of things that Congress wouldn't allow to happen. I admire that he used executive powers to make things happen because no one had the political will to do things they all agreed needed done. And if you hate him for it, then it makes me that much happier.
Do YOU hate him because he is black? Probably not. Not being Jewish and maybe having a little Muslim in his background is plenty of reason for you to hate him. I can live with that.
8)
I don't hate him, but I think he's been a lousy President, Lousy on foreign affairs, using executive power whenever he wishes, incompetent at dealing with Congress (the Democrats have actually done a lousy job at showing the country what the partisan obstructionism of the GOP has done to us), narcissistic....
His family background has nothing to do with it. I'd say the same about an Orthodox Jew who did as badly as he has.
He is, I admit not as as much a narcissist as Trump, but that's a pretty low bar to clear.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 11:39:12 AM
His skin color has nothing to do with the fact that he has been the worst president in the history of our country.
The worst presidents in American history are, by general consensus, the failed stretch of presidents immediately before the Civil War (Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan), the impeached drunk Andrew Johnson, and the scandal-plagued Warren Harding. Some commentators have made arguments for Hoover, Nixon, Grant, and William Henry Harrison, who died after only a month. The genocidal Andrew Jackson is facing a re-assessment of his legacy. Of these, Buchanan is generally considered worst of all, since the country literally split in half during his presidency.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 10, 2016, 11:21:49 AM
I am not thrilled with Hillary's candidacy, mainly because I think her foreign policy positions are excessively aggressive.
I agree, but...
QuoteOr Colin Powel. Now that would be a fantasy come true.
Powell was the guy who sold the Iraq war with his BS presentation at the UN on Saddam's non-existent weapons. If you're against aggression, why would you favor him?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 11:46:45 AM
That's your opinion. Much of it based (by a thousand things you have said) on his failure to get into bed with Israel and actually talk to Arabs. It isn't MY opinion. I think he has done some things that were long overdue. I favor health care reform. I favor rapprochement with Cuba. I favor 10 million + new jobs. I favor a lot of things he has accomplished, and I would have favored a whole bunch of things that Congress wouldn't allow to happen. I admire that he used executive powers to make things happen because no one had the political will to do things they all agreed needed done. And if you hate him for it, then it makes me that much happier.
Do YOU hate him because he is black? Probably not. Not being Jewish and maybe having a little Muslim in his background is plenty of reason for you to hate him. I can live with that.
8)
You need to use your imagination a little Gurn.
Lets say your living in a tiny country the size of New Jersey, surrounded by 300 million arabs who want to see you dead, and on top of that you have the arch sponsor of terrorism of our era, Iran, threatening to use nuclear weapons against you and wipe you off the map. Would you agree for a third party to negotiate a 'deal' with those monsters and then force you to accept the results of that deal?
I would assume that you wouldn't go for something like that.
That's what Barak Obama did to Israel and many other allies. You should know, that he also ignored the fears and oppositions of other arab countries who besieged him not to sign that deal.
Iran, is a liar. Its a terrorist devil. And our President signed a deal with the devil. Remember who they refer to as the 'Big Devil', its the United States. For him to do such a thing, which by the way was supported by the left wing radical countries of europe, unsurprisingly is an unforgivable crime against this country and against Israel.
This is only a tip of the iceberg here...
Quote from: 28Orot on June 10, 2016, 11:46:36 AM
http://www.dailywire.com/news/6492/who-will-be-more-corrupt-hillary-or-trump-hillary-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=060616-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro (http://www.dailywire.com/news/6492/who-will-be-more-corrupt-hillary-or-trump-hillary-ben-shapiro?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=060616-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro)
and here is what he wrote a month ago
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5474/5-arguments-voting-trump-and-why-they-fail-ben-shapiro
all of it true today as it was a month ago.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 11:51:36 AM
I am reporting this to the moderators. Another moderator please. One I can respect.
2 way street.
8)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 10, 2016, 12:01:26 PM
and here is what he wrote a month ago
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5474/5-arguments-voting-trump-and-why-they-fail-ben-shapiro
all of it true today as it was a month ago.
Yea Ben is brilliant
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 11:57:32 AMSome commentators have made arguments for Hoover, Nixon, Grant, and William Henry Harrison, who died after only a month.
Seems a bit unfair to include WHH among the worst. He's more of an asterisk in the annals of the Presidency.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 10, 2016, 12:16:13 PM
2 way street.
8)
You will then recuse yourself as moderator from any matter involving me.
Quote from: Todd on June 10, 2016, 12:30:57 PM
Seems a bit unfair to include WHH among the worst. He's more of an asterisk in the annals of the Presidency.
I agree - though I'm prejudiced, as he's the only president "from" my home state of Indiana, so as schoolkids we were taught to think kindly of him.
Quote from: Todd on June 10, 2016, 12:30:57 PM
Seems a bit unfair to include WHH among the worst. He's more of an asterisk in the annals of the Presidency.
He's the only president that (as far as I know) I'm related to. At least he didn't stick around long enough to screw things up.
Quote from: Ken B on June 10, 2016, 12:35:25 PM
You will then recuse yourself as moderator from any matter involving me.
You will bite my ass. I am not here as a moderator, I have every right to express my opinions just like any other member of this forum. My lack of respect for anything you have to say is based on everything you have to say, not on my beliefs or my responsibilities as a moderator. For an intelligent person, you often speak as one who isn't, which surprises me, really. I would think you would have more pride than that.
GB
OK, folks, locking this topic for at least a day or so.
Meanwhile, consider exploring some music - the main purpose of this board.
--Bruce
Cooling off period now over.
Topic opened again for business.
BUT: the 'business' is discussion of the relevent issues and any behaviour regarded as trolling will be dealt with. Let's be careful with one another and that includes mods, with care flowing in both directions. We have taken note of the comments suggesting that members should have a good track record: posting on musical issues to earn the right to contribute here. We won't leave intact posts from anyone who seems not to be primarily interested in discussing music but thinks they have found an ideological soapbox here.
We have been pleasantly surprised that this topic ran for so long without any significant input from the mods. Here's to a return to what might be termed business as usual for this topic.
Knight
I'll break the seal with a thoroughly bland news item...Bernie and Hillary have arranged to meet on Tuesday to talk about party platform.
IE, Who gets the chair over the booby hatch in the platform.
Mile
Quote from: Brian on June 10, 2016, 12:36:37 PM
I agree - though I'm prejudiced, as he's the only president "from" my home state of Indiana, so as schoolkids we were taught to think kindly of him.
Although I have four others (two distinguished, i.e., both Roosevelts, and two nonentities, Van Buren and Fillmore), I hope in the unfortunate case that The Donald is elected, schoolkids in the future will not be taught to think kindly of him.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 12, 2016, 02:59:40 PM
Although I have four others (two distinguished, i.e., both Roosevelts, and two nonentities, Van Buren and Fillmore), I hope in the unfortunate case that The Donald is elected, schoolkids in the future will not be taught to think kindly of him.
See I find that odd. I would hope he would, contrary to my expectations, prove to be such a good and wise president he'd deserve such treatment.
Quote from: Ken B on June 12, 2016, 04:26:06 PM
See I find that odd. I would hope he would, contrary to my expectations, prove to be such a good and wise president he'd deserve such treatment.
As Carmen says in Bizet's opera, "il est doux d'espérer."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 12, 2016, 02:59:40 PM
Although I have four others (two distinguished, i.e., both Roosevelts, and two nonentities, Van Buren and Fillmore), I hope in the unfortunate case that The Donald is elected, schoolkids in the future will not be taught to think kindly of him.
You forgot Cleveland and Arthur. Although they don't necessarily raise the quality level. And your state gets the blame for Hillary as well.
My home state has, to be technical, five
J. Adams
J.Q. Adams
Coolidge
Kennedy
GHW Bush (he was born in Milton)
And in our lifetime three losing candidates
Dukakis
Kerry
Romney
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 12, 2016, 06:23:02 PM
You forgot Cleveland and Arthur. Although they don't necessarily raise the quality level. And your state gets the blame for Hillary as well.
Grover was born in Jersey, Chet and Calvin in Vermont. Hillary not elected yet but born in Chicago.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 12, 2016, 06:55:17 PM
Grover was born in Jersey, Chet and Calvin in Vermont. Hillary not elected yet but born in Chicago.
Wikipedia gives both birthplace and state of primary affiliation. By the latter you get Grover and Chester, we get Calvin.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 12, 2016, 06:58:39 PM
Wikipedia gives both birthplace and state of primary affiliation. By the latter you get Grover and Chester, we get Calvin.
I was referring to birthplace only.
Quote from: Brian on June 12, 2016, 12:20:33 PM
I'll break the seal with a thoroughly bland news item...Bernie and Hillary have arranged to meet on Tuesday to talk about party platform.
The super delegates system is a rigged system, I also think that its not democratic..
Quote from: 28Orot on June 13, 2016, 06:42:58 PM
The super delegates system is a rigged system, I also think that its not democratic..
That's its purpose, to be able to override the votes. But so what. The dems like the GOP are a private club and can pick whom they choose.
I thought this was pretty interesting, because it focuses on the advantages/disadvantages of having a strong infrastructure in place...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/cruz-strategist-trump-has-a-math-problem-224294 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/cruz-strategist-trump-has-a-math-problem-224294)
(http://www.clickittefaq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1-1.jpg)
Will this be the spew that does Trump in? Nah. There's more to come.
"Russian government hackers" got into the Democratic computer system and stole DNC research on Trump. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-hackers-breached-dnc-network-stole-oppo-research/story?id=39847219) DNC has reached out to cybersecurity firms for help; and, of course, there's rampant speculation as to what the Russian government's motive is here.
According to Trump's favorite media outlet (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html), the Russians also hacked into, or attempted hacking into, Trump and Clinton campaigns and some GOP PACs, with varying success. They seem to think it's good old-fashioned espionage at work.
Quote from: Brian on June 14, 2016, 09:30:10 AMThey seem to think it's good old-fashioned espionage at work.
Pfft, there's no espionage in today's world.
At last, a sensible explanation: Trump is The Manchurian Candidate.
Mike
Quote from: Todd on June 14, 2016, 09:11:59 AM
(http://www.clickittefaq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1-1.jpg)
Will this be the spew that does Trump in? Nah. There's more to come.
The consistent theme this season has been, how vile soever anything El Tupé says, his devoted fans will accept it.
Happy 70th birthday, Donald! Enjoy a well-done steak!
I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck8pfo9WUAIZnSD.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on June 14, 2016, 03:23:34 PM
I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck8pfo9WUAIZnSD.jpg)
No Green Party? Not that I'm complaining.
Quote from: Brian on June 14, 2016, 03:23:34 PM
I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck8pfo9WUAIZnSD.jpg)
Clinton for Prime Minister?
Quote from: Brian on June 14, 2016, 03:23:34 PM
I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck8pfo9WUAIZnSD.jpg)
I like that, it works for me. Not surprisingly, Kasich would be my member (well, that's interesting to say, isn't it? :D ). Especially where they have him actually lined up on the graph. I've been behind this idea for years, I just didn't know it until I saw it. :)
8)
Quote from: knight66 on June 14, 2016, 09:34:48 AM
At last, a sensible explanation: Trump is The Manchurian Candidate.
Mike
HA!! :laugh:
I don't care what any of you think about Obama ("worst president in history," and other yapping), but I thought his speech tonight was outstanding. He just mopped the floor with that 70-year-old insect.
I smell kind bud in this Thread... sniff sniff...
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 14, 2016, 04:47:26 PM
I don't care what any of you think about Obama ("worst president in history," and other yapping), but I thought his speech tonight was outstanding. He just mopped the floor with that 70-year-old insect.
Yes, I completely agree.
--Bruce
Quote from: Brian on June 14, 2016, 03:23:34 PM
I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck8pfo9WUAIZnSD.jpg)
I guess the height of absurdity in discussing American politics is to ignore the gerrymander. It's also ridiculous to put Trump as the right winger.
Quote from: Ken B on June 14, 2016, 07:33:06 PM
I guess the height of absurdity in discussing American politics is to ignore the gerrymander. It's also ridiculous to put Trump as the right winger.
Good points. It did seem odd that they labelled him as "populist" but still placed him at the right hand end.
The other problem of course is that the United States
does have a Parliament. It's called Congress. And as you say it frequently involves a gerrymander.
One of the greatest frustrations of living in Australia, where we have a Prime Minister, is that people behave more and more as if we have a presidential system like the United States and declare that they are voting for this or that leader, when in fact there is no public vote for Prime Minister at all. When we had a hung parliament after the 2010 election, people went into meltdown declaring how they'd voted for Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott as PM, when neither of those names would've been on the ballot paper in 148 electorates out of 150. Reactions in the UK were similar when they had a hung parliament. People seem to believe the process has somehow failed if no single party has a majority of seats and they therefore don't immediately know who will be the PM. People similarly can't cope here if the PM loses power because their party votes them out.
This graphic similarly seems to equate a vote for a leader with a vote for a party. And that simply isn't how a parliamentary system legally works, even if the populist view seems to be that it's how it works - a view that has, ironically, filtered in from the American system.
If the United States had a Parliament, the Prime Minister would be the leader in the House of Representatives of the party that could command a majority in that house.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 14, 2016, 04:47:26 PM
I don't care what any of you think about Obama ("worst president in history," and other yapping), but I thought his speech tonight was outstanding. He just mopped the floor with that 70-year-old insect.
Costs and benefits of naming the enemy.
WW2 the allies had no problem or fear to name the enemy which was an ideological one that started by the Germans but shared by many other nations, like the Hungarians, Austrians and the Ukrainians. So naming an ideology will not cause every person of a German, Hungarian and Ukrainian decent to leave their hosts countries and travel to Europe to join their fellow countrymen in the war against the allies. A person may be connected to his land under religious terms, but the ideological terms are not shared by all countrymen and that is why it was more comfortable to specifically name the enemy in ww2 without the fear of mass gatherings of the exiles back to their native lands to wage a war to defend their ancestral homeland.
The case with Radical Islam is way different and that is the reason so many are reluctant to openly identity the enemy and call it for what it is, Obama's speech was an eye opener, he said that he perfectly knows who the enemy is, but put into question the wisdom of actually naming it. If the war on terror will be less effective by naming the enemy outright, then maybe its wise to keep it blurry. Many Muslims who are not religious, or are not radicalized yet may unite under the banner of 'The United States has openly declared a war on Islam'. For us Westerners we try to play it politically correct and say 'Radical Islam' as if we are all experts in the history of Islam and its conquests, and somehow create this separation. The Muslims of the world are not stupid, they know that when we westerns say 'Radical Islam' we simply try to be polite and we mean Islam, but we can't say it, and they know that the war will be against this religion. I'm simply saying how they will view it from their perspective.
Given this is the complex situation, Obama and other progressive liberals, know the futility of identifying the enemy as 'Radical Islam' because Muslims will simply not be fooled, they will never make this separation, for them any opened and declared war on 'Radical Islam' will be interpreted as a declaration of war on 1.2 Billion people. Something that no nation, even America can do, for its beyond the realm of men or country no matter how powerful to declare a war of this magnitude, this is for something that only a Higher Power can deal with effectively.
We the republicans need to reconsider this strategy of naming the enemy, if the naming will disrupt or cripple our ability to effectively deal with the scourge of terrorism, then by all means we should drop this request. So far, besides beating our chests with pride the suggested naming of the enemy has not conjured up any real benefits in actually winning the war on terror.
Lets put it in simple terms, No Trump, No Obama, and No Clinton, and no human being can defeat 1.2 billion people, its impossible, and it will never happen unless we will lose our humanity with it together, and we'll turn into beasts with no conscience and that's a too high of a price to pay.
What is the alternative?
Faith, prayer and trying to 'manage' the problem as smartly and intelligently as possible to minimize the scourge of terrorism from our peoples, and wait for heavenly intervention cause this problem is as such where the power of men ends, and the intervention of the Heaven takes over.
Best Wishes,
Saul
Quote from: orfeo on June 14, 2016, 07:45:31 PM
The other problem of course is that the United States does have a Parliament. It's called Congress.
.....
If the United States had a Parliament, the Prime Minister would be the leader in the House of Representatives of the party that could command a majority in that house.
I'm glad you came 'round and I didn't have to correct you. :)
BTW came here to say one thing I do appreciate about Trump: no matter what awful thing he tweets, he never deletes it. 99% of his crazy tweets are still there, because he appreciates that deleting them is just as bad PR as leaving them. (Assuming that the things he says are, in fact, bad PR, outside of his own fan base.)
Quote from: Brian on June 14, 2016, 07:48:01 PM
I'm glad you came 'round and I didn't have to correct you. :)
The second time I was merely quoting the words from the graphic. Congress and Parliament are merely two different terms for a legislature. What the United States actually doesn't have is a Westminster system of government where the executive is headed by members of the legislature. But it still does have a Parliament. There are in fact many countries where the term "parliament" is used in a Presidential system.
That this is so is rather clear to an Australian constitutional lawyer, because our Parliament is deliberately based on your Congress. Our system was intentionally designed to fuse USA and UK aspects.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 14, 2016, 04:47:26 PM
I don't care what any of you think about Obama ("worst president in history," and other yapping), but I thought his speech tonight was outstanding. He just mopped the floor with that 70-year-old insect.
I don't feel the need to debate if we should be truthful, but I guess Obama disagrees.
I thought this a pretty good analysis.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/06/president-obamas-sermon-of-2-perversions.html (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/06/president-obamas-sermon-of-2-perversions.html)
You don't have to like Trump to favor honest discussion do you?
Quote from: Brian on June 14, 2016, 03:23:34 PM
I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck8pfo9WUAIZnSD.jpg)
I don't subscribe to the Economist, but the numbers look wrong to me. Even in a Parliamentary system like the UK has, you vote for your local MP right? So if that is the case, the Democrats (represented by Sanders and Clinton) would not have a majority (if we use Congressmen as a proxy). There is also no clean way to split to the conservative side. It looks like they split the numbers based on national views/votes, rather than local votes.
This depends on the system. The UK is also badly stacked agains smaller parties because one votes only for the local MP and only the winner of the local election gets into parliament. So if the votes for one spot in parliament are 35% for the conservative, 30 for the labour, 20 for the libertarian and 15 for the Green, the conservative enters parliament and 65% of vote(r)s in that region are not represented.
The graphic probably thinks of a purely proportional system where one only votes for a party and votes from the whole country are taken together. So if the example was an average region and there were the 4 parties mentioned, with a purely proportional system parties in the parliament would have the above-mentioned percentages of seats. And there would probably be a conservative-libertarian coalition (55%) ruling that imaginary country. Because for some decisions MPs might not vote along party lines, for some important ones a quorum of 2/3 might be required etc. the non-ruling parties in parliament also get to have some influence.
Quote from: Ken B on June 14, 2016, 08:01:10 PM
I don't feel the need to debate if we should be truthful, but I guess Obama disagrees.
I thought this a pretty good analysis.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/06/president-obamas-sermon-of-2-perversions.html (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/06/president-obamas-sermon-of-2-perversions.html)
You don't have to like Trump to favor honest discussion do you?
Yes, I read it, including 300+ comments including one from Ken B. "Honest" discussion, of course, is anything that snipes at Obama for any possible shortcoming, real or imagined, and concedes nothing to him.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 14, 2016, 10:25:54 PM
I don't subscribe to the Economist, but the numbers look wrong to me. Even in a Parliamentary system like the UK has, you vote for your local MP right? So if that is the case, the Democrats (represented by Sanders and Clinton) would not have a majority (if we use Congressmen as a proxy). There is also no clean way to split to the conservative side. It looks like they split the numbers based on national views/votes, rather than local votes.
What they did is eliminate gerrymandering and use census polling instead. Gerrymandering has a pretty heavy effect on the current Congress. In 2012, Democrats got 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, but Republicans won 33 more seats.
Jesus wanted them to do that.
Quote from: Brian on June 15, 2016, 04:04:17 AM
What they did is eliminate gerrymandering and use census polling instead. Gerrymandering has a pretty heavy effect on the current Congress. In 2012, Democrats got 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, but Republicans won 33 more seats.
Seems a bit odd to eliminate gerrymandering, though. You can certainly have gerrymandering in "parliaments". A couple of Australian States definitely used to. I'm not sure whether we ever had the same problem at the federal level.
So maybe the graph should have said "if we had a Westminster system and an independent electoral commission"...
Aside from anything else, when you change the rules you change how people vote. So the Economist trick is really just foolish click bait.
Quote from: Brian on June 15, 2016, 04:04:17 AMIn 2012, Democrats got 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, but Republicans won 33 more seats.
Most excellent. Democrats have to up their game.
This illustrates why, for all the hoopla with this election, it is the election of 2020 that will really be important. Can't wait.
Whatever happened to Merrick Garland?
I saw a lot of twaddle from both sides, but basically I think it's unreasonable to hold off voting on a nominee for almost a year. This is a place where even the US constitution has unwritten aspects. It assumes people will act reasonably. Limbo for a year is unreasonable. If he's bad, reject him, if he's good confirm him.
To me he seems a perfectly acceptable, mainstream choice. Not perhaps the choice Romney would have made, but Obama won the election. His nomination is in no way a provocation or extreme. I say vote on him, and confirm him.
I suspect we will see Merrick Garland confirmed when the Senate Republicans decide that Trump's chances are too low, and that they'd rather stick with Garland than risk Hillary nominating a genuine "liberal" mind like Paul Watford or Loretta Lynch. Of course, she's likely to get that chance anyway in a few years.
Quote from: Brian on June 15, 2016, 09:05:46 AM
I suspect we will see Merrick Garland confirmed when the Senate Republicans decide that Trump's chances are too low, and that they'd rather stick with Garland than risk Hillary nominating a genuine "liberal" mind like Paul Watford or Loretta Lynch. Of course, she's likely to get that chance anyway in a few years.
If we assume the GOP senators are smart, yes. Unsafe assumption.
Quote from: Ken B on June 15, 2016, 09:32:19 AM
If we assume the GOP senators are smart, yes. Unsafe assumption.
GOP legislators may be smarter than they seem. Then know that the slightest hint of cooperation with the enemy can result in loosing their primary challenge to a Tea Party loony. Look at Eric Cantor.
Quote from: Scarpia on June 15, 2016, 09:50:14 AM
GOP legislators may be smarter than they seem. Then know that the slightest hint of cooperation with the enemy can result in loosing their primary challenge to a Tea Party loony. Look at Eric Cantor.
So many thing to choose. Other than the preservation of one's integrity, I mean.
Trump just told a crowd in Atlanta that "Belgium is a beautiful city."
Quote from: Brian on June 15, 2016, 11:11:26 AM
Trump just told a crowd in Atlanta that "Belgium is a beautiful city."
They speak the Austrian language there.
Quote from: Ken B on June 15, 2016, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: Brian on June 15, 2016, 11:11:26 AM
Trump just told a crowd in Atlanta that "Belgium is a beautiful city."
They speak the Austrian language there.
I get phlegm in the throat just thinking of't.
He needs to learn from hos opponent and explain that he misspoke himself.
Mike
Quote from: Brian on June 15, 2016, 11:11:26 AM
Trump just told a crowd in Atlanta that "Belgium is a beautiful city."
"The Media have been falling all over themselves misconstruing what I said . . . ."
Quote from: karlhenning on June 15, 2016, 11:53:11 AM
"The Media have been falling all over themselves misconstruing what I said . . . ."
How sweet. The normal expression is doubling over. With laughter.
So, one of my friends got passes to tomorrow's Trump rally and invited me...
Quote from: Brian on June 15, 2016, 04:06:18 PM
So, one of my friends got passes to tomorrow's Trump rally and invited me...
I do not, in person, know a single Trump supporter. I expect I see them in shops etc, but do not know any.
That tells me nothing about Trump, but something about me.
Quote from: Brian on June 15, 2016, 11:11:26 AM
Trump just told a crowd in Atlanta that "Belgium is a beautiful city."
Well, let's hope he doesn't order the invasion of the wrong countries, like his predecessor Bush....
Q
Quote from: Ken B on June 15, 2016, 04:33:16 PM
I do not, in person, know a single Trump supporter. I expect I see them in shops etc, but do not know any.
I lived 14 years in the US and still have many friends there. None of them including the hardcore republican are Trump supporters. The republican I know will either vote libertarian or not vote at all. I also wonder where are the Trump supporters.
Quote from: Brian on June 15, 2016, 04:06:18 PMSo, one of my friends got passes to tomorrow's Trump rally and invited me...
Be safe!
(wear a hat (http://shop.donaldjtrump.com/product-p/dtc-odtrh-wh.htm))
Quote from: Ken B on June 15, 2016, 04:33:16 PM
I do not, in person, know a single Trump supporter. I expect I see them in shops etc, but do not know any.
That tells me nothing about Trump, but something about me.
I met a Trump supporter when he sat next to me on an airplane last year. He was a doctor and the inventor of some medical supplies, but he was also a boor: he drank about five little travel bottles of Jack Daniels, interrogated me on politics while I was trying to read my book, talked about his love of Trump, and encouraged me to get in bed with the friend I was visiting, who is devotedly married.
Quote from: Que on June 15, 2016, 10:30:18 PM
Well, let's hope he doesn't order the invasion of the wrong countries, like his predecessor Bush....
Hey, Belgium is a beautiful city!
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 15, 2016, 11:21:10 PM
Be safe!
(wear a hat (http://shop.donaldjtrump.com/product-p/dtc-odtrh-wh.htm))
My friend has a Trump hat, which he bought on eBay as a joke. It's a good thing he does, because he is a racial minority and would otherwise maybe not be safe.
That's it: El Tupé's campaign claims that they have support from Latinos and blacks, but it's just the hats worn as a safety precaution.
Quote from: Brian on June 16, 2016, 06:04:57 AM
Hey, Belgium is a beautiful city!
Indeed. Many years ago my family lived in the suburb of Antwerp.
I was talking some while back about Trump as the intellectual leader of the GOP. I was assured smarter heads would always prevail behind the scenes. I find it even less likely now than I did then. Of course everyone in the party organization has probably got more smarts the Donald, but if the de-facto leader of the party refuses to follow any but his own lead, then what happens? It seems the party elders just want to pretend he isn't there. It was pointed out last week (Talking Points Memo) that the home page of the GOP didn't even mentionTrump. He is so toxic now that most party leaders have begun refusing to even talk about him--their soon-to-be official candidate. It's mind boggling. I had assumed it could only get better, but now I think it can only get worse. I can't imagine this continuing through November. As a liberal democrat I was initially pretty delighted, but as Matt Bai points out this week (and others before him), it's not funny anymore. It was recently predicted--assumed even--the fighting would get ugly. However, I don't think it is; Trump has no surrogates, no real team, and no more credibility (for most of us, anyway). I think he is just going to become shriller and more pathetic, and then dark and disturbing.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-gop-leadership-sit-down-100000380.html
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 16, 2016, 07:15:08 AM
I was talking some while back about Trump as the intellectual leader of the GOP. I was assured smarter heads would always prevail behind the scenes. I find it even less likely now than I did then. Of course everyone in the party organization has probably got more smarts the Donald, but if the de-facto leader of the party refuses to follow any but his own lead, then what happens? It seems the party elders just want to pretend he isn't there. It was pointed out last week (Talking Points Memo) that the home page of the GOP didn't even mentionTrump. He is so toxic now that most party leaders have begun refusing to even talk about him--they're soon-to-be official candidate. It's mind boggling. I had assumed it could only get better, but now I think it can only get worse. I can't imagine this continuing through November. As a liberal democrat I was initially pretty delighted, but as Matt Bai points out this week (and others before him), it's not funny anymore. It was recently predicted--assumed even--the fighting would get ugly. However, I don't think it is; Trump has no surrogates, no real team, and no more credibility (for most of us, anyway). I think he is just going to become shriller and more pathetic, and then dark and disturbing.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-gop-leadership-sit-down-100000380.html
I persoanlly don't believe in the current political arrangement. You really need a monarch with absolute power to really do what is necessary to fix all the problems, or at least effectively tackle them. The president of the united states is limited by terms and power sharing that literally takes large chunks of power away from him to effectively govern. I think I just realized that the entire system of 4 years president and goodbye is worthless.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 16, 2016, 07:15:08 AM
I was talking some while back about Trump as the intellectual leader of the GOP. I was assured smarter heads would always prevail behind the scenes. I find it even less likely now than I did then. Of course everyone in the party organization has probably got more smarts the Donald, but if the de-facto leader of the party refuses to follow any but his own lead, then what happens? It seems the party elders just want to pretend he isn't there. It was pointed out last week (Talking Points Memo) that the home page of the GOP didn't even mentionTrump. He is so toxic now that most party leaders have begun refusing to even talk about him--their soon-to-be official candidate. It's mind boggling. I had assumed it could only get better, but now I think it can only get worse. I can't imagine this continuing through November. As a liberal democrat I was initially pretty delighted, but as Matt Bai points out this week (and others before him), it's not funny anymore. It was recently predicted--assumed even--the fighting would get ugly. However, I don't think it is; Trump has no surrogates, no real team, and no more credibility (for most of us, anyway). I think he is just going to become shriller and more pathetic, and then dark and disturbing.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-gop-leadership-sit-down-100000380.html
Few things rang so very hollow a note in my ears, as when the word started to spread that, supposedly, now that El Tupé has discouraged all competition for the primaries process, he was going to . . . become more "Presidential."
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 16, 2016, 07:15:08 AMI was talking some while back about Trump as the intellectual leader of the GOP.
He isn't the intellectual leader of the party. That hasn't changed and won't change.
Quote from: Brian on June 16, 2016, 06:04:57 AMI met a Trump supporter
Almost sounds like the start of a joke.
There are party regulars out there who support Trump. I know that local elected Republican committee members are Trump "supporters" because that's what they need to be. They don't necessarily support him or his policies, but they are working to set the rules for delegates for Oregon so that they must vote for Trump in every round at the convention to try to assure an orderly convention. The thinking here is to keep the convention uncontested, hold their noses, and then focus on other elections. Local elections have taken on a greater importance. There's a big push to try to unseat unelected governor Kate Brown (which will most likely fail) and to start focusing on state representative and state senate races in advance of 2020, when Oregon may gain a seat in the House. Republicans can't win US Senate races in the state, and the congressional districts are safely gerrymandered in favor of Democrats. (The third district will go Republican about the same time that Prince William becomes President.) Oregon's situation is different than more contested or redder states, to be certain, and I'm sure there are devoted Trump supporters somewhere, I just haven't met any.
Quote from: 28Orot on June 16, 2016, 07:25:58 AMYou really need a monarch with absolute power to really do what is necessary to fix all the problems, or at least effectively tackle them.
Derp.
The Mookster
QuoteI was talking some while back about Trump as the intellectual leader of the GOP
Not at all. His main ideas -- protectionism, some kind of vaguely defined isolationism -- have not been part of the GOP mainstream in 75 years. Still aren't. Trump is a pitchman who decided the GOP was ripe for a coup de main takeover. And he was right! But he's hardly the brains-trust, and those who might reasonably described as such, such as Romney, Ryan, Kristol, are in varying degrees anti-Trump.
Quote from: Brian on June 16, 2016, 06:04:57 AM
I met a Trump supporter when he sat next to me on an airplane last year. He was a doctor and the inventor of some medical supplies, but he was also a boor: he drank about five little travel bottles of Jack Daniels, interrogated me on politics while I was trying to read my book, talked about his love of Trump, and encouraged me to get in bed with the friend I was visiting, who is devotedly married.
I wonder if we can construct a syllogism out of this:
- All Trump supporters are "boors who drink about five little travel bottles of Jack Daniels, interrogate Brian on politics while he is trying to read my book, talk about their love of Trump, and encourage Brian to get in bed with the friend he was visiting, who is devotedly married."
- The person traveling next to Brian was a "boor who drank about five little travel bottles of Jack Daniels, interrogated Brian on politics while he was trying to read his book, talked about his love of Trump, and encouraged Brian to get in bed with the friend he was visiting, who is devotedly married."
- Therefore the person Brian was visiting is not a Trump supporter.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 16, 2016, 11:51:16 AM
I wonder if we can construct a syllogism out of this:
- All Trump supporters are "boors who drink about five little travel bottles of Jack Daniels, interrogate Brian on politics while he is trying to read my book, talk about their love of Trump, and encourage Brian to get in bed with the friend he was visiting, who is devotedly married."
- The person traveling next to Brian was a "boor who drank about five little travel bottles of Jack Daniels, interrogated Brian on politics while he was trying to read his book, talked about his love of Trump, and encouraged Brian to get in bed with the friend he was visiting, who is devotedly married."
- Therefore the person Brian was visiting is not a Trump supporter.
Class is very strongly associated with Trump support. You assume this shows a shortcoming amongst Trump supporters. I suggest a class prejudice is at work.
Take this big to-do about Trump's rudeness.
That's a class driven perception. I keep promising/threatening friends I will write up an explanation of that, and if I do I will link it here. In short: many people see demands that Trump apologize as insincere attempts to assert a social superiority. The appealing response to that perceived illegitimate demand is "hell no". (This has its roots in Jacksonian democracy: an honor culture which is also strongly egalitarian.) You often see what you think of as Trump doubling down on rudeness; they see Trump standing up to a tactic. "Give'em hell, Harry" -- Harry Truman in 1948 has some resemblance to Trump in this regard.
Quote from: Ken B on June 16, 2016, 12:09:37 PM
Class is very strongly associated with Trump support. You assume this shows a shortcoming amongst Trump supporters. I suggest a class prejudice is at work.
Take this big to-do about Trump's rudeness. That's a class driven perception. I keep promising/threatening friends I will write up an explanation of that, and if I do I will link it here. In short: many people see demands that Trump apologize as insincere attempts to assert a social superiority. The appealing response to that perceived illegitimate demand is "hell no". (This has its roots in Jacksonian democracy: an honor culture which is also strongly egalitarian.) You often see what you think of as Trump doubling down on rudeness; they see Trump standing up to a tactic. "Give'em hell, Harry" -- Harry Truman in 1948 has some resemblance to Trump in this regard.
We all await your explanation. The people who support Trump have legitimate concerns. They have been left behind, and they don't understand why the American Dream has failed them. I believe, however, that their current idol is likely to fail them as well. For all his pretense that he is "one of them," he's just another .01 percenter who has treated numerous people who work for him (or who have taken his fraudulent "courses," etc.) despicably. Should he be elected, I expect the buyers' remorse to far exceed anything we've seen yet. But as they say, vox populi, vox populi.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 16, 2016, 01:04:04 PMThey have been left behind
Not all of them. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/)
Quote from: Todd on June 16, 2016, 01:16:23 PM
Not all of them. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/)
Perhaps not, but you explain his appeal to "boors who drink about five little travel bottles of Jack Daniels, interrogate Brian on politics while he is trying to read his book, talk about their love of Trump, and encourage Brian to get in bed with the friend he was visiting, who is devotedly married."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 16, 2016, 01:20:48 PM
Perhaps not, but you explain his appeal to "boors who drink about five little travel bottles of Jack Daniels, interrogate Brian on politics while he is trying to read his book, talk about their love of Trump, and encourage Brian to get in bed with the friend he was visiting, who is devotedly married."
If he shared the Jack, no problem. The point of the linked article is that the class-based myths regarding Trump supporters are, well, mythological. Right wing populism appeals mostly to whites who think they are getting a raw deal, even if they are doing well.
Quote from: Todd on June 16, 2016, 01:32:27 PM
If he shared the Jack, no problem.
He didn't.
But we were in first class* so I matched him in cheap champagne.
*speaking of class issues. They were running a deep discount sale; first was $500, and coach was $320, so I gave it a shot.
I do like Trump's new nickname: Cheeto Jesus. I hope it sticks.
Quote from: Todd on June 16, 2016, 01:32:27 PM
If he shared the Jack, no problem. The point of the linked article is that the class-based myths regarding Trump supporters are, well, mythological. Right wing populism appeals mostly to whites who think they are getting a raw deal, even if they are doing well.
Then you're not really contradicting or rebutting me. From your link: "The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000." When you see the top 1% earning better than $300K a year, and their income is exploding exponentially while yours is at best holding steady if not losing to inflation, then you most certainly are going to feel left behind if you're stuck at $72K. Certainly that's a lot better than poverty, but given the costs of goods and services, it can be hard to make ends meet at that level. The argument has always been misphrased as one of income inequality, as if Warren Buffett's secretary should earn as much as Warren Buffett. It's more a matter of parity of growth, where 30 years or so ago the CEO earned 30 times the average worker's pay, and now he earns 300 times.
Quote from: Ken B on June 16, 2016, 10:55:26 AM
The Mookster
Not at all. His main ideas -- protectionism, some kind of vaguely defined isolationism -- have not been part of the GOP mainstream in 75 years. Still aren't. Trump is a pitchman who decided the GOP was ripe for a coup de main takeover. And he was right! But he's hardly the brains-trust, and those who might reasonably described as such, such as Romney, Ryan, Kristol, are in varying degrees anti-Trump.
It reminds me of Mao Zedong taking over China. Chiang Kai-Shek and his government insisted they were still running things, even when they fled to Taiwan they claimed (and claim!) to be the real government of China and to be the ones legitimately in control. Mao Zedong actually had Xiaoping and other people whom he listened to, but Trump listens to nobody. He is the face of the party, and whither he goes, the party is dragged behind. It's the congo line from hell, the human centipede (google THAT one ???). If Trump is the nominee, and the voters are following him (and to varying degrees despise Romney, Kristol, Ryan, etc), and he is following no one, he's not the leader? Admittedly the government apparatus is, for the most part, not behind him, and they are the ones (not!) forging policy, making legislation, etc. But a party is just a theoretical and fluid construct, given substance by the millions who support it. If they have abandoned the orthodoxy of Ryan etc. and now follow Trump, then I don't follow your position that he's not the leader (at least til the rank and file realize he's a charlatan and he crashes and burns--or they elect him and my position will become irrefutable).
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 16, 2016, 04:52:46 PMIt reminds me of Mao Zedong taking over China.
There have been comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini, and now Mao can be added. Will Lenin or Stalin ever make the cut?
Quote from: Mookalafalas on June 16, 2016, 04:52:46 PM
It reminds me of Mao Zedong taking over China. Chiang Kai-Shek and his government insisted they were still running things, even when they fled to Taiwan they claimed (and claim!) to be the real government of China and to be the ones legitimately in control. Mao Zedong actually had Xiaoping and other people whom he listened to, but Trump listens to nobody. He is the face of the party, and whither he goes, the party is dragged behind. It's the congo line from hell, the human centipede (google THAT one ???). If Trump is the nominee, and the voters are following him (and to varying degrees despise Romney, Kristol, Ryan, etc), and he is following no one, he's not the leader? Admittedly the government apparatus is, for the most part, not behind him, and they are the ones (not!) forging policy, making legislation, etc. But a party is just a theoretical and fluid construct, given substance by the millions who support it. If they have abandoned the orthodoxy of Ryan etc. and now follow Trump, then I don't follow your position that he's not the leader (at least til the rank and file realize he's a charlatan and he crashes and burns--or they elect him and my position will become irrefutable).
He reminds me of Ron Popeil taking over the infomercial.
Look at the Libertarian Party. Johnson was roundly booed and many true believers think he's a faux Libertarian. But they want the publicity, credibility (and perhaps funding) that goes with a turnout above 1%. He's their candidate, he's not their intellectual leader.
And you assume Trump is popular mostly for his policies, and I disagree. He is popular for his persona.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 16, 2016, 02:28:12 PMIt's more a matter of parity of growth, where 30 years or so ago the CEO earned 30 times the average worker's pay, and now he earns 300 times.
Fun fact: Per the BLS, the average American CEO earned $178,000 in 2013. Proper policy formulation requires moving beyond 1% rhetoric.
Quote from: Todd on June 16, 2016, 05:39:43 PM
Fun fact: Per the BLS, the average American CEO earned $178,000 in 2013. Proper policy formulation requires moving beyond 1% rhetoric.
The Walmart workers making $10 an hour will bust their sides laughing.
ETA: Common sense suggests that it's not the number of CEOs that matters but the number of workers. Could well be that there are enough companies with 25-50 employees that would pull the average CEO salary to the number you give. But with (fun fact indeed) Walmart being the largest employer in 20 states, with a total of 1.3 million employees, that is a far more significant statistic.
Quote from: Todd on June 16, 2016, 05:27:12 PM
There have been comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini, and now Mao can be added. Will Lenin or Stalin ever make the cut?
I am not comparing Trump to Mao. I am comparing the GOP to the KMT.
If only the GOP had somewhere to flee. Maybe they can relocate to Puerto Rico?
FYI I attended a Trump rally tonight and survived. Longer notes tomorrow but I did post constantly during the rally on Twitter http://twitter.com/bgreinhart
I just read through your texts; it is like you visited a very strange country.
It looks like he did not say anything new. No wonder people were leaving.
Mike
Thinking About Hillary — A Plea for Reason (https://medium.com/@michaelarnovitz/thinking-about-hillary-a-plea-for-reason-308fce6d187c#.58lxoa1ys)
My current conviction is that the main fuel that powers the anti-Hillary crowd is sexism. And yes I'm serious. So go ahead and roll your eyes. Get it over with. But I think the evidence supports my view, and I've seen no other plausible explanation. And just to be clear, I don't think it's ONLY sexism. But I do think that this is the primary force that has generated and maintained most of the negative narratives about Hillary.
(before someone jumps at me, I'd kindly remind him to read the whole article)
Quote from: Todd on June 16, 2016, 05:27:12 PM
There have been comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini, and now Mao can be added. Will Lenin or Stalin ever make the cut?
Silvio Berlusconi would be a more appropriate comparison....
Q
Quote from: knight66 on June 16, 2016, 10:12:06 PM
I just read through your texts; it is like you visited a very strange country.
To those of us in the Northeast, Texas has always seemed like a very strange country.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 04:05:08 AM
To those of us in the Northeast, Texas has always seemed like a very strange country.
True, and we don't mind that. But damn, Poco, you can't blame us for The Donald! >:( :D
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 17, 2016, 04:55:33 AM
True, and we don't mind that. But damn, Poco, you can't blame us for The Donald! >:( :D
8)
No, one only has to pass by this 5th Avenue shrine to vulgar narcissism (not to mention anxiety about the size of one's equipment) to realize that The Donald is a born and bred New Yawker (which makes it all the more fascinating that he is now the perceived savior of right-wingers who as a rule don't think New Yorkers are "real Americans"):
(http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/2015/12/11/trumptower.jpg)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 05:13:59 AM
No, one only has to pass by this 5th Avenue shrine to vulgar narcissism (not to mention anxiety about the size of one's equipment) to realize that The Donald is a born and bred New Yawker (which makes it all the more fascinating that he is now the perceived savior of right-wingers who as a rule don't think New Yorkers are "real Americans"):
(http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/2015/12/11/trumptower.jpg)
Now Bauhaus is Donld's fault? ::)
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2016, 05:15:45 AM
Now Bauhaus is Donld's fault? ::)
Oh, stop pretending you don't know what I mean. It's really stale.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 05:13:59 AM
No, one only has to pass by this 5th Avenue shrine to vulgar narcissism (not to mention anxiety about the size of one's equipment) to realize that The Donald is a born and bred New Yawker (which makes it all the more fascinating that he is now the perceived savior of right-wingers who as a rule don't think New Yorkers are "real Americans"):
(http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/2015/12/11/trumptower.jpg)
The whole situation reeks of irony, among other things. Nice shiny building though! 0:)
8)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 05:13:59 AM
No, one only has to pass by this 5th Avenue shrine to vulgar narcissism (not to mention anxiety about the size of one's equipment) to realize that The Donald is a born and bred New Yawker (which makes it all the more fascinating that he is now the perceived savior of right-wingers who as a rule don't think New Yorkers are "real Americans"):
(http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/2015/12/11/trumptower.jpg)
I mean, if somebody handed me $1000 and told me to go eat at Jean-Georges, I would absolutely go.
Quote from: Brian on June 17, 2016, 06:04:38 AM
I mean, if somebody handed me $1000 and told me to go eat at Jean-Georges, I would absolutely go.
You would, I hope, invite me along? I'm sure if we order the least expensive things on the menu we could get out for $500 apiece.
Actually, J-G is located not in the 5th Avenue Tower but in the Trump Hotel on the West Side at Columbus Circle. You don't think The Donald would be content with littering the Manhattan skyline with just one monument to himself? I have not eaten at J-G myself, but I have been inside the 5th Avenue location many times, because for all its silly glitter The Donald is such a master of noblesse oblige, offering the hoi polloi one of the few spots in midtown with public restrooms.
Good column by Timothy Egan in today's
New York Times (quoted entire in case you don't subscribe). Note the use of the word "sociopath," for which I was treated with howls of derision here from the usual suspects. I was right then, and Egan is right now:
QuoteThey will remember, a century from now, who stood up to the tyrant Donald Trump and who found it expedient to throw out the most basic American values — the "Vichy Republicans," as the historian Ken Burns called them in his Stanford commencement speech.
The shrug from Mitch McConnell, the twisted explanation of Paul Ryan, who said Trump is a racist and a xenophobe, but he's ours — party before country. As well, the duck-and-hide Republicans, so quick to whip out their pocket copy of the Constitution, now nowhere to be seen when the foundation of that same document is under assault by the man carrying their banner.
They will remember, in classrooms and seminars, those who wrote Trump off as entertainment, a freak show and ratings spike, before he tried to muscle a free press, and came for you — using a page from another tyrant, Vladimir Putin, admired by the homegrown monster.
As well, they will call out the enablers. In the run-up to the presidential primary season, few candidates received more favorable press coverage than Donald Trump, the Shorenstein Center at Harvard's Kennedy School found. The watchdogs were in on the ride. Sure, he's a know-nothing and fraud, incapable of processing information or getting through a day without a half-dozen lies — but it's just a role. Get a load of Ted Cruz's wife! Heidi Klum is no longer a 10! And when he talks like a fascist, when he uses the America First slogan adopted by Nazi sympathizers in this country in the 1930s, it's all for play, you see. He is historically illiterate, so the rest of us must be as well.
They will remember, in a week that gave us a scary peek into the heart of American darkness, how the civil ties that bind a nation of people from all nations could be shredded. The blood from the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, no less a battlefield than Shiloh or Bull Run, was not yet dry when Trump was congratulating himself — a sleep-deprived narcissist on a morning me high. The worst mass shooting in American history was not about the murder of everyday people; it was about him: "Appreciate the congrats for being right."
They will hang their heads in sorrow at the time when the man leading the party of Lincoln suggested that a sitting president was a traitor, somehow sympathetic to Islamic nihilists who slaughter innocent Americans. Trump implied it. Then he banned a newspaper for its headline about it.
He wasn't finished, this 70-year-old with the temperament of a 7-year-old. He made no rousing call for unity and courage, no plea for a partisan pause. He said the president must resign, as if it wasn't an assault rifle easily obtained by a New York-born fanatic that killed 49 people, but the American commander in chief. He compared the nation to a terminally ill patient. All is lost. For good measure, he suggested that our soldiers were thieves.
It comes in such waves, the preposterous lies, the breaches in honor, from this man who wants to use high office to attack his enemies in civil court, who would apply a religious test to fellow citizens, whose mass deportation plan would likely round up the parents of some of the Latinos killed in Orlando. And because it comes in such waves, there is no time to process it all. Was it just a few weeks ago that he attacked a federal judge, hearing a case in which Trump is accused of fraud on a mass scale, because of the judge's ethnic heritage?
They will also remember the Republicans who did not look the other way. Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman and the Bush family showed more decency in a day than Trump has in a lifetime.
"Man up," wrote the Republican strategist Rick Wilson. "Show courage. Say what's in your hearts; he's insane. He's poison. He's doomed. He's killing the party."
The American public, for once, seems to get him. While Republican Party leaders cower or remain silent, voters by a 2-1 margin in polls conducted this week disapprove of the way Trump acted in a crisis. He's disliked by nearly 70 percent of the people, which only makes you wonder about the other 30 percent.
"There comes a time when I — and you — can no longer remain neutral, silent," said Burns at Stanford last Sunday, the morning we all awoke to news of the slaughter in Florida. "For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and characters of candidates who were clearly qualified. That's not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified."
In this week of trial and tragedy, Trump showed us how he would govern — by fear, by intimidation, by lies, by turning American against American, by exhibiting all the empathy of a sociopath. Seal this week. Put it in a time capsule. Teach it. History will remember. But come November, will we?
Somebody please illuminate me: at the time he started his campaign, was Trump a registered member of the Republican Party?
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2016, 06:57:09 AM
Somebody please illuminate me: at the time he started his campaign, was Trump a registered member of the Republican Party?
According to these scanned registration documents (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/donald-trump/donald-trump-voter-history-567920), Trump has changed parties numerous times, most recently becoming a Republican in 2012.
Quote from: Brian on June 17, 2016, 07:29:41 AM
According to these scanned registration documents (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/donald-trump/donald-trump-voter-history-567920), Trump has changed parties numerous times, most recently becoming a Republican in 2012.
Okay, thanks.
Next question(s): can really any member of the GOP, or of the Democratic Party for that matter, run for nomination? Are there no prior mandatory qualifications at all?
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2016, 07:36:05 AM
Next question(s): can really any member of the GOP, or of the Democratic Party for that matter, run for nomination? Are there no prior mandatory qualifications at all?
Absolutely! The Constitution mandates only the following exemptions:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Which means that Trump is eligible, I am eligible, Brian at this time is not, you are not, and one's membership or not in either major party is irrelevant. Presidential ballots always, in addition to the real players, list any number of junk candidates from other parties who usually have little chance of making an impact, let alone winning.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 07:54:29 AM
Absolutely! The Constitution mandates only the following exemptions:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Which means that Trump is eligible, I am eligible, Brian at this time is not, you are not, and one's membership or not in either major party is irrelevant.
Okay and logical when it comes to mere eligibility. But how can anyone run for the nomination of a specific party, who has not a recorded history of being a devoted member / sympathizer of that party?
You are eligible. Could you have tried your chances for the Republican nomination, even if you were not a registered Republican and your personal agenda were to destroy the GOP from within?
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2016, 08:10:21 AM
Okay and logical when it comes to mere eligibility. But how can anyone run for the nomination of a specific party, who has not a recorded history of being a devoted member / sympathizer of that party?
You are eligible. Could you have tried your chances for the Republican nomination, even if you were not a registered Republican and your personal agenda were to destroy the GOP from within?
I would point out here that this is not the only possible list of qualifications.
I don't have time to look up all the rules and numerous exceptions, but in order to be able to have your name on the ballot in a primary, in most states anyway, you have to be a registered member of that party by a certain date. There was a big push to keep Bernie Sanders off the New Hampshire Primary ballot because it was asserted that he was not a registered Democrat by a certain date.
So the thing is, you may well be eligible to be President, as Poco says, but you won't get there if your name can't get on the ballot. Another one of the beauties of the Primary system. :)
8)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 06:27:35 AM
You would, I hope, invite me along? I'm sure if we order the least expensive things on the menu we could get out for $500 apiece.
Actually, J-G is located not in the 5th Avenue Tower but in the Trump Hotel on the West Side at Columbus Circle.
Whoops! Too many Trump buildings to keep track of.
As far as sociopathy - the other common media diagnosis of narcissistic personality was certainly on display when I saw him last night. His main stump speech is a bizarre thing; much of it now consists of recapping his previous successes and bragging about how he has defied the odds. He talked about the media saying his "ceiling" was only 30% of the vote; he talked about getting updated poll numbers and how happy he was each time; he spent so long (10+ minutes) narrating the story of Coach Bobby Knight's endorsement that, halfway through the endorsement story, he sidebarred to mention that America has the highest taxes in the world (false) and that Hillary will raise your taxes by 50% (dubious). And then he said "okay, back to Bobby," as if that was the important thing.
Which, of course, it was. This is a cult of personality. Trump made no attempt to connect his bragging to his audience. It wasn't like he'd say, "Our poll numbers kept rising
because of the support of people like you." He never used his personal stories to pivot to something of audience interest. Instead, it was just, well...he likes talking about his own successes. That's all.
And the audience is there for that. The "Trump! Trump! Trump!" chant is used to indicate to security where a protester is, so the protester can be removed; but the chant also serves an important rhetorical/symbolic purpose, an essential part of the rhythm of Trump's speech. Trump embraces that rhythm, using the protesters to stop, pepper in a few jokes, praise his crowd effusively (gotta butter 'em up), and then return to the rambling subject. By the way, whenever any of the opening speakers mentioned his name, they used his full name - Donald J. Trump - and the crowd chanted the full name right along, J. and all. The contents of those opening speeches couldn't have been more explicit about how essential Trump's persona, wealth, and general self are to his campaign - it's not about issues, it's about Trump.
By the way, the opening speakers were unimpressive minor functionaries, though one spoke with the fiery style of a great Baptist preacher. Another was an Asian-American immigrant, and the friend who came with me, also Asian-American, dwelled on this a lot afterwards. Usually at this point you'd expect a major surrogate to speak for Trump, like one of Texas's congressmen or senators or its governor. But the event was chaotically organized at the last minute (thus the small dance hall venue) and Trump has not met with strong support among Republicans, even here in TX.
P.S. Some of his policy comments were downright bizarre. You can see them on my Twitter link above. He decried our subsidization of the Japanese military and said maybe North Korea is none of our business and we shouldn't be helping them with Kim. He said that we have battered old fighter jets while we send brand new warplanes to our enemies (??). He railed against the Iraq War twice, to a silent room, because many Texans fought there; he also took a moment to praise gay bars as a "sanctuary" for the "LGBT community," which also left the crowd obviously confused.
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2016, 08:10:21 AM
Okay and logical when it comes to mere eligibility. But how can anyone run for the nomination of a specific party, who has not a recorded history of being a devoted member / sympathizer of that party?
You are eligible. Could you have tried your chances for the Republican nomination, even if you were not a registered Republican and your personal agenda were to destroy the GOP from within?
I'll leave that agenda to Donald Trump. I don't know all the details, but I think you need a certain number of signatures by a certain deadline to be placed on the ballot for each state's primary or caucus. (I see Gurn has covered this while I was typing.) I doubt any record of loyalty is specifically required, but there is a tradition at party conventions of various states nominating "favorite sons" (never of course "favorite daughters"), that is, honorific nominations just for show, or to express personal appreciation.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 05:23:19 AM
Oh, stop pretending you don't know what I mean. It's really stale.
I'm not pretending. You are misunderstanding. Trump built a *brand*. It has made him a lot of money, and brought him a prominence he doesn't deserve. The brand has his name only because his name is a good one for the purpose. If his name were Assman or Pickle or even Drumpf it wouldn't be the name of the company. And it's a brand built around glitz, flash, bling, yuuuuge. It's not the only such brand. Is this
(http://previews.123rf.com/images/wirepec/wirepec1205/wirepec120500026/13626978-Las-Vegas-USA-August-26-2009-The-Riviera-Hotel-and-Casino-is-one-of-the-first-flashy-hotel-casinos-t-Stock-Photo.jpg) as shrine to Mr Riviera's vulgar narcissism?
Quote from: Brian on June 17, 2016, 08:21:41 AM
Whoops! Too many Trump buildings to keep track of.
That's only New York. Don't forget Chicago, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Toronto, Dubai, doubtless more. The guy has as many eponymous towers as Carson Cooman has opus numbers.
Supposedly Greg Abbott had a "scheduling" problem last night. Of course, why he - that is, Donald J. Trump - would campaign at all in a state with an RGB code of 255-0-0 is beyond me other than narcissism. I suppose he gets props for his remark on the gay bars; let's see if he keeps that up when he realizes it won't fly in red America.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 08:37:58 AM
That's only New York. Don't forget Chicago, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Toronto, Dubai, doubtless more. The guy has as many eponymous towers as Carson Cooman has opus numbers.
Supposedly Greg Abbott had a "scheduling" problem last night. Of course, why he - that is, Donald J. Trump - would campaign at all in a state with an RGB code of 255-0-0 is beyond me other than narcissism. I suppose he gets props for his remark on the gay bars; let's see if he keeps that up when he realizes it won't fly in red America.
Good thing Mr Hilton isn't running.
Same point. Trump uses the name of his brand. It's his name, as it was his father's when he owned the brand, because "Trump" is a good name for the kind of brand. That being a sufficient explanation, no other convenient to your politics as it may be need be entertained.
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2016, 08:41:25 AM
Good thing Mr Hilton isn't running.
Same point. Trump uses the name of his brand. It's his name, as it was his father's when he owned the brand, because "Trump" is a good name for the kind of brand. That being a sufficient explanation, no other convenient to your politics as it may be need be entertained.
A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing.
Quote from: Brian on June 17, 2016, 08:21:41 AM
P.S. Some of his policy comments were downright bizarre. You can see them on my Twitter link above. He decried our subsidization of the Japanese military and said maybe North Korea is none of our business and we shouldn't be helping them with Kim. He said that we have battered old fighter jets while we send brand new warplanes to our enemies (??). He railed against the Iraq War twice, to a silent room, because many Texans fought there; he also took a moment to praise gay bars as a "sanctuary" for the "LGBT community," which also left the crowd obviously confused.
It's funny you describe these comments as "bizarre." With the exception of "battered old fighter jets" (which I know nothing about), all of them strike me as quite sensible.
Also, his views on the Iraq War have been known for a while. I can't imagine Texans are unaware of them.
That said, I'm probably switching my vote to Johnson/Weld. Trump is too erratic and narcissistic to be the consistent Peace Candidate.
Quote from: Florestan on June 17, 2016, 08:10:21 AM
Okay and logical when it comes to mere eligibility. But how can anyone run for the nomination of a specific party, who has not a recorded history of being a devoted member / sympathizer of that party?
You clearly haven't met enough politicians. Some of them will say and do all sorts of things in order to get into a position of power, and some of them will hang off the coattails of anyone who looks like a winner. They don't care about
how they or their "team" win, they care about winning.
Personally I have an extremely low view of one of my Senators, not because of his policies (though I don't love them) but because of his naked ambition. He started in the local assembly, running for the district where it was easiest to get a seat (I won't bore you with the details of Australian Capital Territory electoral law, but one district was mathematically easier). It was not the district he was actually from. He was actually from the district I live in.
After he became leader of the Opposition in the local assembly, he worked out a strategy where a big vote for his party in this district was his best shot at winning government. He then announced he was transferring to this district for the next election, and the campaign had an explicit flavour of "hey guys, I'm from here! Grew up here, raised my family here, wouldn't it be awesome to finally have a Chief Minister who was from here? I'm committed to representing YOU!"
And it tended to work. He secured the highest vote for his party in this district for a very long time, possibly ever. Across the whole of the Territory, though, his party lost by an incredibly tiny margin.
So then what happened? After all the rhetoric about how keen he was to finally represent his home district after all these years of representing some other place, he quit the assembly about 2 months later, to focus on ousting the Senator from his own party. Think Tea Party candidate running against an established Republican for the party's nomination, and you'll get some of the flavour. He succeeded. He is now one of our Senators, and I wouldn't vote for him in a month of Sundays because it's clear he stands for nothing other than his own success.
Of course, it's not just Trump. Clinton became a New York Senator rather than an Arkansas one because of the prospects it offered. But hey, change location, change party, all of it is fundamentally about whether it improves the politician's own prospects of power.
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2016, 08:35:24 AM
I'm not pretending. You are misunderstanding. Trump built a *brand*. It has made him a lot of money, and brought him a prominence he doesn't deserve. The brand has his name only because his name is a good one for the purpose. If his name were Assman or Pickle or even Drumpf it wouldn't be the name of the company. And it's a brand built around glitz, flash, bling, yuuuuge. It's not the only such brand. Is this
(http://previews.123rf.com/images/wirepec/wirepec1205/wirepec120500026/13626978-Las-Vegas-USA-August-26-2009-The-Riviera-Hotel-and-Casino-is-one-of-the-first-flashy-hotel-casinos-t-Stock-Photo.jpg) as shrine to Mr Riviera's vulgar narcissism?
The Riviera was closed last year and reduce to ruble just some days ago...
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on June 17, 2016, 08:46:19 AM
It's funny you describe these comments as "bizarre." With the exception of "battered old fighter jets" (which I know nothing about), all of them strike me as quite sensible.
Also, his views on the Iraq War have been known for a while. I can't imagine Texans are unaware of them.
That said, I'm probably switching my vote to Johnson/Weld. Trump is too erratic and narcissistic to be the consistent Peace Candidate.
On most issues I like J/W more than either part of Trumpary. I usually spurn third parties, but this time ...
The one thing I *do* want is divided government.
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2016, 08:50:22 AM
On most issues I like J/W more than either part of Trumpary. I usually spurn third parties, but this time ...
The one thing I *do* want is divided government.
I did one of those "I Side With" questionnaires (www.isidewith.com), and my top 2 were Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson. Bernie's out, so that leaves Gary I guess.
Third parties usually get my vote anyway. I think I have only ever voted once for the candidate that actually won.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on June 17, 2016, 08:54:21 AM
I did one of those "I Side With" questionnaires (www.isidewith.com), and my top 2 were Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson. Bernie's out, so that leaves Gary I guess.
Third parties usually get my vote anyway. I think I have only ever voted once for the candidate that actually won.
I'm skeptical of those things but I did it. I am closest to Johnson, no great surprise. I am closer to Bernie than Hillary, which is one reason I don't trust these things!
Quote from: Ken B on June 17, 2016, 09:26:02 AM
I'm skeptical of those things but I did it. I am closest to Johnson, no great surprise. I am closer to Bernie than Hillary, which is one reason I don't trust these things!
Yeah, it's nowhere near perfect. But I like that it gives you the chance to give nuanced answers and to assign different levels of importance to the questions.
Last time I took it (in 2012), I remember that Jimmy McMillan, of The Rent Is Too Damn High Party, came quite high in my estimation.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 17, 2016, 05:55:39 AM
The whole situation reeks of irony, among other things. Nice shiny building though! 0:)
8)
Ah, the attempt to compensate . . . all the insecurities . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 06:36:49 AM
Good column by Timothy Egan in today's New York Times (quoted entire in case you don't subscribe). Note the use of the word "sociopath," for which I was treated with howls of derision here from the usual suspects. I was right then, and Egan is right now:
"Vichy Republicans": artfully coined.
Just want to say that I especially enjoyed this (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,24159.msg978042.html#msg978042), (poco) sfz
Quote from: karlhenning on June 17, 2016, 11:02:29 AM
Just want to say that I especially enjoyed this (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,24159.msg978042.html#msg978042), (poco) sfz
Thank you.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on June 17, 2016, 08:46:19 AM
Also, his views on the Iraq War have been known for a while. I can't imagine Texans are unaware of them.
That said, I'm probably switching my vote to Johnson/Weld. Trump is too erratic and narcissistic to be the consistent Peace Candidate.
I believe Mr. T was for the Iraq War before he was against it.
Also, in the case he was to be elected prez, you can be 110% sure he'll start a war of choice somewhere to make sure he gets reelected; assuming he wouldn't step down in a couple months because he doesn't like the white house after all.
fortunately none of this is going to happen.
Quote from: Herman on June 19, 2016, 10:50:13 PM
I believe Mr. T was for the Iraq War before he was against it.
Also, in the case he was to be elected prez, you can be 110% sure he'll start a war of choice somewhere to make sure he gets reelected; assuming he wouldn't step down in a couple months because he doesn't like the white house after all.
fortunately none of this is going to happen.
Your mouth to God's ear....
To be fair to the Donald, he was against the Iraq War before most politicians, including a certain senator from New York who later became Secretary of State.
The USA could not disengage from most conflict areas where they are involved without endangering their own long term interests. Once an empire, always an empire --- this is one of Rome's lessons which is indeed applicable to the USA even if the latter is not an empire proper. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 21, 2016, 05:55:59 AM
The USA could not disengage from most conflict areas where they are involved without endangering their own long term interests. Once an empire, always an empire --- this is one of Rome's lessons which is indeed applicable to the USA even if the latter is not an empire proper. ;D
But it also may not be able to engage further without endangering long term interests. A podcast I listen to highlighted how Rome couldn't properly resource its borders because of trouble back home, and increasingly relied on mercenary resources, such as relying on one set of Germanic tribes to deal with another set of Germanic tribes.
Sound familiar? It does to me, because there are several decades of policy in certain parts of the world where "the enemy of my enemy... eventually turns out to be my enemy as well". Saddam Hussein in Iraq versus Iran was a good thing, then a very bad thing. Fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union transformed, in some cases, into the war on terror.
One of my favourite ever political cartoons represents Iraq as a cracking dam with a missile rammed into it. Two guys are looking at it and saying "do we leave it in or pull it out?". It vividly communicates that it's a bit of a no-win situation once the missile has hit the dam.
Quote from: orfeo on June 21, 2016, 06:38:12 AMOne of my favourite ever political cartoons represents Iraq as a cracking dam with a missile rammed into it. Two guys are looking at it and saying "do we leave it in or pull it out?". It vividly communicates that it's a bit of a no-win situation once the missile has hit the dam.
Good one!
In other news, the Trump campaign is broke (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trump-fundraising-bad/488003/).
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 21, 2016, 08:01:44 AM
In other news, the Trump campaign is broke (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trump-fundraising-bad/488003/).
Hilarious.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 21, 2016, 08:51:54 AM
Hilarious.
Not half as funny as all the people wailing about of money in politics and howling about Citizens United.
The amount of schadenfreude for Trump detractors has been off-the-charts this week. The Trump campaign has less than $2 million in cash on hand; they've spent $0.00 on advertising in battleground states this month; Trump fired his campaign manager and has yet to announce a replacement*; Trump '16 has 69 employees, versus Hillary's 685; and
"the Trump campaign's spending offered no signs that it is building a national campaign infrastructure. The biggest expenditures included $350,000 for the use of Trump's private jet; $493,000 to rent Trump facilities such as Mar-A-Lago, the Trump winery and two of his golf clubs; and $208,000 on hats."
The Trump campaign's biggest expenditures are paying money to Trump himself. Trump loaned his campaign cash, spent that cash on paying himself, and now will presumably use donations to repay the loans...also to himself...presumably at interest. I imagine some intrepid news agency will soon be tallying up just how much personal profit Trump stands to gain from this campaign.
*I just googled "Lewandowski replacement" and all the results were about soccer players.
EDIT: Never mind. It appears that Paul Manafort will be taking over as campaign manager.
Quote from: Ken B on June 21, 2016, 09:13:28 AM
Not half as funny as all the people wailing about of money in politics and howling about Citizens United.
Why did I know you wouldn't be far behind with something snarky, this time about the worst SOCUS decision in decades.
And please, please, I just can't wait for your reply. As well as the promised analysis of Donald Trump.
Quote from: Brian on June 21, 2016, 10:18:51 AM
EDIT: Never mind. It appears that Paul Manafort will be taking over as campaign manager.
What a relief.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 21, 2016, 10:24:14 AM
Why did I know you wouldn't be far behind with something snarky, this time about the worst SOCUS decision in decades.
It's been several years since I read the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, but I remember having the impression that their logic was correct - and that the problem lies in our constitution, which (contrary to some conservatives' propagandizing) is a creaky old thing that badly needs a half-dozen critical revisions.
There's a neat little book on this theme by John Paul Stevens.
[asin]0316373729[/asin]
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 21, 2016, 10:24:14 AM
Why did I know you wouldn't be far behind with something snarky, this time about the worst SOCUS decision in decades.
And please, please, I just can't wait for your reply. As well as the promised analysis of Donald Trump.
Imagine I want to film an adaptation of Plautus's The Braggart Soldier. My title character wears a helmet with the logo "Make Rome Great Again". He wears a fake hair piece with a comb-over. I even call the title character Trump. I exhibit the film during the election. Should this be permitted?
The decision in CU was precisely that I would be allowed to show my movie. After all, the case flowed from an attempt by the FEC to shut down the showing of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. Do you think that film should have been shut down? If you think the case was wrongly decided you must think the case was decided wrongly, mustn't you?
Quote from: Brian on June 21, 2016, 10:33:30 AM
It's been several years since I read the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, but I remember having the impression that their logic was correct - and that the problem lies in our constitution,
There's a lot of misinformation about that case too. It did not for instance create the precedent that corporations were persons. That corporations can be treated in law as fictitious persons is a doctrine of long standing. And a good one; it allows them to be sued for instance, and held liable for damages. There is a good analysis of this aspect of the case by Eugene Volokh if anyone cares to google. CU ruled that persons do not automatically lose their rights when they act through a corporation. They havespeech rights as persons and do not automatically forfeit them.
It should be remembered that this includes non-profits, unions, and advocacy groups created (as corporations) specifically to allow persons to co-ordinate their speech.
Quote from: Ken B on June 21, 2016, 11:42:55 AM
Imagine I want to film an adaptation of Plautus's The Braggart Soldier. My title character wears a helmet with the logo "Make Rome Great Again". He wears a fake hair piece with a comb-over. I even call the title character Trump. I exhibit the film during the election. Should this be permitted?
The decision in CU was precisely that I would be allowed to show my movie. After all, the case flowed from an attempt by the FEC to shut down the showing of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. Do you think that film should have been shut down? If you think the case was wrongly decided you must think the case was decided wrongly, mustn't you?
(This post is misleading insofar as you, in creating the Plautus adaptation, are presumably a private individual, and not a corporation, and your free speech right was therefore not at issue in CU.)
Quote from: Brian on June 21, 2016, 11:54:04 AM
(This post is misleading insofar as you, in creating the Plautus adaptation, are presumably a private individual, and not a corporation, and your free speech right was therefore not at issue in CU.)
Just imagine I work for a company, or start one with my backers. It takes money to make a movie after all. Most movies are made by corporations. Frequently a corp is formed specifically for the purpose. Or I am the ACLU making a movie critical of Trump's policies.
Added.
Snark or not I think it relevant that the doomsday predictions about CU never seem to happen. And, no the court has not decided corporations
are people. http://www.economist.com/node/18437755 (http://www.economist.com/node/18437755)
Quote from: Brian on June 21, 2016, 10:33:30 AM
It's been several years since I read the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, but I remember having the impression that their logic was correct - and that the problem lies in our constitution, which (contrary to some conservatives' propagandizing) is a creaky old thing that badly needs a half-dozen critical revisions.
There's a neat little book on this theme by John Paul Stevens.
[asin]0316373729[/asin]
In general I'm worried about open season on amendments. I'm rather fond of a bunch of them that might get messed with.
The anti-commandeering thing seems odd and unhelpful. Breaking the gerrymander would be a great boon, and maybe something as drastic as an amendment is needed -- I have given it no thought. I don't like abridging speech rights, but can see the sense of trimming the 2nd amendment a bit (not that it will make much difference in fact). The death penalty should go, but I doubt an amendment is a practical way to achieve it.
Quote from: Brian on June 21, 2016, 10:33:30 AM
It's been several years since I read the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, but I remember having the impression that their logic was correct - and that the problem lies in our constitution, which (contrary to some conservatives' propagandizing) is a creaky old thing that badly needs a half-dozen critical revisions.
I think their logic was awful.
The Australian High Court went out of its way somewhat to explicitly say it wouldn't be following Citizens United. And from what I can remember, their reasoning wasn't based on differences in the respective Constitutions so much as it was based on the startling proposition that corporations aren't entitled to vote in elections. And that, however much the law treats them as persons, it's simply not true that the law treats them as persons in that context.
The other problem they had with Citizens United is that equality of opportunity to participate in the electoral process does not exist if you say that everyone has an equal opportunity to throw money at the electoral process, for the simple reason that not everyone has the same amount of money to throw. As they put it, "The risk to equal participation posed by the uncontrolled use of wealth may warrant legislative action to ensure, or even enhance, the practical enjoyment of popular sovereignty". Because at the end of the day "the people" exercising their right to vote does not include companies, it's each individual.
Quote from: orfeo on June 21, 2016, 01:21:20 PM
I think their logic was awful.
The Australian High Court went out of its way somewhat to explicitly say it wouldn't be following Citizens United. And from what I can remember, their reasoning wasn't based on differences in the respective Constitutions so much as it was based on the startling proposition that corporations aren't entitled to vote in elections. And that, however much the law treats them as persons, it's simply not true that the law treats them as persons in that context.
The other problem they had with Citizens United is that equality of opportunity to participate in the electoral process does not exist if you say that everyone has an equal opportunity to throw money at the electoral process, for the simple reason that not everyone has the same amount of money to throw. As they put it, "The risk to equal participation posed by the uncontrolled use of wealth may warrant legislative action to ensure, or even enhance, the practical enjoyment of popular sovereignty". Because at the end of the day "the people" exercising their right to vote does not include companies, it's each individual.
Well argued.
But back to the irrepressible Donald Trump - no, Donald
J. Trump, who some apparently believe is simply putting on an act. We have the following in today's Washington Post from Michael Gerson:
Quote"If the next few weeks are anything like the last two," a senior GOP official told me, "anything could happen at the convention." Donald Trump's response to the Orlando attack — encouraging religious bigotry and implying that President Obama might be a secret jihadist — confirmed the worst Republican fear: that Trump will remain Trump.
With this recognition has come the realization that Trump has wasted the seven weeks since becoming the presumptive nominee — a period in which Democrats were divided and vulnerable. How did he fill the vacant air? He raised the possibility that Ted Cruz's father might be implicated in the assassination of JFK; that Hillary Clinton might have been involved in the death of Vince Foster; that a federal judge, presiding over a case against Trump University, should be disqualified by his ethnicity; and that American soldiers in Iraq were living large off larceny. By the end of this string of statements, one of Trump's strongest congressional proxies, Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), was reduced to arguing: "I think what he says and what he'll do are two different things." Republicans, in essence, should be reassured by their nominee's duplicity.
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) have been willing to criticize Trump but not to un-endorse him. Practically, this means that nothing — nothing — Trump says could forfeit their support. The presumptive nominee has already raised the prospect that his opponent is a murderer and that the president is a traitor. Not, evidently, sufficient provocations. Ryan and McConnell have decided that in order to remain leaders they must avoid providing leadership.
But what might change things in the GOP is the political disaster that now appears in the offing. Beneath Trump's historically low approval ratings — 29 percent in a recent Post/ABC News survey — is an even more disturbing development. After securing the nomination, Trump's support among Republicans rose, in many polls, to the mid-80s — not spectacularly good but an indication that the GOP was rallying. In recent polls, Trump's Republican support has dropped to between 70 and 80 percent. Along this trend, a decisive Democratic victory might sweep away the House and Senate. If Republican politicians begin to see this dynamic in their own polling, many will suddenly rediscover their consciences and abandon Trump.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 05:42:31 AM
I'll believe that when I see it.
I expect a lot of Republicans to defect. One friend of mine already has, backing Hillary. I am currently leaning Johnson, but may end up backing Hillary. I think Trump's best hope is continued or escalated street violence from the left, such as we have seen a few times. If the election becomes about mob rule ...
I am no Garry Trudeau fan but this perfectly captures what I find most unappealing about Trump:
(https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/db160619-1.jpg)
Quote from: Ken B on June 22, 2016, 05:50:17 AM
I am no Garry Trudeau fan but this perfectly captures what I find most unappealing about Trump:
(https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/db160619-1.jpg)
No one likes that better than me.
Apparently Trump told an evangelical crowd yesterday that if he is elected, all store officials will be saying "Merry Christmas". He did not specify if that would be a free choice or a requirement.
Quote from: Ken B on June 22, 2016, 05:50:17 AM
I expect a lot of Republicans to defect. One friend of mine already has, backing Hillary. I am currently leaning Johnson, but may end up backing Hillary.
Define "a lot." Isolated examples here and there mean nothing when the party's leadership is showing such courage. They had 17 candidates to choose from, including a few with some credibility like Rubio and Kasich, and now they're stuck with the clown.
They'll all wear the fright wig, red nose and big shoes, soon.
Quote from: Brian on June 22, 2016, 06:20:44 AM
Apparently Trump told an evangelical crowd yesterday that if he is elected, all store officials will be saying "Merry Christmas". He did not specify if that would be a free choice or a requirement.
"
NO ONE is stronger on the First Amendment than me!!!"
So, bottom line:
If the majority of the turnout votes for Trump, is it safe to say that democracy won? And is it safe to say that democracy is always a good thing, no matter who wins?
I want and expect honest answers.
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2016, 06:53:00 AM
So, bottom line:
If the majority of the turnout votes for Trump, is it safe to say that democracy won? And is it safe to say that democracy is always a good thing, no matter who wins?
I want and expect honest answers.
Remember that the popular vote doesn't carry the election; otherwise Al Gore would have been president. The candidate has to win a majority of the designated electors, in this case 270. So it's not a pure democracy at least in terms of the presidential election. (It is in all other races, but popular vote for the senate did not exist until the 17th amendment). When you enter the voting booth for president, the ballot reads, "Vote for electors for Hillary Clinton," or whomever.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 07:03:41 AM
the popular vote doesn't carry the election
Then it´s all about
screw the popular vote --- IOW, screw democracy!!!
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2016, 07:06:36 AM
Then it´s all about screw the popular vote --- IOW, screw democracy!!!
In that case it's "screw democracy" in most of the world's democracies. You're not dimwitted enough to believe that a straight nationwide popular vote is the way all other elections are conducted, so why would you believe it's the way the election for the American Presidency is conducted?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 06:25:16 AM
Define "a lot." Isolated examples here and there mean nothing when the party's leadership is showing such courage. They had 17 candidates to choose from, including a few with some credibility like Rubio and Kasich, and now they're stuck with the clown.
Maybe he meant rank-and-file. My closest Republican friends in real life have all decided to vote for Hillary, though I haven't asked them about Gary Johnson specifically.
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2016, 07:06:36 AM
Then it´s all about screw the popular vote --- IOW, screw democracy!!!
Having a bit of wine tonight? :)
The USA is not a "democracy" - it is a representative republic - and although the Electoral College is a creaky, bizarre old institution, it has only gone against the popular vote once in the last 120 years.
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2016, 07:06:36 AM
Then it´s all about screw the popular vote --- IOW, screw democracy!!!
Only if democracy is limited to numerical vote counting.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 06:25:16 AM
Define "a lot." Isolated examples here and there mean nothing when the party's leadership is showing such courage. They had 17 candidates to choose from, including a few with some credibility like Rubio and Kasich, and now they're stuck with the clown.
The nice thing about phrases like "a lot" is they defy precise definition. Enough to cost him the election. Gary Johnson is over 10% in some states right now. Are those all new voters, or are a lot (sic) of them former gop voters? Trump is almost tied with Hillary in Utah, which is usually solid for the GOP. Is that a lot?
Quote from: Brian on June 22, 2016, 07:18:34 AM
Maybe he meant rank-and-file.
Since I mentioned my friend and myself that seems a reasonable inference. Does poco really deny that Trump will lose "a lot" of voters who vote gop most of the time?
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2016, 06:53:00 AM
So, bottom line:
If the majority of the turnout votes for Trump, is it safe to say that democracy won?
No. It might not even mean he wins the election.
QuoteAnd is it safe to say that democracy is always a good thing, no matter who wins?
No. One of the reasons the founders established a republic not a pure democracy.
Quote
I ... expect honest answers.
Life is full of disappointments.
Quote from: Ken B on June 22, 2016, 07:52:51 AM
Since I mentioned my friend and myself that seems a reasonable inference. Does poco really deny that Trump will lose "a lot" of voters who vote gop most of the time?
Even if I were molto rather than poco, I would not deny such a thing. I have no idea how many voters will be lost. The main point I made was that the GOP is stuck with a monster of its own making.
As for "a lot," Beecham once stated that Beethoven's 7th is like "a lot of yaks jumping about." I have no idea whether that means 20 yaks, 100, 1278 (i.e., one for each GOP delegate), 1% of the entire yak population, or the entire living species. The nice thing about a "lot" is that it is an indefinite number, but still means, well, a lot.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 08:12:26 AM
The main point I made was that the GOP is stuck with a monster of its own making.
That's certainly true. When Trump announced I confess I laughed, and thought he'd withdraw at some point, but I told my friends he should scare the bejeezuz out of the GOP. The party's inability to counter him might cost them dearly.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 08:12:26 AM
Even if I were molto rather than poco, I would not deny such a thing. I have no idea how many voters will be lost. The main point I made was that the GOP is stuck with a monster of its own making.
As for "a lot," Beecham once stated that Beethoven's 7th is like "a lot of yaks jumping about." I have no idea whether that means 20 yaks, 100, 1278 (i.e., one for each GOP delegate), 1% of the entire yak population, or the entire living species. The nice thing about a "lot" is that it is an indefinite number, but still means, well, a lot.
Perhaps the only certainty is, that Sir Thos meant more than one yak.
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2016, 06:53:00 AM
So, bottom line:
If the majority of the turnout votes for Trump, is it safe to say that democracy won? And is it safe to say that democracy is always a good thing, no matter who wins?
I want and expect honest answers.
In The Republic, Plato (whose ideal ruler was the philosopher-king) objected to democracy that it assumed each man had equal capacity to cast his own vote (which of course is the defense others make of democracy), and that the least insightful and educated would be on a par with the most thoughtful. He thought that the lower orders would simply be obsessed by their own base desires rather than the good of the society as a whole, and that since all men's desires are in conflict, mob rule and anarchy will result. This leads to a chaotic society in which a superficially strong, charismatic tyrant can take over. (Sound familiar?)
The United States as originally founded was not a pure democracy. Neither slaves nor women could originally vote, and senators were elected by state legislatures rather than popular vote. The system of checks and balances between the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) was intended to prevent any branch from assuming too much power. Hope that answers your question.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 22, 2016, 08:22:02 AM
Perhaps the only certainty is, that Sir Thos meant more than one yak.
But I would say that two yaks is not enough to make a lot. Three maybe, on the principle that two's company, three's a crowd. But still that would seem like a very small lot.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 08:34:10 AM
But I would say that two yaks is not enough to make a lot. Three maybe, on the principle that two's company, three's a crowd. But still that would seem like a very small lot.
I'm glad I didn't say "a plethora".
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 08:34:10 AM
But I would say that two yaks is not enough to make a lot. Three maybe, on the principle that two's company, three's a crowd. But still that would seem like a very small lot.
I'd suggest that if we consider the context - how many yaks would fit on a concert-hall stage? - then the number may be quite small. In this case I suppose seven or eight yaks would suffice. Once you get past a few dozen yaks, employing them to play Beethoven would be a logistical challenge.
Quote from: Brian on June 22, 2016, 08:39:17 AM
I'd suggest that if we consider the context - how many yaks would fit on a concert-hall stage? - then the number may be quite small. In this case I suppose seven or eight yaks would suffice. Once you get past a few dozen yaks, employing them to play Beethoven would be a logistical challenge.
Nobody is better at training yaks than Donald Trump. Nobody.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 08:34:10 AM
But I would say that two yaks is not enough to make a lot.
On the one hand, that sounds only reasonable.
On the other, I have at least once been one of a party of two, whom a Briton addressed as "you lot."
Quote from: karlhenning on June 22, 2016, 08:53:00 AM
On the one hand, that sounds only reasonable.
On the other, I have at least once been one of a party of two, whom a Briton addressed as "you lot."
We lot, we happy lot, we band of brothers
I found it amusing to go back to the start of this thread and see some of the very first comments about Trump:
Quote from: Rinaldo on June 09, 2015, 09:05:58 AM
Yeah, I guess so.
Aaaanyway, is Trump running? Perry can't provide all the fun himself.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on June 09, 2015, 09:52:38 AM
Only if he can get that thing on his head to sit still long enough... :D
8)
Quote from: Ken B on July 01, 2015, 02:36:39 PM
Meh. Trump has the best name recognition is all. He's not electable even to city council. Pretty soon he'll flamboyantly quit with an "I gave them the best and they were to blind to see" air.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 07, 2015, 09:39:49 AM
Trump calling anyone else on the planet nothing more than professional agitators is quite possibly the funniest thing I shall read this week.
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2015, 02:29:32 PM
[on the possibility of Republicans nominating Trump:]
The latter will never happen. The RNC will take out a contract first.
Quote from: Brian on June 22, 2016, 08:39:17 AM
I'd suggest that if we consider the context - how many yaks would fit on a concert-hall stage? - then the number may be quite small. In this case I suppose seven or eight yaks would suffice. Once you get past a few dozen yaks, employing them to play Beethoven would be a logistical challenge.
When I saw Andriessen's De Materie, the 100 sheep were remarkably well-behaved. Better, in fact, than some members of the audience.
Quote from: Brian on June 22, 2016, 08:55:11 AM
We lot, we happy lot, we band of brothers
But Beecham did not say a "few" yaks, or a "plethora" of yaks.
Quote from: Brian on June 22, 2016, 09:02:25 AM
I found it amusing to go back to the start of this thread and see some of the very first comments about Trump:
[on the possibility of Republicans nominating Trump:]
The latter will never happen. The RNC will take out a contract first.'
That still is not out of the question.
Quote from: Brian on June 22, 2016, 09:02:25 AM
I found it amusing to go back to the start of this thread and see some of the very first comments about Trump:
Yeah, I really got Trump wrong at the start. It's like watching Ron Popeil run for president. I thought it was just a vanity boost. It's not, he's serious.
My consolation is that pretty much everyone except Scott Adams got Trump wrong too.
Quote from: Ken B on June 22, 2016, 09:22:47 AM
Yeah, I really got Trump wrong at the start. It's like watching Ron Popeil run for president. I thought it was just a vanity boost. It's not, he's serious.
My consolation is that pretty much everyone except Scott Adams got Trump wrong too.
Yeah, being wrong about Trump puts us in some august (and crowded) company.
Quote from: Ken B on July 02, 2015, 08:18:58 AM
Yes. On the other hand, this is the second time Hillary was inevitable. I'm not sure voters in general will take Bernie seriously, but I think democrat primary voters might.
The Democrat primary voters did, indeed; Not the "Suuuuuper Delegates," natch. And we shan't get the chance to see if voters in general would.
Quote from: Brian on June 22, 2016, 09:25:00 AM
Yeah, being wrong about Trump puts us in some august (and crowded) company.
I am less concerned with this august company than with the far more crowded company in november.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 20, 2016, 07:19:13 PM
Your mouth to God's ear....
To be fair to the Donald, he was against the Iraq War before most politicians, including a certain senator from New York who later became Secretary of State.
From today's Salon:
Fact: Trump was not an early critic of the Iraq War, and most of his public statements at the time are moderately supportive of it. He only really started criticizing the war in 2004.
You know who was, however, an early critic of the invasion of Iraq? Hillary Clinton. As Fred Kaplan of Slate reported, Clinton spent much of 2002 making very public demands that the Bush administration try diplomacy and treat invasion as a last resort.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/22/fact_checking_trumps_garbage_truck_of_lies_his_speech_accusing_clinton_of_corruption_is_riddled_with_fiction_and_conspiracies/
Quote from: Ken B on June 22, 2016, 08:42:02 AM
Nobody is better at training yaks than Donald Trump. Nobody.
Ken wins today's discussion.
Quote from: Herman on June 22, 2016, 11:46:11 AM
From today's Salon:
Fact: Trump was not an early critic of the Iraq War, and most of his public statements at the time are moderately supportive of it. He only really started criticizing the war in 2004.
You know who was, however, an early critic of the invasion of Iraq? Hillary Clinton. As Fred Kaplan of Slate reported, Clinton spent much of 2002 making very public demands that the Bush administration try diplomacy and treat invasion as a last resort.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/22/fact_checking_trumps_garbage_truck_of_lies_his_speech_accusing_clinton_of_corruption_is_riddled_with_fiction_and_conspiracies/
Why am I not surprised? This has been a record-setting campaign in so many ways, why not insist on the Big Lie? ::)
Hey, Herman. :)
8)
Quote from: orfeo on June 22, 2016, 01:00:28 PM
Ken wins today's discussion.
I protest. Who was it brought up yaks in the first place?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 08:24:27 AM
In The Republic, Plato (whose ideal ruler was the philosopher-king) objected to democracy that it assumed each man had equal capacity to cast his own vote (which of course is the defense others make of democracy), and that the least insightful and educated would be on a par with the most thoughtful. He thought that the lower orders would simply be obsessed by their own base desires rather than the good of the society as a whole, and that since all men's desires are in conflict, mob rule and anarchy will result. This leads to a chaotic society in which a superficially strong, charismatic tyrant can take over. (Sound familiar?)
The United States as originally founded was not a pure democracy. Neither slaves nor women could originally vote, and senators were elected by state legislatures rather than popular vote. The system of checks and balances between the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) was intended to prevent any branch from assuming too much power. Hope that answers your question.
This Post aroused me. :blank:
Quote from: orfeo on June 22, 2016, 07:17:58 AM
You're not dimwitted enough to believe that a straight nationwide popular vote is the way all other elections are conducted
In Romania or France, for instance, the President is elected precisely by a straight nationwide popular vote.
Quote from: Florestan on June 22, 2016, 10:30:37 PM
QuoteYou're not dimwitted enough to believe that a straight nationwide popular vote is the way all other elections are conducted
In Romania or France, for instance, the President is elected precisely by a straight nationwide popular vote.
Interesting rebuttal Andrei, pointing out you cannot tell the USA from France.
Quote from: Ken B on June 23, 2016, 05:12:59 AM
Interesting rebuttal Andrei, pointing out you cannot tell the USA from France.
Oh, come on, Ken, of course I can. France has much better cuisine than the USA. ;D
Seriously now, I know very well the difference between presidential elections in USA and France, but orfeo seemed to imply that "a straight nationwide popular vote" is nowhere to be found.
Quote from: Florestan on June 23, 2016, 05:44:40 AM
Oh, come on, Ken, of course I can. France has much better cuisine than the USA. ;D
Well, that depends. You can get plenty of wretched food in the US, and I don't just mean the fast-food joints. But you can also find quite a bit of honest, creative cooking. On the other hand, though I never had a bad meal on my trips to Italy, I have had some abominable cooking in Paris and other parts of France.
Quote from: Florestan on June 23, 2016, 05:44:40 AM
Seriously now, I know very well the difference between presidential elections in USA and France, but orfeo seemed to imply that "a straight nationwide popular vote" is nowhere to be found.
That is not how I read
[You cannot] believe that a straight nationwide popular vote is the way all other elections are conducted. Remarking that A. is not true everywhere, is not to claim that A. is true nowhere.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 23, 2016, 06:07:47 AM
That is not how I read [You cannot] believe that a straight nationwide popular vote is the way all other elections are conducted. Remarking that A. is not true everywhere, is not to claim that A. is true nowhere.
Yes, rereading his post shows that I misunderstood him. Probably the "not dimwitted enough" part diverted me from the real meaning. :laugh:
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 23, 2016, 05:51:27 AM
Well, that depends. You can get plenty of wretched food in the US, and I don't just mean the fast-food joints. But you can also find quite a bit of honest, creative cooking. On the other hand, though I never had a bad meal on my trips to Italy, I have had some abominable cooking in Paris and other parts of France.
I was surprised by how meat-and-potatoes so much of France is. Not to denigrate it - there is truly great cooking in France, from regional specialties to the new "bistronomy" movement of shabby-chic modernism, which I love to death - but that country served me a LOT of meals that were just a hunk of beef and a pile of potatoes.
If Florestan comes to the USA, we'll show him. ;D ;D
Guys, you should not take my statement too literally. It was the first irony that came to my mind.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 23, 2016, 05:51:27 AM
Well, that depends. You can get plenty of wretched food in the US, and I don't just mean the fast-food joints. But you can also find quite a bit of honest, creative cooking. On the other hand, though I never had a bad meal on my trips to Italy, I have had some abominable cooking in Paris and other parts of France.
And surrounded by Frenchmen too.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 22, 2016, 08:24:27 AM
In The Republic, Plato (whose ideal ruler was the philosopher-king) objected to democracy that it assumed each man had equal capacity to cast his own vote (which of course is the defense others make of democracy), and that the least insightful and educated would be on a par with the most thoughtful. He thought that the lower orders would simply be obsessed by their own base desires rather than the good of the society as a whole, and that since all men's desires are in conflict, mob rule and anarchy will result. This leads to a chaotic society in which a superficially strong, charismatic tyrant can take over. (Sound familiar?)
The United States as originally founded was not a pure democracy. Neither slaves nor women could originally vote, and senators were elected by state legislatures rather than popular vote. The system of checks and balances between the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) was intended to prevent any branch from assuming too much power. Hope that answers your question.
Well, who am I to contradict Plato? However with the knowledge of hindsight, most of the decisions we know of were sane and sensible. One key check and balance was that the voters were not voting to send other people off to war. The men voting were deciding whether to go to war. They were deciding their own fate and were actively linked to it. They kney that voting for war meant that those sitting there of active service age would leave their fields, workshops and families.
Now, we vote all the time for other people to act on our behalf. We vote in a government to decide things and then those remote representatives vote for other people to do things. Surely that way lies more possibility of demagogy. Everything now happens at at least one remove.
Mike
Quote from: Brian on June 23, 2016, 06:32:09 AM
I was surprised by how meat-and-potatoes so much of France is. Not to denigrate it - there is truly great cooking in France, from regional specialties to the new "bistronomy" movement of shabby-chic modernism, which I love to death - but that country served me a LOT of meals that were just a hunk of beef and a pile of potatoes.
If Florestan comes to the USA, we'll show him. ;D ;D
If you come to Lyon, I'll take you to
http://lamerebrazier.fr/ (http://lamerebrazier.fr/)
and we will eat "une poularde demi-deuil"
A poulet de bresse is fed with white corn and bread leftovers in milk. This gives a very white meat. You slide a layer a truffles under the skin giving a marbled black and white look to the chicken, hence the demi-deuil "half-mourning" name of the dish. It was invented by La mère Brazier, the first "female extraordinaire" chef.
You eat this once, you remember it for the rest of your life...
This is what I sayed to Florestan: you cant define french spirit, but you can experience it.
Quote from: Spineur on June 23, 2016, 07:04:26 AM
This is what I sayed to Florestan: you cant define french spirit, but you can experience it.
Oh, but I really had a good dose of French spirit. I lived in Grenoble for two years during which I travelled extensively in different parts of France.
I've had french fries before :-\
Quote from: Florestan on June 23, 2016, 06:28:44 AM
Yes, rereading his post shows that I misunderstood him. Probably the "not dimwitted enough" part diverted me from the real meaning. :laugh:
Oh, I do understand, indeed.
As promised, my piece on Trump's Rude Rhetoric
http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2016/06/trumps-rude-rhetoric.html (http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2016/06/trumps-rude-rhetoric.html)
Quote from: Spineur on June 23, 2016, 07:04:26 AM
If you come to Lyon, I'll take you to
http://lamerebrazier.fr/ (http://lamerebrazier.fr/)
and we will eat "une poularde demi-deuil"
A poulet de bresse is fed with white corn and bread leftovers in milk. This gives a very white meat. You slide a layer a truffles under the skin giving a marbled black and white look to the chicken, hence the demi-deuil "half-mourning" name of the dish. It was invented by La mère Brazier, the first "female extraordinaire" chef.
You eat this once, you remember it for the rest of your life...
This is what I sayed to Florestan: you cant define french spirit, but you can experience it.
This looks so delicious.
It's a long time since I visited Lyon. I was singing Berlioz there. We had a couple of days between performances etc and enjoyed the city and the food.
Mike
Quote from: Ken B on June 23, 2016, 09:40:59 AM
As promised, my piece on Trump's Rude Rhetoric
http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2016/06/trumps-rude-rhetoric.html (http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2016/06/trumps-rude-rhetoric.html)
An interesting piece on the dialogue, (dialog), of the deaf. Whether he is conveying policies or merely slogans, his supporters think he is providing them with the muscle of policy. The macho culture that supports his John Wayne posturing sees apology as weakness as much as deference.
Mike
Quote from: Brian on June 23, 2016, 10:00:10 AM
This looks so delicious.
Oui, d'accord. I hope you'll let me join you as well; I've been thinking of a trip to the middle section and south of France for a while, never having visited anything below the Loire Valley.
Trump has a lot of work to do: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/map-ought-scare-trump-supporters-192400954.html (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/map-ought-scare-trump-supporters-192400954.html)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 23, 2016, 10:45:59 PM
Trump has a lot of work to do: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/map-ought-scare-trump-supporters-192400954.html (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/map-ought-scare-trump-supporters-192400954.html)
The electoral map would be a challenge for even the most generally palatable G.O.P. nominee. For El Tupé, that challenge is yuuuuge.
Quote from: Michael GersonEvangelical Christians are selling out faith for politics
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 23, 2016, 10:45:59 PM
Trump has a lot of work to do: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/map-ought-scare-trump-supporters-192400954.html (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/map-ought-scare-trump-supporters-192400954.html)
Let us hope he plays a lot of golf.
Quote from: karlhenning on June 24, 2016, 01:27:43 AM
The electoral map would be a challenge for even the most generally palatable G.O.P. nominee. For El Tupé, that challenge is yuuuuge.
Beef Supreme
I can't believe the... "Progressives" out there can't, in all their academic intellectualism of cerebral acuity, can't actually realize that they created this, they are the creators of the next world, civil, war. And, by the 'P' word, I mean, both sides of the aisle, as they are ALL "Conservative" with their OWN money.
"We will by no means attack any of the money centers of the world, or any major western tartget, because,... ah,... well,... allah isn't too cool with that..." ISIS spokesman today
I'm getting bored with Trump. But this is such an apt metaphor for his candidacy I must link it. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/06/24/dozens-burned-after-fire-walking-event-at-tony-robbins-seminar/ (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/06/24/dozens-burned-after-fire-walking-event-at-tony-robbins-seminar/)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 23, 2016, 12:52:52 PM
Oui, d'accord. I hope you'll let me join you as well; I've been thinking of a trip to the middle section and south of France for a while, never having visited anything below the Loire Valley.
I've only been to Paris, Reims, and the Alsace (Strasbourg, Colmar, a couple wine villages). There is much to explore.
Quote from: Brian on June 24, 2016, 09:15:59 AM
I've only been to Paris, Reims, and the Alsace (Strasbourg, Colmar, a couple wine villages). There is much to explore.
I was in Montpellier for 48 hours, once. Nice. (Oops, that sounds like a pun, not intended, but I decline to remove it.)
Quote from: Ken B on June 21, 2016, 11:50:59 AM
There's a lot of misinformation about that case too. It did not for instance create the precedent that corporations were persons. That corporations can be treated in law as fictitious persons is a doctrine of long standing. And a good one; it allows them to be sued for instance, and held liable for damages. There is a good analysis of this aspect of the case by Eugene Volokh if anyone cares to google. CU ruled that persons do not automatically lose their rights when they act through a corporation. They havespeech rights as persons and do not automatically forfeit them.
It should be remembered that this includes non-profits, unions, and advocacy groups created (as corporations) specifically to allow persons to co-ordinate their speech.
Incorporation is a legal construct. Corporations have whatever rights and restrictions the law says they do. They are not simply surrogates for their owners. For example, corporations serve to (usually)
shield their owners from liability.
When a person forms (or buys into) a corporation, he chooses to accept the benefits and limitations of doing so.
Most laws do not distinguish between corporations and citizens but the constitution does not forbid such a distinction.
Goodness, guys! :o
I just checked when these presidential elections would actually take place....NOVEMBER? ???
You have to stomac a circus like this every 4 years for nearly a year? That's not democracy, that is institutionalized torture.... :D
(It seems also highly disruptive....it is a miracle that anything gets done in the US legislature. ...)
Since I already know the finalists, I'm going to leave you to it..... wake me up for the results in November. 8)
Quote from: Que on June 24, 2016, 11:59:51 PM
....it is a miracle that anyting gets done in the US legislature. ...)
:-[
Quote from: Que on June 24, 2016, 11:59:51 PM
....it is a miracle unexpected that anything gets done in the US legislature....
FTFY >:D 8) ???
Quote from: Que on June 24, 2016, 11:59:51 PM
it is expected that nothing gets done in the US legislature. ...)
Better . . . .
Quote from: Pat B on June 24, 2016, 11:32:50 PM
Incorporation is a legal construct. Corporations have whatever rights and restrictions the law says they do. They are not simply surrogates for their owners. For example, corporations serve to (usually) shield their owners from liability.
Hence the formation LLC =
limited liability company.
Quote from: Pat B on June 24, 2016, 11:32:50 PM
Incorporation is a legal construct. Corporations have whatever rights and restrictions the law says they do.
Not quite. What constitutional law says they do. But laws on legal constructs affect the persons involved and so the constitution can impinge. Marriage is also a legal construct but the constitution touches on that. To get extreme, slavery is a legal construct. So the argument "it's a legal construct " is insufficient by itself. You must deal with the question whether the law is constitutional in its restrictions. Some are. The court has ruled for instance that corporations may not invoke the 5th amendment.
Quote from: Que on June 24, 2016, 11:59:51 PM
Goodness, guys! :o
I just checked when these presidential elections would actually take place....NOVEMBER? ???
You have to stomac a circus like this every 4 years for nearly a year? That's not democracy, that is institutionalized torture.... :D
(It seems also highly disruptive....it is a miracle that anything gets done in the US legislature. ...)
Since I already know the finalists, I'm going to leave you to it..... wake me up for the results in November. 8)
Oh, Que, it gets better than that.
The current flock of candidates began campaigning officially since (some of them) Jan 2015. Unofficially even longer. It is probably fair to say Hillary has been campaigning since the 2000 election was decided in favor of Bush .
The campaign to impeach Hillary will probably be in gear within one week of her election, and campaigns for the Congressional elections in 2018 will start even as both parties regroup and adjust to the results of this year's election.
Thanks to cable news politics never really pauses here.
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2016, 05:25:39 AM
Not quite. What constitutional law says they do. But laws on legal constructs affect the persons involved and so the constitution can impinge. Marriage is also a legal construct but the constitution touches on that. To get extreme, slavery is a legal construct. So the argument "it's a legal construct " is insufficient by itself. You must deal with the question whether the law is constitutional in its restrictions. Some are. The court has ruled for instance that corporations may not invoke the 5th amendment.
Slavery was a legal construct that was explicitly forbidden by the 13th Amendment. Before that, it was atrocious policy that flagrantly violated the principle of "All Men Are Created Equal" -- but that's not in the Constitution.
The issue of marriage was over whether certain people can be excluded from entering into one. If some state were to ban gay people from forming corporations (or rich people from forming corporations), I think that would be found unconstitutional regardless of the judges' standpoint on corporate personhood. (FTR Kennedy's dignity basis in Obergefell doesn't really make sense to me but an equal protection basis would have.)
Needless to say, I agree with your point about the 5th amendment. I have read speculation that a conservative court might overrule that, just as Citizens United overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Presumably Scalia's death takes that off the table for a while.
Quote from: Pat B on June 25, 2016, 10:19:52 AM
Slavery was a legal construct that was explicitly forbidden by the 13th Amendment. Before that, it was atrocious policy that flagrantly violated the principle of "All Men Are Created Equal" -- but that's not in the Constitution.
The issue of marriage was over whether certain people can be excluded from entering into one. If some state were to ban gay people from forming corporations (or rich people from forming corporations), I think that would be found unconstitutional regardless of the judges' standpoint on corporate personhood. (FTR Kennedy's dignity basis in Obergefell doesn't really make sense to me but an equal protection basis would have.)
Needless to say, I agree with your point about the 5th amendment. I have read speculation that a conservative court might overrule that, just as Citizens United overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Presumably Scalia's death takes that off the table for a while.
My only point Pat is that just citing it's a legal construction does not suffice to dismiss constitutional issues.
Evangelical Christians have been selling out faith for politics for several decades.
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2016, 11:08:24 AM
My only point Pat is that just citing it's a legal construction does not suffice to dismiss constitutional issues.
Well, I'm glad you recognize that it's not just a group of people.
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16B3F/production/_84419929_a386c301-18f4-46fa-8aef-4e298657fa02.jpg)
Quote from: epicous on June 26, 2016, 05:01:54 PM
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16B3F/production/_84419929_a386c301-18f4-46fa-8aef-4e298657fa02.jpg)
Smart, too.
Family values
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/16/21/29AC979D00000578-0-image-a-4_1434487239890.jpg)
Quote from: epicous on June 26, 2016, 08:44:28 PM
Family values
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/16/21/29AC979D00000578-0-image-a-4_1434487239890.jpg)
Ivanka Trump is a dish.
(http://115.imagebam.com/download/Ygqmk-yn9K6UGei9lrEPpQ/49203/492021481/dish.jpg)
If only she were running...
:-*
Quote from: karlhenning on June 27, 2016, 03:59:14 AM
No one else is smarter!
I feel a blond joke coming on . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 26, 2016, 05:24:16 PM
Smart, too.
C'mon, guys. This quote is 4 years old ! Trump has probably changed opinion 8 times on the subject since then.
Quote from: André on June 27, 2016, 04:39:21 PM
C'mon, guys. This quote is 4 years old ! Trump has probably changed opinion 8 times on the subject since then.
Even if it was just 4
weeks old... ::) :)
8)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 26, 2016, 05:24:16 PM
Smart, too.
You mean that sarcastically but it really is. This is a very effective bit of brand building. It ties together several threads that Trump has woven his platform from, with a sly appeal to conspiracism. Four years ago Trump was a second tier celebrity. Now he has about a one chance in three or better of being president.
I too underestimated Trump. But I like to think I have learned better.
Quote from: Ken B on June 27, 2016, 05:24:13 PM
You mean that sarcastically but it really is. This is a very effective bit of brand building. It ties together several threads that Trump has woven his platform from, with a sly appeal to conspiracism. Four years ago Trump was a second tier celebrity. Now he has about a one chance in three or better of being president.
I too underestimated Trump. But I like to think I have learned better.
There's a difference between smart and shrewd. Shrewd I'll grant him. Smart I don't know about.
Quote from: Ken B on June 27, 2016, 05:24:13 PM
You mean that sarcastically but it really is. This is a very effective bit of brand building. It ties together several threads that Trump has woven his platform from, with a sly appeal to conspiracism. Four years ago Trump was a second tier celebrity. Now he has about a one chance in three or better of being president.
I too underestimated Trump. But I like to think I have learned better.
But did you misunderestimate him?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 27, 2016, 05:29:32 PM
There's a difference between smart and shrewd. Shrewd I'll grant him. Smart I don't know about.
He's here at the Langham today to raise funds. I weep to think that there are people in Massachusetts who will fund his campaign.
Quote from: Pat B on June 28, 2016, 08:01:13 PM
But did you misunderestimate him?
That too.
I really have a lot of sympathy with his supporters who feel like they are treated with contempt. I have been telling people the major parties have to deal with this or we would see the fringe exploit it. Trump isn't really fringe, he's not idea driven, but he sure has figured out how to exploit them.
Quote from: Ken B on June 29, 2016, 04:56:42 AM
I really have a lot of sympathy with his supporters who feel like they are treated with contempt.
Yes, and it really is the fault of The Establishment that El Tupé is the one to seize this opportunity.
Quote from: Ken B on June 29, 2016, 04:56:42 AM
That too.
I really have a lot of sympathy with his supporters who feel like they are treated with contempt. I have been telling people the major parties have to deal with this or we would see the fringe exploit it. Trump isn't really fringe, he's not idea driven, but he sure has figured out how to exploit them.
Which is what I mean by shrewdness but not necessarily intelligence.
QuoteWhile standing in front of an unusual backdrop of what appeared to be stacked bales of crushed aluminum, Trump slammed globalization and said that it made "the financial elite" very wealthy, noting that "I used to be one of them. Hate to say it."
Used to be? You mean the Donald, like St. Francis of Assisi, has renounced all his worldly possessions and now is "one of us"? Hardly. This is the same wealthy pseudo-populist who comes to Scotland bragging about how Brexit will pour money into his exclusive golf course, which you better believe none of the thousands attending his rallies could ever afford, and which, as Knight66 said on the Brexit thread, is indicative of "how much the locals round his course detest him. This for damaging their properties, which he regarded as unsightly. He has cut off water to one elderly woman's house, piled up a huge hill of earth blotting out another house and its views and light and claimed that one guy lives like a pig in a pigsty; he lives in a modest old-fashioned and tidy looking house."
I get why his supporters feel they are treated with contempt. I see the anger of people who thought they were playing by the rules, you know, work hard and you'll get ahead, be all you want to be, land of opportunity, and all that happy horseshit Americans like to feed themselves. And then they find it's all a lie: they're struggling under debt, student or otherwise, they're unemployed or underemployed, they have no assets except their houses which are often under water and no funds for retirement, they see the 1% gaining exponentially while they fall behind more and more.
Problem is that they've hitched their wagon to a clever, narcissistic snake-oil salesman who promises to build his wall and tell off China and keep out the Muslims and deport the Mexicans and make America white again. But if he's elected, they'll find he won't be able to make good on any of these promises and that he's still one of the .01% who talks a good game because they're desperate, but who wouldn't think twice about cutting off their water and blocking their light and telling them they live like pigs in a pigsty.
Yes, a man busily building a golf course in Scotland (including trying to get a neighbour to pay for a wall) is hardly an appropriate person to be telling other folks how nasty globalisation is.
El Tupé sends email to foreign lawmakers in fundraising effort, disregarding the mere illegality of all that. No one is smarter about campaign finance!
Because, no, the Britain and Europe thread is no way funnier than the US election!
http://www.youtube.com/v/gthEktOSpH4
Nobody has more class than the guy in Scotland wearing a Make America Great Again hat.
The idea of respectful spying on residents and citizens at worship in this country is gibberish, of course — like much of what passes for policy proposals from the [El Tupé] campaign. Amid the incessant incoherence, it may be possible to discern a "pivot." Yet how could any voter believe that today's pivot won't be supplanted tomorrow by another?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-trumps-gibberish-on-muslims/2016/06/29/99c34798-3d7a-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html
I mean, like, everyone's spouse gets to have a personal discussion with the person in charge of a criminal investigation against them. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-224972) Hillary is a straight shooter, and all that.
Lousy optics, and you have to be a Clinton not to understand that the optics are lousy, and you have to be a Clinton not to govern your behavior accordingly.
Truly the gift that goes on giving. From today's NY Times:
QuoteDonald J. Trump vowed on Tuesday that as president, he would put an end to policies that send American jobs overseas, threatening to impose tariffs on Chinese imports and promising to punish companies that relocate their manufacturing to countries with cheaper labor.
"It will be American hands that remake this country," said Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, standing before a hunk of aluminum at a recycling plant in western Pennsylvania.
But such declarations are at odds with Mr. Trump's long history as a businessman, in which he has been heavily — and proudly — reliant on foreign labor in the name of putting profits, rather than America, first. From cheap neckties to television sets, Mr. Trump has benefited from some of the trade practices he now scorns.
Besides construction, Mr. Trump is big in the clothing business. But most of his line of suits, ties and cuff links bear a "Made in China" label. Some also come from factories in Bangladesh, Mexico and Vietnam. He has blamed China's currency manipulation to argue that it is almost impossible to find garments that are made domestically these days, or that they are prohibitively expensive. Despite that claim, some companies such as Brooks Brothers continue to make clothes in the United States.
In 2013, Mr. Trump teamed with Dorya, a Turkish maker of luxury furniture, for his Trump Home brand. In a news release at the time, the Trump Organization promoted the craftsmanship of the pieces, which furnish some of Mr. Trump's hotels.
Mr. Trump also invested in a line of crystal bearing his name to go with his Trump Home line. The collection was produced in Slovenia, the home of his wife, Melania.
Mr. Trump has not held back when it comes to his concern that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs from American workers, but he has used them on occasion.
In 1980, a contractor hired by Mr. Trump to demolish the Bonwit Teller building in New York and make way for Trump Tower used undocumented Polish immigrants who reportedly worked round-the-clock and even slept at the site.
Last summer, The Washington Post found that Mr. Trump was using undocumented immigrants for the construction of his Trump International Hotel at the site of the Old Post Office Pavilion in Washington.
And The Times reported this year that Mr. Trump had employed hundreds of foreign guest workers from Romania and other countries at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Mr. Trump said that he found it difficult to find qualified local people to work there during the high season.
While Mr. Trump has for years railed against trade and currency policies that he says are unfair, he has not always been opposed to outsourcing.
Writing on the Trump University blog in 2005, Mr. Trump acknowledged that foreign labor was sometimes needed to keep American companies from going out of business.
"If a company's only means of survival is by farming jobs outside its walls, then sometimes it's a necessary step," Mr. Trump wrote. "The other option might be to close its doors for good."
Mr. Trump usually makes the case that foreign labor is necessary to keep production costs down, but in an interview with David Letterman in 2012 he also offered a humanitarian argument for outsourcing. Teased for selling dress shirts that were made in Bangladesh, Mr. Trump expressed pride that he was creating jobs around the world.
"That's good, we employ people in Bangladesh," Mr. Trump said. "They have to work, too."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 01, 2016, 03:59:10 AM
Truly the gift that goes on giving. From today's NY Times:
You cannot make this stuff up.
Yesterday at a rally he pointed at a plane flying overhead and said it could be a Mexican plane preparing to attack.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 01, 2016, 03:56:07 AM
Lousy optics, and you have to be a Clinton not to understand that the optics are lousy, and you have to be a Clinton not to govern your behavior accordingly.
It isn't just optics. It's corruption.
Quote from: Brian on July 01, 2016, 04:44:01 AM
Yesterday at a rally he pointed at a plane flying overhead and said it could be a Mexican plane preparing to attack.
Reminds me of the American plans for war against Canada from early 20th century, where the threat of hydroplanes coming from the thousands of lakes in Canada to bomb America was taken most seriously.
The fine people of Lake Oswego trembled in their mukluks, I can tell you.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 01, 2016, 05:23:33 AM
The fine people of Lake Oswego trembled in their mukluks, I can tell you.
I certainly did in mine, and I don't even have a pair.
Quote from: North Star on July 01, 2016, 05:07:42 AM
Reminds me of the American plans for war against Canada from early 20th century, where the threat of hydroplanes coming from the thousands of lakes in Canada to bomb America was taken most seriously.
Hey, in 1812 we burned Washington, and captured Detroit. We're a nasty bunch when we get riled. Just look at our ongoing war with Denmark:
(https://kindnesspassiton.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/jowgneq-e1448400263567.jpg?w=1200)
Not only did we win the war of 1812, we also won the peace, and the Americans had to take Detroit back.
Quote from: Ken B on July 01, 2016, 06:56:41 AM
Just look at our ongoing war with Denmark:
Two of my favourite countries, unable to get along. It makes me sad.
Quote from: orfeo on July 01, 2016, 07:11:19 AM
Two of my favourite countries, unable to get along. It makes me sad.
It's a terrible thing, but it's all THEIR fault. Look. They have form as the Brits say, a track record, a reputation. Their rapacity is
legendaryQuoteIt is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
Plus look at the map!
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/568fec90e6183e8a0f8b7dca-846-626/screen_shot_2016-01-08_at_12_04_23_pm.jpg)
That's nowhere NEAR Denmark. Talk about empire building!
UPDATE. It's Canada Day, and now I am provoked. I am going to go home, get some Havarti and
masticate it into oblivion. Grrr.
Quote from: Ken B on July 01, 2016, 07:57:32 AM
That's nowhere NEAR Denmark. Talk about empire building!
But is IS near Greenland, and Greenland belongs to Denmark
Truly to speak, and with no addition,
We go to gain a little patch of ground
That hath in it no profit but the name.
To pay five ducats, five, I would not farm it.
Nor will it yield to Norway or the Pole
A ranker rate, should it be sold in fee.
- Hamlet
However, on this question I
abstain.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 01, 2016, 08:34:19 AM
But is IS near Greenland, and Greenland belongs to Denmark
That's how the ratchet works. Conquer an outpost and then use it to claim more and more. Not just those dastardly Dames. First you conquer St Pierre et Miquelon and then when the Canucks drop their guard you grab Newfoundland. Then who knows? First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.
Quote from: Ken B on July 01, 2016, 09:11:00 AM
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.
Love the Cohen quote ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Ken B on July 01, 2016, 09:11:00 AM
That's how the ratchet works. Conquer an outpost and then use it to claim more and more. Not just those dastardly Dames. First you conquer St Pierre et Miquelon and then when the Canucks drop their guard you grab Newfoundland. Then who knows? First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.
Would you settle for Detroit?
Quote from: Ken B on July 01, 2016, 05:05:11 AM
It isn't just optics. It's corruption.
I believe the Republican term for stuff like this is "free speech."
Quote from: Pat B on July 01, 2016, 11:47:09 AM
I believe the Republican term for stuff like this is "free speech."
Huh? https://reason.com/archives/2016/07/01/clinton-and-lynchcorruption-not-optics (https://reason.com/archives/2016/07/01/clinton-and-lynchcorruption-not-optics)
Quote from: Ken B on July 01, 2016, 11:58:44 AM
Huh?
http://www.wpr.org/walker-john-doe-restrictions-are-win-free-speech (http://www.wpr.org/walker-john-doe-restrictions-are-win-free-speech)
Quote from: Pat B on July 01, 2016, 12:31:58 PM
http://www.wpr.org/walker-john-doe-restrictions-are-win-free-speech (http://www.wpr.org/walker-john-doe-restrictions-are-win-free-speech)
So secret inquiries are like recusal?
Quote from: Ken B on July 01, 2016, 12:34:40 PM
So secret inquiries are like recusal?
My point was a little more broad than that. However, I don't remember many Republicans complaining about blatant conflicts of interest when the WI Supreme Court shut down that investigation into Walker (and ordered the evidence destroyed!).
Quote from: Pat B on July 01, 2016, 01:17:56 PM
My point was a little more broad than that. However, I don't remember many Republicans complaining about blatant conflicts of interest when the WI Supreme Court shut down that investigation into Walker (and ordered the evidence destroyed!).
Because a court ruling on a legal matter is like an interested party meeting privately with the person making a ruling about him? This just won't cut it as an analogy. If Walker had partied with judges, that would on point.
Quote from: Pat B on July 01, 2016, 01:17:56 PM
My point was a little more broad than that. However, I don't remember many Republicans complaining about blatant conflicts of interest when the WI Supreme Court shut down that investigation into Walker (and ordered the evidence destroyed!).
If it's the one I am thinking of, the GOP didn't complain about ending the investigation. They complained about the investigation itself, which appeared to be a politically inspired fishing expedition that took liberties with free speech rights and due process.
Quote from: Ken B on July 01, 2016, 01:22:25 PM
Because a court ruling on a legal matter is like an interested party meeting privately with the person making a ruling about him? This just won't cut it as an analogy. If Walker had partied with judges, that would on point.
Walker and the Republican Legislature eliminated Wisconsin's process for investigating political corruption (which has been used in the past to catch crooks on both sides of the aisle) altogether. I think most people can see the relationship between that action and an allegation of corruption on the part of another politician, regardless of the scheme of alleged corruption.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 01, 2016, 06:09:20 PM
If it's the one I am thinking of, the GOP didn't complain about ending the investigation. They complained about the investigation itself, which appeared to be a politically inspired fishing expedition that took liberties with free speech rights and due process.
We're getting off-topic, but:
At least two of the justices had obvious conflicts of interest. Of course the GOP didn't complain about that: they were on the same team.
You may be thinking of that Walker aide who claimed the investigator told her she couldn't talk to an attorney. The audio of that encounter was eventually released (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/320568172.html). She was straight-up lying. The initial National Review article (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisonsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french) is pure fiction. It's pretty funny, for those who can find humor in egregious lies by public officials.
This "politically inspired fishing expedition" was sanctioned by a bipartisan board and led by Francis Schmitz, a Republican who voted for Walker.
More generally, I view the recent Republican interest in Free Speech as a path to legalize, for all practical purposes, quid pro quo exchanges. The line on determining that has always been very blurry, but now the line has been moved so far away that its blurriness no longer matters.
The Clinton-Lynch meeting was characteristically clumsy, but in this context, I question why we pretend to care about corruption at all.
Quote from: Pat B on July 02, 2016, 01:03:13 AMMore generally, I view the recent Republican interest in Free Speech as a path to legalize, for all practical purposes, quid pro quo exchanges.
That would certainly make running the Clinton Foundation much simpler.
So, Obama's going to start officially campaigning for and with Hillary. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-expected-highlight-unique-relationship-clinton-campaign-trail/story?id=40232840) I would think he should wait until the Justice Department concludes its investigation into Hillary Clinton.
The US is almost like a Latin American democracy now. El Presidente is out rustling up votes on behalf of the candidate of his own party while a criminal investigation is going on. Meanwhile, a billionaire populist-cum-huckster is rousing the rabble. Either way, the people win, right?
Could be worse. Check the Philippines... ???
Asshole does it again:
http://tinyurl.com/j2nc8tm
Not an apology of course, because he never apologizes, but at least an attempt to cover his tracks. (Of course, "the Jews love me.")
She's in the clear. (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/FBI-Director-James-Comey-Statement-385550951.html) (I'm sure the FBI's timing is in no way related to Obama's campaigning, nor is it likely the President knew of the outcome ahead of time.)
So, that means Trump will claim whitewash. Maybe Whitewater, I don't know.
Trump should be pleased he got quotes like "extremely careless" out of Comey, and of course there's the part where she did send 8 classified emails....and the part where they said that hackers probably saw some of her personal emails.
If this counts as a win for Hillary, it's a bloodily Pyrrhic one, and the Trump campaign would be wise to recognize this and press on with the attack, rather than whining about the FBI being wrong.
Hah - Trump of course tweeted that "the system is rigged" and #RiggedSystem. Shows what I know.
He also said Petraeus got in trouble "for far less," which as I recall is not true.
Quote from: Todd on July 05, 2016, 07:41:39 AM
(I'm sure the FBI's timing is in no way related to Obama's campaigning, nor is it likely the President knew of the outcome ahead of time.)
There is no time in this entire calendar year where someone wouldn't point at the timing and link it to the timing of something else. The American political system is a never-ending circus of events.
Quote from: orfeo on July 05, 2016, 08:03:19 AM
There is no time in this entire calendar year where someone wouldn't point at the timing and link it to the timing of something else. The American political system is a never-ending circus of events.
And we wouldn't have it any other way.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 05, 2016, 08:06:04 AM
And we wouldn't have it any other way.
Well, apart from when people complain about the vast amount of money that gets poured into keeping the circus running, and then folk wonder why people with money have so much influence.
Of course, this investigation is no different any number of other investigations where people who
aren't investigators decide beforehand they know the correct outcome.
Quote from: Brian on July 05, 2016, 07:50:40 AMTrump should be pleased he got quotes like "extremely careless" out of Comey, and of course there's the part where she did send 8 classified emails....and the part where they said that hackers probably saw some of her personal emails.
I'm sure he is, and he will and should capitalize on these salient facts, and he should also blab on about how the system is rigged. Some people like that sort of stuff.
Quote from: orfeo on July 05, 2016, 08:03:19 AM
There is no time in this entire calendar year where someone wouldn't point at the timing and link it to the timing of something else. The American political system is a never-ending circus of events.
But the timing is beautiful. The political argument is easy: either Obama is out of touch and didn't know what was happening, or he knew ahead of time and planned accordingly. I assume the latter. (He may also have influenced the outcome directly - whisper, whisper, whisper.) I really don't care except that it will provide for more partisan rancor.
The rather sad thing about the whole email thing is that it is a byproduct of the Benghazi fiasco. Benghazi itself is not particularly relevant. The actually relevant issue - Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, helped formulate a policy where the head of state of a sovereign nation was forced from power by the US and its allies without so much as an AUMF or Congressional oversight and the result was and is ongoing chaos - has been lost in the shuffle. That's because reckless, destabilizing foreign policy in the region is sort of a bipartisan thing.
Quote from: Todd on July 05, 2016, 08:22:21 AM
But the timing is beautiful. The political argument is easy: either Obama is out of touch and didn't know what was happening, or he knew ahead of time and planned accordingly. I assume the latter. (He may also have influenced the outcome directly - whisper, whisper, whisper.) I really don't care except that it will provide for more partisan rancor.
Given that a considerable number of people who weren't rabid Republicans have been saying for a very long time that it was unlikely that Clinton had a case to answer, timing doesn't have much to do with it. Obama could've decided to campaign for Clinton not on the basis of inside knowledge, but on the basis of having a brain and knowing the likely outcome the same way that a somewhat cynical Australian obsessed with the music of Vagn Holmboe could figure out the likely outcome.
This won't prevent the political argument of course. But the political argument only exists from the same twisted viewpoint that has been pursuing Clinton doggedly all this time. The viewpoint that starts with the conclusion of guilt and then tries to find the evidence to reach that conclusion.
Quote from: orfeo on July 05, 2016, 08:27:26 AMBut the political argument only exists from the same twisted viewpoint that has been pursuing Clinton doggedly all this time. The viewpoint that starts with the conclusion of guilt and then tries to find the evidence to reach that conclusion.
Not strictly true. Representative Kevin McCarthy stated explicitly that the Benghazi hearings - and by extension everything that came after - was designed to hurt her polling numbers, and thereby make her a weaker candidate. Actual guilt or non-guilt is largely irrelevant. (You are not cynical enough.) Had the Republicans selected a better candidate, this could have been more useful.
I think the probability of a Hillary victory just went up from about 81%, as projected before the weekend, to somewhere north of 90%. To put a personal spin on it, that means my taxes are probably going to go up a little bit in 2017.
Quote from: Brian on July 05, 2016, 07:51:56 AM
He also said Petraeus got in trouble "for far less," which as I recall is not true.
El Tupé and the truth have never been close.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 05, 2016, 08:44:35 AM
El Tupé and the truth have never been close.
I thought this a very astute analysis:
http://tinyurl.com/jbzd24g
Quote from: Peter Wehner... James Dobson, who is among the most influential leaders in the evangelical world and serves on Mr. Trump's evangelical executive advisory board, declared that "Trump appears to be tender to things of the Spirit," by which Dr. Dobson meant the Holy Spirit.
Oh, lawd, I nearly burst into audible laughter . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 05, 2016, 11:13:47 AM
I thought this a very astute analysis:
http://tinyurl.com/jbzd24g
Good piece.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 05, 2016, 11:15:20 AM
Oh, lawd, I nearly burst into audible laughter . . . .
But the Christians love him.
Let us count the ways that Comey's behavior was extraordinary . . . (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-comeys-remarks-on-the-clinton-email-case-were-extraordinary/2016/07/05/b964813c-42e0-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Considering the amount of vitrol often posted against many of the candidates, it is very odd to me that that same approach is not being taken against Clinton here. Though the FBI does not support bringing charges against her, the comments by Comey are pretty damning (it is seems almost certain that foreign governments have seen secret information they should not have). An extremely careless candidate is not exactly a ringing endorsement for a nominee. I would think that in any other year, they might even be cause for a Presidential candidate to resign from the race (or a reason to lose the nomination).
I suspect the biggest reason for the lack of heat is that much of what she did was not unique. If I understand correctly, her predecessors had been lax and the State Department in general had been lax.
Quote from: orfeo on July 07, 2016, 05:34:24 AM
I suspect the biggest reason for the lack of heat is that much of what she did was not unique. If I understand correctly, her predecessors had been lax and the State Department in general had been lax.
The biggest reason is her opponent.
Quote from: Todd on July 07, 2016, 05:37:23 AM
The biggest reason is her opponent.
"
Hitler was a bad guy, really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He negotiated tough deals. He did that so good."
Quote from: orfeo on July 07, 2016, 05:34:24 AM
I suspect the biggest reason for the lack of heat is that much of what she did was not unique. If I understand correctly, her predecessors had been lax and the State Department in general had been lax.
You are correct. If she wasn't (at the time) planning a presidential run, this non-issue would have never been heard from again. There is/was no criminality here, merely terminal carelessness and a certain snotty
hauteur which has aroused the opponents into a frothing mess... ::)
8)
Hmm ... wonder if it's too late to propose yet another Benghazi committee?...
They should never have deleted that tweet with the Star of David, which by the way wasn't a Star of David, it was a sheriff's badge, all the White Supremacists agree on that. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/06/trump-says-campaign-shouldnt-have-deleted-image-circulated-by-white-supremacists/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_pp-trumpstaar1110p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2016, 06:19:54 AM
You are correct. If she wasn't (at the time) planning a presidential run, this non-issue would have never been heard from again. There is/was no criminality here, merely terminal carelessness and a certain snotty hauteur which has aroused the opponents into a frothing mess... ::)
8)
The latest thing I've read is that the demand for all her emails has actually revealed that she asked for more secure facilities when she started, and was told no by the NSA! So she only set up this system after having been expressly turned down for a secure system.
There's also evidence that people have been over-classifying emails (which, working in government, is a regular problem). People without much power are often keen to show what they're working on is Terribly Important. See this article with comments from Colin Powell: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044
The whole thing makes a heck of a lot of people look quite stupid. I'm not entirely sure that Clinton is one of them.
Quote from: orfeo on July 07, 2016, 06:28:33 AM
The whole thing makes a heck of a lot of people look quite stupid. I'm not entirely sure that Clinton is one of them.
Some people I know in the IT business suspect that it was all a big IT screwup. The government's email system is notoriously awful and buggy, and the desktop program crashes regularly. So there's chatter that probably Hillary asked IT, "Can you please get me something that works?" and nobody checked if their solution complied with the law.
Although he probably did not mean it as simple vindication, Bernie was right: the American people are tired of hearing about her damned e-mails. But the denser of the GOP lawmakers, who refused to see the pointlessness of further attempts to dig up Benghazi dirt, are not going to be any shrewder w/r/t this server affair.
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2016, 06:48:52 AM
Some people I know in the IT business suspect that it was all a big IT screwup. The government's email system is notoriously awful and buggy, and the desktop program crashes regularly. So there's chatter that probably Hillary asked IT, "Can you please get me something that works?" and nobody checked if their solution complied with the law.
I thought you were supposed to be advanced over there. I've worked in various parts of the Australian government for 15 years now, and can only think of a couple of very brief periods of buggy email.
Come to think of it, I know we have a whole-of-government approach to email classification that prevents emails from being sent to addresses that are not sufficiently secure to receive them. A classified email will bounce if you accidentally try to send it to an address that isn't on a "classified" system. I'm tempted to go into work tomorrow and say to colleagues: did you know our email is better than anything the American Secretary of State has?
" Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton took things a bit literal during a campaign stop in North Carolina last week, reading "sigh" off the teleprompter rather than actually sighing. " Too funny.
Quote from: orfeo on July 07, 2016, 07:00:14 AM
I'm tempted to go into work tomorrow and say to colleagues: did you know our email is better than anything the American Secretary of State has?
The solution may be to take the day off.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 05, 2016, 11:17:38 AM
Good piece.
pfffff..... oh yea...... Ruth Marcus......LOl.......oy vey..... really? can't we do better than her??......
Comey said "any reasonable" two times.... interesting
Comey said "bad ACTORS".... just love in this post-Craigslist crisis actor world we live in, he's making sure to get the agents their cut.
Does the FBI HAVE a charter?????????
So, Karl, is Hillary a lifelong crook, or no?
And do you want "extremely careless" running your country? Really?
OK (assuming you're thinking "what, do you want me to vote trump?")- DON'T VOTE- TELL THEM YOU DON'T BUY THEIR "APPOINTMENTS" DISGUISED AS CANDIDATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously- if H gets in, you really think it's going to be some grand time?? Or is it that you just want to stick it to the "flyovers"??
If Hill gets in, will I have to buy gunnes?? to protect myself????
The tree of libretee must be watered now and then with the blood of patriots and tyrants.........
\
God Help Us- Robber Barons to the right of me, commies on the left...... if there no more balm in Gilead?????????????
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: snyprrr on July 07, 2016, 08:13:02 AM
So, Karl, is Hillary a lifelong crook, or no?
And do you want "extremely careless" running your country? Really?
Context,
snypssss, context. We've all agreed this is a lousy year for POTUS candidacy.
Quote from: snyprrr on July 07, 2016, 08:13:02 AM
And do you want "extremely careless" running your country? Really?
"Also, it is worth noting that the President, whoever he or she may be, does nothing so grand as run the country."
- Todd: Reply #238 on Brexit thread (now shut down for the unforgivable crime that some of us were being digressive).
But if the president doesn't run the country, just what does he or she do?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 07, 2016, 08:46:15 AM
But if the president doesn't run the country, just what does he or she do?
Lose sleep, age rapidly, and watch "Game of Thrones" before everybody else is allowed to.
Quote from: orfeo on July 07, 2016, 06:28:33 AM
The latest thing I've read is that the demand for all her emails has actually revealed that she asked for more secure facilities when she started, and was told no by the NSA! So she only set up this system after having been expressly turned down for a secure system.
There's also evidence that people have been over-classifying emails (which, working in government, is a regular problem). People without much power are often keen to show what they're working on is Terribly Important. See this article with comments from Colin Powell: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044
The whole thing makes a heck of a lot of people look quite stupid. I'm not entirely sure that Clinton is one of them.
Ah. So she purposely set up a private server, knowing it was unapproved. That makes things better.
it also seems like she may have lied. She said there was nothing confidential, but the FBI says there was.
I am not denying that her Republican opponent is not ideal (putting it extremely nicely), but that does not mean she should get a pass on this. Many of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 07, 2016, 09:28:03 AM
Ah. So she purposely set up a private server, knowing it was unapproved. That makes things better.
it also seems like she may have lied. She said there was nothing confidential, but the FBI says there was.
Many an unforced error through this whole affair.
Quote from: mc ukrnealI am not denying that her Republican opponent is not ideal (putting it extremely nicely), but that does not mean she should get a pass on this. Many of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).
Don't blame me—I voted for Bernie 8)
Even with my limited engagement with US politics in the Clinton era (I was overseas for his first term, e.g.), the whiff of scandal regularly skirted my nostrils. And dangit,
it put the hurt on my nose.
http://www.youtube.com/v/D9FBQ1O5F8k
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2016, 08:51:33 AM
Lose sleep, age rapidly, and watch "Game of Thrones" before everybody else is allowed to.
Sounds pretty grand to me.
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2016, 06:48:52 AMThe government's email system is notoriously awful and buggy, and the desktop program crashes regularly.
Which government email system? Surely you are not implying there is only one, when 137 will do.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 07, 2016, 08:46:15 AMBut if the president doesn't run the country, just what does he or she do?
He or she is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. He or she may or may not enforce federal laws, browbeat states that don't comply with this or that law, and bomb this or that country. Hell, the President can't even legally impound federal budget funds anymore. (Thanks, Nixon.) It is a common liberal fallacy to equate the federal government with the country. That does not make it so.
Quote from: Todd on July 07, 2016, 11:20:08 AM
It is a common liberal fallacy to equate the federal government with the country. That does not make it so.
Last time this common liberal looked, the federal government was composed of three branches. I don't know any common liberals who think otherwise.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 07, 2016, 09:28:03 AMMany of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).
Well, when you drag people into a war that will bite us for decades AND a worldwide financial crisis to boot, they tend to overlook scandals of your predecessor.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 07, 2016, 11:40:38 AM
Last time this common liberal looked, the federal government was composed of three branches. I don't know any common liberals who think otherwise.
Yet it was you who previously claimed the President ran the country. 'Tis not so.
Quote from: Todd on July 07, 2016, 12:21:57 PM
Yet it was you who previously claimed the President ran the country. 'Tis not so.
Primus inter pares.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 07, 2016, 09:28:03 AM
Ah. So she purposely set up a private server, knowing it was unapproved. That makes things better.
That's also not an accurate description. If you ask for X, and don't get it, that is not a statement that Y is unapproved. If I can't get a car loan that doesn't mean that purchasing a bicycle is rendered illegal.
Where's the statement that the NSA was generally responsible for approving things? She's been told off for breaching State Department policy, not NSA policy.
I think it's also quite ridiculous to say "she shouldn't get a pass on this" when it's not just the director of the FBI, but actual lawyer after actual lawyer who's been saying for a long time that there's no legal case to answer. It's only the bloody armchair lawyers who keep declaring her guilty.
Quote from: Todd on July 07, 2016, 12:53:11 PM
Janet Yellen?
Oh please. We speak of the Lincoln administration, the Teddy Roosevelt administration, the FDR administration, the Clinton administration, the Obama administration. We don't define periods in American history by the Congress or Supreme Court, much less who's heading the Fed. That's not some kind of a stupid liberal thing, and not for the first time you're just being contentious for the sake of being contentious. And we both know it.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 07, 2016, 09:28:03 AM
Many of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).
Really? So all the stuff about where Obama was born and whether he was eligible to be President was "policy"?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 07, 2016, 02:57:15 PM
Oh please. We speak of the Lincoln administration, the Teddy Roosevelt administration, the FDR administration, the Clinton administration, the Obama administration. We don't define periods in American history by the Congress or Supreme Court, much less who's heading the Fed. That's not some kind of a stupid liberal thing, and not for the first time you're just being contentious for the sake of being contentious. And we both know it.
I'm not sure who this "we" is. It makes sense to write of the Clinton Administration when you are writing of the Clinton Administration, but it is also rather common to use even bigger phrases that encompass so much more. The Progressive Era, the Post-War Era, etc. These transcend mere Presidents and escape the cult of personality aspect inherent in focusing solely on Presidents. Depending on how one approaches history, it is actually very easy, and not at all uncommon, to refer to something like the Warren Court or the Marshall Court. On matters economic, it is actually not uncommon to refer not to Presidents, but to Fed Chairman (Volcker, say), or to the inflationary period that preceded it (call it Stagflation, call it the Burns era). You fixate on Presidents. I don't. You believe in the objective truth of your proclamations. I don't.
Quote from: orfeo on July 07, 2016, 02:59:47 PM
Really? So all the stuff about where Obama was born and whether he was eligible to be President was "policy"?
Not exactly the same. Any other examples?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 07, 2016, 11:39:52 PM
Not exactly the same. Any other examples?
I only need one.
Quote from: orfeo on July 08, 2016, 02:04:51 AM
I only need one.
No. You need lots, because that was the reference - that the Clinton time was filled with scandals. You can't really expect to compare the whole birthing thing (something which any mainstream person had no issues with for the most part and is an accident of birth, so really isn't a scandal at all) to scandals that were because the person actually did something? I mean with Clinton, it seemed a constant barrage - Gennifer Flowers, Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Whitewater, Travelgate, multiple illegal fund-raising issues, the pardon thing (forget the guy's name), etc. And it seems to have continued with the Benghazi, emails, DOJ meeting on a plane, etc. We haven't really had that as much with Obama or Bush. Doesn't make them better Presidents, of course.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 07, 2016, 09:28:03 AM
Many of you may have forgotten how the Clinton administration went from scandal to scandal during its time in office. It was a bit maddening. Neither Bush nor Obama have had this issue (or rather the issue has been on policy rather than stuff like meeting on a plane).
Obama, no. But Bush? Seriously? Have you looked over a list of indicted and convicted criminals in the Bush administration lately? Google is our friend.
Chas Krauthammer, Comey: A Theory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/comey-a-theory/2016/07/07/297f9bd0-4478-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 08, 2016, 05:53:51 AM
Chas Krauthammer, Comey: A Theory (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/comey-a-theory/2016/07/07/297f9bd0-4478-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
As soon as he declares that gross negligence is proved I'm unimpressed. Legally, gross negligence consists of falling well below the expected standard of care. Clinton's defence to a claim of gross negligence is obvious: that she was doing very similar things to her predecessors. How exactly do you prove someone is well below the expected standard if they're doing the same thing as other people?
Quote from: orfeo on July 08, 2016, 06:21:23 AM
As soon as he declares that gross negligence is proved I'm unimpressed. Legally, gross negligence consists of falling well below the expected standard of care. Clinton's defence to a claim of gross negligence is obvious: that she was doing very similar things to her predecessors. How exactly do you prove someone is well below the expected standard if they're doing the same thing as other people?
Black's Law Dictionary on gross negligence:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmsICIfVUAEtuMA.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on July 08, 2016, 06:27:08 AM
Black's Law Dictionary on gross negligence:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmsICIfVUAEtuMA.jpg)
Willful misconduct it is.
Of course, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2016, 06:54:07 AM
Willful misconduct it is.
Except I think that to the extent the dictionary suggests that is a synonym, the dictionary is talking a load of tosh. Equating negligence with wilfulness makes no sense at all because negligence is not about intentions. Nor does the part using the term "reckless" make the slightest sense to me, because in this country at least "negligence" and "recklessness" have been explicitly defined to be different standards.
It is of course entirely possible that American lawyers have managed to define these things in ways utterly known to their counterparts in the rest of the English-speaking world (it would not be the only occasion). But right now I'm not exactly convinced that the parts of that dictionary that throw around "see also" terms are accurate.
Quote from: orfeo on July 08, 2016, 07:14:28 AM
Except I think that to the extent the dictionary suggests that is a synonym, the dictionary is talking a load of tosh. Equating negligence with wilfulness makes no sense at all because negligence is not about intentions. Nor does the part using the term "reckless" make the slightest sense to me, because in this country at least "negligence" and "recklessness" have been explicitly defined to be different standards.
I'm not sure how Todd arrived at the conclusion that it's not one term, but rather a synonym with nearly identical meaning?
Quote from: Brian on July 08, 2016, 07:17:18 AM
I'm not sure how Todd arrived at the conclusion that it's not one term, but rather a synonym with nearly identical meaning?
I'm not sure about the distinction you're making. I think Todd is perfectly justified in reading "also termed wilful and wanton misconduct" as equating gross neglience with wilful and wanton misconduct, and I doubt whether you use "wilful" or "wanton" or both makes much difference (other things in the lists suggest it doesn't make much difference).
It's not Todd I have a problem with, it's the dictionary. The actual definition part talks in terms of lack of care which is a thoroughly orthodox conception of neglience. But then it goes down other tracks that I don't agree with. I don't think "misconduct" equates with that at all well, and the second citation that they give explicitly warns against trying to equate negligence with recklessness but they do it anyway.
Quote from: orfeo on July 08, 2016, 07:22:55 AM
I'm not sure about the distinction you're making. I think Todd is perfectly justified in reading "also termed wilful and wanton misconduct" as equating gross neglience with wilful and wanton misconduct, and I doubt whether you use "wilful" or "wanton" or both makes much difference (other things in the lists suggest it doesn't make much difference).
It's not Todd I have a problem with, it's the dictionary. The actual definition part talks in terms of lack of care which is a thoroughly orthodox conception of neglience. But then it goes down other tracks that I don't agree with. I don't think "misconduct" equates with that at all well, and the second citation that they give explicitly warns against trying to equate negligence with recklessness but they do it anyway.
So you object specifically to definition #2.
Quote from: orfeo on July 08, 2016, 07:14:28 AMEquating negligence with wilfulness makes no sense at all because negligence is not about intentions.
I was simply referring to what is in the printed page with respect to what "several courts" have done. People can squabble all day about whether what she did was gross negligence. I don't really care.
People cannot, however, argue that the future President's actions did not constitute willful misconduct. She was advised to not do what she did. She did it anyway. She engaged in willful misconduct. She will not be indicted for any criminal activity, though. It's all good.
Hillary will pay a moderate political price through the summer for it. Maybe a few percentage points in polls.
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2016, 07:25:37 AM
She was advised to not do what she did.
Was she? Can you point me to this, because I've missed it in my (non-thorough) readings. What I've seen is that she asked for something else and was not given the thing she asked for. I haven't seen a statement that she asked for advice on her proposed alternative approach.
EDIT: I guess I'm proving you wrong about whether people can argue about wilful misconduct.
Quote from: orfeo on July 08, 2016, 07:33:05 AM
Was she? Can you point me to this, because I've missed it in my (non-thorough) readings. What I've seen is that she asked for something else and was not given the thing she asked for. I haven't seen a statement that she asked for advice on her proposed alternative approach.
EDIT: I guess I'm proving you wrong about whether people can argue about wilful misconduct.
My bad, you are correct, she was simply denied the specific items she requested, so she set up her own after that. I suppose one can argue that does not constitute willful misconduct. One can also argue it does, that it was reckless, and so forth. Hence, no indictment. And only a few points shaved off her polling numbers.
Frankly, I suspect the biggest thing that will save her polling numbers is a perception that Republicans don't care whether or not there's objectively sufficient evidence for a charge.
Which is no different to any number of other investigations where there are political motives and angles. But the more neutral part of the public is turned off when something starts looking like a witch hunt rather than a genuine attempt at the truth.
Quote from: orfeo on July 08, 2016, 07:45:35 AMWhich is no different to any number of other investigations where there are political motives and angles.
If Congress is holding hearings, there are political motives and angles.
Trump discovers missing articles to Constitution! (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/07/donald-trumps-pledge-to-defend-article-xii-of-constitution-raises-eyebrows/) (A whole bunch of them, apparently.)
Note the left wing rag that saw fit to publish this partisan filth.
Quote from: orfeo on July 08, 2016, 07:45:35 AM
Frankly, I suspect the biggest thing that will save her polling numbers is Trump
fixed that for you ;)
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2016, 07:49:29 AM
Trump discovers missing articles to Constitution! (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/07/donald-trumps-pledge-to-defend-article-xii-of-constitution-raises-eyebrows/) (A whole bunch of them, apparently.)
Note the left wing rag that saw fit to publish this partisan filth.
:D That's funny, I don't care
who you are! Not so much what The Donald said, but some of the senators' reactions, like the one who said "he doesn't speak from a teleprompter, he speaks from the heart". OK, I guess I'll buy it... ::)
8)
Quote from: orfeo on July 08, 2016, 07:45:35 AM
Frankly, I suspect the biggest thing that will save her polling numbers is a perception that Republicans don't care whether or not there's objectively sufficient evidence for a charge.
Which is no different to any number of other investigations where there are political motives and angles. But the more neutral part of the public is turned off when something starts looking like a witch hunt rather than a genuine attempt at the truth.
Brian's revision is noted, but this is another accurate revision.
I suspect the biggest thing that will save her polling numbers is the fact that Republicans don't care whether or not there's objectively sufficient evidence for a chargeIt's rather like the boy who cried wolf: having constantly charged her with corruption, abuse of power, lust for power, general disregard for the law, and alleged crimes for which there is little to no factual basis, claims of corruption and disregard for the law made against her sound merely monotonous.
And be it noted, I actually think that she was negligent with security to a degree that ought to disqualify her from office, even if no crime was committed.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 08, 2016, 10:00:32 AM
And be it noted, I actually think that she was negligent with security to a degree that ought to disqualify her from office, even if no crime was committed.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton.
The unwarranted hyperbole reflects but poorly, it cannot be denied.
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2016, 10:03:37 AM
Maybe I already asked this question a few months ago, but who do you suppose was the most qualified major nominee ever?
Negligence is spelled the same in French or English. But from reading the exchanges above, I'm not sure the meaning is the same. A matter of degree, not of actual difference. Negligence in French is regarded as a simple omission that led to unharmful consequences. There is no such thing as 'gross' negligence. The next degree is criminal negligence, such as that of failing to help someone whose life is in danger.
I'm not sure non-American readers understand the fuss about the emailgate. They (I) do realize there was negligence involved, but that pales infinitely when set aside actual policy-making. Kennedy and Mitterrand behaved poorly in terms of morals, but nobody seriously consider that this aspect of their lives has much relevance to their political stature.
I understand some people (including many editorialists in Canada) consider Clinton an habituée of half-lies, truth concealing and self-forgiveness statements, but I doubt this would interfere with soundness of judgment when it comes to policy-making, determination and sheer capacity to understand and take position in relation to complex issues.
Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac. Is there any contest ? When it boils down to a choice between Clinton and Trump as the next leader of the free world, the free world shudders not so much at american politics, as it does at the realization that Trump has gone so far in the race.
Quote from: André on July 08, 2016, 10:49:40 AM
Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac.
Oh, many of us in the US view him much the same.
The concern expressed by many Jews is that Trump, who earlier this year was slow to condemn former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and has on several occasions retweeted messages from white supremacists, is bringing into the mainstream a sentiment that has largely been relegated to the dark underworld of the Internet. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-vigorous-defense-of-anti-semitic-image-a-turning-point-for-many-jews/2016/07/08/720858e2-4450-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html)
Quote from: André on July 08, 2016, 10:49:40 AM
Negligence is spelled the same in French or English. But from reading the exchanges above, I'm not sure the meaning is the same. A matter of degree, not of actual difference. Negligence in French is regarded as a simple omission that led to unharmful consequences. There is no such thing as 'gross' negligence. The next degree is criminal negligence, such as that of failing to help someone whose life is in danger.
I'm not sure non-American readers understand the fuss about the emailgate. They (I) do realize there was negligence involved, but that pales infinitely when set aside actual policy-making. Kennedy and Mitterrand behaved poorly in terms of morals, but nobody seriously consider that this aspect of their lives has much relevance to their political stature.
I understand some people (including many editorialists in Canada) consider Clinton an habituée of half-lies, truth concealing and self-forgiveness statements, but I doubt this would interfere with soundness of judgment when it comes to policy-making, determination and sheer capacity to understand and take position in relation to complex issues.
Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac. Is there any contest ? When it boils down to a choice between Clinton and Trump as the next leader of the free world, the free world shudders not so much at american politics, as it does at the realization that Trump has gone so far in the race.
Balanced out by the view that Hillary is a high IQ megalomaniac. Conservatives seem to feel that Hillary will destroy the country on purpose, but Trump would destroy it by accident.
Mind you, among the conservatives there is actually a lot of support if not sympathy for Trump's positions. It is Trump's personality that they worry about, and most think he has adopted conservative positions for convenience and will abandon those positions when he feels it convenient if ever actually elected.
Quote from: André on July 08, 2016, 10:49:40 AM
Outside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac.
Not just outside of the US.
Quote from: André on July 08, 2016, 10:49:40 AM
I understand some people (including many editorialists in Canada) consider Clinton an habituée of half-lies, truth concealing and self-forgiveness statements, but I doubt this would interfere with soundness of judgment when it comes to policy-making, determination and sheer capacity to understand and take position in relation to complex issues.
The two halves of your sentence don't fit together. Why wouldn't "half-lies, truth concealing and self-forgiveness" interfere with her approach to policy?
QuoteOutside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac. Is there any contest ? When it boils down to a choice between Clinton and Trump as the next leader of the free world, the free world shudders not so much at american politics, as it does at the realization that Trump has gone so far in the race.
I think the "free world" will not do so badly under Clinton, but if I lived in the "not so free world," I'd be worried that my country would be next on her hit list.
Quote from: Brian on July 08, 2016, 10:49:02 AM
Maybe I already asked this question a few months ago, but who do you suppose was the most qualified major nominee ever?
There's no single answer, but some highly qualified people would include, excluding the Founding Fathers themselves:
John Quincy Adams
Henry Clay
James Buchanan
James Blaine
William Howard Taft
Richard Nixon
George HW Bush
This is based on national and international experience prior to getting a nod. Where does Hillary fit in among that group? (Buchanan is occasionally held up as the most qualified on paper, but he turned out to be arguably the worst President.)
Quote from: André on July 08, 2016, 10:49:40 AMOutside of the US (sorry guys), Trump is viewed as a low IQ megalomaniac.
The low-IQ charge is frankly a bit lazy. It's usually just used by people to simply denigrate others they don't like. I suspect Trump is intelligent. The megalomaniac part, sure, I'll buy that. I'd throw in manipulative and cynical, as well as shameless. He should never be President, and I find him obnoxious, but that doesn't make him dumb.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 08, 2016, 11:16:01 AMBalanced out by the view that Hillary is a high IQ megalomaniac.
This is disputed by an article I've posted before but it seems to have gone unnoticed, so let me try again. Arnovitz makes some excellent points which I think are very relevant to our discussion here. The 1996 article (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/02/26/hating-hillary) that has inspired Arnovitz' writing is also worthwhile.
Thinking About Hillary — A Plea for Reason (https://thepolicy.us/thinking-about-hillary-a-plea-for-reason-308fce6d187c#.iwsllujs2)
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2mo9iti.jpg)
Quote from: Rinaldo on July 08, 2016, 12:02:17 PMArnovitz makes some excellent points which I think are very relevant to our discussion here.
There is much hyperbole about both Clintons. However, two things really stick out about Hillary for me. First, she was given an "unofficial" role as chair of a task force to pass health care reform at the beginning of her husband's first term. This flouted existing federal law pertaining to nepotism; it violated the spirit if not the letter of the law. Second, she was one of the key architects of the Libyan debacle, which was undertaken without an AUMF or Congressional oversight, and which violated the War Powers Resolution. Throw in the opacity of the Clinton Foundation, the numerous high paid speeches to and for a variety of corporate interests, as well the extremely poor judgment she displayed regarding her email server, and there is more than enough to question whether she should be President and to question her honesty, integrity, and adherence to standard forms of behavior. Then there are her policy stances, some of which sound good and practical (I very much like the tax credit clawbacks she proposes), and some of which sound cynical in the extreme (her solar policy, her tax surcharge that is somehow tied to an improved jobs market).
I very strongly dislike Ms Clinton. She should not be President. She would be a better choice than Trump. But then, being shot in the calf is better than being shot in the thigh. Probably.
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2016, 11:45:21 AMThe low-IQ charge is frankly a bit lazy. It's usually just used by people to simply denigrate others they don't like. I suspect Trump is intelligent.
Fair enough, to be sure.
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2016, 12:18:41 PM
I very strongly dislike Ms Clinton. She should not be President. She would be a better choice than Trump.
A succinct précis of the present, erm, carnival.
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2016, 10:03:37 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 08, 2016, 01:00:32 PM
QuoteAnd be it noted, I actually think that she was negligent with security to a degree that ought to disqualify her from office, even if no crime was committed.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
QuoteThere has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton.
"I know Hillary and I think she'd make a great president or vice-president." -- Donald J. Trump, 2008
Obviously, we are misconstruing what he said . . . .
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2016, 11:45:21 AMThe low-IQ charge is frankly a bit lazy. It's usually just used by people to simply denigrate others they don't like. I suspect Trump is intelligent. The megalomaniac part, sure, I'll buy that. I'd throw in manipulative and cynical, as well as shameless. He should never be President, and I find him obnoxious, but that doesn't make him dumb.
I agree. He's not dumb. He has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If he makes untrue statements it is because he has no regard for truth or justice; he will say anything he thinks will benefit him. His supporters seem to think that he will use this skill for the benefit of the US (make America great again, etc). In business dealings he tends to make deals in which the project under-performs or fails, his investors or creditors get wiped out, and he makes a profit. (Atlantic City) I see no reason to believe the same won't hold if he becomes President.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2016, 09:42:24 AMHe has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Unless you are a practicing clinical psychologist or psychiatrist who has actually worked with Trump, in which case you would be acting unethically by disclosing your professional opinion in a public forum, you are merely engaging in the new-ish trend of personally attacking a person with science-y medical terms. You could more credibly say that Trump is an arrogant, manipulative asshole.
I agree that Trump's business record offers a reasonable basis for assessing how he might lead, though even there the analysis seems to neglect how businesses operate. Corporations and individual businessmen (and businesswomen) routinely set up separate corporate entities for new ventures, and if the ventures fail, the larger corporations or people limit their losses. That's precisely how it is supposed to work. Failures occur. Failures aren't bad in and of themselves. And the investors and creditors, unless they are small-time mom and pop types (and I don't mean the smaller boutique shops Trump has worked with), know exactly what they are doing and perform, or should perform, due diligence. I sometimes wonder if people on this forum have worked in the private sector, worked at a start-up, or been through a business failure. Businesses come and go. They're not people. It's OK.
Now, if Trump's business practices are worse than his competitors, and his failure rates higher, and the rate of litigation higher than normal, then those are salient points, as are the specific practices he engages in. Trump University offers a case in point where his practices reveal how he operates and exploits the poor and the dumb. This is far more salient than if Trump owes Deutshe Bank a chunk of change. Sort of. This latter fact is important because it would present a potential conflict of interest at the highest level, where the President himself, were Trump to get elected, might be in a position to bargain on and enforce international financial arrangements with foreign governments whose laws govern his creditors. I've not yet seen how this would be effectively addressed.
Beyond Trump's business dealings and potential conflicts of interest, his ignorance of foreign policy and military strategy, as exemplified by his prior absolute ignorance of what the nuclear triad is, are even better lines of attack. Trump bloviates about making America great again, and how tough he would be on terrorists, and so forth, but here Clinton and her allies should send out people of substance to attack Trump. Hell, they should see if Zbigniew Brzezinski is game, or maybe Leon Panetta, serious and qualified men both, to rip apart Trump's nonsense. Since Commander in Chief is the primary job of the President, at least if one adheres to the Constitution, this is a great line of attack.
There are many more effective ways of taking on Trump than what amounts to name calling. To his credit, though, depending on how one views campaigning, he has helped make this the least policy-focused campaign in memory. It's all about personalities.
I base my comment on trumps personality on an article by a clinical psychology professor who said he used to hire actors to portray narcicistic personality disorder for his students, but now plays video of trump speeches instead.
I've worked 37 years in a bank, including (briefly) in the corporate field. It is true that businesses "come and go" (as human beings do, obviously). But when flags raise to signal abnormal corporate or personal behaviours or abnormally short (economic) life spans, one has to try harder to understand the mechanism at work. When a pattern emerges, it is only normal to call into question the decision-making process. I have seen hundreds of people or businesses 'go'. In most cases, the fault (when there was one) could be laid squarely on the individual's doormat (whether they are individuals or CEOs and other key financial operatives).
Our financial system is at fault for lending too much money based on very short-term financial prospects of profit. Banks rarely study or anticipate future trends. In a consumer-based economy, trends and buying patterns are essential. If you see 2 years of profits and an uncertain future beyond, investors should be made aware of the short term aspect of the data at hand. But that never happens. It's all about the next bottom line. http://tradicionclasica.blogspot.ca/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html (http://tradicionclasica.blogspot.ca/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html) Après moi, le déluge, said King Louis XV. It's never been so true as in the past 30 years. Trump is a past master at that way of thinking (and acting). That is something I equate with a low IQ reasoning for someone aspiring to lead a country. Me, myself and I.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2016, 11:12:20 AM
I base my comment on trumps personality on an article by a clinical psychology professor who said he used to hire actors to portray narcicistic personality disorder for his students, but now plays video of trump speeches instead.
I see, one professor, who presumably has not met Trump and clearly has not worked with him professionally, now plays videos of Trump speeches, so therefore Trump is what you say he is. No possibility of bias there.
Quote from: André on July 09, 2016, 11:43:27 AMBut when flags raise to signal abnormal corporate or personal behaviours or abnormally short (economic) life spans, one has to try harder to understand the mechanism at work.
I'm not sure what an abnormally short life span is as it pertains to businesses, especially since the purpose of some companies is short term at inception. I've worked with, and still work with, clients that set up complex webs of no-employee LLCs, shifting ownership of assets between them based on asset status, with the express purpose of winding down all operations upon liquidation of all assets. I'm not familiar with Trump's specific business dealings - and I'm certain no one on this forum is, either - but I would not be surprised if he engages in that type of structuring on occasion, and I'm not at all surprised that he has had many bankruptcies in his various companies. Without some type of meaningful review of his business history that takes into account all the factors involved - purpose, corporate type, market conditions, etc - I am skeptical of claims that he is an especially bad businessman. Or a particularly good one. This offers an exceptionally feeble basis on which to assess Trump's intelligence.
Quote from: Todd on July 09, 2016, 12:58:13 PM
I see, one professor, who presumably has not met Trump and clearly has not worked with him professionally, now plays videos of Trump speeches, so therefore Trump is what you say he is. No possibility of bias there.
I'm not sure what an abnormally short life span is as it pertains to businesses, especially since the purpose of some companies is short term at inception. I've worked with, and still work with, clients that set up complex webs of no-employee LLCs, shifting ownership of assets between them based on asset status, with the express purpose of winding down all operations upon liquidation of all assets. I'm not familiar with Trump's specific business dealings - and I'm certain no one on this forum is, either - but I would not be surprised if he engages in that type of structuring on occasion, and I'm not at all surprised that he has had many bankruptcies in his various companies. Without some type of meaningful review of his business history that takes into account all the factors involved - purpose, corporate type, market conditions, etc - I am skeptical of claims that he is an especially bad businessman. Or a particularly good one. This offers an exceptionally feeble basis on which to assess Trump's intelligence.
Doesn't matter, any of this. As citizens of this country we are judging the suitability of this and one other principal competitor to serve in its most important leadership position (and I don't care if you call it running the country, leading the country, or any other nit you may choose to pick), and we are not required to hold degrees in clinical psychology or to interview the subject or to administer an IQ test in order to express our feelings about either person's character, judgment, or intellect. The terms any of us choose to use are immaterial; the point is at least with Trump that many of us have grave doubts about the man's character, judgment, and intellect. And whether the vocabulary we use is clinically precise doesn't matter in the slightest. In the minds of many of the electorate something is seriously wrong with this guy and I don't care for a moment whether you call him a narcissist, an egomaniac, a sociopath, a psychopath, an "arrogant, manipulative asshole," some of the above, or all of the above.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 09, 2016, 01:33:38 PMThe terms any of us choose to use are immaterial
Of course you would write that, you resorted to actual dehumanizing language when you called Trump an insect.
The point is actually very clear and simple: You can dislike Trump, but saying Trump has a low IQ, or he's a psychopath, or suffers from some other psychological problem is nothing other than name calling. People are just trying to use respectable terminology when doing so. It supposedly sounds or reads so much more serious. Except it doesn't.
A rundown of Trump's retreats into Chapter 11
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/
Quote from: Todd on July 09, 2016, 03:01:15 PM
Of course you would write that, you resorted to actual dehumanizing language when you called Trump an insect.
The point is actually very clear and simple: You can dislike Trump, but saying Trump has a low IQ, or he's a psychopath, or suffers from some other psychological problem is nothing other than name calling.
So is calling him an "arrogant, manipulative asshole." These things happen in the political heat of emotion all the time. Someone on That Other Board called Obama a "useful idiot" (better, I suppose, than calling him a "useless idiot"). So someone said Trump has a low IQ? Rudy Giuliani said of Joe Biden that: "I mean, there's a real fear if — God forbid — he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it. ...This guy just isn't bright, he's never been bright, he isn't bright."
It's just politics. All part of the game. Not to be taken so literally. When I called Trump an insect, I was complimenting him by placing him so high in the animal kingdom.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 09, 2016, 03:17:29 PMIt's just politics. All part of the game. Not to be taken so literally. When I called Trump an insect, I was complimenting him by placing him so high in the animal kingdom.
Of course you weren't complimenting him, now you are just being dishonest. That's fine, but let's not pretend otherwise. (And yes, I got your clever new insult.)
I get it, now you are not so serious, but before your proclamations of Trump's psychopathy were very earnest indeed. People like to use science-y words, specifically, because they provide a patina of objectivity and seriousness. I know that game. I know it's bullshit. It's fun to watch people write about how it's not bullshit.
Quote from: Todd on July 09, 2016, 03:23:18 PM
I get it, now you are not so serious, but before your proclamations of Trump's psychopathy were very earnest indeed. People like to use science-y words, specifically, because they provide a patina of objectivity and seriousness. I know that game. I know it's bullshit. It's fun to watch people write about how it's not bullshit.
I protest. I called him a sociopath, not a psychopath.
Quote from: Todd on July 09, 2016, 03:01:15 PM
Of course you would write that, you resorted to actual dehumanizing language when you called Trump an insect.
The point is actually very clear and simple: You can dislike Trump, but saying Trump has a low IQ, or he's a psychopath, or suffers from some other psychological problem is nothing other than name calling. People are just trying to use respectable terminology when doing so. It supposedly sounds or reads so much more serious. Except it doesn't.
And, of course, all of your self-important bloviating should be taken at face value...
Quote from: Todd on July 09, 2016, 12:58:13 PMI see, one professor, who presumably has not met Trump and clearly has not worked with him professionally, now plays videos of Trump speeches, so therefore Trump is what you say he is. No possibility of bias there.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck.. you know the drill. I don't think a professorship (nor bias) is needed to tell Trump is the poster boy for narcissism. As an experienced narcissist myself, I sure know one when I see one!
Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2016, 09:22:21 PM
And, of course, all of your self-important bloviating should be taken at face value...
You can take my posts however you like. But you really ought to expect others to point out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed post was anything but.
Quote from: Rinaldo on July 10, 2016, 12:47:03 AMI don't think a professorship (nor bias) is needed to tell Trump is the poster boy for narcissism.
No, but one needs actual credentials and experience with the person in question to be able to make an actual diagnosis. Otherwise, it's just bullshit.
Quote from: Rinaldo on July 10, 2016, 12:47:03 AM
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck.. you know the drill. I don't think a professorship (nor bias) is needed to tell Trump is the poster boy for narcissism. As an experienced narcissist myself, I sure know one when I see one!
Ha!
Part of what Todd is referring to is the "Goldwater Rule", issued by the American Psychiatric Association:
"On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However,
it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."
Thus any accusations that Trump has a personality disorder will remain partisan political attacks - however self-evidently true - rather than credible expert opinions. I do personally believe Trump is mentally ill, but with the understanding that, no matter how many symptoms he displays, it will not be a proven fact.
Quote from: Brian on July 10, 2016, 06:12:19 AM
Thus any accusations that Trump has a personality disorder will remain partisan political attacks - however self-evidently true - rather than credible expert opinions. I do personally believe Trump is mentally ill, but with the understanding that, no matter how many symptoms he displays, it will not be a proven fact.
Facts? Credibility? Credentials? Pfft. Opinions formed from snippets on TV or a few fleeting column inches online are much better, more reliable guides to the world.
Quote from: Brian on July 10, 2016, 06:12:19 AM
Ha!
Part of what Todd is referring to is the "Goldwater Rule", issued by the American Psychiatric Association:
"On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."
Thus any accusations that Trump has a personality disorder will remain partisan political attacks - however self-evidently true - rather than credible expert opinions. I do personally believe Trump is mentally ill, but with the understanding that, no matter how many symptoms he displays, it will not be a proven fact.
Yes, but we're not psychiatrists or pretend to be, and thus we're not bound by that rule. As for personality disorder, there have been many politicians I've disliked intensely for one reason or other, but he is the only one I have ever thought of as mentally unbalanced. And if you "do personally believe Trump is mentally ill," then you are saying nothing different from what Scarpia, Rinaldo, or I myself have been saying.
Quote from: Todd on July 10, 2016, 06:09:31 AM
You can take my posts however you like. But you really ought to expect others to point out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed post was anything but.
I should put together some sort of computer program that scans this site and automatically points out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed posts are bullshit.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 10, 2016, 06:31:48 AM
I should put together some sort of computer program that scans this site and automatically points out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed posts are bullshit.
What, don't you realize that Todd is the only person among us with any kind of intellectual integrity? Why, he never ceases to remind us himself on every occasion.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 10, 2016, 06:26:53 AMYes, but we're not psychiatrists or pretend to be, and thus we're not bound by that rule.
Now we're getting somewhere. Since you are not psychiatrists and do not pretend to be, your statements are nothing more than name calling. Much better to just say he's nuts rather than trying to use actual diagnoses you're not at all qualified to make. Of course, it loses that science-y patina. Dilemmas.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 10, 2016, 06:31:48 AMI should put together some sort of computer program that scans this site and automatically points out that your supposedly thoughtful, informed posts are bullshit.
Have at it. Let everyone know when you're ready for testing.
Quote from: Todd on July 10, 2016, 06:24:58 AM
Facts? Credibility? Credentials? Pfft. Opinions formed from snippets on TV or a few fleeting column inches online are much better, more reliable guides to the world.
And in my case, actually attending a Trump rally ;)
Quote from: Todd on July 10, 2016, 06:34:22 AM
Now we're getting somewhere. Since you are not psychiatrists and do not pretend to be, your statements are nothing more than name calling. Much better to just say he's nuts rather than trying to use actual diagnoses you're not at all qualified to make. Of course, it loses that science-y patina. Dilemmas.
No dilemma at all. The question is why
this particular individual has incited so many similar reactions (I could easily scan the comments section from the NY Times or any other paper for numerous similar examples). I despise Paul Ryan, but I have never questioned his mental stability. I never even questioned Sarah Palin's (well . . . . . ) And it's not as if all we've seen from Trump are a few snippets on TV or a few column inches. He's been shown in numerous debates, rallies, and speeches at great length, and has been discussed in thousands of newspaper and magazine analyses. I don't need a clinical degree to be more worried by this individual than anyone I've seen enter politics.
Quote from: Brian on July 10, 2016, 06:49:11 AM
And in my case, actually attending a Trump rally ;)
Did you score a hat?
Quote from: Brian on July 10, 2016, 06:49:11 AM
And in my case, actually attending a Trump rally ;)
I'm sorry.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 10, 2016, 06:49:25 AMI don't need a clinical degree to be more worried by this individual than anyone I've seen enter politics.
True. But you do need one to credibly diagnose mental illness. You get that, right?
See, here's a problem that crops up on this forum a lot: taking a thoughtful opinion on a subject like Trump's fitness for office - and I agree, he is not fit for office - and then spicing it up with pseudo-scientific gibberish. Throw in a science-y word or a medical diagnosis, and the intent is to make it seem more serious. It actually seems less serious and purely partisan; it seems reflexive, not thoughtful. Why not just quote a lengthy portion of one of his rally speeches, point out the inconsistencies, the rambling nature, the factual errors, the immoral or amoral promises, and so on? Trump is an easy target.
Also, what about Tom Eagleton? Do you really think he was stable enough to assume the Presidency?
Quote from: Todd on July 10, 2016, 07:03:57 AM
1 True. But you do need one to credibly diagnose mental illness. You get that, right?
2 See, here's a problem that crops up on this forum a lot: taking a thoughtful opinion on a subject like Trump's fitness for office - and I agree, he is not fit for office - and then spicing it up with pseudo-scientific gibberish. Throw in a science-y word or a medical diagnosis, and the intent is to make it seem more serious. It actually seems less serious and purely partisan; it seems reflexive, not thoughtful. Why not just quote a lengthy portion of one of his rally speeches, point out the inconsistencies, the rambling nature, the factual errors, the immoral or amoral promises, and so on? Trump is an easy target.
3 Also, what about Tom Eagleton? Do you really think he was stable enough to assume the Presidency?
1 Of course "I get that." Condescend away; you do it so well.
2 "See, here's a problem that crops up on this forum a lot." Where, other than this issue?
And of course he's an easy target. That doesn't explain why he is realizing so much support, especially worrying for those of us who believe his possible presidency could be so dangerous.
3 Eagleton never got as far as Trump did, being McGovern's VP pick, and he quit the race before the election, to be replaced by Shriver.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 10, 2016, 07:37:11 AM
2 "See, here's a problem that crops up on this forum a lot." Where, other than this issue?
And of course he's an easy target. That doesn't explain why he is realizing so much support, especially worrying for those of us who believe his possible presidency could be so dangerous.
The words "psychopath" and "sociopath", in particular, have shown up in a number of threads on a number of topics. They have been intellectually trendy for a few years, so it is not surprising. Variants on narcissism pop up here and there, too. I wonder how long until some form of "intersectionality" gets misused on the forum.
I thought Trump's support was relatively easy to understand. He is appealing mostly to disaffected whites who believe they are getting a raw deal, and Trump is resorting to tried and true nativism to point to the appropriate bad guys. He also is resorting to that other old standby, economic nationalism, promising said disaffected whites that they will get their due. Add the perceived threat of terrorism - which Obama has done a poor job communicating on, if a practically though not legally reasonable job addressing - and you have a pretty good set of conditions for a strong man to thrive in.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 10, 2016, 07:37:11 AM
3 Eagleton never got as far as Trump did, being McGovern's VP pick, and he quit the race before the election, to be replaced by Shriver.
Though only after it was exposed after he been selected and his own doctors stated he could put the country at risk if his depression returned. He got pretty darned close to being the VP selection to be crushed by Nixon. I doubt Hillary wins by a similar margin this year.
Evan Bayh is mounting a return bid to the U.S. Senate, giving national Democrats a boost as they aim to retake the chamber in November.
Quote from: Todd on July 10, 2016, 07:55:25 AM
The words "psychopath" and "sociopath", in particular, have shown up in a number of threads on a number of topics. They have been intellectually trendy for a few years, so it is not surprising. Variants on narcissism pop up here and there, too.
I'm not offering a qualified opinion, just
reporting (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/30/donald-trump-narcissist-in-chief-not-commander-in-chief/#63ebd4955595) (e.g.) I'll be certain in future, when referring to El Tupé as a narcissist, to specify that the diagnosis is not my own.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 11, 2016, 06:44:25 AM
Evan Bayh is mounting a return bid to the U.S. Senate, giving national Democrats a boost as they aim to retake the chamber in November.
Is that really a boost? Dude was a big name 20 years ago...
Quote from: karlhenning on July 11, 2016, 06:48:53 AM
I'm not offering a qualified opinion, just reporting (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/30/donald-trump-narcissist-in-chief-not-commander-in-chief/#63ebd4955595) (e.g.) I'll be certain in future, when referring to El Tupé as a narcissist, to specify that the diagnosis is not my own.
Well, yes. Google "Trump narcissist" or "Trump sociopath" or "Trump megalomaniac" or "Trump egomaniac" and you will find dozens of entries each maintaining the same point - some in fact by professionally qualified psychologists. And even if technically one is right to invoke the Goldwater rule or any other standard of professional conduct, we're not just talking about one individual's personal privacy and the stakes are much too high for me to be impressed by such niceties. Even our friend Brian writes, "I do personally believe Trump is mentally ill, but with the understanding that, no matter how many symptoms he displays, it will not be a proven fact." But proven fact or no, something about Trump has led Brian and numerous others to that belief, which I doubt he would share towards Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, or any number of additional names on what I'm fairly certain he would consider on the other side of the aisle.
So if Trump becomes president, Karl can compose a bunch of Songs For a Mad President...
Quote from: Jo498 on July 11, 2016, 07:50:36 AM
So if Trump becomes president, Karl can compose a bunch of Songs For a Mad President...
. . . using as texts The Donald's tweets . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 11, 2016, 07:57:07 AM
. . . using as texts The Donald's tweets . . . .
Karl, please do this.
Songs for a Mad President
on texts by Donald Trump
for shouter and marimba
Quote from: Brian on July 11, 2016, 07:58:09 AM
Karl, please do this.
Songs for a Mad President
on texts by Donald Trump
for shouter and marimba
That's a brilliant idea! Something to perform alongside
The Mysterious Fruit, Op.124.
Quote from: Brian on July 11, 2016, 07:58:09 AM
Karl, please do this.
Songs for a Mad President
on texts by Donald Trump
for shouter and marimba
Lol! That would be awesome! :laugh:
Make the Marimba Great Again!
I know that human beings and marimbas can coexist peacefully.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 11, 2016, 08:41:47 AMMake the Marimba Great Again!
(* chortle *)When Scandinavia sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing harps. They're bringing chimes. They're symphonists.. And some, I assume, are good people..
Quote from: Rinaldo on July 11, 2016, 12:07:10 PM
(* chortle *)
When Scandinavia sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing harps. They're bringing chimes. They're symphonists.. And some, I assume, are good people..
;D :D ;D
Sarge
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 11, 2016, 07:40:09 AM
Well, yes. Google "Trump narcissist" or "Trump sociopath" or "Trump megalomaniac" or "Trump egomaniac" and you will find dozens of entries each maintaining the same point - some in fact by professionally qualified psychologists. And even if technically one is right to invoke the Goldwater rule or any other standard of professional conduct, we're not just talking about one individual's personal privacy and the stakes are much too high for me to be impressed by such niceties. Even our friend Brian writes, "I do personally believe Trump is mentally ill, but with the understanding that, no matter how many symptoms he displays, it will not be a proven fact." But proven fact or no, something about Trump has led Brian and numerous others to that belief, which I doubt he would share towards Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, or any number of additional names on what I'm fairly certain he would consider on the other side of the aisle.
I forgot. I asked my friend, former head of psychiatry at a major hospital, about your diagnosis. Eye rolling derision.
Quote from: Ken B on July 11, 2016, 02:03:15 PM
I forgot. I asked my friend, former head of psychiatry at a major hospital, about your diagnosis. Eye rolling derision.
Aw, I'm crushed.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 11, 2016, 02:09:18 PM
Aw, I'm crushed.
Oh if I am sure of one thing it is that refutation never affects you.
Quote from: Ken B on July 11, 2016, 02:13:57 PM
Oh if I am sure of one thing it is that refutation never affects you.
Certainty is always to be embraced in an uncertain world.
"Something about the Clintons sets the GOP to howling at the moon." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-survives-another-salem-trial/2016/07/11/62435c92-478c-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
As I have repeatedly said ere now, I am neither Republican nor a fan of Clinton; but Mr Cohen here does seem to me to have a point.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 12, 2016, 04:28:19 AM
"Something about the Clintons sets the GOP to howling at the moon." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-survives-another-salem-trial/2016/07/11/62435c92-478c-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
As I have repeatedly said ere now, I am neither Republican nor a fan of Clinton; but Mr Cohen here does seem to me to have a point.
Cohen: "Their [Republican] denunciations of her are so at variance with even the contested facts that it suggests a
psychosis — "
But isn't Mr. Cohen here indulging in the unpardonable sin of making a diagnosis of the mental instability of not just one sick individual, but all members of an entire political party? And doesn't this violate the all-important Goldwater Rule? Shouldn't this blatant lack of intellectual honesty be referred immediately to some former head of psychiatry at a major hospital for that oh-so-professional response, eye-rolling derision? And where are the GMG Thought Police now, when they should be solemnly wagging their fingers at this pseudo-scientific attempt at amateur psychiatric analysis? O tempora, o mores!
Well, I might argue that his writing that it suggests a psychosis is in fact charitable, as it speculates medical impairment rather than shady morality. Mr Cohen wants to think the best of the snuffling herd.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 12, 2016, 04:57:15 AM
Well, I might argue that his writing that it suggests a psychosis is in fact charitable, as it speculates medical impairment rather than shady morality. Mr Cohen wants to think the best of the snuffling herd.
Ah, the insanity defense.
But at least
he's not psychotic:
http://tinyurl.com/gp2jjfj
If I may be allowed (pun intented) to offer a non-US, specifically Romanian perspective...
Hillary vs Trump...
Hillary --- most certainly business as usual about NATO and the Western World (both of which Romania is a faithful and staunch ally and member)....
Trump --- unpredictable maverick...
Ergo
Cross my fingers for Hillary Clinton!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
All hail Hillary! ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 12, 2016, 08:12:38 AM
If I may be allowed (pun intented) to offer a non-US, specifically Romanian perspective...
Hillary vs Trump...
Hillary --- most certainly business as usual about NATO and the Western World (both of which Romania is a faithful and staunch ally and member)....
Trump --- unpredictable maverick...
Ergo
Cross my fingers for Hillary Clinton!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
All hail Hillary! ;D
Yes, in this election, Hillary is definitely the small "c" conservative candidate.
So you all are still in it for the "extremely careless" candidate who may be investigated for "perjury"?
You'd give her a Security Clearance? (eh- don't bring the other guy into this, please,- let's fry this goose here, eh?)
You can all do the Patriotic Thing and NOT VOTE to show you believe the system of choosing candidates is beyond corrupt.
I mean, this woman you're all going to vote for the Most Powerful Job in the Universe in the most openly corrupt, rage prone, lying, sociopathic- diabolical narcissist -
SERIOUSLY???
YOU GUYS WOULD VOTE FOR THE DEVIL CAUSE YOU THINK GOD'S A 'MEANY'
That's what it seems to boil down to (and please, - I don't even count Trump- I mean, he's LIKE GOD in that classic megalomaniacal way- but- listen Americans- you seem to deserve one or the other-
1) either a KNOWING LIAR and CAREER CRIMINAL... ENABLER...might as well say MURDERER...
or
2) a DICATATOR- possibly beneficent, possiblycorrupt, possibly globalist in sheep's clothing...
Hillary seems to KNOW she can do what.so.ever. she pleases because of people like you who will put her at the head of the universe REGARDLESS of if she gets caught sucking the blood from a black baby's neck!
Either way, I get to yell at ALL OF YOU till 2024- since you're all going to make A MOST AWFUL CHOICE OF A DECISION IN 2020!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have all been warned ahead of time of your own folly. Just watch what you do in the NEXT election- oh, that's gonna be rich!!!
LOVE RANTING ON THIS THREAD
BLABLALBLALBLALBLBLALLBLBLALLBLALBLALBLALBLA
Quote from: snyprrr on July 12, 2016, 07:21:48 PM
I mean, this woman you're all going to vote for the Most Powerful Job in the Universe in the most openly corrupt, rage prone, lying, sociopathic- diabolical narcissist -
Where are the Thought Police now???
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 12, 2016, 07:42:35 PM
Where are the Thought Police now???
OK, YOU'RE RIGHT, SHE'S JUST A NICE LITTLE OLD LADY WHO WOULDN'T HURT A FLY (whoops- to lazy to go back-lol!!)
Yea, she's innocent of everything she's ever been accused of-
She's a "good suffering wife" instead of "floozy firewall attacker"... yea, she's real big on women's rights to be believed... yea,... ok,...
you're right!
ho!-
It just came to me in an instant-
(poco) sfz KNOWS that people who SEEK the High Office can't possssibly be sociopathic narcissists- nooooooo (unless they're thaaaat guy????)
No- Billy didn't sell out USA for campaign cash....noooooo......
They never had one line of cocaina in their lives
NOT ONE LINE OF THE OLE YAYOYO IN THE NOSTRILS OF EITHER OF THESE TWO SACRED BLESSED DEMIURGES --
ALL HAIL THE GOOD AND THE PURE HILLARY ---FLOWING IN WHITE SILK
LET NO MAN SAY SHE IS A SOCIOPATHIC NARCISSISTIC MURDERING POWER DRUNK PANDERING LIAR LIAR DIES IN A FIRE LIAR
NO NO NO
HER PURITY IS OUR PURITY
BE NICE. HILLARY 2016
(No babies were eaten approving this message..... opps, I'm sorry, no, babies were eaten, lots and lots of babies were eaten!)
Seriously, we live is a world conditioned since the war to be populated with narcissus generalaticus- the common me me me in us all (we're on a frivolous music forum- how many Narcissi dwell here??)- so, you see, if you see not the sociopathic narcissus in the hilldawg, it is only because you have allowed anger, fear, jealousy, and pride to rule your OWN life, and you approve of her message in that you ant wanton lawlessness multiplied to the heavens and see your enemies drowning in the richest rivers of blood this side of Rwanda!!
There, I'm glad I could clear that up.
I AM JUST HOP FROG
hop froggy, hop!!
So, I take it you believe Lynch when she said she met Bill on her plane on the tarmac, kicked all people and cameras off, and then just spoke about summer and apple pie, and at no time, as Lynch then told the reporter, AT NO TIME, did they discuss A, B, C, or D. (or, you know)
so, poco, you believe the AG here? The same New York AG Lynch who got off Comey's BankCorp? That same Lynch?
How many times has the lawyer Comey gotten Clinton off?
Do you ask any of these questions????
yES, YOU hILLdAWG lOVERS- LIKE A DEAR DEAR FAMILY MEMBER- ALL DRIVE ME NUTS. YES, i'M STARTING TO BELIEVE (omg- sorry) i'm starting to believe that you are all under some kind of spell or something... it's Trump, that's obvious... the man's mere name has gotten you all so aflutter that you would pick someone of her HORRIBLE CREDENTIALS- are you kidding me she's not an acting sociopath?????
You are all living in Gotterdammerung and don't even know your Pompeii is on the doorstep.....
You're giving the keys of a nation to a criminal because it has a vagina... and "that's not cool, man" as the hipsters like to say these days. If she were a man she'd be NewtG., and yet, as a woman, you'd vote for her. What a mad mad world.
I'm just ranting..... i need to go to bed.... you all are crazed sociopathic navel gazers bent on social suicide,.... goodnight kiss kiss....love you all.....
"I love everyone.... but you must die!"
The false dichotomies are flowing freely. And possibly the wine as well.
Quote from: orfeo on July 12, 2016, 11:13:30 PM
The false dichotomies are flowing freely. And possibly the wine as well.
More likely wood alcohol.
Quote from: snyprrr on July 12, 2016, 08:25:23 PM
I'm just ranting..... i need to go to bed.... you all are crazed sociopathic navel gazers bent on social suicide,.... goodnight kiss kiss....love you all.....
Sleep it off, snypes. I have no problem with you calling Hill a sociopath so long as you have no problem with me saying the same about Don.
A long wait, flushing the soy lecithin out of the system.
Thomas Friedman would like to see a democratic clean sweep in the election. Possibly the most surprising thing I've seen so far.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/the-gop-partys-over.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Quote from: Mookalafalas on July 13, 2016, 04:58:00 AM
Thomas Friedman would like to see a democratic clean sweep in the election. Possibly the most surprising thing I've seen so far.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/the-gop-partys-over.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
For all Hillary's flaws, I wouldn't mind that at this point. But maybe the best thing would be to adopt the British system, where picking the PM takes a couple of weeks or even days rather than this protracted American circus.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 13, 2016, 03:53:35 AM
Sleep it off, snypes. I have no problem with you calling Hill a sociopath so long as you have no problem with me saying the same about Don.
woke up with yet another mild headache..... is the AC unit freezing my brain at night?....is it caffeine?.... ugh....
I hope you're all happy, lol- now please take the pin out of the kewpie doll!!
Quote from: snyprrr on July 12, 2016, 08:02:51 PM
OK, YOU'RE RIGHT, SHE'S JUST A NICE LITTLE OLD LADY WHO WOULDN'T HURT A FLY (whoops- to lazy to go back-lol!!)
Yea, she's innocent of everything she's ever been accused of-
pretty much, yes.
She's been persecuted by the other party for more than twenty years; Republicans have spent around 100 million dollars of taxpayer money in investigations on all those efforts yielded nothing actionable as yet.
I keep reading that Trump doesn't like to spend much time away from his home (i.e. Trump Tower); particularly at night.
Shouldn't one of his kids tell him that part of being a US president involves spending days and nights at the White House?
Trump and his children all met with Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Jeff Sessions today in Indianapolis. Trump also spoke on the phone with Chris Christie. Latest report is he still hasn't decided who to choose as VP, but will be going with his gut, of course. He will introduce his VP at a public event Friday, though the name might leak earlier.
Quote from: Herman on July 13, 2016, 12:15:30 PM
pretty much, yes.
She's been persecuted by the other party for more than twenty years; Republicans have spent around 100 million dollars of taxpayer money in investigations on all those efforts yielded nothing actionable as yet.
Yes, Herman, but for the Hillary-Haters, the very fact that she has been acquitted so decisively is proof positive of her guilt.
Quote from: Brian on July 13, 2016, 12:49:41 PM
Trump and his children all met with Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Jeff Sessions today in Indianapolis. Trump also spoke on the phone with Chris Christie. Latest report is he still hasn't decided who to choose as VP, but will be going with his gut, of course. He will introduce his VP at a public event Friday, though the name might leak earlier.
Truth to tell, the only acceptable VP for Donald J. Trump would be Donald J. Trump.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 13, 2016, 12:57:38 PM
Truth to tell, the only acceptable VP for Donald J. Trump would be Donald J. Trump.
I quite enjoyed that week where the media all suggested he pick his daughter.
Quote from: Brian on July 13, 2016, 01:02:29 PM
I quite enjoyed that week where the media all suggested he pick his daughter.
Not just the media, a bona fide US senator. Who said looks don't matter?
QuoteForget readiness to be commander-in-chief. If beauty were the top job requirement for Vice President of the United States, Sen. Bob Corker and Eric Trump have just the candidate for Donald Trump – his daughter Ivanka.
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker – who removed himself from the VP running on Wednesday – suggested that Trump pick his daughter Ivanka Trump as his running mate during an interview with NBC News.
"His best running mate by the way would be Ivanka," Corker advised. "I know that wouldn't pass muster probably but I don't know if I've met a more composed, brilliant, beautiful-in-every-way person."
Ivanka even has the support of her brother Eric, who told Fox & Friends on Thursday that his sister has "certainly got my vote."
"She's got the beautiful looks, she's smart, she's smart, smart, smart," he said, noting that Ivanka would make the constitutional age requirement of 35 by just a few days, as her birthday is Oct. 30. "She's amazing."
See? not only is she smart, she's smart, smart, smart.
http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-vice-president
Must take after her mother.
Sorry, couldn't resist!
"An insane racist in orange greasepaint."
- Bill Maher, heard on the Chris Matthews show
Quote from: karlhenning on July 13, 2016, 03:56:39 AM
A long wait, flushing the soy lecithin out of the system.
he has a system??? ???
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 13, 2016, 04:06:14 PM
"An insane racist in orange greasepaint."
- Bill Maher, heard on the Chris Matthews show
On a completely different topic, isn't it surprising that political opportunists should appeal to tribalism and identity politics? What could make them think that even well educated voters really only want that? What I ask, what?
Quote from: Ken B on July 14, 2016, 07:11:19 AM
On a completely different topic, isn't it surprising that political opportunists should appeal to tribalism and identity politics? What could make them think that even well educated voters really only want that? What I ask, what?
What indeed? That was just one quip taken from a 10-minute interview you apparently didn't see, and was inserted merely to show that Sforzando and Company are not the only ones to question Mr. Trump's mental stability. But then, Bill Maher hasn't had the benefit of your "refutation," which is merely a hearsay report of an unnamed source whose "case" is nothing more than off-hand ridicule.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 14, 2016, 08:11:24 AM
What indeed? That was just one quip taken from a 10-minute interview you apparently didn't see, and was inserted merely to show that Sforzando and Company are not the only ones to question Mr. Trump's mental stability. But then, Bill Maher hasn't had the benefit of your "refutation," which is merely a hearsay report of an unnamed source whose "case" is nothing more than off-hand ridicule.
You cite a comedian, I cite a head of psychiatry. So hard to choose.
Quote from: Ken B on July 14, 2016, 08:00:40 PM
You cite a comedian, I cite a head of psychiatry. So hard to choose.
You've "cited" nothing. Hearsay is hearsay, and your alleged source doesn't even offer an argument. But you take yourself so solemnly, it's such fun to yank your chain.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 15, 2016, 03:00:51 AM
You've "cited" nothing. Hearsay is hearsay, and your alleged source doesn't even offer an argument. But you take yourself so solemnly, it's such fun to yank your chain.
You are seriously saying a psychiatrist needs to make an argument that an amateur cannot make a psychiatric diagnosis of someone he has never even met?
Quote from: Ken B on July 15, 2016, 05:49:43 AM
You are seriously saying a psychiatrist needs to make an argument that an amateur cannot make a psychiatric diagnosis of someone he has never even met?
You really can't give this up, can you? Of course I know an amateur "diagnosis" counts for nothing. I perfectly well understand the Goldwater rule and standards of professional conduct (which I suspect don't include "derisive laughter" as a means of "refutation"). What I have stated was nothing more than a personal impression, just the same as when Brian states he thinks Trump "mentally ill" but cannot prove as much. But other qualified psychologists have not hidden behind the Goldwater rule for fear of being sued, and have stated what many in the general public already suspect:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/
QuoteI can discern little more than narcissistic motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists
QuoteFor mental-health professionals, Donald Trump is at once easily diagnosed but slightly confounding. "Remarkably narcissistic," said developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. "Textbook narcissistic personality disorder," echoed clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis. "He's so classic that I'm archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there's no better example of his characteristics," said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. "Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He's like a dream come true."
. . . .
"He's very easy to diagnose," said psychotherapist Charlotte Prozan. "In the first debate, he talked over people and was domineering. He'll do anything to demean others, like tell Carly Fiorina he doesn't like her looks. 'You're fired!' would certainly come under lack of empathy. And he wants to deport immigrants, but [two of] his wives have been immigrants." Michaelis took a slightly different twist on Trump's desire to deport immigrants: "This man is known for his golf courses, but, with due respect, who does he think works on these golf courses?"
Mr. Trump's bullying nature—taunting Senator John McCain for being captured in Vietnam, or saying Jeb Bush has "low energy"—is in keeping with the narcissistic profile. "In the field we use clusters of personality disorders," Michaelis said. "Narcissism is in cluster B, which means it has similarities with histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. There are similarities between them. Regardless of how you feel about John McCain, the man served—and suffered. Narcissism is an extreme ...defense against one's own feelings of worthlessness. To degrade people is really part of a cluster-B personality disorder: it's antisocial and shows a lack of remorse for other people. The way to make it O.K. to attack someone verbally, psychologically, or physically is to lower them. That's what he's doing."
Why should I find these statements any less credible than your hearsay report from an unnamed source?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 15, 2016, 06:01:25 AM
You really can't give this up, can you? Of course I know an amateur "diagnosis" counts for nothing. I perfectly well understand the Goldwater rule and standards of professional conduct (which I suspect don't include "derisive laughter" as a means of "refutation"). What I have stated was nothing more than a personal impression, just the same as when Brian states he thinks Trump "mentally ill" but cannot prove as much. But other qualified psychologists have not hidden behind the Goldwater rule for fear of being sued, and have stated what many in the general public already suspect:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists
Why should I find these statements any less credible than your hearsay report from an unnamed source?
We were never arguing about Trump. You asserted he was sociopathic, and claimed certainty. You made several long detailed posts about it. I, and another poster,disputed that you could do this. That is what I asked my friend about, could you do this.
PM me for his name if it matters.
Quote from: Ken B on July 15, 2016, 07:11:40 AM
We were never arguing about Trump. You asserted he was sociopathic, and claimed certainty. You made several long detailed posts about it. I, and another poster,disputed that you could do this. That is what I asked my friend about, could you do this.
PM me for his name if it matters.
As you wish. Your assumptions about my claim of "certainty" show me only that you don't know me at all.
Mike Pence is from my hometown of Columbus, Indiana, and went to the high school I would have gone to if I had stayed in Columbus through the rest of childhood. In fact, Columbus North High School is where I went to my first classical music concert(s), put on by the local orchestra, which is mostly a bunch of Indiana University conservatory students collecting extra (tiny) paychecks. (CNHS is also regularly visited by André Watts, because he had the dubious taste to marry a Columbus girl, so he frequently visited to do concerts at well below his usual fee.)
My mother worked for many, many years with Gov. Pence's brother Greg, and they served on a local community's board of directors together. Greg Pence ran a small oil company which ultimately went bankrupt, owing $9 million to the state his brother would later run. Asked for comment, my mom only said that the brothers looked the same, and that the whole family was rabidly Catholic.
As a Catholic, I wince at the adverb. But in fairness, I decline to protest formally 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 15, 2016, 07:55:47 AM
As a Catholic, I wince at the adverb. But in fairness, I decline to protest formally 8)
I am certain
* that one can be rabid without being a Catholic.
* (ahem, for KenB's benefit)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 15, 2016, 08:01:00 AM
I am certain* that one can be rabid without being a Catholic.
* (ahem, for KenB's benefit)
I will speculatively agree with you.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 15, 2016, 08:02:59 AM
I will speculatively agree with you.
I suspect that in all ideologies, faiths, creeds, cults, and philosophies, one may find a degree of rabidity, in a certain class of its believers.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnavqU3WcAIfLps.jpg)
paging Dr. Freud
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2016, 08:28:20 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnavqU3WcAIfLps.jpg)
paging Dr. Freud
Nothing like selecting a coin of no economic value.
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2016, 08:05:09 AM
I suspect that in all ideologies, faiths, creeds, cults, and philosophies, one may find a degree of rabidity, in a certain class of its believers.
Not all equally, and not all equally perniciously.
I know little about Pence. He seems to shore up Trump with the pro lifers. That probably played a large role. It seems like a "just don't lose it for me" pick: His choice seems like one a man confident he will win if he keeps most of his base might make.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 11, 2016, 06:48:53 AMI'll be certain in future, when referring to El Tupé as a narcissist, to specify that the diagnosis is not my own.
No real need. On the evidence of the posts here, obviously no one who tosses around such words is in a position to offer anything other than a sloppy, political, amateur diagnosis. (To be clear, you are nowhere near the worst offender in this regard.)
Quote from: Todd on July 15, 2016, 05:40:18 PM
No real need. On the evidence of the posts here, obviously no one who tosses around such words is in a position to offer anything other than a sloppy, political, amateur diagnosis. (To be clear, you are nowhere near the worst offender in this regard.)
:laugh:
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 15, 2016, 05:51:41 PM
:laugh:
No surprise you giggle. Please to offer your expert geriatric opinion on something you clearly know nothing about. That's something retirees do love to do.
I should hook you up with my geriatric and arch-conservative father-in-law. God, the drivel you two could generate. I could start a cash-flow positive blog on your back and forth.
Quote from: Todd on July 15, 2016, 06:04:37 PM
No surprise you giggle. Please to offer your expert geriatric opinion on something you clearly know nothing about. That's something retirees do love to do.
I should hook you up with my geriatric and arch-conservative father-in-law. God, the drivel you two could generate. I could start a cash-flow positive blog on your back and forth.
Just mean spirited.
Quote from: Todd on July 15, 2016, 06:04:37 PM
No surprise you giggle. Please to offer your expert geriatric opinion on something you clearly know nothing about. That's something retirees do love to do.
I should hook you up with my geriatric and arch-conservative father-in-law. God, the drivel you two could generate. I could start a cash-flow positive blog on your back and forth.
Before you were just being pompous. Now you're getting personal and insulting towards a person you've never met, solely on the assumption that I am "geriatric" because I'm retired. I think you ought to back off.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 15, 2016, 06:33:11 PM
Before you were just being pompous. Now you're getting personal and insulting towards a person you've never met, solely on the assumption that I am "geriatric" because I'm retired. I think you ought to back off.
Oh, boo-hoo.
Quote from: Todd on July 15, 2016, 08:41:56 PM
Oh, boo-hoo.
I think you should back off a bit too. When you guys are talking issues, I don't step on your 'nads to any extent, even when the bullshit is flying thick and fast. When it gets to even less good spirited than usual
ad hominem attacks, I need to draw you up a bit. It has now gotten to that point.
GB
Let us return to the topic at hand with a reasoned, thoughtful, and policy-oriented tweet from a highly educated, highly respected liberal senator:
Quote from: The Honorable Elizabeth Warren.@realDonaldTrump & @mike_pence are a perfect match: Two small, insecure, weak men who use hate & fear to divide our country & our people.
Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2016, 06:04:30 AM
Let us return to the topic at hand with a reasoned, thoughtful, and policy-oriented tweet from a highly educated, highly respected liberal senator:
And just look at the size of Pence's hands.
In announcing Pence, Trump talks mostly about himself
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2016, 06:01:33 AM
I think you should back off a bit too. When you guys are talking issues, I don't step on your 'nads to any extent, even when the bullshit is flying thick and fast. When it gets to even less good spirited than usual ad hominem attacks, I need to draw you up a bit. It has now gotten to that point.
GB
You can tell Gurn is serious because he didn't end his post with the usual 8)
Looks like Trump is set to have Bob Loblaw lob law bombs at the convention. (http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/17/scott-baio-donald-trump-republican-national-convention)
Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2016, 12:38:23 PM
Looks like Trump is set to have Bob Loblaw lob law bombs at the convention. (http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/17/scott-baio-donald-trump-republican-national-convention)
That's a low blow, Loblaw!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2016, 06:01:33 AM
I think you should back off a bit too.
GB
Looks like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg too you seriously, too! 8)
I heard a proposed slogan for the Libertarian Party. Feel the Johnson.
Quote from: André on July 17, 2016, 03:28:32 PM
Looks like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg too you seriously, too! 8)
Yes, too bad, she was pretty accurate. :)
8)
Genuinely terrible idea for a sitting judge to get involved in political commentary. I suspect most members of the legal profession would have been as shocked as I was. Regardless of any view about the merits of her opinions, you just don't express those kinds of opinions when you might have to rule on cases.
Quote from: orfeo on July 18, 2016, 06:08:15 AM
Genuinely terrible idea for a sitting judge to get involved in political commentary. I suspect most members of the legal profession would have been as shocked as I was. Regardless of any view about the merits of her opinions, you just don't express those kinds of opinions when you might have to rule on cases.
Absolutely agreed. It's a pretty basic precept to express neutrality on cases which might be before you soon, and Donald Trump's presidency would be a never-ending string of constitutional law cases.
Quote from: Brian on July 18, 2016, 06:09:39 AM
Absolutely agreed. It's a pretty basic precept to express neutrality on cases which might be before you soon, and Donald Trump's presidency would be a never-ending string of constitutional law cases.
Imagine a Bush v Gore type scenario.
Just adding a few more cents to our debate about Trump's personality:
"The Art of the Deal" made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth—and regrets it.
(...)
If he were writing "The Art of the Deal" today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, "The Sociopath."
Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all)
Quote from: Rinaldo on July 18, 2016, 07:25:52 AMIf he were writing "The Art of the Deal" today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, "The Sociopath."[/i]
The New Yorker? Mr Schwartz knows his audience.
Hillary's Quote of the Day:
(to 'Black People'): "Being in a gang is like being in a family."
Quote from: snyprrr on July 18, 2016, 07:45:39 AM
Hillary's Quote of the Day:
(to 'Black People'): "Being in a gang is like being in a family."
Oh, come on, that is so April.
https://www.youtube.com/v/DRdu0tKMaJo
Of special interest to me is what, precisely, constitutes a "positive" gang. The Democrat Party, perhaps?
(Note that "Hannity" emblem. This is part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Her highly intelligent comments are being taken out of context. And she is a good campaigner.)
But she's not a natural politician!
I'm most certainly the only GMGer who has attended a Trump rally AND read "The Art of the Deal". Here are my thoughts on the book (https://bgreinhart.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/hate-book-club-trump-the-art-of-the-deal/), but I'll quote a couple highlights:
"I bet you're thinking Trump: The Art of the Deal would be outrageous, or cringe-inducing, or full of Trump saying outrageous things. It's not. It is tedious as shit. Imagine your dream book. How many times do you want to read the phrase "tax abatement" in your dream book? Only, like, 5 times, right?"
"But the Trump we all know and love/hate still pops up in The Art of the Deal, sometimes. Like his description of a translator at a business meeting: "She was a true Latin beauty, and all of us were somewhat distracted." Or his description of his house: "While I can't honestly say I need an eighty-foot-long living room, I do get a kick out of having one.""
"Edmund Morris once said of Theodore Roosevelt, "he had a love for the first-person pronoun that bordered on the erotic." If that's the case, then Donald Trump has a love for the first-person pronoun that borders on that kind of porno where seven guys take the same girl from different angles. There was a lot of the word "I" in the book. In fact, the word "I" appears in Trump 2,726 times. I counted."
Quote from: Brian on July 18, 2016, 07:57:35 AMI'm most certainly the only GMGer who has attended a Trump rally AND read "The Art of the Deal". Here are my thoughts on the book (https://bgreinhart.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/hate-book-club-trump-the-art-of-the-deal/), but I'll quote a couple highlights:
Good god, man, you are a masochist. I'd entertain the idea of reading a Trump Casino flyer were it under my windshield wiper, but that's as much as I could take.
Quote from: Brian on July 18, 2016, 07:57:35 AMAND read "The Art of the Deal"
My condolences. On the plus side, now that you know how to be a successful deal maker, you'll soon be a billionaire just like him ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 18, 2016, 08:30:04 AM
My condolences. On the plus side, now that you know how to be a successful deal maker, you'll soon be a billionaire just like him ;D
Sarge
Hey, I've just enrolled at Reinhart University!
Quote from: karlhenning on July 18, 2016, 08:40:42 AM
Hey, I've just enrolled at Reinhart University!
The first thing we do, lets paralyze the third and fourth fingers from your fretboard hand.(Wait, you didn't spell
Reinhardt with a d...)
Quote from: North Star on July 18, 2016, 08:43:02 AM
(Wait, you didn't spell Reinhardt with a d...)
Site of a Henningmusick performance!
In Waleska. (http://www.reinhardt.edu/)
Quote from: North Star on July 18, 2016, 08:43:02 AM
(Wait, you didn't spell Reinhardt with a d...)
(And neither did my father's family ;) )
Quote from: Todd on July 18, 2016, 06:15:43 AM
Imagine a Bush v Gore type scenario.
Now we have no hope of replicating such a paragon of non-partisan impartiality.
Quote from: Pat B on July 18, 2016, 09:25:06 AM
Now we have no hope of replicating such a paragon of non-partisan impartiality.
My heart swooned at the possibility of a 4-4 decision in such a case, causing further turmoil in the post-November landscape, and forcing a vote on the next POTUS by the House, which would be sober, serious, and devoid of any and all partisan rancor.
(Of course, this would require Trump to win a few key battleground states first, but daydreams are occasionally fun.)
If it weren't for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the most disliked major-party presidential nominee in recent American history. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/the-continuing-political-decline-of-hillary-clinton/)
I take umbrage with this line:
"That qualifier, of course, is important here. Clinton doesn't need to be liked; she needs to be liked slightly more than Trump in what will very likely boil down to a two-candidate race."
It should read:
"That qualifier, of course, is important here. Clinton doesn't need to be liked; she needs to be disliked slightly less than Trump in what will very likely boil down to a two-candidate race."
I did see there was some unclaimed umbrage lolling about, and I'm glad to see it's found a home 8)
Click the highlights and read Chris Cillizza's annotations. Can't laugh for crying.
Donald Trump's interview with '60 Minutes' was eye-opening. Also, Mike Pence was there. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/donald-trump-is-way-more-humble-than-you-could-possibly-understand/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na)
"oops"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnqzYFQWIAAKUxQ.jpg)
Quote from: snyprrr on July 18, 2016, 11:13:04 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on July 18, 2016, 10:08:16 AM
read Chris Cillizza
reeeally Karl? ::) :-[
Well, you go read
The Art of the Deal, and see if you have half as much fun.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Rinaldo on July 18, 2016, 07:25:52 AM
Just adding a few more cents to our debate about Trump's personality:
"The Art of the Deal" made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth—and regrets it.
(...)
If he were writing "The Art of the Deal" today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, "The Sociopath."
Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all)
I was coming here to link to the same article. Rather scary.
Not so much for idea that Trump lies, more for the idea that he lies so capriciously and to the extent that he himself appears not to recall the truth.
I watched various bits of the first night of the Republican convention, including part of Screamin' Rudy's speech, and that by some guy who was apparently on General Hospital. I haven't yet decided whether I prefer this iteration of the GOP to the old Lee Atwater - Karl Rove version.
Nobody does humility better than me, nobody.
I mean, part of it is the breathtaking talent for lying without cease and with no boundaries, almost as if there is no mental filtration beforehand, at all. Part of it is how utterly deaf he is to any consideration other than the need to puff himself up.
Melania Trump plagiarized two paragraphs from Michelle Obama's 2008 DNC speech. Here's a quick video clip playing the two women's words simultaneously.
https://twitter.com/illct/status/755335336918671362
Sort of says, Vote Democratic!, doesn't it? 8)
Quote from: Brian on July 19, 2016, 04:27:56 AM
Melania Trump plagiarized two paragraphs from Michelle Obama's 2008 DNC speech.
It would be more accurate to say that the speech she read out contained two paragraphs plagiarized from the speech that Michelle Obama read out. Authorship is a tricky thing.
Quote from: orfeo on July 19, 2016, 05:06:58 AM
It would be more accurate to say that the speech she read out contained two paragraphs plagiarized from the speech that Michelle Obama read out. Authorship is a tricky thing.
Crooked Melania!
Quote from: orfeo on July 19, 2016, 05:06:58 AM
It would be more accurate to say that the speech she read out contained two paragraphs plagiarized from the speech that Michelle Obama read out. Authorship is a tricky thing.
Exactly. She speaks several languages, but English is not her first or best.This was a speech written for her.
Quote from: Ken B on July 19, 2016, 05:19:49 AM
Exactly. She speaks several languages, but English is not her first or best.This was a speech written for her.
Perhaps she should have delivered her remarks in Slovenian . . . .
Quote from: Pat B on July 18, 2016, 09:51:03 PMhaven't yet decided whether I prefer this iteration of the GOP to the old Lee Atwater - Karl Rove version.
Lee Atwater was the bomb.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 19, 2016, 05:24:18 AM
Perhaps she should have delivered her remarks in Slovenian . . . .
Where are they going to find a speech in Slovenian to crib from?
Best "duh" lead line by a NY Times columnist:
"Does anybody else have the sense that Donald Trump is slipping off the rails?"
- David Brooks today
Quote from: karlhenning on July 19, 2016, 05:57:34 AM
Where are they going to find a speech in Slovenian to crib from?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/short-history-political-plagiarism-melania-trump
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 19, 2016, 05:59:34 AM
Best "duh" lead line by a NY Times columnist:
"Does anybody else have the sense that Donald Trump is slipping off the rails?"
- David Brooks today
My favorite lede from today's on-line
Washington Post:
Quote from: Jenna JohnsonDonald Trump just can't yield the spotlight
For nearly 11 minutes, the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee overshadowed his party's convention with a phone interview that provided no major news.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 19, 2016, 05:59:34 AM
Best "duh" lead line by a NY Times columnist:
"Does anybody else have the sense that Donald Trump is slipping off the rails?"
- David Brooks today
I have had that feeling before. And yet he's the nominee and the polls are close. Brooks and I might not be the best judges of where the rails really are.
Quote from: Ken B on July 19, 2016, 06:01:58 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/short-history-political-plagiarism-melania-trump
Of undeniable interest, thanks. As my opener indicates —
Quote from: karlhenning on July 19, 2016, 05:18:49 AM
Crooked Melania!
— I am simply giving Melania the quality and character of reaction typical of her spouse.
Quote from: Ken B on July 19, 2016, 06:05:41 AM
I have had that feeling before. And yet he's the nominee and the polls are close. Brooks and I might not be the best judges of where the rails really are.
Oh, no room for complacency: no argument, there.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 19, 2016, 06:02:49 AM
My favorite lede from today's on-line Washington Post:
FWIW, both "lead" and "lede" are accepted spellings for the same thing.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 19, 2016, 06:08:40 AM
FWIW, both "lead" and "lede" are accepted spellings for the same thing.
Aye, my use was not a comment ;)
In fact, I had just checked the dictionary, because
lede is still relatively new to me.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 19, 2016, 05:59:34 AM
Best "duh" lead line by a NY Times columnist:
"Does anybody else have the sense that Donald Trump is slipping off the rails?"
- David Brooks today
David Brooks is a reliable moron. Even when he writes a column that starts off well-reasoned and interesting, he never fails to say something moronic by the end. The NY Times editorial section is surprisingly shaky - Frank Bruni is a simplistic outrage machine, Gail Collins repeats everyone else's insights but in a breezy charming way, and Thomas Friedman is a college freshman taking 101 classes whose mind is blown by his own genius.
Charles Blow is okay. I appreciate Mo Dowd's ability to convince all her interview subjects that she's writing a positive story, then turn around and snark at them. Paul Krugman and Ross Douthat are extremely predictable, but always well-written and intellectually challenging (by which I mean that, when I disagree, I take the time to think about my counter-argument), so they are both essential reading to me. The only one I like without reservations is Nick Kristof.
Quote from: Ken B on July 19, 2016, 06:05:41 AM
I have had that feeling before. And yet he's the nominee and the polls are close. Brooks and I might not be the best judges of where the rails really are.
Brooks concludes:
QuoteSuddenly the global climate favors a Trump candidacy. Some forms of disorder — like a financial crisis — send voters for the calm supple thinker. But other forms of disorder — blood in the streets — send them scurrying for the brutal strongman.
If the string of horrific events continues, Trump could win the presidency. And he could win it even though he has less and less control over himself.
Not sure if that qualifies as "moronic."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 19, 2016, 06:14:01 AM
Not sure if that qualifies as "moronic."
Not sure if that qualifies as confusing Brian and me.
Quote from: Brian on July 19, 2016, 04:27:56 AM
Melania Trump plagiarized two paragraphs from Michelle Obama's 2008 DNC speech.
Damn...and I had thought Melania's heartfelt story about growing up black in Chicago was very inspiring. To find out now that it's not true...well, I'm crushed.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 19, 2016, 09:17:45 AM
Damn...and I had thought Melania's heartfelt story about growing up black in Chicago was very inspiring. To find out now that it's not true...well, I'm crushed.
Sarge
https://youtu.be/rfAvQp-Uk5I (https://youtu.be/rfAvQp-Uk5I)
Quote from: Ken B on July 19, 2016, 02:37:48 PM
https://youtu.be/rfAvQp-Uk5I (https://youtu.be/rfAvQp-Uk5I)
;D :D ;D
Sarge
Fun and games in Cleveland
http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-delegates-react-to-rnc-vote-switch-from-cruz-to-trump
The Oregon delegation did its duty, and managed to squeeze in a local reference, too:
"Ground zero in the fight against Democrat corruption, from disgraced ex-governor John Kitzhaber all the way to crooked Hillary, the great state of Oregon is proud to cast, pursuant to our rules, five votes for Senator Ted Cruz, 23 votes for the next President of the United States, Donald J. Trump."
I really like the "pursuant to our rules" bit.
Quote from: Todd on July 20, 2016, 08:40:20 AM
managed to squeeze in a local reference
Kansas and Nevada fared slightly worse. Kansas claimed to be home to the Kansas City Royals (who play in Missouri) and Nevada said that Las Vegas is its capital city.
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2016, 08:44:40 AM
Kansas and Nevada fared slightly worse. Kansas claimed to be home to the Kansas City Royals (who play in Missouri) and Nevada said that Las Vegas is its capital city.
Oh, lawd.
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2016, 08:44:40 AM
Kansas and Nevada fared slightly worse. Kansas claimed to be home to the Kansas City Royals (who play in Missouri) and Nevada said that Las Vegas is its capital city.
Bill Currier was very exact in his use of language. The "pursuant to our rules" bit was added to acknowledge the fight in the state over binding the delegates. About a third of Republicans voted for Cruz and Kasich even though they had dropped out by the time of the primaries. Some senior members of the state party are not Trump supporters. His dig at POS Kitzhaber was icing on the cake.
"First off... that's not going to happen, not during my administration".
:laugh: :laugh:
Ted Cruz's 2020 practice speech was decent. He needs to polish the rough edges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0)
The man´s a clear and present danger to the Western world´s peace and security.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 12:07:54 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0)
The man´s a clear and present danger to the Western world´s peace and security.
How can you say that? From the article:
Quote
Mr. Trump said he was convinced that he could persuade Mr. Erdogan to put more effort into fighting the Islamic State. But the Obama administration has run up, daily, against the reality that the Kurds — among the most effective forces the United States is supporting against the Islamic State — are being attacked by Turkey, which fears they will create a breakaway nation.
Asked how he would solve that problem, Mr. Trump paused, then said: "Meetings."
Geo. Will fears for the "bluing" of Texas. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-texas-become-another-brick-in-the-democrats-blue-wall/2016/07/20/08b55f5e-4de0-11e6-a422-83ab49ed5e6a_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 21, 2016, 03:14:27 AM
Geo. Will fears for the "bluing" of Texas. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-texas-become-another-brick-in-the-democrats-blue-wall/2016/07/20/08b55f5e-4de0-11e6-a422-83ab49ed5e6a_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
But only if it doesn't secede first.
Win/win!
Cruz did not endorse Trump, and even suggested some Republicans might not want to vote for him. Hannity said he couldn't understand why Cruz is doing this. Principle? He really believes Trump is a bad choice for president perhaps?
Quote from: Ken B on July 21, 2016, 05:33:54 AM
Cruz did not endorse Trump, and even suggested some Republicans might not want to vote for him. Hannity said he couldn't understand why Cruz is doing this. Principle? He really believes Trump is a bad choice for president perhaps?
He knows who the opposition would be in 2020. As he is my senator, I can say with conviction that Cruz is a total asshole. However, he is not a
stupid asshole. Anything positive he would say about Trump, even now, is something that would be used against him in the future, so he might as well be prepared. :-\
8)
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 12:07:54 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0)
The man´s a clear and present danger to the Western world´s peace and security.
Quote"To me, 'America First' is a brand-new, modern term," he said. "I never related it to the past."
Quote from: Ken B on July 21, 2016, 05:33:54 AM
Cruz did not endorse Trump, and even suggested some Republicans might not want to vote for him. Hannity said he couldn't understand why Cruz is doing this. Principle? He really believes Trump is a bad choice for president perhaps?
I guess El Tupé ain't such a hot negotiator, after all.
Cheetos-Man: I both get to call you
Lyin' Ted, and I get your endorsement.
Sen. Cruz: No deal.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 12:07:54 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0)
The man´s a clear and present danger to the Western world´s peace and security.
That's the first time I've heard you say anything positive about him.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 21, 2016, 03:04:18 AM
How can you say that? From the article:
Oh, my bad. Indeed, the surest, best and most effective way of preserving Western´s world peace and security is meetings and talks, especially with such people famous world-wide for their peacefulness and reasonableness as Putin and Erdogan. And who knows, maybe opening an embassy in Al-Raqqah is not such a bad idea, after all...
Flower power! Make love not war! We didn´t know what friends we had until we came to Leningrad!(NB: the sarcasm is directed at Trump, not at you. :-* )
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on July 21, 2016, 06:35:35 AM
That's the first time I've heard you say anything positive about him.
???
I think there's some sarcasm flying in both directions, Andrei..
Quote from: North Star on July 21, 2016, 06:45:02 AM
I think there's some sarcasm flying in both directions, Andrei..
Could you please be more explcit?
Some fun quotes from Trump's NYT interview this morning:
-
Massive wealth. We're talking about countries that are doing very well. Then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself."
-
Now we're protecting Japan because Japan is a natural location for North Korea. So we are protecting them, and you say to yourself, "Well, what are we getting out of this?"
-
TRUMP: I'm a fan of the Kurds, you understand.
SANGER: But Erdogan is not. Tell us how you would deal with that?
TRUMP: Well, it would be ideal if we could get them all together. And that would be a possibility. But I'm a big fan of the Kurdish forces. At the same time, I think we have a potentially — we could have a potentially very successful relationship with Turkey. And it would be really wonderful if we could put them somehow both together.
SANGER: And what's your diplomatic plan for doing that?
TRUMP: Meetings.
-
David, I have statisticians, and I know, like if I went to Pennsylvania, I say, "Give me the statistics on what is going on with respect to manufacturing." Numbers — 45, 55, 65, I have states that are so bad.
-
SANGER: Since your time is limited, let me ask you about Russia. You've been very complimentary of Putin himself.
TRUMP: No! No, I haven't.
SANGER: You said you respected his strength.
TRUMP: He's been complimentary of me. I think Putin and I will get along very well.
-
SANGER: I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven't seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don't think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?
TRUMP: I don't want to tell you what I'd do because I don't want Putin to know what I'd do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I'm not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.
SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated ——
TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren't paying their bills.
SANGER: That's true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part.
TRUMP: You can't forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they're supposed to make. That's a big thing. You can't say forget that.
SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——
TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.
-
SANGER: You've been a little bit vague about what we'd do with ISIS other than bomb the hell out of them.
TRUMP: I don't want to be specific because I don't want ISIS to know what I'm planning. I do have ideas, very strong ideas on ISIS.
-
HABERMAN: What do you think people will take away from this convention? What are you hoping?
TRUMP: From the convention? The fact that I'm very well liked.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html
Quote from: Brian on July 21, 2016, 06:52:18 AM
TRUMP: Well, it would be ideal if we could get them all together.
Spoken as a genuine "bleeding-heart liberal": it wouldn´t be good if things were worse and it wouldn´t be bad if things were better.
;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Brian on July 21, 2016, 06:52:18 AM
SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——
TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.l
The man´s utterly ignorant of what an international binding treaty means.
I really mean it, gentlemen: Trump´s being elected as POTUS would be the third, and greatest, geopolitical catastrophy of 2016, after Brexit and Turkey.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 12:07:54 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0)
The man´s a clear and present danger to the Western world´s peace and security.
I like this bit:
For example, asked about Russia's threatening activities that have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations "have fulfilled their obligations to us."
He added, "If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes."
If the leaders and people in Yurp are serious about collective security, then they should meet their treaty obligations. Very few Yurpean nations meet the minimum expenditure requirements of being part of NATO - this being based on the 2% of GDP defense expenditure requirement and the various Yurpean government official stats regarding their defense spending. In short, Yurpeans are free riders taking advantage of US taxpayers for their defense. Yurpeans act in bad faith. There's nothing at all wrong with pressuring Yurpeans into meeting their obligations. Treaty partners must all act in accordance with the treaty, otherwise it may no longer have force.
I question whether Trump has thought very long and hard about foreign policy, but some of what he suggests is perfectly acceptable. There is nothing at all wrong with speaking with Putin or Erdogan or even Kim Jong-un. It's not wise to praise them publicly, but that's something else. There is nothing wrong with the US working with non-democratic governments. There is nothing wrong with the US not interfering in the domestic policies of other sovereign states. That has its solid roots in the Westphalian system. I did like that the article points out that Trump has met with Kissinger and Baker, proper wise men. If elected, he should also consult Obama. Obama has shown himself more of a realist than idealist in foreign policy. Alas, he has been too keen on deploying missile shields. (I mean, if the threatening rogue state of Iran is not an immediate nuclear threat, that only leaves Russia as the perceived threat. But then it was always Russia.)
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 07:10:05 AM
I like this bit:
If Trump (or you, or anyone else for that matter) really thinks that abandoning the Baltic States, Poland and Romania to Russia is a viable means of buying and protecting US security and interests then he (or you, or anyone else for that matter) is dead (and deadly) wrong.
Plus: I cannot speak for the BS or Poland, but Romania has been involved with troops and casualties in the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq from the beginning until today. In your opinion, does this count as "fulfilling our obligations towards US"?
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 07:10:05 AM
I did like that the article points out that Trump has met with Kissinger and Baker, proper wise men.
Oh. You might wanna check the transcript on that.
HABERMAN: You had meetings in the last couple months with James Baker and Henry Kissinger. Did they in any way change your views?
TRUMP: No.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 07:10:05 AM
If the leaders and people in Yurp are serious about collective security, then they should meet their treaty obligations. Very few Yurpean nations meet the minimum expenditure requirements of being part of NATO - this being based on the 2% of GDP defense expenditure requirement and the various Yurpean government official stats regarding their defense spending. In short, Yurpeans are free riders taking advantage of US taxpayers for their defense. Yurpeans act in bad faith. There's nothing at all wrong with pressuring Yurpeans into meeting their obligations. Treaty partners must all act in accordance with the treaty, otherwise it may no longer have force.
Article V of the Nato Charter:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
No language to assert or imply that this obligation is void with respect to nations who fail to meet their financial obligations. If Article V is not a "treaty obligation," then what is. Some might even think it is the primary purpose of the treaty altogether. No question that all members ought to meet their financial responsibilities, but unless it can be shown that financial delinquency is grounds for non-compliance with the language quoted above, then Artlcle V remains in force and is binding on all member nations including the US.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 07:24:29 AM
If Trump (or you, or anyone else for that matter) really thinks that abandoning the Baltic States, Poland and Romania to Russia is a viable means of buying and protecting US security and interests then he (or you, or anyone else for that matter) is dead (and deadly) wrong.
I say give 'em just Romania, and we will have peace in our time. I of course use that phrase as a modern thing, I never relate it to the past.
Quote from: Brian on July 21, 2016, 06:52:18 AM
TRUMP: I'm a fan of the Kurds, you understand.
So he's a big fan of a group of largely Sunni Muslims. As long, I suppose, as they don't try to come to the US, 'cause they might be terrorists plotting against us.
Quote from: Brian on July 21, 2016, 07:26:11 AM
Oh. You might wanna check the transcript on that.
HABERMAN: You had meetings in the last couple months with James Baker and Henry Kissinger. Did they in any way change your views?
TRUMP: No.
My biggest concern and fear is that Trump´s views on foreign policy cannot be changed by anybody and anything save the hardest hitting reality, and only when it is way too late.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 21, 2016, 07:30:45 AM
Article V of the Nato Charter:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
No language to assert or imply that this obligation is void with respect to nations who fail to meet their financial obligations. If Article V is not a "treaty obligation," then what is. Some might even think it is the primary purpose of the treaty altogether. No question that all members ought to meet their financial responsibilities, but unless it can be shown that financial delinquency is grounds for non-compliance with the language quoted above, then Artlcle V remains in force and is binding on all member nations including the US.
I knew I could count on you,
Larry! Thank you!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 21, 2016, 07:33:22 AM
So he's a big fan of a group of largely Sunni Muslims. As long, I suppose, as they don't try to come to the US, 'cause they might be terrorists plotting against us.
The Kurds are, by far, the most determined and effective military forces that fight ISIS on the ground.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 07:24:29 AM
If Trump (or you, or anyone else for that matter) really thinks that abandoning the Baltic States, Poland and Romania to Russia is a viable means of buying and protecting US security and interests then he (or you, or anyone else for that matter) is dead (and deadly) wrong.
I disagree. The Baltic States have literally no impact on US security, and basically none on economic interests, save, perhaps, for some minor, easily substituted imports. Poland is admittedly more important in that it is a buffer state between Russia and Germany. (I view Belarus as close to a vassal state of Russia.) Romania is of dubious strategic value, at best. In order to effectively aid and defend Romania, the US needs free and easy access to the Black Sea, which Russia can block more easily than the US can defend. This is also one major reason why the specific leader of Turkey is less important than an on-going relationship.
Part of forming an alliance involves establishing effective, executable plans in defending allies. This is overwhelmingly the burden of the US. It is the US that deploys the most troops, the most ships, the most conventional weaponry, the most nuclear weapons, the most money. It is not an organization of equals, not even close. Unfortunately, the US is in no position to defend every country in NATO. If Russian tanks roll into Tallinn, what then? Compare supply lines for Russia and NATO. The only effective military response is strategic nuclear weapons, which is insane, so that leaves jawboning, sanctions, and perhaps a small naval blockade here or there.
I see expanded NATO commitments as more likely to lead to unnecessary conflict. If Russia ruled an empire the scale of the Tsars or Bolsheviks, the Pacific and Atlantic would still be the same size, the silos in the Midwest would still be filled with missiles, and US SLBMs would still be silently deployed in the seas.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 07:24:29 AMPlus: I cannot speak for the BS or Poland, but Romania has been involved with troops and casualties in the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq from the beginning until today. In your opinion, does this count as "fulfilling our obligations towards US"?
It is well known that Eastern European countries have been the most reliable allies in NATO as it pertains to military action and spending this century. It is obvious why. It is more the fat and happy big countries farther to the west that have shirked their responsibilities.
This topic has already been covered at least twice before. Some people believe in the peaceful utility of an expanded NATO, and some believe it destabilizing and contributing to strategic overreach for the US. I doubt Trump's chatter will change the opinions of anyone in this regard.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 07:34:47 AM
My biggest concern and fear is that Trump´s views on foreign policy cannot be changed by anybody and anything save the hardest hitting reality, and only when it is way too late.
He'll be very presidential when he needs to be.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 21, 2016, 07:30:45 AM
Article V of the Nato Charter:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
No language to assert or imply that this obligation is void with respect to nations who fail to meet their financial obligations. If Article V is not a "treaty obligation," then what is. Some might even think it is the primary purpose of the treaty altogether. No question that all members ought to meet their financial responsibilities, but unless it can be shown that financial delinquency is grounds for non-compliance with the language quoted above, then Artlcle V remains in force and is binding on all member nations including the US.
This is only one article, but very well, let us stick with this. The very severity of the requirements highlight just how reckless the expansion of NATO has been, and how likely it is to draw the US into an unnecessary war to defend nations of no strategic or economic value.
Quote from: Brian on July 21, 2016, 07:26:11 AM
Oh. You might wanna check the transcript on that.
He said he had consulted two former Republican secretaries of state, James A. Baker III and Henry Kissinger, saying he had gained "a lot of knowledge," but did not describe any new ideas about national security that they had encouraged him to explore.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 07:49:52 AM
This is only one article, but very well, let us stick with this. The very severity of the requirements highlight just how reckless the expansion of NATO has been, and how likely it is to draw the US into an unnecessary war to defend nations of no strategic or economic value.
Charters are like constitutions; they do not anticipate every contingency, and what constitutes strategic or economic value is open to interpretation. Already in 2003, one can find arguments for American withdrawal:
"From a military perspective, the case for American withdrawal from NATO seems to have already been made. A number of commentators, including George Will and the British historian Paul Johnson, have pointed out that NATO is an anachronism rendered helpless by distrust and infighting. But there are also compelling economic grounds for American withdrawal. Simply, the American security guarantee perpetuates the continuation of the European welfare states and thus encourages economic sclerosis across the European continent. Thus NATO is not only useless, it's harmful."
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nato-economic-case-american-withdrawal
The Nato Charter contains provisions for reviewing its terms and for withdrawal. So far neither of these options has been implemented.
Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 07:44:35 AM
I disagree. The Baltic States have literally no impact on US security, and basically none on economic interests, save, perhaps, for some minor, easily substituted imports.
The Hitler-Stalin Pact (wrongly, and for ideological reasons, dubbed Ribentropp-Molotov) relied on precisely this school of thought -- and incidentally chopped off a good part of Romania too. ;D
(Yes, I know, Godwin´s Law and all, but ewe are talking international policy and wars --- a field where Hitler´s and Stalin´s heritage is quite alive, especually the latter´s...)
QuoteRomania is of dubious strategic value, at best.
Given the de facto defection of Turkey, you might want to reconsider your position. Now that Turkey is in unpredictable turmoil, and that Bulgaria has plainly showed their Rusophilia, Romania is left as the single most reliable and faithful NATO member at the Black Sea. Protecting it by all means, including relocating some nuclear facilities on our teritorry, is an urgent task.
Quote
In order to effectively aid and defend Romania, the US needs free and easy access to the Black Sea, which Russia can block more easily than the US can defend. This is also one major reason why the specific leader of Turkey is less important than an on-going relationship.
If you think Erdogan is a sincere, or reliable, ally of the US you are wrong. Stay tuned for a big surprise.
Quote
It is well known that Eastern European countries have been the most reliable allies in NATO as it pertains to military action and spending this century.
All the more reason to tell them "If Russia fucks you, we´ll fuck you too!", right?
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 08:08:38 AMRomania is left as the single most reliable and faithful NATO member at the Black Sea.
My geography is a bit fuzzy. What western ports does Romania posses, and how would US capital ships enter the Black Sea if the Russians blockaded the Bosphorus?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 21, 2016, 08:07:29 AM
Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
Guess what? This article makes it plainly clear that the US is not going to ever denounce the NATO treaty. Heck, it would require that the US Government give notice of denunciation to the US Government and after one year it ceases to be a NATO member. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 08:11:53 AM
My geography is a bit fuzzy. What western ports does Romania posses, and how would US capital ships enter the Black Sea if the Russians blockaded the Bosphorus?
We'll have bigger problems if they do that, because that will mean they have invaded Turkey...
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 21, 2016, 08:07:29 AMCharters are like constitutions; they do not anticipate every contingency, and what constitutes strategic or economic value is open to interpretation.
These are all self-evident statements.
So let us take the last one. What strategic and economic value do the Baltic States offer the US? Does this value exceed the cost of potential conflict with Russia?
I am well aware that there have not been official calls to withdraw from or shrink NATO. In fact, the opposite has happened. NATO has expanded to include countries the US cannot effectively defend. Again, some people find that peaceable and defensible, others find it reckless.
On the plus side, the language "such action as it deems necessary" is nebulous enough so that the US could simply resort to jawboning, sanctions, and small blockades were Russia to invade Estonia.
(Incidentally, the first calls for the dissolution of NATO came in the mid-90s.)
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 08:11:53 AM
My geography is a bit fuzzy.
Not only your geography, Sir, with all due respect...
Quote
What western ports does Romania posses,
Constanta and Mangalia. Google them.
Quote
and how would US capital ships enter the Black Sea if the Russians blockaded the Bosphorus?
The Russians cannot blockade the Bosphorus without grossly violating the 1936 Montreux Convention, which is the current, enforceable, internationally binding regulation concerning the Bosphorus navigation, be it civil or military. Google it.
Now, the US is not a signatory of this Convention. Still, it might be argued that since, in their turn and at the respective time, Turkey, Greece, France, Bulgaria and Romania --- all of them cosignatories of the Convention--- joined NATO, it is ipso facto subscribed and guaranteed by the US as well.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 21, 2016, 08:18:17 AM
We'll have bigger problems if they do that, because that will mean they have invaded Turkey...
Which is just another reason why a relationship with Turkey is so much more important than Romania, with or without NATO.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 08:25:30 AM
(Incidentally, the first calls for the dissolution of NATO came in the mid-90s.)
Not sure when it started, but this article from 1997 is quite prescient. George Kennan's view at the time: "Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected . . . to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking":
http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/07/local/me-10464
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 08:28:06 AMConstanta and Mangalia. Google them.
I can't tell if you purposely misread my post or not. Romania offers no access to the Black Sea to the US. Only Turkey does. Romania's west borders Hungary and Serbia, yes?
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 08:29:33 AM
Which is just another reason why a relationship with Turkey is so much more important than Romania, with or without NATO.
This is a handbook sophism. The most pressing problem now is not whether Romania is a reliable ally (which we have been, are, and will be till the end), but whether Turkey is.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 08:32:35 AM
I can't tell if you purposely misread my post or not. Romania offers no access to the Black Sea to the US. Only Turkey does. Romania's west borders Hungary and Serbia, yes?
Good God, Todd, will you ever renounce deploying blatant disingenuity?
I defy any good-will reader of your relevant post to infer that you meant anything else than ports on the Western side of the Black Sea.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 08:32:51 AM
This is a handbook sophism.
No, it is an acknowledgement of geographic and strategic reality. In order for the US to access the Black Sea, and therefore to be able to counter Russian naval power in said sea, it needs access to said sea. There is only one nation on earth with that access. Turkey is more important than Romania for the US.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 08:36:10 AM
Good God, Todd, will you ever renounce deploying blatant disingenuity?
I defy any good-will reader of your relevant post to infer that you meant anything else than ports on the Western side of the Black Sea.
See my response to your prior post.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 08:39:39 AM
In order for the US to access the Black Sea, and therefore to be able to counter Russian naval power in said sea, it needs access to said sea. There is only one nation on earth with that access. Turkey is more important than Romania for the US.
Okay, I´ll play your game
What if Turkey´s defection is for good, and the US can kiss Turkey good bye once and for all as a reliable ally? Where are the US going to relocate --- because they will surely have to --- their military and nuclear facilities? I want an honest answer and none of your twists and turns, although I am acutely aware that I might as well want the Nile to flow southward...
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 08:46:41 AM
Okay, I´ll play your game
What if Turkey´s defection is for good, and the US can kiss Turkey good bye once and for all as a reliable ally? Where are the US going to relocate --- because they will surely have to --- their military and nuclear facilities? I want an honest answer and none of your twists and turns, although I am acutely aware that I might as well want the Nile to flow southward...
First, there have been no twists and turns, just your misunderstanding of what I wrote.
Second, what "defection" are you writing about? Turkey has not expelled the US nor has it left NATO. The US definitely should, and probably will, recognize that US interests in the broader region (Mediterranean, Black Sea, Middle East) are such that it is much better to work with Turkey than not, even if Erdogan becomes more autocratic. It would be best if the US could maintain its airbase in the near and medium term future (say the next five to ten years), but if need be, the US has resources to rely on some other bases and perhaps even to shift some aircraft carrier battle groups around. Long-term, the US should strive to reduce its military presence in the region and rely more on other powers to act on its behalf, even understanding that is potentially messier and some of the partners/allies/whatever you want to call them, may not be ideally reliable.
Third, as to nuclear weapons, the US should absolutely remove all nuclear weapons currently deployed in Turkey as soon as practicable. The US deploys B61 tactical nukes there, which are of limited use in any event. Some type of deal could be reached to house them elsewhere to retain them as a bargaining chip with Russia, but I see no reason to keep them in Turkey.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 09:01:47 AM
First, there have been no twists and turns, just your misunderstanding of what I wrote.
Yeah, right!
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 09:01:47 AM
Second, what "defection" are you writing about? Turkey has not expelled the US nor has it left NATO.
Are you willing, and going, to tell me that the Turkish Army is as we type fully capable and willing to fulfill its NATO mission and objectives in case of a Russian blockade of Bosphorus?
Quote
It would be best if the US could maintain its airbase in the near and medium term future (say the next five to ten years),
As I said: it wouldn´t be good if things were worse and it wouldn´t be bad if things were better.
Quotebut if need be, the US has resources to rely on some other bases
Which ones? Give us three places.
QuoteLong-term, the US should strive to reduce its military presence in the region and rely more on other powers to act on its behalf
Which powers? Name three.
Quote
the US should absolutely remove all nuclear weapons currently deployed in Turkey as soon as practicable.
Where to? Name three places.
I cannot see why Sen. Cruz would not take advice from "Duck Dynasty," can you?
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 09:12:22 AM
Yeah, right!
Yes, right.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 09:12:22 AM
Which ones? Give us three places.
Which powers? Name three.
Where to? Name three places.
Into threes today? Tell you what, I'll use one of your tactics: Google it.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 09:15:08 AM
Yes, right.
As Trump-ish as it gets.
Quote
Into threes today? Tell you what, I'll use one of your tactics: Google it.
Except that I gave you real conventions and locations.
But hey, shouldn´t I have known better than getting into a controversy with you?
A question. Has Todd ever been persuaded by any argument or acknowledged the validity of a viewpoint not identical to his own, ever?
Trying to rewind past the ad hominems:
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2016, 08:32:51 AM
This is a handbook sophism. The most pressing problem now is not whether Romania is a reliable ally (which we have been, are, and will be till the end), but whether Turkey is.
He said Turkey is more
important (specifically with regards to naval access to the Black Sea), not that it is more
reliable. What's going on in Turkey is deplorable, but from a strictly military perspective, losing it as an ally would make it more difficult to defend Romania, among other objectives. It's a tough situation and it almost seems like part of Erdogan's game is essentially bargaining -- or perhaps shopping around.
On the other hand, the U.S.'s history of trying to work with dictatorships hasn't always been successful, and Turkey's war with the Kurds was already a strain.
There are a lot more questions than answers. Unfortunately I don't have much confidence in either major Presidential nominee to even match Obama on this stuff.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 21, 2016, 09:34:52 AM
A question. Has Todd ever been persuaded by any argument or acknowledged the validity of a viewpoint not identical to his own, ever?
Here's a bigger question for you: Does anyone actually come here to be
persuaded on political matters?
Quote from: Pat B on July 21, 2016, 11:11:25 AMUnfortunately I don't have much confidence in either major Presidential nominee to even match Obama on this stuff.
No question about that. Obama has been generally good at foreign policy, with only Syria and Libya being notable blunders. I have serious reservations about how he has pursued drone warfare and anti-terrorism as it pertains to US law, and I have minor concerns on the same subjects as it pertains to international law, and his deployment of missile defense systems has been too hasty, but in comparison with Trump or Clinton, he is a bastion of cautious, careful, intelligent planning and action.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 01:12:57 PM
Obama has been generally good at foreign policy...
???
Yikes.
Peter Thiel said culture wars are a distraction, and Ivanka Trump called for equal pay and better child care for working mothers. Should I cross-check those with the Republican platform?
https://www.youtube.com/v/LbOPf28STNo
Quote from: karlhenning on July 21, 2016, 07:45:49 AM
He'll be very presidential when he needs to be.
The most presidential president since Lincoln, as he put it modestly.
Quote from: epicous on July 22, 2016, 12:25:19 AM
https://www.youtube.cm/v/LbOPf28STNo
Remember to not vote Democrats, because they're evil, and to "get the products Alex Jones and his family trust", such as Super Male Vitality
TM and Brain Force
TM ("
Even our own chemists can't believe the quality and power we've achieved with Brain Force, the newest flagship product from Infowars Life. Quite frankly, people are freaking out over how powerful this product really is!") "while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation."
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 01:12:57 PM
No question about that. Obama has been generally good at foreign policy, with only Syria and Libya being notable blunders. I have serious reservations about how he has pursued drone warfare and anti-terrorism as it pertains to US law, and I have minor concerns on the same subjects as it pertains to international law, and his deployment of missile defense systems has been too hasty, but in comparison with Trump or Clinton, he is a bastion of cautious, careful, intelligent planning and action.
I see what you did there! ;) :D ;D :laugh:
Folks, this right'cheer is the most brilliantly Pythonesque Post of All-Time!!
Quote from: North Star on July 22, 2016, 12:59:12 AM
Remember to not vote Democrats, because they're evil, and to "get the products Alex Jones and his family trust", such as Super Male VitalityTM and Brain ForceTM ("Even our own chemists can't believe the quality and power we've achieved with Brain Force, the newest flagship product from Infowars Life. Quite frankly, people are freaking out over how powerful this product really is!") "while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation."
No, you really need to check out God Like Productions.com
Thank me l8tr :-*
Quote from: Scion7 on July 21, 2016, 04:29:07 PM
???
Yikes.
Is anyone as giddy as I am this morning? LOL!!
Scion,- what? can't you see Todd is laughing all the way to the bank. Please re-read that Post. It's brilliant. "with only Syria and Labia being the notable blunders." Oh, Todd, I'm sending you my hernia bills!! "bastion" "generally good"
ahhhh, Carlin would give you a medal! 0:)
VAN JONES
oy vey!! ::)
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
Here's a bigger question for you: Does anyone actually come here to be persuaded on political matters?
No. I have a different forum I go to for that.
Quote from: Pat B on July 21, 2016, 06:22:57 PM
Peter Thiel said culture wars are a distraction, and Ivanka Trump called for equal pay and better child care for working mothers. Should I cross-check those with the Republican platform?
Quote from: Donald J Trump
As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology, believe me.
[Unscripted:] And I have to say as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.
Quote from: orfeo on July 22, 2016, 05:46:09 AM
No. I have a different forum I go to for that.
More than one I would hope. I tend to rely more on books and long-form articles in somewhat specialized periodicals.
It's nice he's going to protect LGBTQ citizens from a hateful foreign ideology, but frankly social media indicates to me that the hateful ideology most LGTBQ Americans are worried about is homegrown, in your own Bible Belt.
Quote from: orfeo on July 22, 2016, 08:43:03 AM
It's nice he's going to protect LGBTQ citizens from a hateful foreign ideology, but frankly social media indicates to me that the hateful ideology most LGTBQ Americans are worried about is homegrown, in your own Bible Belt.
Probably, but the bigger thing here is that Trump is the first Republican presidential nominee to speak openly about the subject in an acceptance speech. His unscripted blurb, no doubt thought out ahead of time, is a nice addendum. I've long held out hope that some Republican would start to try to go after the support of richer gay people. There are some small, longer standing groups (eg, Log Cabin Republicans) and apparently DC has a small cadre of very rich gay Republicans, but a more concerted effort is needed. Republicans will never attract the majority or even significant minority of gay voters, but it should angle for the rich ones. I understand that religious and cultural conservatives are still fighting gay marriage in some areas, and will for years to come, but the culture wars are a distraction, and Republicans need to start chipping away at traditional Democrat groups, primarily based on economic policies. It will take many cycles, but it has to start somewhere.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2016, 08:55:06 AM
Republicans will never attract the majority or even significant minority of gay voters
Frankly, if it went back to being a party of small government instead of being a party of the Christian Right, it very well could be attracting a big slice of gay voters.
Some of the best arguments for gay marriage have come from Republicans (and their equivalents here in Australia). A retired politician here, from the right wing of our politics but socially moderate, has been excellent at articulating a view that her side of politics should embrace people wanting to support each other in family units rather than relying on government to support them and should not get hung up on the precise makeup of the family unit in question.
Quote from: orfeo on July 22, 2016, 09:04:45 AMFrankly, if it went back to being a party of small government instead of being a party of the Christian Right, it very well could be attracting a big slice of gay voters.
Religious conservatives make up a powerful group, and they do tend to vote, so they do have sway. Small government conservatism is something of a phantom. It's great rhetorically, but not so good for vote getting (Social Security is basically untouchable), nor for maintaining a massive military machine.
I've always approached gay marriage from a liberty standpoint. The state (in the most generic sense possible) has no business telling consenting adults whom they should marry. That's more libertarian than conservative, but it's not hard to get some conservatives to go along with that.
Quote from: orfeo on July 22, 2016, 09:04:45 AM
Frankly, if it went back to being a party of small government instead of being a party of the Christian Right, it very well could be attracting a big slice of gay voters.
Some of the best arguments for gay marriage have come from Republicans (and their equivalents here in Australia). A retired politician here, from the right wing of our politics but socially moderate, has been excellent at articulating a view that her side of politics should embrace people wanting to support each other in family units rather than relying on government to support them and should not get hung up on the precise makeup of the family unit in question.
Exactly, on all points. I have long argued pro gay marriage is the conservative position. This does seem to get traction with the non religious.
"Yurp" ? Is this a solecism, a barbarism, a sloppyism, or just another american way of showing contempt ? I doubt that it will ever raise to the level of diplomatic terms. Nigger, Jap, now Yurp ? I'm sure it's not meant that way, but suppose it's understood differently by those who "happen" to also read English ? ::)
Quote from: André on July 22, 2016, 01:26:09 PM
"Yurp" ? Is this a solecism, a barbarism, a sloppyism, or just another american way of showing contempt ? I doubt that it will ever raise to the level of diplomatic terms. Nigger, Jap, now Yurp ? I'm sure it's not meant that way, but suppose it's understood differently by those who "happen" to also read English ? ::)
What is "Yank"?
Quote from: André on July 22, 2016, 01:26:09 PM
"Yurp" ? Is this a solecism, a barbarism, a sloppyism, or just another american way of showing contempt ? I doubt that it will ever raise to the level of diplomatic terms. Nigger, Jap, now Yurp ? I'm sure it's not meant that way, but suppose it's understood differently by those who "happen" to also read English ? ::)
It pokes fun at that segment of the population which is most hostile to modern European government. The same ones who thought Kerry's fondness for things French was a symptom of unAmericanism.
Say Europe with a down home Boss Hogg drawl....
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yank (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yank)
Always a pleasure to be of some help.
Edit: thanks, Jeffrey.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2016, 08:55:06 AM
Probably, but the bigger thing here is that Trump is the first Republican presidential nominee to speak openly about the subject in an acceptance speech. His unscripted blurb, no doubt thought out ahead of time, is a nice addendum.
I agree, that was a nice touch. And some Rs (e.g. Kasich) have called to leave the marriage issue behind, which while not exactly inspiring leadership, is at least a sensible position. Of course, some other Rs say Trump and Kasich are just RINOs.
The 2016 Republican platform contains not just the expected anti-gay planks (overturn Obergefell, support anti-gay discrimination) but also a clause by anti-gay wingnut Tony Perkins in support of conversion therapy for gay children. They made it vaguer than what Perkins initially requested, but I don't think that will fool many.
Quote from: André on July 22, 2016, 01:26:09 PM
"Yurp" ? Is this a solecism, a barbarism, a sloppyism, or just another american way of showing contempt ? I doubt that it will ever raise to the level of diplomatic terms. Nigger, Jap, now Yurp ? I'm sure it's not meant that way, but suppose it's understood differently by those who "happen" to also read English ? ::)
You new to the internet?
Quote from: Pat B on July 22, 2016, 02:28:50 PMOf course, some other Rs say Trump and Kasich are just RINOs.
RINO is so 2014. Maybe Half-Breed can make a comeback.
Thanks for the hint, Todd. Now I have a better picture.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yurp (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yurp)
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2016, 02:32:22 PM
RINO is so 2014.
But conversion therapy is an idea that never gets old.
And the winner is....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/hillary-clinton-vp-pick/index.html
Quote from: André on July 22, 2016, 01:26:09 PM
"Yurp" ?
It's a Bushism.
Just like the way he managed to make "terrorism" a duo-syllabic word.
I see. We have turned into bushists, then. Trrism in Yurp. ???
Quote from: André on July 23, 2016, 10:45:20 AM
I see. We have turned into bushists, then. Trrism in Yurp. ???
Tourism* ;)
Quote from: Herman on July 23, 2016, 10:10:02 AM
It's a Bushism.
Just like the way he managed to make "terrorism" a duo-syllabic word.
It is only a Bushism to the extent that Bush was a Texan, and he spoke like one. Texans were calling it Yurp before GW was born, and will be long after all of us here are dead. BTW, it IS one syllable, but it doesn't rhyme with 'burp', it is more like 'yourp', where the 'you' part is pronounced like the pronoun. In addition, people who come from there are called 'You're-peens', 2 syllables. It isn't intended in any way to be derogatory, it's just the way we talk. Y'all (another Texanism, which doesn't mean Herman specifically) have just made it seem that way because you don't like W. Well, just so you know, we don't all like him either, although being generally more fair and understanding than most people, we try to see all sides. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 23, 2016, 12:13:06 PM
It is only a Bushism to the extent that Bush was a Texan, and he spoke like one. Texans were calling it Yurp before GW was born, and will be long after all of us here are dead.
I guess it was introduced, "Yurp", when Dubua was elected president and cartoonists got started on him.
That's where I got it. And I have been using the word ever since, just for fun.
Quote from: Herman on July 23, 2016, 12:24:31 PM
I guess it was introduced, "Yurp", when Dubua was elected president and cartoonists got started on him.
That's where I got it. And I have been using the word ever since, just for fun.
Certainly, and why not? :) I remember getting 'vee-hickle' from LBJ when I still lived in New England and finding it highly amusing. Hell, now
I say it! :o :)
8)
Is there another way to pronounce it ?
So there. You think something is new and special until you realize it's been there all along ::)
Quote from: André on July 23, 2016, 04:14:03 PM
Is there another way to pronounce it ?
So there. You think something is new and special until you realize it's been there all along ::)
Before Lyndon, I had only ever heard VEE-a-cull, with no aitch in the middle. I guess that's what caught my ear. However, if you were a Texan asking that question, I'd'a just said 'nope'. :D
8)
What "Yurp" REALLY is is mockery of someone else's accent.
What do we usually think of people who mock accents?
Classicfm published some of Donald Trump tweets about classical music composers
http://www.classicfm.com/humour/trump-tweets/ (http://www.classicfm.com/humour/trump-tweets/)
"Ca vaut le détour !"
Quote from: Ken B on July 23, 2016, 06:06:16 PM
What "Yurp" REALLY is is mockery of someone else's accent.
What do we usually think of people who mock accents?
I don't know. I never think "usually".
But I'm guessing it's very bad to mock an upper-crust Yalie from a dynasty of millionaires slash politicians who adopted a folksy accent to sound more natchral.
Jesus, what is it with Democrats and email? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-cast-doubt-on-hopes-for-party-unity-at-democratic-convention/2016/07/24/a446c260-51a9-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigns, effective at the end of the convention.
Quote from: Brian on July 24, 2016, 12:32:58 PM
Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigns, effective at the end of the convention.
Good news.
Charlie Pierce: Even the Smart Reptiles Don't Write This Stuff Down (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46983/dnc-email-leak/)
Ain't no nationalist like an east coast nationalist. (http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-says-eu-exists-to-compete-with-us-brexit-nato-wto-nafa/)
(His NATO critiques, while crude, are, or can be, based in budgetary and strategic reality. His other critiques don't even rise to the level of piffle.)
Quote from: Todd on July 25, 2016, 08:21:11 AM
Ain't no nationalist like an east coast nationalist. (http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-says-eu-exists-to-compete-with-us-brexit-nato-wto-nafa/)
(His NATO critiques, while crude, are, or can be, based in budgetary and strategic reality. His other critiques don't even rise to the level of piffle.)
Apparently Sarah Palin used the term "nationalist revolution" somewhere.
Quote from: Brian on July 25, 2016, 10:27:47 AM
Apparently Sarah Palin used the term "nationalist revolution" somewhere.
Here. (http://opinion.ijr.com/2016/07/258245-need-better-not-bitter-trumps-opponents-start-hopping-bandwagon/?_ga=1.177976742.2099975396.1467064796) I dare you to read it all.
Here's a gem of an opener for a long sentence: "But the more people realize dirtiness on both sides of the aisle won't be sanitized by today's typical politicians[...]"
I don't know about you, but when I look for profound thoughts on governance, the nature of a democratic republic, and policies to address systemic issues afflicting the US, Sarah Palin is my go-to gal.
Quote from: Todd on July 25, 2016, 10:44:52 AM
Here. (http://opinion.ijr.com/2016/07/258245-need-better-not-bitter-trumps-opponents-start-hopping-bandwagon/?_ga=1.177976742.2099975396.1467064796) I dare you to read it all.
Here's a gem of an opener for a long sentence: "But the more people realize dirtiness on both sides of the aisle won't be sanitized by today's typical politicians[...]"
I don't know about you, but when I look for profound thoughts on governance, the nature of a democratic republic, and policies to address systemic issues afflicting the US, Sarah Palin is my go-to gal.
;D
(I can only laugh because I realize you're kidding. Otherwise, I would fear for you).
8)
Well, the EU was essentially created to be a trading bloc, initially. Though whether it was all about you guys is another question.
No-one tell him Australia is the result of an 1890s free trade agreement...
Quote from: orfeo on July 25, 2016, 01:49:50 PM
Well, the EU was essentially created to be a trading bloc, initially. Though whether it was all about you guys is another question.
Everything, everywhere is about the USA. All the time. No exceptions.
This article from that same web site is worrysome.http://www.politico.eu/article/why-russia-is-rejoicing-over-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-kremlin/ (http://www.politico.eu/article/why-russia-is-rejoicing-over-donald-trump-vladimir-putin-kremlin/)
Putin might be the ultimate winner of a Trump victory.
Quote from: Todd on July 25, 2016, 10:44:52 AM
Here. (http://opinion.ijr.com/2016/07/258245-need-better-not-bitter-trumps-opponents-start-hopping-bandwagon/?_ga=1.177976742.2099975396.1467064796) I dare you to read it all.
I fail. I thought I was rolling, but when she patted herself on the back for "sticking the ol' neck out again" I could not continue.
Meanwhile at the DNC: Paul Simon isn't looking or sounding so great. :-(
Quote from: Pat B on July 25, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
I fail. I thought I was rolling, but when she patted herself on the back for "sticking the ol' neck out again" I could not continue.
Meanwhile at the DNC: Paul Simon isn't looking or sounding so great. :-(
The image of Ted Cruz as a suicide bomber was particularly original.
But I was struck by how much of that article was about the Sarah and how little of it was about the Donald.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 25, 2016, 05:43:37 PM
The image of Ted Cruz as a suicide bomber was particularly original.
But I was struck by how much of that article was about the Sarah and how little of it was about the Donald.
A nice change, you mean?
I watched Bill Clinton's speech, and it was an awfully nice reminiscence about his and Hillary's marriage, with one notable and understandable exclusion. I don't know if "changemaker" will catch fire. I also noticed the verbal fumble when he talked about Hillary's election to the Senate, in the same seat Robert Kennedy once held, where Clinton used the word "outsider" when clearly he meant "carpetbagger."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz's replacement has been found. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-hinckley-idUSKCN1071NZ)
Donald Trump has - this is real - asked Russia to please hack Hillary's emails and release them.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoY30tLXYAUus8l.jpg)
Quote from: Brian on July 27, 2016, 10:30:53 AM
Donald Trump has - this is real - asked Russia to please hack Hillary's emails and release them.
It's been obvious all along he thinks Putin's bod is a ten.
Quote from: Brian on July 27, 2016, 10:30:53 AM
Donald Trump has - this is real - asked Russia to please hack Hillary's emails and release them.
To be fair to Donald, he cast a wider net:
"If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I'd love to see them."
Quote from: Todd on July 27, 2016, 11:28:50 AM
To be fair to Donald, he cast a wider net:
"If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I'd love to see them."
If that's the quote Brian means then he has misrepresented it. First because he did not ask them to future tense hack, but to show them if they have past tense got them. And because it's a joke. It exploits Hillary's "extreme carelessness" in handling email, no?
Quote from: Ken B on July 27, 2016, 01:54:59 PM
If that's the quote Brian means then he has misrepresented it.
Quote[El Tupé]: Why do I have to (ph) get involved with Putin? I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn't respect our president. And if it is Russia -- which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is -- but if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this -- Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be next. Yes, sir...
So, maybe it's a joke, but if so, in pretty much the same way that his entire campaign is
a joke, and it were foolish to dismiss it as
a joke.
Karl has the quote I meant.
The "clarifications" issued by his campaign have NOT said he was joking - just that he was misunderstood etc.
Quote from: Brian on July 27, 2016, 03:28:47 PM
Karl has the quote I meant.
The "clarifications" issued by his campaign have NOT said he was joking - just that he was misunderstood etc.
It must be tough for Donald, being misunderstood literally every time he says something. He needs a hug.
Quote from: Todd on July 27, 2016, 03:32:53 PM
It must be tough for Donald, being misunderstood literally every time he says something. He needs a hug.
And he has all the best words, too.
You've got to admire (in some sense) the nerve of the fellow who will run for the highest office in the land, and make a remark like this:
Quote from: El Tupé
I don't know anything about [Russian President Vladimir Putin] other than he will respect me.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 27, 2016, 04:16:19 PM
You've got to admire (in some sense) the nerve of the fellow who will run for the highest office in the land, and make a remark like this:
What impresses (in some sense) me is how he can make two statements (November: "I got to know him very well"; July: "I don't know who Putin is") that were contradictory and they were
both lies.
On a separate note, I thought Bloomberg was very effective tonight.
I think the media is being ridiculous on this one. As much as I think Trump says some absurd things, this is one instance where people have made a mountain out of a remark that really didn't amount to much because they're perpetually looking for something to be outraged about.
Quote from: Pat B on July 27, 2016, 07:56:56 PM
On a separate note, I thought Bloomberg was very effective tonight.
Bloomberg: "Let's elect a
sane, competent person."
Quote from: orfeo on July 28, 2016, 01:00:32 AM
I think the media is being ridiculous on this one. As much as I think Trump says some absurd things, this is one instance where people have made a mountain out of a remark that really didn't amount to much because they're perpetually looking for something to be outraged about.
Well, then it's conservative voices in the media, too:
Quote from: Jennifer RubinRepublicans in some quarters are still trying to play the moral equivalence game. (She had email problems; he invited email hacks.) But of course a flawed, even dishonest and careless candidate is not the same as one who is racist, willfully ignorant, enamored of evil men and consciously fanning divisions in America while making it out to be a third world hell hole. If it took Trump to make liberals sound tough on Russia, tout American exceptionalism, defend the attainability of the American dream and celebrate the innate goodness of their fellow Americans, it might all be worth it — but only if he loses. Well played, Democrats. Well played.
Dems pummel Trump: A good time was had by all
The great Andrew Sullivan on the great Barack Obama (and I don't give a crap if any of you think otherwise):
Quote10:54 p.m. I've never felt this way about a president, so I might as well admit it. Against hideously graceless opposition, in the face of extraordinary odds, facing immense crises, he stayed the course and changed this country. This election is, at its core, about not letting a bigot and a madman take that away from all of us.
Quote11:41 p.m. It's been a long and entirely unexpected journey with this extraordinary figure. I've doubted and panicked, I've hyper-ventilated and wept, I've worried and persevered. We did a lot of that together, you and me. But I have one thing to say: he never let us down. He kept his cool, he kept his eyes on the prize, he never embarrassed and almost always lifted us up. He is a living, walking example of American exceptionalism, of why this amazing country can still keep surprising the world.
Readers know how I feel about the Clintons. But this is not about them or me. It's about an idea of America that is under siege and under attack from a foul, divisive, dangerous demagogue. If you backed Obama, there is no choice in this election but Clinton. This is not a election to seek refuge in a third party or to preen in purist disdain from the messy, often unsatisfying duties of politics. It is an election to keep the America that Obama has helped bring into being, and the core democratic values that have defined this experiment from the very beginning: self-government, not rule by a strongman; pluralism and compassion rather than nativism and fear; an open embrace of the world, and not a terrified flight from it.
But you know what Obama gave us tonight? He gave some of us hope. Again. That's what he does. And we will never see his like again.
Amen, (poco) sfz; amen.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 28, 2016, 03:50:42 AM
The great Andrew Sullivan on the great Barack Obama (and I don't give a crap if any of you think otherwise):
And excellent Sullivan quotes, thank you. Saw a few last night, but not these. And I agree: Obama is one of the great ones - he's going to be sorely missed.
--Bruce
Sullivan's comments remind me of something I saw another commentator say - that Obama's gift for rhetoric and overall maturity are making him "the liberal Reagan," and that he will continue to build and enjoy that sort of mostly partisan legacy as a beloved optimist role model.
Obama's speech was indeed outstanding and he really knows how to inspire a crowd and get them on their feet cheering. I liked Bill Clinton's speech as well, but I've always liked Bill anyway. During his eight years as our president, we had some of the best years in recent American history without a doubt. I always admired this quote from him: "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 28, 2016, 03:50:42 AM
The great Andrew Sullivan on the great Barack Obama (and I don't give a crap if any of you think otherwise):
OK, but I've always found Sullivan too credulous and emotional to be taken seriously. His political writing is a record of a series of infatuations (Reagan! Thatcher! Bush! Schwarzenegger! Obama!), in each case usually followed by disillusionment, with both sides of the process being expressed in the purplest of prose.
I've doubted and panicked, I've hyper-ventilated and wept, I've worried and perseveredYes Andrew, we know.
Quote from: orfeo on July 28, 2016, 01:00:32 AM
I think the media is being ridiculous on this one. As much as I think Trump says some absurd things, this is one instance where people have made a mountain out of a remark that really didn't amount to much because they're perpetually looking for something to be outraged about.
I agree. The line being peddled really makes no sense.
First, Hillary *deleted* these emails. So if Trump actually asked Russia to hack anyone it wasn't Hillary. And Trump didn't say hack anyway, he said "find". I think it's clear he is implying, in a deniable way, that Russia already has the emails. (He wants to do it in a deniable way so he can't be pinned down on evidence Russia actually has them.) That's what he means by "find".
I think this whole thing benefits Trump btw. The folks who are outraged, outraged I tellya, OUT. RAGED, are the ones who already dislike Trump. To anyone else it looks like a puffed up non-issue. And that Hillary is trying to argue both that the emails were private harmless emails and that this is a national security issue. Fighting over emails does Hillary no good.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on July 28, 2016, 06:40:24 AM
OK, but I've always found Sullivan too credulous and emotional to be taken seriously. His political writing is a record of a series of infatuations (Reagan! Thatcher! Bush! Schwarzenegger! Obama!), in each case usually followed by disillusionment, with both sides of the process being expressed in the purplest of prose.
I've doubted and panicked, I've hyper-ventilated and wept, I've worried and persevered
Yes Andrew, we know.
Fair enow.
Quote from: orfeo on July 28, 2016, 01:00:32 AMI think the media is being ridiculous on this one. As much as I think Trump says some absurd things, this is one instance where people have made a mountain out of a remark that really didn't amount to much because they're perpetually looking for something to be outraged about.
Not just this one. The press coverage has almost been of the hyperventilating sort at times. Trump is a demagogue! Trump is dangerous! Trump is abandoning our allies! (And on the internet Trump is a fascist, Trump is Hitler, Trump is Drumpf (get it, it's German!), and so on.) What I find more generally troubling - though admittedly entertaining - is that Russia really is the Bad Guy again. Leon Panetta, when interviewed by Chuck Todd last night, brought up the phrase "Cold War". (The use of the phrase came after Mr Todd reminded him that in 2012, Mitt Romney said that Russia was the primary geopolitical threat faced by the US, and Obama and Democrats mocked him.) Nothing focuses the mind quite like a bad guy, even for a country with military and economic superiority that is devastatingly lopsided. I get it, Putin is mean and nasty,
and now he's meddling in the US election. The best part of all this, from an entertainment perspective, is that many on the American left who engage in this hyperbole actually believe they are behaving reasonably.
The round-the-clock focus on specific stupid things Trump says - and he does say a good number of them - has made this a purely personality driven campaign. Someone may mention a policy proposal here or there, but they don't really matter anymore.
I await Ms Clinton's speech just to see if she can deliver a good one. Last night was a bummer. Uncle Joe shouted too much. Mr Kaine's speech was decent and pleasant toned, but tended toward blandness. And Obama's speech was middling for him, with only uninspired references to TR, the Declaration of Independence, and "Yes We Can!", and even Reagan, though only to attempt to draw a contrast with Trump. It was not like 2004 or 2008. Michelle Obama's speech will probably be the best of this convention. Cruz's was the best of the Republican convention, though for different reasons.
Quote from: Todd on July 28, 2016, 08:18:36 AM
(And on the internet Trump is a fascist, Trump is Hitler, Trump is Drumpf (get it, it's German!), and so on.)
Though we have different views on a number of things in this post, I'm dropping in here to say that "Trump is Drumpf" did not come from some general desire to make him sound German/Nazi - it is his actual ancestral family name, pre-Anglicization. The appeal to people who use it is not the Germanness, but the inherent silliness of it.
Quote from: Brian on July 28, 2016, 08:24:13 AM
Though we have different views on a number of things in this post, I'm dropping in here to say that "Trump is Drumpf" did not come from some general desire to make him sound German/Nazi - it is his actual ancestral family name, pre-Anglicization. The appeal to people who use it is not the Germanness, but the inherent silliness of it.
I understand the origin of his name, and I also understand that some people other than you are using it precisely to create a link to his German heritage, and some of what that might imply to certain readers, particularly when combined with specific traits assigned to Trump.
Quote from: Todd on July 28, 2016, 08:18:36 AM
Not just this one. The press coverage has almost been of the hyperventilating sort at times. Trump is a demagogue! Trump is dangerous! Trump is abandoning our allies! (And on the internet Trump is a fascist, Trump is Hitler, Trump is Drumpf (get it, it's German!), and so on.)
There was an interesting case a while back, where a Vox writer was suspended for apparently advocating riots against Trump. I think a lot of people missed his point: if you
really think Trump=Hitler (or maybe Mussolini), then you basically have a duty to oppose him violently.
It was a test of whether people believe their own rhetoric. See here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/vox-editor-suspended-encouraging-riots-trump-rallies
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2016, 07:02:34 AM
I agree. The line being peddled really makes no sense.
First, Hillary *deleted* these emails. So if Trump actually asked Russia to hack anyone it wasn't Hillary. And Trump didn't say hack anyway, he said "find". I think it's clear he is implying, in a deniable way, that Russia already has the emails. (He wants to do it in a deniable way so he can't be pinned down on evidence Russia actually has them.) That's what he means by "find".
I think this whole thing benefits Trump btw. The folks who are outraged, outraged I tellya, OUT. RAGED, are the ones who already dislike Trump. To anyone else it looks like a puffed up non-issue. And that Hillary is trying to argue both that the emails were private harmless emails and that this is a national security issue. Fighting over emails does Hillary no good.
Maybe, but we'll see. Partisan outrage is hardly a new phenomenon, and Republicans have their share of it. I am skeptical that this episode adds any outrage towards Clinton beyond what was already there.
But a Republican cozying up to Russia -- and even if you can convince people to parse this instance as a joke, that has become a recurring theme for Trump -- is another move into uncharted waters. I'm not sure that the contents of the emails are still the issue.
All that said, Trump has certainly proven to be extraordinarily slippery.
Quote from: Pat B on July 28, 2016, 11:15:47 AM
Republicans have their share of it.
The North Carolina GOP just criticized Tim Kaine for wearing a supposed Honduras flag pin at the convention. It was actually a pin from the US Marines.
BTW Trump just told "Fox and Friends" that Putin "is a better leader than Obama", though he indicated that that doesn't mean he likes Putin, just that Putin is more effective. The more general concern here is that he's not capable of moving on from mistakes - anytime this happens, he digs a trench and starts fighting siege warfare in the media, rather than refocusing on his campaign's messages.
Quote from: Pat B on July 28, 2016, 11:15:47 AMI am skeptical that this episode adds any outrage towards Clinton beyond what was already there.
I don't see how it could.
Quote from: Brian on July 28, 2016, 11:22:42 AManytime this happens, he digs a trench and starts fighting siege warfare in the media, rather than refocusing on his campaign's messages.
Was he wearing his Maga hat? That is the entirety of his message.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on July 28, 2016, 06:40:24 AM
OK, but I've always found Sullivan too credulous and emotional to be taken seriously. His political writing is a record of a series of infatuations (Reagan! Thatcher! Bush! Schwarzenegger! Obama!), in each case usually followed by disillusionment, with both sides of the process being expressed in the purplest of prose.
I've doubted and panicked, I've hyper-ventilated and wept, I've worried and persevered
Yes Andrew, we know.
So he's emotional. BFD. After eight years, his position on Obama can be taken as settled, and his final judgment ("the greatest president in my lifetime") is the opposite of disillusionment.
Quote from: Pat B on July 28, 2016, 11:15:47 AM
Maybe, but we'll see. Partisan outrage is hardly a new phenomenon, and Republicans have their share of it. I am skeptical that this episode adds any outrage towards Clinton beyond what was already there.
But a Republican cozying up to Russia -- and even if you can convince people to parse this instance as a joke, that has become a recurring theme for Trump -- is another move into uncharted waters. I'm not sure that the contents of the emails are still the issue.
All that said, Trump has certainly proven to be extraordinarily slippery.
I don't disagree with a word of that.
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
I don't disagree with a word of that.
Close the thread, we all reached a consensus!
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2016, 11:34:26 AM
I don't disagree with a word of that.
Okay, I will reconsider. ;)
Bernie, we hardly knew ye. (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/26/bernie-sanders-to-return-to-senate-as-an-independent/)
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/bill-clinton-apparently-falls-asleep-during-hillarys-convention-speech-video/
Quote from: Eli on July 28, 2016, 10:08:32 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/bill-clinton-apparently-falls-asleep-during-hillarys-convention-speech-video/
To be fair, he's been watching her run for president every day since he was first elected. Gotta get dull.
Quote from: Garrison KeillorThe word "loser" is spoken with such contempt these days, a man might like to forget the losses in his own life that taught him something about good judgment. The money he invested in that casino in Atlantic City that went bust, the university course he enrolled in that promised to teach him the secrets of success but instead he wound up unemployed and 40 grand in debt, the candidate whose hat he wore who turned out to be tone-deaf and deluded — dumb, dumb, dumb, and yet his loved ones did not chortle and point and do the nyaa-nyaa. They put an arm around him and said, "This is how we learn." And it is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/god-help-us-were-in-trouble-down-here/2016/07/26/989cde08-535d-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na
QuoteWhen I envision a Trump Presidential Library, I see enormous chandeliers and gold carpet and a thousand slot machines.
But it will be huuge, believe me! And magnificent and so gorgeous, almost as gorgeous as Ivanka and Melania combined! Magnficent! I promise you!
He'll stiff the contractors, and he'll have all the books (which he doesn't read anyway) printed in Canada.
I suspect one's impression of Hillary's speech depends largely on whether one is already inclined to vote for her or not, but I will say that the juiciest tidbit for me, and one that got a roaring cheer, was the line about amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United. I hope she goes through with her promise and pushes for it if she wins. That'll result in some awesome political combat!
Quote from: Todd on July 29, 2016, 09:13:03 AM
I suspect one's impression of Hillary's speech depends largely on whether one is already inclined to vote for her or not, but I will say that the juiciest tidbit for me, and one that got a roaring cheer, was the line about amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United. I hope she goes through with her promise and pushes for it if she wins. That'll result in some awesome political combat!
Censors of the world unite! You have nothing to gain but your chains!
Quote from: Todd on July 29, 2016, 09:13:03 AM
I suspect one's impression of Hillary's speech depends largely on whether one is already inclined to vote for her or not [...]
Whether this falls under that heading or not, I am uncertain. But my intention had been (since Massachusetts is safely in the blue column) to write in Sen. Sanders; but Clinton's speech left me entirely willing to cast my vote for her. This was not only the speech, of course; but also the insight afforded by both the latest episode in the Benghazi witch-hunt, and the "lock her up" chants in Cleveland, of just how deranged the obsession is on the Right with stopping at nothing to try to drag her down. That's a crowd I never want to be mistaken for condoning.
After Khizr Khan finished his short speech, asking Muslims and immigrants to take the election seriously and vote, Google reports that searches for the phrase "register to vote" went through the roof, reaching their highest point all night.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2016, 10:08:11 AMWhether this falls under that heading or not, I am uncertain.
Her speech did not change my mind. Write in it is. Don't know who yet. If William Weld had been the top of the ticket instead of the Veep selection, I would have gone Libertarian.
Quote from: Todd on July 29, 2016, 10:56:44 AM
If William Weld had been the top of the ticket instead of the Veep selection, I would have gone Libertarian.
I'll probably go that way anyway, since it makes no difference in the real world who is top of the Libertarian ticket.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on July 29, 2016, 11:21:24 AM
I'll probably go that way anyway, since it makes no difference in the real world who is top of the Libertarian ticket.
True, but there's just something about Gary Johnson I don't like. Oregon is going Clinton no matter how I vote.
It's interesting to compare Obama's and Hillary's speeches.
Obama kept it down a bit, but still no one can match his rhythm, both in the pacing of ideas and in delivery.
Not one speaker managed better to link Trump to fundamentally un-American values. "We're not looking to be ruled."
Hillary's speech would have been better if it had been ten minutes shorter. She could have taken it a little easier.
The DNC speech I liked best in terms of temperature and effectiveness was Bloomberg's.
Quote from: Todd on July 29, 2016, 11:46:33 AM
True, but there's just something about Gary Johnson I don't like. Oregon is going Clinton no matter how I vote.
Perhaps this ain't it, but Johnson is cursed with one of those snarly, nasal voices that just sounds smug and off-putting even when it says all the right things.
Quote from: Brian on July 29, 2016, 12:14:09 PM
Perhaps this ain't it, but Johnson is cursed with one of those snarly, nasal voices that just sounds smug and off-putting even when it says all the right things.
It's not his voice, but more the fact that he couldn't answer the key non-interventionist hypothetical he was asked (Should the US have been in WWI and WWII? The proper answers are No and Yes, not "I don't know"), and he chose to run a pot business, which, while legal where he did run it, is not nationwide, and if one aspires to be President, even half-assedly, one should not engage in a business that is illegal in most of the country. In short, he's not serious. He's more serious than Trump, but that doesn't mean anything.
Quote from: Todd on July 29, 2016, 12:21:32 PM
Should the US have been in WWI and WWII? The proper answers are No and Yes
The question is as contrafactual as it gets, because if the US had not been in WWI, probably WWII would not have been, at least not in the form it was, because if Germany had won WWI (which they were just about to, prior to the US intervention) Hitler would probably have remained an obscure former corporal selling trite watercolors for a pitiful living. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2016, 12:33:54 PMThe question is as contrafactual as it gets
Correct, but if he wanted to show he was a serious non-interventionist, then the correct answers are either no/yes, or something like "I can't answer that question because the events happened, but as it pertains to X happening now, here is where I stand." He spluttered the worst possible answer for a self-proclaimed non-interventionist.
In other words, the contrafactual nature of the question does not invalidate as an invitation to express one's political philosophy 8)
Quote from: Todd on July 29, 2016, 12:38:40 PM
Correct, but if he wanted to show he was a serious non-interventionist, then the correct answers are either no/yes, or something like "I can't answer that question because the events happened, but as it pertains to X happening now, here is where I stand."
That´s true.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 29, 2016, 12:39:51 PM
In other words, the contrafactual nature of the question does not invalidate as an invitation to express one's political philosophy 8)
Sure, but as Todd pointed out and I agree, "I don´t know" is the worst possible answer.
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2016, 12:44:34 PM
Sure, but as Todd pointed out and I agree, "I don´t know" is the worst possible answer.
Indeed.
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2016, 12:44:34 PM
Sure, but as Todd pointed out and I agree, "I don´t know" is the worst possible answer.
A touch off topic but I hold what might be the most contrarian view about WWI. The Armistice was a tragic error, preventing Germany from suffering the true consequences of a total defeat, and allowing the "stab in the back" myth, and romantic myths about that war generally, to flourish. Not that I blame anyone for it, though there were dissenters at the time making exactly this point. Crushing military humiliation is sometimes just what is needed.
Quote from: Ken B on July 29, 2016, 04:27:23 PM
A touch off topic but I hold what might be the most contrarian view about WWI. The Armistice was a tragic error, preventing Germany from suffering the true consequences of a total defeat, and allowing the "stab in the back" myth, and romantic myths about that war generally, to flourish. Not that I blame anyone for it, though there were dissenters at the time making exactly this point. Crushing military humiliation is sometimes just what is needed.
Wow. You seem to have drawn a rather different lesson from history.
The reason why Europe recovered to fast from the much bigger devastation of WWII is that your kind of thinking was absent at the table.
Quote from: Ken B on July 29, 2016, 04:27:23 PM
A touch off topic but I hold what might be the most contrarian view about WWI. The Armistice was a tragic error, preventing Germany from suffering the true consequences of a total defeat, and allowing the "stab in the back" myth, and romantic myths about that war generally, to flourish. Not that I blame anyone for it, though there were dissenters at the time making exactly this point. Crushing military humiliation is sometimes just what is needed.
Well, Germany formally requested the armistice when their troops were still quite deep into enemy territory and not a single enemy soldier had set foot on their soil. It was obvious that they could not win the war, but equally obvious that technically speaking they were far from having lost it.
Drole de guerre indeed.
I doubt that if the war continued they would have suffered a crushing defeat, but such thought experiments are futile. After 4 years of carnage, no responsible and sane political or military leader would have rejected Germany´s request and continued
a outrance a war without any clear outcome in sight.
Quote from: Florestan on July 29, 2016, 11:25:16 PM
Well, Germany formally requested the armistice when their troops were still quite deep into enemy territory and not a single enemy soldier had set foot on their soil. It was obvious that they could not win the war, but equally obvious that technically speaking they were far from having lost it. Drole de guerre indeed.
I doubt that if the war continued they would have suffered a crushing defeat, but such thought experiments are futile. After 4 years of carnage, no responsible and sane political or military leader would have rejected Germany´s request and continued a outrance a war without any clear outcome in sight.
No, this is wrong. Germany was teetering on the edge of a complete military collapse.
Quote from: Herman on July 29, 2016, 11:03:48 PM
Wow. You seem to have drawn a rather different lesson from history.
The reason why Europe recovered to fast from the much bigger devastation of WWII is that your kind of thinking was absent at the table.
Nonsense. Germany DID suffer a crushing defeat in WWII and there was no armistice, there was unconditional surrender. Exactly the opposite of what happened after WWI. FDR and Truman applied my thinking exactly.
Quote from: Herman on July 29, 2016, 11:03:48 PMThe reason why Europe recovered to fast from the much bigger devastation of WWII is that your kind of thinking was absent at the table.
American money and economic management, in the form of the Marshall Plan, and the accompanying (mandatory) senior status of American claims on German debt repayment, are widely considered to be two of the biggest reasons why Europe recovered so fast and with so little acrimony compared to the Great War. Part of what made this possible was the unconditional surrender of Axis powers.
Quote from: Ken B on July 30, 2016, 05:38:12 AM
Germany was teetering on the edge of a complete military collapse.
Sorry, my friend, this is a historical nonsense. Simply not true. Please, please get your facts straight. Germany requested an armistice at a time when their troops were rather deep into enemy territory and not a single enemy soldier had set foot on their soil. Very, very different than the situation at the end of WWII.
Quote from: Todd on July 30, 2016, 06:24:36 AM
American money and economic management, in the form of the Marshall Plan, and the accompanying (mandatory) senior status of American claims on German debt repayment, are widely considered to be two of the biggest reasons why Western Europe recovered so fast and with so little acrimony compared to the Great War. Part of what made this possible was the unconditional surrender of Axis powers.
Fixed & Hear, hear!
(Whenever I hear
Europe used as meaning anything, and exclusively, west of Vienna I cringe.
For one, Prague is west of Vienna. ;D
For two, the Byzantine Empire (an ideological misnomer for the Roman Empire proper) was a beacon of civilization and culture at a time when what is today known as Western Europe was the undisputed playground of various sorts of barbarians. ;D ;D)
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2016, 06:55:21 AMwhen what is today known as Western Europe was the undisputed playground of various sorts of barbarians.
When did that change?
Quote from: Todd on July 30, 2016, 10:04:55 AM
When did that change?
There is not a fixed historical date. It was a continuous process initiated by Charlemagne (one of the greatest geopolitical geniuses the Western world has produced) in the West, corroborated with the historical development, and contingencies, of the Roman Empire in the East.
1453 is probably THE year that changed the history of Christendom for good. (actuallly, for worse...)
That is, after 1204.... If I were to nominate THE event that had the most negative impact on the history of the Western (ie, Christian) world, it would be the 1204 Crusade.
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2016, 06:54:16 AM
Sorry, my friend, this is a historical nonsense. Simply not true. Please, please get your facts straight. Germany requested an armistice at a time when their troops were rather deep into enemy territory and not a single enemy soldier had set foot on their soil. Very, very different than the situation at the end of WWII.
No Andrei, you are quite wrong. I am not going to debate you. The high command demanded the government sue for peace because they were about to implode. This is not controversial. Germany was also facing starvation from the blockade as well. This is evident from the difficulty feeding people even after the war ended.
The fact they were still on conquered territory is of course part of why the armistice proved such an error: it fed the myth that germany was not actually beaten militarily.
Update.
QuoteOn 29 September Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and General Erich Ludendorff told Kaiser Wilhelm II that the war was lost and that negotiations for an armistice based on President Wilson's peace proposals should begin at once.
things got worse in October.
A brief summary here http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/war_end_01.shtml
Point 8 on this list (also on the BBC) also agrees with Ken B.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2016, 11:58:38 AM
That is, after 1204.... If I were to nominate THE event that had the most negative impact on the history of the Western (ie, Christian) world, it would be the 1204 Crusade.
Or the 1350 plague, that killed so much manpower that serfdom eventuaqlly ended, and paid work and capitalism was the end result.....
Quote from: orfeo on July 30, 2016, 11:51:03 PM
Point 8 on this list (also on the BBC) also agrees with Ken B.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836
Thanks. I love point 5, particularly.
Quote from: Florestan on July 30, 2016, 11:58:38 AMThere is not a fixed historical date.
You missed the point. The current side posts about the Great War indicate that European savagery hardly ended in 1204 or 1350 or 1453.
Looks like Khizr Khan is doing the talk show rounds. I caught the tail end of his segment on Meet the Press. He knows how to comport himself on camera. I had to do a quick search to find out who he is. Turns out he's an attorney who has worked with the press before. That explains the perfectly selected wording and comfortable demeanor in an interview setting. The Dems did a great job picking a man on the street with a touching story to tell who also checks some politically relevant boxes. I wonder how long he will be on the campaign trail.
So, the lady says to me, "I'm scared of Trump; he'll go to war as soon as he gets in...". And, mind you, this lady doesn't meet swooning-for-Hill criteria either.
So, I'm looking at her. I had recently watched that Hill/James Baker(?) clip, where he's going on about, I think, the Iranians, and how we should do something big and bad (I forget, but, let's just say it's just on this side of "war hawkish", eh?- not much, mind you, but not, hippie), and then Hill gets that clackffle (laugh+cackle) which seems to indicate. "Yea, I'd f*** them up real purdy like hoss, wooo, f*** yea, 'Murica" (ok, - but please, WATCH THE CLIP - wherever the f*** it is!!).
So I start with the, "Oh, you mean like how Hill ..." and point out Labia, Syria,... just, what war doesn't Hill like? And the lady is starting to make excuses like "well, she's the establishment", "I feel safer" (oh, the word "fell" gets me good, ya'll;)), and, you can guess the meat-n-potatoes.
I seem to hear the same sentiment here. All you grown men are scared this... let's just call him "Russian Oligarch"... is more dangerous than London-DC-TellABeeb... after the latter has proved itself over and over and over and over again over just the last 2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 years. WHAT exactly are you afeared of that will happen? First nuke on US soil? What? Muslim invasion...Sharia? China+Russia? Crypto-Backlash? Or that he's going to nuke shit all over town on a Saturday night?
You all simply don't have faith in your own overlords to birth a financial/theatrical situation that would keep EITHER of the two patsies busyBusyBUSY for whatever length of time?
Please explain this apparent hypnosis you are all under.
(surely Thomas Jefferson would neither like a businessman, or a career criminal, to run for the highest political office- just to show my impartiality)
OH- BTW- the NEWS called, and wanted to remind you who owns the voting machines, and who counts them. Thank you!
Quote from: snyprrr on July 31, 2016, 08:36:44 AM
Please explain this apparent hypnosis you are all under.
Thanks for the smile, dude.
Quote from: snyprrr on July 31, 2016, 08:36:44 AM
surely Thomas Jefferson would neither like a businessman, or a career criminal, to run for the highest political office
No, the esteemed Mr Jefferson preferred to have slave-owning, slave-raping, land-owning gentry run for the highest political office.
Quote from: Todd on July 31, 2016, 06:10:32 AM
You missed the point.
I did. I took your question too literally.
Quote from: snyprrr on July 31, 2016, 08:36:44 AM
Please explain this apparent hypnosis you are all under.
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/f7a7169075d12a3ae32296b3e77e312d91326ec0/0_48_4096_2458/master/4096.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=25586ef80b12877400d2251980712487)
PIKACHU HAS TAKEN THE WORLD OVER ! THE DONALD DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE !!
(http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fv%2Ft1.0-9%2F13669006_10209941869643750_1321302681610484572_n.jpg%3Foh%3D7a4bc3691845950ee755627d3feff173%26oe%3D57F682ED&width=810)
(http://1u88jj3r4db2x4txp44yqfj1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Pokemon-go-central-park-930x465.png)
(http://images.lpcdn.ca/924x615/201607/31/1237089-femme-porte-chandail-sarcastique-lequel.jpg)
I don't know what the talk is about these days in the US (as always it all depends on your preferred source of information), but the Putin influence is widely perceived as pervasive in the Republican campaign.
Quote from: André on July 31, 2016, 06:17:17 PM
(http://images.lpcdn.ca/924x615/201607/31/1237089-femme-porte-chandail-sarcastique-lequel.jpg)
I don't know what the talk is about these days in the US (as always it all depends on your preferred source of information), but the Putin influence is widely perceived as pervasive in the Republican campaign.
Looks like an a time-Trump shirt to me. You don't detect sarcasm there? Even after reading the link?
I'll leave it to you to form your own opinion :-\
I saw a hilarious used car salesman ad in Ohio the other day. Billboard with two guys, each had a big Donald hair thing painted on their pictures, "Make deals great again!"
Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on the nationally syndicated radio show the Thom Hartmann Program that the United States is now an "oligarchy" in which "unlimited political bribery" has created "a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors." Both Democrats and Republicans, Carter said, "look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves."
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/ (https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/)
Quote from: André on July 31, 2016, 06:17:17 PM
(http://images.lpcdn.ca/924x615/201607/31/1237089-femme-porte-chandail-sarcastique-lequel.jpg)
I don't know what the talk is about these days in the US (as always it all depends on your preferred source of information), but the Putin influence is widely perceived as pervasive in the Republican campaign.
Press sensationalism is working, then. Perhaps Trump is heavily influenced by Putin, perhaps not, but perception is what matters.
Quote from: The new erato on August 01, 2016, 01:08:07 AM
Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday on the nationally syndicated radio show the Thom Hartmann Program that the United States is now an "oligarchy" in which "unlimited political bribery" has created "a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors." Both Democrats and Republicans, Carter said, "look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves."
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/ (https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/)
That's from July 30th of last year.
Carter has been talking about similar themes for a few years. (http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/jimmy_carter_us_has_no_functioning_democracy_partner/)
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2016, 06:58:38 AM
Press sensationalism is working, then. Perhaps Trump is heavily influenced by Putin, perhaps not, but perception is what matters.
Not that El Tupé will do anything that he doesn't want to do (that's why they love him so!), but Geo. Will suggests (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-entangled-with-russia-is-trump/2016/07/29/d5255d10-54e7-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html) that the release of the tax returns would clarify what Russia does or does not mean to The Nominee.
What do you think,
Todd? Will he get away with non-disclosure all the way through to Election Day? Lawd knows, El Tupé and clarification have a non-relationship.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 01, 2016, 07:02:53 AMWhat do you think, Todd? Will he get away with non-disclosure all the way through to Election Day? Lawd knows, El Tupé and clarification have a non-relationship.
It's not a requirement for being President, and it stretches back only to the 50s, so Trump has a well-reasoned, historical basis for saying he won't release that information, though, of course, that's not how he would put it. I think he can get away with it. If enough senior Republican leaders demand it, it will be harder to resist, but Dems, former Republican George Will, and that loser Mitt Romney will not suffice to convince the Donald.
I will admit, I've never looked into doing business personally with Russian firms or individuals, but I would be very surprised if the US government does not have various legal and documentation requirements for non-financial activity, and I know that financial transactions involving Russia involve OFAC, so I find it very difficult to believe that the US government would not already have some indication of at least some Trump dealings with Russia. It would stand to reason that he would also use offshore entities, making things more difficult to trace, but the value of his tax records there may not be what others hope. While Trump's tax records would reveal a fair amount about his business dealings, there is a fair chance that hopes of a smoking gun as it pertains to Russia may be just wishful thinking.
No one convinces 'The Donald'! No one!
Thanks, I am sure you're right.
No one goes lower!
The Khan fight highlights a huge GOP problem: No one knows how low [El Tupé] can go (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/01/the-khan-family-highlights-a-huge-gop-problem-no-one-knows-how-low-trump-can-go/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/16/us/16firstdraft-buffett/16firstdraft-buffett-tmagArticle.jpg)
Hey, Bernie, what Billionaire Class?
Buffet's invitation to compare tax returns with Trump is just one more bizarre speed bump in this election. Dueling billionaire tax returns. (Thank goodness Buffett is fighting for us.)
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2016, 07:21:21 AM
It's not a requirement for being President, and it stretches back only to the 50s, so Trump has a well-reasoned, historical basis for saying he won't release that information, though, of course, that's not how he would put it. I think he can get away with it. If enough senior Republican leaders demand it, it will be harder to resist, but Dems, former Republican George Will, and that loser Mitt Romney will not suffice to convince the Donald.
It's significant though that the pressure is mounting to do as others do. The facts that he pressed Obama for the birth certificate and Romney for his tax returns is making it harder for Trump.
What he'll do (as he always does) is try to talk it away, and thus keep the issue alive. He'll never release his tax returns, because he's figured he'll lose more votes by doing so, and exposing that he pays as about as much taxes as a small town plumber. Plus his entire ego is tied up with the idea that he's soooo rich.
It's the "He says it like it is" part he's losing credibility in.
It's a dream scenario for the Dems: Trump is doing all the damage to himself. It's like a cartoon car wreck dropping parts along the way to the precipice.
Trump would say: It's gonna be soooo beautiful.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 01, 2016, 07:02:53 AM
Not that El Tupé will do anything that he doesn't want to do (that's why they love him so!), but Geo. Will suggests (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-entangled-with-russia-is-trump/2016/07/29/d5255d10-54e7-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html) that the release of the tax returns would clarify what Russia does or does not mean to The Nominee.
What do you think, Todd? Will he get away with non-disclosure all the way through to Election Day? Lawd knows, El Tupé and clarification have a non-relationship.
"As you know, if I announce [a presidential bid], I will have to release very detailed information about my wealth," Trump said on CNN. [in 2011]
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/trump-wont-release-returns-just-yet-053847#ixzz4G9gJd5E7 (http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/trump-wont-release-returns-just-yet-053847#ixzz4G9gJd5E7)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 01, 2016, 11:00:54 PM
"As you know, if I announce [a presidential bid], I will have to release very detailed information about my wealth," Trump said on CNN. [in 2011]
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/trump-wont-release-returns-just-yet-053847#ixzz4G9gJd5E7 (http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/trump-wont-release-returns-just-yet-053847#ixzz4G9gJd5E7)
Of course, he makes contradictory remarks within seconds of one another.
Warren Buffett says he'll release his tax returns if [El Tupé] does too (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/01/warren-buffett-is-also-being-audited-but-still-wants-to-share-his-tax-returns-with-donald-trump/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_buffett-1115pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Actually, I hope he doesn't, not until the debates, anyway; I think we will enjoy this being a point in at least one of the debates.
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2016, 06:58:38 AM
Press sensationalism is working, then. Perhaps Trump is heavily influenced by Putin, perhaps not, but perception is what matters.
That's from July 30th of last year.
Carter has been talking about similar themes for a few years. (http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/jimmy_carter_us_has_no_functioning_democracy_partner/)
The story is reported and analysed at length (not just a T- shirt picture) in many leading world papers (Le Monde, The Guardian, La Repubblica). I didn't check german newspapers, but I suppose that in this global glass house, it's all over the world.
This is from yesterday's edition of Le Monde http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2016/07/08/les-troublantes-liaisons-entre-trump-et-poutine_4966148_3210.html?xtmc=trump_poutine&xtcr=2 (http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2016/07/08/les-troublantes-liaisons-entre-trump-et-poutine_4966148_3210.html?xtmc=trump_poutine&xtcr=2) and Italy's La Repubblica: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2016/07/28/trump-ai-russi-rubate-le-mail-a-hillary13.html?ref=search.
The fact is that Trump leaves so many smoking guns all over the place, it's hard to keep up with all the hints, declarations, tweets, contradictions, gaffes and 'sarcasms'.
Quote from: André on August 02, 2016, 07:34:55 AM
The fact is that Trump leaves so many smoking guns all over the place, it's hard to keep up with all the hints, declarations, tweets, contradictions, gaffes and 'sarcasms'.
Whereas Hillary Clinton hasn't said anything embarrassing in a press conference for ages.
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2016, 07:47:55 AM
Whereas Hillary Clinton hasn't said anything embarrassing in a press conference for ages.
One of the two is clearly succeeding better.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 02, 2016, 07:49:08 AM
One of the two is clearly succeeding better.
Seriously though, at what? At seeming scripted and fake, or at seeming a real person? You hate Trump, and you seize on every minor thing as further proof, but to many people that stuff doesn't matter because they (rightly) discount carefully scripted blather.
My point of course was that Hillary won't have press conferences. Her every word is scripted. This is probably unwise.
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2016, 07:53:47 AM
Seriously though, at what? At seeming scripted and fake, or at seeming a real person? You hate Trump, and you seize on every minor thing as further proof, but to many people that stuff doesn't matter because they (rightly) discount carefully scripted blather.
My point of course was that Hillary won't have press conferences. Her every word is scripted. This is probably unwise.
I would say, instead, that El Tupé does and says contemptible things. Nor am I saying that Hillary is an exemplar of transparency and unassailable truth. Your point is good; Hillary can be rather clunky when she improvises ("That's what they offered," of the Goldman, Sachs & Co. speaking fees).
I would say, too, not that I
seize on every minor thing. Half the time (for argument's sake) when someone explains what they don't like about Hillary, the response is,
she's a liar. You will agree that El Tupé out-lies Hillary every day of the week. Will there come a time when those many people object more to the lies, weasel words and self-delusion of El Tupé than to Hillary's script? That's a question in which I take an intellectual interest.
There is probably no other person who can beat Shillery than Tupee.
For me, that it is the one redeeming quality, trumping other peccadilloes.
The way things are no one of real integrity could climb so high in politics or win.
Nice guys finish last.
The whole world is taking an unusual interest in this election. When you sleep with an elephant, you want to know it's regularly taking its sleeping pills at night and its dose of ritalin when waking up. Trump has the disturbing effect of making everyone nervous whenever he opens his mouth. No wonder comments are heard 'round the globe. The political chemistry is taking a very different turn.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 02, 2016, 08:07:14 AM
I would say, instead, that El Tupé does and says contemptible things. Nor am I saying that Hillary is an exemplar of transparency and unassailable truth. Your point is good; Hillary can be rather clunky when she improvises ("That's what they offered," of the Goldman, Sachs & Co. speaking fees).
I would say, too, not that I seize on every minor thing. Half the time (for argument's sake) when someone explains what they don't like about Hillary, the response is, she's a liar. You will agree that El Tupé out-lies Hillary every day of the week. Will there come a time when those many people object more to the lies, weasel words and self-delusion of El Tupé than to Hillary's script? That's a question in which I take an intellectual interest.
" You will agree that El Tupé out-lies Hillary every day of the week. "
Actually no. Not at a lie per statement rate.
I'm not convinced Trump is lying a lot of the time either. I think he's one of these guys who is slack about facts, and sees certainty where there is none, if the fact supports him. Hillary is more deliberate. When Hillary says she cooperated with the FBI that is a flat out lie.
Quote from: Herman on August 01, 2016, 10:18:08 PMWhat he'll do (as he always does) is try to talk it away, and thus keep the issue alive. He'll never release his tax returns, because he's figured he'll lose more votes by doing so, and exposing that he pays as about as much taxes as a small town plumber. Plus his entire ego is tied up with the idea that he's soooo rich.
I think this is more or less the case.
Quote from: André on August 02, 2016, 07:34:55 AMThe fact is that Trump leaves so many smoking guns all over the place, it's hard to keep up with all the hints, declarations, tweets, contradictions, gaffes and 'sarcasms'.
It looks like you and I have vastly different definitions for the phrase "smoking gun". Hints, declarations, tweets, contradictions, gaffes, and sarcasms are not concrete evidence. They're campaign rhetoric. Big difference.
On just the email hacking issue, David Sanger of the NY Times discussed this more soberly last night on Charlie Rose, going over the timelines of the two main hacks of the DNC, which Russian agencies may have done the hacking, and pointed out that the first one happened before Trump or Hillary even announced they were running. The main point Sanger made was that the Russians engaged in standard behavior up to the point that they possibly released information (even that is not definitively known, except perhaps in intelligence agencies), and whatever motives they may have appear to
not center around Trump. Trump has seized on it in his normal blustery showman's way to make it campaign issue, but it is not particularly likely that Putin makes decisions based on what Trump says or wants.
A smoking gun on Trump's darkly hinted at financial ties to Russia would be, at best, only partly revealed in tax returns. Again, actually engaging in financial transactions with Russia, presuming Trump relies on the US banking system a lot, is not something even the richest men using the biggest banks can do on a whim. There are not just traces of activity, there are transaction level reports, but these may not (probably wouldn't) even be included in supporting documentation for tax returns.
I admit that I do not read La Monde or La Repubblica, but I read The Guardian every day, and their "analyses" are biased. They are OK on hard news (who, what, where, when), and it is OK for them to be biased (that's actually why I read it), but to assign special significance to it requires a faith in its editorial board and authors that I do not have. It is worth noting that I approach the Wall Street Journal the same way.
Quote from: André on August 02, 2016, 08:20:18 AMThe whole world is taking an unusual interest in this election.
Perhaps this will result in some useful action by various governments. Maybe various European governments, in particular, will decide that they must step it up when it comes to their own security, and stop being free riders, a term even Obama has used.
Quote from: GOP pollster Frank LuntzThere are millions of voters who are willing to ignore their discomfort because he is the candidate of change. He does go too far and voters don't like it, but it proves that he is different and it proves that he is absolutely, positively willing to take on the status quo.
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2016, 08:22:55 AM
" You will agree that El Tupé out-lies Hillary every day of the week. "
Actually no. Not at a lie per statement rate.
I'm not convinced Trump is lying a lot of the time either. I think he's one of these guys who is slack about facts, and sees certainty where there is none, if the fact supports him. Hillary is more deliberate. When Hillary says she cooperated with the FBI that is a flat out lie.
There's research on this. Trump out-lies everybody else in the political arena. Both by design and by ignorance.
And the other funny thing is, Hillary seems to be one of the most truthful political speakers.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Quote from: Herman on August 02, 2016, 11:01:16 AM
There's research on this. Trump out-lies everybody else in the political arena. Both by design and by ignorance.
And the other funny thing is, Hillary seems to be one of the most truthful political speakers.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Yes, I read a different fact checker which came to virtually the same conclusion. Trump was 'pants on fire' more often than any other candidate they had ever checked! :o
8)
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2016, 08:22:55 AM
When Hillary says she cooperated with the FBI that is a flat out lie.
Is it? She didn't cooperate with them? She didn't answer their questions? What is the lie?
About lies... political and others. Isn't every politician a 'caretaker of truth' ? Concealed, revealed, disguised, embellished, 'truth' has had more facelifts than any of Hollywood's stars.
As an outsider, I'm rather surprised by this anal obesssion with 'truth'. What about empathy, care, leadership, experience, common sense and, last, culture and intellect ?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 02, 2016, 11:32:42 AM
Is it? She didn't cooperate with them? She didn't answer their questions? What is the lie?
Most recently, this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/
Quote from: Brian on August 02, 2016, 11:41:55 AM
Most recently, this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/
But Ken said that she lied about cooperating with the FBI. I am curious if he meant that literally or not. After all, your article quotes Comey as saying, "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI." Ken did not say she lied to someone else, which is no better mind you, but just not what he said.
Quote from: Brian on August 02, 2016, 11:41:55 AM
Most recently, this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/
Thank you for saving me the effort. Frankly I tire of these "I've never heard of Google" tactics used by some here.
There are no good candidates here folks.
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2016, 11:49:56 AM
Thank you for saving me the effort. Frankly I tire of these "I've never heard of Google" tactics used by some here.
There are no good candidates here folks.
That's true But did she lie about cooperating with the FBI or not?
FFS
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-hillary-clinton-cyber-attack-000000269.html
State department too
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/hillary-clintons-inner-circle-refused-to-cooperate/
"I mean, she lied. She, pure and simple, she only knows to lie. She really does. She only knows to lie. But she lied, and it's a big story."
- Trump
He seems to be sounding more and more like Holden Caulfield.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 02, 2016, 12:09:53 PM
"I mean, she lied. She, pure and simple, she only knows to lie. She really does. She only knows to lie. But she lied, and it's a big story."
- Trump
He seems to be sounding more and more like Holden Caulfield.
Or the Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-hillary-clinton-keeps-lying/493841/
Give the man his due. Trump is full of shit on many topics, but this time he has a point.
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2016, 11:57:43 AM
FFS
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-hillary-clinton-cyber-attack-000000269.html
State department too
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/hillary-clintons-inner-circle-refused-to-cooperate/
Thank you. Though I would point out that the second article has nothing to do with the FBI - it refers to the State Department investigators. I'd also point out that one can cooperate with the FBI and not give them everything they want. But my immediate interest is solved.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 02, 2016, 12:21:20 PM
Thank you. Though I would point out that the second article has nothing to do with the FBI - it refers to the State Department investigators.
That's why I labelled it "State department too" :)
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2016, 12:16:00 PM
Or the Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-hillary-clinton-keeps-lying/493841/
Give the man his due. Trump is full of shit on many topics, but this time he has a point.
You're missing my point. He's incapable of making an adult-sounding, maturely nuanced argument. He sounds like an incoherent high-school kid.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 02, 2016, 01:42:26 PM
You're missing my point. He's incapable of making an adult-sounding, maturely nuanced argument. He sounds like an incoherent high-school kid.
On his good days.
And so few of his days are good this week.
Quote from: Ken B on August 02, 2016, 11:49:56 AMThere are no good candidates here folks.
Is anybody here saying that? It's just that the magnitude of Clinton's flaws is nowhere near Trump's. He's in an entirely different ballpark
https://www.youtube.com/v/qlVUKNbVTlg
Heard backstage after the rally:
"Mr Trump, Mr Trump, it's kiss babies and shake hands."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 02, 2016, 01:42:26 PM
You're missing my point. He's incapable of making an adult-sounding, maturely nuanced argument. He sounds like an incoherent high-school kid.
I'd say petulant but not incoherent. More importantly: his schtick has worked better than anybody expected.
Hillary tells people what they want to hear. That is so boring.
Trump is the master of the unexpected and therefore memorable.
He also managed to sweep away as an unexpected byproduct, the hegemony of the Bush coalition that goes back a century.
When the lid is pulled of that one, the backed up garbage stinks to high heaven, re: the profiteering of Samuel Bush in WWI, Yale University's Order of the Skull and Bones in the 1920, the breeding ground of the future moguls, Prescott Bush and his Nazi connection, all the way up to and including Haliburton.
Trump destroyed Jeb with a one-liner, calling him a lightweight.
I find that fantastic.
Such an elegant knocking down gives voice to the unarticulated frustrations of the common people who know they are being screwed big time but feel utterly helpless to do anything about it.
Quote from: Pat B on August 02, 2016, 08:58:31 PM
I'd say petulant but not incoherent. More importantly: his schtick has worked better than anybody expected.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 02, 2016, 09:53:22 PM
Hillary tells people what they want to hear. That is so boring.
Trump is the master of the unexpected and therefore memorable.
He also managed to sweep away as an unexpected byproduct, the hegemony of the Bush coalition that goes back a century.
When the lid is pulled of that one, the backed up garbage stinks to high heaven, re: the profiteering of Samuel Bush in WWI, Yale University's Order of the Skull and Bones in the 1920, the breeding ground of the future moguls, Prescott Bush and his Nazi connection, all the way up to and including Haliburton.
Trump destroyed Jeb with a one-liner, calling him a lightweight.
I find that fantastic.
Such an elegant knocking down gives voice to the unarticulated frustrations of the common people who know they are being screwed big time but feel utterly helpless to do anything about it.
I appreciate all these points.
Quote from: POTUSIf you are repeatedly having to say, in very strong terms, that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him?
Quote from: Jennifer RubinThe last couple of days show that "He's better than Hillary" is complete garbage.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 03, 2016, 03:56:09 AM
He's not better than Hillary; IMO he's worse. But neither is he so much worse no rational person can disagree.
Quote from: Ken B on August 03, 2016, 08:13:03 AM
He's not better than Hillary; IMO he's worse. But neither is he so much worse no rational person can disagree.
Well, it's Jennifer Rubin. Civility is not a priority. And support from the likes of her sure doesn't make me feel any better about Clinton.
On a different note: I looked at the electoral map last night and it appears that Trump needs to win NC and FL and OH and PA. That seems like a steep climb. Of course, a lot can happen in 3 months.
Quote from: Pat B on August 03, 2016, 09:28:40 AM
Well, it's Jennifer Rubin. Civility is not a priority. And support from the likes of her sure doesn't make me feel any better about Clinton.
On a different note: I looked at the electoral map last night and it appears that Trump needs to win NC and FL and OH and PA. That seems like a steep climb. Of course, a lot can happen in 3 months.
How did you count say Michigan? I think Trump might be able to do well here.
In general I agree: unless something happens Hillary will win. This year the debates might actually
matter. They both seem like weak debaters to me. But Trump is probably more gaffe-prone, at least in terms of some petulant reaction. If Hillary can subtly give him the needle -- not the hands thing please -- he might blow his top.
Quote from: Ken B on August 03, 2016, 08:13:03 AM
He's not better than Hillary; IMO he's worse. But neither is he so much worse no rational person can disagree.
Quote"Paul [Manafort] has good influence with Donald," said Charlie Black, a longtime GOP strategist and former business partner of Manafort. "But he's Donald and he's going to operate stream of consciousness a lot of times. You just hope he'll have more days on message than days on consciousness."
What rational person — no, wait:
what rational American — would want that in the White House? "You just hope..."
He's been seven days not quite getting over — and, attention-slut that he is, not getting over it on news media — the "vicious attack" of the Khans. He has the discipline of a pup in a truck full of dog chow.
One of Trump's péchés mignons is that he rises to every bait and doesn't seem to understand the terms 'let go', 'drop it', or 'move on'.
When playing on home turf, I suspect he could get away with just about anything. ???
But in terms of international policy making and THE chief maneuverer on the global chessboard, I suspect this might prove a major, and a potentially very dangerous hurdle.
BTW, could someone explain what the "unarticulated frustrations of the common people" are, and why going to such an extreme as electing Donald J. Trump as POTUS would alleviate them ? Some great, silent suffering seems to be at stake here.
Conspiracy Theorrhoids of America: I am your voice!
It's more than that, of course.
But that's a part of it.
Pence breaks with El Tupé by . . . endorsing Paul Ryan. Will the latter tell him, You're fired!...?
Quote from: André on August 03, 2016, 11:18:48 AM
BTW, could someone explain what the "unarticulated frustrations of the common people" are, and why going to such an extreme as electing Donald J. Trump as POTUS would alleviate them ? Some great, silent suffering seems to be at stake here.
Sure. Bunch of points.
It's socially okay to sneer at lower class whites. They naturally resent it. This is THE driver of Trump's rise. Notice he always wears that ugliest of headpieces, the basesball cap? This is why.
PC is often wielded as a weapon. Trump pushes back. It is used to hide the truth, and he pushes back. That's appealing.
Free trade *has* hurt some people. They hope -- wrongly -- that ending it will help them. (Free trade is beneficial over all, but it's not a Pareto improvement).
Mass immigration *does* lower wages for unskilled workers. (That's why big business is all for it. That's why Sanders is against it.)
A lot of people think the government works against them. They are very often right. Trump promises to help. (This is one area where I think maybe he could help. Will he if elected? Different question; don't bet the house.)
It's wrong to think people are attracted to the specifics of Trump's policies (which do exist). He represents hope to a lot of people who lack it. (It's a false hope, but it's not very nice to sneer at them for having it. Trump is a master salesman. Hillary has a lot of people fooled too.)
Quote from: Ken B on August 03, 2016, 09:56:07 AM
How did you count say Michigan? I think Trump might be able to do well here.
In general I agree: unless something happens Hillary will win. This year the debates might actually matter. They both seem like weak debaters to me. But Trump is probably more gaffe-prone, at least in terms of some petulant reaction. If Hillary can subtly give him the needle -- not the hands thing please -- he might blow his top.
I
hid behind used the fivethirtyeight "polls-plus" forecast across the board. That only gives him a 17% chance in MI -- but the polls there are pre-convention. You're thinking that his message on trade plays well there, right?
He's gaffe-prone in general but not really in the debates. Goading him would be risky for Clinton. That's his turf, as Ted Cruz learned when he went after "New York values." If she tries it, she better bring something fresher than his hand size.
I wonder if they will shake hands before the debate begins....
Quote from: Ken B on August 03, 2016, 11:48:29 AM
Sure. Bunch of points.
It's socially okay to sneer at lower class whites. They naturally resent it. This is THE driver of Trump's rise. Notice he always wears that ugliest of headpieces, the basesball cap? This is why.
PC is often wielded as a weapon. Trump pushes back. It is used to hide the truth, and he pushes back. That's appealing.
Free trade *has* hurt some people. They hope -- wrongly -- that ending it will help them. (Free trade is beneficial over all, but it's not a Pareto improvement).
Mass immigration *does* lower wages for unskilled workers. (That's why big business is all for it. That's why Sanders is against it.)
A lot of people think the government works against them. They are very often right. Trump promises to help. (This is one area where I think maybe he could help. Will he if elected? Different question; don't bet the house.)
It's wrong to think people are attracted to the specifics of Trump's policies (which do exist). He represents hope to a lot of people who lack it. (It's a false hope, but it's not very nice to sneer at them for having it. Trump is a master salesman. Hillary has a lot of people fooled too.)
Thanks. Your answer sheds some light on this side of the border. When you're not a national or native, a lot of socio cultural gut feeling issues are hard to understand.
But, if I may ask, what % of the electorate - or general population - is made up of "lower class whites" ? I thought that the white people in the US were majoritarily found in the
middle class, just as in Canada or Australia, or Germany, France or Italy. I certainly understand and concur that a lower white middle class exist in sizable proportions in the western world. But why single out the whites as the malcontents in the american society and identify them as the main movers of Trump's supporters ?
If Trump attracts some 45% of the popular vote - as per current estimations - is there not something else that bothers them that much ? I mean, we're talking about the most populous, affluent, educated democracy in the world. A country where, for the last 160 years, a steady increase in educational, socio-economic, technological level has brought America to the fore in every possible aspect of civilization (along with scandinavian countries and a few others, except in terms of military might of course).
Viewed from the outside, it's really hard to understand that frustration. One would think that America had entered a Golden Age a long time ago and that progresses had steadily been made to ensure its pre-eminence as one of the models for other countries to follow. And yet, deep-rooted bitterness and malcontentment, vicious name-calling and division seem to be at the forefront of this political campaign.
Quote from: Pat B on August 03, 2016, 12:46:24 PM
I hid behind used the fivethirtyeight "polls-plus" forecast across the board. That only gives him a 17% chance in MI -- but the polls there are pre-convention. You're thinking that his message on trade plays well there, right?
He's gaffe-prone in general but not really in the debates. Goading him would be risky for Clinton. That's his turf, as Ted Cruz learned when he went after "New York values." If she tries it, she better bring something fresher than his hand size.
Yes I think it may well play here. Michigan is certainly uphill for any republican, but I wouldn't count it as for Hillary just yet. There's a large natural audience for protectionism in Michigan.
Gun control plays badly here too in most of the state because hunting is big.
What really puzzles me is that a person with such an obvious lack of empathy and such a self-centred approach to every issue as Donald Trump should be seen by ordinary voters as the right person to fix any issues other than his own??????
Quite a bit of the so-called "middle class" is also finding itself in unstable or precarious situations. And many have the impression that minorities (who do not fare any better) are helped by affirmative action etc. whereas the (lower) middle class whites are supposed to be privileged. How does it feel to be told you are privileged when you are out of work or stuck in a lousy job? (The obvious implication is that you are dumb and/or lazy to make so little of your white privilege.)
The "golden age" of the US is perceived as long past (the 1950s and early 60s, I guess, or for some maybe the 1980s). And in many respects this is true, although it was not the only military superpower back then, it was far more dominating as an economical superpower and its cultural domination was largely perceived as beneficial. It is still "leading" in those fields but not to such a large extent because Japan, Europe and now also China and others have caught up. Would you buy an American car? This wasn't even a question for Americans in 1960, I guess.
Quote from: André on August 03, 2016, 02:14:14 PM
we're talking about the most populous, affluent, educated democracy in the world. A country where, for the last 160 years, a steady increase in educational, socio-economic, technological level has brought America to the fore in every possible aspect of civilization (along with scandinavian countries and a few others, except in terms of military might of course).
Viewed from the outside, it's really hard to understand that frustration. One would think that America had entered a Golden Age a long time ago and that progresses had steadily been made to ensure its pre-eminence as one of the models for other countries to follow.
I wonder how much of this is really true and how much just Whig history. ;D
I know, he's no longer "a real Republican," but . . .
Quote from: Geo. Will... Pence, doing his well-practiced imitation of a country vicar saddened by the discovery of sin in his parish, said with sorrowful solemnity: "I don't think name-calling has any place in public life." As in "Lyin' Ted" Cruz and "Little Marco" Rubio and "Crooked Hillary" Clinton?
Pence is just the most recent example of how the rubble of ruined reputations will become deeper before Nov. 8. It has been well said that "sooner or later, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences." The Republican Party's multicourse banquet has begun.
Quote from: Philip BumpA big chunk of each candidate's support comes from people who want to see the other person lose, but, as with the CNN/ORC poll released this week, Clinton's support is more heavily from people who want her to win. Trump's is more heavily from people who want Clinton to lose.
Donald Trump's terrible week just got worse
Quote from: karlhenning on August 04, 2016, 04:50:23 AM
I know, he's no longer "a real Republican," but . . .
Going to be a lot of those this cycle. I know several folks who, like me, lean distinctly to the GOP. We're all dismayed. One guy will vote Trump I think, but the rest won't. If I had a vote I'd be voting for Hillary.
Will's right. There are exceptions. Mitt Romney has been clearest and strongest in his criticism of Trump. I hoped Ryan would be too (has it ever happened that the party's previous ticket has repudiated the nominee?), but he's placed being a good soldier over his judgment, alas. He might survive a Trump collapse.
At the risk of . . . well, wait a minute: it
is the current news, and El Tupé says that, as long as he's making news,
it's good publicity!Quote from: Chris CillizzaStuart Stevens was the chief strategist for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential bid. He is also one of the most vocal Republican critics of Donald Trump. I reach out to Stuart every few months to gauge where he stands vis-a-vis Trump. And, with Trump's campaign in full blown panic/collapse mode, now seemed like a good time to check in. Our conversation, conducted via email and edited only for grammar, is below.
Why [El Tupé's] campaign is like a speeding car with its parts falling offQuote from: Stuart StevensI'm of the school that the post-2012 analysis -- the so called "autopsy" -- pointed the party in the direction necessary to win national elections and be a dominant governing party. [El Tupé's] nomination is a complete repudiation of that analysis. The most hopeful interpretation, in my view, is that this is final testing of the alternative view that the party doesn't need to broaden its appeal to nonwhite voters and will learn from the looming defeat. The less hopeful is that it's just nuts.
Quote from: André on August 03, 2016, 02:14:14 PM
If Trump attracts some 45% of the popular vote - as per current estimations - is there not something else that bothers them that much ? I mean, we're talking about the most populous, affluent, educated democracy in the world. A country where, for the last 160 years, a steady increase in educational, socio-economic, technological level has brought America to the fore in every possible aspect of civilization (along with scandinavian countries and a few others, except in terms of military might of course).
Viewed from the outside, it's really hard to understand that frustration. One would think that America had entered a Golden Age a long time ago and that progresses had steadily been made to ensure its pre-eminence as one of the models for other countries to follow. And yet, deep-rooted bitterness and malcontentment, vicious name-calling and division seem to be at the forefront of this political campaign.
The short answer is that most Americans have barely benefitted from the nation's economic growth of the past few decades. This was the centerpiece of Bernie Sanders's campaign, but most of the other candidates also acknowledged it in some way. I think it's the crux of Trump's appeal too, though he doesn't use terms like "income inequality." Obviously there is much disagreement over causes and solutions.
Here (http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/05/24/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump/) is a longer answer from the left, which devolves at the very end into an outright endorsement of Sanders. That cheapens it, even though I like Bernie. The rest of this piece is excellent (and jibes with Ken's comment about disdain towards lower-class whites).
Most Americans do have it pretty good in the grand scheme of things. But it's hard to keep that in perspective, to not be resentful, when you're surrounded by people who are richer than you.
Quote from: Pat B on August 04, 2016, 09:34:34 AM
The short answer is that most Americans have barely benefitted from the nation's economic growth of the past few decades. This was the centerpiece of Bernie Sanders's campaign, but most of the other candidates also acknowledged it in some way. I think it's the crux of Trump's appeal too, though he doesn't use terms like "income inequality." Obviously there is much disagreement over causes and solutions.
Here (http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/05/24/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump/) is a longer answer from the left, which devolves at the very end into an outright endorsement of Sanders. That cheapens it, even though I like Bernie. The rest of this piece is excellent (and jibes with Ken's comment about disdain towards lower-class whites).
Most Americans do have it pretty good in the grand scheme of things. But it's hard to keep that in perspective, to not be resentful, when you're surrounded by people who are richer than you.
Thanks.
Quote from: Pat B on August 04, 2016, 09:34:34 AM
The short answer is that most Americans have barely benefitted from the nation's economic growth of the past few decades. This was the centerpiece of Bernie Sanders's campaign, but most of the other candidates also acknowledged it in some way. I think it's the crux of Trump's appeal too, though he doesn't use terms like "income inequality." Obviously there is much disagreement over causes and solutions.
Here (http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/05/24/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump/) is a longer answer from the left, which devolves at the very end into an outright endorsement of Sanders. That cheapens it, even though I like Bernie. The rest of this piece is excellent (and jibes with Ken's comment about disdain towards lower-class whites).
Most Americans do have it pretty good in the grand scheme of things. But it's hard to keep that in perspective, to not be resentful, when you're surrounded by people who are richer than you.
I don't know many Trump supporters even on line. The one I do, who is intelligent and well educated, is a Leftist. He's also a bit of a loon on economics: supporting tariffs, trade wars, etc. He likes Trump's isolationism, his enmity with the neo-cons, impatience with PC, and expansionist spending proposals. (Sanders was his first choice. )And in fact I can see why people like much of that stuff. So it comes down to one's judgment of The Donald.
Quote from: Ken B on August 04, 2016, 09:50:06 AM
I don't know many Trump supporters even on line. The one I do, who is intelligent and well educated, is a Leftist. He's also a bit of a loon on economics: supporting tariffs, trade wars, etc. He likes Trump's isolationism, his enmity with the neo-cons, impatience with PC, and expansionist spending proposals. (Sanders was his first choice. )And in fact I can see why people like much of that stuff. So it comes down to one's judgment of The Donald.
I re-wrote my post a couple times. One version mentioned that I didn't generalize that article to all Trump supporters. I should have left that in. I have a friend who is is basically just anti-taxation. I also didn't ask who he's voting for but got the strong impression it is Trump. I have known him for a long time and do not think he is a latent racist.
Quote from: Pat B on August 04, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
. . . I have a friend who is basically just anti-taxation.
Good luck with that! 8)
The Building of the Big Beautiful Wall . . . may it not Begin in the Trump Bedroom?
Quote from: Rosalind S. Helderman & Mary JordanNewly published nude photographs of Melania Trump, the wife of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, have raised questions about the story of her immigration to the United States and how the Slovenian-born former model gained her legal status here — questions that the Trump campaign is not answering.
Melania Trump has said she came to the country in 1996, but the photos were taken in New York in 1995 ....
A Franklin & Marshall poll released today shows former Secretary of State Clinton 11 points ahead of [El Tupé] in Pennsylvania, with 49 percent of the vote to the Republican's 38 percent. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0804/Why-Hillary-Clinton-is-gaining-ground-in-key-swing-states)
It's probably old news for the reality based among you, but just in case you missed it:
Ally of Trump staffer Paul Manafort: The staff is 'suicidal,' he's mailing it in (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/02/ally-of-trump-staffer-paul-manafort-the-staff-is-suicidal-hes-mailing-it-in.html)
I've spent some time in the last few months embedded in the Russo-Trumpese troll-o-sphere. The Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/) website operates as a low-functioning business/economics aggregator/advertorialist, and the low function part shows up in its unmoderated comments on its articles, some of which are for real articles, with many "10 best cities for poor people with fearsome insect life and 103 degree heat", that kind of thing. There are also insanely popular hoodies that are now available!
Anyway, the presence of a distinctively Russian troll operation has been increasingly evident. I note that counter trolls fling the accusation and, interestingly, it's rarely denied. The vile content of the megatrolls that use multiple identities, and the incompetence, obvious copy/pasting and inability to form proper sentences of the bot-like provide clues, but it's the combination of praise for Putin and Trump, and how they are kept separate that also sends a signal. The countertrolls seem freelance (there are more actual people with distinct voices among the anti-Trumps, some of whom make it clear they really dislike Hillary). But here's something I've noticed, neither the megatrolls who are the most vicious and the bot-like lesser ones will praise Putin and Trump in the same comment. Given how undisclined the group is about how lies, bullshit, rumors are intermingled with the truth this does stand out. Trump is wonderful here, Putin is wonderful there, but somehow they'd rather not be seen as wonderful together. OK, I could be wrong but it's a "tell".
Anyway Pt. II, BI is now starting to cover the story, though not yet acknowledging its own involvement. I sent them an email on the subject of how the trolls have "crowded out" normal discussion a few days ago. I've no reason to think this has influenced the decision to publish this article, therefore I claim credit:
It looks like Russia hired internet trolls to pose as pro-Trump Americans (http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7)
Speaking of Russia.
https://youtu.be/mCMyHJJrdDw (https://youtu.be/mCMyHJJrdDw)
I don't know if he's right about Putin, but he's surely right about the need and value of debate and discussion on this. I think Todd has brought this stuff up a few times.
Quote from: Ken B on August 04, 2016, 02:15:42 PM
Speaking of Russia.
https://youtu.be/mCMyHJJrdDw (https://youtu.be/mCMyHJJrdDw)
I don't know if he's right about Putin, but he's surely right about the need and value of debate and discussion on this. I think Todd has brought this stuff up a few times.
Cohen has sadly become a Putin apologist, at least since he fell for a lot of the Russian propaganda during the Ukrainian revolution 2014. Of course debate and discussion is needed! But he's completely twisting the narrative that legitimately questions Trump's Russian ties and he brushes off important points with stuff like 'everybody hacks everybody'. 'Reckless branding'? 'No evidence' of Putin's agenda against the Baltic states? Give me a break.
I'm certain that Trump is not an agent for Putin. His admiration for Putin is entirely personal, because it's all personal with him. Second, Trump's value for Putin has nothing to do with how they feel about each other. If people allow themselves to believe the admiration is mutual, that should elicit a few smiles in the Kremlin.
Cohen is concerned about relations between nuclear powers in exactly the way he was before Putin began a cyberwar against the U.S. election process. I suggest that the breakup of NATO is where the focus should be. I think it's not a declaration of war to frustrate Putin on this point. He shouldn't get such an extravagant gift because he has bombs. That's not how deterrence has worked in the past. Is it different because something something
Trump, or something something
Hillary?
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 04, 2016, 03:45:57 PM
Cohen has sadly become a Putin apologist, at least since he fell for a lot of the Russian propaganda during the Ukrainian revolution 2014. Of course debate and discussion is needed! But he's completely twisting the narrative that legitimately questions Trump's Russian ties and he brushes off important points with stuff like 'everybody hacks everybody'. 'Reckless branding'? 'No evidence' of Putin's agenda against the Baltic states? Give me a break.
Cohen has been an advocate of asymmetric nuclear blackmail for a very long time. Something unrelated to Carter, Reagan, a Bush, Clinton, Shrub, Obama, Trump, HildeBeast means whoever runs the Kremlin gets what they want or mass death, suicide by neocon. I thinks not.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 04, 2016, 11:01:49 AM
A Franklin & Marshall poll released today shows former Secretary of State Clinton 11 points ahead of [El Tupé] in Pennsylvania, with 49 percent of the vote to the Republican's 38 percent. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0804/Why-Hillary-Clinton-is-gaining-ground-in-key-swing-states)
Trump is so much fun. He's behind in
OHIO and
FLORIDA, so today he spent the day in
MAINE, and now this evening he's at a fund raiser on
LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK.* Tomorrow he's off to
WISCONSIN, at an event the state's three top Republicans including the governor won't be attending.
If this be method yet there's madness in it.
---------------
* Which Sforzando did not attend.
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 04, 2016, 03:45:57 PM
Cohen has sadly become a Putin apologist, at least since he fell for a lot of the Russian propaganda during the Ukrainian revolution 2014. Of course debate and discussion is needed! But he's completely twisting the narrative that legitimately questions Trump's Russian ties and he brushes off important points with stuff like 'everybody hacks everybody'. 'Reckless branding'? 'No evidence' of Putin's agenda against the Baltic states? Give me a break.
Yeah, that's my impression of Cohen too. But I think he has a point about groupthink having replaced debate.
I am not so het up about "ties". It's the evident admiration for Putin. Another example of his bad judgment.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 04, 2016, 05:28:42 PM
---------------
* Which Sforzando did not attend.
No use asking if you got a hat, then?...
Charles's laser:
Quote from: Charles KrauthammerWhy did Trump do it? It wasn't a mistake. It was a revelation. It's that he can't help himself. His governing rule in life is to strike back when attacked, disrespected or even slighted. To understand Trump, you have to grasp the General Theory: He judges every action, every pronouncement, every person by a single criterion — whether or not it/he is "nice" to Trump.
Indeed, Trump's personal affairs appear to bear that out. He either smooth talks people or threatens to sue them.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 05, 2016, 01:26:29 AM
No use asking if you got a hat, then?...
Brian saved me one.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 05, 2016, 04:54:04 AM
Brian saved me one.
That young man's generosity of spirit is yuuuuuuge.
It's too much to hope that his stop (or one of his stops) on the Island was . . . Babylon?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 05, 2016, 05:38:18 AM
It's too much to hope that his stop (or one of his stops) on the Island was . . . Babylon?
Not sure why you bring Babylon (a town on the South Shore) up, but his fundraiser was in Nissequoque, a town on the North Shore east of Babylon and close to Stony Brook University. I read that he arrived by helicopter.
Quote from: Pat B on August 04, 2016, 09:34:34 AM
Most Americans do have it pretty good in the grand scheme of things. But it's hard to keep that in perspective, to not be resentful, when you're surrounded by people who are richer than you.
How much richer than you can be your neighbors, I wonder? I doubt that low middle class citizens live in the same neighborhood as the upper class.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 05, 2016, 06:04:06 AM
Not sure why you bring Babylon (a town on the South Shore) up, but his fundraiser was in Nissequoque, a town on the North Shore east of Babylon and close to Stony Brook University. I read that he arrived by helicopter.
Just the Biblical association of the name with dissipation and destruction; that is all.
Quote from: Florestan on August 05, 2016, 06:10:59 AM
How much richer than you can be your neighbors, I wonder? I doubt that low middle class citizens live in the same neighborhood as the upper class.
And that is generally the tale of US communities. Nobody lives in any town, where they cannot afford to live. Or, barely afford to live.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 05, 2016, 06:14:04 AM
And that is generally the tale of US communities. Nobody lives in any town, where they cannot afford to live. Or, barely afford to live.
And a great many don't live where they can afford not to live, I'm sure.
We in Western Europe look with amazement, that Trump got as far as he is now. Sure we have these idiots too in the Netherlands, but they never grow into anything else as the size of a midget!
For us it's pure amusement.
Quote from: Harry's corner on August 05, 2016, 07:11:02 AM
We in Western Europe look with amazement, that Trump got as far as he is now. Sure we have these idiots too in the Netherlands, but they never grow into anything else as the size of a midget!
For us it's pure amusement.
I can understand that, but you, no more than us, can afford to be amused until the election is over and he is safely returned to the Land of the Tiny Hands. Because if the loonies somehow manage to make this a reality, it's the end of the world as we know it... :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 05, 2016, 07:27:16 AM
I can understand that, but you, no more than us, can afford to be amused until the election is over and he is safely returned to the Land of the Tiny Hands. Because if the loonies somehow manage to make this a reality, it's the end of the world as we know it... :-\
8)
In this I agree with you!
Quote from: Harry's corner on August 05, 2016, 07:11:02 AM
We in Western Europe look with amazement, that Trump got as far as he is now. Sure we have these idiots too in the Netherlands, but they never grow into anything else as the size of a midget!
For us it's pure amusement.
My dear chap, I long for him to be pure amusement for us, again!
Quote from: Abby PhillipIn an op-ed endorsing Hillary Clinton, Michael Morell noted that the Russian leader is a trained intelligence officer and said he had "played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities" by complimenting him.
In endorsing Clinton, ex-CIA chief says Putin made Trump his 'unwitting agent'Well, and what Russian autocrat would
not want a dupe in the White House?
Rauch has an interesting piece http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/)
Quote from: Harry's corner on August 05, 2016, 07:11:02 AM
We in Western Europe look with amazement, that Trump got as far as he is now.[...]For us it's pure amusement.
I can assure you that we in Eastern Europe are not amused at all. At all. On the contrary, we are worried and apprehensive.
Quote
Sure we have these idiots too in the Netherlands, but they never grow into anything else as the size of a midget!
Never say never, Harry, never say never! You seem to underestimate man´s capacity of, and proclivity to, being duped and giving free reign to the most irrational, fearsome, brutal and destructive instincts --- happened time and again in history, even (or rather especially) in eras when people believed firmly that reason and enlightment will usher in never ending progress, prosperity and universal brotherhood...
Quote from: Florestan on August 05, 2016, 06:10:59 AM
How much richer than you can be your neighbors, I wonder? I doubt that low middle class citizens live in the same neighborhood as the upper class.
I acknowledge that my word choice of "surrounded by" was figurative and therefore vulnerable to semantic quibbling.
Quote from: Ken B on August 04, 2016, 06:09:04 PM
Yeah, that's my impression of Cohen too. But I think he has a point about groupthink having replaced debate.
I am not so het up about "ties". It's the evident admiration for Putin. Another example of his bad judgment.
I mostly agree with the latter. In particular, linking Russia to his tax returns (the main proponent being George Will) seems like a high-risk, low-reward attack. If he eventually releases them and they don't show anything shady regarding Russia, then Trump makes
that the narrative, which could help him almost regardless of what else is in the returns and what else he has said about Russia.
I agree in general about lack of nuanced policy-oriented debate, but that's been going on for decades, and Trump seems like a strange candidate to hitch that wagon to.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 05, 2016, 08:56:17 AM
In endorsing Clinton, ex-CIA chief says Putin made Trump his 'unwitting agent' (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/05/in-endorsing-clinton-ex-cia-chief-says-putin-made-trump-his-unwitting-agent/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_morell-10am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Well, and what Russian autocrat would not want a dupe in the White House?
This makes me uneasy because "unwitting" is almost certainly true about Trump, while false about the RussoTrolls.
I conclude that people would rather downplay Russian involvement well beyond the point the case for it has been made.
I also think the news that U.S. intelligence didn't tell the DNC and the Hillary campaign what they knew about the hacking in order to protect sources and methods is plausible enough to be considered true. It's a little less plausible that HRC was not informed. Trump, of course, was not.
Quote from: Ken B on August 05, 2016, 11:05:46 AM
Rauch has an interesting piece http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/)
I read another article recently that picked up this specific idea:
QuoteOf course, Congress's incompetence makes the electorate even more disgusted, which leads to even greater political volatility. In a Republican presidential debate in March, Ohio Governor John Kasich described the cycle this way: The people, he said, "want change, and they keep putting outsiders in to bring about the change. Then the change doesn't come ... because we're putting people in that don't understand compromise."
And it seems to me that this encapsulates the problem neatly. On the Republican side in particular, with the Tea Party movement, voters are rewarding candidates that are basically about angry yelling, and then things get worse so the same kind of voters decide the solution is to pick someone whose yelling is even angrier and louder than the last time.
1)
This is one sentence - one masterful sentence - from Donald Trump:
"Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.()".
(https://twitter.com/d_jaishankar/status/761440604580634624, http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2015/07/31/donald_trump_this_run_on_sentence_from_a_speech_in_sun_city_south_carolina.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_ru ;
sorry, wrong second link when first posted, now corrected)
2) Donald #Trump's many, many, many, many ties to #Russia:
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/
"That's why Romney was a weak candidate! He didn't yell loud enough!"
Quote from: Turner on August 05, 2016, 10:47:32 PM
"Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.()".
Such eloquence, worthy of the Party of Lincoln.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 06, 2016, 04:53:03 AM
Such eloquence, worthy of the Party of Lincoln.
Did you really have the patience of reading it all? I gave up after the first line. :D
Quote from: Harry's corner on August 05, 2016, 07:11:02 AM
We in Western Europe look with amazement, that Trump got as far as he is now. Sure we have these idiots too in the Netherlands, but they never grow into anything else as the size of a midget!
For us it's pure amusement.
That is only because there are still remnants of a kind of parochial, village-like mentality in the Netherlands - the idea that nothing serious will ever happen as long as you stay neutral. That idea went overboard in May 1940, but some Dutch are still catching up.
It's not just that Geert Wilders, a comparable nationalist politican from Holland, spoke at the Trump, sorry, GOP convention in Cleveland. It's that Trump has sketched various plans that would affect western europe hugely, were Trump elected and were he in that case still able to recall his plans.
So there are plenty of reasons to look at this election with great concern, even if you're safely in some European outpost.
Quote from: Herman on August 06, 2016, 05:16:41 AM
[...]Trump has sketched various plans that would affect western europe hugely, were Trump elected and were he in that case still able to recall his plans.
Sometimes I wonder: if Trump were elected and really tried to really have his way, would the world witness the first ever military coup north of Rio Grande? :laugh: ;D :P
Quote from: orfeo on August 05, 2016, 04:19:36 PM
I read another article recently that picked up this specific idea:
And it seems to me that this encapsulates the problem neatly. On the Republican side in particular, with the Tea Party movement, voters are rewarding candidates that are basically about angry yelling, and then things get worse so the same kind of voters decide the solution is to pick someone whose yelling is even angrier and louder than the last time.
It's not one party, it's both. The dems have gotten extreme too. Hillary spent much of the campaign disavowing her husband's policies. The base is extreme.
Fundamentally I blame abortion. Abortion really should not be an issue in presidential politics at all, but it is because both sides want to pack the Supreme Court . And abortion debates are always emotional, rarely coherent or respectful.
And the truth is abortion policy at a high level will not change via elections. About a third want no restrictions, about a third want severe restrictions, and about a third want something close to what we have. Absent a successful court packing that means we keep pretty much what we have. That being the case it really shouldn't be an issue at all! But it's always the biggest issue.
Quote from: Florestan on August 06, 2016, 05:03:28 AM
Did you really have the patience of reading it all? I gave up after the first line. :D
Henning should set it to music.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 06, 2016, 06:52:18 AM
Henning should set it to music.
An aleatoric style would fit the words.
Quote from: Ken B on August 06, 2016, 06:44:22 AM
It's not one party, it's both. The dems have gotten extreme too. Hillary spent much of the campaign disavowing her husband's policies. The base is extreme.
Fundamentally I blame abortion. Abortion really should not be an issue in presidential politics at all, but it is because both sides want to pack the Supreme Court . And abortion debates are always emotional, rarely coherent or respectful.
And the truth is abortion policy at a high level will not change via elections. About a third want no restrictions, about a third want severe restrictions, and about a third want something close to what we have. Absent a successful court packing that means we keep pretty much what we have. That being the case it really shouldn't be an issue at all! But it's always the biggest issue.
My position on abortion.
It should be allowed as the default --- but not mandatory --- option in cases of rape (including incestual rape) or mother´s life being threatened.
In all other cases it should be allowed as well, but only after the couple --- or the single mother --- has been counseled about what it really means in psychological and phsyical terms, and this includes videotapes of real abortions being showed to them.
Case in point: recently --- that is, this year --- a teenager in a Romanian highschool fainted while watching an abortion video; several pro-choice NGOs protested against the video being played in the class; several pro-life NGOs retorted --- absolutely right, in my view --- that what is legal (ie, abortion) can not be harmful and should be publicized. Either what is legal is good for the society and the society should be informed about it, or what is legal is actually not good for the society, but then again why is it legal?
Quote from: Ken B on August 06, 2016, 06:44:22 AM
It's not one party, it's both. The dems have gotten extreme too.
Given that the USA sits to the right, politically, of most other Western countries, your idea of being an extremist on the Democrat side may be rather different to mine.
Besides, that Rauch article doesn't agree with you. It agrees with me that the Democrats don't have a disruptive force as strong as the Tea Party. This is demonstrated in part by the fact that the Democrats can still get an establishment candidate into position.
Quote from: orfeo on August 06, 2016, 07:18:37 AM
Given that the USA sits to the right, politically, of most other Western countries
THis goes both ways, actually: given that all other Western countries sit to the left of the USA...
For the record, I am neither right nor left. I fully and wholheartedly subscribe to
Jose Ortega y Gasset´s dictum:
"To be of the Left is, as is to be of the Right, to pick one of the infinite numbers of ways available to people for choosing how to become an idiot; both are, actually, forms of moral hemiplegia"In case anyone doubts my translation, here is the Spanish original:
Ser de la izquierda es, como ser de la derecha, una de las infinitas maneras que el hombre puede elegir para ser un imbécil: ambas, en efecto, son formas de la hemiplejía moral..
Quote from: Florestan on August 06, 2016, 07:35:49 AM
THis goes both ways, actually: given that all other Western countries sit to the left of the USA...
You are literally correct. However, it seems slightly odd to define the relationship by taking the outlying example as the reference point. Next you'll be telling me that all of the other people in the Israelite and Philistine armies were shorter than Goliath. Or that the rest of the world's population is slower than Usain Bolt.
Quote from: orfeo on August 06, 2016, 08:19:35 AM
You are literally correct. However, it seems slightly odd to define the relationship by taking the outlying example as the reference point. Next you'll be telling me that all of the other people in the Israelite and Philistine armies were shorter than Goliath. Or that the rest of the world's population is slower than Usain Bolt.
Had you read the rest of my post, you´d have been spared of such dilemmas. ;D
Quote from: orfeo on August 06, 2016, 07:18:37 AM
Given that the USA sits to the right, politically, of most other Western countries, your idea of being an extremist on the Democrat side may be rather different to mine.
Besides, that Rauch article doesn't agree with you. It agrees with me that the Democrats don't have a disruptive force as strong as the Tea Party. This is demonstrated in part by the fact that the Democrats can still get an establishment candidate into position.
I linked Rauch as interesting, not as gospel.
The democrat base is certainly extreme by American standards. That is the standard that is relevant to a discussion of finding compromise in American politics.
Quote from: Florestan on August 06, 2016, 08:23:41 AM
Had you read the rest of my post, you´d have been spared of such dilemmas. ;D
Had I
believed the rest of your post, you mean.
Quote from: Ken B on August 06, 2016, 02:26:35 PM
The democrat base is certainly extreme by American standards. That is the standard that is relevant to a discussion of finding compromise in American politics.
Repubs weren't interested in compromise when it might have helped them survive. They Gohmertized and Brownbacked themselves into their own demise. Trump isn't what made them sick, he's just the comeuppance they've richly earned. He's the ultimate bad leader for as bad a group of followers as I've seen in my life. It's only fair that there should be a reset on who or what is considered extreme. After all, the left "extremists" didn't get you into this mess.
Which extreme measures do you object to, large infrastructure projects, tougher financial regulation and the breakup of TBTF banks, a higher federal minimum wage, protection of LBGT rights a few years in advance of Podunk, Red State, U.S. A.? Is this extreme by the standards of TR, FDR, LBJ? Those are American standards popular enough to win national campaigns that have set the course for America in ways that no Repub has managed to reverse.
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/213916/large/RTR36Z4O.jpg?1456237758)
(https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2016/08/02/peterborough-family-goes-on-hike-to-see-a-quebec-cave-and-finds-justin-trudeau/enhanced-trudeau-selfiewebjpg.jpg.size.custom.crop.320x195.jpg)
(http://images.dailyhive.com/20160803081544/trudeau-whale-watching.jpg)
All in a week's vacation (that was last week): PM Trudeau attends Vancouver's Gay Pride parade with wife; PM and family visit caves shirtless and PM takes selfies with young fan; goes whale-watching with family in Tofino, BC.
In that same week of vacation, announces new Supreme Court nomination guidelines, which will take effect this Fall; appoints a Royal commission on the disappearance and murder of First Nations (aboriginal) women (5 times the rate of white women). These were 2 longstanding issues that the previous conservative government had dodged for the past 10 years.
Trudeau also let it be known to his provincial PM colleagues that a national carbon tax was in the offing. More to come...
The First Nations issue has simmered for many years and has angered its population. Its roots take place in poverty, isolation, lack of resources, rampant drug and alcohol addiction and violence toward women (including young girls). All the Commission's members (five women and one man) are issued from First Nations.
The Supreme Court issue has provoked inter provincial and provincial-federal squabbles for decades. At stake is the process of nominating the judges. Before: the federal PM names the judges. Longstanding tradition has attributed regional representation among the nominees. After: a multi-level Committee will choose multiple candidates and submit its list. Trudeau's agenda: gender quasi-equality (there are 9 Supreme Court Justices), mandatory bilingualism and a 33% regional representation for Quebec. Oh! And lest we forget, Trudeau has chosen former female Progressive-Conservative PM Kim Campbell to chair the committe. Campbell was the last Progressive-Conservative Party leader before it was swallowed up by Harper's Conservative Party.
Obviously, being in charge of a majority government allows lots of elbow room (litterally: check 'elbowgate' on Google). The PM approval rate is higher than ever, almost one year after the election of his Liberal government. For some obscure reason, the Conservatives managed to hold sway over the country's politics for almost 10 years, making it enter into a new Ice Age.
The Liberals are just that: neither from the right nor the left. They have always (for well over a century) been a party of the centre. But they have almost always given their politics a human face. Trudeau has added a wink and a smile.
Compared to the frowns, scowls, raised fists and various postures of indignation, outrage and intolerance at display in the US election, there's no question as to why many Canadians fail to understand the frustrations and barricade mentality of their American neighbours.
EDIT:
The Supreme Court issue is outlined here by the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/02/pm-trudeau-announces-new-scoc-justices-selection-process_n_11302188.html
The First Nations Women Commission is well summarized by The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/03/canada-indigenous-women-missing-murdered-inquiry
And about the carbon tax, another issue former conservative PM Stephen Harper considered worse that an AIDS-Zika combination, here we have The Guardian again: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jul/28/canada-emissions-climate-change-justin-trudeau-corporate-business
Quote from: drogulus on August 06, 2016, 03:51:38 PM
Which extreme measures do you object to
I have noticed you play this trick before. "Which extreme measures do you object to" . Extreme is a relative term, and obviously a pertinent one for discussing whether can compromise. By describing a faction as extreme I am neither expressing support or opposition to their agenda. I know people of both extremes who describe themselves as extremist; it is not a term implying dissent. I am pointing out that the drift of the base of the parties from a common middle where compromise is possible has happened in both parties.
Added. I meant trick as in standard rhetorical thing. Error is I think a better word. I don't mean to imply bad faith, just misunderstanding.
Quote from: Ken B on August 06, 2016, 02:26:35 PM
I linked Rauch as interesting, not as gospel.
The democrat base is certainly extreme by American standards. That is the standard that is relevant to a discussion of finding compromise in American politics.
The entirety of American politics has moved inexorably to the right since the nineties. Nixon would sit on Hillary Clinton's left side now. Most Republicans are extreme right by now, and since you seem to be sitting there, too, you think anything in the center is far left. But that's not a realistic perspective. Clinton is by and large proposing moderate republican views; the problem is there are hardly any moderate republicans left by virtue of Faux and gerrymandering.
and your other extreme right wing issue: who is more mendacious, Hillary or Trump, here's a comparison:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/clintons-fibs-vs-trumps-huge-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
I HATE THIS THREAD, AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Ken B on August 06, 2016, 02:26:35 PM
I linked Rauch as interesting, not as gospel.
The democrat base is certainly extreme by American standards. That is the standard that is relevant to a discussion of finding compromise in American politics.
If "American standards" means the halfway point between the left and the right, then both bases are extreme by definition, regardless of what their proposals are.
The anti-experience and anti-compromise rhetoric, the primarying of moderate incumbents, the marginalization of leadership -- all of that has come from the right in recent years.
Quote from: Pat B on August 07, 2016, 08:43:48 AM
If "American standards" means the halfway point between the left and the right, then both bases are extreme by definition, regardless of what their proposals are.
But they can be more so or less so, and have more or less say in picking more or less intransigent candidates who are committed more or less truculently to their positions. If we are talking about the ability and willingness to compromise, then why isn't that the relevant factor, rather than opinion in Belgium?
Both parties are incontestably more partisan and tribal. Look for instance at the polls on whether you'd want your child to marry someone of the other party.both sides are far more polarized than a few decades ago (and the change is even greater on the democrat side actually).
"Partisan and tribal" is a much better description than "right" and "left". There is hardly any traditional Left left anywhere. (What is called "left" today in the US is mostly symbolic "identity" politics with hardly any understanding and fairly weak positions wrt to the tradtional economic positons of the left.) Sanders may look like an extremist but he is a left-leaning social democrat most of whose positions would have been centrist in 1980s Western European parties. And what ist "right"? Is it more rightist to keep on meddling in the middle East, Eastern Europe etc. (and Clinton is apparently more hawkish here than Trump) or to withdraw from such meddling?
Quote from: Ken B on August 07, 2016, 11:55:25 AM
But they can be more so or less so, and have more or less say in picking more or less intransigent candidates who are committed more or less truculently to their positions. If we are talking about the ability and willingness to compromise, then why isn't that the relevant factor, rather than opinion in Belgium?
Both parties are incontestably more partisan and tribal. Look for instance at the polls on whether you'd want your child to marry someone of the other party.both sides are far more polarized than a few decades ago (and the change is even greater on the democrat side actually).
Agree. I just don't think that's a synonym for "extreme".
Quote from: orfeo on August 07, 2016, 02:48:51 PM
Agree. I just don't think that's a synonym for "extreme".
For years I have argued that the Canadian system works better, largely because of first past the post. In fptp a party has to appeal broadly across a large section of the country. You can't survive as a single issue party. And you have to compromise, internally, on a lot of issues if you want to be able to form a government. The downside is a bit more party discipline than I'd like, but can't have everything.
And divisive social issues tend to get settled. The conservatives tried to block gay marriage twice, but allowed a free vote in parliament They lost twice and ... accepted it. Dropped the issue, moved on.
Quote from: Ken B on August 07, 2016, 06:25:03 PM
In fptp a party has to appeal broadly across a large section of the country.
Eh? That's the exact opposite of what it means. First past the post means you can get elected
in an electoratewhile 60% of the electorate hates you, so long as that 60% don't agree on who else to elect in your place.
It's a preferential system that requires you to be reasonably well liked by a majority of the population. If 60% of the population
in an electorate hate you in a preferential system, they will band together to elect someone other than you. Some of them will get their first choice, some of them will get their second choice, but if they're all clear that you are
last choice then you will lose.
And "across the country" is nothing to do with it
either way. In a system of electorates, you win each electorate. Having broad support across the country will win you a national election irrespective of which voting system is used
if it means you can win a lot of electorates.
The Canadian system works fairly well because there aren't just 2 parties hammering at each other. But to think that's got something to do with using first past the post is... well, frankly it's weird. Especially as the USA tends to use fptp as well.
first past the post can have such bizarre results that I wonder why it is still common in many countries. I guess it is the idea of electing a *person* as representative, not a party. But it obviously tends to lead to (more or less) two party systems as well. I think even Germany's mix of personal representative votes and proportional party votes is worse than a purely proportional system would be. A purely proportional system is the most democratic in many respects.
Hillary Clinton is now dead-even or even leading rock-red Republican states such as Arizona and Georgia. What's [El Tupé's] next move? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0806/Trump-endorses-Ryan-amid-backsliding-in-battleground-states)
Quote from: Ken B on August 06, 2016, 09:05:31 PM
I have noticed you play this trick before. "Which extreme measures do you object to" . Extreme is a relative term, and obviously a pertinent one for discussing whether can compromise. By describing a faction as extreme I am neither expressing support or opposition to their agenda. I know people of both extremes who describe themselves as extremist; it is not a term implying dissent. I am pointing out that the drift of the base of the parties from a common middle where compromise is possible has happened in both parties.
I see what you mean by "trick". I also see what you mean by "democrat base". Bad Zoot!
Very few Dems think of themselves as extreme. I voted for Sanders in the Massachusetts primary and will vote for Hildebeast in November. Why I do that? Because I want Sen. Warren in President Beast's face every time she is tempted to triangulate away economic growth and the kind of regulation we need to prevent the next Great Deregulation/Recession. For me, the shortest distance between here and a desirable there is a strong Sanders challenge and a Clinton victory. No extremism is involved. It's pretty much pre/post Clintonian liberalism.
DNC staffers: FBI didn't tell us for months about possible Russian hack (http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/08/dnc-staffers-fbi-didnt-tell-us-for-months-about-possible-russian-hack/)
Unnamed DNC staffers told Reuters' Mark Hosenball and John Walcott that the FBI had been investigating a potential intrusion into the DNC's network since the fall of 2015. After the initial warning to look for anything suspicious, DNC IT staff checked network logs and scanned files, finding nothing suspicious. When asked to provide more information to help identify a problem, the FBI "declined to provide it," according to the Reuters report. I still don't get whether the FBI told HRC "get your own security experts in
now" or gave her the whole story and she did the same as with Benghazi, support the cover story all the way through the inevitable "lyin' Hillary" consequences. When the CIA guy endorsed HRC, one gets the idea that she impressed at least one person in a position to know how qualified she is to be commander in chief. If you take a hit for your people they'll take hits for you.
Why didn't they tell that shitbird Gowdy? No, no...the Repubs may not know the details but they know HRC can't talk and that's all they need to know.
Quote from: orfeo on August 07, 2016, 11:30:48 PM
The Canadian system works fairly well because there aren't just 2 parties hammering at each other.
Not remotely. There are 4 parties, a few years ago there were 5, and of those 3 are national and have been for over 50 years. That's not counting the Greens who don't have party status in parliament.
Fptp forces parties to internally craft positions of broad and wide support.
Ken should like this: Trump apparently told a Detroit crowd that Michigan is run entirely by Democrats?!
https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/762692977621921793
Quote from: Ken B on August 08, 2016, 08:49:47 AM
Fptp forces parties to internally craft positions of broad and wide support.
That's probably true, but wide support would move the Repubs to the center and Dems away from it. Most Dems either want a liberal party or would at least accept it. Wide support from the left to the center is the basis of their national advantage. The Repubs can't get loose of the death grip of Trump and Cruz. How do they appeal to the middle with either of these?
Of course, I could be wrong.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: Brian on August 08, 2016, 09:04:19 AM
Ken should like this: Trump apparently told a Detroit crowd that Michigan is run entirely by Democrats?!
https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/762692977621921793
Apparently? I'm a stickler me, I like to see real quotes.
If he said it he's quite wrong. Detroit most certainly is, and Wayne county nearly is. Ann Arbor is. The state in toto most certainly is not, and away from the sinkhole that is Detroit most parts lean republican, so local and county governments most certainly are not. Plus the governor as others have noted. It's a blue tinged purple state presidentially and for the US congress.
The state government is GOP at the moment I think.senate and (maybe) house, after the 2014 election.
Quote from: Ken B on August 08, 2016, 08:49:47 AM
Fptp forces parties to internally craft positions of broad and wide support.
This is still rubbish. Fptp enables parties to win a majority in a legislature with far fewer votes than either a preferential or a proportional representation system.
You may be under the mistaken impression that Canadians elected Trudeau as Prime Minister. It's okay, many Canadians are probably under the same mistaken impression. It's one of the great misfortunes in recent decades that politicians in Westminster systems like Canada, Australia and the UK have learned so much from America that everyone behaves as if we have a Presidential system.
But we don't. A majority government in a Westminster system does not require a majority vote, and
especially not a fptp Westminster system. Trudeau's party won well over half the seats with 39.47% of the vote.
Maybe I am naive, but I think to strive for broad and wide support is the wrong goal. Parties should not compromise before the election but afterwards. They should present different, including partisan, viewpoints and policy suggestions and afterwards compromise in parliament.
Even with 4-6 parties, each party will offer clusters of positions that force voters to vote for package deals.
But if all parties have to try to be popular for everybody to have any chance because of systems that have winner takes all, first past the post etc., one will get ever more diverse position within the parties and voters will become frustrated because they have to vote against some of their strongly hold positions.
Sometimes jokes can get a little out of hand:
""Hillary wants to abolish. . . the Second Amendment," Trump said in Wilmington, N.C., before speaking about filling an empty seat on the Supreme Court. "By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.""
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/08/09/trump-implies-second-amendment-people-could-something-about-clinton/GCOhuvpq4VNyR0VI34uZON/story.html?event=event25
On my way home today: followed a van with oversized tires and raised suspension, filthy unpressed American flag flying from its rear end, large FUCK GUN CONTROL sticker where the F and K were graphics of guns, and a sticker saying DAN BILZERIAN FOR PRES 2016. And you guys thought there was so much support for Donald Trump.
Quote from: Ken B on August 07, 2016, 11:55:25 AM
But they can be more so or less so, and have more or less say in picking more or less intransigent candidates who are committed more or less truculently to their positions. If we are talking about the ability and willingness to compromise, then why isn't that the relevant factor, rather than opinion in Belgium?
I never said anything about Belgium. I was thinking more about American history. Ds have moved left on social issues (e.g. gay rights), but not so much economically -- compare Obamacare to various different health care proposals from both parties from the '70s through the '90s.
Intransigence is a Tea Party specialty. I never heard "willing to compromise" used as an attack until Ted Cruz ran for office.
Quote from: Brian on August 09, 2016, 12:15:11 PM
Sometimes jokes can get a little out of hand:
""Hillary wants to abolish. . . the Second Amendment," Trump said in Wilmington, N.C.
And the "joke" starts out with a blatant falsehood. Of course, he routinely gets a complete pass on his numbing stream of lies.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 09, 2016, 03:16:19 PM
And the "joke" starts out with a blatant falsehood. Of course, he routinely gets a complete pass on his numbing stream of lies.
The Secret Service is not amused (https://twitter.com/SecretService/status/763142627202048000), though.
It's come to the point that the only thing left to Trump is to be genuinely dangerous.
There are people who not at all panicked by violent protests, terrorism, anything familiar. They are scared, and at first I thought when I heard it it was like "if he wins I'm moving to Canada". It isn't that, it's something I've heard about but never witnessed, fear that extreme politics will turn into something beyond that because no one is in control, including the man at the center who inspires it.
content already mentioned earlier ...
Apart from the irresponsible call to arms this, like the Benghazi nonsense, is about making sure that Hillary if and when elected will be regarded by a significant and (online) vocal part of the population as an illegitimate president.
The GOP used the same strategy with Obama, who was denied ("You Lie!" during the State of the Nation) and rejected from day one, after which even the somewhat more thoughtful media have grown into the habit of describing Obama as aloof and missing the cooperative gene Bill Clinton supposedly had.
From Obama's day one, too, the Secret Service had to work twice as hard because of the unprecedented threat level, with a black man in the White House. I expect Hillary will be literally covered with SService agents now, because it's pretty clear the thought of her in the WH is unbearable to many gun toting folks. And these are egged on by Trump, who went all the way with the Birther thing, too, for years.
(https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/espn-fivethirtyeight/assets/images/fivethirtyeight-logo.png)
The Polls Aren't Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/)
Quote from: drogulus on August 10, 2016, 05:32:52 AM
(https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/espn-fivethirtyeight/assets/images/fivethirtyeight-logo.png)
The Polls Aren’t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/)
Just the natural result of El Tupé being himself, by crackey!
Quote from: Herman on August 10, 2016, 01:30:00 AM
Apart from the irresponsible call to arms this, like the Benghazi nonsense, is about making sure that Hillary if and when elected will be regarded by a significant and (online) vocal part of the population as an illegitimate president.
The GOP used the same strategy with Obama, who was denied ("You Lie!" during the State of the Nation) and rejected from day one, after which even the somewhat more thoughtful media have grown into the habit of describing Obama as aloof and missing the cooperative gene Bill Clinton supposedly had.
From Obama's day one, too, the Secret Service had to work twice as hard because of the unprecedented threat level, with a black man in the White House. I expect Hillary will be literally covered with SService agents now, because it's pretty clear the thought of her in the WH is unbearable to many gun toting folks. And these are egged on by Trump, who went all the way with the Birther thing, too, for years.
Excellent post, and right on the mark. I view the entire strategy of the last 2 years as a campaign to delegitimize Hillary in the event that she did get elected. The only way to refute this strategy is to take away control of Congress. Even as a minority the Republicans have found ways to be totally obstructionist, but maybe if they get in a superior position again, the Dems will have found a way to avoid repeating their futility from Obama's first term. :-\
8)
They have not had a talent for anything, apart from thickheaded obstruction.
'A bloody line has been crossed': Joe Scarborough says GOP 'must dump' Donald Trump from ticket (http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-scarborough-republican-party-dump-donald-trump-ticket-2016-8)
I think what finally got Joe's attention was who will rid me of this troublesome Hildebeast?
So Trump tweets "Nobody is watching @Morning_Joe anymore. Gone off the deep end - bad ratings. You won't believe what I am watching now!"
You won't believe what I'm watching now!
This is not a joke any more, not even for me.
Bernie Sanders buys a $575,000 vacation home and the Internet cries hypocrisy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2016/08/10/bernie-sanders-buys-a-half-million-dollar-vacation-home-and-the-internet-cries-hypocrisy/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na)
Isn't the Burlington area expensive? It's 1800 sq. ft. which sounds right. A big house could easily fetch $1-2M.
AFAIK Burlington is not exactly pricey. It's a college (university) town, one of the loveliest places I know. But Sanders' cottage by the lake is not in Burlington. It's in the Lake Champlain Islands. Gurn could probably shed more light on the subject. My take is that the same house on Lake Tahoe would be worth 10 times more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/opinion/donald-trump-and-a-cia-officer-walk-into-a-room.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/opinion/donald-trump-and-a-cia-officer-walk-into-a-room.html?_r=0)
Priceless. As long as it remains fiction... ;)
Quote from: André on August 11, 2016, 09:01:50 AM
AFAIK Burlington is not exactly pricey. It's a college (university) town, one of the loveliest places I know. But Sanders' cottage by the lake is not in Burlington. It's in the Lake Champlain Islands. Gurn could probably shed more light on the subject. My take is that the same house on Lake Tahoe would be worth 10 times more.
Quite right. It's hyperventilation at either political end.
In the last 24 hours we've had this...
Trump: "Putin doesn't like our president...Wouldn't that be nice if we could get along with Russia?"
National home builders crowd: Silence.
https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/763758011667976196
...and this...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cplb_HwXYAQZVk_.jpg)
The Donald Trump interview that should terrify national Republicans, annotated (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/11/the-donald-trump-interview-that-should-terrify-national-republicans-annotated/)
This is numbing logorrhea. The man cannot keep a sentence going, and is deliberately diverting the subject to avoid broaching it. After a 4-5 words' introduction he instantly veers away and pulls out a campaign slogan. Zero intellect, zero culture, zero respect for the interviewer's work, zero respect for the public's intelligence. Extremely basic knowledge and a devastating intelligence for manipulation.
Quote from: André on August 11, 2016, 09:51:00 AM. . . and a devastating intelligence for manipulation.
Aye, that specific type of intelligence, indeed.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 10, 2016, 06:24:55 AM
They have not had a talent for anything, apart from thickheaded obstruction.
They've actually gotten a few significant things done the past couple of years (VA reform in 2014; education and infrastructure bills in 2015). I'm not endorsing the specifics of those bills, just noting that they passed in bipartisan fashion and were signed by Obama.
But it's hard to overcome the narrative the Congressional Rs wrote against themselves over the previous few years, especially since they followed it all up with their high-profile idiocy on the Garland nomination.
Quote from: Pat B on August 11, 2016, 10:54:24 AM
They've actually gotten a few significant things done the past couple of years (VA reform in 2014; education and infrastructure bills in 2015). I'm not endorsing the specifics of those bills, just noting that they passed in bipartisan fashion and were signed by Obama.
But it's hard to overcome the narrative the Congressional Rs wrote against themselves over the previous few years, especially since they followed it all up with their high-profile idiocy on the Garland nomination.
Emendation appreciated.
Quote from: drogulus on August 11, 2016, 08:55:13 AM
Isn't the Burlington area expensive? It's 1800 sq. ft. which sounds right. A big house could easily fetch $1-2M.
Overall it isn't bad, nothing like some of the big city areas. Nearly $600K for 1800 sq ft is pricey no matter where you live, my house (pretty nice) is half again bigger than that and didn't cost near that much! :o Although a lot depends on location, as in real estate anywhere. If it has a nice view of the Lake, for example, or a large tract of land in a select area, then the house itself becomes secondary.
Pretty much like anywhere else, I guess.. :-\
8)
Quote from: André on August 11, 2016, 09:01:50 AM
AFAIK Burlington is not exactly pricey. It's a college (university) town, one of the loveliest places I know. But Sanders' cottage by the lake is not in Burlington. It's in the Lake Champlain Islands. Gurn could probably shed more light on the subject. My take is that the same house on Lake Tahoe would be worth 10 times more.
Ah, up in the Islands. One of the world's hidden treasures. My son lives there, great piece of land, dirt cheap. The kind of money being discussed would buy a palace. Must be one fine little hut! :)
8)
"In many respects you know they honor President Obama. ISIS is honoring President Obama! He is the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS, O.K.! He's the founder, he founded ISIS and I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton. Co-founder, crooked Hillary Clinton. And that's what it's about."
Could he sound more like the text of a Bach cantata:
"Ich, Ich, Ich, Ich hatte viel Bekümmernis, Ich hatte viel Bekümmernis in meinem Herzen, in meinem Herzen, Ich."
He'll start "being presidential" any day, now . . . .
The riot of recrimination was a vivid reminder that some of [El Tupé's] worst traits as a candidate–paper-thin skin, an absence of discipline, a bottomless capacity to nurse grudges–are not going away. Republicans waiting for the long-promised presidential pivot seemed like characters in a Beckett play, trapped in [El Tupé's] theater of the absurd. (http://time.com/4447985/inside-donald-trump-meltdown/)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 12, 2016, 09:39:39 AM
The riot of recrimination was a vivid reminder that some of [El Tupé's] worst traits as a candidate–paper-thin skin, an absence of discipline, a bottomless capacity to nurse grudges–are not going away. Republicans waiting for the long-promised presidential pivot seemed like characters in a Beckett play, trapped in [El Tupé's] theater of the absurd. (http://time.com/4447985/inside-donald-trump-meltdown/)
Last week, I offered a somewhat tongue-in-cheek description of eight things [El Tupé] could do to turn around his campaign. My point was that everything that would be necessary is something [El Tupé] either can't do or won't do.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 12, 2016, 09:43:32 AM
Last week, I offered a somewhat tongue-in-cheek description of eight things [El Tupé] could do to turn around his campaign. My point was that everything that would be necessary is something [El Tupé] either can't do or won't do.
In a way I think is good on Trump. "Paint me as I am, warts and all." There's a certain integrity to that, a refusal to (in some ways) deceive. Seriously, if Trump suddenly became the smoothest, slickest guy in politics would you praise him for it, and think "well now there's a guy I can support"? I wouldn't, rather the reverse.
Plus you know, Trump could be right. Trump walked all over the GOP, which had a field of accomplished professional politicians, and is competitive for the presidency doing his own thing against the democrats. He probably thinks his stuff is working. And seriously when Trump announced did you imagine he'd get this far? I surely didn't. His schtick might not work but it's been startlingly effective so far.
Quote from: Ken B on August 12, 2016, 11:03:07 AM
In a way I think is good on Trump. "Paint me as I am, warts and all." There's a certain integrity to that, a refusal to (in some ways) deceive. Seriously, if Trump suddenly became the smoothest, slickest guy in politics would you praise him for it, and think "well now there's a guy I can support"? I wouldn't, rather the reverse.
I agree it's a good thing that everyone can see what an ego monster Trump is, and I can imagine this can be considered honesty in the same way a fanatic honestly hates you. But the downside is despite this admirable trait what Trump is being honest about, himself and his thoughts, is a continuous stream of hateful bilge, and that kind of cancels out the admirable part.
Democratic, GOP leaders got a secret briefing on DNC hack last year (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/democrat-gop-leaders-got-a-secret-briefing-on-dnc-hack-last-year/)
That's pretty much what you'd expect, that they were told and told not to tell what they learned. Is it also expected that they were told not to tell anyone they had been briefed?
Tales of the Super Unexpected: earlier today I made my rounds in TrumPutinia, where a distinguished correspondent offered that "wait until Putin releases those 33,000 Hitlery emails" with gleeful anticipation. How is that supposed to work? The public is already starting to worry about Putin's interference and making Trump his pet isn't exactly reassuring. Escalating against Hildabeast (not sure of the spelling....) doesn't win voters to Trump. One might argue (one is me) Putin fears Clinton for exactly the reason that should cause voters to be reassured that Putin can't manipulate her.
Hypothesis
The Clinton email leaks may not have the objective of electing Trump.
They may have the objective of seriously handicapping Clinton when elected by giving all her foreign policy decisions the aura of being made with Clinton Foundation donors in mind.
Quote from: Ken B on August 12, 2016, 11:03:07 AM
Plus you know, Trump could be right. Trump walked all over the GOP, which had a field of accomplished professional politicians, and is competitive for the presidency doing his own thing against the democrats. He probably thinks his stuff is working. And seriously when Trump announced did you imagine he'd get this far? I surely didn't. His schtick might not work but it's been startlingly effective so far.
You go down there, Mr. Trump.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 12, 2016, 04:13:42 PM
Hypothesis
The Clinton email leaks may not have the objective of electing Trump.
They may have the objective of seriously handicapping Clinton when elected by giving all her foreign policy decisions the aura of being made with Clinton Foundation donors in mind.
I think Putin is playing Helter Skelter with the election, that he wants to cause as much trouble as he can. Trump is his unwitting asset, but at this stage his usefulness is pretty much over. The effect on HRC policy, including Russia policy, is very unlikely to be in the direction Putin wants. I think this election combined with Putin's behavior will put HRC in a strong position. This is going to backfire.
Quote from: Ken B on August 12, 2016, 11:03:07 AM
In a way I think is good on Trump. "Paint me as I am, warts and all." There's a certain integrity to that, a refusal to (in some ways) deceive.
That's the 'he tells it like it is" fallacy.
It's a fallacy, because he may be uncontrolled in his behavior, but he's far from honest or candid.
He has lied about his success and money, and he can't release his tax returns, since that would expose him as a fraud.
If you say you have plan A as a president, and the next day you have plan B, and you deny ever having entertained plan A, you're not being forthright.
^^^
Yea, and Clinkles is an angel who has never ever ever lied to anyone about anything ::)...zzzZZZzzzzZZZzzz.... snore...
1) hacked emails reveal Soros is Hillary's puppet master
2) Tim Cain has dinner with Soros's son
3) what was happening the last time we has a potus who couldn't make it up the stairs without assistance?
"We came, we saw,... he died" (cackle)
A vote for VaJayJay is a vote for Brussels, Soros, and so many 3rd world immigrants "instant citizens" that the next election will have to be held with an interpreter
OK, so maybe it happens with Trump too...
But seriously, this "Trump caused the holocaust" stuff is just hilarious...
But you all don't see that the IntraNational banksters can foment whatever they want regardless of who is in "office"? Maybe if their pick gets in, they won't have to slaughter as many people initially; with someone in office who is against them they may have to wring more overt necks... right?
Again, I point out that "dead" cop that showed up at Trum Tower with a non-traceeable glock with a siilenncer... and the reply I got was one of "oh it sounds like hollywood".... do you people read ANYTHING?? (other than WashPoNYTHuffPoMSNBCCNN) As if jasonbourne.com is just a writer's fabrication... "oh, they don't have people like that, good chap"...
Cuomo son anchor on TV: "no one's been more in HillDawg's corner than we... we have given her such a pass" (paraquote)
PARAQUAT!!!!!
Take THAT, you potheads!!!!!SCHEDULE 1 FOR YOU!!!!!!!You heroin junkies!!!!! :laugh:
Quote from: Herman on August 12, 2016, 11:32:32 PM
That's the 'he tells it like it is" fallacy.
It's not a fallacy to criticize a politician who is slick and untruthful is it? That's just the obverse of your alleged fallacy.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 13, 2016, 08:14:28 AM.... do you people read ANYTHING??...
Do you, snyprrr, read anything that isn't fabricated by a tinfoil hat wearing nutjob publishing out of his parent's basement? ;D
Sarge
Any thoughts on Evan McMullin? (if you're asking "who", you've probably answered my question)
I wonder if the whole Trump horrorshow might at least nudge America away from the two-party system and towards a broader political field..
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 13, 2016, 12:58:39 PM
I wonder if the whole Trump horrorshow might at least nudge America away from the two-party system and towards a broader political field..
Tough to say. Or, I am simply not sanguine. Firstly, the two parties are themselves rather an entrenched power; they won't let go lightly. Secondly, America's latest taste of third-party candidature: Nader, Florida.
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 13, 2016, 12:58:39 PM
Any thoughts on Evan McMullin? (if you're asking "who", you've probably answered my question)
I wonder if the whole Trump horrorshow might at least nudge America away from the two-party system and towards a broader political field..
Very possible. Both parties are broken. The gop may come apart this time. A similar thing happened in Canada when the Tories got destroyed in an election. Not that they had a Trump like figure but it's a precedent.
I assume you refer to the recent (2015) canadian general election. The Tories were not 'destroyed' at all. They made a rather good showing considering they had been in power for almost 10 years. As has been mentioned before, the Liberals won a majority of seats with barely 40% of the popular vote vs the Conservative's 32%. The big difference between seats held (almost double) was due to the canadian electoral law.
There are pluses and minuses in the system. Among the consequences was that the last Conservative government (we never refer to them as Tories, that's the English Parliament) - got elected in 2011 precisely because of the 'system', despite having been rejected by 60% of the voters. The exact same position was achieved in 2015, the Liberals this time winning a plurality of seats with less than 40% of the popular vote.
What we consider normal is that a 'tide' away from, or toward a party will make or break the election. In this particular case (the 2015 Liberal win), this is confirmed by the lastest polls ( June 2016: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-quarterly-polls-jun2016-1.3607570 ). I think the 'Westminster system' is as good as any to assess the public's mood and its desire for stability or change. It's simply different, and AFAIK, less prone to bipartisan polarization. There is a real "choose your position in the middle" possibility.
Ironically, I voted (again) for the usually left-of-center New Democratic Party which this time (2015) decided to ride a strictly centrist electoral plank, leaving its progressive electorate totally confused. Meanwhile, Trudeau's Liberal Party (normally slightly right of centre) decided to surge in the void created and firmly occupied the left of centre political position.
All the while, the Conservatives played their usual game, totally missing the mood: disillusion of, and fatigue from, the last decade's depressing negativism in social issues, economic priorities and international retrenchment (Canada lost its long held U.N. Security Council to Portugal in 2012 - an international rebuke that dismayed many).
You can never tell when the tide will start to shift, and when it will crest. But one of the unmistakable signs come from the people's desire to be acknowledged, recognised and counted on to make an imprint on the country's future. Usually that means more progress (economic and social). Sometimes there is a need for pause (progress and change induce fatigue, confusion and stress), but rarely is there a need, let alone a clamor to return to the past, let alone the long gone past. "Good old days" is generally a synonym for "bad old ways".
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 13, 2016, 12:58:39 PM
Any thoughts on Evan McMullin?
I think he has a decent chance to come in 5th.
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 13, 2016, 12:58:39 PM
Any thoughts on Evan McMullin? (if you're asking "who", you've probably answered my question)
For reminding Republicans and the country at large that Republicans generally are not unhinged haters, we can say, well done. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/14/distinguished-pol-of-the-week-136/?utm_term=.7a861288e899)
I would be interested to read your analysis about the recent ABC projection for the electors college 275 Clinton 191 Trump.
Quote from: Spineur on August 14, 2016, 05:56:12 AM
I would be interested to read your analysis about the recent ABC projection for the electors college 275 Clinton 191 Trump.
That cannot be right. If Clinton had 275, that means Trump would have 263. Unless - perhaps the rest are still considered as undecided? In any case, as it is a state by state count, this is probably a low amount for Clinton considering the state by state polling results currently available to us. it is well known that Trump has to win a number of important states, while Clinton only has to win a portion of them (this because of the assumptions made in the red and blue states staying that way). Clinton starts with 217 and Trump starts with 164. Thus Clinton has to get only 53 more, while Trump needs over 100.
Quote from: Spineur on August 14, 2016, 05:56:12 AM
I would be interested to read your analysis about the recent ABC projection for the electors college 275 Clinton 191 Trump.
(None of the following is original to me, of course.)
The Electoral College map would be a challenge for even a moderate, or at least non-divisive, Republican presidential candidate. But El Tupé's demographic limitations (all of which is the hate-spewing candidate shooting himself in the foot) make it all the tougher for him, this year.
(Of course, the election is not for another three months, merciful heavens . . . and who knows what might happen in the interval.)
At present, though, El Tupé has put himself at a dire disadvantage in many of the crucial "swing states" (the states which could fall in either category on Election Day), and he has "succeeded" (if that is quite the right word) in putting some states which had traditionally been safely in the Republican category, "in play."
At the moment, it does look very much like it is Hillary's election to lose.
(Of course, I said much the same, for a different calculus of reasons, of Mitt Romney four years ago; and he
did lose, of course.)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 13, 2016, 11:50:41 AM
Do you, snyprrr, read anything that isn't fabricated by a tinfoil hat wearing nutjob publishing out of his parent's basement? ;D
Sarge
Just look up that dead cop in Frump's Tower... the one with the fancy firepower wit da sillencier.... please, prove me wrong, I love being wrong about stuff like this. His last name was "Bush", please just look it up.... I do get pissy when people don't believe that the article doesn't exist, or whatever...
it happened about 10 days ago... please, just link up GMG for me on this one thing
I mean, are you guys saying you believe this didn't actually happen, ... I don't understand why this gets tagged as tinfoil when it was in the MSM (main stream media)...
I do, I get ... gulp... "offended" (ah, send in the thought police) when ya'll say "tin foil" for ANYTHING OUT OF BOX. It seems that if I was some kind of Dr.Evil, I could totally pull the wool over ya'lls eyes simply by doing things in a way that would get you to conclude that "anyone who believes that must be tinfoil".
The Lancet says that flouride is a
neurotoxin, not me. Thank you!
Quote from: snyprrr on August 14, 2016, 07:58:48 AM
Just look up that dead cop in Frump's Tower... the one with the fancy firepower wit da sillencier.... please, prove me wrong, I love being wrong about stuff like this. His last name was "Bush", please just look it up....
Anthony Shark (not Bush), a retired police officer (not dead, but definitely drunk) tried to breach a secure area at Trump Tower. Your claim that it was a dead (but really alive) FBI agent named Bush is just bullshit. See Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/deceased-fbi-agent-found-at-trump-tower-with-silenced-pistol/
Yes, a drunk Shark did try to walk through a secured area at Trump Tower. So what? How is this an Israeli/CIA/Mossad/Brussels/Clinton/Bush/Yale/Jewish banker conspiracy?
But why do you care anyway? You admit it doesn't matter who wins the election. You claim the world is controlled by that diverse cabal led by Yale graduates and Jews. Trump is just one of their pawns (according to your theories)...right? Or are you really saying Trump is the savior, and the powers-that-be are trying to kill him? Funny how they let him take the nomination. Your conspirators aren't so powerful after all. They send an old drunk retired cop to make the hit...wow, scary ;D
Sarge
First Past The Post ---- this is the worst, most pernicious and most absurd electoral system ever devised... ;D
I always go to Sam Wang's site for election projections:
http://election.princeton.edu/category/2016-election/
Quote from: Daverz on August 14, 2016, 12:18:51 PM
I always go to Sam Wang's site for election projections:
http://election.princeton.edu/category/2016-election/
Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for.
Quote from: Daverz on August 14, 2016, 12:18:51 PM
I always go to Sam Wang's site for election projections:
http://election.princeton.edu/category/2016-election/
Thank you.
Quote from: Daverz on August 14, 2016, 12:18:51 PM
I always go to Sam Wang's site for election projections:
http://election.princeton.edu/category/2016-election/
FiveThirtyEight (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/) is great as well.
Here's how poorly is [El Tupé] doing in New York: For every four Republicans in this poll, two back [El Tupé], one backs Clinton and one hasn't made up his or her mind (rounding a bit). That is not a recipe for success. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/15/a-new-poll-gives-the-lie-to-donald-trumps-least-believable-campaign-argument/)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2016, 06:21:44 AM
(Of course, the election is not for another three months, merciful heavens . . . and who knows what might happen in the interval.)
Right now it appears that the main thing that will happen is that Trump will constantly talk about the election being "rigged", setting up his supporters to riot in the streets when he fails to win the victory that he has brainwashed them into believing is rightfully is.
Seriously, I'm scared by his rhetoric on this. In an increasingly vacuous landscape of trends and memes with little in the way of factual reporting, people are going to believe what they want to believe, and a whole horde of people who already believe their country is being taken from them (as if it was theirs to own in the first place) are absolutely ripe to believe a narrative that says they were prevented from reclaiming their property. And who the hell knows what will happen after all that work at attacking the legitimacy of the election.
Quote from: orfeo on August 15, 2016, 07:52:20 AM
Right now it appears that the main thing that will happen is that Trump will constantly talk about the election being "rigged", setting up his supporters to riot in the streets when he fails to win the victory that he has brainwashed them into believing is rightfully is.
Actually, one opinion piece I saw this morning argues that, yet again, he's shooting himself in the foot: whining that the process is supposedly "rigged" does not incentivize your supporters to get out and vote.
Who are [El Tupé] voters? A new portrait emerges (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0813/Who-are-Trump-voters-A-new-portrait-emerges)
Quote from: André on August 13, 2016, 03:43:58 PM
I assume you refer to the recent (2015) canadian general election.
A weird assumption, since we were talking about when a major party was crushed because its voter base was split. I mean 1993 when the Tories were reduced to 2 seats and Reform became a significant vote-getter for former Tory voters.
Going from consecutive majorities to 2 seats is getting crushed.
He's "doing well with women." "The Hispanics love" him. He "has a great relationship with the blacks" and has "tremendous support among African Americans." These are the lies [El Tupé] tells himself. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/15/no-donald-trump-they-dont-love-you/?utm_term=.5eb2d379ea55)
Further support for the thesis that El Tupé is the candidate uniquely suited to usher Hillary into the White House.
Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York City in 2001, just told a crowd that there were no radical Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States before the Obama presidency.
Also, Ivanka Trump and Wendi Deng Murdoch - rumored to be Putin's summer fling - are vacationing together.
Quote from: Brian on August 15, 2016, 10:43:33 AM
Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York City in 2001, just told a crowd that there were no radical Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States before the Obama presidency.
Come on! He was being sarcastic 8)
Quote from: Brian on August 15, 2016, 10:43:33 AM
Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York City in 2001, just told a crowd that there were no radical Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States before the Obama presidency.
Also, Ivanka Trump and Wendi Deng Murdoch - rumored to be Putin's summer fling - are vacationing together.
I'd need a quote. Rudy is notorious for dragging 9/11 (his shining moment) into everything. And I have heard him discuss the earlier bombing of the WTC. I suspect we have some deliberate misundestanding going on here. Got a full quote with a link?
Quote from: Brian on August 15, 2016, 10:43:33 AM
Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York City in 2001, just told a crowd that there were no radical Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States before the Obama presidency.
Trump's sarcasm is infectious. [Damn, Karl beat me to it.]
Quote
Also, Ivanka Trump and Wendi Deng Murdoch - rumored to be Putin's summer fling - are vacationing together.
I just don't know what to make of this one. Bizarre.
Quote from: orfeo on August 15, 2016, 07:52:20 AM
Right now it appears that the main thing that will happen is that Trump will constantly talk about the election being "rigged", setting up his supporters to riot in the streets when he fails to win the victory that he has brainwashed them into believing is rightfully is.
Seriously, I'm scared by his rhetoric on this. In an increasingly vacuous landscape of trends and memes with little in the way of factual reporting, people are going to believe what they want to believe, and a whole horde of people who already believe their country is being taken from them (as if it was theirs to own in the first place) are absolutely ripe to believe a narrative that says they were prevented from reclaiming their property. And who the hell knows what will happen after all that work at attacking the legitimacy of the election.
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/764909726278836225
TL;DR: right-wing talk-radio host finally notices he can't control the monster he helped create
Quote from: Ken B on August 15, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
I'd need a quote. Rudy is notorious for dragging 9/11 (his shining moment) into everything. And I have heard him discuss the earlier bombing of the WTC. I suspect we have some deliberate misundestanding going on here. Got a full quote with a link?
Here on video:
http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/08/15/sorry-what-rudy-giuliani-just-made-quite-the-claim-about-terrorism-before-obama/
He must have meant 7 years and miscounted. He sounds old and senile.
Quote from: Brian on August 15, 2016, 11:28:29 AM
He must have meant 7 years and miscounted. He sounds old and senile.
Yeah, 'we didn't have any attacks during Bush presidency after the last one during Bush presidency, until the Obama presidency' would make so much more sense.
Quote from: North Star on August 15, 2016, 11:16:42 AM
Here on video:
http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/08/15/sorry-what-rudy-giuliani-just-made-quite-the-claim-about-terrorism-before-obama/
So it is a distorted quote. I here bold the elided part.
"
under those 8 years before Obama ..."
He is
not saying before Obama there were no Islamist terror attacks. That claim is
false.
Now what about those 8 years? He is talking about the claimed effectiveness of the Patriot Act in preventing acts of terror, up until the next one occurred. This is puffing about GOP people and policies allegedly kept us safe and Obama-Clinton did not. That act was passed in October 2001 , and according to this list [asin]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks[/asin] the next Islamist attack was in June 2009, when Obama was president. "So 7 years and 8 months" would be more accurate but I think most people will accept 2009 from 2001 as being 8 years.
So, yeah, deliberately playing dumb to misunderstand.
Quote from: Ken B on August 15, 2016, 11:41:25 AM
So it is a distorted quote. I here bold the elided part.
"under those 8 years before Obama ..."
He is not saying before Obama there were no Islamist terror attacks. That claim is false.
Now what about those 8 years? He is talking about the claimed effectiveness of the Patriot Act in preventing acts of terror, up until the next one occurred. This is puffing about GOP people and policies allegedly kept us safe and Obama-Clinton did not. That act was passed in October 2001 , and according to this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks) the next Islamist attack was in June 2009, when Obama was president. "So 7 years and 8 months" would be more accurate but I think most people will accept 2009 from 2001 as being 8 years.
So, yeah, deliberately playing dumb to misunderstand.
Check the entry for July 4, 2002. The statement is false even if you spin "8 years before Obama came along" to mean something other than the 8 years before Obama was inaugurated.
ETA: there is a longer list here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States). Some but not all of these are Islamist.
I think Giuliani has completely lost it.
Quote from: Ken B on August 15, 2016, 11:41:25 AM
So it is a distorted quote. I here bold the elided part.
"under those 8 years before Obama ..."
He is not saying before Obama there were no Islamist terror attacks. That claim is false.
Now what about those 8 years? He is talking about the claimed effectiveness of the Patriot Act in preventing acts of terror, up until the next one occurred. This is puffing about GOP people and policies allegedly kept us safe and Obama-Clinton did not. That act was passed in October 2001 , and according to this list the next Islamist attack was in June 2009, when Obama was president. "So 7 years and 8 months" would be more accurate but I think most people will accept 2009 from 2001 as being 8 years.
So, yeah, deliberately playing dumb to misunderstand.
"8 years before Obama" don't start in October 2001, they start in January 2001.
I don't think Giuliani is lying insanely, any more than you do - I think he just counted wrong. Counting wrong seems more likely than having a secret alternate counting system.
Quote from: Ken B on August 15, 2016, 11:41:25 AM
So it is a distorted quote. I here bold the elided part.
"under those 8 years before Obama ..."
He is not saying before Obama there were no Islamist terror attacks. That claim is false.
Now what about those 8 years? He is talking about the claimed effectiveness of the Patriot Act in preventing acts of terror, up until the next one occurred. This is puffing about GOP people and policies allegedly kept us safe and Obama-Clinton did not. That act was passed in October 2001 , and according to this list [asin]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks[/asin] the next Islamist attack was in June 2009, when Obama was president. "So 7 years and 8 months" would be more accurate but I think most people will accept 2009 from 2001 as being 8 years.
So, yeah, deliberately playing dumb to misunderstand.
No one is playing deliberately dumb to purposefully misunderstand. There are no 8 years before Obama that do not include 9/11. It is not deliberately dumb to be puzzled at this statement, and not realize that he "probably meant 7 years and 8 months." The conclusion being drawn is that Giuliani is an unhinged rabid partisan who is desperately trying to blame everything on Democrats. It is not clear to me that 9/11 was any sort of shining moment for Giuliani. Bloomberg was subsequently elected Mayer of New York and Giuliani claimed that the results of that election had to be suspended because only he could be Mayer of New York after 9/11.
Donald Trump is now saying that the "crooked media . . . . are the lowest form of humanity." Does that mean they're lower than Mexican rapists or the Muslims who cheered on the 9/11 attacks?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 15, 2016, 04:55:48 PM
Donald Trump is now saying that the "crooked media . . . . are the lowest form of humanity." Does that mean they're lower than Mexican rapists or the Muslims who cheered on the 9/11 attacks?
"I'm great, great friends, the greatest, with Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly, Alex Jones, Ann Coulter, Breitbart News, and the National Enquirer. Believe me, I know from crooked."
Quote from: Brian on August 15, 2016, 11:28:29 AM
He must have meant 7 years and miscounted. He sounds old and senile.
I don't think so. It's part of the GOP brainwash.
Everything bad is Obama's fault. He started ISIS, too, by invading Iraq.
How We Killed the Tea Party (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/tea-party-pacs-ideas-death-214164)
Greedy super PACs drained the movement with endless pleas for money to support "conservative" candidates—while instead using the money to enrich themselves. I should know. I worked for one of them.
By Paul H. Jossey
August 14, 2016
Yes, that's part of it. Repubs feed money to donors, gods and gays and guns to the base, who when they rebel are preyed on again!
Now, they finally get it right with Trump, who is refreshingly honest and a straight shooter.
OooooooooooooNooooooooooooooo...........!!!!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 15, 2016, 04:55:48 PM
Donald Trump is now saying that the "crooked media . . . . are the lowest form of humanity." Does that mean they're lower than Mexican rapists or the Muslims who cheered on the 9/11 attacks?
Wonder what he thinks about himself, accepting every single media interview request that's offered to him.
Quote from: Brian on August 16, 2016, 07:04:48 AM
Wonder what he thinks about himself.
You have to ask?
Could Gary Johnson qualify for the first presidential debate? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0816/Could-Gary-Johnson-qualify-for-the-first-presidential-debate)
Quote from: Ken B on August 15, 2016, 10:36:04 AM
A weird assumption, since we were talking about when a major party was crushed because its voter base was split. I mean 1993 when the Tories were reduced to 2 seats and Reform became a significant vote-getter for former Tory voters.
Going from consecutive majorities to 2 seats is getting crushed.
Well, I didn't expect that you got your facts from prehistoric times (the Reform Party was born in 1987, and dissolved in 2000). The fortunes, vagaries and different avatars of the Progressive Conservative Party 1987-2003, before it morphed into the right-wing Conservative Party are of no interest here. Let's just say that a great, slightly right of centre party was taken over and became a beacon of christian conservatism until it was defeated last year.
Quote from: Brian on August 15, 2016, 11:28:29 AM
He must have meant 7 years and miscounted. He sounds old and senile.
Here is the video of his speech, not a tendentiously edited partial transcript. https://youtu.be/aD2CC3rcTbw
Start at 8:20 mark. He mentions 9/11 and the 1993 attack. The much ballyhooed quote comes about 30 seconds later. A couple sentence later! Further he dates the beginning of "those eight years" from when Pence visited Ground Zero and worked for the Patriot Act.
Can we agree an unedited video gives better context than the snippets some have quoted above?. He didn't forget or deny 9/11.
Quote from: Ken B on August 17, 2016, 11:39:32 AM
Here is the video of his speech, not a tendentiously edited partial transcript. https://youtu.be/aD2CC3rcTbw
Start at 8:20 mark. He mentions 9/11 and the 1993 attack. The much ballyhooed quote comes about 30 seconds later. A couple sentence later! Further he dates the beginning of "those eight years" from when Pence visited Ground Zero and worked for the Patriot Act.
Can we agree an unedited video gives better context than the snippets some have quoted above?. He didn't forget or deny 9/11.
Good grief. I watched the video. I know. From the Patriot Act to Obama is still 7 years. Like I already said, he meant 7 years and miscounted.
Quote from: Brian on August 17, 2016, 11:49:03 AM
Good grief. I watched the video. I know. From the Patriot Act to Obama is still 7 years. Like I already said, he meant 7 years and miscounted.
Technically it depends on what "those eight years" refers to, and it's possible he meant, as the context suggests, until the next Islamist attack on American soil, which is about 7 years 8 months. To the inauguration 7 and 4. Is that 7 years or 8? Like with birthdays people sometimes use either. saying 2009 is eight years after 2001 doesn't seem a big deal to me. But in either case it's a long way from the claim originally made there were no such atttacks before Obama, full stop. I don't really care if people think Rudy is an idiot for saying 8 when maybe 7 is a fairer number, but if you do so you should report accurately what he said, not "sex it up".
Quote from: Ken B on August 17, 2016, 11:39:32 AM
Here is the video of his speech, not a tendentiously edited partial transcript. https://youtu.be/aD2CC3rcTbw
Start at 8:20 mark. He mentions 9/11 and the 1993 attack. The much ballyhooed quote comes about 30 seconds later. A couple sentence later! Further he dates the beginning of "those eight years" from when Pence visited Ground Zero and worked for the Patriot Act.
Can we agree an unedited video gives better context than the snippets some have quoted above?. He didn't forget or deny 9/11.
I'm not interested in the snippets, which are generally edited to be click-bait. I'm interested in what he said, "and bye the way, in those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn't
have any successful radical islamic terrorist attacks."
The statement is explicitly false. The 8 years before Obama "came along" contained 9/11 as well as several small scale terror attacks with varying levels of success, such as the shoe bomber, an attack at LAX, several attacks on Jewish community centers. If he had said 7 years, 9/11 would have been technically excluded, but the fact that he was too unhinged to count is the main thing I take from it. The "Patriot Act" argument is disingenuous, since Obama did not cancel the Patriot act, but continued to make use of its provisions and Obama signed a reauthorization of its important elements. And apparently U.S. anti-terror operations under Obama were sufficiently successful to actually track down and kill bin Laden, an accomplishment which eluded the Bush Administration, for all their use of torture, dark prisons and other abuses of human rights.
Quote from: Scarpia on August 17, 2016, 12:24:59 PM
I'm not interested in the snippets, which are generally edited to be click-bait. I'm interested in what he said, "and bye the way, in those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical islamic terrorist attacks."
The statement is explicitly false. The 8 years before Obama "came along" contained 9/11 as well as several small scale terror attacks with varying levels of success, such as the shoe bomber, an attack at LAX, several attacks on Jewish community centers. If he had said 7 years, 9/11 would have been technically excluded, but the fact that he was too unhinged to count is the main thing I take from it. The "Patriot Act" argument is disingenuous, since Obama did not cancel the Patriot act, but continued to make use of its provisions and Obama signed a reauthorization of its important elements. And apparently U.S. anti-terror operations under Obama were sufficiently successful to actually track down and kill bin Laden, an accomplishment which eluded the Bush Administration, for all their use of torture, dark prisons and other abuses of human rights.
1. The original snippet presented was "before Obama came along, we didn't
have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attacks."
2. Whether 7 or 8 is accurate, it was represented as Giuliani forgetting 9/11 or the earlier attacks happened. That is false as the tape shows. If you think rounding up or down matters I won't argue with you.
3. I agree Giuliani's argument about why the attack came when it did and the alleged role of Obama in undoing all the alleged good work of the Patriot Act is a crock. I doubt Pence was a key figure in getting the act passed either. Does either matter? You have to agree with a politician to represent him fairly?
Oh God. How many pages are we going to face of you arguing whether Giuliani has no memory or no mathematics?
Neither option gives him a great deal of credit.
Paul Manafort is having a terrible day. (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136118/paul-manafort-terrible-day)
Not only was Manafort effectively dumped as Trump's campaign manager (he still technically holds the title of campaign chairman), but two separate new articles have added more insight into Manafort's shady ties to Russian interests. All of this comes on top of Sunday's story that Manafort was allegedly slated for undisclosed cash payments of $12.7 million from Ukraine's defunct Party of Regions, the pro-Russian party of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Donald Trump's hire of Breitbart News chief is a middle finger to the GOP establishment (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/17/donald-trumps-hire-of-the-breitbart-news-chief-is-a-middle-finger-to-the-gop-establishment/)
In politics I don't have a particularly weak stomach. How could I accept Her Beastness if I did? It's a judgment call, the emails, political shapeshifting, against my hunch that she will make a good President, good enough until a better one, and possibly the better one herself.
This guy Trump hired, from Breitbart, seems to leave a slime trail in his wake, and I don't mean that critically ( (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif) ) as much as from a sense of wonder, with maybe some sense of the decline and fall of a formerly great and now rotten thing.
Even if he had said 7 years he still would have been wrong.
Leaving aside this really fascinating discussion of whether Guiliani meant what he actually said, most of the attacks during the Obama administration have been perpetrated by one or two people with guns. What could any president do to really prevent such acts, and imagine the howls of protest if Obama had done anything to try. Of course, there were mass shootings during the Bush administration, but since they weren't committed by Muslims, they apparently don't matter as much.
I'm boldly predicting that whoever wins the election in November, we'll have more terrorist attacks. Anyone wanna bet?
Whatever else history will report about the present election cycle, it brought us these 26 gloriously side-splitting seconds:
What it's like to report on 2016, in 26 torturous, hilarious seconds (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/17/what-its-like-to-report-on-2016-in-37-torturous-hilarious-seconds/)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 18, 2016, 03:41:17 AM
Whatever else history will report about the present election cycle, it brought us these 26 gloriously side-splitting seconds:
What it's like to report on 2016, in 26 torturous, hilarious seconds (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/17/what-its-like-to-report-on-2016-in-37-torturous-hilarious-seconds/)
:laugh: Brilliant.
Portrait of a campaign in militant denial.
Just remember, he's not a racist:
This is the same man who is quoted in the 1991 book "Trumped!: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump — His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall," as saying:
"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."
- Charles Blow in today's NY Times
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 18, 2016, 05:17:38 AM
Just remember, he's not a racist:
This is the same man who is quoted in the 1991 book "Trumped!: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump — His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall," as saying:
"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."
- Charles Blow in today's NY Times
#sendDonaldtospace
Quote from: Wendell_E on August 18, 2016, 03:38:17 AM
Of course, there were mass shootings during the Bush administration, but since they weren't committed by Muslims, they apparently don't matter as much.
High rates of gun death are just a fact of American life. Whereas being killed by someone with a political agenda is an attack on the American way of life.
I guess now we all get to call him Mr. Brexit!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/766246213079498752
It was inevitable:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/18/12538672/nude-donald-trump-statues-union-square-los-angeles-indecline
"The Parks Department provided a statement to Gothamist, saying 'NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small.'"
This is what happens when a non-white Trump supporter tries to join a campaign that doesn't want him. (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136180/happens-non-white-trump-supporter-tries-join-campaign-doesnt-want-him)
"O Lord, please send to us Donald called Trump, with gifts of Play-Doh!"
Send to us, or send us?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 19, 2016, 05:33:43 AM
It was inevitable:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/18/12538672/nude-donald-trump-statues-union-square-los-angeles-indecline
"The Parks Department provided a statement to Gothamist, saying 'NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small.'"
And yet, New York is a city of great erections !
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i4QH9QcD854 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i4QH9QcD854)
Now we have to worry about both a Trump victory and a Trump defeat.
Which is worse, Repub extinction or Repub survival?
If a new party is to be born it won't be an ideological replicant. Right wing evolution is tough, they hate it, they're founded on the proposition that the new is worse than the old, so they evolve kicking and screaming then say it didn't happen, we were never racists or slaveholders or monarchists or Christianists, we eternally believe the eternal principles we adopted last week in geologic time. Liberals don't always "make change their friend" either, so don't expect them to change more than they have to, just that "have to" for a liberal is necessarily open ended, even to the point of discomfort. Human nature being what it is, there's only so much hope/fear differentiation you can expect.
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2016, 09:10:27 AM
Now we have to worry about both a Trump victory and a Trump defeat.
Which is worse, Repub extinction or Repub survival?
If a new party is to be born it won't be an ideological replicant. Right wing evolution is tough, they hate it, they're founded on the proposition that the new is worse than the old, so they evolve kicking and screaming then say it didn't happen, we were never racists or slaveholders or monarchists or Christianists, we eternally believe the eternal principles we adopted last week in geologic time. Liberals don't always "make change their friend" either, so don't expect them to change more than they have to, just that "have to" for a liberal is necessarily open ended, even to the point of discomfort. Human nature being what it is, there's only so much hope/fear differentiation you can expect.
The 4 ways Republican lawmakers are warning of a looming GOPocalypse (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/22/the-4-ways-republican-lawmakers-are-warning-of-a-looming-gopocalypse/)
George W. Bush was not a good president. As a former president, he's been exemplary (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/26/george-w-bush-was-not-a-good-president-as-a-former-president-hes-been-exemplary/?utm_term=.985beb4c932b)
Last week, Bush and Laura appeared with the Obamas at the ceremony in Dallas honoring the five police officers who had been killed. His remarks were eloquent.
"Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions. And this has strained our bonds of understanding and common purpose. ... We have never been held together by blood or background. We are bound by things of the spirit, by shared commitments to common ideals. ... This is the bridge across our nation's deepest divisions. And it is not merely a matter of tolerance, but of learning from the struggles and stories of our fellow citizens and finding our better selves in the process."
Bush still supports immigration reform and works to fight AIDS in Africa.
Donald Trump's campaign is basically The Producers (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136236/donald-trumps-campaign-basically-producers)
Of course! How did I not see it?
See, I was thinking Trump might have been indulging in a different kind of performance art.....
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ePe7Q_zH1c/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 18, 2016, 05:17:38 AM
Just remember, he's not a racist:
This is the same man who is quoted in the 1991 book "Trumped!: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump — His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall," as saying:
"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."
- Charles Blow in today's NY Times
uhhh... you're posting from Long Island. lol
anyhow... seriously?, in the NYT today? As if every jew reading that in the city doesn't want/need/have a jew counting their mone?. Oh, this is the richest ever, lol!! "He's not a jew, so he's racist when he says it."
so, again, the Truth is raciss
Don't get me started on richard Cohen, ruth Marcus, Nathaniel.....
(where is Charlton Heston laughing when you need him?)
Here's the whole world in a nut shell:
"self hating jews" VS "jews who hate others more than themselves"
THERE!! :laugh: Now we can all go hone and "vote" for which ever puppet the masters have ..."chosen" for us. lol
"oy... have you hoid? they're letting schvartzers count Trump's money, oy vey, what's the woild comin to?"HILLARY-JEB 2016BECAUSE THEY CARE
i :-* this thread
Quote from: snyprrr on August 23, 2016, 05:06:57 PM
uhhh... you're posting from Long Island. lol
My birthplace, incidentally.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2016, 03:24:44 AM
My birthplace, incidentally.
into each life a little rain must fall :(
Quote from: snyprrr on August 24, 2016, 08:28:23 AM
into each life a little rain must fall :(
Rain's a good thing; ask northern California.
I carry a little bit of Long Island with me wherever I go, like a cancer. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2016, 08:41:13 AM
Rain's a good thing; ask northern California.
errrrr... Louisiana??? :-[
And, sorry, but I am compelled to make a smart ass comment about your choice of local to defend. Karl, really, Northern California? I.. I... I mean,...
(five minutes later still struggling)
Quote from: drogulus on August 24, 2016, 11:00:15 AM
I carry a little bit of Long Island with me wherever I go, like a cancer. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Isn't there an ointment for that?
Quote from: snyprrr on August 24, 2016, 11:08:37 AM
And, sorry, but I am compelled to make a smart ass comment about your choice of local to defend. Karl, really, Northern California?
An old friend of mine lost his home and everything in it to a wildfire last year. And the area is in drought again presently.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2016, 03:24:44 AM
My birthplace, incidentally.
I was born in Manhattan, so there.
Where, Karl?
Quote from: snyprrr on August 23, 2016, 05:06:57 PM
uhhh... you're posting from Long Island. lol
And where are you posting from, snypes? I can take three guesses, so lol yourself.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 24, 2016, 05:22:36 PM
I was born in Manhattan, so there.
Where, Karl?
Amityville Hospital
The Amityville Horror ?? ???
Quote from: snyprrr on August 23, 2016, 05:06:57 PM
uhhh... you're posting from Long Island, lol.
That's "LonGuyland" just like the area around San Francisco is "The BaYearea." These are coastal things :-)
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on August 25, 2016, 02:03:41 AM
That's "LonGuyland" just like the area around San Francisco is "The BaYearea." These are coastal things :-)
Next time I actually hear anyone from LI say "LonGuyland," I'll let you know. You'll have a long wait.
Quote from: The new erato on August 25, 2016, 01:46:13 AM
The Amityville Horror ?? ???
I shan't pretend this is new to me ;)
I grew up in Copiague.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 25, 2016, 05:13:26 AM
I grew up in Copiague.
Even closer to me. I live in Bay Shore (former home to Zsa Zsa Gabor, so there).
Dahlink!
If organ music is something you enjoy, keep an eye for any recitals that Mark Engelhardt gives at St Peter's by-the-Sea.
grannies house was in LYNBROOK... I remember going to the...
HILLARY, THE EVIL LYING WITCH
Lovely encapsulation of the fundamental sexism of the language used against the Democratic nominee.
Well, snypsss, there is no denying that you Texas one-stepped right into that.
We aren't medical professionals, but we can appreciate a good doctor's note when we see one. (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-got-a-clean-bill-of-health-from-a-physician-who-sounds-remarkably-like-donald-trump/)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 29, 2016, 10:32:17 AM
We aren't medical professionals, but we can appreciate a good doctor's note when we see one. (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-got-a-clean-bill-of-health-from-a-physician-who-sounds-remarkably-like-donald-trump/)
Wow, that is just... pretty awful.
I mean, the whole medical thing is strange and stupid from my perspective (it simply doesn't come up here), but to do it in that way? Yikes.
But Cokehead Hillary is alright?
Please just tell me you believe that she has never ever done any coke ever, ever never ever.
I've been reading up on my Liberal rags, and they ALL skirt the Diazapam pen in the hands of her handlers.
But, who cares, right? She's what's best for the country, right?
Trending- fights at colleges now- don't you dare support Trump on campus.
Hey, don't you dare support Trump ANYWHERE- people seem to have been given a royal pass to fuck up any Trump sign or any Trump supporter.
Trump doesn't need help getting up the stairs...
I LOVE PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE. YOU ALL ARE WONDERFUL!!!
Quote from: snyprrr on August 29, 2016, 03:28:49 PM
But Cokehead Hillary is alright?
Given that the ONLY source I have ever come across for this claim is you, I shall treat it with the consideration it deserves: none.
EDIT: And let's assume for a moment it were true. It clearly doesn't impair her functioning, which is what actually matters. If she's a "cokehead" she's a fully functioning cokehead who shows every sign of being able to do her job anyway. Running around ringing morality alarm bells the way you are doing doesn't impress me in the slightest. Not only do I think you're full of shit, it's pointless shit.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 29, 2016, 03:28:49 PM
I LOVE PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE. YOU ALL ARE WONDERFUL!!!
And so are you !
ONE IN A MILLION !
REALLY !!
Quote from: orfeo on August 29, 2016, 04:09:34 PM
Given that the ONLY source I have ever come across for this claim is you, I shall treat it with the consideration it deserves: none.
EDIT: And let's assume for a moment it were true. It clearly doesn't impair her functioning, which is what actually matters. If she's a "cokehead" she's a fully functioning cokehead who shows every sign of being able to do her job anyway. Running around ringing morality alarm bells the way you are doing doesn't impress me in the slightest. Not only do I think you're full of shit, it's pointless shit.
But I'm very impressed by the number of hard returns he includes in each post.
Makes them seem longer somehow.
Even when they're
not.
Length isn't important.
Quote from: orfeo on August 29, 2016, 05:29:49 PM
Length isn't important.
I'll remember that next time I see
Parsifal.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 29, 2016, 05:34:45 PM
I'll remember that next time I see Parsifal.
And I'll remember it the next time I... um, never mind.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 29, 2016, 03:28:49 PMI LOVE PLAYING DEVIL'S idiot's ADVOCATE HERE. YOU ALL ARE WONDERFUL!!!
fixed.
Quote from: orfeo on August 29, 2016, 04:09:34 PM
...And let's assume for a moment it were true. It clearly doesn't impair her functioning, which is what actually matters. If she's a "cokehead" she's a fully functioning cokehead who shows every sign of being able to do her job anyway...
Egregious memory slips, bobble head when stressed out, needing to be helped up the stairs and for extra sleep plus long restroom breaks during a debate, hey mate, they don't project a lot of optimum functioning to me.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 29, 2016, 10:09:34 PM
Egregious memory slips, bobble head when stressed out, needing to be helped up the stairs and for extra sleep plus long restroom breaks during a debate, hey mate, they don't project a lot of optimum functioning to me.
That's funny, I read your text first and assumed you were referring to either of the ex-Presidents Bush when they were in office, LOL.
Mike
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 29, 2016, 10:09:34 PM
Egregious memory slips, bobble head when stressed out, needing to be helped up the stairs and for extra sleep plus long restroom breaks during a debate [....]
Put like that, she sounds yet more favorable as a candidate than El Tupé! 8)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 29, 2016, 10:09:34 PM
needing to be helped up the stairs and for extra sleep plus long restroom breaks during a debate
So now these are additional compelling reasons not to elect her? Long restroom breaks? Egad!
I'm not enthusiastic about Clinton, but long restroom breaks is not on my list of concerns.
Aside from [El Tupé]'s delusion that everyone loves him, how did not only he but many enablers in the GOP get this so wrong? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/30/republicans-misunderstand-the-electorate/?utm_term=.fd9d2026ba59)
Yesterday I was partially incapacitated by a case of the gastro-enteritis ??? , somthing that normally never happens to me.
I had to take long restroom breaks during my music listening session with a friend.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 29, 2016, 10:09:34 PM
Egregious memory slips, bobble head when stressed out, needing to be helped up the stairs and for extra sleep plus long restroom breaks during a debate, hey mate, they don't project a lot of optimum functioning to me.
Amazing. That accurately and precisely describes the state of of the last soviet and chinese leaders' health in the 1980s-2000 - at the height of communist might and influence. And how many Popes ? 5? 7? Make that all of them, since they inevitably led their last years in infirmity and incapacity.
Oh, and FDR ? He was crippled all right, but History has given him a quite clean political bill of health.
Other arguments ?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 30, 2016, 07:14:04 AM
So now these are additional compelling reasons not to elect her? Long restroom breaks? Egad!
The
Soviets Russians will infiltrate the White House security system and engineer an attack when she is in the loo.
"Madame President, this is important..."
Reminds me of when all the media got into a frenzy over one of the grand slam tennis finals when one player left the court for a while between sets. Eager to know why she spent time away.
The player eventually relented at the press conference to deliver the shock revelation that she was having her period.
Most of the media were male of course.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 25, 2016, 05:13:26 AM
I grew up in Copiague.
Train to Babylon now boarding on Track 5, Rockville Centre, Baldwin, Freeport, Merrick, Bellmore, Wantagh, Seaford, Massapequa, Massapequa Park, Amityville, Copaigue, Lindenhurst, Babylon, Train to Babylon now boarding on Track 5..... That's from Jamaica, not Penn Station. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on August 30, 2016, 04:47:02 PM
Train to Babylon now boarding on Track 5, Rockville Centre, Baldwin, Freeport, Merrick, Bellmore, Wantagh, Seaford, Massapequa, Massapequa Park, Amityville, Copaigue, Lindenhurst, Babylon, Train to Babylon now boarding on Track 5.....
That's from Jamaica, not Penn Station. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
That's true. LIRR uses tracks 13-21 from Penn Station; the lower tracks belong to Amtrak and NJ Transit. And don't forget: change at Babylon for the train to Patchogue, stopping at Bay Shore, Islip, Great River, Oakdale, Sayville, and Patchogue.
I never went to Speonk......well I must have because at least once I took the train to Montauk. Speonk....how could there be such a place as that?
Hey guys, shouldn't it be understood that the person to occupy the highest office of the US should be in top physical condition, meaning not possibly having degenerative diseases that impair mental functioning? FDR may have been in a wheelchair but his mind was not affected. We're not even talking about moral fitness but lying or hiding her syndromes would be par for what Hillary served up all these years.
https://www.youtube.com/v/ifIAlft47bM
Quote from: knight66 on August 30, 2016, 02:26:43 AM
That's funny, I read your text first and assumed you were referring to either of the ex-Presidents Bush when they were in office, LOL. Mike
The last Bush in office, GW, is spending his retirement painting puppies! I don't discount the guy was off the rails while in office, seeing WMD's in his sleep no doubt. Ironically, the Donald is the one man happenstance to get rid of the hegemony of the Bushes and their collaborators for almost a century. Profiteering from selling munitions goes back to WWI, a major source of their wealth up to and including Halliburton in the Iraq debacle. Jeb Bush himself couldn't disguise his own panic about his family being ditched. I would say this fact alone disregarding other pros and cons of Trump, is fantastic.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 30, 2016, 08:19:13 PM
Hey guys, shouldn't it be understood that the person to occupy the highest office of the US should be in top physical condition, meaning not possibly having degenerative diseases that impair mental functioning?
Yeah. What a pity that no reputable source is suggesting that Clinton is not in possession of full mental faculties. Making your questions moot.
Also, you seem confused about the relationship between "physical condition" and "mental functioning".
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 30, 2016, 10:54:59 PMI would say this fact alone disregarding other pros and cons of Trump, is fantastic.
If only those cons didn't include being a lying, sexist bigot, who's been endorsed by such luminaries as Putin, Kim Jong-un and David Duke.
You sincerely believe Trump would stand up to the military-industrial complex? Well, falling for conspiracies about Hillary's health is a first step in believing anything, I guess.
Quote from: orfeo on August 30, 2016, 11:21:29 PM
Yeah. What a pity that no reputable source is suggesting that Clinton is not in possession of full mental faculties. Making your questions moot.
Also, you seem confused about the relationship between "physical condition" and "mental functioning".
Hillary seems to have full mental capacity when it comes to lying about her emails as Secretary of State and the Benghazi incident. There is a whole trail of corruption before those of course.
Alleged neurological conditions can impair mental functioning. What other explanations are there for head bobbing and frozen expressions? If it is not a conspiracy to inquire, maybe someone can assure us that she is A-OK. This fitness question came up with John McCain and no one thought it unusual.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 12:37:46 AM
What other explanations are there for head bobbing and frozen expressions?
Try asking a doctor instead of the internet.
Quote from: orfeo on August 30, 2016, 02:02:01 PM
Reminds me of when all the media got into a frenzy over one of the grand slam tennis finals when one player left the court for a while between sets. Eager to know why she spent time away.
The player eventually relented at the press conference to deliver the shock revelation that she was having her period. Most of the media were male of course.
Er, this is not something that necessitates lengthy visits to the powder room. For cramps one takes a pill. Other personal hygiene stuff doesn't take that long to check or whatever. Also, not something to broadcast either. The whole business of equality for women was to show that these things do not get in the way of functioning. As for Shillary, she exploits the "women" card so much as to be embarrassing for the rest of us.
Quote from: orfeo on August 31, 2016, 12:59:00 AM
Try asking a doctor instead of the internet.
Doctors have voiced concern over the treatment she is getting for alleged thyroid problems. The internet is not a monolith that someone "asks". Rather it is the sum total of contributions from real people like you and me sitting in front of our computers.
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 30, 2016, 11:27:27 PM
If only those cons didn't include being a lying, sexist bigot, who's been endorsed by such luminaries as Putin, Kim Jong-un and David Duke.
You sincerely believe Trump would stand up to the military-industrial complex? Well, falling for conspiracies about Hillary's health is a first step in believing anything, I guess.
The military-political complex HATES Trump and is doing everything possible to discredit and destroy him. There is a difference between having made your fortune from mainly real estate rather than from arms that kill people. No one is a saint, public figures perhaps even more flawed.
In this world the choice is usually between worse and less worse. That's only reality, no matter who likes whom. I didn't read anywhere ole fat face likes Trump but really who cares? The concern would be if it were the other way around.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 12:37:46 AM
Hillary seems to have full mental capacity when it comes to lying about her emails as Secretary of State and the Benghazi incident. There is a whole trail of corruption before those of course.
Alleged neurological conditions can impair mental functioning. What other explanations are there for head bobbing and frozen expressions? If it is not a conspiracy to inquire, maybe someone can assure us that she is A-OK.
At the campaign's outset (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/31/us/politics/hillary-clinton-doctor-letter.html?_r=0) If you would like a second medical opinion, I don't think that is unreasonable, per se. It is worth pointing out that, at least, we have one professionally presented medical opinion here, which contrasts sharply with the
I had five minutes to draw this up for the limo which was waiting on West 58th Street "letter."
Quote from: drogulus on August 30, 2016, 07:26:34 PM
I never went to Speonk......well I must have because at least once I took the train to Montauk. Speonk....how could there be such a place as that?
Wiki: The name Speonk was inspired by a Native American word meaning high place. An 1897 Long Island Rail Road catalog listed Speonk, noting that that name "certainly sounds like the call of a frog."
My favorite LI town name is Quogue. There used to be an LIRR station there, but it was closed. What any of this has to do with the present thread is beyond me, but I don't really care.
Con: Not the sort of landmark you want to hit <70 days before the election.
Hillary Clinton's image hits a new low (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/31/a-record-number-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/)
Pro: She is still doing significantly better than El Tupé.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 31, 2016, 03:36:52 AM
Wiki: The name Speonk was inspired by a Native American word meaning high place. An 1897 Long Island Rail Road catalog listed Speonk, noting that that name "certainly sounds like the call of a frog."
If I could only believe that a frog were capable of
sp- . . . .
Quote from: Aaron BlakeIt's not clear quite what might have cause Clinton to fall further than ever before. It's likely that she simply got an extended bounce after the Democratic convention that has finally faded. It's also possible that adverse headlines last week about the Clinton Foundation and thousands of newly discovered emails from the private email server Clinton used as secretary of state reinforced why views of her had been worsening prior to the July conventions.
She has got to do more than just keep out of El Tupé's way while he makes an ass of himself. And really, she should gird her loins and do proper press conferences. She must have more to gain in terms of the respect of the average voter for facing the fire, than to lose by reinforcing the lack-of-transparency narrative.
Sure, El Tupé faces historically long odds in being so entrenchedly behind, this late in the process. But anything can happen, and Hillary should actively court more favorability.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 01:04:57 AM
Doctors have voiced concern over the treatment she is getting for alleged thyroid problems. The internet is not a monolith that someone "asks". Rather it is the sum total of contributions from real people like you and me sitting in front of our computers.
Real people with no medical training whatsoever, is my point. When people started throwing around medical terms for Trump's mental state on this thread they were, quite reasonably in my view, called to account for it. I'm not terribly interested in going down a similar road with Clinton. Anyone who isn't a doctor who has examined her is perfectly capable of expressing their opinion on the internet or publicly "voicing concern", but it's not exactly credible, for exactly the same reason that diagnosing a personality disorder in Trump from viewing press conferences isn't credible.
In another context I've just read an article pointing out all the ways in which expertise and science is falling by the wayside because these days absolutely anyone with an opinion can get their voice heard in the vast echo chamber of media. I am simply not interested in what a Youtube video might claim to show about the medical conditions of a person.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 01:00:14 AM
Er, this is not something that necessitates lengthy visits to the powder room. For cramps one takes a pill. Other personal hygiene stuff doesn't take that long to check or whatever.
*rolls eyes*
Your expertise about how everyone else goes to the bathroom is marvellous.
When you talk about taking a "longer than normal" break from a political debate, implying darkly that there must be something wrong if someone takes longer, I couldn't help wondering what your definition of "normal" is. Is it based on male politicians standing at a urinal? Is it, in short, an inherently sexist notion of what one does in a bathroom?
I have no clue what Hillary Clinton does in a bathroom. I think the fact that you even raised it is quite bizarre, but the reason I mentioned the tennis story is that it is an illustration of how people look for some newsworthy explanation of a perfectly ordinary event.
Hell, if I had a chance for a bathroom break away from cameras and crowds I'd probably take as long as possible, not because there's anything noticeably wrong with my plumbing but because I'd just like a few extra minutes of peace and quiet away from the insane scrutiny of people who are examining my every head movement for "bobble". Part of it is just a strange American attitude to minutiae that I think is incomprehensible to an outsider, but that doesn't stop me from pointing out how ridiculous some of your statements seem.
Quote from: orfeo on August 31, 2016, 04:17:45 AM
Real people with no medical training whatsoever, is my point. When people started throwing around medical terms for Trump's mental state on this thread they were, quite reasonably in my view, called to account for it. I'm not terribly interested in going down a similar road with Clinton. Anyone who isn't a doctor who has examined her is perfectly capable of expressing their opinion on the internet or publicly "voicing concern", but it's not exactly credible, for exactly the same reason that diagnosing a personality disorder in Trump from viewing press conferences isn't credible.
In another context I've just read an article pointing out all the ways in which expertise and science is falling by the wayside because these days absolutely anyone with an opinion can get their voice heard in the vast echo chamber of media. I am simply not interested in what a YouTube video might claim to show about the medical conditions of a person.
Not coincidentally, this is being made "a campaign issue" by El Tupé:
- The guy who made hay over Obama's birth certificate
- Not entirely separately, the guy who is more conspiracy theorist than solution plotter
- The guy whose doctor did no more than parrot the campaign buzzphrases. I've seen longer letters in a toybox.
Also, the whole notion of Clinton being some extraordinary liar... I could link to several different articles all examining the origins of this label and pointing out the serious factual flaws with its origins, but why bother? I could link to something like Politifact which makes assessments of each candidate, but why bother? Those living in a Republican echo chamber won't believe such articles and those not living in a Republican echo chamber don't need to read such articles. Facts are such boring things anyway.
Well, I am sure that if the Republicans ever get around to forming a Benghazi investigation, evidence will emerge.
Oh? They have, already? And repeatedly?
Then there's national spokeswoman (and reality TV star) Katrina Pierson, whose pre-Trump days include 2012 tweets asking if 9/11 was "an inside job" and lamenting that both President Obama's and Mitt Romney's fathers were born abroad. "Any pure breeds left?" she asked.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 31, 2016, 04:55:24 AM
Then there's national spokeswoman (and reality TV star) Katrina Pierson, whose pre-Trump days include 2012 tweets asking if 9/11 was "an inside job" and lamenting that both President Obama's and Mitt Romney's fathers were born abroad. "Any pure breeds left?" she asked.
Funny. I don't think I had ever heard her name until just a few minutes ago, when I read it on Politifact, because she asserted that Obama and Clinton were to blame for rule changes that caused the death of someone... 5 years before Obama became President.
Dates. SO BORING!
To be hired for the El Tupé campaign, loyalty to the Leader (and, face it, being less smart) is all-important. Facts do not matter. You need a winning attitude.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 31, 2016, 04:55:24 AM
Then there's national spokeswoman (and reality TV star) Katrina Pierson, whose pre-Trump days include 2012 tweets asking if 9/11 was "an inside job" and lamenting that both President Obama's and Mitt Romney's fathers were born abroad. "Any pure breeds left?" she asked.
John McCain?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 31, 2016, 03:30:40 AM
At the campaign's outset (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/31/us/politics/hillary-clinton-doctor-letter.html?_r=0)
If you would like a second medical opinion, I don't think that is unreasonable, per se. It is worth pointing out that, at least, we have one professionally presented medical opinion here, which contrasts sharply with the I had five minutes to draw this up for the limo which was waiting on West 58th Street "letter."
I don't trust anything coming out of the Clinton camp. I don't really give a damn about her either. I have been following reports of her character for years which means that you can pretty much believe the opposite of anything she says. The list is too long of her misdeeds, starting from when she was public prosecutor and laughed about getting a rapist off with a technicality. She enabled her husband's antics and harassed his victims. Her attitude around the Benghazi fiasco was disgusting. I would be happy never to have to see her mugs again.
Quote from: orfeo on August 31, 2016, 04:26:40 AM
*rolls eyes*
Your expertise about how everyone else goes to the bathroom is marvellous.
When you talk about taking a "longer than normal" break from a political debate, implying darkly that there must be something wrong if someone takes longer, I couldn't help wondering what your definition of "normal" is. Is it based on male politicians standing at a urinal? Is it, in short, an inherently sexist notion of what one does in a bathroom?
I have no clue what Hillary Clinton does in a bathroom. I think the fact that you even raised it is quite bizarre, but the reason I mentioned the tennis story is that it is an illustration of how people look for some newsworthy explanation of a perfectly ordinary event.
Hell, if I had a chance for a bathroom break away from cameras and crowds I'd probably take as long as possible, not because there's anything noticeably wrong with my plumbing but because I'd just like a few extra minutes of peace and quiet away from the insane scrutiny of people who are examining my every head movement for "bobble". Part of it is just a strange American attitude to minutiae that I think is incomprehensible to an outsider, but that doesn't stop me from pointing out how ridiculous some of your statements seem.
Go ahead and make a big deal out of this and roll your eyes all you want.
As a performer, I am used to planning how I will feel around an event which means if I have a stomach bug or something, I don't eat the whole day before or maybe longer than that. Recently I had an accompaniment gig, so ate very little the day before and hardly anything on the day of the performance. My head was perfectly clear that evening and I felt really good. Afterwards, I made up for lost time. This is called self-awareness. Of course, anyone can be surprised with anything. About what happens to women once a month it is usually not a big deal. It doesn't need to be broadcast to all and sundry.
As for "head bobble", it doesn't happen to me or anyone I know. So what could be the explanation except in the area of neurology? If not, we should all be disabused of having to worry about it.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 31, 2016, 04:53:23 AM
Well, I am sure that if the Republicans ever get around to forming a Benghazi investigation, evidence will emerge.
Oh? They have, already? And repeatedly?
So why does she get off, scot-free?
Exponential teflon effect.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 08:36:01 AM
So why does she get off, scot-free?
Exponential teflon effect.
Is she getting off scot-free
about anything, or just generally, like whatever she might have done, if she done it, she's getting off? Like the emails or meetings with foundation contributors or something something Benghazi Pt. VII, are these accusations about something that might lead one to think she is getting off scot-free
substantively?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 08:36:01 AM
So why does she get off, scot-free?
Exponential teflon effect.
If there was wrongdoing, why have not the repeated and sustained efforts of the GOP Congressmen prosecuted? I don't know that you can effectively complain about "teflon" when the opposition have been at it again and again.
I get that she is unpopular, and historically unpopular. But Trey Gowdy & al. (my quick Googling to check spelling reveals that he is an attorney, by gum) will never get anywhere trying to make mere unpopularity a prosecutable offense. Indeed, one of the latest attempts backfired by making Hillary seem sympathetic.
It's easy to get an arena full of conferees to chant
Lock her up! But what is the offense? And if it is a real offense, why isn't it being litigated?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 08:10:47 AM
I don't trust anything coming out of the Clinton camp.
From you, that's fair enough. (From El Tupé, it would niff of conspiracy theory.) Offhand, I should guess that the candidates are not required to pursue a "more independent" medical evaluation until they take office. (Of course, I am speaking speculatively, and would welcome correction.)
That said, the doctor's letter which you don't trust from the Clinton camp at least has the virtue of being the work of a responsible professional.
And there you have the dilemma of the present contest in a nutshell: neither of them is likeable, neither is at all the best their respective has to offer. But of the two, only one is an unqualified bigot who doesn't have the emotional discipline of a two-year-old.
Quote from: orfeo on August 31, 2016, 04:49:26 AMFacts are such boring things anyway.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Vote for Hiltery! I think Mrs. Beast will make a tolerably good President. We should be glad that one candidate in this crazy election can be tolerably good.
I count it as something quite positive that so many people on both sides of the aisle respect her. Many seem to like her. You don't have to be a clown to be a deal maker, and in politics it's probably a disadvantage.
Quote from: Rinaldo on August 31, 2016, 09:28:42 AM
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
I don't think that quite captures the state of affairs. I think liberals have a stronger reality bias. When anti-vaxxers crop up on the left who shoots them down most effectively if not science based liberals? Liberals don't have to selectively accept or reject scientific claims on ideological grounds like climate deniers who somehow haven't gotten around to gravity or the germ theory.
Quote from: drogulus on August 31, 2016, 09:40:26 AMI don't think that quite captures the state of affairs.
Well, back in 2006.. (https://youtu.be/2X93u3anTco?t=4m58s)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 08:36:01 AM
So why does she get off, scot-free?
Exponential teflon effect.
Gee, your head is a fascinating place. Is that what you'd say if someone was acquitted in a criminal trial? Why did they get off?
Maybe it was because THEY REALLY WERE NOT GUILTY?
I mean that's the obvious possibility, but your entire tone suggests you're one of those people who thinks that the purpose of a prosecution and trial is to confirm the conclusion you've already reached with your legal expertise, which you keep on your shelf next to your extensive medical qualifications.
Quote from: orfeo on August 31, 2016, 01:42:11 PM
Gee, your head is a fascinating place. Is that what you'd say if someone was acquitted in a criminal trial? Why did they get off?
Maybe it was because THEY REALLY WERE NOT GUILTY?
I mean that's the obvious possibility, but your entire tone suggests you're one of those people who thinks that the purpose of a prosecution and trial is to confirm the conclusion you've already reached with your legal expertise, which you keep on your shelf next to your extensive medical qualifications.
Yes, there was "whitewater" which was investigated for something like 10 years by various special prosecutors, etc. After reading many newspaper articles I never figured out what she was even accused of.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 31, 2016, 09:15:23 AMan unqualified bigot who doesn't have the emotional discipline of a two-year-old.
That's exactly what president Peña Nieto saw; he should have told us.
Head bobbing: a search on google and internet (thanks, Al Gore and Sergey Brin), revealed that head bobbing is often a symptom of a condition called essential tremor. The net even lists famous people who had it, including... 2 US presidents. And generals (Douglas MacArthur), Supreme Court Justices (Sandra Day O'Connor), writers, actors, etc. Like Katharine Hepburn (you can see that clearly in some of her most famous movies like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) and, yes, a canadian PM (Conservative John Diefenbaker, whose head shaking became particularly violent when fired up by the opposition >:D . We, canadians of a certain age remember the bobbing and trembling jowls vividly. BTW the man was sharp as an eagle).
See ? It's all on the net. You look for what you intend to find and you sure as h... will find it. An old french saying goes like this: when you want to kill your dog, you shout: 'rabies!'
Believe me, 4 years of a determined Trump scares me more than 4 years of a head bobbing Clinton.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 31, 2016, 09:15:23 AM
And there you have the dilemma of the present contest in a nutshell: neither of them is likeable, neither is at all the best their respective has to offer. But of the two, only one is an unqualified bigot who doesn't have the emotional discipline of a two-year-old.
Likability and health aside, the one with an official endorsement from Planned Parenthood is despicable. She is no friend of women if she supports THAT. As for emotional control, her rages and acting out are famous, even physically attacked her husband in the WH.
One can't help noticing that most of the discussions of the candidates here have avoided the real issues. The dinosaur in the room is the socialist recasting of the US, that has been going on for a long time, so much that it is not even noticed anymore. The Clinton's tried with their version of universal health care that didn't succeed but under Obama was shoved down everyone's throat.
Hillary wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals on How to Create Socialist State". If this were sheer academic interest then she would not have set out to religiously implement them overtly or covertly. She doesn't have anything to say by way of real policy, except empty slogans that more or less reflect distribution of wealth (of course not hers), no real patriotism, and no appreciation of the nuts and bolts of capitalism since her money comes from graft and donations.
Donald Trump is no saint but as an outsider he has the advantage of not being beholden to special interest groups who need to be paid back once he gets into office. The mafia-like web of the Bushes and their cohorts that had been going on for about a century has been blown aside hurricane style. None of the RINOs (emasculated Republicans in name only) had to puddle jump to self-censor anything they said for fear of making waves. Along comes someone who earned his own money independently, doesn't need to give a damn about who is going to be offended, that immigrants should be vetted, that they should not come over in hordes and get away with rape and murder. If there were only ONE incident, it would be enough.
The notion of Hillary being Lady President makes my skin crawl.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 08:55:06 PM
The dinosaur in the room is the socialist recasting of the US, that has been going on for a long time, so much that it is not even noticed anymore. The Clinton's tried with their version of universal health care that didn't succeed but under Obama was shoved down everyone's throat.
Yes, how dare the United States start noticing the benefits to society of generalised health care. Why, next they'll be doing things like noticing the benefits of minimum wages or gun control. Or the metric system.
We didn't rebel against the Brits just to end up moving into the 21st century alongside them! This country was founded in the 18th century and that's the way we like it. MAKE AMERICA ANTIQUE AGAIN!
PS Inspired by your strange use of the word "dinosaur". I don't think the folks trying to get the US to emulate reforms much of the world enacted decades ago are the dinosaurs here. Leaders of the free world? You trail the rest of the free world in any number of ways. Ways that actual science and facts, as opposed to rampant patriotic ideology and pride, have explained how to fix.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 12:37:46 AM
Hillary seems to have full mental capacity when it comes to lying about her emails as Secretary of State and the Benghazi incident. There is a whole trail of corruption before those of course.
Alleged neurological conditions can impair mental functioning. What other explanations are there for head bobbing and frozen expressions?
The explanation is that there's literally years of footage of Clinton, under any circumstances.
Imagine if you were under constant camera scrutiny, how stupid and "incapacitated" you could be made to look - especially if you had had a job (State) that involved a brutal intercontinental flying schedule. (Talk about being physically unfit for office.)
So, technically, there is so much material and the media can just pick a couple of unflattering seconds and repeat those over and over again, to feed the latent misogyny in the general public. (There's a whole paparazzi industry of guys looking for "wardrobe malfunctions", "underskirts", "sideboobs", unfortunate bikini pictures for people who hate other people's bodies.)
Just for comparison: it's common knowledge that Trump does not like to spend the night anywhere else than in his own home. Otherwise he gets cranky.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 08:55:06 PM
Likability and health aside, the one with an official endorsement from Planned Parenthood is despicable. She is no friend of women if she supports THAT.
wow, no,
you're a real friend of women.
QuoteAs for emotional control, her rages and acting out are famous
I never even heard of that. But then I don't peruse the kind of media you seem to do.
QuoteDonald Trump is no saint but as an outsider he has the advantage of not being beholden to special interest groups who need to be paid back once he gets into office.
this is a huge fallacy. In the first place Trump is a huge special interest himself. He has repeatedly stated, clearly, he pictures the presidency as an opportunity to go after people and institutions detrimental to his way of doing business, banana-republic style, prosecuting judges, firing librul fed employees, changing the Constitution (as if) to muzzle the press etc.
In the second place it's pretty clear he's in hock in a yuge way to foreign lenders, among which some pretty shady Russian billionaires, whose bidding he's already been doing by talking about NATO and the Baltics in an unprecedented way.
So there you go.
QuoteThe notion of Hillary being Lady President makes my skin crawl.
this may be because you appear to be a raging misogynist.
Quote from: Herman on August 31, 2016, 11:33:35 PM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on Today at 08:55:06 PM
Likability and health aside, the one with an official endorsement from Planned Parenthood is despicable. She is no friend of women if she supports THAT.
wow, you're off the deep end.
PP depicts abortion, their MAIN million $ business, like a walk in the park. It not only kills millions of human beings but abets misery to the women who are duped into it, the very antithesis of motherhood. This is not to go into their selling baby parts for hard cash. How horrible!
WHO is off the deep end? Those who are willfully blind to this evil.
Quote from: Herman on August 31, 2016, 11:33:35 PM
this may be because you appear to be a raging misogynist.
Oh sure, I hate my own gender. It looks like you need someone to throw you a lifebuoy or life preserver.
(If you dislike Hillary, you must be a woman-hater, that's a good one!)
I do hate b****es, however, who give other women a bad name.
Quote from: orfeo on August 31, 2016, 11:12:39 PM
Yes, how dare the United States start noticing the benefits to society of generalised health care. Why, next they'll be doing things like noticing the benefits of minimum wages or gun control. Or the metric system.
We didn't rebel against the Brits just to end up moving into the 21st century alongside them! This country was founded in the 18th century and that's the way we like it. MAKE AMERICA ANTIQUE AGAIN!
PS Inspired by your strange use of the word "dinosaur". I don't think the folks trying to get the US to emulate reforms much of the world enacted decades ago are the dinosaurs here. Leaders of the free world? You trail the rest of the free world in any number of ways. Ways that actual science and facts, as opposed to rampant patriotic ideology and pride, have explained how to fix.
Socialized medicine like they have in Cuba, North Korea? Insurance rates have gone UP, not down, since Obamacare. But the worst is people do not have a CHOICE anymore, they can't really opt out if they want. Sometimes, antique is better.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 11:55:06 PM
Socialized medicine like they have in Cuba, North Korea?
Oh Lordy. You're one of those. Someone who sees no distinction between Australia, the UK, Scandinavia, Cuba and North Korea.
If you think Obamacare is somehow capable of being equated with North Korean medicine then further conversation is pointless. It's a waste of my time talking to someone like that.
And the complaint that people can't opt out... opt out of WHAT exactly? "No, we don't want our employees to be treated, we'd prefer to watch them die" might be an argument, but it sure as hell isn't a good argument. It isn't even a good way to run a business.
Quote from: orfeo on September 01, 2016, 12:07:31 AM
It's a waste of my time talking to someone like that.
Likewise, do me a favor!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 11:51:40 PM
Oh sure, I hate my own gender. It looks like you need someone to throw you a lifebuoy or life preserver.
(If you dislike Hillary, you must be a woman-hater, that's a good one!)
I do hate b****es, however, who give other women a bad name.
Well, sorry, everything you say is right out of the misogynist playbook.
Trump can be as rude, boorish and hateful as he wishes, and you're okay with that. Because he's a man.
Hillary is shrill sometimes and stressed. She's in charge and not baking cookies. Well, in that case she deserves our hatred.
This is the way women have been kept out of leadership positions.
In my opinion Donald Trump is at his best (funniest) inside a wrestling ring:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I)
;D
Quote from: Herman on September 01, 2016, 12:32:29 AM
Well, sorry, everything you say is right out of the misogynist playbook.
Trump can be as rude, boorish and hateful as he wishes, and you're okay with that. Because he's a man.
Hillary is shrill sometimes and stressed. She's in charge and not baking cookies. Well, in that case she deserves our hatred.This is the way women have been kept out of leadership positions.
What is the "misogynist playbook"? Do you have a copy by your bedside?
Does wounded-bird Hillary appeal to your "knight-in-shining-armor" sensibility?
Hillary with all her clichés that you seem to have swallowed is not the vanguard of female rights.
Planned Parenthood's endorsement is enough to damn her in my books.
PP is anti-woman. That should be the beginning and end of any discussion about her and her being an advocate for us.
Oddly enough, your arguments do not state any facts or rational concerns, as mine do, but throw around emotional rhetoric, that was supposed to be characteristic of empty-headed females.
Quote from: Herman on September 01, 2016, 12:32:29 AM
This is the way women have been kept out of leadership positions.
I beg your pardon? Hillary Clinton was, is, and will likely be, in a leadership position; she had, has and will likely have more power than most US males taken together can dream of. To present her as a helpless, frail woman confronted with vicious mysoginistic attacks aimed at preventing her getting into a leadership position is disingenuous.
And no, I am no Trump fan, I actually cross my fingers for her.
Quote from: Florestan on September 01, 2016, 01:47:38 AM
I beg your pardon? Hillary Clinton was, is, and will likely be, in a leadership position; she had, has and will likely have more power than most US males taken together can dream of. To present her as a helpless, frail woman confronted with vicious mysoginistic attacks aimed at preventing her getting into a leadership position is disingenuous.
One swallow does not a summer make.
Quote from: North Star on September 01, 2016, 03:04:45 AM
One swallow does not a summer make.
I'd have more respect for HRC if she actually baked some cookies now and then. It would be a form of solidarity with the rest of us who don't find it demeaning.
Quote from: North Star on September 01, 2016, 03:04:45 AM
One swallow does not a summer make.
True, but Mrs Clinton is hardly an example of a victim of mysogyny.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 03:19:55 AM
I'd have more respect for HRC if she actually baked some cookies now and then. It would be a form of solidarity with the rest of us who don't find it demeaning.
Likewise, perhaps, I found it laughable when the elder Bush (who I am sure is not a bad egg, truly) was prevailed upon to go shop for a gallon of milk.
But almost anyone who is in a social position to run for these offices, is de facto out of my financial league. And if you did not have the skin-crawlies with Hillary, you would feel a quite comparable lack of comeraderie with El Tupé.
Quote from: Florestan on September 01, 2016, 03:20:32 AM
True, but Mrs Clinton is hardly an example of a victim of mysogyny.
That was a canard regularly tossed around by Clintonistas during the primaries:
"If you vote for Bernie, you're a misogynist!"
Quote from: karlhenning on September 01, 2016, 03:27:19 AM
But almost anyone who is in a social position to run for these offices, is de facto out of my financial league.
Has it ever been otherwise?
Quote from: Florestan on September 01, 2016, 03:20:32 AM
True, but Mrs Clinton is hardly an example of a victim of mysogyny.
You mean, because she has survived it? And that is very much beside the point. Name one other woman who has made it as far as she has in US politics.
https://www.youtube.com/v/i_7GrRw6S64
Quote from: North Star on September 01, 2016, 03:40:27 AM
You mean, because she has survived it? And that is very much beside the point. Name one other woman who has made it as far as she has in US politics.
https://www.youtube.com/v/i_7GrRw6S64
You're trying to use logic about trends. It won't work. It's the same effect that leads people to argue that a single cold snap proves that global warming isn't happening.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 01, 2016, 03:27:19 AM
Likewise, perhaps, I found it laughable when the elder Bush (who I am sure is not a bad egg, truly) was prevailed upon to go shop for a gallon of milk.
But almost anyone who is in a social position to run for these offices, is de facto out of my financial league. And if you did not have the skin-crawlies with Hillary, you would feel a quite comparable lack of comeraderie with El Tupé.
I also appreciated the guilelessness of the wife of Bush I, showing her closet with her off-the-rack clothing. However, I woke up to the Bushes after the incursions into Kuwait and Iraq. I felt stupid having been drawn into the general hysteria of having to do something, anything, after 9-11.
El-Trompé to me is an unknown. He could go either way. It could be good or awful. But at least he is not part of the interlocking hegemonies that go back to Prescott Bush and his double dealings in WWi and WWII. It is a totally corrupt family. Trump blocked any ambitions by Jeb by calling him out as a lightweight.
Someone mentioned here that there has been much more coverage of the Clinton's, so there is more to nit pick and blow up. I know the type because there have been more than one lying beech in my life experience. She is a power-drunk narcissist who will stop at nothing to get what she wants.
How you could label Trump as an "unknown", and not conclude that HE is a power-drunk narcissist... I'm sorry have you not being paying attention? The man talks about himself far more than he talks about policies.
He appears to label everyone as either great or awful, based entirely on what they said about him. He constantly threatens to sue people based on it.
EDIT: For heaven's sake, the man made himself the centre of a reality TV show and plasters his name across all the buildings he owns, and you haven't figured out yet that he's a narcissist?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 03:44:20 AMSomeone mentioned here that there has been much more coverage of the Clinton's, so there is more to nit pick and blow up. I know the type because there have been more than one lying beech in my life experience. She is a power-drunk narcissist who will stop at nothing to get what she wants.
Ambition, the virtue of men, and sin of women who ought to be baking cookies to feed their children. ::)
Are you saying ambition is a bad thing? It's a sin to be wealthy?
Taking away freedom in order to bolster your own is what dictators do.
Otherwise, empowering others truly shares the wealth.
There is a significant difference between the two.
HRC behaves like the dictatorial type.
Creating actual jobs is the other.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 03:53:15 AM
Are you saying ambition is a bad thing? It's a sin to be wealthy?
*bangs head against desk*
Okay, I'm really outta here.
Quote from: orfeo on September 01, 2016, 03:48:08 AM
EDIT: For heaven's sake, the man made himself the centre of a reality TV show and plasters his name across all the buildings he owns, and you haven't figured out yet that he's a narcissist?
I answered your post before the edit. It's funny to hear this on a music blog where composers, conductors and performers have their names in lights, pictures splattered everywhere, etc. Are they maniacs, too?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 03:44:20 AM
El-Trompé to me is an unknown. He could go either way. It could be good or awful.
I have probably insurmountable difficulty imagining that it could be good.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 03:55:28 AM
I answered your post before the edit. It's funny to hear this on a music blog where composers, conductors and performers have their names in lights, pictures splattered everywhere, etc. Are they maniacs, too?
You honestly can't tell the difference between us putting Beethoven's name in lights and Trump putting Trump's name in lights?
No. I suspect you honestly can't. Given that you couldn't see how North Star was saying that admiration of ambition
is based on gender, I don't have much faith in your analytical skills at all.
Quote from: Florestan on September 01, 2016, 03:31:58 AM
Has it ever been otherwise?
Well, if I had gone to law school, one never knows. The husband of a co-worker ran (I believe successfully) for local office, and in principle, it all begins with that one local contest.
Now, if I were not an utterly unknown composer, but made — I won't say, money on the order of a John Adams or Golijov, but even half that — being in the financial league to enter Public Service like that, would not be crazee talk. It's not what I wish to do with my life, but my feet would be in the league ;)
Quote from: North Star on September 01, 2016, 03:40:27 AM
Name one other woman who has made it as far as she has in US politics.
Well, looks like she was the only one with (1) unlimited ambition for political power, (2) unscrupulous, target-hitting-only behavior and, most important, (3)the right connections, in the right places, at the right time. I'm sure there are lots of women in the US politics who have (1) and (2) but lack (3). The next one who will succeed in having all three will undoubtedly tread in her footsteps.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 01, 2016, 04:06:27 AM
Well, if I had gone to law school, one never knows. The husband of a co-worker ran (I believe successfully) for local office, and in principle, it all begins with that one local contest.
Now, if I were not an utterly unknown composer, but made — I won't say, money on the order of a John Adams or Golijov, but even half that — being in the financial league to enter Public Service like that, would not be crazee talk. It's not what I wish to do with my life, but my feet would be in the league ;)
My question was rather about the US Presidents. How many of them were real commoners, more connected to, and mingled with, the people in the streets than those in the political and financial establishment?
Quote from: Florestan on September 01, 2016, 04:31:18 AM
My question was rather about the US Presidents. How many of them were real commoners, more connected to, and mingled with, the people in the streets than those in the political and financial establishment?
Not a great many, to be sure.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 03:19:55 AM
I'd have more respect for HRC if she actually baked some cookies now and then. It would be a form of solidarity with the rest of us who don't find it demeaning.
I do not want a president to bake cookies. I will turn to Martha Stewart for that. When John Boehner emailed his Thanksgiving turkey recipe last year, I wrote him a scathing email telling him to stop fucking around and do his job.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 01, 2016, 04:44:47 AM
I do not want a president to bake cookies. I will turn to Martha Stewart for that. When John Boehner emailed his Thanksgiving turkey recipe last year, I wrote him a scathing email telling him to stop fucking around and do his job.
Right, put everybody in boxes. If you're Speaker of the House, you should not cook turkey!
Sounds like a fascinating guy. I'd like to know the recipe.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 04:53:16 AM
Right, put everybody in boxes.
Thankfully something you have avoided, saying
Hillary should not be ambitios, and should bake cookies, because she's a woman.
Quote from: North Star on September 01, 2016, 04:57:37 AM
Thankfully something you have avoided, saying Hillary should not be ambitios, and should bake cookies, because she's a woman.
I'm not going to allow you to put words into my mouth. I never said that HRC should not be ambitious (yes, Caesar was an honorable man). Her ambition to my mind is the poisonous variety with a trail of destruction in its wake. I wouldn't eat her poison cookies anyway but she shouldn't look down on women who do.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 04:53:16 AM
Right, put everybody in boxes. If you're Speaker of the House, you should not cook turkey!
Sounds like a fascinating guy. I'd like to know the recipe.
If you don't remember, Boner managed to lead the house for several years and accomplish virtually nothing. He should be called to task for failing to do his job.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 01, 2016, 05:56:45 AM
If you don't remember, Boner managed to lead the house for several years and accomplish virtually nothing. He should be called to task for failing to do his job.
I don't know who this guy Boner is, but meseems that there are instances when a politician's failing to do his job is rather to be commended than apprehended. For instance, not having proposed and originated one single law in an entire legislative career is preferable to having fucked up the things with tons of bad legislation. :D
Quote from: karlhenning on September 01, 2016, 03:57:08 AM
I have probably insurmountable difficulty imagining that it could be good.
That's why I wrote that in such a capacity of political power, DT is yet an "unknown" to my mind.
Of course, there are the checks and balances, restrictions of law, congress and the courts, so he can't do anything he likes.
Quote from: Florestan on September 01, 2016, 06:15:42 AM
I don't know who this guy Boner is, but meseems that there are instances when a politician's failing to do his job is rather to be commended than apprehended. For instance, not having proposed and originated one single law in an entire legislative career is preferable to having fucked up the things with tons of bad legislation. :D
Boner = John A. Boehner, former Speaker of the House, who coyly pronounces his own name as "Bayner."
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/01/sides-agree-john-boehner-fail-watch-epic.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/25/john_boehners_legacy_of_failure_he_resigns_with_few_admirers_and_fewer_accomplishments/
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 05:33:52 AM
I'm not going to allow you to put words into my mouth. I never said that HRC should not be ambitious (yes, Caesar was an honorable man). Her ambition to my mind is the poisonous variety with a trail of destruction in its wake.
And in contrast you talk about Trump as the "unknown" who may be good. Perhaps you even alluded to Trump as someone who "creates jobs".
Since the end of the primary season there has been ample research published by various news organisations listing the monumental trail of destruction in the wake of Trump's failed attempts to be a casino and a real estate tycoon. One reason he is so much beholden to foreign special interests (such as Russian billionaires) is because no US financial institution will lend Trump any money any more. His standard m.o. is sucking the money out of a failing business, go broke next and leave the lenders holding the bag.
The other thing is, workers he employs are usually illegal, they get paid badly, because they have no legal recourse. In his building days he used to work with the Mob. When he was building the casinos, he hired a lot of small contractors who never got paid; if they were unhappy with fifty percent off, Trump said, "so sue me", which would mean groing broke for these vontractors.
This is all on the record in media you can access for yourself. It's entirely possible to make informed choices rather than going with gut feelings.
This is an excellent example:
A small architectural firm's experience working for the Trump Organization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmfSWPmw86k
Quote from: Scarpia on September 01, 2016, 10:06:17 AM
This is an excellent example:
A small architectural firm's experience working for the Trump Organization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmfSWPmw86k
Exactly; he is known.
God help America if he "runs" the country just as "well" as he "does business."
And again, El Tupé lies on an order to which Hillary could not dream of attaining.
Now now, Trump creates jobs. They're just not PAID jobs.
Why does the mexican government recieve Donald Trump as an honorable guest while he is vomiting his xenophobic speeches against mexican immigrants ?
How can conservative americans endorse the end of free trade and pulling out of the OMC ?
Frédéric Bastiat, a french 19th century economist said "if the goods cannot cross borders, the armies will"....
History proved him right
Quote from: "orfeo" on September 01, 2016, 01:06:24 PM
Now now, Trump creates jobs. They're just not PAID jobs.
Coincidentally, today's issue of Montreal's main newspaper is about such a story. Most of the so-called
Trump Models were illegal aliens who ended up working for next to nothing,
paying Trump Models 1600$ a month for the luxury of sleeping in bunk beds.
http://www.lapresse.ca/international/dossiers/maison-blanche-2016/201609/01/01-5016119-une-ex-mannequin-quebecoise-denonce-lhypocrisie-de-trump.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B17_correspondants_299_section_POS1
Quote from: Scarpia on September 01, 2016, 10:06:17 AM
This is an excellent example:
A small architectural firm's experience working for the Trump Organization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmfSWPmw86k
Paid for by "Hillary for America". OK it may be true but there may also be details left out.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 01, 2016, 09:16:16 PM
Paid for by "Hillary for America". OK it may be true but there may also be details left out.
there are hundreds of these stories of smaller businesses defrauded by Trump, what details do you want to know about?
Quote from: Herman on September 02, 2016, 07:30:04 AM
there are hundreds of these stories of smaller businesses defrauded by Trump, what details do you want to know about?
As one of our eminent members says, evidence needs to be provided and if there is a case, then prosecute it.
Fraud is one thing but criminal negligence leading to murder is rather higher on the scale.
Quite, frankly, I was not happy with the rape of Atlantic City over the years by DT.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 02, 2016, 07:57:17 AM
As one of our eminent members says, evidence needs to be provided and if there is a case, then prosecute it.
Fraud is one thing but criminal negligence leading to murder is rather higher on the scale.
Quite, frankly, I was not happy with the rape of Atlantic City over the years by DT.
Criminal negligence leading to murder? What are you talking about?
Benghazi. Protection was desperately needed. They were warned. No need for that bloody debacle.
Look up "Vince Foster" which should lead you to other unresolved sudden deaths of people around the Clinton's.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 02, 2016, 08:27:52 AM
Benghazi. Protection was desperately needed. They were warned. No need for that bloody debacle.
Then when does the litigation begin? (What is the count of the investigative committees that have been formed?)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 02, 2016, 07:57:17 AM
As one of our eminent members says, evidence needs to be provided and if there is a case, then prosecute it.
One difference is, a small businessman, whose resources are already strained thanks to non-payment of his invoice, is going to take a billionaire to court? In this case, I don't think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the fact that there was no legal action, means that there is no case.
If there is a case against Clinton, there are a hundred Republican lawyers who are morally and financially prepared to litigate.
Why don't they? Could it be, because there is no case?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 02, 2016, 08:27:52 AM
Benghazi. Protection was desperately needed. They were warned. No need for that bloody debacle.
Look up "Vince Foster" which should lead you to other unresolved sudden deaths of people around the Clinton's.
Hilary Clinton was secretary of state. She was not a military or security officer responsible for security at diplomatic compounds. Security requests were sent up the chain of command, some were acted on some weren't, some were not forwarded to the state department in Washington. None directly reached Hilary Clinton's desk. Certainly security was inadequate in Benghazi, that is clear in hindsight. It indicates a security bureaucracy that didn't perform adequately. It doesn't indicate "criminal" behavior by the Secretary of State.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/26/600-requests-from-benghazi-for-better-security-what-this-statistic-really-means/
Incidentally, only two of the deaths were at a State Department facility. The other two were at a CIA installation that was attacked later. Why is no one claiming that CIA director was criminally responsible?
Vince Foster? "A clinically depressed man committed suicide" seems less plausible than "Hillary had him killed because he knew too much." Ok, now you have outed yourself as one of the tin-hat brigade. Do you also believe that extraterrestrials landed in Roswell New Mexico?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 02, 2016, 08:27:52 AM
Benghazi.
Facts. Who needs 'em? It's enough to conduct the trial in the court of Republican opinion.
Benghazi is the thing that convinced me not of Clinton's "crimes" but of the maniacal ideology of the US Republicans in their current form. You could not get a better example of a witch hunt. As Karl has raised more than once, there has been more than enough investigative resources thrown at this issue to create an evidence brief for a prosecution, and yet there's no sign of a prosecution.
And of course the Republicans don't want an actual prosecution. They're not interested in the findings of a judge, trained in examining facts and analysing arguments. They don't want the views of one trained jurist, they want a slavering horde of "ordinary" people at the ballot box, people with neither the time nor skills to figure out that all the digging for evidence of a "crime" hasn't yielded anything fit for a court room. They're in fact relying on that lack of time and lack of skills.
Every now and then I encounter a situation where I think either a politician is stupid or that the politician is hoping his/her audience is stupid. I actually think it's worse that the politician is hoping the audience is stupid, and I also think it's more common. Politics is a game designed to convince people for the politician's own advantage, and it frequently relies on the fact that much of the population is hopelessly ill-informed, lacking in critical thinking skills or mindlessly tribal to begin with. Benghazi is a perfect illustration of that.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 02, 2016, 09:52:49 AM
Facts. Who needs 'em? It's enough to conduct the trial in the court of Republican opinion.
Benghazi is the thing that convinced me not of Clinton's "crimes" but of the maniacal ideology of the US Republicans in their current form. You could not get a better example of a witch hunt. As Karl has raised more than once, there has been more than enough investigative resources thrown at this issue to create an evidence brief for a prosecution, and yet there's no sign of a prosecution.
And of course the Republicans don't want an actual prosecution. They're not interested in the findings of a judge, trained in examining facts and analysing arguments. They don't want the views of one trained jurist, they want a slavering horde of "ordinary" people at the ballot box, people with neither the time nor skills to figure out that all the digging for evidence of a "crime" hasn't yielded anything fit for a court room. They're in fact relying on that lack of time and lack of skills.
Every now and then I encounter a situation where I think either a politician is stupid or that the politician is hoping his/her audience is stupid. I actually think it's worse that the politician is hoping the audience is stupid, and I also think it's more common. Politics is a game designed to convince people for the politician's own advantage, and it frequently relies on the fact that much of the population is hopelessly ill-informed, lacking in critical thinking skills or mindlessly tribal to begin with. Benghazi is a perfect illustration of that.
The stupidity of the GOP on Benghazi is for me illustrated by their long focus on the WH/State Department explanations of the attack after the fact than the negligence/culpability/whatever of those responsible for the security/lack of security. They were in essence complaining not that Obama and Clinton did not provide enough security, but that Obama and Clinton did use the correct terminology afterwards.
I'll cling to my Benghazi version, but thanks to everyone for offering theirs. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
What was announced publicly appears to conform to what was believed for a very short while. What was soon recognized was that the video protest was used by AQ. We can leave the question of a genuine video inspired protest or entirely made up one to the historians looking at records that are sealed for 50 years.
It transpired that the principals had to sort out both what they thought was true and what they would say about it that would be untrue by omission or actively deceptive. Part of this would be HRC being unhelpful, and crucially for my thesis, the CIA being unhelpful to HRC. It was decided that since the heat would fall on her for obvious reasons, she would have to be the publicly unhelpful one. And so it went. I take it that the support HRC is getting now from her CIA "coconspirator" is due to her good soldiering. Of course that does leave the question of whether there is anything of a timely nature left to conceal hanging out there.
On Benghazi one must explain the behavior of the committees, not HRC. Their behavior tells the story to the extent a public story can be pieced together. The committees knew HRC couldn't fully explain Benghazi and they knew approximately why. They had her trapped, but only to the extent that they didn't overplay their advantage. Is it surprising that they did exactly that again and again? Not to me.
The Revenge of Roger's Angels (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/how-fox-news-women-took-down-roger-ailes.html)
How Fox News women took down the most powerful, and predatory, man in media.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 01, 2016, 10:14:24 AM
And again, El Tupé lies on an order to which Hillary could not dream of attaining.
??? ??? ???
??? ??? ???
??? ??? ???
PUTIN 2016
GMG Posts in two years, if Hilldawg "wins":
"Aw, she's really trying but those darn Republicans keep being mean to her."
"We wouldn't be in this 2018 mess if it weren't for those racist Republicans."
"It's Bush's fault."
"Hillary's such a strong woman for arresting the opposition like that. They were being racist and mean spirited."
"So what if Hillary took a gift? So WHAT?"
"I think these new "White Laws" are a good thing."
"server, schmerver."
"Whatever... I'm with HERRRRRR."
"But... she's a... woman!!"
"I can't believe they said THAT... about a... a.... a.....WOMAN!!!!"
"I haven't had sex since she was elected."
I'm going to have a talk with White People!!
Even Mexico has a border policy guys
For you to call "illegal aliens" "immigrants" is a slap to the face of anyone who came here legally.
"They were offended by someone's speech in their home country, so they wanted to come here where at least they knew that politically correct speech was enforced by GodHillary."
13th Amendment was never ratified by the states
Quote from: snyprrr on September 04, 2016, 07:54:42 AM
Even Mexico has a border policy guys
A sound border policy would be to let the people we want to employ in without making them illegal. Doing both is evil.
How is "doing jobs no one else will do"
not wanting the people who do the jobs here?
Is there a certain laydie running for orafice who has taken to wearing what could only be describe as Mao Chic?
Who dresses her as a Beverly Hills Prole?
Look... guys... that train is comin off the rails here, and seriously i have heard not one word from anyone here about even the slightest hint of a nook of a vision of impropriety by this woman. Really? Even as the Faithful, CNN and MSMBC, have begun to ...uh..."notice" what can't be covered up by the rug anymore, the GMG Army 4 A New American Outlook have just, as they love to say these days, "doubled down" on not.saying.a.word. about the woman's downside. Oh, yes, I forgot... how can there be ANY downside to her as prez? Oh, silly me for even attempting to look for any any any criticism in the face of such a glowing hot orb of coronal worship.
So, you all saw the 1 Minute Press Conference on her plane? Oh noooo, she's not awkward in the slightest,...not intimidating in the slightest to the reporter asking the fluff question. No, her eyes don't say, "Ask me anything and I'll kill your whole family"?
Meanwhile...
Reuters cuts their live feed to CNN et al when TheLastTrump is at the black church getting all this praise praise praise
HO LO LO... nothing to see here...
OH- BTW-
You New York Times fans. Remember the other day when they had that pic of "migrants" in the water and the boat? Please please please tell me you still have it,... the physical copy. Please take another look at that photo and please tell me that wasn't PhotoShop on the front page of the most influential newspaper. Becasue everyone I showed it to could easily tell, all the random ass people I showed it to... and they got this funny look like, Really? The NYT??... and then the glaze glazed over their eyes and they said, "Go Yankees".
gain,
A
Do you mean this photo? (what's my prize for reading that far? ::) )
Now what evidence is there of this being 'shopped' in a way that changes the content? Hint: it being a good photo is not enough.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/04/18/blogs/18-lens-refugees-slide-8AS8/18-lens-refugees-slide-8AS8-superJumbo.jpg)
Quote from: North Star on September 05, 2016, 10:57:45 AM
Do you mean this photo? (what's my prize for reading that far? ::) )
Now what evidence is there of this being 'shopped' in a way that changes the content? Hint: it being a good photo is not enough.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/04/18/blogs/18-lens-refugees-slide-8AS8/18-lens-refugees-slide-8AS8-superJumbo.jpg)
Not Photoshop, but if it turned out to be an artistically selected moment, I would not be surprised. You will notice almost everyone is looking to the side where rescue lies. They are not in immediate danger, given the water depth and the presence of rescue (note the man guiding the boat on the side is in calf deep water and his pants have Greek lettering). Someone seems to be doing a back float on the side of the photo, although only a leg and sneaker are visible. Only one person is paying any attention to the photographer. And he just happens to be almost dead center, as if picked out to be the focus point. One would think that in a true situation of danger or distress, at least a few of the people on the boat would be shouting at the photographer for some practical help.
But in confirmation of your larger point, here is something from that well known Communist propaganda outlet, the Wall Street Journal
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nearly-7-000-migrants-rescued-off-libyan-coast-1472559070
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 05, 2016, 01:05:26 PM
Not Photoshop, but if it turned out to be an artistically selected moment, I would not be surprised. You will notice almost everyone is looking to the side where rescue lies. They are not in immediate danger, given the water depth and the presence of rescue (note the man guiding the boat on the side is in calf deep water and his pants have Greek lettering). Someone seems to be doing a back float on the side of the photo, although only a leg and sneaker are visible. Only one person is paying any attention to the photographer. And he just happens to be almost dead center, as if picked out to be the focus point. One would think that in a true situation of danger or distress, at least a few of the people on the boat would be shouting at the photographer for some practical help.
One might say that all good photographs are 'artistically selected moments', except maybe studio still-lifes.
Everyone looking to rescue is not all that amazing. And really, they're on a tilted boat looking down, and trying to keep from falling over. As for the sneaker, I guess the person is also there to help, but has slipped over (slimy underwater rocks are rather slippery, you know). There seems to be some dodging and burning done around the two people holding to the boat, but somehow I doubt that many people care about that alone. The water is obviously very shallow, and the people in the boat aren't malnourished to an extent that would make them unable to stand or pull the boat, so I don't see why they would be in 'a true situation of danger or distress' having just got to safety. I also don't see anything surprising in the man at the head of the boat happening to look up (although I don't quite know what he is doing). The photographer probably took a good few where the man didn't look at the camera.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 05, 2016, 01:05:26 PM
But in confirmation of your larger point, here is something from that well known Communist propaganda outlet, the Wall Street Journal
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nearly-7-000-migrants-rescued-off-libyan-coast-1472559070
Like a true Communist propaganda outlet, they just say "To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In" to me.
Quote from: North Star on September 05, 2016, 01:46:37 PM
Like a true Communist propaganda outlet, they just say "To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In" to me.
Interesting. First time I went there, I could read the whole thing. Now I get the same thing you did.
Short version: Italy picked up about 7,000 people trying to cross from Libya last week. Or maybe 10,000. Unless "nearly 10,000" is journalist talk for 6,900.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 05, 2016, 10:52:31 AM
Is there a certain laydie running for orafice who has taken to wearing what could only be describe as Mao Chic? Who dresses her as a Beverly Hills Prole?
Look... guys... that train is comin off the rails here, and seriously i have heard not one word from anyone here about even the slightest hint of a nook of a vision of impropriety by this woman. Really? Even as the Faithful, CNN and MSMBC, have begun to ...uh..."notice" what can't be covered up by the rug anymore, the GMG Army 4 A New American Outlook have just, as they love to say these days, "doubled down" on not.saying.a.word. about the woman's downside. Oh, yes, I forgot... how can there be ANY downside to her as prez? Oh, silly me for even attempting to look for any any any criticism in the face of such a glowing hot orb of coronal worship.
So, you all saw the 1 Minute Press Conference on her plane? Oh noooo, she's not awkward in the slightest,...not intimidating in the slightest to the reporter asking the fluff question. No, her eyes don't say, "Ask me anything and I'll kill your whole family"?
Support for a presidential candidate (or any sports team) is irrational. I give up. Why should I invite personal attacks? Both are flawed but in my opinion, one is far worse than the other. (Hint: the Lyin' Queen has a Planned Parenthood endorsement.)
The American political obsession with abortion is another thing incomprehensible to foreigners.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 05, 2016, 10:33:35 PM
The American political obsession with abortion is another thing incomprehensible to foreigners.
a kind of inverse moralizing
Quote from: North Star on September 05, 2016, 10:57:45 AM
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/04/18/blogs/18-lens-refugees-slide-8AS8/18-lens-refugees-slide-8AS8-superJumbo.jpg)
My question is: why did not a single one of the men in the boat (at least three of them are young and physically fit) jump in the obviously shallow waters to help the Greek rescuers pull the boat?
On a similar vein: why does not a single one of the men in this picture help in any way the overburden woman?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX03sWaWYAEBxlB.jpg)
Quote from: Florestan on September 06, 2016, 12:25:58 AM
My question is: why did not a single one of the men in the boat (at least three of them are young and physically fit) jump in the obviously shallow waters to help the Greek rescuers pull the boat?
On a similar vein: why does not a single one of the men in this picture help in any way the overburden woman?
Perhaps they have been instructed not to do so. In any case, the men getting their clothes wet is more trouble than it's worth. For the same reason the women don't jump in the water, either...
The man behind her might be carrying her rucksack. It's also not inconceivable that she simply wants to carry her kids herself.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 05, 2016, 10:33:35 PM
The American political obsession with abortion is another thing incomprehensible to foreigners.
I find it obvious that abortion (like capital punishment) is an extremely (emotionally) charged topic and I think it is more puzzling that the compromises in most other countries (to my knowledge often rather similar to the legal situation in the US) do not spark more controversies. Admittedly, I do not quite follow that it is a topic overruling EVERY other policy a candidate might stand for but I can understand that it could tip the scales if one is moderately uncertain.
Quote from: North Star on September 06, 2016, 01:07:05 AM
Perhaps they have been instructed not to do so.
This might be good explanation.
Quote
In any case, the men getting their clothes wet is more trouble than it's worth.
Why? Do they wear Armani?
Quoteshe simply wants to carry her kids herself.
You´re kidding, right? Just look at the expression of her face.
Quote from: Florestan on September 06, 2016, 01:39:25 AM
Why? Do they wear Armani?
::)
Because water has a specific average heat capacity of 1 Cal/(°C⋅kg), and it's pretty damn effective in causing hypothermia.
Quote from: Florestan on September 06, 2016, 12:25:58 AM
On a similar vein: why does not a single one of the men in this picture help in any way the overburden woman?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX03sWaWYAEBxlB.jpg)
unfortunately this is universal. Women are always carrying more than men, who are burdened with their, for lack of a better word, manliness.
Quote from: Jo498 on September 06, 2016, 01:32:27 AM
I find it obvious that abortion (like capital punishment) is an extremely (emotionally) charged topic and I think it is more puzzling that the compromises in most other countries (to my knowledge often rather similar to the legal situation in the US) do not spark more controversies. Admittedly, I do not quite follow that it is a topic overruling EVERY other policy a candidate might stand for but I can understand that it could tip the scales if one is moderately uncertain.
Quite. I agree it's an emotionally charged topic, but only in the US does it seem to be a candidate-defining one.
Quote from: North Star on September 06, 2016, 01:52:00 AM
::)
Because water has a specific average heat capacity of 1 Cal/(°C⋅kg), and it's pretty damn effective in causing hypothermia.
Right. Greek shallow waters are famous for causing hypothermia. Just ask the guy on the left, the one with red short pants.
My question is: unless you want to challenge the claim that large numbers of people are crossing these waters, what is the point of spending such a large amount of time discussing whether or not a particular photo is a carefully composed image or a lucky snap?
Or is being photographed in a staged fashion some new criterion for rejecting refugee status that's been added to the Convention while I wasn't looking?
And why have you fallen hook line and sinker for this total distraction that was lobbed into the thread, as if one photograph could possibly destroy the integrity of an entire newspaper?
Quote from: ørfeø on September 06, 2016, 02:14:01 AM
unless you want to challenge the claim that large numbers of people are crossing these waters
This is not a claim, it´s a fact. How could I challenge a fact?
Quote
And why have you fallen hook line and sinker for this total distraction that was lobbed into the thread, as if one photograph could possibly destroy the integrity of an entire newspaper?
Oh, come on! My question had nothing to do with any newspaper, nor did I claim it is a fake, I am actually sure it isn´t. But if you deemed it a total distraction, why bother to comment on it?
Quote from: Florestan on September 06, 2016, 02:24:41 AM
But if you deemed it a total distraction, why bother to comment on it?
Because this thread crops up on my "Show new replies to your posts" page and has become exceptionally boring.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 06, 2016, 02:35:42 AM
Because this thread crops up on my "Show new replies to your posts" page and has become exceptionally boring.
We would certainly benefit from the possibility of unsubscribing a thread.
But we are not obliged to reply to each and every post, are we? We can very well ignore the boring or inconsequential or not-worth-replying posts. Not that I do that too often. :laugh:
I didn't respond after the first several posts about the photograph, did I? ::)
Now if you'll excuse me I'm eating dinner to the sounds of Beethoven.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 06, 2016, 03:07:08 AM
Now if you'll excuse me I'm eating dinner to the sounds of Beethoven.
Enjoy your meal and the music!
Quote from: Florestan on September 06, 2016, 02:09:32 AM
Right. Greek shallow waters are famous for causing hypothermia. Just ask the guy on the left, the one with red short pants.
Yeah, short pants over what looks like a wetsuit. :D
Quote from: Herman on September 06, 2016, 02:02:20 AM
Women are always carrying more than men
So true.
(http://thinknice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Funny-Beer-Pics-Honey-Ill-Get-the-Heavy-One.jpg)
Quote from: North Star on September 05, 2016, 10:57:45 AM
Do you mean this photo? (what's my prize for reading that far? ::) )
Now what evidence is there of this being 'shopped' in a way that changes the content? Hint: it being a good photo is not enough.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/04/18/blogs/18-lens-refugees-slide-8AS8/18-lens-refugees-slide-8AS8-superJumbo.jpg)
NO NO NO NO NO
it was on the Front Page of the NYT... ack... like,...last Sunday/Monday????? Front Page, on the top....
The boat was farther away, people in the water closer up.... oh please please please someone find this pic so all the naysayers on here can shut up... the pic I'M talking about is CLEARLY PhotoShop.
THAT PIC ABOVE IS NOT THE PIC, AND NOT PHOTOSHOP
"You're gaslighting me!!"
Quote from: snyprrr on September 06, 2016, 07:00:44 AM
oh please please please someone find this pic so all the naysayers on here can shut up...
Since you've seen the picture, why don't
you find it? Or at least explain why it offends you so much? ...I mean beyond claiming it was photoshopped. (Ha, what I am talking about? this is snyprrr...he never explains his rants)
Sarge
Didya see the massive lunger Hill hocked into her glass of water... was that yesterday?
cough cough
"Drugs that Give You Dry Mouth"
Seriously, do you guys think she could make it through a debate? I have a feeling it's going to go like this: "Did you see how Trump treated a woman? Oh, the masher!! Cad!!"
Soros = Koch Bros. (no real difference)
Who here actually has muslim FRIENDS? Just curious.
I asked a young black male friend to describe Trump in one word. He waffled. I said, "Two or three." He came back with, "Confused." Then I asked him the same about Hill. His response was quicker and determined. "CONfused." I believe he's of voting age.
My lesbian friend said I was sexist for calling Hill "Cankles". But then, later, I remembered how my friend must feel about Palin, and I was able to check her on her hypocrisy. If Hill were a man, baby, she wouldn't have gotten anywhere acting and looking the way she does. No man would have gotten away with all the coughing fits, the HowardDean like moments, all this crap. pfffffffff
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 06, 2016, 07:11:23 AM
Since you've seen the picture, why don't you find it? Or at least explain why it offends you so much? ...I mean beyond claiming it was photoshopped. (Ha, what I am talking about? this is snyprrr...he never explains his rants)
Sarge
What? Is the FrontPage of the NYT being PhotoShopped NOT ENOUGH? Whaaat???
Of course, what's shown is all the dark skinned people looking longingly into the camera with the "SaveMeEurope" look. I guess you may call it... uh... Propaganda????
Sarge, how do I find the pic since I don't have NYT? Can I look up by day on Yahoo? OK, I'll try...... (off he goes)...
I'm trying.
This sucks of course
Why should it be hard to find this for others? You know I'm a 'tard when it comes to the computer
GIVE A BROTHA A BONE HERE!!!!!
Quote from: ørfeø on September 06, 2016, 02:14:01 AM
as if one photograph could possibly destroy the integrity of an entire newspaper?
Because one picture is worth a billion words at this point?
Why should NYT PhotoShop anything? If everything is as real as is being stated, why doctor ANY bit of information? Why isn't the reality of it REAL ENOUGH?
And, hey, it's not just this one pic that "destroys the integrity of an entire newspaper", lol. Yea, the NYT is not in the tank for a particular agenda, no, they are as unbiased as they come.
I mean, really? Come on. Doesn't everyone know where the NYT stands on ANY issue?? LOL :laugh:
gaaaah
put me in my place- find the pic with me.... prove me wrong, that should give anyone here satisfaction, no?
Is this the one you're talking about, snyprrr?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/world/middleeast/migrants-refugees-rescued-libya-italy.html
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2016/libyamigran.jpg)
Sarge
Yes I've had Muslim friends. How shocking. Had one in primary school, had another one in high school, have worked with them...
I don't expect any nuance from you snyprr as you've previously shown a wide array of other prejudices. I remember vividly being part of the target group of one of your outbursts.
The Guardian has video. I suppose snyprrr will claim that was faked too.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/29/dramatic-photos-show-refugees-fleeing-libya-being-rescued-at-sea
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 06, 2016, 07:47:11 AM
The Guardian has video. I suppose snyprrr will claim that was faked too.
No more reliable than those moon landing photos,
Sarge 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 06, 2016, 08:34:05 AM
No more reliable than those moon landing photos, Sarge 8)
Or the video of the planes hitting the Twin Towers ::)
Sarge
Quote from: snyprrr on September 06, 2016, 07:14:32 AM
Who here actually has Muslim FRIENDS? Just curious.
I interact with them practically every day, also speak some Arabic.
They can be the best people in the world, have strong family values, are hospitable, the women are modest (don't cuss like some of their liberated sisters in the West), are appreciative students, etc.
The main problem in my opinion is cultural shock, mainly coming from imposed ideology (re: certain politicians who thought to give "freedom" to the masses no matter how much it cost us and them) and unrealistic views of life outside their own environment via TV ("Bold and Beautiful", etc.)and films, most of which are hedonistic trash. Women on the whole are restricted in dress and movement, so you can imagine the guys going wild when they get to Europe seeing girls on the street wearing shorts.
There is also the recent phenomenon of the born-again who reject completely the freedoms (self-regulation that they don't completely understand since they are used to force from outside) and what they see as corruption coming from the West. As for the sex-crazed films and TV programs, they do have a point.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 06, 2016, 07:14:32 AM
Who here actually has muslim FRIENDS? Just curious.
Here.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 06, 2016, 07:14:32 AM
Who here actually has muslim FRIENDS? Just curious.
My best friend at Ohio U was Muslim. I teased him about his loving and eating pepperoni pizza. After I retired from the Army I worked for four years for a German transportation company that employed mostly Muslims (of the 60 on my shift, 90% were Turks). There were several I considered more than just colleagues.
Sarge
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 06, 2016, 08:53:58 AM
I interact with them practically every day, also speak some Arabic.
They can be the best people in the world, have strong family values, are hospitable, the women are modest (don't cuss like some of their liberated sisters in the West), are appreciative students, etc.
The main problem in my opinion is cultural shock, mainly coming from imposed ideology (re: certain politicians who thought to give "freedom" to the masses no matter how much it cost us and them) and unrealistic views of life outside their own environment via TV ("Bold and Beautiful", etc.)and films, most of which are hedonistic trash. Women on the whole are restricted in dress and movement, so you can imagine the guys going wild when they get to Europe seeing girls on the street wearing shorts.
There is also the recent phenomenon of the born-again who reject completely the freedoms (self-regulation that they don't completely understand since they are used to force from outside) and what they see as corruption coming from the West. As for the sex-crazed films and TV programs, they do have a point.
I can't help noticing your Muslims all fit within a certain kind of Muslim stereotype.
The first 3 Muslim friends I thought of were girls from Bangladesh and India and an Anglo-Celtic woman who converted when she married. Not one of them was "restricted in dress" as far as I can see.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 06, 2016, 03:42:34 PM
I can't help noticing your Muslims all fit within a certain kind of Muslim stereotype.
The first 3 Muslim friends I thought of were girls from Bangladesh and India and an Anglo-Celtic woman who converted when she married. Not one of them was "restricted in dress" as far as I can see.
You're wrong, AGAIN!
The restrictions are in their home countries. Unmarried girls (like with Orthodox Jews) can pretty much wear anything they want. Otherwise, when married women go outside they need to have head coverings. Sharia is a step higher which means practically everything except for the face needs to be covered.
In Which country are the Muslims you are interacting with every day? Are all their home countries the same?
Even your comment about speaking Arabic... There are a hell of a lot of Muslims for whom Arabic is not their native tongue. It's a bit like saying you know all about all Roman Catholics because you can speak some Latin.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 06, 2016, 11:59:25 PM
It's a bit like saying you know all about all Roman Catholics because you can speak some Latin.
This analogy is false.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Translation of the Qur'an has always been a problematic and difficult issue in Islamic theology. Since Muslims revere the Qur'an as miraculous and inimitable (i'jaz al-Qur'an), they argue that the Qur'anic text should not be isolated from its true form to another language or form, at least not without keeping the Arabic text along with.
...
According to modern Islamic theology, the Qur'an is a revelation very specifically in Arabic, and so it should only be recited in Quranic Arabic. Translations into other languages are necessarily the work of humans and so, according to Muslims, no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original.
(emphasis mine)
A truly devout Muslim needs Arabic in order to correctly understand the Quran.
In contrast, no truly devout Roman Catholic needs Latin in order to correctly understand the Bible.
Quote from: Florestan on September 07, 2016, 12:15:58 AM
A truly devout Muslim needs Arabic in order to correctly understand the Quran.
In contrast, no truly devout Roman Catholic needs Latin in order to correctly understand the Bible.
Thank goodness there is one informed person here on this subject.
Many dialects comprise "Spoken Arabic" over the vast geographical areas from Morocco in the West to Iraq in the East. Egyptian, for example has different constructions, pronunciation and vocabulary than Syrian-Jordanian-Palestinian which all have local variants, like for instance, Lebanese, Bedouin (which is more Saudi).
The Latin analogy does apply in the sense that Arabs are joined by their knowledge of the Classical Arabic (Fus-ha) of the Quran. Latin used to be that universal, yet basic, learned language in Europe. "Communication Arabic" used in news and official documents is somewhere in between because obviously there could not be words for computer and telephone but is understood throughout the Arab world.
The Quran is virtually untranslatable. So much of its meaning (and beauty, too) is embedded in the language. This is yet another instance in which East doesn't meet West, a gap as large as the Grand Canyon.
Quote from: Florestan on September 07, 2016, 12:15:58 AM
This analogy is false.
(emphasis mine)
A truly devout Muslim needs Arabic in order to correctly understand the Quran.
In contrast, no truly devout Roman Catholic needs Latin in order to correctly understand the Bible.
I actually know all this but didn't feel like going into the detail while typing on a phone. But it doesn't change the fact that Arabic is not the NATIVE language of many Muslims. It's not their language of everyday speech. That was my point. The fact that many Muslims learn Arabic to read the Quran doesn't cause them to then speak Arabic in their daily lives, otherwise the official language of places like Indonesia would be Arabic.
Unless Zamyrabyrd is studying the Quran with these Muslims, the Arabic of Quran isn't relevant. A generic description of cultural practices of native Arab speakers is NOT applicable to all Muslims.
Besides, for many centuries the Roman Catholic Church was very firmly of the view that you did need to know Latin.
Remind me which one us is an informed person?
Quote from: ørfeø on September 07, 2016, 01:26:16 AM
Besides, for many centuries the Roman Catholic Church was very firmly of the view that you did need to know Latin. Remind me which one us is an informed person?
Please refer to my post as Latin being a "learned Language" in Europe, for the educated classes and clergy. Quranic Arabic does join together non-Arabic speakers of the Moslem world. Knowing some conversational Arabic is getting a foot in the door, better than not.
Coincidentally (I guess it's in the air these days), a La Presse feature today attempts to decipher/deconstruct/demythify the Arab vs Muslim conundrum. Barely 20 % of Muslims speak/hail from the Arabic countries. IOW, is the Western World against Arabs or against Muslims ? ??? Wait... Not the same thing ? Even within Arab countries there are christian, jewish and other religious minorities, some hailing back to 2000-2500 years back. Same with Iran or Turkey, which are NOT arabic countries.
It seems that "Islam"/"islamic" is the moniker that 'sticks'. When the Western World is done with its hatred of anything 'arabic' , it looks like it will have to turn its enmity to another 1 billion people.
What next ?
Quote from: André on September 07, 2016, 01:35:57 PM
Coincidentally (I guess it's in the air these days), a La Presse feature today attempts to decipher/deconstruct/demythify the Arab vs Muslim conundrum. Barely 20 % of Muslims speak/hail from the Arabic countries. IOW, is the Western World against Arabs or against Muslims ? ??? Wait... Not the same thing ? Even within Arab countries there are christian, jewish and other religious minorities, some hailing back to 2000-2500 years back. Same with Iran or Turkey, which are NOT arabic countries.
It seems that "Islam"/"islamic" is the moniker that 'sticks'. When the Western World is done with its hatred of anything 'arabic' , it looks like it will have to turn its enmity to another 1 billion people. What next ?
Exactly! That is why it is stupid to call anything critical of Islam, "racist".
Quote from: ørfeø on September 06, 2016, 02:14:01 AM
My question is: unless you want to challenge the claim that large numbers of people are crossing these waters, what is the point of spending such a large amount of time discussing whether or not a particular photo is a carefully composed image or a lucky snap?
Or is being photographed in a staged fashion some new criterion for rejecting refugee status that's been added to the Convention while I wasn't looking?
And why have you fallen hook line and sinker for this total distraction that was lobbed into the thread, as if one photograph could possibly destroy the integrity of an entire newspaper?
Please help me out here.
I had to go alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the way down to the library to check this for us all, because, yes, I think it's important. So, please please please someone get the front pic from AUGUST 30 NYT up on here, so you can see what I saw.
I getz me sum tyred of luukin krazee round heare
LOL- if it's not the same pic, I will get the paper from the libr and mail it... sorry ,long day, .....
please?!! :-*
And if what I said was true, what do I get, a cookie? A real one, not a GMG Cookie, please!!!!
Quote from: snyprrr on September 08, 2016, 04:19:26 PM
Please help me out here.
I had to go alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the way down to the library to check this for us all, because, yes, I think it's important. So, please please please someone get the front pic from AUGUST 30 NYT up on here, so you can see what I saw.
I already posted it. Three days ago. You didn't see it?
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,24159.msg995661.html#msg995661
Sarge
Giant cruise ship makes historic voyage in melting Arctic Liberal Hoax (https://www.yahoo.com/news/giant-cruise-ship-makes-historic-voyage-melting-arctic-062628697.html?ref=gs)
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 06, 2016, 08:53:58 AM
I interact with them practically every day, also speak some Arabic.
They can be the best people in the world, have strong family values, are hospitable, the women are modest (don't cuss like some of their liberated sisters in the West), are appreciative students, etc.
The main problem in my opinion is cultural shock, mainly coming from imposed ideology (re: certain politicians who thought to give "freedom" to the masses no matter how much it cost us and them) and unrealistic views of life outside their own environment via TV ("Bold and Beautiful", etc.)and films, most of which are hedonistic trash. Women on the whole are restricted in dress and movement, so you can imagine the guys going wild when they get to Europe seeing girls on the street wearing shorts.
There is also the recent phenomenon of the born-again who reject completely the freedoms (self-regulation that they don't completely understand since they are used to force from outside) and what they see as corruption coming from the West. As for the sex-crazed films and TV programs, they do have a point.
There's a distance you won't travel. Tolerate them, associate in some common activities, but not mingle with them, let alone welcome the differences you note, unless they intersect with some of your own values. I can certainly understand that. It takes time, which means probably more than a generation, for differences to eventually become just another fact of life.
In our day care system in Quebec, there is cheap (government subsidized) day care that starts from age 0 and goes all the way to public school. In my city of Laval, Quebec (425000) there is a large maghrebine community (from Tunisia, Algeria and mostly Morocco). Men work, and women work too: many (and I mean MANY) open small day care facilities in their own homes, which allows them to tend to their own chidren and welcome 2-6 other small children. They are government registered, and pay taxes.
My 2 grandchildren have attended (currently attend) such facilities. The first one was with "Tata Sana" ("Tata" means
auntie)), and although she took good care of the children, she could be pricky. She was quite zealous and punctilious about schedules, as well as sensitive about perceived lacks of respect - ( ???). She felt free to not welcome certain children anymore because of her own standards. This is what happened to our grand daughter, and we (and our daughter) were never given any kind of explanation. It's not funny when you feel like s...t. Especially when the issue is your own children or gandchildren. But we didn't make a fuss about it or generalize the situation.
Then came "Tata" Turia, who welcomed our granddaughter with open arms. Same values (always wearing the hijab when answering the door), but a heart of gold, a truly caring and loving caretaker. She often cooked bread and gave sweets to take home, invited her to her own children's birthday parties, came to our house, etc. Then our granddaughter went to school and it was time for our grandson to need a day care facility when he was 6 months old. He is now almost 4 and shows clear signs of autistic problems. The social worker who is on his case went to Turia's to watch him and she mentioned how much Turia loved him and took great care of him. We can't think of a better person to take care of our grandson and attend to his special needs. Not with that kind of true affection and personal attention.
We often see hijab covered women drive around town (at least they
do drive cars ;D). They are quite intrepid on the road, believe me. Laval (the city where I live) is a hub for immigrants. Although not designed as such, it is a "special community" in terms of immigration, refugees, etc. They come in, settle, start working and send their children to public schools. Many do not know the language (French or English), but they work hard at it. Funding cuts are damning. Today the news was that the Laval School Board did not fill any "language immersion classes" positions for the new school year (there were 20 last year). That means hundreds of young immigrant/refugee children who do not speak a word of French or English will be integrated in the regular classes (Laval welcomed a few hundred syrian refugees this year). With no additional help and the extra attention needed, they will become a "burden" to the teachers and the other children.
This is the kind of problems we are faced with: not a question whether to welcome refugees (or other immigrants) or not - we have passed that post some time ago, especially in Quebec (because of the 1977 language laws), but how will we financially address the challenge. Every society is faced with the kind of financial problems an immigrant influx brings at one time or another, but the
face we put on and how we attempt to solve the issues (positively or negatively,
alla Trump) makes all the difference for future generations. My granddaughter has never given a thought to the idea that Turia's chilldren (and many others) were somehow different from her. Yes, they will be raised as Muslims. But I fancy the idea that they will be
our Muslims. Not djihadists, drug dealers or rapists.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 06, 2016, 07:36:54 AM
Is this the one you're talking about, snyprrr?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/world/middleeast/migrants-refugees-rescued-libya-italy.html
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2016/libyamigran.jpg)
Sarge
yes, thank you, sorry no didn't see it...
So, that's not a raucously bad PhotoShop??... the "splashes" of water... the closest guy looks completely plopped in... you guys don't see a pic that locks obviously doctored?
I mean, it IS obvious, right?? Those are not real "splashes"...
Surely there is a photo expert on here.... does this need to go in the "Fav Photos" Thread??
I'm not saying ANYTHING about ANYTHING .... OTHER THAN "please just take a look at this pic, it's a PhotoShop on the front page of the NYT,... why is that?"
gosh ???
funny how ya'll go straiiight for the "tin foil crazy" shit ALL.THE.TIME.
No matter what it is... everything is always what we're told and any questioning must be treated with Alin s k e y taktikz. Oh yea, moon landing, jfk, 911,... oh yea,...
I keep looking at the pic fresh, just to see what you're NOT seeing, and,... yikes!!!.... every time I look, all I see is peoples' arms in obvious cut-n-paste. Are those people in the water not obviously "dubbed in"???
Maybe the very very closest person, at the bottom edge of the pic, where you can definitely see someone UNDER WATER... but, come on,.... you're giving me a headache now...
Please, just respond to this picture. OK, just tell me there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOCTORING going on in this pic. Fine.
I just every.single.member. of this forum to just line right up and say, one after the other, "Nope,... I don't see anything."
Quote from: snyprrr on September 09, 2016, 04:58:50 PM
So, that's not a raucously bad PhotoShop??... the "splashes" of water... the closest guy looks completely plopped in... you guys don't see a pic that locks obviously doctored?
I mean, it IS obvious, right?? Those are not real "splashes"...
Surely there is a photo expert on here.... does this need to go in the "Fav Photos" Thread??
I'm not saying ANYTHING about ANYTHING .... OTHER THAN "please just take a look at this pic, it's a PhotoShop on the front page of the NYT,... why is that?"
First fact: The photo isn't even a NY Times original but shot by an Associated Press photog, Emilio Morenatti.
Second fact: Right click on the picture to enlarge. Enlarged, the splashes look real; enlarged, the men in the water don't look photoshopped to me. As further proof, I posted a link to the video of the situation It's the same as the photo, including the splashes, the arm waving.
Watch the video!https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/29/dramatic-photos-show-refugees-fleeing-libya-being-rescued-at-sea
Watch the video. You can see the men in the water, see the splashing, holding up their arms. I mean, when a person is trying not to drown, splashing and arm waving are by products ;D Why would anyone need to fake a photo when the situation is clearly real, with video capturing the same event?
Okay, we know you have an agenda. We know you really, really want this to be fake,
need this to be fake in order to prove the NY Times is part of the vast conspiracy to inundate your life with people of the wrong color:
Quote from: snyprrr on September 06, 2016, 07:18:46 AM
Of course, what's shown is all the dark skinned people looking longingly into the camera with the "SaveMeEurope" look. I guess you may call it... uh... Propaganda????
Propaganda? A story and pictures of an Italian Navy rescue operation is propaganda? These people don't deserve coverage because, what?...they're the wrong color? from the wrong continent?
Sarge
Quote from: snyprrr on September 09, 2016, 05:07:57 PM
funny how ya'll go straiiight for the "tin foil crazy" shit ALL.THE.TIME.
We go straight to the tin foil crazy shit because that's where you lead us in nearly every post you make. This photoshop business is just the latest craziness. There is no reason to suspect that photo is faked. No reason in the world it should have been faked. The only reason you believe it is faked is because you're wearing your conspiracy spectacles which color everything you see. You don't see reality, snyprrr. You only see the conspiracies. And damn, boy, you see them all!!!
Sarge
Immigration is not a viable way to solve a problem like Syria. Everyone can't immigrate and if the most resourceful manage to leave it just makes it more of a hell hole for those who have no option but to stay. The solution is to halt the violence. That should be possible becaus the killing is mainly done by western air campaigns or advanced weapons put into the hands of various combatants who are mainly interested in slaughtering their adversaries. There lots of blame to go around, from Putin's support of an inhuman tyrant to Obama's half baked support for insurgent groups who are as likely to fight each other as the regime.
For any country immigration is used to enhance the fortunes of the destination country, not to solve the problems of other countries. In the US, for instance, immigration has allowed the US to become a technology superpower despite having a failing education system and among the lowest performing students in the developed world. How else could a country full of the likes of snyprrr produce the iPhone?
Quote from: Scarpia on September 09, 2016, 06:33:10 PM
How else could a country full of the likes of snyppr produce the iPhone?
It's snyprrr.
Quote from: André on September 09, 2016, 03:21:19 PM
There's a distance you won't travel. Tolerate them, associate in some common activities, but not mingle with them, let alone welcome the differences you note, unless they intersect with some of your own values. I can certainly understand that. It takes time, which means probably more than a generation, for differences to eventually become just another fact of life...
This is the kind of problems we are faced with: not a question whether to welcome refugees (or other immigrants) or not - we have passed that post some time ago, especially in Quebec (because of the 1977 language laws), but how will we financially address the challenge. Every society is faced with the kind of financial problems an immigrant influx brings at one time or another, but the face we put on and how we attempt to solve the issues (positively or negatively, alla Trump) makes all the difference for future generations. My granddaughter has never given a thought to the idea that Turia's chilldren (and many others) were somehow different from her. Yes, they will be raised as Muslims. But I fancy the idea that they will be our Muslims. Not djihadists, drug dealers or rapists.
First of all, I don't know who the "you" is, unless it is a rhetorical one. Surely it doesn't apply to me, although I prefer not to go into detail here.
There is a question of "identity" that other waves of immigration to the North American continent didn't have to face, because immigrants were supposed to assimilate. In other words, the identity of the host country didn't have to be challenged and stretched to the point to that it was threatened by hostile elements it welcomed. Please apply this to Europe.
I believe the burden is on the immigrants FIRST to show that they accept this principle without compromise:
"our country". One limiting factor is that of tribe over country. Ignorance of this concept has caused untold damage for at least 100 years when Europeans thought they could draw lines in the sand and create nation states that cut into tribal loyalties. This is not only familial but religious. Will these immigrants accept libertarian, civil values over a literal interpretation of their Holy Book? It doesn't have to be a majority who refuse, only a lunatic fringe with some knowledge of bombs and guns. Even .1% is too much, however. Why should
one person from a host country have to die?
Then there is the problem of reciprocity. Can one even bring in a Bible to Saudi Arabia, let alone build churches (there aren't any). The Saudis are known for their subsidizing mosques all over the West. They could spend some of their money on refugees. Why aren't they taking them in? Of course, if the Christian world (that has some history of showing compassion for the weak and oppressed) is willing to foot the bill, then let them!
We may like to have others see the world as we do but this can lead to disaster. I won't even go into the skewed notion of "bringing freedom" to their home countries. The intellectual and cultural gap is a huge one, I assure you.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 09, 2016, 10:35:07 PM
Then there is the problem of reciprocity. Can one even bring in a Bible to Saudi Arabia, let alone build churches (there aren't any). The Saudis are known for their subsidizing mosques all over the West. They could spend some of their money on refugees. Why aren't they taking them in?
The western worlds tolerance and even support for the tyrannic, messianic (in the sense of promoting their religion) and terrorsubsidizing Saudi regime is the elephant in the room nobody seems to be talking about.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 09, 2016, 10:35:07 PM
I believe the burden is on the immigrants FIRST to show that they accept this principle without compromise: "our country". One limiting factor is that of tribe over country. Ignorance of this concept has caused untold damage for at least 100 years when Europeans thought they could draw lines in the sand and create nation states that cut into tribal loyalties. This is not only familial but religious. Will these immigrants accept libertarian, civil values over a literal interpretation of their Holy Book? It doesn't have to be a majority who refuse, only a lunatic fringe with some knowledge of bombs and guns. Even .1% is too much, however. Why should one person from a host country have to die?
When the number of murders committed by native-born Americans is zero, then I'll accept the proposition that one murder committed by immigrants is one murder too many. Don't hold them to a standard you're not meeting yourselves.
PS There's an excellent chart doing the rounds showing how many Americans are killed each year by various causes. Religious-inspired terrorism is way, way down the list. It is of course beaten by guns, but also by armed toddlers, lightning, lawnmowers, being hit by a bus and falling out of bed.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 10, 2016, 01:04:25 AM
When the number of murders committed by native-born Americans is zero, then I'll accept the proposition that one murder committed by immigrants is one murder too many. Don't hold them to a standard you're not meeting yourselves. PS There's an excellent chart doing the rounds showing how many Americans are killed each year by various causes. Religious-inspired terrorism is way, way down the list. It is of course beaten by guns, but also by armed toddlers, lightning, lawnmowers, being hit by a bus and falling out of bed.
Murder inspired by ideology is a different ball game. Like certain kinds of diseases made preventable by antibiotics, so these horrors can and should be nipped in the bud. Barring that, one can have your Russian Roulette attitude towards the Black Plague as well.
And, BTW, the 15th anniversary of 9/11 falls on a Sunday this year...
("I say yes, you say no, I say why and you say I don't know-oh...)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 10, 2016, 01:42:32 AM
Murder inspired by ideology is a different ball game. Like certain kinds of diseases made preventable by antibiotics, so these horrors can and should be nipped in the bud. Barring that, one can have your Russian Roulette attitude towards the Black Plague as well.
And, BTW, the 15th anniversary of 9/11 falls on a Sunday this year...
("I say yes, you say no, I say why and you say I don't know-oh...)
By the way, 9/11 was 15 years ago. Is that really your touchstone for the present state of the world? Have you heard of iPhones, for example?
I don't know why murder "inspired by ideology" seems to be in your mind equated with religious ideology, and why the "ideology" that makes it acceptable in many American minds to solve their problems with guns and other forms of violence gets a free pass.
Why can't 10,000 gun deaths every year be "nipped in the bud"?
Why are you focusing on a problem that is 1,000 times less deadly and focusing your attention on how to prevent it, while shrugging your shoulders and thinking that massive numbers of "normal" Americans killing either other Americans or themselves (gun suicides are actually even higher) is just one of those things, that it's relatively normal?
It's not, you know. It's deeply abnormal, with a rate of death that is massively higher than comparable countries. There's good hard science that shows the measures that could cause a significant reduction in deaths (including all the evidence that shows removing access to guns does reduce the suicide rate, i.e. people don't just choose another method of death).
But no, apparently that's not the "preventable" kind of death. The preventable kind, the different ball game, is the headline-grabbing proposition that nasty people are coming overseas to change the American way of life.
Well sorry, but the American way of life is in serious need of being changed. I wouldn't live in America, not because I think there's a heightened risk of Islamic terrorists but because I know the likelihood of me being gunned down by a "normal" American is massively higher than the risk of me ever being murdered here, regardless of the skin colour or religion of the perpetrator.
None of that means, of course, that there shouldn't be counterterrorism. None of that means I'm proposing Russian Roulette either. I'm just trying to point out the relative risk and how you're carrying on about a small problem being "preventable" and a "different ball game" while living in the most murderous country in the developed world.
"You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." Matthew 23:24
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 10, 2016, 01:42:32 AM
Murder inspired by ideology is a different ball game. Like certain kinds of diseases made preventable by antibiotics, so these horrors can and should be nipped in the bud. Barring that, one can have your Russian Roulette attitude towards the Black Plague as well.
And, BTW, the 15th anniversary of 9/11 falls on a Sunday this year...
("I say yes, you say no, I say why and you say I don't know-oh...)
Oh, you're talking about things like the Planned Parenthood shooting?
Quote from: North Star on September 10, 2016, 02:20:31 AM
Oh, you're talking about things like the Planned Parenthood shooting?
Are you talking about mass murder of innocents?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 10, 2016, 03:44:41 AM
Are you talking about mass murder of innocents?
Are you justifying a terrorist attack resulting in the death of a police officer and two civilians, just because the attacker agrees with you on an issue?
Quote from: ørfeø on September 10, 2016, 02:16:23 AM
By the way, 9/11 was 15 years ago. Is that really your touchstone for the present state of the world? Have you heard of iPhones, for example?
I don't know why murder "inspired by ideology" seems to be in your mind equated with religious ideology, and why the "ideology" that makes it acceptable in many American minds to solve their problems with guns and other forms of violence gets a free pass.
Why can't 10,000 gun deaths every year be "nipped in the bud"?
Why are you focusing on a problem that is 1,000 times less deadly and focusing your attention on how to prevent it, while shrugging your shoulders and thinking that massive numbers of "normal" Americans killing either other Americans or themselves (gun suicides are actually even higher) is just one of those things, that it's relatively normal?
It's not, you know. It's deeply abnormal, with a rate of death that is massively higher than comparable countries. There's good hard science that shows the measures that could cause a significant reduction in deaths (including all the evidence that shows removing access to guns does reduce the suicide rate, i.e. people don't just choose another method of death).
But no, apparently that's not the "preventable" kind of death. The preventable kind, the different ball game, is the headline-grabbing proposition that nasty people are coming overseas to change the American way of life.
Well sorry, but the American way of life is in serious need of being changed. I wouldn't live in America, not because I think there's a heightened risk of Islamic terrorists but because I know the likelihood of me being gunned down by a "normal" American is massively higher than the risk of me ever being murdered here, regardless of the skin colour or religion of the perpetrator.
You're making a false equivalency with gun murder and religious ideology inspired murder. Sorry, no cigar! No one is giving any kind of killing a free pass. But, you know what, anything I say, you're going to come down on. Can't figure out the reason why and don't want to bother either.
Terrorism happens EVERY DAY perpetrated by a certain group. Aussies go to Bali to have a good time. It was only in 2002 in which 202 people died, 88 of whom were from Australia (not counting maimed or blinded). According to your logic, what's in the past should stay there. Only except they get atrocities practically every year since then. Actually, Muslims are the more numerous victims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq. Someone should stop and try to figure it out. It's not normal, or at least should not become so common so that we regard it as the new normal. You can rationalize it away, but I won't.
Quote from: North Star on September 10, 2016, 03:52:45 AM
Are you justifying a terrorist attack resulting in the death of a police officer and two civilians, just because the attacker agrees with you on an issue?
Of course not, how stupid!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 10, 2016, 04:03:49 AM
You're making a false equivalency with gun murder and religious ideology inspired murder.
And what, pray tell, is false about it?
Do you really think that the grieving family of a murder victim comfort each other by saying "well at least she wasn't killed by a
Muslim"?
Quote from: ørfeø on September 10, 2016, 04:16:15 AM
And what, pray tell, is false about it?
Do you really think that the grieving family of a murder victim comfort each other by saying "well at least she wasn't killed by a Muslim"?
Another false equivalency. You might have well been comparing the price of eggs in Victoria or Brisbane. For some reason you have to be aggressively contrary to anything I say. Why don't you find someone else to pick on? I'm thru with u.
And you still haven't told me what is false about the equivalency. What is not equivalent about 2 murders? What could possibly be a more important factor than the death?
I'm aggressively contrary to much of what you say because I think you say a lot of irredeemably stupid things and I think it's important you're held to account for them.
EDIT: I haven't the faintest clue what's wrong with comparing the price of eggs in two different locations, either. Although if you're attempting Australian examples you've compared a state with a city.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 10, 2016, 04:33:02 AM
And you still haven't told me what is false about the equivalency. What is not equivalent about 2 murders? What could possibly be a more important factor than the death?
I'm aggressively contrary to much of what you say because I think you say a lot of irredeemably stupid things and I think it's important you're held to account for them.
EDIT: I haven't the faintest clue what's wrong with comparing the price of eggs in two different locations, either. Although if you're attempting Australian examples you've compared a state with a city.
I didn't want to bother to answer you. If what I write is irredeemably stupid then it must be useless to try to argue with me. (It is also insulting to accuse another person thusly.)
Gun murder in the US is a problem although it doesn't directly affect me since I am not living there right now.
It has its own causes and hopefully, remedies. I personally think that the general breakdown in civil life has a lot to do with it. Terrorism is a global problem. Moslems also suffer from it. I neglected to mention Turkey as one of the target nations, also, of course, Thailand and the Phillipines.
What happened in Nice is such a grotesque barbarity that transcends that of gangs shooting at one another. The problem is it was upstaged almost immediately by attacks on airports. (Actually it is hard to keep track.)
In fact, it seemed that there was a kind of news blackout, no stories or pictures of the victims. Making them personal would bring the issue home, not yesterday's statistics as you would prefer to characterize the horrific attack in New York 15 years ago.
If you want to make the people who died on 9/11 into individuals, then have the decency to do the same with the many more people murdered each year by other methods.
Oh, that's right. Not equivalent. I forgot.
It is not just me you don't bother answering. I'm losing count of the number of times you've dismissed the challenges of other forum members as well. Various phrases that tell people not to be so ridiculous, often with exclamation marks at the end. There's a general air of incomprehension that anyone could possibly disagree with you.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 09, 2016, 10:35:07 PM
First of all, I don't know who the "you" is, unless it is a rhetorical one. Surely it doesn't apply to me, although I prefer not to go into detail here.
There is a question of "identity" that other waves of immigration to the North American continent didn't have to face, because immigrants were supposed to assimilate. In other words, the identity of the host country didn't have to be challenged and stretched to the point to that it was threatened by hostile elements it welcomed. Please apply this to Europe.
I believe the burden is on the immigrants FIRST to show that they accept this principle without compromise: "our country". One limiting factor is that of tribe over country. Ignorance of this concept has caused untold damage for at least 100 years when Europeans thought they could draw lines in the sand and create nation states that cut into tribal loyalties. This is not only familial but religious. Will these immigrants accept libertarian, civil values over a literal interpretation of their Holy Book? It doesn't have to be a majority who refuse, only a lunatic fringe with some knowledge of bombs and guns. Even .1% is too much, however. Why should one person from a host country have to die?
Then there is the problem of reciprocity. Can one even bring in a Bible to Saudi Arabia, let alone build churches (there aren't any). The Saudis are known for their subsidizing mosques all over the West. They could spend some of their money on refugees. Why aren't they taking them in? Of course, if the Christian world (that has some history of showing compassion for the weak and oppressed) is willing to foot the bill, then let them!
We may like to have others see the world as we do but this can lead to disaster. I won't even go into the skewed notion of "bringing freedom" to their home countries. The intellectual and cultural gap is a huge one, I assure you.
It was indeed a rhetorical "you". I include myself in that. My point is that the first thing you (we) notice is the
difference. How one reacts to elements of difference is part and fabric of a community/society' s acceptance or rejection of differences.
The old argument about Rome and the Romans is just that: old and lame. Societies evolve in a continuum, not in closed circuit.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 10, 2016, 05:02:59 AM
If you want to make the people who died on 9/11 into individuals, then have the decency to do the same with the many more people murdered each year by other methods.
One has to limit the parameters of a discussion.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 10, 2016, 05:02:59 AM
It is not just me you don't bother answering. I'm losing count of the number of times you've dismissed the challenges of other forum members as well. Various phrases that tell people not to be so ridiculous, often with exclamation marks at the end. There's a general air of incomprehension that anyone could possibly disagree with you.
I don't accept your insinuations and accusations. If anyone feels "dismissed" by me, I invite them to come forward. I am not that type of person. I also don't stalk the comments of others, as though looking for trouble.
Oh for heaven's sake. I don't "stalk your comments". I click a link that says "Show new replies to your posts" which indicates when there has been activity on threads that I have previously written on. I've been writing on this thread for months. You're not THAT important.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 09, 2016, 05:53:43 PM
First fact: The photo isn't even a NY Times original but shot by an Associated Press photog, Emilio Morenatti.
Second fact: Right click on the picture to enlarge. Enlarged, the splashes look real; enlarged, the men in the water don't look photoshopped to me. As further proof, I posted a link to the video of the situation It's the same as the photo, including the splashes, the arm waving. Watch the video!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/29/dramatic-photos-show-refugees-fleeing-libya-being-rescued-at-sea
Watch the video. You can see the men in the water, see the splashing, holding up their arms. I mean, when a person is trying not to drown, splashing and arm waving are by products ;D Why would anyone need to fake a photo when the situation is clearly real, with video capturing the same event?
Okay, we know you have an agenda. We know you really, really want this to be fake, need this to be fake in order to prove the NY Times is part of the vast conspiracy to inundate your life with people of the wrong color:
Propaganda? A story and pictures of an Italian Navy rescue operation is propaganda? These people don't deserve coverage because, what?...they're the wrong color? from the wrong continent?
Sarge
Video real, pic still PhotoShopped
I have no agenda. The pic IS PhotoShop, no doubt... I see the video, fine... why the NYT had to doctor the pic, idk, but, the pic IS doctored.
That's all.
Yes, blown up, the pic looks even faker, especially that one orange vest superimposed, and one man's raised arm towards the left has that naughty digital crap around his arm... lots of digital crap in that pic.
I SEE THE VIDEO, OK?.... the pic is still doctored, for whatever ...uh...."agenda", idk
ffs
"
Only Stalin doctored pics, no one else ever has"OK, well, i thank all for helping get the pic out, GO HILLARY!!!!
(cough, cough)
Quote from: snyprrr on September 10, 2016, 08:10:36 AM
Video real, pic still PhotoShopped
I have no agenda. The pic IS PhotoShop, no doubt... I see the video, fine... why the NYT had to doctor the pic, idk, but, the pic IS doctored...blown up, the pic looks even faker, especially that one orange vest superimposed, and one man's raised arm towards the left has that naughty digital crap around his arm... lots of digital crap in that pic.
Of course you have an agenda. All your posts have an agenda.
Since the photo shows the exact situation as the video, and since the photog must have taken dozens of photos of that situation, why would anyone need to doctor
that picture? Why, snyprrr do you think anyone would do that since it changes absolutely nothing. Here's a vidcap from the video
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2016/Untitled2crop.jpg)
How is that vidcap different than your alleged photoshop picture? How would that alleged PS picture change anyone's perception? How does inserting a random dude or two suddenly make the situation a lie and more of a propaganda image? Why go through the edit process when you have dozens of photos of black men in the water already? Your insistence that the NY Times doctored an Italian photog's picture for nefarious purpose by inserting a few more guys into the picture makes no damn sense.
More vidcaps:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2016/Untitled1crop.jpg)
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2016/Untitled3crop.jpg)
Sarge
The orange vests do stand out. It's a matter of fabric, they being fluo and designed to catch light at all albedo measures (IOW wether it's day or night). I think that this, combined with modern photo techniques (lately, HD's meaning has moved from high definition to hyper definition), explains that.
Well, that's MY opinion, don't take it as fact :laugh:. OTOH just look at what a simple iphone can achieve in terms of definition. Just imagine what a professional photograph can do without altering the subject.
Yes, orange vests will look like that as it's hard to keep the saturation reasonable for them in photographs.
Concerning 9/11, this very detailed reporting on Bush being evacuated and moving around on the AirForce One has just been published:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/were-the-only-plane-in-the-sky-214230
I guess a lot of the stuff is already known to parts of the domestic American public, but for those of us who are less informed in detail, the confusion and lack of efficient communication inside the government and as regards information updates seem startling. Most of it due to the limits of available technology back then, however.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 10, 2016, 04:46:40 AM
I didn't want to bother to answer you. If what I write is irredeemably stupid then it must be useless to try to argue with me.
You got that one right.
Orfeo isn't making a false equivalency. There's an ideology behind the massive nr of gun deaths in the USA, too.
Second Amandment fundamentalism + financial profit = death.
And FYI IS and Al Quaeda are for profit organisations, too.
Quote from: Herman on September 11, 2016, 02:04:56 AM
You got that one right.
Which "one"? What is that quote under your picture again?
Quote from: Herman on September 11, 2016, 02:04:56 AM
Orfeo isn't making a false equivalency.
Strictly speaking, it is a
straw man argument. Well,
"because you are making a case against murder by terrorism means you can't care about gun related deaths" is 1) untrue and 2) irrelevant.
Quote from: Herman on September 11, 2016, 02:04:56 AM
There's an ideology behind the massive nr of gun deaths in the USA, too.
Second Amandment fundamentalism + financial profit = death.
And FYI IS and Al Quaeda are for profit organisations, too.
Well, I didn't say money has nothing to do with it. Again 1) and 2). The war machine kills even more people. Why don't you look up the Bush family and their involvement in war profiteering for just about a century?
Quote from: North Star on September 10, 2016, 10:28:40 AM
Yes, orange vests will look like that as it's hard to keep the saturation reasonable for them in photographs.
And face it: the high visibility is the point of that coloration.
And few things have provoked so very hearty a belly-laugh as:
Quote from: snyprrr on September 10, 2016, 08:10:36 AM
I have no agenda.
The states with the biggest Obamacare struggles spent years undermining the law (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-marketplaces-turmoil-20160907-snap-story.html)
Building viable insurance marketplaces in some of these states always figured to be challenging, as competition was limited before the law was enacted.
But many of these states made it even more difficult.
Several are among the more than a dozen that imposed additional regulations on people who were supposed to help consumers enroll in health plans.
Proponents of these regulations argued they were trying to protect consumers. "Our biggest fear, of course, is identity theft," Florida Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told Fox News in 2013.
But consumer advocates, patients groups and others saw the rules as another tactic to weaken the law. Missouri's regulations were so restrictive that they were thrown out by a federal judge, who concluded state leaders were trying to undermine the marketplace.
In other news:
(http://s3.lightboxcdn.com/vendors/cc736da4-5c9c-4dd8-9ff9-d82f8df62648/uploads/abd10755-04f3-44f3-8ea9-a4924229b8fc/theonionlogo1.png)
Pope Francis Hosts Feathered Serpent God As Part Of Deity Exchange Program (http://www.theonion.com/article/pope-francis-hosts-feathered-serpent-god-part-deit-53917)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 11, 2016, 05:57:16 AM
And face it: the high visibility is the point of that coloration.
And few things have provoked so very hearty a belly-laugh as:
Hillary Buckles Like Building 7 at 9/11 Memorial
;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D
Hey, concerning the photo... if you all say it's 100%...uh... kosher :laugh:... fine, why can't I just say, OK, "hyper def", fine, I guess you're right then,... though, at least some of you do notice that hyper-def does seem to simulate PhotoShop pretty well.
So, just out of curiosity, what IS @MyAgenda?
I'm sure you all know I think we're beyond the point of no return no matter who gets..."elected"... that the powers that be can make it easy or hard for either one
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 10, 2016, 08:34:31 AM
Everybody has an agenda, snyps.
\
\Please tell me what mine is... I mean, I'm not being cheeky, ... I think in my heart I just want the truth out,... so, if the pic is 100% real, I have no problem... if it's doctored, I don't have a problem...
I suppose , if we're talking "agenda"... wouldn't it be fair to then say that the NYT itself has an agenda that makes mine look like a trip to the library?
Right, Karl? I HAVE and agenda,... but the NYT doesn't,... oh, I see how that works, thanks for the heads up!! ;)
And, I know, Hillary didn't just collapse like a bag of potatoes...
Hillary Collapses Like Sack of Potatoes at 0/11 Memorial
meanwhile...
Trump Sings "Bridge Over Troubled Water" to 9/11 Survivors Whilst Juggling and Riding One-Wheeler
The sudden Hillary Clinton health problems will no doubt be underlined in the promotion of Trump
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/11/reports-hillary-leaves-ground-zero-ceremony.html?via=desktop&source=twitter
My argument wasn't so much that if one cares about religious terrorism one mustn't care about gun deaths. It was more that obsessing about religious terrorism in the USA shows a lack of a sense of proportion, given the number of people that actually die.
Quote from: Turner on September 11, 2016, 10:01:18 AM
The sudden Hillary Clinton health problems will no doubt be underlined in the promotion of Trump
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/11/reports-hillary-leaves-ground-zero-ceremony.html?via=desktop&source=twitter
BUGS BUNNY COULD RUN AGAINST DORIANNE GRAY NOW!!!!!ALL TRUMP HATE HAS NOW BEEN RENDERED NULL AND VOID. HE IS NO LONGER OF ANY CONSEQUENCE.
Meet Theresa Barnwell
Quote from: snyprrr on September 11, 2016, 09:07:35 AM
So, just out of curiosity, what IS @MyAgenda?
Please tell me what mine is... I mean, I'm not being cheeky, ...
Two words: soy lecithin
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: drogulus on September 11, 2016, 07:25:58 AM
The states with the biggest Obamacare struggles spent years undermining the law (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-marketplaces-turmoil-20160907-snap-story.html)
Building viable insurance marketplaces in some of these states always figured to be challenging, as competition was limited before the law was enacted.
But many of these states made it even more difficult.
Several are among the more than a dozen that imposed additional regulations on people who were supposed to help consumers enroll in health plans.
Proponents of these regulations argued they were trying to protect consumers. "Our biggest fear, of course, is identity theft," Florida Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told Fox News in 2013.
But consumer advocates, patients groups and others saw the rules as another tactic to weaken the law. Missouri's regulations were so restrictive that they were thrown out by a federal judge, who concluded state leaders were trying to undermine the marketplace.
In other news:
(http://s3.lightboxcdn.com/vendors/cc736da4-5c9c-4dd8-9ff9-d82f8df62648/uploads/abd10755-04f3-44f3-8ea9-a4924229b8fc/theonionlogo1.png)
Pope Francis Hosts Feathered Serpent God As Part Of Deity Exchange Program (http://www.theonion.com/article/pope-francis-hosts-feathered-serpent-god-part-deit-53917)
Hillary Needs Obamacare Baaad!!!Quote from: karlhenning on September 11, 2016, 04:29:40 PM
Two words: soy lecithin
OK,... I understand. This is your way of saying I'm right but I'm being a dick. I know, I try to be nice and this is what happens. I'm sorry. You're sorry. We're all sorry. Group hug. :-* 0:)
Quote from: snyprrr on September 11, 2016, 04:40:39 PM
Y'know, I'd love to see some more of that "hyper def" art like that extraordinarily brilliant photo with the fugees and the lifevests.
Your agenda is this conspiracy theorizing, based on "I cannot believe that color is right, so I KNOW it's fake."
And your inability to admit you may be mistaken; you cannot let it go.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: karlhenning on September 11, 2016, 04:51:14 PM
Your agenda is this conspiracy theorizing, based on "I cannot believe that color is right, so I KNOW it's fake."
And your inability to admit you may be mistaken; you cannot let it go.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
No no, that's fine. Don't I always admit I'm a tech zero? Don't I even need help getting my own "damning evidence" :laugh: :laugh: on the Forum. So, come on Karl, I would wither under cross-examination from anyone with even the slightest more ... uh... capacity than I do. If the whole Forum says it's 100%, I am certainly not the one to voice the objection.
At least a few people did notice the supposed anomaly. The response seems to be, "Gosh, tech these days. It's so amazing." So, you know, I don't know shit so what am I supposed to say?
IF IF IF what I suspected is true, that, say, the NYT would put a blatant PhotoShop on their Front Page, then, I would guess, there'll be other opportunities, right?, since lying liars can't help but just lie lie lie. If I'm wrong, and they're The Golden Boys and Girls of Justice and Good, and No One Ever Does This In Major Serious Media, then, well, even if there are "suspect" photos, I guess I'll just go along with everyone else and just say, "Gosh, it's a really digital photo," and then just whistle along on my way.
Because only Stalin ever did that.
I get it. We defeated evil like that. The last thing we have to worry about is who why where how and when of the NYT. Biased or not, their Front Page Photo can be trusted.
And it's just crazy to think anything else.
Barring any clinical forensic autopsy on the actual photo itself, I, snyprrr, hereby defer the conversation about this one photo to the GMG Forum Group Think Opinion Poll. You can simply colour me just absolutely enchanted by today's modern technology, and how it makes such startling photographs.
What else would you have me say?
So, after handing you my ass on a platter, how can I still have an agenda? I'm "Only for the Truth" and all that safe-as-milk stuff. You know that.
Still doesn't explain how Building 7 collapsed just like the other two, into dust in their own footprint, when no plane hit it. But, you know, that's just something else and not this photo and blah b;lah blabl a
Seriously, am I the only Politically Pure person on this Forum? :blank:
Quote from: karlhenning on September 11, 2016, 04:51:14 PM
Your agenda is this conspiracy theorizing, based on "I cannot believe that color is right, so I KNOW it's fake."
And your inability to admit you may be mistaken; you cannot let it go.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Again, sarge's photo that he was kind enough to Post, without smart ass comment mind you!!, has rendered the entire conversation obsolete and of no value. If Sarge's pic is real, then the whole standards and practices of determining these things has to be done differently. The EYE, the HUMAN eye can no longer "believe what it sees", even though it's "real". These pictures aren't really meant for human eyes... "hyper" real,... oh joy. :(
And wow, it seems the whole Forum sees this as Clinton's Last day. Not a peep. Very creepy 'round here.
Hellooooooooo
Quote from: snyprrr on September 11, 2016, 06:02:01 PM
And wow, it seems the whole Forum sees this as Clinton's Last day. Not a peep. Very creepy 'round here.
Hellooooooooo
As a (somewhat reluctant) supporter of Clinton, of course I am concerned about her health at this point. She has debates to prepare for and participate in and a heavy schedule of campaigning ahead. And Trump will surely exploit it. But the fact that a 68 year old woman should get run-down and ill after maintaining a grueling, extended campaign schedule does not require a conspiracy theory.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 11, 2016, 04:35:39 PM
Hillary Needs Obamacare Baaad!!!
Questions to ask the learned physicians:
Were the other loss of consciousness episodes also due to pneumonia?
Should a doctor allow a pneumonia suffering patient to sashay down Madison Avenue, saying "I feel fine"?
(She might faint again!)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 11, 2016, 09:00:26 PM
Questions to ask the learned physicians:
Were the other loss of consciousness episodes also due to pneumonia?
Should a doctor allow a pneumonia suffering patient to sashay down Madison Avenue, saying "I feel fine"?
(She might faint again!)
She could pass the pneumonia to others around her by going out.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 11, 2016, 02:09:48 PM
My argument wasn't so much that if one cares about religious terrorism one mustn't care about gun deaths. It was more that obsessing about religious terrorism in the USA shows a lack of a sense of proportion, given the number of people that actually die.
Sorry, you're not going to get away with such an imputation, moreover on the 15th anniversary of 9/11. Religious motivated terrorism is a GLOBAL problem. 2,977 people were killed in one day with 6000 wounded. These were not just drive-by or gang shootings. The toll in physical and property damage was enormous, plus those who died prematurely from inhalation of toxic substances that caused cancers and other illnesses.
This is not the first time you make your own incorrect conclusions based on your own prejudice. I looked up my own posts looking for evidence of your accusations of my allegedly calling others ridiculous and following those comments with three exclamation points. I didn't find any. You can throw around words all you want and accuse me of a lack of proportion based on your own agenda. If you were in my sights rather than hiding behind a computer I would call you the "l"' word.
Quote from: Johnnie Burgess on September 11, 2016, 09:04:51 PM
She could pass the pneumonia to others around her by going out.
Just think all those toxic germs she propelled in her coughing fits!
But seriously, I have had pneumonia and you don't just pop up out of bed to walk down the street.
Whatever the illness or condition, the ONLY decent and responsible thing to do is bow out of the race!
The meta-problem though, unadmitted even to herself which makes it tragic, is the inability to accept limitations.
Physically, she is over the hill.
It happens, like to ballet dancers, singers and prize-fighters.
A person who does not want to recognize it becomes his or her worst enemy, in fact, upping the probability of more collapses.
It must be terrible, focusing all your energies from one's youth towards a goal and see it slip away right before the finish line because one's body couldn't take it anymore.
This actually happened to a friend of mine, who got to the upper echelons on Wall Street and suffered big-time burnout.
The problem is not the ambition but the self-punishment involved that wants payback when you don't expect it.
My opinion is it is not so much what H is suffering from but pushing an already tired horse as a recipe for disaster.
To speculate on what is wrong with her comes in the absence of any creditable information from her side.
Why does she need to be propped up with pillows or have to lean on helpers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZLnQjMsyvc
The Democratic party can surely supply healthy 40 and 50 year olds as candidates.
Drop out now and do yourself and the country a favor, Ms H!!!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 11, 2016, 09:48:12 PM
Just think all those toxic germs she propelled in her coughing fits!
But seriously, I have had pneumonia and you don't just pop up out of bed to walk down the street.
Whatever the illness or condition, the ONLY decent and responsible thing to do is bow out of the race!
The meta-problem though, unadmitted even to herself which makes it tragic, is the inability to accept limitations.
Physically, she is over the hill.
It happens, like to ballet dancers, singers and prize-fighters.
A person who does not want to recognize it becomes his or her worst enemy, in fact, upping the probability of more collapses.
It must be terrible, focusing all your energies from one's youth towards a goal and see it slip away right before the finish line because one's body couldn't take it anymore.
This actually happened to a friend of mine, who got to the upper echelons on Wall Street and suffered big-time burnout.
The problem is not the ambition but the self-punishment involved that wants payback when you don't expect it.
My opinion is it is not so much what H is suffering from but pushing an already tired horse as a recipe for disaster.
To speculate on what is wrong with her comes in the absence of any creditable information from her side.
Why does she need to be propped up with pillows or have to lean on helpers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZLnQjMsyvc
The Democratic party can surely supply healthy 40 and 50 year olds as candidates.
Drop out now and do yourself and the country a favor, Ms H!!!
Maybe not during the Obama years the democrats have lost over 900+ state legislature seats, and 12 governors, 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats.
No one younger than 60 ran this time for the democrats. Sure Hillary curses thinking how Obama cost her 8 years.
It sure seems to be a God given opportunity this election for a third party to have a real shot.
Quote from: Eli on September 11, 2016, 10:14:34 PM
It sure seems to be a God given opportunity this election for a third party to have a real shot.
Maybe but both 3rd party canidates have done dumb things.
Gary Johnson: "What is Aleppo?"
Jill Stein arrested in a protest.
Quote from: Johnnie Burgess on September 11, 2016, 09:54:49 PM
Maybe not during the Obama years the democrats have lost over 900+ state legislature seats, and 12 governors, 13 Senate seats and 69 House seats. No one younger than 60 ran this time for the democrats. Sure Hillary curses thinking how Obama cost her 8 years.
Baby-boomers won't just give up, or maybe they are still a larger demographic chunk with built up power structures protecting themselves.
The point about seizures (someone mentioned that her feet were not limp as in actual fainting) is anxiety about their happening again makes for increased possibility of just that.
A funny conspiracy theory is Hillary actually crawling through the last lap to the WH but Obama feeling compelled to extend his own presidency due to her inability to function. So he might trump her in the end!
Quote from: Eli on September 11, 2016, 10:14:34 PM
It sure seems to be a God given opportunity this election for a third party to have a real shot.
If she drops out (probability near zero, unless really forced to), then a 3rd or 4th party might have a chance.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 11, 2016, 10:19:32 PM
Baby-boomers won't just give up, or maybe they are still a larger demographic chunk with built up power structures protecting themselves.
The point about seizures (someone mentioned that her feet were not limp as in actual fainting) is anxiety about their happening again makes for increased possibility of just that.
A funny conspiracy theory is Hillary actually crawling through the last lap to the WH but Obama feeling compelled to extend his own presidency due to her inability to function. So he might trump her in the end!
No one knows what would happen if she were to win and then die before taking office. That has never happened.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 11, 2016, 09:20:03 PM
Sorry, you're not going to get away with such an imputation, moreover on the 15th anniversary of 9/11. Religious motivated terrorism is a GLOBAL problem. 2,977 people were killed in one day with 6000 wounded. These were not just drive-by or gang shootings. The toll in physical and property damage was enormous, plus those who died prematurely from inhalation of toxic substances that caused cancers and other illnesses.
This is not the first time you make your own incorrect conclusions based on your own prejudice. I looked up my own posts looking for evidence of your accusations of my allegedly calling others ridiculous and following those comments with three exclamation points. I didn't find any. You can throw around words all you want and accuse me of a lack of proportion based on your own agenda. If you were in my sights rather than hiding behind a computer I would call you the "l"' word.
Congratulations. We have reached the point where I truly can't be arsed.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 11, 2016, 10:21:33 PM
If she drops out (probability near zero, unless really forced to), then a 3rd or 4th party might have a chance.
The debates should be interesting! Two weeks from now? She is really going to have to give a very strong showing there. Can we really have a president Trump? It's too late for anyone else like Bloomberg to enter right? He must be kicking himself.
Quote from: Eli on September 11, 2016, 10:33:07 PM
The debates should be interesting! Two weeks from now? She is really going to have to give a very strong showing there. Can we really have a president Trump? It's too late for anyone else like Bloomberg to enter right? He must be kicking himself.
If Bloomberg had entered the race with Hillary in the race, Trump would win in a landslid.
Quote from: Johnnie Burgess on September 11, 2016, 10:22:22 PM
No one knows what would happen if she were to win and then die before taking office. That has never happened.
This possibility gives rise to speculations about Obama doing something arbitrary, like to preserve "public order". The normal sequences though would be the Veep, then Speaker of the House. Some presidents became incapacitated towards the ends of terms like Wilson and FDR. There is no rock to hide under these days. It would be funny though to have Bill as the power behind the throne this time with her POA.!
The unpredictability of her illness is the worrying part, but not only that, the treatment and drugs given with side effects (as for her "concussion").
Quote from: ørfeø on September 11, 2016, 10:23:42 PM
Congratulations. We have reached the point where I truly can't be arsed.
You said it, not me.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 11, 2016, 10:59:09 PM
This possibility gives rise to speculations about Obama doing something arbitrary, like to preserve "public order". The normal sequences though would be the Veep, then Speaker of the House. Some presidents became incapacitated towards the ends of terms like Wilson and FDR. There is no rock to hide under these days. It would be funny though to have Bill as the power behind the throne this time with her POA.!
The unpredictability of her illness is the worrying part, but not only that, the treatment and drugs given with side effects (as for her "concussion").
But not if she dies before taking office. No one knows what would happen that situation. It has never happened.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 11, 2016, 11:31:23 PM
I thought you'd be pleased.
Nope. I don't get my jollies that way.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 11, 2016, 10:59:09 PM
This possibility gives rise to speculations about Obama doing something arbitrary, like to preserve "public order". The normal sequences though would be the Veep, then Speaker of the House. Some presidents became incapacitated towards the ends of terms like Wilson and FDR. There is no rock to hide under these days. It would be funny though to have Bill as the power behind the throne this time with her POA.!
The unpredictability of her illness is the worrying part, but not only that, the treatment and drugs given with side effects (as for her "concussion").
My, people's imaginations are working overtime. There are varieties of pneumonia which are debilitating and require hospitalization, and there are varieties that are much less serious and only require antibiotics and rest. Given that Clinton has been following a heavy schedule and the main manifestation up until now has been a some worrying coughing fits she presumably suffers from a mild variety. The main question in my mind is whether recovery is consistent with running for president.
About succession (in the unlikely event that either candidate should win and die before taking office) it seems obvious that the vice president becomes president. My main concern is what happens if the supreme court is called upon to decide and deadlocks because Congress has declined to consider Obama's nominee for the supreme court vacancy? The Bush/Gore debacle was bad enough, what will the world think if the U.S. suffers a genuine constitutional crisis in presidential succession?
Quote from: snyprrr on September 11, 2016, 06:00:29 PM
Again, sarge's photo that he was kind enough to Post, without smart ass comment mind you!!
No, for
Sarge is a most admirable gennulmin.
Rudy Guiliani always knew more than the doctors. We all knew that.
Polls show many — even most — Trump supporters really are deeply hostile to Muslims and nonwhites (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12882796/trump-supporters-racist-deplorables)
Trump voter here. And, I am not hostile to Muslims and nonwhites.
Elections are choices, and I would guess that there is never an election in which any candidate is 100% "right" (according to a voter's views) on all the issues. We always have to vote for someone with whom we disagree on some issues. But we vote for them because on a few crucial issues (according to our priorities) they are better than the alternative.
For me that issue is which of these to candidates will nominate Supreme Court judges and influence the balance of the court for the next generation.
Since the election is a binary choice, between Trump and Clinton, for me the choice is obvious: Trump.
I am voting for Trump not because I support much of what he says, I will choose to vote for him because, as disgusting as he often is, he is still better IMO than Hillary Clinton.
Reminds of that scene in Annie Hall where Woody Allen says life is divided into the horrible and the miserable, with horrible being the slightly better option.
;)
If a poll reveals that 85% (I made that up for an example) of El Tupé hate Muslims, obviously it means that there are supporters who do not hate Muslims. (Or — just to be a bit more complete — who do not wish to communicate the fact that they hate Muslims in that vehicle.) I appreciate your post, and while I think you are mistaken, I respect your candor.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 07:15:15 AM
I am voting for Trump not because I support much of what he says, I will choose to vote for him because, as disgusting as he often is, he is still better IMO than Hillary Clinton.
Why, exactly?
I can see how the Supreme Court can be a deciding issue if all else is equal or nearly so. Trump is very far from being qualified to be President, perhaps the least qualified a major party has produced, certainly in my lifetime. He has no identifiable policy, it's all in the last thing he says.
Is Mrs. Beast a "liar"? In the ordinary political meaning of the word, yes. Is Mr. Trump a liar? That is too generous an appraisal by a mile. He is a total bullshitter. Nothing he says after "good morning" has anything but an accidental resemblance to the truth.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2016, 07:21:54 AM
Why, exactly?
I can answer that. HRC is endorsed by Planned Parenthood. As a Christian, I cannot accept that.
But not only that, she claims to be for women, yet she harassed Billy Boy's victims.
She has a whole trail of corruption and lying in back of her.
As I said before, and in agreement with sanantonio, as it is a binary choice, I choose the less worse.
Of course, if she is compelled to drop out due to illness (some in the DNC are already considering Biden as a replacement), then this will be a game changer.
Even this creepy fainting due to "overheating and dehydration" is not a characteristic of pneumonia.
And neither is traipsing down Madison Avenue with a smile on her face a couple hours later.
It may be interesting to look up Subcortical Vascular Dementia and see if those symptoms are a better match.
As for Trump supporters "hating Muslims", I think that is totally ridiculous.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2016, 07:21:54 AM
If a poll reveals that 85% (I made that up for an example) of El Tupé hate Muslims, obviously it means that there are supporters who do not hate Muslims. (Or — just to be a bit more complete — who do not wish to communicate the fact that they hate Muslims in that vehicle.) I appreciate your post, and while I think you are mistaken, I respect your candor.
Why, exactly?
I thought I already said:
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 07:15:15 AM
For me that issue is which of these to candidates will nominate Supreme Court judges and influence the balance of the court for the next generation.
Plus, I oppose most of the Democratic platform and have voted Republican since 1992 (but don't embrace their social agenda). That is not to say that I have any faith in either of the major parties (or minor ones, for that matter). I am cynical about our political process in general, with a very low opinion of all politicians and the larger political class, including journalists (who I consider have become tools of the corporate oligarchy just as much as elected officials). There is hardly ever a real choice, anyway, except on a few major issues such as the Supreme Court nominations.
Part of my acceptance of Trump is the fact that he is not a professional politician.
I realize this probably places me in the minority on GMG. So be it.
:)
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 07:39:30 AM
... I oppose most of the Democratic platform and have voted Republican since 1992 (but don't embrace their social agenda). That is not to say that I have any faith in either of the major parties (or minor ones, for that matter). I am cynical about our political process in general, with a very low opinion of all politicians and the larger political class, including journalists (who I consider have become tools of the corporate oligarchy just as much as elected officials). There is hardly ever a real choice, anyway, except on a few major issues such as the Supreme Court nominations.
Part of my acceptance of Trump is the fact that he is not a professional politician.
I realize this probably places me in the minority on GMG. So be it.
More or less my opinion, too.
Thank you both.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2016, 07:21:54 AM
Why, exactly?
Why exactly would you support a woman who can't retain consciousness?, a woman whose feet are shown being dragged, toes last, and thrown into a van like a sack of potatoes? A woman who CHARGES parents for a photo-op with their children?
Again, a woman who ATTACKS the women that her husband RAPED.
HER HUSBAND IS A RAPIST AND SHE COVERED FOR HIM BY ATTACKING... WAIT FOR IT... WOMEN.
If she has the power to get Dr.Drew canned for asking just a normal ass question, well, what other powers does she have that we don't know about? And he was right, to boot.
Trump temper? Haven't you heard about Hill's temper?
btw- concerning muslims. I seem to be able to have the ability to get any muslim I meet to start ragging on jews, they can't stand 'em, it seems.
Also, I don't do my "racism" by skin color, I do it by bone structure. The five "races": caucasion, negro, mongolian, malay, and amer-indian.
I certainly don't "love everyone",... or do I? I am very green and naive when I meet people and ALWAYS take people on face value. It's just that most people say typical shit. BUT, there are always exceptions.
White Men Can't Jump
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 07:39:30 AM
I am cynical about our political process in general, with a very low opinion of all politicians and the larger political class, including journalists (who I consider have become tools of the corporate oligarchy just as much as elected officials).
My sentiments exactly with regard to Romania´s politics, politicians and journalists. Small world & great minds etc. :D
I never see you at the Muslims You Have Visited (Or Want to See) thread, snypsss.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 13, 2016, 07:37:51 AMShe has a whole trail of corruption and lying in back of her.
What do you consider the most significant instance of lying and of corruption?
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 07:39:30 AMI am cynical about our political process in general, with a very low opinion of all politicians and the larger political class, including journalists (who I consider have become tools of the corporate oligarchy just as much as elected officials). There is hardly ever a real choice, anyway, except on a few major issues such as the Supreme Court nominations.
Cynicism, to me, always felt like a cop out. And while I respect your mindset, I'm afraid it's the kind of short-sightedness that has, throughout history, lead to truly terrible outcomes. Trump himself might be a bumbling, fradulent asshole, but as his campaign has shown, he's clearing a very real path to fascism. You might get out scot-free, but folks will suffer under a Trump presidency and they will suffer HARD.
The fact that he's not a professional politician is absolutely irrelevant. If you're cynical about politics, he's your textbook politician: lying, flip-flopping egomaniac with a trail of corruption and shady connections that fits right on Capitol Hill.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 13, 2016, 09:14:28 AM
Why exactly would you support a woman who can't retain consciousness?, a woman whose feet are shown being dragged, toes last, and thrown into a van like a sack of potatoes? A woman who CHARGES parents for a photo-op with their children?
Again, a woman who ATTACKS the women that her husband RAPED.
HER HUSBAND IS A RAPIST AND SHE COVERED FOR HIM BY ATTACKING... WAIT FOR IT... WOMEN.
If she has the power to get Dr.Drew canned for asking just a normal ass question, well, what other powers does she have that we don't know about? And he was right, to boot.
Trump temper? Haven't you heard about Hill's temper?
btw- concerning muslims. I seem to be able to have the ability to get any muslim I meet to start ragging on jews, they can't stand 'em, it seems.
Also, I don't do my "racism" by skin color, I do it by bone structure. The five "races": caucasion, negro, mongolian, malay, and amer-indian.
I certainly don't "love everyone",... or do I? I am very green and naive when I meet people and ALWAYS take people on face value. It's just that most people say typical shit. BUT, there are always exceptions.
White Men Can't Jump
Why, exactly?
Trump's doctor's note, the only scrap of paper we've seen about his health, was somewhere between unhelpful and ludicrous. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/13/clintons-lack-of-transparency-is-bad-trumps-is-inexcusable/?utm_term=.350899e2ac5d)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2016, 10:27:10 AM
Trump's doctor's note, the only scrap of paper we've seen about his health, was somewhere between unhelpful and ludicrous. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/13/clintons-lack-of-transparency-is-bad-trumps-is-inexcusable/?utm_term=.350899e2ac5d)
Wait, you don't think an aging real estate magnate who probably spends most of his days sedentary is the most healthy candidate for president ever? Surely you must be joking!
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 13, 2016, 10:41:48 AM
Wait, you don't think an aging real estate magnate who probably spends most of his days sedentary is the most healthy candidate for president ever? Surely you must be joking!
Any day now, he'll show us all his medical numbers. All his numbers are out the roof!
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2016, 10:48:15 AM
Any day now, he'll show us all his medical numbers. All his numbers are out the roof!
Lets see the blood pressure and LDL cholesterol...
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/64618100.jpg)
Oh, come on, guys! Regardless of Trump´s ideas and ideals, when it comes strictly to physical condition his is obviously better than Hillary´s.
And: since when higher than normal blood pressure and higher than normal LDL cholesterol are disqualifiers for the US Presidency? Which was the last candidate you applied these criteria to?
Quote from: Florestan on September 13, 2016, 11:03:45 AM
Oh, come on, guys! Regardless of Trump´s ideas and ideals, when it comes strictly to physical condition his is obviously better than Hillary´s.
I'm glad you're not my physician.
You must be right. I withdraw my insistence on a medical evaluation for either candidate.
In other words, Trump likely has been badly misrepresenting his generosity, which in and of itself is deplorable.
Or, it would be deplorable to any voter who simply cannot vote for Clinton. Nominate a satanic zombie: at least he's not Clinton!
zb or sanantonio: There is no moral abyss to which El Tupé would sink, which would have you reconsidering your vote? I ask only for information.
Some Trump supporters are conservatives who feel they have no choice but to support Trump
...
As the polling suggests, only a minority of Trump supporters appear to be cleanly in this category — those who hold conservative views on the economy, but no bigoted views on race, ethnicity, and religion. Indeed, an analysis by political scientist Philip Klinkner found that attitudes toward race and religion are a better way to predict support for Trump than views toward the economy and trade .... (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12882796/trump-supporters-racist-deplorables)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2016, 11:07:53 AM
In other words, Trump likely has been badly misrepresenting his generosity, which in and of itself is deplorable.
Or, it would be deplorable to any voter who simply cannot vote for Clinton. Nominate a satanic zombie: at least he's not Clinton!
zb or sanantonio: There is no moral abyss to which El Tupé would sink, which would have you reconsidering your vote? I ask only for information.
There is only one candidate in this election cycle who could have been indicted on federal criminal charges. Is there nothing that may still be disclosed about Hillary Clinton that would cause you to reconsider your vote?
To answer your question; I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. If (which is a huge "if") Trump does something (or is proven to have done something) that would disqualify him for the presidency, in my mind, I would either sit out the election or write in an alternate choice.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 11:34:29 AM
There is only one candidate in this election cycle who could have been indicted on federal criminal charges. Is there nothing that may still be disclosed about Hillary Clinton that would cause you to reconsider your vote?
Well, I'll repeat what I replied to
zb: if there are charges and evidence, let a case be brought.
And if she is taken to court, I'll vote for . . . Gary Johnson.
I should hope that the bar for president is somewhere north of the fact that FBI recommended no indictment to be brought against the candidate. Usually when a suspect destroys evidence prosecutors understand it as some indication of guilt.
Anyway, I'm outta here.
;)
I have at least two very good friends who absolutely cannot vote for Clinton, and who are voting Johnson/Weld. By which you may also judge that absolutely cannot vote for El Tupé.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 11:34:29 AM
There is only one candidate in this election cycle who could have been indicted on federal criminal charges.
Well, the Trump University scam may be indeed as serious as you paint it here.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 11:41:32 AM
I should hope that the bar for president is somewhere north of the fact that FBI recommended no indictment to be brought against the candidate. Usually when a suspect destroys evidence prosecutors understand it as some indication of guilt.
Anyway, I'm outta here.
Ah, then you will miss my respectful suggestion that there are a hundred G.O.P. lawyers who would be happy to pursue an indictment, whether recommended by the FBI or no.
Why don't they? (He asks, even as he expects the quasi-conspiracy-theorist obstinacy to consider that one's own idea may be wrong.)
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 11:34:29 AM
Is there nothing that may still be disclosed about Hillary Clinton that would cause you to reconsider your vote?
"
I would not change my vote on any "may be disclosed" basis. I might reconsider if it turns out to be true that the foundation supplies her with the blood of virgins to keep her many illnesses in check. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2016, 11:45:18 AM
Why don't they?
There are no good Republican lawyers.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 11:41:32 AM
Usually when a suspect destroys evidence prosecutors understand it as some indication of guilt.
It is "some indication".
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 11:34:29 AMThere is only one candidate in this election cycle who could have been indicted on federal criminal charges.
Yes. Trump (http://www.businessinsider.com/florida-newspaper-federal-investigation-trump-foundation-2016-9).
How long after the Queen of Hell is sworn in will impeachment proceedings begin?
1) a month before
2) 15 min.
3) a week after she succumbs from lack of virgin blood
Trump releases previously undisclosed medical records
Doctors: Candidate is "not always human"
Trump's businessman status is often seen as a plus. I wonder how many communities became better off from his business deals ? How many Trump company headquarters, how many Trump business places are thriving ? How many individuals became rich thanks to Donald Trump ? He has siphoned off $$$$ from all the failed ventures he has ever been in. By now he is sufficiently rich to entertain all the wildest dreams of most people and their extended families for a few generations.
The only thing he has never been able to have enough of is intravenous shots to his ego.
The Supreme Court issue is so ludicrous, really: a blink in the face of the next decades. How long would a Trump or Clinton presidency last ? 4 years for both. All right: who knows how many SP Justices will die in the interregnum ? And you would base your choice of a 4 year presidency on that indirect roll of a dice ?
4 years, whoever is elected. Then it's a new race, a new national drama queens 3-act play, and the same hysteria on display again for the world to see ??
(https://i.imgflip.com/epgte.jpg)
Quote from: Rinaldo on September 13, 2016, 10:22:53 AM
Cynicism, to me, always felt like a cop out. And while I respect your mindset, I'm afraid it's the kind of short-sightedness that has, throughout history, lead to truly terrible outcomes. Trump himself might be a bumbling, fradulent asshole, but as his campaign has shown, he's clearing a very real path to fascism.
The problem is that the more likely outcome that Clinton wins would give another 4 (or maybe 8) years of basically status quo. A lot of the steam that has build up so far to push Trump to the top will keep building up. And if then the alternative to the establishment is not a bumbling fraudulent asshole but a smart protofascist type, it will be much worse, I guess.
In the less likely case, Trump wins but fails obviously in office, even if he lasts 4 years both parties would have a chance to think hard and regroup.
In the 2016-2020 period I would not be surprised that a new axis of power between Germany, China and Russia emerges.
I am not suggesting anything on a military connotation. Only a realignment on where the real geo-political sub-global power will take place. While America is busy fighting, defining and imposing its so-called "values", the world will have moved on and away.
It happened to Egypt. It happened to Greece. It happened to Rome. It happened to Spain. It happened to France. It happened to England. It happened to Germany. Throughout history, it was through infighting the demise came about. I'm not that old ;) but I don't think infighting has ever been so harsh and vicious as now.
Quote from: André on September 13, 2016, 01:27:48 PM
In the 2016-2020 period I would not be surprised that a new axis of power between Germany, China and Russia emerges.
I am not suggesting anything on a military connotation. Only a realignment on where the real geo-political sub-global power will take place. While America is busy fighting, defining and imposing its so-called "values", the world will have moved on and away.
It happened to Egypt. It happened to Greece. It happened to Rome. It happened to Spain. It happened to France. It happened to England. It happened to Germany. Throughout history, it was through infighting the demise came about. I'm not that old ;) but I don't think infighting has ever been so harsh and vicious as now.
It even happened to Lithuania!
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 11:34:29 AM
There is only one candidate in this election cycle who could have been indicted on federal criminal charges. Is there nothing that may still be disclosed about Hillary Clinton that would cause you to reconsider your vote?
You refer, I presume, to her use of a private email server for official communications. I will not claim that I am not concerned with this. It was an error in judgement. Sensitive communications were not handled with adequate security. But to put it in perspective, she did not willfully pass sensitive information to someone not cleared to receive it, there is no evidence that her email was ever compromised, and all previous secretaries of state used non-government email servers for at least some of their official communication. She went a step beyond by using a privately maintained server, rather than a public email service. But she had nothing to gain from it, except the ability to conduct the government business more easily.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 11:41:32 AM
I should hope that the bar for president is somewhere north of the fact that FBI recommended no indictment to be brought against the candidate. Usually when a suspect destroys evidence prosecutors understand it as some indication of guilt.
My understanding from the FBI statement is that a group of emails was not preserved when the server was replaced, although they were later recovered from the retired hardware. This is far from proof that evidence was willfully destroyed.
I am mainly concerned with policy. I don't find Hilary Clinton disingenuous in her statements in policy. I am quite satisfied that if elected she will try to do what she says she will do (to the extent that opposition in Congress permits).
Trump Sandwich
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 07:15:15 AM
For me that issue is which of these to candidates will nominate Supreme Court judges and influence the balance of the court for the next generation.
There's already a nominee for Supreme Court. Republican Senators are currently ignoring that nomination. I'd say that's a hell of a lot more influence.
From the conservative, business and establishment based Globe and Mail.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/clinton-is-sick-but-we-should-all-be-worried-about-trumpsimmunity/article31852643/?reqid=f73744f5-c374-47e6-a54d-6185fcdf7cfb (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/clinton-is-sick-but-we-should-all-be-worried-about-trumpsimmunity/article31852643/?reqid=f73744f5-c374-47e6-a54d-6185fcdf7cfb)
Quote from: EddieRUKiddingVarese on September 13, 2016, 02:24:48 PM
Trump Sandwich
Should the US Go to War With Russia for Bringing On Clinton Health Crisis?
Amanpour: Can't A Girl Get A Break?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Look, if I heard Trump say or do something stupid, I'd be right on it.
"My only problem with Trump is... the jews!" :laugh:
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2016, 11:45:18 AM
Ah, then you will miss my respectful suggestion that there are a hundred G.O.P. lawyers who would be happy to pursue an indictment, whether recommended by the FBI or no.
Why don't they? (He asks, even as he expects the quasi-conspiracy-theorist obstinacy to consider that one's own idea may be wrong.)
Not working for the Obama DoJ is where they are.
Only Federal prosecutors could bring criminal charges for a federal crime. And none of them happen to be GOP lawyers.
Karl, you are not usually this disingenuous.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 13, 2016, 11:36:38 AM
Well, I'll repeat what I replied to zb: if there are charges and evidence, let a case be brought.
And if she is taken to court, I'll vote for . . . Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson did not ask "Where is Aleppo" but "What is it?"
Other responders have given reasons how a person can evade investigation and prosecution.
I happen to subscribe to the "invisible hand" notion of capitalism which means that it is not an intrinsically moral system, still the checks and balances force it into some kind of accountability.
Over the years, I have been witness and also victim to ecclesiastical abuses of systems fueled by donations. Like absolute power, it is an unfailing recipe for absolute corruption.
Business deals involving real estate and casinos may be corrupt but the degree of accountability they are subject to still puts them in a different class.
Among the multiplicity of subjects to choose from, the Clinton Foundation probably encapsulates the abuses of power and privilege that only those well versed in the letter of the law can skillfully evade.
There is simply too much damning information out there (much more than this forum can cope with) but the trickery and ill-treatment of actual victims in Haiti should disabuse anyone who takes cheap talk about protecting the weak and helpless seriously:
In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of "billions of dollars." Two months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this time outside New York's Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. "Clinton, where's the money?" the Haitian signs read. "In whose pockets?" Said Dhoud Andre of the Commission Against Dictatorship, "We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti."
Haitians like Andre may sound a bit strident, but he and the protesters had good reason to be disgruntled. They had suffered a heavy blow from Mother Nature, and now it appeared that they were being battered again — this time by the Clintons. Their story goes back to 2010, when a massive 7.0 earthquake devastated the island, killing more than 200,000 people, leveling 100,000 homes, and leaving 1.5 million people destitute. The devastating effect of the earthquake on a very poor nation provoked worldwide concern and inspired an outpouring of aid money intended to rebuild Haiti.
Countries around the world, as well as private and philanthropic groups such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, provided some $10.5 billion in aid, with $3.9 billion of it coming from the United States. Haitians such as Andre, however, noticed that very little of this aid money actually got to poor people in Haiti. Some projects championed by the Clintons, such as the building of industrial parks and posh hotels, cost a great deal of money and offered scarce benefits to the truly needy.
Port-au-Prince was supposed to be rebuilt; it was never rebuilt. Projects aimed at creating jobs proved to be bitter disappointments. Haitian unemployment remained high, largely undented by the funds that were supposed to pour into the country. Famine and illness continued to devastate the island nation. The Haitians were initially sympathetic to the Clintons. One may say they believed in the message of "hope and change." With his customary overstatement, Bill told the media, "Wouldn't it be great if they become the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I'm telling you, they really could."
I don't blame the Haitians for falling for it; Bill is one of the world's greatest story-tellers. He has fooled people far more sophisticated than the poor Haitians. Over time, however, the Haitians wised up. Whatever their initial expectations, many saw that much of the aid money seems never to have reached its destination; rather, it disappeared along the way. Where did it go? It did not escape the attention of the Haitians that Bill Clinton was the designated UN representative for aid to Haiti. Following the earthquake, Bill Clinton had with media fanfare established the Haiti Reconstruction Fund. Meanwhile, his wife Hillary was the United States secretary of state. She was in charge of U.S. aid allocated to Haiti. Together the Clintons were the two most powerful people who controlled the flow of funds to Haiti from around the world. Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons. The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.
For example, the Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction company owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest bidder who met the project's standards. UN officials said, however, that the contract was never competitively bid for. Clayton offered to build "hurricane-proof trailers" but what they actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable.
The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley Clark; Hillary's 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons. Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government official wrote, "Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
Well, if Dinesh D'Souza (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza) says so, it must be true..
Quote from: North Star on September 13, 2016, 09:39:58 PM
Well, if Dinesh D'Souza (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza) says so, it must be true..
The facts can be checked.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 13, 2016, 07:15:15 AM
I am voting for Trump not because I support much of what he says,
You have to be an moral or intellectual athlete to support all those conflicting and mutually exclusive positions Trump has been spouting, congratulations!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 13, 2016, 07:37:51 AM
I can answer that. HRC is endorsed by Planned Parenthood. As a Christian, I cannot accept that.
But not only that, she claims to be for women, yet she harassed Billy Boy's victims.
Surely you're aware that Trump used to support Planned Parenthood before he realised being anti would improve his chances, having switched from the Democrats to the GOP?
Yes, it was very bad that HRC supported her husband thru bad times and thus said bad things about some women.
However, have you ever paid close attention to the way Trump talks about women, and how they have to walk a very thin and straight Barbie line, and otherwise his hatred and disgust comes out in pure unadulterated form? "DISGUSTING!" over and over again. I would venture to say that this is one of the few genuine things about Trump, the instant, visceral hateful response to women as living human beings made from flesh, blood and their own agency. Bimbo or Barbie are the only options. Arm candy.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on September 13, 2016, 06:22:16 PM
Not working for the Obama DoJ is where they are.
Only Federal prosecutors could bring criminal charges for a federal crime. And none of them happen to be GOP lawyers.
Karl, you are not usually this disingenuous.
Your criticism is fair, and I thank you; though I will claim to be insufficiently knowledgeable rather than utterly disingenuous. And really, I have posed the questions to understand why; so again, I thank you.
Quote from: Herman on September 14, 2016, 12:06:47 AM
Surely you're aware that Trump used to support Planned Parenthood before he realised being anti would improve his chances, having switched from the Democrats to the GOP?
Yes, it was very bad that HRC supported her husband thru bad times and thus said bad things about some women. However, have you ever paid close attention to the way Trump talks about women, and how they have to walk a very thin and straight Barbie line, and otherwise his hatred and disgust comes out in pure unadulterated form? "DISGUSTING!" over and over again. I would venture to say that this is one of the few genuine things about Trump, the instant, visceral hateful response to women as living human beings made from flesh, blood and their own agency. Bimbo or Barbie are the only options. Arm candy.
Ignorance may be the reason the moniker "Planned Parenthood" is taken at face value. Their foundress, Margaret Sanger was a unashamed racist. Her "planning" was to reduce the birth rates of Black people. As the abortion rate seems to be high in that community, she is succeeding. I didn't know about how DISGUSTING they were until i took it upon myself to become more informed. Most people for whatever reason don't have that luxury.
After spending a lot of time reading about the Bushes (some astute people warned me about them), I realized what what twisted webs they wove for about a century, starting from their (secret) "Skull and Bones Society" at Yale. So many of the political movers and shakers have links to it. The complicated network of political favors is revealed by just a small insight into the Clinton Foundation and one of their projects, such as Haiti.
It is rare for an outsider to get even a foot in the door if you are not a member of the club. I was reading an article about Teddy Roosevelt who allegedly challenged the system at the time and succeeded, the same might be said for Ronald Reagan. Whatever Trump's faults are and he may be contemptuous of women (but around his daughter, it doesn't seem that way) he is a political outsider, he doesn't need their money! As a businessman, he will not be as liberal and wasteful, since he knows its value. Politicians who are used to taxpayers footing the bills can go on spending sprees and expensive vacations, like Obama who racked up millions just for jolly trips for him and his family. The outsider status to me is a stroke of luck, a real advantage.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 02:08:19 AM
Whatever Trump's faults are and he may be contemptuous of women (but around his daughter, it doesn't seem that way)
that's true, he bragged on tv about Ivanka's boobs and said he would have liked to "date" her if she weren't his daughter.
Quotehe is a political outsider, he doesn't need their money! As a businessman, he will not be as liberal and wasteful, since he knows its value. Politicians who are used to taxpayers footing the bills can go on spending sprees and expensive vacations, like Obama who racked up millions just for jolly trips for him and his family. The outsider status to me is a stroke of luck, a real advantage.
you seem to have missed the many reports that Trump regards the elections as a for-profit venture. (Obviously at first he entered the primaries just to boast his various products, not expecting to make it to the general elections) The whole "I'm so rich I'm self funding; I don't need your money" talk is a window dressing. A scam (like everything he's ever done). The little money (relatively speaking) he's put into the campaign were loans. If you have made a donation to his campaign, you're paying back that loan. The plan is he comes out with a profit. It's not supposed to cost him a n y t h i n g. Trump organizes events in such a manner that a lot of the expenses are billed to his various companies. So basically he's lining his pockets.
Also, if it's about taxpayers footing bills, recently it was revealed Trump claimed $150.000 from the gvt for the damages Trump Tower supposedly suffered during the aftermath of 9/11, while there was no damage whatsoever. So the terrorist attacks of 2001 were another for-profit opportunity for Trump, besides being an ego boost - he talked about Trump Tower previously being the second tallest building in Manhattan; now he was nr 1.
You know of course that one reason he's not releasing his tax returns is because he's organized his businesses in such a manner that he's not paying taxes but claiming rebates for failing businesses. I don't know how you look at these matters but a (self-proclaimed) billionaire who's not paying any taxes is basically a freeloader. He doesn't want beliebers like you to know. That's why we're not ever going to see those tax returns.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 02:08:19 AM
Ignorance may be the reason the moniker "Planned Parenthood" is taken at face value. Their foundress, Margaret Sanger was a unashamed racist. Her "planning" was to reduce the birth rates of Black people. As the abortion rate seems to be high in that community, she is succeeding. I didn't know about how DISGUSTING they were until i took it upon myself to become more informed. Most people for whatever reason don't have that luxury.
Yeah, how dare she try to improve the lives of poor black people. It's as if she actually thought that reproduction control could somehow help women - black women, at that! Ridiculous.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Race[Margaret Sanger] worked with eminent African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[83] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, civil rights legend and author of The Souls Of Black Folk, co-founder of the NAACP and editor of its magazine, Crisis, whom Martin Luther King Jr. would eulogize as "unsurpassed as an intellect."[84][85][86][87] Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.[88] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[89]
From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role—alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble—in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor black people.[90] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." While New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues that in writing that letter, "Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South;"[91] Angela Davis erroneously used the quote to support claims that Sanger intended to exterminate the black population.[92]
Quote from: North Star on September 14, 2016, 02:50:52 AM
Yeah, how dare she try to improve the lives of poor black people. It's as if she actually thought that reproduction control could somehow help women - black women, at that! Ridiculous.
There's an implication in what you say that I'm not even going to address. It is as though other races "control" themselves better, so don't need help. Nevertheless, PP is the modern equivalent of Moloch and filthy rich, too.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 13, 2016, 08:38:24 PM
Gary Johnson did not ask "Where is Aleppo" but "What is it?"
I know! Who could imagine that a third-party candidate's foreign policy expertise would outshine the Republican nominee! ;)
Thank you for your considered and detailed post (and thanks to
sanantonio and
Jeffrey).
I have repeatedly called this the year of the flawed candidate; and while there is genuine racism which is the core of El Tupé's support, let's state the obvious: that not everyone who has decided to vote for him is racist. I'll underscore that: there are people close to me who will vote for him, and none of these is (to the best of my knowledge) racist. (That caution reflects my imperfect knowledge, and is no impugnment of them.)
There is plenty of "
N. is not, not the candidate I wanted, but I consider the alternative intolerable" this year; and I have not really wished to try anyone's patience—the facts are exasperating enough. I can see practically all of us shaking our heads in some degree of despair. I wonder if I should worry about the otherworldly gleam I see in
snypsss's eyes, but we'll hope it's nothing, really.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 14, 2016, 03:51:20 AM
There is plenty of "N. is not, not the candidate I wanted, but I consider the alternative intolerable" this year; and I have not really wished to try anyone's patience—the facts are exasperating enough. I can see practically all of us shaking our heads in some degree of despair. I wonder if I should worry about the otherworldly gleam I see in snypsss's eyes, but we'll hope it's nothing, really.
I think it boils down to who can do the least damage. If we are already careening into socialism, (without the proper name for it otherwise people might stop to think), overweening bureaucracy and authoritarianism, then who is more likely to put on the brakes? These past 8 years have been a spending paradise with no thought for tomorrow, next year or putting our kids' future and theirs in hock. I'd really like to see a reduction in national debt. We can really start with that. That's where a businessman might be useful.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 04:14:38 AM
. . . I'd really like to see a reduction in national debt. We can really start with that. That's where a businessman might be useful.
Not surprisingly, I agree with that entirely. Where we differ is, his business record does not inspire the least confidence in me.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 14, 2016, 04:24:41 AM
Not surprisingly, I agree with that entirely. Where we differ is, his business record does not inspire the least confidence in me.
I think DT is genuinely concerned about the national debt. Bringing back outsourced jobs will help American workers.
We have been trying for more than a century to find an alternative to socialism that wasn't another way of doing it, but the failure is misrepresented as an ideological one, as in people want the wrong mix in the opinion of the unpeople. There is something very unsatisfactory about a diagnosis that puts ideas before the reality the ideas are about. The evolution of capitalism should not be very different from other institutions. Whatever capitalism and socialism were when they were more distinct than they are, now they are not. There's something left to distinguish them, so it can be said that socialism has more socialism in it than whatever it is the U.S. has. But even that doesn't capture the differences. I like to think that the advanced economies of the U.S. and Europe as representing the evolutionary paths out of the false capitalist/socialist dichotomy.
We are incapable of careening into some purist socialist or capitalist vision. That's all gone except at the level of political name calling.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 04:27:36 AM
I think DT is genuinely concerned about the national debt. Bringing back outsourced jobs will help American workers.
No one with sense is "concerned" about something that is only a name to them. DT doesn't know what a national debt is or what it's for, not a clue.
Quote from: drogulus on September 14, 2016, 04:47:03 AM
No one with sense is "concerned" about something that is only a name to them. DT doesn't know what a national debt is or what it's for, not a clue.
Then, we are all doomed. We don't owe anything. Keep on spending. Enjoy! Yippee, the barbarians are coming. Oh wait, they are already HERE???
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 04:50:50 AM
Then, we are all doomed. We don't owe anything. Keep on spending. Enjoy! Yippee, the barbarians are coming. Oh wait, they are already HERE???
Not necessarily. Only if we act on this (heh!) concern are we doomed. A funny thing happens to debt doomers when they get into a position of authority. Someone with actual sense explains national debt to them, how it works. Warren Mosler tell stories about how he explains how debt works to politicians, "But I can't say that!" they exclaim. How true, they can't just tell people what the real deal is, it's pitchfork level stuff. Politicians can't say "sorry we've mislead you all these years, we believed it too!".
On an almost continual basis the government replenishes the supply of money to the private sector by spending more dollars than it taxes back. Contrary to folk economics the government does not tax in order to spend, it spends first then taxes back the excess. That way people can have dollars to spend and save. Many are saved, which as good Keynesians we know means they must be replaced or the economy crashes. Note that we don't explain it to ourselves that way, sometimes we like to imagine that spending with deferred taxation isn't an operational necessity, but some kind of mistake we make continually for centuries.
We accidentally accumulate trillions in savings the economy apparently needs to function, record it as debt on the government books, during which the economy has grown far beyond anything in human history before the modern money system was developed, but before I forget it's a bad thing.
Lookie here:
https://www.youtube.com/v/Z1uWVj0YJ3M
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 04:14:38 AM
I think it boils down to who can do the least damage. If we are already careening into socialism, (without the proper name for it otherwise people might stop to think), overweening bureaucracy and authoritarianism, then who is more likely to put on the brakes?
Only an American could say that, hiding under the bed fearing socialism from a moderate Democrats like Hillary or Obama.
Under pressure from talk radio and Fox the USA have veered so far to the right that Hillary more or less fits into the slot that Nixon occupied two generations back. So was Nixon a covert socialist, too?
Or have people at large become crazier and stupider since then. Look at Snyprrr writings and the answer is obvious....
QuoteThese past 8 years have been a spending paradise with no thought for tomorrow, next year or putting our kids' future and theirs in hock. I'd really like to see a reduction in national debt. We can really start with that. That's where a businessman might be useful.
Running a business is not the same as running a big country. Second, Trump's business model depends on incurring gigantic debts and letting the business go broke after sucking the money out of them. Trump is dependent on foreign lenders these days because US banks won't give him a dime anymore.
So even if your notion of letting a businessman run te country were good (it isn't), Trump would be the last businessman to pick for the job.
Also the Newsweek stroy may be of interest if you want to know why Trump is unfit, due to his many ties to foreign money.
http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081?rm=eu
Quote from: Herman on September 14, 2016, 06:45:12 AM
Only an American could say that, hiding under the bed fearing socialism from a moderate Democrats like Hillary or Obama.
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf, socialism? Until it hits them in the face like Venezuela. Oh, people were ecstatic with all the promises Chavez made back then. Cheap talk like it is now.
Hillary wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky. Wonder where she got all those ideas of socialized medicine that she tried to ram through during her husband's presidency. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The bureaucracy is incredible now trying to get treatment under "Affordable Care" (my son can tell you all about that) which turns out to be more expensive and as in any socialist state, there is no opting out.
But there is something else that may be a game changer. If Hillary's medical issues are neurological, they are not going to get better. Stress and anxiety only compound the problem. Fear of yet another attack almost guarantees it happening again. Someone might have a talk with her to disabuse her of further self-abuse. If she wants to press on, she may be forced to concede. The DNC can choose another candidate that may very well be Biden. A person like may turn out to be the jack-in-the-box no one thought about (making a lot of what has been bandied around here somewhat irrelevant).
I wonder if historians of the future will write books with titles like 2016: The Year that Broke America
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on September 14, 2016, 07:00:53 AM
I wonder if historians of the future will write books with titles like 2016: The Year that Broke America
We're already broke, no money in the till, man, just figures on a ledger.
"Socialism" and "capitalism" are just two faces of the same coin --- "socialism" is actually "capitalism for the masses". They are equally materialistic, mechanistic and consummerist. They both promise "paradise on earth" and they both fail miserably, because their anthropological and social premises are equally wrong. ;D
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 04:50:50 AM
Then, we are all doomed. We don't owe anything. Keep on spending. Enjoy! Yippee, the barbarians are coming. Oh wait, they are already HERE???
The idea that sovereign debt is universally bad is too simple. The U.S. debt relative to the size of the economy has never higher than after World War II, that led to the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. In some sense the debt was never paid, the economy grew so large that the debt became insignificant.
It depends on what you do with the borrowed money. If you use the money to invest in something that produces economic growth you end up ahead. If you use the money in a way that produces nothing of value, such as a never-ending war which leaves the U.S. less secure than it started, end puts the government on the hook for life-long medical care for gravely injured soldiers, then it is bad.
Currently the U.S. has fallen behind the rest of the world in investment in physical infrastructure, scientific and technology infrastructure (research funding and education/training) and education. If more debt is necessary to remedy that situation, the US would be better off.
Quote from: Florestan on September 14, 2016, 07:51:00 AM
"Socialism" and "capitalism" are just two faces of the same coin --- "socialism" is actually "capitalism for the masses". They are equally materialistic, mechanistic and consummerist. They both promise "paradise on earth" and they both fail miserably, because their anthropological and social premises are equally wrong. ;D
What do you suggest as an alternative? "Enlightened monarchy" has some appeal.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 04:27:36 AM
I think DT is genuinely concerned about the national debt. Bringing back outsourced jobs will help American workers.
Really? This is what Warren Buffet had to say about Donald Trump:
"The big problem with Donald Trump was he never went right. He basically overpaid for properties, but he got people to lend him the money. He was terrific at borrowing money. If you look at his assets, and what he paid for them, and what he borrowed to get them, there was never any real equity there. He owes, perhaps, $3.5 billion now, and, if you had to pick a figure as to the value of the assets, it might be more like $2.5 billion. He's a billion in the hole, which is a lot better than being $100 in the hole because if you're $100 in the hole, they come and take the TV set. If you're a billion in the hole, they say 'hang in there Donald"
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-comments-on-trump-at-notre-dame-in-1991-134008040.html
To reiterate the Herman said, Donald Trump's assets have come from siphoning money from failing businesses, and leaving the investors and lenders holding the bag. You think that will work for the U.S. government?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 08:08:06 AM
What do you suggest as an alternative?
Nothing. Until their dialectics will not have exhausted itself, no new form can or will appear and nobody alive today can accurately predict what it will look like.
Quote
"Enlightened monarchy" has some appeal.
Alas! there are no longer monarchies, and those who seem to still hold are anything but enlightened.
Quote from: Scarpia on September 14, 2016, 08:12:57 AM
Really? This is what Warren Buffet had to say about Donald Trump:
"The big problem with Donald Trump was he never went right. He basically overpaid for properties, but he got people to lend him the money. He was terrific at borrowing money. If you look at his assets, and what he paid for them, and what he borrowed to get them, there was never any real equity there. He owes, perhaps, $3.5 billion now, and, if you had to pick a figure as to the value of the assets, it might be more like $2.5 billion. He's a billion in the hole, which is a lot better than being $100 in the hole because if you're $100 in the hole, they come and take the TV set. If you're a billion in the hole, they say 'hang in there Donald".
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-comments-on-trump-at-notre-dame-in-1991-134008040.html
To reiterate the Herman said, Donald Trump's assets have come from siphoning money from failing businesses, and leaving the investors and lenders holding the bag. You think that will work for the U.S. government?
Wow, Warren Buffet 25 years ago! Economic prophet without a church! We're all holding the bag for the failures of the big spenders and big talkers.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 08:08:06 AM
What do you suggest as an alternative? "Enlightened monarchy" has some appeal.
Wow, you're fighting the unwashed masses here all by yourself today! ;) POWER THROUGH!!
Quote from: Herman on September 14, 2016, 06:45:12 AM
Or have people at large become crazier and stupider since then. Look at Snyprrr writings and the answer is obvious....
Also the Newsweek stroy may be of interest if you want to know why Trump is unfit, due to his many ties to foreign money.
http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081?rm=eu
wHAT HAVE i SAID THAT WAS CRAZY???????
And, seriously, "foreign money", err hmmm... maybe Hill got a clitorectomy considering all the Saudi money she's taken?? Oh, I guess when you charged thousands of $$$ simply to "touch a child", well, I guess you're right, that must be domestic monies there...
You guys DESERVE Trump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!due to his many ties to foreign money. (wow, I don't know how that happened- gotta love flippin co mputerz)
I can see how a Trump presidency could start out like a NewGoldenAge... and then, at a prescribed time, POOOW!!, the "event" happens and then, baby, it's all over and it's WWIII and the "Rise of the Charismatic World Leader Who Is Already In Our Midst".
That seems like a very reasoned position, no?
I would think the first thing that would happen in a Hilly presidency is that she'd set a bomb off in a big city and declare marshal law and then go about murdering her political and media foes whilst UN troops guard the Deplorables...
There is not one honorable person in Politics today, and if there is, they are being buffeted on every side, or about to have a nasty "accident".
Howz THAT for business as usual, status quo????
IT'S A RACKET
A RACKET
ALL OF IT
WHEN WILL THEY START CHECKING ALL MAIL?????
see? caps lock has started. we're doomed!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 08:22:03 AM
Wow, Warren Buffet 25 years ago! Economic prophet without a church! We're all holding the bag for the failures of the big spenders and big talkers.
Buffet 25 years ago was talking about Trump in his heyday, and his opinion has not changed, he currently supports Clinton. Whether Buffet is a prophet or no, he has been a successful investor for half a century and seems to know something about how business works. What are his "big failures" that you speak of?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 07:00:34 AM
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf, socialism? Until it hits them in the face like Venezuela Norway.
The question is whether the U.S., as a civilization has more in common with Venezuela or with Norway.
Lock him up! Lock him up!
Trump's foundation is under investigation. Should he step aside?
What if criminal charges are brought? If Trump were elected and then subject to criminal prosecution, he would be subject to impeachment. Trump's claim to be the law-and-order candidate was always ridiculous; now it is a punch line.
Trumpkins had argued, not without justification, that if the FBI had made a recommendation to prosecute Hillary Clinton, it would force her to back out of the race. Surely the same standard should apply in Trump's case. And if the investigation is not complete by Election Day, how can voters elect someone whose tenure could be immediately cut short by criminal proceedings? Trump, of course, is already facing trial in a fraud case alleging that he swindled thousands of dollars from Trump University students. In other words, is Trump a crook? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/14/trumps-foundation-is-under-investigation-should-he-step-down/?utm_term=.26f884115255)
Quote from: snyprrr on September 14, 2016, 08:44:52 AMwHAT HAVE i SAID THAT WAS CRAZY???????
Where to begin..
(I still don't believe you're for real)
Quote from: Rinaldo on September 14, 2016, 09:30:39 AM
Where to begin..
(I still don't believe you're for real)
oh they're real all right
btw- read any good GucciferLeaks yet, like Colin Powell lamenting Bill still "dicking bimbos" at the house? Or Huma giving Hill credit for the "peeceful" pr0tests??
Why isn't GMG interested in all the billions of released secret correspondences going on in the world? Seems to be the entertainment of the century, no?
Quote from: snyprrr on September 14, 2016, 09:44:30 AM
oh they're real all right
btw- read any good GucciferLeaks yet, like Colin Powell lamenting Bill still "dicking bimbos" at the house? Or Huma giving Hill credit for the "peeceful" pr0tests??
Why isn't GMG interested in all the billions of released secret correspondences going on in the world? Seems to be the entertainment of the century, no?
Snyprrr, you've gone over the top. You're so relentlessly crazy you've become boring. ::)
Quote from: Scarpia on September 14, 2016, 09:50:58 AM
Snyprrr, you've gone over the top. You're so relentlessly crazy you've become boring. ::)
Happy Days "Jump the Shark" Episode
I guess I'll take that as a "No"? :( But, honestly, thank you, I feel like I just won some kind of award :'( 0:) 0:) Guess I'm going to DisneyWorld? :-\ :) :-[
Quote from: Scarpia on September 14, 2016, 09:50:58 AM
relentlessly crazy
does kinda have a ring to it, dont it? :laugh:
Back in the day, you occasionally saw cranks on a street corner handing out mimeographed handbills arguing that FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor, but you saw their bad haircuts, the bitterness in their eyes, and you turned away. Now they're in your computer, whispering that the economy is on the verge of collapse and for a few bucks they'll tell you how to protect your savings. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-concrete-shoes/2016/09/14/eb033ef8-7a90-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f380750e346b)
and the lolz wuz had by all... time for me to punch out, see ya tomorrow!! ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 14, 2016, 10:14:24 AM
Back in the day, you occasionally saw cranks on a street corner handing out mimeographed handbills arguing that FDR was responsible for Pearl Harbor, but you saw their bad haircuts, the bitterness in their eyes, and you turned away. Now they're in your computer, whispering that the economy is on the verge of collapse and for a few bucks they'll tell you how to protect your savings. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-concrete-shoes/2016/09/14/eb033ef8-7a90-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f380750e346b)
but the HistoryChannel said FDR knew. Karl,... the HistoryChannel
Cheers.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2llhywy.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/v/hBweUnkfQ2E
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 08:22:03 AM
Wow, Warren Buffet 25 years ago! Economic prophet without a church! We're all holding the bag for the failures of the big spenders and big talkers.
let's see... big spender, big talker.... who fits the picture best?
that would be Trump, spending other people's money, talking about how very very rich he is, and that he has the best brain etc etc ad inf.
Colin Powell on Trump and Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/colin-powell-dcleaks/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/colin-powell-dcleaks/index.html)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 07:00:34 AM
Hillary wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky. Wonder where she got all those ideas of socialized medicine that she tried to ram through during her husband's presidency. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The bureaucracy is incredible now trying to get treatment under "Affordable Care" (my son can tell you all about that) which turns out to be more expensive and as in any socialist state, there is no opting out.
The US health care system used to be one of the most expensive and least cost-effective. Plus tens of millions of US citizens weren't even in it. That's why it was broke, maybe not for you, but surely as a self-proclaimed Christian, you're aware, soemwhere, that there are other people too, and maybe some of them need help.
You also seem to be unaware that most Western democratic nations have a some form of collective healthcare; none of those countries are even remotely "socialist", in that the means of production are neither nationalized nor collective. They do however try to be civilized.
QuoteBut there is something else that may be a game changer. If Hillary's medical issues are neurological, they are not going to get better.
Try looking up pneumonia on google.
QuoteStress and anxiety only compound the problem. Fear of yet another attack almost guarantees it happening again. Someone might have a talk with her to disabuse her of further self-abuse. If she wants to press on, she may be forced to concede. The DNC can choose another candidate that may very well be Biden. A person like may turn out to be the jack-in-the-box no one thought about (making a lot of what has been bandied around here somewhat irrelevant).
if only you would know how misogynist this all sounds*. You desperately want the woman candidate talked to. This silly bad woman needs to be conducted out of the room, and then some uncle figure can take over. No more women, ever.
*Yes, we know you're a woman yourself.
It's a proven fact you can't rule the world if you've had pneumonia or your husband is a critter (SomeOne I Know defined "critter" as what Bill Clinton is with women).
Ok, cards on the table time.....I get a bit irked (?) by this foundation thing, it's too Clintonian by half with it's good works, friends of friends of BillHill and so forth. The family seem to have created a kind of "appearance of appearance of wrongdoing". Why do all their dealings appear worse than they likely are? The foundation is respected, it's not at all a sham or a front (I checked), so how do they manage to make it look so bad?
Quote from: Herman on September 14, 2016, 12:27:00 PM
Try looking up pneumonia on google. if only you would know how misogynist this all sounds*. You desperately want the woman candidate talked to. This silly bad woman needs to be conducted out of the room, and then some uncle figure can take over. No more women, ever. *Yes, we know you're a woman yourself.
I was thinking seriously of bowing out of this race and let the cards fall where they may in two months:
"Que sera, sera." It is symptomatic of a weak argument to have to bash the bearer of bad news. I don't need to be called or inferred a misogynist for bringing up the real medical concerns of a near 70 year old woman. Cumulatively, it doesn't look good at all for any person, man or woman, who aspires to be in the most demanding position of the US:
Clinton suffered her first blood clot in 1998 while she was First Lady and experienced a second incident in 2009
She suffered a concussion after falling in her home in 2013 near the end of her tenure as secretary of state
Her doctors say she has deep vein thrombosis, which can lead to clotting in leg veins
She suffered a blood clot in her brain in December 2011 and takes blood thinners to treat her condition
She has been diagnosed with hypothyroidism
Broke her elbow, as spokesman warned it would crimp her texting
Clinton collapsed when she left a 9/11 ceremony early on Sunday. Her office finally revealed she has pneumonia http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3786187/Three-blood-clots-concussion-deep-vein-thrombosis-Hillary-Clinton-s-shielded-medical-history-isn-t-just-conspiracy-theorists-penchant-privacy-gets-scrutiny.html
I don't need to be talked down to about pneumonia as I have had over the years severe bronchial problems. If she had it once, only recently, then what is the explanation for the other fainting fits? This doctor believes that the concussion (after a fall) was the result, not the cause, of underlying neurological problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPq7JiU7Bms
There are other characteristics that fit this hypothesis rather than a one time pneumonia. Why didn't she go to the ER on 9/11? If she had a fever why was she out on the street again after 2 hours? This is really goofy, but typical of all the schlock we are supposed to believe coming out of her camp. I won't go into the emails that no one can make head or tail from all the obfuscation. As for your "socialized medicine", it is common for those who can afford better treatment without having to wait long queues to get "private" doctors. Surely, Hillary would not stoop to mix with the masses in a crowded waiting room.
From a woman's point of view, she fits the type who simply won't give up, an Amazon who would cut off one of her boobs so she could shoot better with her bow and arrow. The problem in ignoring one's limitations, there comes a point where biology fights back and demands payment with a vengeance. Any suspicion of neurological problems is extremely serious. Nowhere on google does it say that one gets bug eyes, bobble head and knee buckling from pneumonia.
That said, I am out of here.
If I were shaking thousands of unwashed hands all day, for the entire year, and kiss the odd baby in between, skip a lot of time zones flying and sleep maybe six hours a night, and have to speak loudly for at least three hours a day there is no chance in hell I wouldn't get sick.
Trump doesn't shake hands.
Here is an American woman's take on the misogyny that shadows attitudes to Clinton's health.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/14/hillary-clinton-pneumonia-prejudices-sexism-women?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Surely this is the most brutal and brutalising campaign in the USA in living memory. I suppose the polarisation of attitudes, where there is nil respect between each side, for the candidate or beliefs of the opponents, prompts this willingness to go ever lower to gain political advantage.
In the UK we have made a very stupid choice. The mud is so deep that the politicians have not yet touched any rock bottom on which to stand. I hope that in the US you manage to avoid what could be an even worse disaster. I am taken aback at how close the race remains: when Trump should surely have rulled himself out for sane voters way before now.
Best of luck folks.
Mike
I appreciate the good wishes, Mike.
QuoteDespite gestures, Trump is the least transparent presidential nominee in modern U.S. history
Donald Trump made what his campaign billed as two major disclosures on Wednesday. First, an attorney provided a timeline of his Slovenia-born wife's immigration status. Then, amid questions about his health during a television interview, Trump pulled some medical test results out of his blazer pocket. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-with-new-details-trump-still-the-least-transparent-candidate-in-modern-times/2016/09/14/caaa0dba-7a92-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumptransparency-925pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: His devoteesIsn't that enough?
Oh Lord. You actually mandate that your Presidential candidates be over a certain age, then you obsess over their health.
Quote from: knight66 on September 14, 2016, 11:09:51 PM
Here is an American woman's take on the misogyny that shadows attitudes to Clinton's health.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/14/hillary-clinton-pneumonia-prejudices-sexism-women?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Surely this is the most brutal and brutalising campaign in the USA in living memory. I suppose the polarisation of attitudes, where there is nil respect between each side, for the candidate or beliefs of the opponents, prompts this willingness to go ever lower to gain political advantage.
In the UK we have made a very stupid choice. The mud is so deep that the politicians have not yet touched any rock bottom on which to stand. I hope that in the US you manage to avoid what could be an even worse disaster. I am taken aback at how close the race remains: when Trump should surely have rulled himself out for sane voters way before now.
Best of luck folks.
Mike
The article is indeed very much to the point.
Quote from: Rinaldo on September 14, 2016, 10:19:14 AM
Cheers.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2llhywy.jpg)
whiny woman
Quote from: snyprrr on September 15, 2016, 06:37:17 AM
whiny woman
Given you are one of the most whiny men I have ever encountered, this is a bit rich.
EDIT: Your posts discussing every excruciating detail of a recording, and how something doesn't live up to your standards because of one chord not having exactly the right dynamic level, etc etc.... that, Sir, is whining par excellence.
He cannot win . . . either he rambles and inserts Gobi-vast spaces . . . or he keeps himself economically to two words.
Generally, the two crassest words a body could come up with 0:)
The Marxists are laying on the "sexism" real real thick here, but it's just not a thing. If the ToeDragger were a man, she'd be Bob Dole.
END OF STORY
Hey, women, how bout this... if Hill goes down in flames, you learn to cook again? huh? Smartest Woman in the World and all.... pfffft
There's always Jill Stein, you freaks, so, let's just call this fake sexism what it is, a diversionary tactic. Hillary's toes were dragging, she's unfit. Period.
Hillary-Depends 2016
Still waiting on Trump to do something dumber than Hillary, but, no, Hill's got "craven" all taken care of.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 15, 2016, 06:45:46 AM
Given you are one of the most whiny men I have ever encountered, this is a bit rich.
ain't it? :laugh:
Hillary = Craven
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 15, 2016, 06:46:54 AM
He cannot win . . . either he rambles and inserts Gobi-vast spaces . . . or he keeps himself economically to two words.
Generally, the two crassest words a body could come up with 0:)
Hillary = Craven
Blue Sunglasses = Parkinsons
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 15, 2016, 07:14:30 AM
Ah, the sound of a mind snapping shut.
I didn't hear anything. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
It's remarkable how the democracies are under internal and external pressure much like they were in the '30s. The game seems to be to exploit both rational and irrational fear and obscure the difference. No rational appreciation is to be undertaken of what is a danger from Russian interference versus a danger
to their interference, and what Russia might gain from U.S "nonimposition" of its values on the next stage of fighting in the Ukraine or elsewhere in Eastern Europe. OK, it's largely settled we won't fight in Europe until it gets much much worse, so bad Europeans beg us to come in. They are still in "please don't make Russia mad at us by imposing values" mode. History is certainly rhyming its ass off.
Does this mean we're fated to repeat the pattern in full? No, but I find it worrying to have to rely on the judgment that Putin isn't the second coming of you know who, even if it's 75-25 he's not.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 15, 2016, 06:48:22 AM
The Marxists are laying on the "sexism" real real thick here, but it's just not a thing.
END OF STORY
Hey, women, how bout this... if Hill goes down in flames, you learn to cook again?
OK.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 15, 2016, 06:45:46 AM
EDIT: Your posts discussing every excruciating detail of a recording, and how something doesn't live up to your standards because of one chord not having exactly the right dynamic level, etc etc.... that, Sir, is whining par excellence.
Uh...that's kinda what we're supposed to do on this board, isn't it?
A news source says:
Crooked Hiltery bitten by half a dozen plague-ridden rats, one survives
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on September 15, 2016, 09:38:34 AM
Uh...that's kinda what we're supposed to do on this board, isn't it?
Discuss recordings? Yes. But no one else ever does it in the way that this bloke does.
"In many ways," says anthropologist Jane Goodall in the Oct. issue of the Atlantic, "the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals...in order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position."
Actually, I don't see the Don so much as a chimp, more like an orange-utan.
After Colin Powell last week, another former cabinet minister declares Trump unfit for the Presidency. Defense Secretary Bob Gates (under W. Bush and Obama) writes in a NY Times open ed that Trump is "beyond repair". Doesn't have much good to say about Clinton either.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/bob-gates-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-228315 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/bob-gates-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-228315)
Replies Trump: Gates is a "total clown", and "he probaly has a problem we don't know about". Oh yes, and Maureeen Dowd is a "wacky, neurotic dope". As for CNN Panel analysts, they are "losers in real life."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 15, 2016, 06:46:54 AM
He cannot win . . . either he rambles and inserts Gobi-vast spaces . . . or he keeps himself economically to two words.
Generally, the two crassest words a body could come up with 0:)
I'm pissy tonight!!... wanna fight?!!
please please??
any topic, you pick
ok, I'll pick.
But first I have a question. What will it take for you to put Trump to the side and concentrate solely on Hill?, and her career, life, character,... investigations, trimuphs,... whatever...
Q: What is Hill's single greatest achievement as Secretary of State?
You know, I really don't care anymore, because I think Bernie's gonna come back and I know all the wash will go for him, or, really, anyone else. I have realized that I can't NOT vote this time, but, again, the only reason I would have voted for T would have been to offset my poor dear mother's vote. BUT, now I realize that because the tards,... yes, because of the tards, I CAN'T vote for T because, since everything has being Either/Or, the only way to actually prove you are outside of their Hegelian Dialectic is to do the unthinkable and vote for Barney Fife or Our Lord Jesus Christ or Jack Webb or your dog.
Because, if your candidate can't win without your vote, then, maybe, that person isn't Ideally worth it. And yes, we are now living in a Post-Pragmatic/Status Quo ("just let the banks have their interest:) Era, so, voting for the "lesser evil" is not an option. PROTEST IS THE THIRD CHOICE. I protest by voting for Our Lord Jesus Christ to Rule from Heaven.
I guess what ticks me the most is this notion that "if you don't see things my way" your a "traitor/racist" (traitor if Rebup/racist if
Dem), or just "ill informed, mental illness". The people on this Forum slightly seem to echo the Democratic mantra of "the other side is all (The Deplorables), and we are just so enlightened and tolerant and loving and kind,... I mean, ...yea, especially when it comes to this Lightning Rod Personality- I've never seen such otherwordly hate- I mean, I feel that in a Barabbas Moment THE WORLD would...will end up picking the GreatCharismaticWorldLeader who will turn out to be the great butcher in history (The Time of Jacob's Trouble?). I think it could be Dubya... no, I'm kidding, but, my point is I believe you'd all vote for someone like him, just because he's running against T. Maybe T IS that World Leader? eh... evil is banal, no?
The evils you point towards T I see in spades in Hill, and she actually has a horrendous track record of PUBLIC record. He hasn't yet OFFICIALLY KILLED anyone yet. She most.certainly.has.-Lybia,Jordan,Syria,... oh, yea, forgot Vinnie. :laugh:
WHAT IS HE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT AS SECRETARY OF STATE??
You all say she's all that,... well, what is it?
And, "she cares a lot about women and children" doesn't couuunt!
ok, I'm lost and I'm ranting, what were we talking about. Who is this "whiny woman" anyway???? :-[
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 15, 2016, 06:46:54 AM
He cannot win . . . either he rambles and inserts Gobi-vast spaces (Wagner+Cage) . . . or he keeps himself economically to two words (Webern).
So, your saying I'm a Great Composer? thank you Karl ;)
And, I'm sorry to all the P-Whipped Brethren, but I can't find that Post about the "whiny woman"... who was it in reference to?
You know what's funny, 2016 is the year of the Beta Male... the Omerga Male... the Cucked Out (cuckhold)... the InCel (Involuntarily Celibate)... the list goes on. For some reason, if you're not a "Chad", you're an InCel living in mom's basement (now could be truer than ever), or, worse yet, a "GymCel" (Gym Celibate).
The is no more unfriendly year to the average male than 2016. While other groups are getting their time in the sun (the vast vast underground of "transexuals"), the AveMan is more on the outs than ever. If the geek ever had any chance in history, it was somewhere in the last 35 years; that window seemingly is being closed on a grind in 2016. Statistics say that 40% of Japanese between 25 and 40 are VIRGINS. 40%. Coming to a bed near YOU!!
Soon.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 15, 2016, 06:42:08 AM
What does your girlfriend think?
Well, she thinks Hill's a simple craven narsce powermad biotch who will do and say anything (and she means anything) to get that precious precious control of peoples' very lives. She thinks T is a businessman who shouldn't run, but understands that our entire political class is sucking bankster chode. That's what she thinks and it makes grudge sex smokin hawt!! (you asked :-\)
Quote from: ørfeø on September 15, 2016, 06:45:46 AM
Given you are one of the most whiny men I have ever encountered, this is a bit rich.
EDIT: Your posts discussing every excruciating detail of a recording, and how something doesn't live up to your standards because of one chord not having exactly the right dynamic level, etc etc.... that, Sir, is whining par excellence.
wait...
I didn't read the whole thing the first time. So, wait, are you saying because I Demand a Transcendental Experience for my hard earned DebtCapital--- no no no.,.. that's not whining... no,...
But ask anyone who's heard me whine about women, work, food, life,... yes, I admit i'm a whiny bitch,... but, pleeease Sir, do not besmirch my fiscal honour by insinuating that my... my... Discrimination is somehow the tantrums of a 9 year old. Oh, my offence ...
I shall seek satisfaction, Sir!!
Quote from: drogulus on September 15, 2016, 07:33:11 AM
I didn't hear anything. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
It's remarkable how the democracies are under internal and external pressure much like they were in the '30s. The game seems to be to exploit both rational and irrational fear and obscure the difference. No rational appreciation is to be undertaken of what is a danger from Russian interference versus a danger to their interference, and what Russia might gain from U.S "nonimposition" of its values on the next stage of fighting in the Ukraine or elsewhere in Eastern Europe. OK, it's largely settled we won't fight in Europe until it gets much much worse, so bad Europeans beg us to come in. They are still in "please don't make Russia mad at us by imposing values" mode. History is certainly rhyming its ass off.
Does this mean we're fated to repeat the pattern in full? No, but I find it worrying to have to rely on the judgment that Putin isn't the second coming of you know who, even if it's 75-25 he's not.
Perhaps it is now the way it was in New Testament times- all the elite political classes of the last fifty years have been expecting one of their bloodlines to give birth to the promised OneWorldCharismaticLeader who "brings the world together" under the banner of the Luciferian Mystery Religions of Pike and Blavatsky and Crowley (the 'Eyes Wide Shut' crowd). All the young girls, like Mary, believed that they could be the carrier of the Demiurge. Many believe that person to be amongst us today, waiting in the wings. We may already even know the name, be familiar.
Putin?... not so much. Try maybe... Turkey?
Remember, it's the kings of the North and the South, not the kings of the East and the West.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hill ends up getting eating by dogs after being betrayed by an ultra close confidant. If Trump were elected, he'd have every enemy in the world around him at all times, for four years, if he made it... if he weren't a dupe.
You think Hill (I mean, Israel) doesn't want war with Russia? And yes, I know T is beholden also. Aye, there's that rub again; no matter all the differences, there's always that links the candidates together- Israel Before America.
Quote from: North Star on September 15, 2016, 06:43:13 AM
As eloquent and perceptive as ever.
"Sexism Is Real"
No, no it's not.
And, sorry, that Guardian article was a completely Marxist hose job. Let's just remind everyone that it was Freud's nephew Edward Bernays who developed the discipline of Marketing, and first put cigarettes into the dainty fingers of the suphrajets.
Hello SexBot, bye bye whiny feminist!!!
"You don't need men now... but,... I fear it is them soon who will not need you."
I Dare You:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv-0XjrBVT0
Quote from: snyprrr on September 18, 2016, 06:08:07 PM
You know, I really don't care anymore [....]
I don't believe you 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 19, 2016, 04:38:31 AM
I don't believe you 8)
Indeed, no wonder he wrote seven posts in a row.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 18, 2016, 06:54:36 PM
Perhaps it is now the way it was in New Testament times- all the elite political classes of the last fifty years have been expecting one of their bloodlines to give birth to the promised OneWorldCharismaticLeader who "brings the world together" under the banner of the Luciferian Mystery Religions of Pike and Blavatsky and Crowley (the 'Eyes Wide Shut' crowd). All the young girls, like Mary, believed that they could be the carrier of the Demiurge. Many believe that person to be amongst us today, waiting in the wings. We may already even know the name, be familiar.
That's the one with Sam Neill, right?
(http://derekwinnert.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/3107.jpg)
I can't help seeing both sides of the question. Just like Grace Slick sang "two thousand years of your god damned glory....". Can't we just chill and let the other one have his turn? Why are people so
judgmental? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Anyone see the conspiracy theory videos about Hillary's recent event in North Carolina?
Quote from: Eli on September 19, 2016, 04:06:22 PM
Anyone see the conspiracy theory videos about Hillary's recent event in North Carolina?
This and this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjI6K4m4E80
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCP3HIhQgLI
(no comment)
Thanks, Donald.
'You can sleep tonight knowing the Klan is awake.' Fliers like these are showing up on lawns across the U.S. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/20/you-can-sleep-tonight-knowing-the-klan-is-awake-fliers-like-these-are-showing-up-on-lawns-across-the-u-s/?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-klan%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: jlaurson on September 20, 2016, 05:00:20 AM
over on twitter:
Man, how do you get time for all that?
(Notice, no political comment.)
All of you people who like historical books and movies about the Depression, the '30s in Europe and the U.S., war clouds and wars all over the world, does anything about the present situation strike you as familiar? I'm thinking about, oh, Huey Long, European fascism and wobbly democracies in Europe convinced that defending themselves would be provocative.
Keep this in mind. Churchill was a warmonger, his critics were not wrong about that, they were only wrong about the other warmongers Churchill was warning about.
I don't like the odds. You need to be very certain you're right to go the appeasement route. Are we very certain that Putin will burn out like a damp firework? He wants to restore the empire he grew up in, is it just "those were the good old days, comrade" or does he mean it? What do his actions reveal about his intentions?
The gamble is that we won't try to stop him. From his POV the odds look fairly good. He's got Trump, he's got NATO tottering, if I'm Putin why wouldn't I push it as far as I can?
About that, erm, "businessman":
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 14, 2016, 04:24:41 AM
Not surprisingly, I agree with that entirely. Where we differ is, his business record does not inspire the least confidence in me.
Sorry to restart an old discussion, but:
It's not just his business record. Trump's policy proposals are a deficit hawk's nightmare.
His ideas on how to deal with the repercussions have ranged from "renegotiation... You go back and you say, hey guess what, the economy crashed, I'm going to give you back half" (which he later claimed somehow meant trading debt for less debt at a higher interest rate, which is possible but does not reduce the actual repayment burden) and then to "you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?" (which should please MMTers but not anybody else).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/01/she-beat-her-son-with-a-hanger-and-said-indianas-religious-freedom-law-gives-her-the-right/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/01/she-beat-her-son-with-a-hanger-and-said-indianas-religious-freedom-law-gives-her-the-right/)
The Indiana Religious freedom law was passed by Mike Pence last year. At the time many were afraid LGBT would be discriminated against (denial of service on religious grounds).
Now it seems little children should be scared, too.
This brother and sister's sin: showing each other their private parts. They are 7 and 3, respectively.
Mike Pence is Trump's running mate and his possible successor if something happens to him.
Quote from: André on September 20, 2016, 03:21:17 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/01/she-beat-her-son-with-a-hanger-and-said-indianas-religious-freedom-law-gives-her-the-right/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/01/she-beat-her-son-with-a-hanger-and-said-indianas-religious-freedom-law-gives-her-the-right/)
The Indiana Religious freedom law was passed by Mike Pence last year. At the time many were afraid LGBT would be discriminated against (denial of service on religious grounds).
Now it seems little children should be scared, too.
This brother and sister's sin: showing each other their private parts. They are 7 and 3, respectively.
Mike Pence is Trump's running mate and his possible successor if something happens to him.
I'm just waiting for a jihadist to use one of those laws as a defense in a terrorism case.
Quote from: drogulus on September 19, 2016, 03:33:27 PM
That's the one with Sam Neill, right?
Gotta love it! ;) Curiously, it's the only Serious Horror Film I can think of where "Jesus" Himself "saves the day" and kills Damian. Can you think of any other Horror Film even WITH Jesus? It hit me recently that HFs would be of a different lot if that were the case. In Hammer Films, it's the "force of Good" and such... curious, eh?
(http://derekwinnert.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/3107.jpg)
I can't help seeing both sides of the question. Just like Grace Slick sang "two thousand years of your god damned glory....". Can't we just chill and let the other one have his turn? Why are people so judgmental? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
What does Grace Slick know of Our Lord Jesus Christ? :laugh:
And... now now, droggy... you err, not knowing the Scriptures. The World=Kosmos has been given into the Devil's hands.
"For by Grace are you Saved thru Faith; and that not of yourself: it IS the "Gift of God": not of (your own) works lest any man should boast."The evil works that have been done in His name... c'mon, you know he's not to blame for that. Even the Devil will become an Angel of Light to those who turn their back on Abba Father.
eh?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2016, 04:09:47 AM
Thanks, Donald.
'You can sleep tonight knowing the Klan is awake.' Fliers like these are showing up on lawns across the U.S. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/20/you-can-sleep-tonight-knowing-the-klan-is-awake-fliers-like-these-are-showing-up-on-lawns-across-the-u-s/?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-klan%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
DOH!Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 20, 2016, 08:20:11 AM
About that, erm, "businessman":
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html)
http://www.clintoncashbook.com/
drrrrr....Hey, I can play this game all night!! :)
If I were "Those Who Pull the Strings No Matter Who Wins",... well, if I were them, and I heard all this back and forth about how this one or that one were the anti-christ, well, I'd make suuure, oh so sure, that NO MATTER WHO WINS, I'd still stick it to you good and hard. If one of them tried to be a "good guy", and take it easy on you Americans, well well, I would just do some of that dreaded "fiscal fiddle fingers" and stir some shit up in the world economy... whatever it would take for you to ALL taste some sweet ass destruction in ONE HOUR. Oh, the looks on your faces when the market goes through the trap door and closes above it. Oh, the sound of hundreds of millions of fat and entitled Exceptionalists losing their shit at exactly the same moment. Oh how delicious to destroy your sports and entertainment addled, phone and texting soaked, Yahoo fed News Cycle gushy mushy excuse for a brain.
Oh yea, did I mention the soy lecithin?
"I happened into an Arby's. I was starving, there was nothing else. It seemed the least offensive choice. Behind the counter is a young suburban black girl. In front of me is what looks like Oafus Americanus Modernus, a 6'4", christmas tree shaped white dude with a shock of graying hair and a wee moustache, looking every inch the stereotype of Off Duty Donut Cop, only he was maybe 30 and had the demeanor of a GenY... GenZ?... IT nerd. I think I blocked out whatever fandom his t-shirt advertised.
So the girl asks him, 'Do you want to donate $1 to help hungry kids?'. He says no, but then at the end he- well, he must have been thinking about something, and he gave a dollar.
Now, I know that in these charity scams that you now get at just about every check out at any corporate business, the business will hold the receipts for some months, collect the interest, and then send off the monies,... or,... what not.
So, I'm looking at this guy, and now he just looks like someone I want to bitch slap. Are those the chubby fingers of a game playing keyboard warrior, I wondered. Rage is filling me as it dawns on me that this guy is somehow massively, on a micro scale, part of the problem. What guilt within him made him hand over the money? What in him didn't ask if this was legit? Would this guy even fight back? No matter, I've had to pummel big pussies before, for no other reason than to cripple them enough from being able to be seen in public.
"You know that all these cashier charity donations are held by the companies for their own profit before they're sent away?"
"That's ok." Is that the smug look of a white knight?
I repeat the line to her. Crane-nodding, she agrees, "Yea, I know they do that." I was hoping we could tag-team this guy, but I realized that maybe my blood sugar was low and that I should eat first. I passed a table from the Suburban Chainsaw Massacre and wondered how I got here. Where was Hillary?"
Its a real pity you're dumping all over this thread and subverting the conversation into having people comment on you and your sillyness rather than the news, because there are a great many intelligent voices on this forum who I'd like to hear discuss and debate these unfolding events.
It's pretty bad when your own political party can't stand you. Sorry, Trump, but you should go home and put some more hairspray on that orange mop you call you hair and just give the election over the Hilary.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 20, 2016, 07:05:50 PM
Hey, I can play this game all night!! :)
You and breitbart.com.
Go to school and learn what a news source is. You'll thank me for it. In time, there may even be a thinning of your herd of pet conspiracy theories.
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 20, 2016, 07:42:27 PM
Its a real pity you're dumping all over this thread and subverting the conversation into having people comment on you and your sillyness rather than the news, because there are a great many intelligent voices on this forum who I'd like to hear discuss and debate these unfolding events.
The ignore list has rarely been so useful.
After a severe crash the electorate goes bonkers and it won't unbonkerize until we earn a normal recession. The economy is too weak to provide one. The weakest minds crack under pressure and grab the first conspiracy they see and following the usual pattern must universalize to infinity. All conspiracies are true by adoption, opponents are in on "it" by necessity. The fever will run its course not unlike the ebb and flow of terrorism. Junior loves the old man but thinks his obsessions are a little ridiculous, tied to a vanished world.
Frankenstein, [Susan Tyler] Hitchcock says, is usually applied to something that "seemed like it was a good idea to begin with that overwhelms and destroys its creator," something that "becomes more damaging than anyone first conceived."
But its application to Donald Trump, she believes, is unfair — to Frankenstein. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/21/the-frankentrump-meme-unfair-to-frankenstein/?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-frankenstein%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
https://www.youtube.com/v/9hIFDaGs8l8
Quote from: ørfeø on September 21, 2016, 05:08:16 AM
The ignore list has rarely been so useful.
just skip, unless you have a yen for getting annoyed.
"When Donald Trump first announced his candidacy almost a year and a half ago, I kept expecting him to turn around and declare the whole thing a cruel joke at the expense of the Republican Party ... "
Elegantly written comment by Alexei Bayer
http://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/alexei-bayer-can-the-world-trust-trumps-america-423350.html?utm_content=buffereaeec&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 20, 2016, 07:42:27 PM
Its a real pity you're dumping all over this thread and subverting the conversation into having people comment on you and your sillyness rather than the news, because there are a great many intelligent voices on this forum who I'd like to hear discuss and debate these unfolding events.
i'm sorry you feel that way :(
I'm just testing your resolve to ignore me. Try harder!! POWER THROUGH!!
CUTHULU 2016
Old Man Bush Endorses Hillary
Yea, that guy.
I guess you'll all say that he "finally came around... he's not so bad after all?"
GREATER EVIL 2016
Quote from: snyprrr on September 21, 2016, 09:13:22 AM
I guess you'll all say that he "finally came around... he's not so bad after all?"
I'll say, the man shows grace at a level to which you may unfortunately always remain a stranger:
I post this, even though I realize it won't change anyone's mind.
Donald Trump is not just any run-of-the-mill, mostly secular politician feigning (poorly) religious literacy. He is inimical to virtually all the values that social conservatives claim to believe in — including the Golden Rule and "turn the other cheek." His immigration stance is an affront to many Christians. But don't take my word for it [....] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/21/trump-dispatches-pence-to-court-evangelicals/?utm_term=.8016d5cf5c33)
Trump has no standards to violate, not secular humanist, sham religious, nor religious. I think this goes well beyond brand identification or identity affiliation, it goes all the way down to a screaming id: Meeeeee!!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 21, 2016, 09:23:18 AM
I'll say, the man shows grace at a level to which you may unfortunately always remain a stranger:
"I wish you great happiness...never felt the loneliness..."
Sure, Billy-boy had a blast in the Oval Office.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
As for the Bushes, PLEASE read up on the family's history before praising him or their kith and kin. I spent a large part of the summer of 2014 doing just that.
They are anything but graceful. I am so sorry I voted for the last jerk, Dubya. Anyone who talked and acted like a cretin should have never gotten as far except for his family connections. The spoiler of Iraq (I also spent lots of time investigating the aftermath of spent uranium over there - incredible horror not only to innocent civilians but our troops, and for WHAT?) now is painting puppies! The fact that George Walker is supporting Hill, just shows how the TWO parties are in collusion with one another. An outsider to all that is definitely a boon.
I always, always liked George Bush Senior.
Did you know that he refused to agree to an invasion of Iraq following on from the liberation of Kuwait? The people who wanted that basically hung around until Bush Jr was in power.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 21, 2016, 10:00:45 PM
"I wish you great happiness...never felt the loneliness..."
Sure, Billy-boy had a blast in the Oval Office.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
As for the Bushes, PLEASE read up on the family's history before praising him or their kith and kin. I spent a large part of the summer of 2014 doing just that.
They are anything but graceful. I am so sorry I voted for the last jerk, Dubya. Anyone who talked and acted like a cretin should have never gotten as far except for his family connections. The spoiler of Iraq (I also spent lots of time investigating the aftermath of spent uranium over there - incredible horror not only to innocent civilians but our troops, and for WHAT?) now is painting puppies! The fact that George Walker is supporting Hill, just shows how the TWO parties are in collusion with one another. An outsider to all that is definitely a boon.
All taken under advisement. I stand by my assessments, both of the grace of that letter, and of our
snypsss's apparent capacity 8)
There was no racism before the current President? Thanks, Obama.
Trump Jr: "Who knows if that's politically motivated or not, but our tax counsel, going through a 12,000-page tax return, has said they wouldn't advise us to [release the returns]. It could create all sorts of other problems. I'm going to listen to them on that...
What we want to do is keep the message on point... We've seen how viral that craziness goes. We want to keep on point"
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 21, 2016, 10:00:45 PM
"I wish you great happiness...never felt the loneliness..."
Sure, Billy-boy had a blast in the Oval Office.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
As for the Bushes, PLEASE read up on the family's history before praising him or their kith and kin. I spent a large part of the summer of 2014 doing just that.
They are anything but graceful. I am so sorry I voted for the last jerk, Dubya. Anyone who talked and acted like a cretin should have never gotten as far except for his family connections. The spoiler of Iraq (I also spent lots of time investigating the aftermath of spent uranium over there - incredible horror not only to innocent civilians but our troops, and for WHAT?) now is painting puppies! The fact that George Walker is supporting Hill, just shows how the TWO parties are in collusion with one another. An outsider to all that is definitely a boon.
It is too easy to assume that being "an outsider" is sufficient. Independent fact checkers have reported that more than half of what Donald Trump says is an outright falsehood. Just this week he announced that he was finally responsible for putting the "birther" conspiracy theory to rest, then stated that the birther claim had been originated by Hillary Clinton (utterly false). I can't see that a person with no honor and no respect for the truth can fix anything.
Something to ponder:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
Report to the Honorable Bob Barr House of Representatives
pp.1-2:
"On June 5, 2001, the counsel to the president provided us with a list of damage that was discovered in the White House complex during the first days of the Bush administration.
The list was prepared by OA, which provides common administrative support and services to units within the White House complex, which may include the procurement and maintenance of computers, telephones, furniture, and other personal property...It listed missing building fixtures, such as doorknobs and a presidential seal;computer keyboards with missing "W" keys; damaged and overturned furniture; telephone lines pulled from the wall; telephones with missing telephone number labels; fax machines moved to the wrong areas and a secure telephone left open with the key in it; offices left in a state of "general trashing," including the contents of desk drawers dumped on the floor, a glass desk top smashed and on the floor, and refrigerators unplugged with spoiled food; writing on the walls; and voice mail greetings that had obscene messages. The list also indicated that six to eight 14-foot trucks were needed to recover usable supplies that had been thrown away."
pp.44-45:
"The June 2001 list indicated that 100 computer keyboards had to be replaced because the "W" keys had been removed...Twenty-six EOP staff told us that they observed a total of 30 to 64 computer keyboards with missing or damaged (glued, whited-out, or pushed down)"W" keys in specific rooms or offices. We developed a range reflecting the observations because some staff said they saw different numbers of keyboards with missing or damaged "W" keys in the same rooms or offices and as a means of eliminating double counting."
Some fun stuff:
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton all die and go to heaven.
Let's assume that they make it past St. Peter and get to see God.
God says to Bill, "You look familiar..."
Bill Clinton says "Hi I'm Bill Clinton and I used to be president of the USA."
God says "OK, you can sit to the left of me."
Al Gore says "Hi, I'm Al Gore and I used to be vice-president."
God says, "OK, you can sit to the right of me."
Hilllary says, "I'm Hillary Rodham Clinton, and GET THE F OUT OF MY CHAIR."
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 22, 2016, 09:07:20 PM
Something to ponder:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf
Report to the Honorable Bob Barr House of Representatives
As any ordinary person would do, I checked this story, and it turns out to be a joke.
There was NO damage in the White House after the the Clinton Bush handover. Zero damage.
People who work those kind of jobs as White Gouse staffer are very well aware that a spotless CV is crucial.
This story was intended as a joke, but is (anybody surprised?) now taken as gospel by gullibe rightwingers.
Quote from: Herman on September 23, 2016, 03:45:16 AM
As any ordinary person would do, I checked this story, and it turns out to be a joke.
There was NO damage in the White House after the the Clinton Bush handover. Zero damage.
People who work those kind of jobs as White Gouse staffer are very well aware that a spotless CV is crucial.
This story was intended as a joke, but is (anybody surprised?) now taken as gospel by gullibe rightwingers.
Apparently the New York Times did not get the "joke":
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us/white-house-vandalized-in-transition-gao-finds.html?_r=0
As well as across the pond:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-17833/Clinton-staff-accused-vandalising-White-House.html
Quote from: Herman on September 23, 2016, 03:45:16 AM
As any ordinary person would do, I checked this story, and it turns out to be a joke.
There was NO damage in the White House after the the Clinton Bush handover. Zero damage.
People who work those kind of jobs as White Gouse staffer are very well aware that a spotless CV is crucial.
This story was intended as a joke, but is (anybody surprised?) now taken as gospel by gullibe rightwingers.
I'll keep an open mind but the retractions came around May 2001. A year later, the story or rather the investigation, was still going on:
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/12/nation/na-clinton12
One cannot say "zero damage" either because it was admitted that the staff of about 500 people left their footprints behind. Also there was the incident of moving out furniture and gifts to the White House by the Clintons that they were forced to return.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 23, 2016, 04:15:19 AM
Also there was the incident of moving out furniture and gifts to the White House by the Clintons that they were forced to return.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-stole-white-house-furniture/
Someone who is prepared to believe the worst about a public figure, is not necessarily biased. The key is readiness to consider evidence that I may be mistaken.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 23, 2016, 04:15:19 AM
I'll keep an open mind but the retractions came around May 2001. A year later, the story or rather the investigation, was still going on:
Crap on the internet never dies.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 23, 2016, 05:22:18 AM
Someone who is prepared to believe the worst about a public figure, is not necessarily biased. The key is readiness to consider evidence that I may be mistaken.
It's not that at all, not with me anyway. "Public figure" has nothing to do with it. Rather it is the unwillingness to accept what perfidy and destructiveness human beings in general are capable of.
The following vid was originally linked to Lebrecht's blog about a month ago. Maybe this is the wrong place for it and I'm willing to move it. However, musicians can come together in sympathy for a violin maker whose $1.3 million collection was trashed by a vicious ex-wife:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waMjh11BY1Y
I said that I remain open to any interpretation. Also I am not defending either of the candidates. If one is wrong, it doesn't make the other right. Somehow it reminds me of kids taking the side of either mommy or daddy. Actually they can be both horribly wrong in their own way but it takes maturity to admit that.
Similarly, maturity is a process whereby we cannot ignore the problem of evil. Maybe one is lucky if deeply disturbed people don't come into one's path wreaking destruction. I am now witnessing the meltdown of someone who caused so much damage over decades. Yet, she might come across as a nice person! She fooled a lot of people, at least temporarily, especially if they had something she wanted. If any good came out my association with her (couldn't help it, born into the same family), it gave me a good BS detector.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 23, 2016, 05:56:23 AM
It's not that at all, not with me anyway. "Public figure" has nothing to do with it. Rather it is the unwillingness to accept what perfidy and destructiveness human beings in general are capable of.
The following vid was originally linked to Lebrecht's blog about a month ago. Maybe this is the wrong place for it and I'm willing to move it. However, musicians can come together in sympathy for a violin maker whose $1.3 million collection was trashed by a vicious ex-wife:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waMjh11BY1Y
I said that I remain open to any interpretation. Also I am not defending either of the candidates. If one is wrong, it doesn't make the other right. Somehow it reminds me of kids taking the side of either mommy or daddy. Actually they can be both horribly wrong in their own way but it takes maturity to admit that.
Similarly, maturity is a process whereby we cannot ignore the problem of evil. Maybe one is lucky if deeply disturbed people don't come into one's path wreaking destruction. I am now witnessing the meltdown of someone who caused so much damage over decades. Yet, she might come across as a nice person! She fooled a lot of people, at least temporarily, especially if they had something she wanted. If any good came out my association with her (couldn't help it, born into the same family), it gave me a good BS detector.
Thanks.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 23, 2016, 05:22:18 AM
Someone who is prepared to believe the worst about a public figure, is not necessarily biased. The key is readiness to consider evidence that I may be mistaken.
As I typed, I thought about El Tupé and me. Am I just simply ready to believe the worst of him? Is there good he is doing which I am, to my own discredit, filtering out, but which I should consider against (what seem to me) his obvious and irredeemable flaws?
I am not certain. One thing which seems near certain: he has a regular talent for generating news unflattering to himself.
zb, I take your point about both parties being orful. None of us other than perhaps El Tupé and his accountants is really enjoying the process this year.
If we're going to talk about the evil that human beings are capable of, we also need to talk about the gullibility that human beings are capable of, the inability to reason that human beings are capable of, the imperviousness to facts that human beings are capable of, and all the other things that have enabled the TV show "QI" to run for 13 seasons.
These are all a lot more common than genuine evil. Large numbers of people believe a hell of a lot of things that aren't actually true (and indeed are often provably false), and have been doing so for many centuries.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 23, 2016, 06:11:08 AM
If we're going to talk about the evil that human beings are capable of, we also need to talk about the gullibility that human beings are capable of, the inability to reason that human beings are capable of, the imperviousness to facts that human beings are capable of, and all the other things that have enabled the TV show "QI" to run for 13 seasons.
The sheer volume of impermeable falsehood streaming daily from El Tupé's pie-hole.
Seriously: let that man in the White House, and we'll be drawing comparisons between DC in the 2010s and Moscow in the 1930s.
Orfeo, Yes indeed.
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1247448632014855/
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on September 23, 2016, 06:25:09 AM
Orfeo, Yes indeed.
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1247448632014855/
Yikes, that was funny but also frightening.
Electioneering is no different from selling an advertised brand, meaning people will go by their gut feelings which have already been manipulated, only they think they have (mental) "opinions".
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 23, 2016, 06:39:48 AM
Yikes, that was funny but also frightening.
Electioneering is no different from selling an advertised brand, meaning people will go by their gut feelings which have already been manipulated, only they think they have (mental) "opinions".
I am reading this but slowly, and IIRC I have our esteemed
Jeffrey to thank for calling it to my (slow) attention, but it discusses those very issues:
[asin]B00555X8OA[/asin]
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 23, 2016, 06:08:38 AM
As I typed, I thought about El Tupé and me. Am I just simply ready to believe the worst of him? Is there good he is doing which I am, to my own discredit, filtering out, but which I should consider against (what seem to me) his obvious and irredeemable flaws?
I am not certain. One thing which seems near certain: he has a regular talent for generating news unflattering to himself.
zb, I take your point about both parties being orful. None of us other than perhaps El Tupé and his accountants is really enjoying the process this year.
and you seriously can't say that about Cankles also???????? "wiped it with a cloth?"
come on Karl, please, all I ask is that you acknowledge the Nurse Ratchet Syndrome going on here
"WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED"
9(sorry... I have the worst problem with caps lock.... I am seeking help for it....)
ANYHOW SLACKERS!!!!
Can't let this ole Thread get bumped away... we've got a big debate to get all cringy over tonight. I can't possibly watch... the titillation factor is too great... I would be expecting too much social horror...
i GUESS EVEN THE AUDIENCE WILL BE WEARING EARPIECES, EH?
(again!!!!!)- how does this happen????)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 23, 2016, 05:50:03 AM
QFT
QFT also be Quantum Field Theory or Queens Film Theatre.
Seriously, it is not too late to cancel the debate by whoever feels under the weather...
Only 10 hours to go...
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 26, 2016, 07:06:04 AM
Seriously, it is not too late to cancel the debate by whoever feels under the weather...
Only 10 hours to go...
You mean, Clinton gets points just for showing up? 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 26, 2016, 07:13:51 AM
You mean, Clinton gets points just for showing up? 8)
waiting with bated breath...
I'm not looking forward to the debate. I'm afraid Roger Ailes is planning to unleash a particularly unpleasant jab at Her Beastness. The object will to lower the tone and content to a level commensurate with the Orange Baby skill set.
I simply can´t stand the sight of Trump, have had enough.
Even though it´s being broadcast here too, no thanks.
It was a crude, un-presidential move, only serving to remind voters of Trump's temperament and make Clinton seem sympathetic.
[...]
It would be a mistake, however, for Clinton to simply try to bait Trump or to play "not to lose" tonight. Her biggest problem lies in the perception that she is a creature of the status quo, too conventional to bring about change most voters want. Her most difficult question won't be about the emails. (She should apologize, point out Trump never does and then move on.) It will be: What will you change? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/26/hillarys-toughest-question/?utm_term=.49a103b7c25e)
My wife and I are treating tonight's debate something like a Super Bowl party - complete with pigs-in-blankets, other hot snacks, and champagne with a few friends.
8)
Quote from: sanantonio on September 26, 2016, 11:07:31 AM
My wife and I are treating tonight's debate something like a Super Bowl party - compete with pigs-in-blankets, other hot snacks, and champagne with a few friends.
8)
We're having pumpkin pie and a couple bottles of wine.
Hard cider for me.
Quote from: Brian on September 26, 2016, 11:16:16 AM
We're having pumpkin pie and a couple bottles of wine.
And the rest of us here at GMG are not invited?
Quote from: sanantonio on September 26, 2016, 11:07:31 AM
My wife and I are treating tonight's debate something like a Super Bowl party - compete with pigs-in-blankets, other hot snacks, and champagne with a few friends.
8)
Sounds great. I think I'll follow you except for the wife part, which I don't have (yet). It's certainly going to be entertaining if nothing else.
We have a Triad rehearsal, so watching it while it's in progress is a non-starter. I rely on you all to enjoy it in real time for me.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: André on September 26, 2016, 11:26:24 AM
Hard cider for me.
You have it all wrong ! You need 56 degree Whisky, Tequilla and the steepest vodka you can lay your hands on !
Quote from: sanantonio on September 26, 2016, 11:07:31 AM
My wife and I are treating tonight's debate something like a Super Bowl party - complete with pigs-in-blankets, other hot snacks, and champagne with a few friends.
8)
That's wonderful, you must have strong stomachs. I am not going to watch it, too gut wrenching. I will catch the headlines in the morning UK time.
Enjoy!
Mike
I will be watching as well. (Some beer may or may not be consumed. 8) ) PS, my favorite quote today comes from Andy Borowitz in The New Yorker:
Across the country, liquor stores reported a desperate run on their merchandise as Americans fortified themselves for what many called "ninety minutes of horror."
8)
--Bruce
I and my Political Analyst will watch, even though there's nothing in the house to shoot up.
The sheer incoherence of this thing is already past belief. And we have an hour to go. Where's that pumpkin pie?
He keeps shouting over her and interrupting her. Lester Holt cannot control either of them, but most of all him. She nailed him on the tax returns issue.
Hillary isn't talking like people actually talk... Someone is talking in her ear and she keeps pausing to hear and repeat.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 26, 2016, 05:45:57 PMHe keeps shouting over her and interrupting her. Lester Holt cannot control either of them, but most of all him. She nailed him on the tax returns issue.
I stopped watching about 20 minutes ago...aghh...all he does is interrupt her ad nauseam.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 26, 2016, 06:14:42 PM
I stopped watching about 20 minutes ago...aghh...all he does is interrupt her ad nauseam.
Yes and a demon hasn't escaped from her soul. It's been quite a let down.
Quote from: Eli on September 26, 2016, 06:05:46 PM
Hillary isn't talking like people actually talk... Someone is talking in her ear and she keeps pausing to hear and repeat.
She has to keep pausing because she can't get a word in because of El Tupé.
Imagine if it was Hillary doing all the sniffing..
Quote from: Eli on September 26, 2016, 06:17:25 PM
Yes and a demon hasn't escaped from her soul. It's been quite a let down.
I saw it come out and go back in. It was very reassuring to see she still has what it takes. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 26, 2016, 05:45:57 PM
He keeps shouting over her and interrupting her. Lester Holt cannot control either of them, but most of all him. She nailed him on the tax returns issue.
My thoughts precisely. If Trump wanted to give the impression that he could act mature and debate on the merit of substance, he certainly failed tonight.
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 26, 2016, 06:47:51 PM
My thoughts precisely. If Trump wanted to give the impression that he could act mature and debate on the merit of substance, he certainly failed tonight.
Bingo!
Trump's "tax evasion makes me smart" and "Rosie deserved it" responses were especially telling. He started off sort of composed but the wheels came off pretty quickly. Also, Hillary's reaction to him claiming to have a good temperament were priceless.
This pretty much sums it up:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/vhbzh3.jpg)
Quote from: Rinaldo on September 26, 2016, 07:01:25 PM
Trump's "tax evasion makes me smart" and "Rosie deserved it" responses were especially telling. He started off sort of composed but the wheels came off pretty quickly. Also, Hillary's reaction to him claiming to have a good temperament were priceless.
Trump's general temperament and need to spout off whatever nonsense he feels like saying will be his undoing. His mouth has already gotten him into some hot water. We're all just waiting for him to boil over at this juncture.
Quote from: Rinaldo on September 26, 2016, 07:05:51 PM
This pretty much sums it up:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/vhbzh3.jpg)
Hah! :laugh:
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 26, 2016, 07:11:30 PM
Trump's general temperament and need to spout off whatever nonsense he feels like saying will be his undoing. His mouth has already gotten him into some hot water. We're all just waiting for him to boil over at this juncture.
"She has no stamina" is going to contribute to that. We all know what kind of stamina he's talking about. I bet he lost a lot of women right there.
Give credit where it's due, Hillary goaded Trump into being himself. He started out under control but before long she got him to say it was smart he didn't pay taxes! By the end he had Captain Queeged himself thoroughly. I thought Hillary's little smiles of delight as Trump floundered were perhaps a little demonic, but not offensively so. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
(https://images.newrepublic.com/e1eb4b965643d673a4181cbd079be8d62ea3aaa7.png?w=600&q=65&dpi=1&h=375)
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/evil.gif)
Seen on a FB thread.
Not watching. Know what they're like. He is a reality TV star. She is like Madame deFarge without the charm.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 26, 2016, 07:24:19 PM
"She has no stamina" is going to contribute to that. We all know what kind of stamina he's talking about. I bet he lost a lot of women right there.
I nearly choked on my popcorn when he spouted off that ridiculous assertion about Clinton. I don't think I'll be watching the other two debates. It's going to be the same thing all over again and, quite frankly, I just don't have the stamina. ;) ;D
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 26, 2016, 07:50:23 PM
I nearly choked on my popcorn when he spouted off that ridiculous assertion about Clinton. I don't think I'll be watching the other two debates. It's going to be the same thing all over again and, quite frankly, I just don't have the stamina. ;) ;D
Really? That was an hour in! My popcorn only lasted 10 minutes...
Quote from: Eli on September 26, 2016, 08:25:55 PM
Really? That was an hour in! My popcorn only lasted 10 minutes...
It took me awhile to go through the tub of popcorn I had. :)
(Sidebar: If you have to say you have one of the best temperaments, you probably don't.) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/winners-and-losers-from-the-1st-presidential-debate/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_winnerslosers-1115pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Twitter. Oh, man.
On his twitter account Howard Dean has hinted at a sniffgate. A cheap shot, but the thought must have crossed many minds during the debate.
Last night's debate did not change anyone's vote. While I think Trump missed a couple of opportunities to put Clinton on the defense, I thought both candidates were mediocre overall. It was more boring than I expected. For Howard Dean to suggest that Trump's audible sniffing indicated cocaine use is ridiculous. But, if that's the best they can come up with, I'd say Trump did okay.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 04:53:31 AM
Last night's debate did not change anyone's vote. While I think Trump missed a couple of opportunities to put Clinton on the defense, I thought both candidates were mediocre overall. It was more boring than I expected. For Howard Dean to suggest that Trump's audible sniffing indicated cocaine use is ridiculous. But, if that's the best they can come up with, I'd say Trump did okay.
You know, if Howard Dean's absurdly snide remark were the best, I'd agree.
I partly agree that the debate did not change the vote of most viewers (didn't change mine, and it is possible that your post suggests that it did not change yours). But there is indeed a minority of genuinely changeable voters, and there are reasons why even Republicans think that El Tupé was a disaster.
Disaster might be an exaggeration, but while I don't think Clinton "won" the debate (except by default), he did lose it. He missed too many opportunities.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 05:25:50 AM
Disaster might be an exaggeration, but while I don't think Clinton "won" the debate (except by default), he did lose it. He missed too many opportunities.
Sure.
Trump got clobbered. He has a serial inability to recognize when he is being baited; thus highly damaging (paraphrased, but still highly damaging) exchanges like this:
Hillary: Trump was racist in the 70s!
Trump: Sure, but EVERYBODY was!
Hillary: Trump pays no taxes!
Trump: That's just smart!
Hillary: Trump calls women slobs and pigs!
Trump: Yeah, but Rosie O'Donnell is totally a pig!
He had no counterattacks ready at all - indeed, the one time he brought up her emails, he immediately tangented away from her emails to rant about LaGuardia and JFK airports!
I actually liked Hillary more in this debate than I did before; maybe that comes from having terribly low expectations, but she was calm and collected and disproved that old saw about arguing with idiots by mostly staying out of the way and letting him hog the spotlight. When she got the spotlight back, she deliberately tried to be as un-Trumpish as possible. The talking points like "Trumped-up trickle down" were silly, but the stamina response and the temperament response were on-point.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on September 26, 2016, 05:33:21 PM
Where's that pumpkin pie?
He made this recipe and it was GREAT. Serve hot.
http://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1015413-brandied-pumpkin-pie
He is, like, so Presidential!
http://www.youtube.com/v/U8ZM58O_gBo
America will be so great when El Tupé runs the country the way he has done business!
I suspect Hillary will get a small bounce in the polls, but then things will settle down again to essentially a tied race. The fact that Hillary cannot put this race away against someone as flawed as Trump speaks to the inherent weakness of her campaign.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 06:43:17 AM
I suspect Hillary will get a small bounce in the polls, but then things will settle down again to essentially a tied race. The fact that Hillary cannot put this race away against someone as flawed as Trump speaks to the inherent weakness of her campaign.
Weakness yes. Does not take away from the fact that Trump was a blabbering mess for 2 hrs. He reminds of of Chris Farley's character in the movie
Tommy Boy where he set a potential customer's toy car on fire. Think about it: in 150 yrs time we have gone from presidents that are scholars who can pen something as terse as poignant as the
Gettysburg Address to this knuckehead who can't put two coherent sentences together.
Anyway the whole thing was touch to watch and not nearly as entertaining as I though.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 27, 2016, 07:21:04 AM
Anyway the whole thing was touch to watch and not nearly as entertaining as I though.
+1
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on September 27, 2016, 07:21:04 AM
Anyway the whole thing was touch to watch and not nearly as entertaining as I though.
I disagree, but then, I'd had 5 glasses of wine.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 06:43:17 AM
I suspect Hillary will get a small bounce in the polls, but then things will settle down again to essentially a tied race. The fact that Hillary cannot put this race away against someone as flawed as Trump speaks to the inherent weakness of her campaign.
But if a presidential candidate is not up to snuff, which El Tupé is not, the weaknesses in her campaign will subside. Anyway, as long as she runs a solid campaign and doesn't take any missteps or say something incredibly damaging, she'll be fine I think. El Tupé will continue to run his mouth and only dig his hole deeper. His temper will get the better of him just like it did in last night's debate.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 06:43:17 AM
I suspect Hillary will get a small bounce in the polls, but then things will settle down again to essentially a tied race. The fact that Hillary cannot put this race away against someone as flawed as Trump speaks to the inherent weakness of her campaign.
You see, I should have said, the GOP managed to nominate the one candidate against whom Clinton can win.
Your view of the poll swing can be argued, to be sure. Or, it could be argued that the post-debate rise is the correction.
I guess we shall see.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 27, 2016, 07:39:03 AM
But if a presidential candidate is not up to snuff, which El Tupé is not, the weaknesses in her campaign will subside. Anyway, as long as she runs a solid campaign and doesn't take any missteps or say something incredibly damaging, she'll be fine I think. El Tupé will continue to run his mouth and only dig his hole deeper. His temper will get the better of him just like it did in last night's debate.
I am apt to agree. He will "be himself," and this will repel anyone who is not already determined to vote for "anyone but Clinton."
Especially if his post-mortem take on last night really is, "I ought to have hit Hillary harder." That won't sell for anyone who isn't already in the tank with him. And, of course, there he is, enormously misdiagnosing his flaccid performance last night.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2016, 07:43:37 AM
I am apt to agree. He will "be himself," and this will repel anyone who is not already determined to vote for "anyone but Clinton."
Especially if his post-mortem take on last night really is, "I ought to have hit Hillary harder." That won't sell for anyone who isn't already in the tank with him. And, of course, there he is, enormously misdiagnosing his flaccid performance last night.
In complete agreement. :)
Yes, we shall see. But I suspect Trump will be better at president than candidate. The specter of Hillary Clinton as president, who will probably turn out to be more conniving and grasping of power than Nixon, is so scary for enough people I think Trump will squeak out a victory despite his inexperience as professional politician.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 07:46:40 AM
Yes, we shall see. But I suspect Trump will be better at president than candidate.
Such optimism is pretty to see.
Before I go, I will leave you with this reportage (http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-debate-takes-come-from-inside-the-bar/):
QuoteLetosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration. Her sister and father are on opposite sides of the political aisle. Donald "Trump had the upper hand this evening," she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between him and Hillary Clinton.
Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman. "By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community," he said, sitting at the same bar that has boasted local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer, who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits.
"Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy," Reed said.
Reed said Clinton came across as either smug or as though she was reading her résumé, adding there was nothing on her résumé that touched on his life. "I am a small businessman, a farmer, come from a long line of farmers and coal miners. The policies she talked about tonight ultimately either hurt me or ignore me," he said.
Trump managed to slither under the bar of the lowest expectations in major debate history. How he do that??
By contrast HRC succeeded in showing just how good a normal, boring, predictable, experienced mainstream professional can be.
HRC is certainly a flawed candidate, though she's a better campaigner than she was against Obama. This is her second Presidential run, and I think it shows.
Weiner/Holder 2016
The NY Post reportage is illuminating. On the same page, there is this (also illuminating) column by John Podhoretz:
http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/ (http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/)
One thing the debate revealed, that while Trump is not stupid, he utterly lacks discipline. This was his moment to show he could rise above his flaws, and instead expert provocation by Mrs. Beast caused him to come unhinged on cue. It was as though he was making her case for her, as she knew he would. Sad! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 07:54:00 AM
Before I go, I will leave you with this reportage (http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-debate-takes-come-from-inside-the-bar/):
Dang. So Krauthammer was overly cautious in calling it a draw!
Quote from: snyprrr on September 27, 2016, 08:07:17 AM
Weiner/Holder 2016
I just want you to know that the uncharacteristic concision of this post did not go unnoticed, nor unappreciated.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 06:43:17 AMThe fact that Hillary cannot put this race away against someone as flawed as Trump speaks to the inherent weakness of her campaign.
I think it speaks to the inherent sexism that's still part of western society.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/iz400o.jpg)
Quote from: Rinaldo on September 27, 2016, 08:56:45 AM
I think it speaks to the inherent sexism that's still part of western society.
Sure, one can't oppose her policies on the merits; her opponents are simply sexist. One can't oppose Obama's polcies on the merits, his opponents are racist.
A tired trope Liberals cannot give up.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:10:31 AM
Sure, one can't oppose her policies on the merits; her opponents are simply sexist. One can't oppose Obama's polcies on the merits, his opponents are racist.
A tired trope Liberals cannot give up.
And this is an equally tired strawman.
There is certainly plenty of evidence of sexism and double-standards against Hillary - for example, commentators saying today that she was "not likeable enough" but also "smiled too much" (Brit Hume and David Frum, respectively). And also:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtVBfb-XgAAb6s8.jpg)
Also, Rudy Giuliani said today she's "too stupid" to be president because her husband cheated - when, of course, Giuliani and Trump have cheated themselves. Hard to deny a double standard there.
Rinaldo and I - and indeed everybody - are not saying
all opposition derives from one source, but rather that sexism is
a source. Studies after 2008 suggested that racism accounted for about 2-3% of the total popular vote.
I think Obama got votes because of his race, the first Black president. Hillary should get more votes as the first woman president. Are the people voting for her, because she's a woman, sexist or just the ones voting against her?
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:23:41 AM
I think Obama got votes because of his race, the first Black president. Hillary should get more votes as the first woman president. Are the people voting for her, because she's a woman, sexist or just the ones voting against her?
Aren't the ones who would be voting for her
because she is a woman more likely to vote for her over Trump anyway, just based on her political orientation (that and his persistent sexism)?
It's really a moot point, because there's no easy way to dig into motivations without real research.
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 27, 2016, 09:28:29 AM
It's really a moot point, because there's no easy way to dig into motivations without real research.
Correct. Hillary has serious issues of trust and credibility and liberal policies that your average Repulican voter rejects and many blue collar Democrats find unappealing. When her supporters cry "sexism" because her support is deflated it is specious, at best.
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 27, 2016, 09:28:29 AM
Aren't the ones who would be voting for her because she is a woman more likely to vote for her over Trump anyway, just based on her political orientation?
It's really a moot point, because there's no easy way to dig into motivations without real research.
Yeah, the ideal way to test SA's hypothesis would be to have, e.g., a black Republican nominee vs. a white Democrat.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:23:41 AM
I think Obama got votes because of his race, the first Black president. Hillary should get more votes as the first woman president. Are the people voting for her, because she's a woman, sexist or just the ones voting against her?
My mistake - the 3% figure I quoted was for white voters, not all voters. Here is the research:
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/cces/files/schaffner-_racial_salience_pp_revised.pdf
Here is a critique of a different study - that study found 4% of the popular vote accounted for by racism in 2008 - which argues that the author grossly overestimates his findings, but that the basic underlying fact may well be true on a much smaller scale (say, 1% of the overall vote):
https://newrepublic.com/article/112883/study-racism-cost-obama-millions-votes-unlikely
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:10:31 AM
Sure, one can't oppose her policies on the merits; her opponents are simply sexist. One can't oppose Obama's polcies on the merits, his opponents are racist.
I've never said that. As Brian pointed out, it's all about the double standards, clearly evident throughout this campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/v/h1Lfd1aB9YI
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:23:41 AMAre the people voting for her, because she's a woman, sexist
No. Voting for representation of your gender ≠ sexism.
Quoteor just the ones voting against her?
I'd guess the 'basket of deplorables' holds a certain amount of sexists and misogynists, yes.
Quote from: Brian on September 27, 2016, 09:35:20 AM
Yeah, the ideal way to test SA's hypothesis would be to have, e.g., a black Republican nominee vs. a white Democrat.
My mistake - the 3% figure I quoted was for white voters, not all voters. Here is the research:
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/cces/files/schaffner-_racial_salience_pp_revised.pdf
Here is a critique of a different study - that study found 4% of the popular vote accounted for by racism in 2008 - which argues that the author grossly overestimates his findings, but that the basic underlying fact may well be true on a much smaller scale (say, 1% of the overall vote):
https://newrepublic.com/article/112883/study-racism-cost-obama-millions-votes-unlikely
Keep telling yourself that sexism is the reason Hillary is not walking away with this election. It means her campaign will not address the root problem with her candidacy and gives Trump a better chance.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:37:38 AM
Keep telling yourself that sexism is the reason Hillary is not walking away with this election.
Good grief. I never said that. In fact, I directly said the opposite of that. Had to check my own posts to look.
Quote from: Brian on September 27, 2016, 09:53:19 AM
Good grief. I never said that. In fact, I directly said the opposite of that. Had to check my own posts to look.
Sorry. I skimmed your post and reacted more to Rinaldo's.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:58:57 AM
Sorry. I skimmed your post and reacted more to Rinaldo's.
OK, cool 8)
Sexism. Some interesting comments. Mine would be to quote Brit Hume of Fox news (commenting on Clinton during the debate): "She looked, I think, for the most part, she looked composed, smug sometimes, not necessarily attractive." You would never make such a comment about Trump.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:37:38 AMIt means her campaign will not address the root problem with her candidacy and gives Trump a better chance.
What do you think is the root problem, the fact that she's establishment?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on September 27, 2016, 10:02:11 AM
Sexism. Some interesting comments. Mine would be to quote Brit Hume of Fox news (commenting on Clinton during the debate): "She looked, I think, for the most part, she looked composed, smug sometimes, not necessarily attractive." You would never make such a comment about Trump.
As I said before, just imagine her sniffing like Trump did, for example. The media would pronounce her terminally ill.
Quote from: Rinaldo on September 27, 2016, 10:05:18 AM
What do you think is the root problem, the fact that she's establishment?
Here's what I've already posted:
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:33:33 AM
Hillary has serious issues of trust and credibility and liberal policies that your average Repulican voter rejects and many blue collar Democrats find unappealing. When her supporters cry "sexism" because her support is deflated it is specious, at best.
Add to those obvious problems there's her membership in the political elite. All of which translates into a trifecta of reasons for half of the country not to vote for her, or enough people to elect Trump. But like I said I hope her team keeps blaming sexism.
:)
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:37:38 AM
Keep telling yourself that sexism is the reason Hillary is not walking away with this election. It means her campaign will not address the root problem with her candidacy and gives Trump a better chance.
Okay, I'll say the obvious: the fact that you oppose Clinton on the merits of her policies, does not mean that sexism is not perniciously at play in this election.
Any more than, the fact that neither you nor
zb are racist means that there is nothing to the argument that the engine of El Tupé's candidacy is white supremacist rage.
No sexism here; no, none at all.
http://www.youtube.com/v/U8ZM58O_gBo
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2016, 10:23:35 AM
Okay, I'll say the obvious: the fact that you oppose Clinton on the merits of her policies, does not mean that sexism is not perniciously at play in this election.
Any more than, the fact that neither you nor zb are racist means that there is nothing to the argument that the engine of El Tupé's candidacy is white supremacist rage.
Do not be seduced by the siren song of that kind of thinking. The "deplorables" comment was a gift for Trump
The election after a two term president historically has favored the opposition party: advantage Trump
Also, after a two term president the candidate representing change is favored over the candidate representing status quo: advantage Trump
Add to these historical trends, Hillary's dishonesty and membership in the policital elite continue to keep her approval ratings very low.
It is only because Trump is such a horribly bad candidate that he is not winning by a decisive margin.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2016, 10:24:46 AM
No sexism here; no, none at all.
http://www.youtube.com/v/U8ZM58O_gBo
Well, Trump fantasizes about being a member of the Rat Pack.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 10:25:22 AM
Add to these historical trends, Hillary's dishonesty [....]
Time to call this the rubbish that it is.
No one who intends to vote for El Tupé has any intellectual capital to spend on complaining about Clinton's honesty.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2016, 10:27:41 AM
Time to call this the rubbish that it is.
No one who intends to vote for El Tupé has any intellectual capital to spend on complaining about Clinton's honesty.
Or the fact that Trump has shown zero evidence that he is in any way more honest or trustworthy than Madame Secretary.
Well, I (and apparently 70% of the electorate) make a distinction between Trump's alleged dishonesty and that of Hillary Clinton's which has been exposed by an FBI investigation. Also, hers occured when she was acting as Secretary of State, the third highest offical in the Obama Adminstration, as opposed to Trump's, again alleged dishonesty, as a real estate businessman.
Objectiviety seems to be absent among Hillary's supporters.
Mind you, I am not a Trump "supporter". Merely a Trump voter.
I don't automatically assume one is a racist, sexist or Russian troll for supporting Trump. There must be other reasons to support him. We should ask a Repub man of principle like Ted Cruz how it works. He could explain like no one can.
Quote from: drogulus on September 27, 2016, 10:59:19 AM
I don't automatically assume one is a racist, sexist or Russian troll for supporting Trump. There must be other reasons to support him. We should ask a Repub man of principle like Ted Cruz how it works. He could explain like no one can.
I don't know man...I find it hard to believe that someone who went to Princeton and then Harvard Law, two of the more liberal places on earth, is a principle conservative. He just seems really greasy to me, like after having a meeting with him you have to check your pockets to ascertain that your wallet is still there.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 10:25:22 AMHillary's dishonesty
..which is a fabrication, as was evidenced by the Benghazi & e-mail witch hunts. A most thorough, GOP-driven investigation hasn't found anything tangible and the whole private server 'scandal' got blown out of proportion, given that many other officials from the Bush administration did exactly the same thing - and caught zero flak.
Hillary is flawed and made mistakes throughout her career but dishonest? Not by any objective, fact-based measure.
Quote from: Brian on September 27, 2016, 06:34:09 AM
He made this recipe and it was GREAT. Serve hot.
http://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1015413-brandied-pumpkin-pie
And people knock the mainstream media!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2016, 07:43:37 AM
I am apt to agree. He will "be himself," and this will repel anyone who is not already determined to vote for "anyone but Clinton."
Especially if his post-mortem take on last night really is, "I ought to have hit Hillary harder." That won't sell for anyone who isn't already in the tank with him. And, of course, there he is, enormously misdiagnosing his flaccid performance last night.
He has already complained about the moderator, and said his microphone wasn't working. Whaddya want, this is Hofstra.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/27/donald-trump-lied/
"The biggest problem with fact-checking the Republican candidate is that he seems to have a reality-distortion field that applies to his fan base in which even if he tells what appears to be a lie, he is seen as telling some larger truth."
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Over here, some analysts say that Trump seems to be looking for a way to avoid participating in the last two debates.
Imagine the ridiculousness:
"Vote for me as the person to make America great again. I´m not into political debates though."
According to Twitter Analytics, #TrumpWon began trending after the debate...and it originated in Russia.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 10:52:01 AM
Well, I (and apparently 70% of the electorate) make a distinction between Trump's alleged dishonesty and that of Hillary Clinton's which has been exposed by an FBI investigation. Also, hers occured when she was acting as Secretary of State, the third highest offical in the Obama Adminstration, as opposed to Trump's, again alleged dishonesty, as a real estate businessman.
Objectiviety seems to be absent among Hillary's supporters.
What did Hilary have to gain by using a private server for her e-mail? Her obvious motivation was that it would make it easier to do her job, and it wouldn't be a problem. In my view it was a case of poor judgement, not dishonesty. Other high officials, including many Bush Administration staffers made a similar error in judgment. My main reservation about Hillary is her association with the status quo in U.S. big business, which I think has to change.
When I look at Donald Trump I see someone who will prey on the weak (Trump University, which was described under oath as a blatant fraud by his own staffers) tell any blatant lie that he thinks will help him (the birther conspiracy, then claiming it originated with Hillary) whose main business skill is siphoning money from projects that fail (Atlantic City). I see a man utterly without integrity.
Quote from: Brian on September 27, 2016, 11:50:25 AM
According to Twitter Analytics, #TrumpWon began trending after the debate...and it originated in Russia.
Cf.
https://twitter.com/DustinGiebel/status/780814613021548544
St. Petersburg is also the location of a lot of the state-organized internet trolling originating from Russia, verified beyond doubt.
Quote from: Eli on September 26, 2016, 06:05:46 PM
Hillary isn't talking like people actually talk... Someone is talking in her ear and she keeps pausing to hear and repeat.
The latter is obviously untrue.
Quote from: Scarpia on September 27, 2016, 12:03:09 PM
What did Hilary have to gain by using a private server for her e-mail? Her obvious motivation was that it would make it easier to do her job, and it wouldn't be a problem. In my view it was a case of poor judgement, not dishonesty. Other high officials, including many Bush Administration staffers made a similar error in judgment. My main reservation about Hillary is her association with the status quo in U.S. big business, which I think has to change.
When I look at Donald Trump I see someone who will prey on the weak (Trump University, which was described under oath as a blatant fraud by his own staffers) tell any blatant lie that he thinks will help him (the birther conspiracy, then claiming it originated with Hillary) whose main business skill is siphoning money from projects that fail (Atlantic City). I see a man utterly without integrity.
Is there anyone as sophisticated about cybersecurity as most of us at GMG are who doesn't understand that HRC was simply carrying forward the email practice of yesteryear after it had become out of date? Of course it was insecure! Let's be clear about her motives, she wanted a convenient way to communicate with everyone in her network and accepted the assurances from her IT people that it was OK. IMO this was clearly negligent.
The freshman class of Repubs are looking down the barrel of the "pre-impeachment" of the next President. Can you imagine what that must be like?
Quote from: Turner on September 27, 2016, 12:09:08 PM
St. Petersburg is also the location of a lot of the state-organized internet trolling originating from Russia, verified beyond doubt.
Here it is:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03332/PUTIN_troll-buildi_3332234b.jpg)
55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, Russia (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 09:23:41 AM
I think Obama got votes because of his race, the first Black president. Hillary should get more votes as the first woman president. Are the people voting for her, because she's a woman, sexist or just the ones voting against her?
none of the above. People are voting for her be she's competent and steady while Trump is a raving narcissist who treats other people like dirt.
Washington (AFP) - Fresh off his presidential clash with Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump doubled down Tuesday on criticism of a former Miss Universe he accused of getting too fat, comments that could repel women voters.
Alicia Machado, who won the crown in 1996, has accused Trump -- whose company owned the Miss Universe pageant until last year -- of calling her "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping," and publicly humiliating her over her post-victory weight gain.
The morning after Clinton invoked Machado's experience as an example of how the brash billionaire treats women, he lashed out at the beauty queen.
"She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem," Trump told Fox television Tuesday.
"She was the worst we ever had. The worst, the absolute worst," he added. "She was impossible."
(https://localtvwiti.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/bania.jpg?quality=85&strip=all)
The worst, Jerry, the absolute worst!
He did and said nothing wrong, you see. She had gained a massive amount of weight. He was justified in abusing her. He was right, because "Miss Piggy" was no Mother Theresa.
Quote from: Herman on September 27, 2016, 12:48:49 PM
none of the above. People are voting for her be she's competent and steady while Trump is a raving narcissist who treats other people like dirt.
Well, that's why
I am voting for her and not him. I would hope others are reaching the same sort of decision about now after seeing the Cinnamon Hitler in action last night. ::)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on September 27, 2016, 01:04:34 PM
Well, that's why I am voting for her and not him. I would hope others are reaching the same sort of decision about now after seeing the Cinnamon Hitler in action last night. ::)
8)
Separately, for anyone too lazy to search YouTube for
trump sniffing montage on their own:
http://www.youtube.com/v/5BJjUv_TD2E
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 06:43:17 AM
The fact that Hillary cannot put this race away against someone as flawed as Trump speaks to the inherent weakness of her campaign.
What does that say about everyone else who ran for the Republican nomination?
Quote from: Scarpia on September 27, 2016, 12:03:09 PM
What did Hilary have to gain by using a private server for her e-mail? Her obvious motivation was that it would make it easier to do her job, and it wouldn't be a problem. In my view it was a case of poor judgement, not dishonesty. Other high officials, including many Bush Administration staffers made a similar error in judgment. My main reservation about Hillary is her association with the status quo in U.S. big business, which I think has to change.
Also 99% of so called "classified" material is bullshit junk with no relevance to national security or anything else anyway, the govt routinely overclassify everything. They make it sound like she leaked the codes to launch nuclear missiles or something.
Last week I heard something that was actually said much earlier this year, and now I can't unhear it.
It was essentially this: that Trump's manner and method of arguing is that of a 10-year old boy. He doesn't argue the merits of a point of view. He blusters and uses whatever comeback he can think of.
Right now it's "the questions were unfair" and "the microphone was faulty". We've had suggestions the election is rigged. People who agree with him are great, people who don't are bad or sad. Yes, I know Clinton went with "deplorable" once recently, but with Trump it is a constant theme of judgement of people based entirely on whether they're on his side or not.
Make any kind of point against him, and the response is either or both of two things:
1. "Hey, they're being mean to me!"
2. "Oh yeah? Well, you SMELL!"
Quote from: Scarpia on September 27, 2016, 12:03:09 PM
I see a man utterly without integrity.
Or relevant experience. But after all, "what have you got to lose"? You will remember that a key argument against Obama is that he lacked political experience; now a key argument for Trump is that he lacks political experience.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Separately, for anyone too lazy to search YouTube for trump sniffing montage on their own:
https://www.youtube.com/v/5TBsoYp33WY
From today's NY Times, which of course being the mainstream media is inaccurate. biased, liberal, and unfair:
QuoteDonald J. Trump lashed out wildly on Tuesday in the aftermath of a disappointing first debate with Hillary Clinton, scolding the moderator, criticizing a beauty pageant winner for her physique and raising the prospect of an all-out attack on Bill Clinton's marital infidelities in the final stretch of the campaign.
Having worked assiduously in recent weeks to cultivate a more disciplined demeanor on the campaign trail, Mr. Trump decisively cast aside that approach on Tuesday morning. As Mrs. Clinton embarked on an ebullient campaign swing through North Carolina, aiming to press her newfound advantage, Mr. Trump vented his grievances in full public view.
Sounding weary and impatient as he called into a Fox News program, Mr. Trump criticized Lester Holt, the NBC News anchor, for asking "unfair questions" during the debate Monday evening, and speculated that someone might have tampered with his microphone. Mr. Trump repeated his charge that Mrs. Clinton lacked the "stamina" to be president, a claim critics have described as sexist, and suggested that in the future he might raise Mr. Clinton's past indiscretions.
And defying conventions of civility and political common sense, Mr. Trump leveled cutting personal criticism at a beauty pageant winner, Alicia Machado, whom Mrs. Clinton held up in Monday night's debate as an example of Mr. Trump's disrespect for women.
Mr. Trump insisted on Fox that he had been right to disparage the former Miss Universe because of her weight. "She was the winner and she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem," said Mr. Trump, who was the pageant's executive producer at the time. "Not only that — her attitude. And we had a real problem with her."
And this is why he deserves to be elected.
Why Hillary Clinton Deleted 33,000 Emails on Her Private Email Server (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308)
She was asked if she wanted to keep the personal stuff after they separated the work related ones, she said no, she had no use for them.
One point about the deletions and the choice of what shouldn't be deleted. No one has said that Clinton issued improper instructions about what to delete, or that she even knew except in a very general way what would be deleted. She did not place a folder full of work emails in with a bunch of personal stuff. She had no involvement at that level. No one has suggested she did. No one has offered any reason why she would instruct people to comply with investigators then, perhaps in the dead of night delete emails herself. Really, she did that? Who witnessed it? Who will the Repubs call to testify to this?
Quote from: sanantonio on September 27, 2016, 07:46:40 AM
Yes, we shall see. But I suspect Trump will be better at president than candidate. The specter of Hillary Clinton as president, who will probably turn out to be more conniving and grasping of power than Nixon, is so scary for enough people I think Trump will squeak out a victory despite his inexperience as professional politician.
Trump wins 100% of the Vote, but Hill wins the Electoral College. That could be one way it was rigged from the get go...
2) Trump working for Soros/Hill already...
3) Trump wins, America sees quick Platinum Age, then...BOOM!!...
4) Hill wins and it's like 1975+1985+1996+2008... sludgy ennui, grey clouds, wars and rumors of wars... 1979-1981??
4) Hill wins, and then something reeeally bad happens
5) Trump wins, and then something reeally bad happens
6) Hill wins, and shortly after, guns are illegal, crime explodes, migrant/refugee masssive influx, open borders, laws, soon religions' on watch list, all globalist entities dictating US interests and home front is ffffucked up!!
7) Trump wins, again, I see a brief Platinum Age, then... well, if he's actually a "good guy" and actually starts doing some kind of my-way good, I don't see how the status quo power brokers powers that be UN EU Bilderboogers CFR whatever... "those" people... "that crew"... whatever ReidBoehner... they just can't have it... maybe
8) If Hill wins, there will IN NO WISE be any kind of Recovery. "America" as everyone has known it will be complete toast. If you thought Kid Rock pandering was bad, just wait for this Era of Fake Positivism.
9) FOUR YEARS LATER:
Something will have happened, "outside" of the president's power, so, no matter, no one would have been able to save us from whatever it is that's coming. If Hill wins, I'd have to say she probably had something to do with it, or knew. For Trump, it should be easy for the world to martyr him. Four years later, no matter what, the US country will be so ever more messed up than it is now- no, wait, it will be the logical conclusion of what has BEGUN here in 2016. I would hazard a guess that all commenting here today would not care to revisit this Page in 2020.
If you all can't see that the die (is that right?) is already cast for our future, and that the globalist powers have marshaled all their might and resource to ..."re-direct" Western Civ101, by the curiously military tactic of overwhelming foreign "invasions" by the great horde of people who apparently won't stay in their own countries and fight our weapons backed rebels. What's up with that?
Take a look at that Spielberg film "8mm", set in 1979. Whatever the film's other merits, or not, he certainly conjures the Image of what 1979 seemed to be in American History, the total end of innocence. The film is so cozy with Americana, one longs for the LazyBoy! Check it out.
Now, back to 2016. I dunno, seems just a touch shittier, eh? Even though, of course, we're living in "the Greatest Time in History" and all that good stuff. I mean, we are in the Best of Times/Worst of Times coming up here shortly, gulp.
Denzel 2016
Quote from: drogulus on September 27, 2016, 03:25:07 PM
Why Hillary Clinton Deleted 33,000 Emails on Her Private Email Server (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308)
No one has offered any reason why she would instruct people to comply with investigators then, perhaps in the dead of night delete emails herself. Really, she did that? Who witnessed it? Who will the Repubs call to testify to this?
You're a TrueBeliever, aren't you? GodBless
Tell me, do you solemnly believe that Hill has ever had a single class of yoga ever in her life? How about 15,000 emails worth of yoga? Just curious
btw- Trump brilliantly played TheMockFool and lured Hill into the 3rd Debate!! Brilliant!! :laugh: (sorry, couldn't resist!!)
Quote from: snyprrr on September 27, 2016, 04:01:41 PM
You're a TrueBeliever, aren't you? GodBless
I just put myself in her place. I'm supposed to preserve anything even arguably work-related, so I instruct the appropriate staffers to carry it out, they do, come back and ask me what I want done with the personal stuff, I say I don't want them, delete them, done. As for how exactly that task is accomplished, I find that out later when the whole affair blows up.
This is how things happen in the real world. If you don't think she's trustworthy on the basis of this incident then don't vote for her. It's actually a legit reason not to. I think once burned, twice shy, and she's got a lot going for her, though I think there are ways she's slightly evil, around the edges, so to speak.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 27, 2016, 10:23:35 AM
Okay, I'll say the obvious: the fact that you oppose Clinton on the merits of her policies, does not mean that sexism is not perniciously at play in this election.
Any more than, the fact that neither you nor zb are racist means that there is nothing to the argument that the engine of El Tupé's candidacy is white supremacist rage.
As a happy outsider, I was reading through this thread, glad I wasn't expending precious time and energy trying to convince anyone of anything and stumbled upon my initials.
OK, two points. Did anyone notice the socialist message embedded in practically everything the Secretary was saying? Her father was middle-class as opposed to Trump Sr. She was espousing the Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor (pure, unadulterated socialism) as her "plan" to revive the economy, talking about "fair share" taxation while no one said a word about the sneaky mammoth Clinton Foundation laundering money right and left. She was mouthing bromides that may as well been lifted from Lenin's (or Alinsky's) notebook with no substance, like "come together, jobs for millions", blah, blah, hypnotizing anyone who would rather believe than think.
Trump did manage to put his foot in his mouth several times. However, he was more specific about the dire economic situation and what to do about it. Somehow, I think these issues managed to go over the heads of many who were just there to be soothed or coddled into "everything is going to be all right because she has a plan". This is where he missed and she gained because he was not reassuring and she was. However, the bad news will not go away.
The second point has to do with racism and alleged sexism. She is a bad example of a career woman, stepping over actual dead bodies to get what she wants by way of ambition. But more than that, I wonder if in the scale of oppressed minorities whether it would be preferred to vote for a white woman or white man. There is no black man in the race. This may be the tipping point why she won't get the golden ring. All these race and female issues may just come back to bite her in the end.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 27, 2016, 10:45:22 PM
OK, two points. Did anyone notice the socialist message embedded in practically everything the Secretary was saying? Her father was middle-class as opposed to Trump Sr. She was espousing the Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor (pure, unadulterated socialism)
So, how many ways do you want to have it. One the hand she is in hock with Wall St and on the other hand she's a "pure unadulterated socialist"? How does a person do this?
In reality HRC is so much a moderate Dem that she could have been a Republican thirty years ago. (And she came from a Republican family, as I recall.)
Far right Americans start to cry "socialism" as soon as anything approaching a civil society comes up in conversation, but that's only because they've moved so far to the fringe, and have zero experience of the real world.
QuoteTrump did manage to put his foot in his mouth several times. [...] However, the bad news will not go away.
much of the bad news actually has gone away. The economy is growing, unempoyment is shrinking, crime is down, things are looking up. However Trump and the GOP want you to be very very scared and sleep under your bed in fear for crime, terrorism and the bugaboo (socialists!).
QuoteShe is a bad example of a career woman, stepping over actual dead bodies to get what she wants by way of ambition.
It goes without saying (for you) that ambition is a very unbecoming thing in a woman, but the 'actual' dead bodies, those have been made up. Unless you mean that if somebody dies in HRC's lifetime, it has to be her fault.
Best description of Trump's debate performance:
"It was like watching the Titanic hit the iceberg, and back up to hit it again, just for fun."
Quote from: Herman on September 27, 2016, 11:04:12 PM
So, how many ways do you want to have it. One the hand she is in hock with Wall St and on the other hand she's a "pure unadulterated socialist"? How does a person do this?
Cheating, connections, privileged insider knowledge, laundering money overseas - all the stuff that politicians do.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 27, 2016, 11:12:25 PM
Cheating, connections, privileged insider knowledge, laundering money overseas - all the stuff that politicians do.
Look, I don't think anyone is saying Clinton is perfect, but she has been investigated for pretty much 25 years now and nothing actionable turned up. And you can rest assured that if she's elected the investigations will continue as long as she's around (and my guess is nothing actionable or impeachable will surface).
But the real question is, in what way do you fool yourself into thinking that Trump doesn't do these bad things to the nth degree, more than anyone else? After all, he bragged about both making extraordinary amounts of money and paying no federal taxes.
Same with the misogyny and the racism. Or the phony charity, which will come up some next time. It's one thing to do bad immoral things. But it's quite another thing to be proud of 'em and actually think it's good to steal large amounts money from the community and treat women and non-whites as second rate people.
He gibbers. Absolutely.
"I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly do-able. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing, but that's true throughout our whole governmental society."
"Look at the mess that we're in. Look at the mess that we're in. As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said, we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not."
"I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what Isis is doing with the internet, they're beating us at our own game. Isis. So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare."
So part of what is going on is, I'm going to vote for someone I know gibbers, because he's not Clinton.
Going to vote for someone whose public response to his performance Monday night is exactly the loser-talk he contemns ("the mic was defective"). Wherever the buck stops, it ain't by him.
The proposition that an American politician I saw described as "centrist" by a Republican newspaper today can be compared with Lenin is... I'm sorry, it's batshit insane.
What do you think Bernie Sanders is, then? I mean, no "establishment" Democrat would even manage to register as left-wing in most other countries in the developed world. Almost all American politics is a little right-wing by international standards. And that's what matters when you start trying to compare an American politician to international figures.
I can't think of anything that could demonstrate a lack of credibility better than declaring that Hillary Clinton is a rampaging communist.
QuoteMike Murphy, a veteran Republican strategist who has been critical of the party's nominee, said Trump's comments about Machado were "hugely tone deaf." The debate overall, he said, was for many Republicans "an 'Oh, crap' moment. If you thought he had a spring in his step for the last few weeks and was getting back in the hunt, that's pretty much gone."
QuoteModerator Lester Holt's question about Trump's birther crusade elicited not only a defense of his efforts but a declaration of pride that he, Trump, had forced President Obama to present his birth certificate.
"I think I did a good job," he said.
This is false, as any serious news consumer knows. But these two examples illustrate two key components of Trump's character — braggadocio and preening pride. Translation: insecurity and weakness. He was proud of two things — paying no taxes and racist pandering — for which most people of conscience would feel shame.
Doesn't matter! We'll vote to put him in the White House because he isn't Clinton!
In today's Wall Street Journal:
With Pageant Winner Dispute, Trump Again Lets Personal Feud Become Campaign Issue
In what has become a recurring theme on the campaign trail this year, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has once again elevated a personal feud to the level of a campaign issue in a way that risks causing lasting damage to his political prospects just six weeks before Election Day.
What's with the Santa suit? I distrust it. It strikes me as inherently Euro-socialist if not outright bolshie.
(http://2aud9p3913eycirzdd2nrxov.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/GettyImages-893732211-392x581.jpg)
Isn´t red the Republican Party´s color?
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2016, 05:31:10 AM
Isn´t red the Republican Party´s color?
They switched to orange.
(https://macdailynews.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/160219_trumpaloompa.jpg?w=300&h=281)
Billy Bob Thornton endorses Hillary Clinton.
"The baddest Santa of them all"
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2016, 05:13:52 AM
In today's Wall Street Journal:
With Pageant Winner Dispute, Trump Again Lets Personal Feud Become Campaign Issue
In what has become a recurring theme on the campaign trail this year, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has once again elevated a personal feud to the level of a campaign issue in a way that risks causing lasting damage to his political prospects just six weeks before Election Day.
A feud ? I don't think so. This happened many years ago and I'm pretty sure he forgot all about her very soon thereafter. She was just a commodity, you see. A non-entity. You can't have a feud with a non-entity.
By resurfacing with her statements of this week she became an annoyance. Had she declared her support for her, Trump would have touted her as "a beautiful, wonderful Miss Universe. The best we ever had".
You have to understand the way his brain functions. Every word, statement, meeting, experience is catalogued as "wonderful" or "nasty".
I think Trump supporters genuinely like him for who he is. But they are a minority. The majority of Trump voters acknowledge his blatant inadequacies and know there is probably a lot worse in store. But they are ready to ignore them simply because they are Hillary haters. NOTHING will assuage this epidermic reaction. Just as Ms. Machado became an eyesore because of her weight gain, Hillary Clinton is a brain sore that has to go away. There is only one known cure: vote for Trump.
Never has such irrationality grabbed hold of the electorate before. It's a very strange phenomenon, and doctorate theses will be written on the subject.
Quote from: André on September 28, 2016, 06:26:49 AM
You have to understand the way his brain functions. Every word, statement, meeting, experience is catalogued as "wonderful" or "nasty".
Yes, the deciding factor being,
What does it do for me?That is what so many are okay with having in the White House.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2016, 05:13:52 AM
In today's Wall Street Journal:
With Pageant Winner Dispute, Trump Again Lets Personal Feud Become Campaign Issue
In what has become a recurring theme on the campaign trail this year, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has once again elevated a personal feud to the level of a campaign issue in a way that risks causing lasting damage to his political prospects just six weeks before Election Day.
Anal Porn Star and Alleged Getaway Driver for Attempted Murder Is Hired By Clinton Campaign
So, pretty much endorsing the living-in-your-own reality lifestyle, eh?
A new report confirms that Donald Trump was too lazy to seriously practice for the debate
Trump knew full well that tens of millions of people would watch this debate. "There are those who will say it will be one of the highest-rated shows in television history, if not the highest," he said back in August. He knew it was one of his best opportunities to make his case to the American people.
And yet he wasn't willing to put in the work to prepare for it in a serious way, even though it was such an important moment for his campaign.
Luckily for Trump, he still has two more opportunities to turn this around. But we've already gotten a pretty strong sense of what kind of president he'd be, even on the most important matters to rise to his attention — a lazy, unfocused one. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/28/13089718/donald-trump-lost-debate)
Quote from: snyprrr on September 28, 2016, 07:15:12 AM
Anal Porn Star and Alleged Getaway Driver for Attempted Murder Is Hired By Clinton Campaign
It's a ploy to attract undecided voters.
What would it take for me to be convinced Hillary is unfit to be President?
She could announce she hates cats.
She could install a Celestion Vintage 30 in her blackface Deluxe Reverb.
She could claim that Putin "is not a bad guy. I looked into his eyes and there's definitely something there"
What else? I'll think on it.
She could announce that she hates cats.
But if she has a plan to plant dead cats in Jill Stein's mulcher, she loses my vote.
When asked about failing to pay someone by Hillary Clinton this week, Trump replied, "Maybe he didn't do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/28/i-sold-trump-100000-worth-of-pianos-then-he-stiffed-me/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0df4f699c95f)
(Or maybe he's just a cheat. Ah, what a credit to the White House and to the Nation he would be!)
But he's not Clinton!
I thought Hellary was almost charming. Granted, my standards are oblique-wise to the norm, and it feels a little funny to give up on her unlikeability, which I rather admired, but there it is. I feel she would be fun to hang out, talk over old times and delete incriminating emails with. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: snyprrr on September 28, 2016, 07:15:12 AM
Anal Porn Star and Alleged Getaway Driver for Attempted Murder Is Hired By Clinton Campaign
Seriously, what's an "anal porn star"? I can't help thinking your homophobic streak is showing.
Not because I think that "anal" means "gay", but because I suspect from past history that YOU think that and you appear to be spouting random crap and this is your way of expressing the idea of a horrible person.
Other than that I don't know wtf you are carrying on about. As usual.
Quote from: drogulus on September 28, 2016, 01:46:52 PM
I though Hellary was almost charming. Granted, my standards are oblique-wise to the norm, and it feels a little funny to give up on her unlikeability, which I rather admired, but there it is. I feel she would be fun to hang out, talk over old times and delete incriminating emails with. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
The times we'd get together and play
Classified or Not? over a glass of Chardonnay . . . .
Yeah, hanging out with Huma telling Weiner jokes.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 28, 2016, 07:15:12 AM
Anal Porn Star and Alleged Getaway Driver for Attempted Murder Is Hired By Clinton Campaign
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3635882/Hillary-Clinton-called-disabled-children-Easter-egg-hunt-f-ing-ree-tards-referred-Jews-stupid-k-s-Bill-called-Jesse-Jackson-damned-n-r-claims-Bill-s-former-lover.html
"Racial profiling remained in Clinton's head and several years later, he gave state troopers the right to stop and search any car. Bill and Hillary have been very verbal in criticizing racial profiling as a 'morally indefensible, deeply corrosive practice'. Clinton's crime bill, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was dubbed the 'three strikes' law and is one which has incarcerated over 2.5 million people, predominately poor people of color who could not afford lawyers during their trials.
The 'three strikes' rule sent people to jail for a petty crime or a major felony. It meant prison for life on the third offense, whatever that happened to be. Clinton's solution was to 'lock 'em up and throw away the key'...The unemployment numbers actually did go down, but that was partly because the young black males in prison were no longer counted as unemployed...
when Hillary arrived in Arkansas, Dolly writes, she looked down her nose at what she viewed as 'ignorant hillbillies'. She was raised in a middle-class suburb in Illinois and considered herself above the southerners – unless she was campaigning in New York state where she declared herself to be a lifelong Yankees fan.
She has repeatedly told the story that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary who became the first climber to reach the summit of Mt. Everest in 1953. Hillary was born in October 1947, six years prior to the New Zealand explorer's climb."
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 28, 2016, 09:16:50 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3635882/Hillary-Clinton-called-disabled-children-Easter-egg-hunt-f-ing-ree-tards-referred-Jews-stupid-k-s-Bill-called-Jesse-Jackson-damned-n-r-claims-Bill-s-former-lover.html
^There's a reason that tabloid can proudly claim that story is an "exclusive".
Please tell me you're not a registered voter in the US
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 28, 2016, 09:48:46 PM
There's a reason that tabloid can proudly claim that story is an "exclusive".
Please tell me you're not a registered voter in the US
I am a registered voter, so what?
I'll repeat the argument of one of our distinguished GMG members: if allegations of deleting emails, criminal neglect in Benghazi, enabling and covering up her husband's misbehavior, defrauding Haitians, going all the way back to the Whitewater scandal and probably even further, then WHY hasn't she been prosecuted?
To turn this argument around if any of the allegations are untrue, then where are the refutations and why aren't her accusers being prosecuted for slander? It is as night follows day, any claims of equalizing the wealth, someone is going to have to pay for it and probably through the nose, re: promises of free college education, health care, etc. This is so typical, take from Middle Class Peter to give to Big Brother Paul:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/23/donald-trump-slams-hillary-clintons-65-estate-tax-families-small-businesses/
Hillary Clinton recently released a tax plan pledging a confiscatory tax rate of 65 percent on the estates of people who want to leave their life's work to their families..House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), for instance, recently said it is "morally wrong" to force families who just lost a loved one to face instantly losing their businesses as well. "That's not supposed to be something people have to deal with when they're grieving for the loss of a loved one,"...Clinton released her plan to extract massive 65 percent of people's hard-earned wealth under the headline "Investing in America by Restoring Basic Fairness to Our Tax Code." That 65 percent levy would be combined with any local or state taxes and fees...
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 28, 2016, 10:49:18 PM
I am a registered voter, so what?
I'll repeat the argument of one of our distinguished GMG members: if allegations of deleting emails, criminal neglect in Benghazi, enabling and covering up her husband's misbehavior, defrauding Haitians, going all the way back to the Whitewater scandal and probably even further, then WHY hasn't she been prosecuted?
To turn this argument around if any of the allegations are untrue, then where are the refutations and why aren't her accusers being prosecuted for slander?
Maybe because slander is not a crime in the United States and therefore you can't be prosecuted for it?
Quote from: Scarpia on September 28, 2016, 10:57:40 PM
Maybe because slander is not a crime in the United States and therefore you can't be prosecuted for it?
I assume you mean it is a civil suit rather than a criminal one? One can sue another for slander/libel.
The reason she doesn't do it is that statements made about a public person (politician, actor, ,etc.) usually fall under a different standard. It is thus nearly impossible (if not impossible) to do. Malice has to be proved.
Quote from: Scarpia on September 28, 2016, 10:57:40 PM
Maybe because slander is not a crime in the United States and therefore you can't be prosecuted for it?
The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that
"The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states...
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws.
Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libels liability is constitutional. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism", though neither of these are imperatives on the US constitution.
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States,[1] meaning true statements cannot be defamatory.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
The ease with which Trump has erased Republican conservatism matches the speed with which Republican leaders have normalized him. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-rise-reflects-american-conservatisms-decay/2016/09/28/e9244732-84cf-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html?utm_term=.29931aaff939)
Quote from: drogulus on September 28, 2016, 01:46:52 PM
I thought Hillary was almost charming. Granted, my standards are oblique-wise to the norm, and it feels a little funny to give up on her unlikeability, which I rather admired, but there it is. I feel she would be fun to hang out, talk over old times and delete incriminating emails with. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
I watched together with my gf who's Canadian and had not seen Trump talk (let alone sniff) before.
I confess to some Hillary fatigue after 25 years or more, but I thought her performance was admirable. As an ambitious woman in the public eye she has such a thin behavioral margin. If she'd pounced once or twice on Trump's stupidities she would have come across as a bitch, so she just didn't.
Her radiant smile as Trump was meandering his way thru shards of blather moving towards his mouth-anus was just wonderful and so effective.
I have watched Trump's campaign with horror, but also with amusement at the way this boorish neanderthal is self-destructing in slowest possible slo-mo*, I have to confess, and her smile seemed to indicate she could feel that way too.
So much more effective than righteous indignation.
* The unintended consequence of his presidential bid is that so much semi-illegal shit has surfaced about this guy that chances are his beautiful beautiful business empire will be destroyed by a massive nr of legal cases and he's well aware of this. He'll spend the rest of his existence in court cases.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 28, 2016, 10:49:18 PM
I am a registered voter, so what?
I'll repeat the argument of one of our distinguished GMG members: if allegations of deleting emails, criminal neglect in Benghazi, enabling and covering up her husband's misbehavior, defrauding Haitians, going all the way back to the Whitewater scandal and probably even further, then WHY hasn't she been prosecuted?
To turn this argument around if any of the allegations are untrue, then where are the refutations and why aren't her accusers being prosecuted for slander? It is as night follows day, any claims of equalizing the wealth, someone is going to have to pay for it and probably through the nose, re: promises of free college education, health care, etc.
Your lack of knowledge of law is as breathtaking as many other things about you. No-one gets "prosecuted" for slander. It's a civil lawsuit, not a crime. And Clinton doesn't appear to be in the habit of threatening to sue anyone and everyone who disagrees with her. Unlike Trump, whose response to an amazing number of people seems to be either "I'll sue you" or "go ahead, sue me".
As for "where are the refutations"... they're all around you. They're in 11-hour hearings before Congress. They're in the results of investigations into emails and into Benghazi. You remind me very much of people who say "why don't Muslim leaders condemn terrorism" who are capable of ignoring all the countless times that Muslim leaders are recorded as having condemned terrorism because one's favourite media organisations didn't carry the story about the condemnation of terrorism.
Just because you personally are apparently not aware of "the refutations" doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means that you're the kind of person who can't be arsed to go looking for them and probably wouldn't acknowledge a refutation if it sat on your face and wiggled.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 28, 2016, 11:27:55 PM
"The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel.
Which means, what? What relevance does this have to anything anyone has actually said?
If this is your way of saying "aha! Clinton isn't suing anyone because she knows that what they said is true", we can all think of a wide array of other reasons why Clinton isn't suing anyone.
Also, why the hell is "The Truth" in quote marks and capitalised?
Quote from: ørfeø on September 29, 2016, 01:39:54 AM
Just because you personally are apparently not aware of "the refutations" doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means that you're the kind of person who can't be arsed to go looking for them and probably wouldn't acknowledge a refutation if it sat on your face and wiggled.
This phenom has been written about a lot. The advent of the internet was going to make us smarter and better informed. The opposite happened for a lot of people, who live in an echochamber of info that reinforces their fears and prejudices.
Trump as he was doing his Birther stuff discovered there was a huge market of misinformed angry people and capitalized on it with his presidential run - which of course at first wasn't intended to bring him this far.
What did the Truth have to do, exactly, with El Tupé's Birther scam? I marvel, absolutely marvel, at the Truth being held up as the agent of Clinton's disgrace, by those who make incessant, daily excuse for El Tupé's disregard for the Truth.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2016, 01:17:09 AM
The ease with which Trump has erased Republican conservatism matches the speed with which Republican leaders have normalized him. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-rise-reflects-american-conservatisms-decay/2016/09/28/e9244732-84cf-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html?utm_term=.29931aaff939)
Is the Washington Post supposed to be Holy Writ? Proposing judges in the mold of Scalia, reducing taxes, bringing back American businesses from abroad, etc., are these supposed to be counter-conservative? RINO's, Republicans in Name Only depict most of them, the Bushes being a prime example.
As for "birther", back in the 1990's Obama was touted as having been born in Kenya. Hillary dredged up that claim way before Trump. Even if he weren't born outside the US and/or was educated in Indonesia, his behavior has shown time and again that he has little core patriotism.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 29, 2016, 02:59:34 AM
As for "birther", back in the 1990's Obama was touted as having been born in Kenya.
Who the hell had heard of Obama in the 1990's in order to be discussing his place of birth? Source please, because I have never, ever heard this suggestion before. Not even Trump in his current "I didn't start it" mode has suggested that the claim dates back to the 1990s.
QuoteHillary dredged up that claim way before Trump.
Where's your evidence? Given the number of media organisations that have negated this claim so many times in recent weeks, what do you know that they don't?
QuoteEven if he weren't born outside the US and/or was educated in Indonesia, his behavior has shown time and again that he has little core patriotism.
Even if you're completely wrong, you'd like to divert attention from that by bringing up some completely irrelevant assertion about the man's personality which has nothing do with the point of the "birther" controversy which was designed to question his legal qualification for the job.
EDIT: And you'd like to do it without pointing to any specific examples of a lack of patriotism because, you know, that would require some kind of evidence. And we know how much you hate having to back up your sentences with facts.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 29, 2016, 03:08:50 AM
Who the hell had heard of Obama in the 1990's in order to be discussing his place of birth? Source please, because I have never, ever heard this suggestion before. Not even Trump in his current "I didn't start it" mode has suggested that the claim dates back to the 1990s. Where's your evidence? Given the number of media organisations that have negated this claim so many times in recent weeks, what do you know that they don't?
Being upsidedown on the other half of the world may account for not being in the loop:
None other than the Harvard law Review:
"Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
Quote from: ørfeø on September 29, 2016, 03:08:50 AM
Even if you're completely wrong, you'd like to divert attention from that by bringing up some completely irrelevant assertion about the man's personality which has nothing do with the point of the "birther" controversy which was designed to question his legal qualification for the job. EDIT: And you'd like to do it without pointing to any specific examples of a lack of patriotism because, you know, that would require some kind of evidence. And we know how much you hate having to back up your sentences with facts.
Obummer's treatment of the Vets is bad enough. He has deliberately put in place policies that weaken the military. But I'm really not talking to you. I just came for a visit when I saw my initials and answered to that. Bye!
ZB, I urge you to read up on how to construct a premise and logical conclusion properly instead of all your inductive fallacies.
To pick you up on only one issue you have used to suggest that Clinton is some kind of thief: inheritence taxes.....
I quote from US.News
'In reality, the effective rate will never reach the nominal top rate of 65 percent. Smart tax planners will continue to devise strategies to reduce the effective estate tax. Even with no planning at all, the 65 percent rate applies only to the portion of an estate's value that exceeds $1 billion for a married couple. Before a single dollar is taxed at 65 percent, a married couple would pass $460 million to their children.'
Do you even know anyone this will affect? Far from your sweeping statement that she is trying to hurt people who just want to leave their estate to their family: it is probably about one half of one percent of the US population who would be hit by this. It may sound like a high rate, but as pointed out, the effective rate will be much lower via estate planning. Also, the rate was higher than this proposal for decades under both complexions of government.
Mike
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 29, 2016, 03:22:17 AM
Being upsidedown on the other half of the world may account for not being in the loop:
None other than the Harvard law Review:
"Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/booklet.asp
Obummer's treatment of the Vets is bad enough. He has deliberately put in place policies that weaken the military. But I'm really not talking to you. I just came for a visit when I saw my initials and answered to that. Bye!
A highly selective reading of an issue that was debunked ages ago.....as it states within the article.
IE 'The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself.'
Long ago it was established that the writer of the blurb had made an error, but of course, that becomes part of your hard-hat conspiricy theory.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on September 29, 2016, 03:24:24 AM
ZB, I urge you to read up on how to construct a premise and logical conclusion properly instead of all your inductive fallacies. To pick you up on only one issue you have used to suggest that Clinton is some kind of thief: inheritence taxes...
I quote from US.News
'In reality, the effective rate will never reach the nominal top rate of 65 percent. Smart tax planners will continue to devise strategies to reduce the effective estate tax. Even with no planning at all, the 65 percent rate applies only to the portion of an estate's value that exceeds $1 billion for a married couple. Before a single dollar is taxed at 65 percent, a married couple would pass $460 million to their children.'
Do you even know anyone this will affect? Far from your sweeping statement that she is trying to hurt people who just want to leave their estate to their family: it is probably about one half of one percent of the US population who would be hit by this. It may sound like a high rate, but as pointed out, the effective rate will be much lower via estate planning. Also, the rate was higher than this proposal for decades under both complexions of government.
Mike
Yikes, I am trying to stay out this! 65% is an obscene rate even if only 1% pay it. The point I was making that for social benefits that she is now peddling to the public, someone will have to pay for them. It ends up by the people who were supposed to benefit by them and even in a worse predicament since so much money will be dissipated by bureaucracy as the so-called Affordable Health Care which is anything but. Socialized medicine may work in smaller countries but the US is too big for that to be a streamlined service. I can't stand the way benefits are freely promised by politicians but how they will be paid for is blanked out. During the debate she was trying to project herself as little ol' middle class me, when in effect she is rolling in money.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 29, 2016, 03:36:11 AMSocialized medicine may work in smaller countries but the US is too big for that to be a streamlined service.
There are these smaller entities called states in the US, though, and counties in those states. There's more than one big hospital in smaller countries too.
ZB, That is a completely different argument and exactly echos Trump when he suggests he does not pay tax because the government wastes it anyway.
If the set-up of the country is to enable one half of one percent of the residents to own as much as the bottom 90% of the population, surely it is right to wonder who is busy robbing who? That is the position in the US. Corporate and big money interests have steadily robbed various countries. It is way beyond mere entrepreneurial spirit.
What is done with any money recouped is certainly open to discussion. But that is yet another argument from where you started, which was, Clinton wants to rob families of their wealth.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on September 29, 2016, 03:30:54 AM
A highly selective reading of an issue that was debunked ages ago.....as it states within the article.
IE 'The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself.'
Long ago it was established that the writer of the blurb had made an error, but of course, that becomes part of your hard-hat conspiricy theory.
Mike
So why wasn't it disavowed back then? If how Obama or Barry Soetoro got into Columbia as a "foreign student", then it would all make sense. Members of the Class of '83 who remember him are as scarce as hens' teeth. The point is, if you add it all up, all these unanswered questions doesn't really inspire confidence. Instead, they provide the manure for any conspiracy theory, true or false or anything in-between to grow like weeds.
Quote from: knight66 on September 29, 2016, 03:44:11 AM
ZB, That is a completely different argument and exactly echos Trump when he suggests he does not pay tax because the government wastes it anyway. If the set-up of the country is to enable one half of one percent of the residents to own as much as the bottom 90% of the population, surely it is right to wonder who is busy robbing who? That is the position in the US. Corporate and big money interests have steadily robbed various countries. It is way beyond mere entrepreneurial spirit.What is done with any money recouped is certainly open to discussion. But that is yet another argument from where you started, which was, Clinton wants to rob families of their wealth.
Mike
That was only one instance in which Trump put his foot in his mouth. For sure he has paid plenty of tax over the years. As for Clinton robbing families of wealth, how about taking bread from the mouths of children? She and the Clinton Foundation did as much in Haiti. She can smile all she wants (smile and be a villain) but a person endorsed by Planned Parenthood has a big red X in my books.
God, I always love conspiracy theories that rely on the absence of something.
"Why can't I find this? I ought to be able to find this. It should be handed to me on a platter. Why wasn't anyone recording this for my benefit? Why wasn't anyone anticipating my question decades before I asked it? Where's the proof that this didn't happen? There ought to be proof."
And on and on it goes. Always with a complete lack of analysis about how one would actually go about proving whatever it is that the conspiracy theorist wants proved, and a complete lack of analysis about whether the "crucial" piece of information would have actually been memorable at the time.
Personally, I've had errors about me made on national television. I didn't think a great deal about it at the time, although one of those errors did appear to contribute to a middle-aged couple trying to get me interested in their daughter. Now I'm worried, though, that if in my remaining decades I do something that gives me a higher profile, someone's going to dig up a recording of the relevant broadcast and then I'm going to think about how I prove that I didn't do one of the things the TV presenter said I did. I have no records to prove I didn't do it, there being no records of a non-activity. Keeping records of ALL the things I didn't do would be such a time consuming task I would never have time to actually do anything else.
I can think of dozens of things I didn't do today. Perhaps I'd better write them down in my non-diary.
PS Do you realise no-one has ever seen Hillary and her body double in the same room together? FACT.
Again, you conflate about half a dozen issues in one post. It is like watching a pinball machine in play. Throw enough mud at the wall, surely it will not all fall to the ground. However, as usual, the accusations you fired this time were not found to be factual. In a lot of minds, being a supporter of planned parenthood is a distinct plus. But those folk are no doubt also utterly evil.
Mike
Quote from: ørfeø on September 29, 2016, 03:57:34 AM
PS Do you realise no-one has ever seen Hillary and her body double in the same room together? FACT.
If there is a double (kagemusha) or even triple, they were probably in a room together if only to perfect the act. I don't subscribe to this theory however.
Quote from: knight66 on September 29, 2016, 03:58:56 AM
Again, you conflate about half a dozen issues in one post. It is like watching a pinball machine in play. Throw enough mud at the wall, surely it will not all fall to the ground. However, as usual, the accusations you fired this time were not found to be factual. In a lot of minds, being a supporter of planned parenthood is a distinct plus. But those folk are no doubt also utterly evil. Mike
I wish I could find ONE thing that Hillary does which is noble or commendable. At least, however, she is consistent.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 29, 2016, 04:29:29 AM
I wish I could find ONE thing that Hillary does which is noble or commendable.
I think that both her advocacy for relief funds for NYC in the rubble of 9/11, and her arguments in favor of proceeding in the less-than-100%-certain sting operation which did in the event bag Osama bin Laden, essentially qualify.
Separately, I am glad to see the El Tupé campaign sink to the level of Bill Clinton's marital infidelities. This, more than any of the prior flailing, is clearly an act of desperation.
Trump is off message - again [sigh]. :-[ I cannot understand his tendency for these self-destructive asides. There are so many issues, legitimate issues, he could be pushing. I wish he would take the three top issues driving Clinton's low approval numbers and the three top issues for which his presidency would represent change - and hammer that message home, day in and day out, until November.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 04:42:57 AM
Trump is off message - again [sigh]. :-[ I cannot understand his tendency for these self-destructive asides.
He has got to be himself.
Thank God.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 04:42:57 AM
Trump is off message - again [sigh]. :-[ I cannot understand his tendency for these self-destructive asides. There are so many issues, legitimate issues, he could be pushing. I wish he would take the three top issues driving Clinton's low approval numbers and the three top issues for which his presidency would represent change - and hammer that message home, day in and day out, until November.
;)
The biggest trick that the Clinton campaign seems to have figured out is that Trump is never happier than when talking about himself. He's positively eager to make himself the issue, because he is his own frame of reference for everything.
Quote from: ørfeø on September 29, 2016, 05:08:56 AM
The biggest trick that the Clinton campaign seems to have figured out is that Trump is never happier than when talking about himself. He's positively eager to make himself the issue, because he is his own frame of reference for everything.
And the poor thing didn't have the stamina to last an entire debate with Clinton. I think he may need to see a doctor.
Trump is not off message. If you think he is you don't know what message is on. The Repubs nominated Trump and the Trump message. They knew he wasn't a Repub in anything but name, that he had no ideology, that the message would be whatever he said it was, that he couldn't be managed or disciplined. All of this was evident and widely discussed in the media and certainly behind closed doors in Repub gatherings.
Trump Becomes Latest GOP Nominee To Get Lost Inside The Fox News Bubble (https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/09/28/trump-becomes-latest-gop-nominee-get-lost-inside-fox-news-bubble/213396)
The punchline today? Reports suggest that in the wake of Trump's failed debate performance, Ailes' campaign role may be expanding. The Republican Party now appears to be trapped in a Fox News cycle that chews up GOP nominees.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 04:42:57 AM
Trump is off message - again [sigh]. :-[ I cannot understand his tendency for these self-destructive asides. There are so many issues, legitimate issues, he could be pushing. I wish he would take the three top issues driving Clinton's low approval numbers and the three top issues for which his presidency would represent change - and hammer that message home, day in and day out, until November.
But that's not what he's running for.
Originally he entered the primary contest in hopes of promoting his commercial brand.
Very few people in the contiguous states are less fit for the office of president than Trump and he didn't want it.
He'd figured he'd wind up in the top three primary candidates and he'd get a good offer for a tv show after.
Unfortunately it didn't work that way, and now his crazy belief that he has to be nr 1 at everything he does (btw he's not one of the top New York real estate developers; not even close) compels him to go on with this charade.
So he can't be off message, because he doesn't have a message.
Quote from: drogulus on September 29, 2016, 05:28:26 AM
Trump is not off message. If you think he is you don't know what message is on. The Repubs nominated Trump and the Trump message. They knew he wasn't a Repub in anything but name, that he had no ideology, that the message would be whatever he said it was, that he couldn't be managed or disciplined. All of this was evident and widely discussed in the media and certainly behind closed doors in Repub gatherings.
Yours is a myopic view of Trump's campaign. Yes, he manipulated the media and dominated the news cycle with his controversial statements. This was how he marginalized the 16 other Republican primary challengers. But he also has issues he's developed throughout his campaign in between his other outbursts.
Trump is not part of the political elite; he is not even a politician;
Immigration;
Terrorism;
Trade deals;
The role for the US in the world;
Taxes and the economy.
It is primarily because of these issues that he was voted to become the Republican nominee. He should use these issues as well as hammer the Clinton campaign on her negatives and contrast his policies with hers and curtail his "off-message" comments.
;)
Not of the political elite. Simply of the elite.
His greatest con of all has been convincing so many people that he cares a fig about the little guy. Even while he has used his wealth as leverage to cheat small businesses left and right. He gives even the elite a bad name.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 06:01:12 AM
Trump is not part of the political elite; he is not even a politician;
That one is not an "issue". It is a statement about a person.
And it is negated the moment he does actually have a position on any of the issues you listed after that one. Being a politician means having policies. "Not being a politician" is hardly something to be celebrated when electing someone to political office, unless one believes that there's no difference between being the President and being the entertaining star of a reality television show.
As I read the other day, "When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet."
Characteristic chutzpah in using the word squander of anyone else on the planet.
Trump spoke off the cuff about the most important responsibility of our commander in chief: U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Apparently unaware of the meaning of the words, he first said he believed in "no first use" of nuclear weapons, then contradicted himself by saying he would keep his options open as president. One of us (Michael Vickers) had oversight for U.S. nuclear weapons policy during the George W. Bush administration, and we can say unequivocally that absolute clarity is critical to the strength of our nuclear deterrent. And these comments come on top of Trump's already-reckless pattern of remarks on allowing more countries to obtain nuclear weapons and the potential scenarios in which he would consider using such weapons.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-proves-he-is-unfit-unserious-and-unprepared-on-national-security/2016/09/28/42449c20-8595-11e6-92c2-14b64f3d453f_story.html?utm_term=.f13c8a1e5e67 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-proves-he-is-unfit-unserious-and-unprepared-on-national-security/2016/09/28/42449c20-8595-11e6-92c2-14b64f3d453f_story.html?utm_term=.f13c8a1e5e67)
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 06:01:12 AM
Trump is not part of the political elite; he is not even a politician;
Immigration;
Terrorism;
Trade deals;
The role for the US in the world;
Taxes and the economy.
You might have nominated a politician who would make these issues the centerpiece of the campaign, which means a professional who holds views you favor on the issues you mention. Instead you nominated Trump.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2016, 06:12:34 AM
Characteristic chutzpah in using the word squander of anyone else on the planet.
Got your point. Would that be late Marie Antoinette or the better situated Louis XIV?
In any case, it's pure schlock.
No danger of the Trumps stealing furniture from the White House, however.
Quote from: drogulus on September 29, 2016, 06:31:50 AM
You might have nominated a politician who would make these issues the centerpiece of the campaign, which means a professional who holds views you favor on the issues you mention. Instead you nominated Trump.
Voters picked Trump based on his positions on these issues, he was not chosen by some vague notion of the "Republicans". If anything, the back room Republicans worked overtime in an attempt to thwart the will of the voters.
Quote from: ørfeo on September 29, 2016, 06:11:53 AM
That one ["Trump is not part of the political elite"] is not an "issue". It is a statement about a person.
It is an issue. I think a majority of voters want a departure from the kind of politics that has been going on for decades. What Trump represents to many voters is an opprotunity of breaking the lock on the legislative agenda that is determined by elected officials in bed with corporate donors and their lobbyists, goaded along by media assumptions about what is doable or preferable according to elitist thinking.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 29, 2016, 07:01:24 AM
No danger of the Trumps stealing furniture from the White House, however.
You are a real piece of work. It's amazing how good you are at insinuating that someone
other than the Trumps posed a danger to White House furniture, even after another forum member demonstrated that there is no evidence of any theft by anyone.
Let's create a list of other things that the Trumps aren't at risk of doing. I'm fairly confident in saying that there's no danger of the Trumps converting the White House into a casino. I don't foresee any danger of them selling the White House to the Chinese. I don't think there's any danger of the Trumps forcing White House housekeepers to perform sadomasochistic sex acts for the Trumps' viewing pleasure.
Quote from: ørfeo on September 29, 2016, 07:19:53 AM
You are a real piece of work. It's amazing how good you are at insinuating that someone other than the Trumps posed a danger to White House furniture, even after another forum member demonstrated that there is no evidence of any theft by anyone.
Let's create a list of other things that the Trumps aren't at risk of doing. I'm fairly confident in saying that there's no danger of the Trumps converting the White House into a casino. I don't foresee any danger of them selling the White House to the Chinese. I don't think there's any danger of the Trumps forcing White House housekeepers to perform sadomasochistic sex acts for the Trumps' viewing pleasure.
You must really be burning the midnight oil over there, just for a chance to throw another barb at me. I am not impressed by anyone who has to descend to
ad hominem or in this case,
ad mulierem arguments. That's why I don't like talking to you or reading your scurrilous comments. However, if the newspapers only come on packet ships, you might find a back issue of ABC news that wouldn't have published this allegation if there weren't something to it:
"After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.
Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return. McDaniel discussed the matter Wednesday with Betty Monkman, the White House curator, and Gary Walters, the chief usher, or executive manager of the White House.
They were reviewing the gifts the Clintons chose to keep after $28,000 worth of items were found on a list of donations the Park Service received for the 1993 White House redecoration project. The Washington Post this week quoted three people who said that they assumed the furnishings they donated for the project would stay in the White House."http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1
Gary Johnson's Aleppo moment...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo-moment.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo-moment.html?_r=0)
There's at least ONE world leader Trump can name without hesitation 8)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 29, 2016, 07:29:35 AM
You must really be burning the midnight oil over there, just for a chance to throw another barb at me.
Yes, yes, the ONLY reason I am still up at this hour is you. Reading your material is that alluring and my life revolves around the experience.
PS I am secretly in love with you. Let's get married.
Quote from: ørfeo on September 29, 2016, 07:40:48 AM
Yes, yes, the ONLY reason I am still up at this hour is you. Reading your material is that alluring and my life revolves around the experience. PS I am secretly in love with you. Let's get married.
I'm already taken. You would have never had a chance in the world. In fact, I would have rather been a nun instead.
Already married? Don't let that be a barrier. Look at Trump. Or Muslims.
Quote from: André on September 29, 2016, 07:37:17 AM
Gary Johnson's Aleppo moment...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo-moment.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo-moment.html?_r=0)
There's at least ONE world leader Trump can name without hesitation 8)
We already had a cretin for two terms! (There must be a reverse sifting process in politics so only the wealthiest, sneakiest, stupidest people get chosen!)
Walking down memory lane with George W:
20. "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." - Nov. 28, 2005
19. "We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans." - Sept. 6, 2000
18. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - Dec. 19, 2000
17. "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." - Aug. 30, 2000
16. "I think we agree, the past is over." - May 10, 2000
15. "I understand small business growth. I was one." - Feb. 19, 2000
14. "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." - April 23, 2002
13. "I want everybody to hear loud and clear that I'm going to be the president of everybody." - Jan. 18, 2001
12. "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." - Jan. 3, 2000
11. "I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will." - Oct. 5, 2002
10. "I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." - June 18, 2002
9. "I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." - May 25, 2004
8. "I firmly believe the death tax is good for people from all walks of life all throughout our society." - Aug. 13, 2002
7. "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." - Sept. 17, 2002
6. "The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." - Oct. 8, 2004
5. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - Sept. 29, 2000
4. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - Aug. 5, 2004
3. "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" - Jan. 11, 2000
2. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." - Jan. 27, 2000
1. "They misunderestimated me." - Nov. 6, 2000
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=41606
Quote from: ørfeo on September 29, 2016, 07:49:37 AM
Already married? Don't let that be a barrier. Look at Trump. Or Muslims.
Muslim women get only one husband. It's that or nothing.
One of the wives of King Hussein of Jordan thought she could have a little hanky-panky on the side.
She died in a helicopter accident that practically everyone knew why and how it happened...
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 07:09:29 AM
I think a majority of voters want a departure from the kind of politics that has been going on for decades. What Trump represents to many voters is an opprotunity of breaking the lock on the legislative agenda that is determined by elected officials in bed with corporate donors and their lobbyists, goaded along by media assumptions about what is doable or preferable according to elitist thinking.
The big problem with this is that the "normal" legislative agenda doesn't get replaced with anything.
Some months ago I read an article that discussed the rise of "non-establishment" candidates rather well. Some of it referenced Trump but it was mostly looking further, at Tea Party candidates that have been elected because they were going to shake up the order of things replacing establishment Republicans who were seen as a problem because they were a part of the system.
But those candidates didn't create a new legislative direction. They created gridlock. Standing in the way of things getting done the "old" way didn't result in things being done a new way, it resulted in things not being done at all.
And so voters, frustrated by this and correctly perceiving that Congress wasn't achieving the results they wanted, reasoned that the solution was to elect people who were even MORE non-establishment, who promised even more to shake things up.
Who created even more gridlock as they refused to negotiate or compromise in the traditional way. And so voters picked candidates who made even greater promises to "shake things up" in the belief that this would create desirable action...
You can no doubt see where I'm going with this. Trump undoubtedly promises to not be an establishment politician. But that doesn't translate into getting things done. The President of the United States doesn't have power to get done whatever he wants, because the United States is not a dictatorship. It is quite consciously and deliberately designed NOT to be a dictatorship, because the founders of the United States were breaking away from a system they perceived as capable of dictatorship.
And so you have separation of powers, and a system that is quite deliberately designed to require people to compromise and negotiate.
I've got no argument with the basic proposition that the direction of government ought to be determined by the people far more than it is determined by corporate donors. But that isn't going to be solved by electing a very rich man whose money is based very much on who he knows and can do deals with. It's going to be solved by campaign finance reform and finding a way to get rid of the truly ridiculous decision (
Citizens United I think it's called) that asserted that somehow corporations have the same rights to participate in the political process as individuals, even though corporations cannot register to vote, and that somehow money is speech.
Billionaires running for president was tried with Ross Perot in 1992. But as a third party candidate he didn't have a chance. This lesson was not lost on Donald Trump who was toying with the idea in 1996 but the time was not ripe apparently for him to run as the Republican nominee in a two way race.
The bizarre part is he was actually quite cozy with the Clinton's for a long time. He even donated more money to the Democrat party! So he is not a grass-roots Republican at all!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432444/donald-trump-donated-democrats-crooks
In New York State between January 29, 1999, and March 1, 2015. Trump gave a total of $601,411.66. These dollars were divided around 58% to Dems, 40% to R's and the rest to independent parties.
I really don't have time for either of the two candidates and as I said before DT is the least worst choice.
Quote from: ørfeo on September 29, 2016, 08:05:37 AM
I've got no argument with the basic proposition that the direction of government ought to be determined by the people far more than it is determined by corporate donors. But that isn't going to be solved by electing a very rich man whose money is based very much on who he knows and can do deals with. It's going to be solved by campaign finance reform and finding a way to get rid of the truly ridiculous decision (Citizens United I think it's called) that asserted that somehow corporations have the same rights to participate in the political process as individuals, even though corporations cannot register to vote, and that somehow money is speech.
You act as if Hillary Clinton isn't a very rich woman. ;D
Well, corporations do have a right to contribute to campaigns and lobby elected officals; they have been treated as "persons" under the law for a long time. And, corporations more than the average voter, are effected by what these politicans do. However, the main kind of reform I support is absolute and instantaeous transparency so voters see who gave what to whom and what they got. Regulation by the ballot box.
;)
Trump, as non-politician, promises at least the chance for change. Presidents have the power to set the agenda, access to a bully pulpit and, if voted in with enough of a mandate, they drive the legislative bus. Not so for a member of the House of Representatives, which is where most of the Tea Party candidates are you mention.
But, why am I talking about this election with you? Are you even a citizen of the US?
:-\
Somehow I don't think there's going to be more transparency if the man who doesn't publish his tax returns is elected.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 08:35:36 AM
You act as if Hillary Clinton isn't a very rich woman. ;DBut, why am I talking about this election with you? Are you even a citizen of the US?
Citizens of other developed counties do not labor under the misconception that what goes on in other countries doesn't matter. After all, the US is the largest economy in the world, and when the US had a banana-republic style financial crisis in September 2008 the entire global economy suffered the consequences.
Quote from: North Star on September 29, 2016, 08:40:02 AM
Somehow I don't think there's going to be more transparency if the man who doesn't publish his tax returns is elected.
I know you are being facetious, but the two issues are not related. People are making a big deal out the tax returns, but really they are only of benefit to journalists who wish to write about how much charity he gave, his income, and use the returns as a cudgel. I think he is smart not to release them; there is no legal requirement for a candidate to do so.
If the press wish to take his refusal to release them as evidence he has something to hide - sure, okay, maybe he does; maybe he wishes to retain some competitive edge as a businessman. But the press is more than ready to tolerate what Hillary wants to hide by deleting 33,000 emails
:)
Quote from: North Star on September 29, 2016, 08:40:02 AM
Somehow I don't think there's going to be more transparency if the man who doesn't publish his tax returns is elected.
He'll be "more presidential" any day now!
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 08:49:37 AMBut the press is more than ready to tolerate what Hillary wants to hide by deleting 33,000 emails
:)
Yeah, because the press totally gave her a free pass on that..
Quote from: Rinaldo on September 29, 2016, 09:34:43 AM
Yeah, because the press totally gave her a free pass on that..
Now its the press again...
So what, they were her emails and she can delete them anytime she wants. Its not like she had a court order to turn them over and then deleted them.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 08:49:37 AMIf the press wish to take his refusal to release them as evidence he has something to hide - sure, okay, maybe he does; maybe he wishes to retain some competitive edge as a businessman. But the press is more than ready to tolerate what Hillary wants to hide by deleting 33,000 emails.
This is what FBI director Comey said about the "missing" emails:
QuoteWith respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been "up-classified."
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton's system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as "personal" by Secretary Clinton's lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
...
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
The FBI point of view seems clear to me. Clinton failed to follow rules for curation of her email correspondence, but there is no evidence of an attempt to conceal, and only 3 emails that Clinton failed to turn over were at all sensitive. I can live with that.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 08:49:37 AM
But the press is more than ready to tolerate what Hillary wants to hide by deleting 33,000 emails
Actually, a number of journalists have in fact pressed upon this issue.
I'm sure you agree that El Tupé's "I'll release my tax returns when she releases her e-mails" was lame at best.
Quote from: Scarpia on September 29, 2016, 09:58:00 AM
The FBI point of view seems clear to me. Clinton failed to follow rules for curation of her email correspondence, but there is no evidence of an attempt to conceal, and only 3 emails that Clinton failed to turn over were at all sensitive. I can live with that.
Afterwards the FBI admitting to finding 30 emails related to Benghazi (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-recovered-30-potentially-new-clinton-emails-related-to-2012-benghazi-attacks/2016/08/30/150bcf1a-6ed1-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html). One canonly assume how many emails related to pay-for-access via the Clinton Foundation (which the FBI was not interested in) were deleted.
The law she violated does not require any intent, the mere act of removing or destroying is a violation of the statute. The fact that the FBI chose not recommend indictment was within their discretion, but no indication of innocence on her part. The FBI makes judgment calls all the time, as they did with David Pretreous, who similarly mishandled government documents and was forced to plead guilty, which ended his career.
To the degree someone accepts her explanations with a straight face is the degree they are viewing her behavior through a partisan lens. She famously stated that she had not deleted any email "labeled classified". Well, that is technically correct, government documents are not labeled "Classified", they are labeled with the level of classification, e.g., Top Secret; Secret; Confidential; Restricted; Official - one of the five levels of classfication. And even if they had not been labeled, State Dept. employees with security clearance are trained to recognize by the content s when a document should b etreated as classifed.
Hillary's use of language is classically Clintonian.
Employees at Trump's California golf course say he wanted to fire women who weren't pretty enough (http://"http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-women-20160929-snap-story.html#nt=oft12aH-1la1")
"Trump had me at 'build a wall,'" Anglin said. "Virtually every alt-right Nazi I know is volunteering for the Trump campaign." (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-david-duke-20160928-snap-story.html)
"We had no idea he would be engaging in this kind of footsie with them," said Heidi Beirich, who tracks hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center and now monitors Trump's statements as part of its campaign watch. "These are some of the worst ideas in the history of our society. I don't know how you undo this."
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 29, 2016, 07:51:44 AM
We already had a cretin for two terms! (There must be a reverse sifting process in politics so only the wealthiest, sneakiest, stupidest people get chosen!)
Walking down memory lane with George W:
20. "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." - Nov. 28, 2005
............................
1. "They misunderestimated me." - Nov. 6, 2000
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=41606
Those not yet acquainted with David Icke as a reference used here should perhaps know he´s the very, very colourful fellow who´s made a fortune by claiming that a secret, ancient race of reptiles took over the Earth long ago, and that they are now ruling the human race, in disguise as leading politicians etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
Ridiculous "Bushism" statement examples are well-documented - but there are better sources than David Icke.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2016, 10:22:54 AM
"Trump had me at 'build a wall,'" Anglin said. "Virtually every alt-right Nazi I know is volunteering for the Trump campaign." (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-david-duke-20160928-snap-story.html)
"We had no idea he would be engaging in this kind of footsie with them," said Heidi Beirich, who tracks hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center and now monitors Trump's statements as part of its campaign watch. "These are some of the worst ideas in the history of our society. I don't know how you undo this."
The rapid rise in the online and mainstream visibility of white supremacy and antisemitism has, for me, been the most shocking byproduct of this bizarre election cycle.
Quote from: Mahlerian on September 29, 2016, 10:49:18 AM
The rapid rise in the online and mainstream visibility of white supremacy and antisemitism has, for me, been the most shocking byproduct of this bizarre election cycle.
Loathsome. Utterly loathsome.
Second, the argument that "I am a rotten human being, but your husband is, too" in essence acknowledges that [El Tupé] is a cruel bully. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/29/trumps-desperate-dive-into-the-sewer/?utm_term=.5e4697d0e132)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2016, 10:55:38 AM
Second, the argument that "I am a rotten human being, but your husband is, too" in essence acknowledges that [El Tupé] is a cruel bully. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/29/trumps-desperate-dive-into-the-sewer/?utm_term=.5e4697d0e132)
"Fifth, the hypocrisy is a bit much to bear here. [El Tupé] is a thrice-married, admitted philanderer who openly cheated on his ex-wife and bragged about it to the media. In the annals of marital cruelty, he is in a class by himself."
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 10:18:44 AM
Afterwards the FBI admitting to finding 30 emails related to Benghazi (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-recovered-30-potentially-new-clinton-emails-related-to-2012-benghazi-attacks/2016/08/30/150bcf1a-6ed1-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html). One canonly assume how many emails related to pay-for-access via the Clinton Foundation (which the FBI was not interested in) were deleted.
Yes, one can only assume, and you seem to wish to assume without evidence. Emails related to the Clinton foundation would be private, would not have been on the State Department server if Clinton had strictly followed the rules. She would have been under no obligation to turn them over to anyone. Why is she culpable for not turning over private emails? She has no right to preserve her privacy?
Quote
The law she violated does not require any intent, the mere act of removing or destroying is a violation of the statute. The fact that the FBI chose not recommend indictment was within their discretion, but no indication of innocence on her part. The FBI makes judgment calls all the time, as they did with David Pretreous, who similarly mishandled government documents and was forced to plead guilty, which ended his career.
There is no equivalence with the Petreous case. Clinton failed to handle her email with proper security and record keeping. There has been no evidence that she willfully send classified information to anyone not qualified to receive it. Petreous purposefully sent classified information to a film producer with whom he was having an extramarital affair. Someone who, because of the illicit relationship, would have been in a position to extort him. That is a different thing entirely.
QuoteTo the degree someone accepts her explanations with a straight face is the degree they are viewing her behavior through a partisan lens. She famously stated that she had not deleted any email "labeled classified". Well, that is technically correct, government documents are not labeled "Classified", they are labeled with the level of classification, e.g., Top Secret; Secret; Confidential; Restricted; Official - one of the five levels of classfication. And even if they had not been labeled, State Dept. employees with security clearance are trained to recognize by the content s when a document should b etreated as classifed.
Hillary's use of language is classically Clintonian.
I didn't say I accepted her explanations, which often seem disingenuous. I accept the analysis of the FBI.
Trump released his playlist today. Believe it or not but there is Nessun Dorma sung by Pavarotti.
Less surprising "heart of Stone" (Rolling Stones)
Was 'Smack My Bitch Up' on the list?
Mike
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2016, 10:57:58 AM
"Fifth, the hypocrisy is a bit much to bear here. [El Tupé] is a thrice-married, admitted philanderer who openly cheated on his ex-wife and bragged about it to the media. In the annals of marital cruelty, he is in a class by himself."
It pales - really it does - compared to deleting emails. THAT is
evil, evil.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 07:09:29 AM
Voters picked Trump based on his positions on these issues, he was not chosen by some vague notion of the "Republicans". If anything, the back room Republicans worked overtime in an attempt to thwart the will of the voters.
If you want to appeal to the mammoth suckage of Trump voters I'm OK with that. If it's the will of these voters that to be a Repub is to be a Trumpist, and the other Repubs will crawl through a sewer to stay on his good side like oh, Ted Cruz, Man of Principle, what good name do you have left to defend?
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 08:35:36 AM
You act as if Hillary Clinton isn't a very rich woman. ;D
No, I act as if wealth isn't a point of distinction that somehow makes Trump into an anti-establishment candidate who will transform Washington.
QuoteAnd, corporations more than the average voter, are effected by what these politicans do.
This very much feels as if you're now arguing against yourself to spite me. Your complaint was that the agenda is set by corporations and lobbyists. You're now declaring, after
I agreed with you that this is a problem, that corporations are affected more than average voters.
Well if corporations are affected more than average voters, what the hell is wrong with corporations setting the agenda rather than average voters? Make up your goddamn mind and don't change tack just because you perceive me as an opponent.
QuoteHowever, the main kind of reform I support is absolute and instantaeous transparency so voters see who gave what to whom and what they got. Regulation by the ballot box.
So you want the lights on when you're being screwed. This will in no way prevent you being screwed.
QuotePresidents have the power to set the agenda, access to a bully pulpit and, if voted in with enough of a mandate, they drive the legislative bus. Not so for a member of the House of Representatives, which is where most of the Tea Party candidates are you mention.
The President of the United States isn't even a member of the legislature, and you think he/she drives the legislative bus. How's that been working for Obama?
QuoteBut, why am I talking about this election with you? Are you even a citizen of the US?
Gosh, no, but it's good to know the legendary insular American attitude that there is nothing interesting to be learned beyond the border is alive and well.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 10:18:44 AM
The law she violated does not require any intent, the mere act of removing or destroying is a violation of the statute.
Are you the kind of amateur lawyer who believes that intent is only required if a law explicitly says something about intent? Or does this statute actually say that intent is not required?
Because as a professional lawyer who actually drafts laws, I can tell you that a law does not have to say "intent is required" to require intent.
Reading this is like revisiting parts of this thread all over again.
http://www.scarymommy.com/hillary-clinton-myths-debunked/
Excellent article.
But when someone makes your skin crawl, I guess there is no remedy as long as that person is around.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 29, 2016, 08:35:36 AM
Well, corporations do have a right to contribute to campaigns and lobby elected officals; they have been treated as "persons" under the law for a long time.
Nope. I can't leave it alone. This comment is just so intellectually lazy (and so reminiscent of the majority in
Citizens United and the ludicrous decision that said companies have religious beliefs) that I can't let it slide by.
Right. Corporations have been treated as "persons" under the law for a long time. So let's get them registered as voters. Those that are at least 18 years old of course. Get them signed up at their home address, there's still time before this election.
When they're between 5 and 15 years old, though, they need to be in school. It's compulsory. We'll prosecute their parents if they're not in school.
And corporations have a right to life, yes? Intentionally causing the death of a person, why that's murder!
Killing a corporation is murder!Of course, corporations that
commit crimes ought to go to jail. It's outrageous how judges keep letting them off with a fine, I say lock them up. Especially those corporations that intentionally caused the death of other corporations. Do you realise how many serial killer corporations are roaming the streets at night?
But they're not all bad. There are some decent, law-abiding corporations out there. And we deny them the right to marry. Again, this is only for the ones who are old enough, but this discrimination has to end.
Marriage equality now!Corporations,
******, are treated as "persons" under the law for specific and discrete purposes. Pointing this out is no answer at all to whether or not they ought to be treated as "persons" for the purposes of electing representatives. Pointing out, as I did, that they're not actually entitled to vote and that these representatives are not therefore representatives
of corporations is rather more pertinent.
You questioned why you were talking to me, when I'm not a citizen of the United States. That's right. I'm not. I have no vote in the 2016 presidential election. And yet you completely glide over the fact that no corporation has a vote in the 2016 presidential election by glibly stating that they are to be treated as "persons".
"Ah!", you'll say, "but they're AMERICAN!". In which case no doubt you've seen their birth certificate and/or their citizenship papers. But tell me, how patriotic are they? Have you ever seen them take the pledge of allegiance?
* Edited by moderator
Quote from: knight66 on September 29, 2016, 01:35:51 PM
Was 'Smack My Bitch Up' on the list?
Mike
A brilliant Prodigy song! 0:)
Quote from: ørfeo on September 29, 2016, 03:55:03 PM
Corporations are treated as "persons" under the law for specific and discrete purposes.
I think it would be more accurate to say that they are legally treated as persons except where the law specifies otherwise. Obviously McCain-Feingold was one of many laws that specified otherwise.
SCOTUS has a long and inconsistent history of deciding whether the First Amendment applies to such laws.
Citizens United waves it away by defining "corporation" as "an association of citizens." I think that's incredibly disingenuous. To me, it stands to reason that just as incorporation can provide legal benefits to its owners (e.g. liability shield) then it can also impose legal restrictions on what the corporation can be used for.
Quote from: knight66 on September 29, 2016, 01:35:51 PM
Was 'Smack My Bitch Up' on the list?
Mike
I'd say
Baby's Got a Temper might be more appropriate.
For the evangelical "leaders" who backed him, this is the latest humiliation, confirming that they lack a moral center or any discernible standards. They now support a man urging fellow Americans to go watch a sex tape.
For Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan, his self-made predicament gets worse. Is he really going to tell us this man is fit to be president? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/30/donald-trumps-3-a-m-moment/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.537c3640815d)
Les jeux sont faits as they say in (Trump) casino parlance. At this point everything has been said ad nauseam and nothing, no reasonable or unreasonable argument will change voter's minds. Unless a major, catastrophic gaffe or revelation is made in the coming weeks. Of course it could go both ways.
Apparently (according to pollsters) it takes about a week for a debate's aftermath to register its effect on voters. We'll see what that brings. And start to live with it.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2016, 09:40:55 AM
For the evangelical "leaders" who backed him, this is the latest humiliation, confirming that they lack a moral center or any discernible standards. They now support a man urging fellow Americans to go watch a sex tape.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/09/30/donald-trumps-3-a-m-moment/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.537c3640815d)
Well, yeah, but he also did this (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/donald-trump-evangelicals/), so call it a wash.
"It was a joke!"
To me, the most terrifying thing about Trump remains the level of support he has.
For Conservatives/Replubicans - Trump, warts and all, is far and away better than turning the Supreme Court and the country over to any liberal Democrat, much less Hillary Clinton, for the next four years. Hence the binary choice is clear.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 30, 2016, 11:48:45 AM
For Conservatives/Replubicans - Trump, warts and all, is far and away better than turning the Supreme Court and the country over to any liberal Democrat, much less Hillary Clinton, for the next four years. Hence the binary choice is clear.
But that's not the choice voters face. The choice is Trump or Clinton for President. That's the binary choice, not the Supreme Court as a discrete issue. I will bet that Repubs Before Trump and Conservatives Before Trump won't sell out the precious few beliefs they have left for 30 pieces of SCOTUS fools gold. But, I could be wrong. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on September 30, 2016, 01:08:06 PM
But that's not the choice voters face. The choice is Trump or Clinton for President. That's the binary choice, not the Supreme Court as a discrete issue. I will bet that Repubs Before Trump and Conservatives Before Trump won't sell out the precious few beliefs they have left for 30 pieces of SCOTUS fools gold. But, I could be wrong. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Yes, that is the binary choice I meant. The deciding issue for Republicans is which of those two candidates do they trust with the Supreme Court. The choice is obvious.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 30, 2016, 11:48:45 AM
For Conservatives/Replubicans - Trump, warts and all, is far and away better than turning the Supreme Court and the country over to any liberal Democrat, much less Hillary Clinton, for the next four years. Hence the binary choice is clear.
Then they have lost all sense of proportion. That is like being willing to put a toddler in charge of driving a truck because you don't want your ex-wife to have it.
In any case, it is not true that this is how Conservatives/Republicans feel. An increasing number of such people are declaring that Trump is simply not fit for the office of President. They are saying that a person they don't particularly like but who is qualified is a better option than someone who is hopelessly unqualified.
Your ex-wife might be a bitch, but at least she knows how to drive.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 30, 2016, 01:21:40 PM
Yes, that is the binary choice I meant. The deciding issue for Republicans is which of those two candidates do they trust with the Supreme Court. The choice is obvious.
Is there any reason to believe that Trump's view of Supreme Court appointments would reflect that of the Republican party - that he would even seek or care about their opinion? It seems from out here like his first instinct would be to offer them to his children, and that laws, inasmuch as he cares about them at all, he feels should work only in the service of his personal business interests.
What's sad is that conservative boomers allergic to change and social progress are ready to take their children and grandchildren as hostages of their political views by packing the Supreme Court with conservative judges.
Quote from: ørfeo on September 30, 2016, 01:32:50 PM
Then they have lost all sense of proportion. That is like being willing to put a toddler in charge of driving a truck because you don't want your ex-wife to have it.
To trust El Tupé is rank folly.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: André on September 30, 2016, 03:20:45 PM
conservative boomers allergic to change and social progress
[/b]
haven't they had 8 years of all that? Perhaps even... gasp!!... "normal people" have gotten tired of whatever it is that has been bein served herrre...mm? Or, is it that if you don't like what's been bein served for dinner for 8 years, well then, you just muuuust be a... I guess "bigot"?
Quote from: ørfeo on September 30, 2016, 01:38:55 PM
Your ex-wife might be a bitch, but at least she knows how to drive.
Can I cut-and-paste this beauty and Post it on some choice sites?
I mean, if you consider yourself a Progressive, that statement would get you "Death #37" at the hilarious lesbian blog I frequent. Frankly, if you collated all the terrible remarks in this Thread, I suspect that, other than yours truly, all the other vitriol is from Liberals.
And, take a look, but, at least in this Thread, the ONE... MAIN... and ONLY weapon of choice appears to be belittling a person's brain power. "Oh, they're just stupid. Just stupid and dumb. What a baby." Has there been much more than that here?
You guys are really taking away my joy at all the trauma this Trump seems to inflict upon you. Perhaps, if he wins, then I will regaled with a more doomish tone from you all. You all seem, on the one hand, overly confident, but then in the same breath somewhat terrified and losing it.
All this "oh my God, not Trump" earthquakes and tremors is so perplexing that I can't get any lolz out of your pain. I guess I just wish I could see more of your suffering... now I'M the one suffering!! And it's no fun.
You all need to do a better job of tormenting yourselves with trump. Otherwise I'm just going to have to conclude that you really don't fear trump as much as you say, and that this is all just a big attention whore Thread for everyone to "masturbate themselves to hell" with. See? take a cue from Sean penn and just let the fear flow!! ;)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2016, 03:54:16 PM
To trust El Tupé is rank folly.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
In your opinion, what is Hill's single greatest achievement as Secretary of State?
Sent from my lower intestine using Force of Will
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2016, 04:03:44 PM
In your opinion, what is Hill's single greatest achievement as Secretary of State?
Sent from my lower intestine using Force of Will
This is the creator of a thread called
Ode to Urinella asking.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2016, 04:01:57 PM
Can I cut-and-paste this beauty and Post it on some choice sites?
I mean, if you consider yourself a Progressive, that statement would get you "Death #37" at the hilarious lesbian blog I frequent.
It's amazing how... actually no, it's not amazing. It's to be
expected that you can't tell the difference between what I genuinely think, and an analogy designed to penetrate the obstinate "Conservative" mind.
I don't think Hillary Clinton is a bitch, and I don't think a sane, rational person would become so obsessed with their ex-spouse as to think in these terms. But we've got a poster on this thread espousing the "anyone but a Democrat" line to a degree bordering on irrational, and I'm trying to get through to him by pointing out the sheer folly of not caring whether or not the "anyone else" is actually capable of doing the job.
When you're so focused on denying a role to someone that you genuinely don't care who actually GETS the role, something is seriously wrong. This is supposed to be a vote about electing someone, not a vote about preventing someone from being elected because of some form of festering hatred that has been developing over 20 years because she didn't behave the way people wanted her to behave when she was the wife of the President.
The Republicans had at least some decent, qualified candidates. They threw them away. They got rid of the guys who could have actually driven the truck. And now you've got a Republican divide between the ones that say "I don't care, anyone but Hillary" and the ones that say "Dear Lord, we don't like Hillary but she's better than the alternative". That is what I was referring to. That's a truly remarkable state of affairs, and it was entirely generated by the Republican side of politics.
Quote from: ørfeo on September 30, 2016, 04:59:39 PM
It's amazing how... actually no, it's not amazing. It's to be expected that you can't tell the difference between what I genuinely think, and an analogy designed to penetrate the obstinate "Conservative" mind.
I don't think Hillary Clinton is a bitch, and I don't think a sane, rational person would become so obsessed with their ex-spouse as to think in these terms. But we've got a poster on this thread espousing the "anyone but a Democrat" line to a degree bordering on irrational, and I'm trying to get through to him by pointing out the sheer folly of not caring whether or not the "anyone else" is actually capable of doing the job.
When you're so focused on denying a role to someone that you genuinely don't care who actually GETS the role, something is seriously wrong. This is supposed to be a vote about electing someone, not a vote about preventing someone from being elected because of some form of festering hatred that has been developing over 20 years because she didn't behave the way people wanted her to behave when she was the wife of the President.
The Republicans had at least some decent, qualified candidates. They threw them away. They got rid of the guys who could have actually driven the truck. And now you've got a Republican divide between the ones that say "I don't care, anyone but Hillary" and the ones that say "Dear Lord, we don't like Hillary but she's better than the alternative". That is what I was referring to. That's a truly remarkable state of affairs, and it was entirely generated by the Republican side of politics.
... and all of a sudden it dawned on 'snyprrr' to look over to the margin and he saw that 'orfeo' was from... Australia!! "Oh, for fuck's sake!" he exclaimed, palm on forehead. "A vote?" he chortled. "Decent, qualified?" How could our intrepid hero continue on with someone who had so thoroughly bought into the dichotomy? What? There were only two choices? What? How dare anyone outside the fold of this double-headed eagle attempt a coup? Australia?? 'snyprrr' had had enough and went to the local dive bar...So, when I got to the dive bar, there's a few of the local rednecky lookin boys out there, and they're sort of saying how they think Hill's gonna win, and the one over forty guy with the pock marked face says, "Well, my pappy never thought we'd have a black president (alluding to how 'we're not racist now', and how, soon, you can't accuse us of being sexist, neither!) back to back, and..." I had already walked passed them, but he saw me stop, as if I were debating on whether to join. "Trump... finger on the button..." OK, so they thought Trump was the warmonger.
I looked at them. Yup, these were the people that people thought were Trump supporters. Here were the scared-to-be-called-racist rednecks of yore with their balls gone but mullets intact. You know, I wanted to give these guys something, on GMG's account. Here were guys that all you here would just call "obvious" Republicans, and they were neutered, scared puppies, too scared to vote for He Whom the Bell Tolls, simply because, I suppose, their wives and girlfriends would think they're "mean ole racists" and not give them any hoohah.
So, The Deplorables, yea, they're yours.
btw- you live in Aussie, I live in New Denmark, so here, even the Hell's Angels vote for HillDawg, that's how inculcated it is here, the disease of liberalism.
btw- if I weren't voting for OurLordJesusChrist, I would gladly vote for Trump.
TO BE HONEST THOUGH-
If it were aaaaaaanyone else, and that includes your fine array of worthy contenders... I see precious no difference... Cruz's wife works for DasBanke, heck, even FBI director's BROTHER works for the Clinton Foundation...
I'm sorry, I'm splapbering... it's late, I'm giddy with the tears of the oppressed
FBI Director Comey said TODAY that if you did what Hillary did, you would be arrested. Intent, or not. Does that mean ANYTHING to you?
Quote from: Todd on April 07, 2015, 10:07:58 AM
OK, now that Rand Paul has officially entered the race, I think it is safe to start a thread on this topic. Let's look at the candidates who have filed with the FEC and their chances.
Republicans:
Rand Paul – No chance
Ted Cruz – Slightly more than no chance. Maybe 0.1% probability. (1% if I'm feeling ten times as generous.) But I don't want no Canuck as President.
Mark Everson – No chance
Jack Fellure – No chance
Democrats:
Jeff Boss – No chance
Robby Wells – No chance
Vermin Supreme – My favorite candidate so far. Alas, he has no chance.
Other:
Terry Jones – No chance
Zoltan Istvan – As much as I would like to have a transhumanist President named Zoltan, he has no chance.
More seriously, but only slightly, the race I'd like to see would be between John Kasich and Martin O'Malley, but that ain't gonna happen.
How long until the 2016 election is labeled either A.) The most important election ever, in a generation, or some other very long measure of time, or B.) A turning point of some sort?
hey, remember 2015? :laugh:
Yeah, I'm in Australia.
It's funny. Because Americans never hear much about Australia and don't know anything about Australian politics, they assume that Australians must never hear much about America and don't know anything about American politics.
I'll say this as a Hillary supporter--I totally get where Sanantonio is coming from. If the shoe were on the other foot (that is, if the GOP candidate were sane and able to speak in public without embarrassment, and the Dem candidate were a raving, erratic, childlike narcissist, but they both planned to appoint Supreme Court justices according to their respective party preferences), I admit that I would be very, very torn, and might be strongly tempted to vote for the narcissist, especially this year, when the deciding vote on the court will likely constitute the new President's first major responsibility. I believe that far too many people (and I include in that group those former Bernie supporters who plan to vote third party or not vote at all in this election) underestimate the crucial importance of the Supreme Court. During my adult lifetime, its balance has always been to the right, and the possibility of changing that could make make more lasting progress than anything else a President could accomplish, especially in this time of partisan gridlock. GOP voters like Sanantonio understand that, and are willing to vote for a candidate they don't like in order to prevent that change (and, most likely, tilt the court even further to the right in the event of further deaths or retirements). I wish voters on the left would be that savvy as well--with the Congress as it is, the most change a progressive President can make will involve the Court. I guess the one exception to this thinking would involve the all-important questions of war and peace. I'm assuming those conservatives who recognize that Trump is nuts but plan to vote for him anyway are hoping he'll let Pence take de facto control of foreign policy decisions.
Hillary is the most obviously evil, conniving, ambitious and power mad liar of a public figure I have ever seen. There is endless anecdotal evidence of what she is like in private, when she's not happy. That she was in charge of destroying the lives of the women that her husband raped is common knowledge, yet "Miss Piggy" gets the headlines.
Hillary takes oodles of cashola from Saudi Arabia. 'orfeo', Karl, how do you feel about what Wahabism has to say about liberal causes such as women, gays, etc etc???
HILLARY TAKES MONIES FOR FAVORS IS PROVEN IN LEAKED EMAILS.
WHAT IS HER SINGLE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT AS SECRETARY OF STATE?
Quote from: ørfeo on September 30, 2016, 08:13:03 PM
Yeah, I'm in Australia.
It's funny. Because Americans never hear much about Australia and don't know anything about Australian politics, they assume that Australians must never hear much about America and don't know anything about American politics.
On the RoughForums, Australians are known as complete and utter sellouts to the globalist agenda, Obama-loving, white-guilt ridden. Port Arthur was a patsy and you allowed yourselves to be castrated.
TODAY- Chinese man stabs 19 to death in murder spree
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2016, 08:29:01 PM
Port Arthur was a patsy and you allowed yourselves to be castrated.
Well, that is proof enough that you have no conception of Australian culture whatsoever. We're done.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 30, 2016, 08:25:17 PM
especially this year, when the deciding vote on the court will likely constitute the new President's first major responsibility.
Of course, that is only because the Senate has decided that it won't even consider the nominee presented by the current President, in March.
I've seen a heck of a lot of experts saying this is unprecedented. A few even suggesting it's bordering on unconstitutional.
But hell, if the Senate can refuse to look at a nominee for 9 months, what's to say they can't refuse to look at a nominee for 4 years?
EDIT: The American process for selecting judges looks insanely political from an Australian perspective, even without this. For many of our judges people wouldn't even know which side of politics they vote for. There hasn't been any controversy around a High Court appointment for a couple of decades.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 30, 2016, 08:25:17 PM
Trump is nuts
You're insane
(you see how I did that?) ;)
How do you not see that Hillary is not craven for war to satisfy the deep pockets? She had Qaddafi murdered, how does that not even enter the conversation? "Guns-to'rebels" ring a bell? Gun Runner Hillary?
And you think RichieRich is gonna get drunak and pissed and blow China up? LOL
TELL ME PLEASE, TELL ME HOW HILLARY IS SUCH A PACIFIST. PLEASE ASSURE SHE THAT SHE'S NOTNOTNOT THE TEMPERAMENT TO WANNA GO TO WAR WITH...mmm ... say, IRAN????
BTW-
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH(hold on, yea, this makes me mad, so, anyhow)
PLEASE TELL ME
seeing that Trump's progeny all married TheTribe, and both of the CANTdidates are suckers of the Yissyrel wang so that there is "no sunlight", so, since they BOTH
BOTH BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
ARE IN THE POCKET OF
(said unmentionable)
THEN PLEASE TELL ME
how either of them is not going to do that bloodthirsty nation's bidding and... AT LEAST go to war with....mmm... Irag again?? :P iRAN? sYRIA? sUADI?
A GOOD WAR IS WHAT THIS CUNTRY NEEDS, SOLDIER!!!!!!!
YOU'VE TRIGGERED MY CAPS LOCK!! AAHHHH!!!!Quote from: ørfeo on September 30, 2016, 08:37:14 PM
Well, that is proof enough that you have no conception of Australian culture whatsoever. We're done.
sorry, I was just saying, Aussies should have guns
Let me say, snyprrr, you should stay away from political threads. It seems you're completely out of your element here.
Quote from: ørfeo on September 30, 2016, 08:41:48 PM
Of course, that is only because the Senate has decided that it won't even consider the nominee presented by the current President, in March.
I've seen a heck of a lot of experts saying this is unprecedented. A few even suggesting it's bordering on unconstitutional.
But hell, if the Senate can refuse to look at a nominee for 9 months, what's to say they can't refuse to look at a nominee for 4 years?
EDIT: The American process for selecting judges looks insanely political from an Australian perspective, even without this. For many of our judges people wouldn't even know which side of politics they vote for. There hasn't been any controversy around a High Court appointment for a couple of decades.
We're ONE VOTE away from them taking our GEE YOU ENN ESS away, and that's what we don't want, but you seem to. We don't want you to. You don't like us opposing you by any means. We will, and we must, oppose you to the very end.
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2016, 08:47:31 PM
Let me say, snyprrr, you should stay away from political threads. It seems you're completely out of your element here.
Not at all. You'll come to love Trump, you'll see! ;)
You see, I'm one of those who wouldn't have bailed out the banks in 2008. I would have took the pain, and, surely, we would be in a much better place now. But, no...
WHY DO ALL THE BILLIONAIRES LOVE HILLARY IF SHE IS FOR "THE POOR"?
Just a question, John.
"Hillary, as an American Citizen, how will the TPP benefit me?"Why do you hate Trump, John?
Quote from: ørfeo on September 30, 2016, 08:41:48 PM
Of course, that is only because the Senate has decided that it won't even consider the nominee presented by the current President, in March.
I've seen a heck of a lot of experts saying this is unprecedented. A few even suggesting it's bordering on unconstitutional.
But hell, if the Senate can refuse to look at a nominee for 9 months, what's to say they can't refuse to look at a nominee for 4 years?
EDIT: The American process for selecting judges looks insanely political from an Australian perspective, even without this. For many of our judges people wouldn't even know which side of politics they vote for.
Yep--it is insanely political, and I wonder whether many non-US folks (or even many US folks) realize just how much power the Supreme Court has. In any case, your question about what there is to stop the GOP dominated Senate from keeping the Court seat vacant for 4 years is a good one, and it is indeed one that scares me. But I think she'll find a way to get the vacancy filled--heck, since the majority of district courts of appeals are now more left-leaning, the GOP Congress may be more willing to try their luck with Merrick Garland (a moderate on many issues, and whom they generally respect) than leaving the lower court rulings stand in the event of a tie, which is the current situation. Now, with the possibility of a Trump presidency, they have no political incentive not to wait. After November, the incentives shift.
Snyprr: I haven't been around long enough to know what your other nine and a half thousand posts are like, beyond what I've seen on this thread. Is this your typical posting style?
Also: I think the best way for you to confirm that those rednecks you overheard in that imaginary bar really are "castrated puppies" would be to go over to their table and ask them. Then you can be sure.
Here I was trying to Post something meaningful, and you all trolled me and I lost my focus and now I can't remember what glorious morsel I was going to brighten your day with. Fuck. :(
You guys aren't even any fun anymore. You know Trump's going to win and you are all hatey.
GIVE ME WHAT I WANT AND I WILL GO AWAY
Give me just one day, where all you guys do is rag on Hillary. Not one peep about Trump for 24 hours. Then you can go on with your business and I'll stop Posting here,... I mean all of us, lol!!! (I WILL try to reign them in, it's hard as you know quite well)
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 30, 2016, 09:02:39 PM
Snyprr: I haven't been around long enough to know what your other nine and a half thousand posts are like. Is this your typical posting style?
Also: I think the best way for you to confirm that those rednecks you overheard in that imaginary bar really are "castrated puppies" would be to go over to their table and ask them. Then you can be sure.
I mean, do you not know typical redneck white guilt manifested? It's so 1989. Trust me, I'm sure of what I heard, however, I do believe right now, concerning this very topic of RichieRich, that, a myriad of peoples are saying one thing, but, I just have this sneaky sneaky feeling that come lever time, it's going to be a catastrophic landslide against Nurse Rachet.
And no, this is not my usual style. I drank myself into a blackout hours ago.
If I wants to get drunk and shit up the place on account of you guys being so mean to wasshissface, then pffft!!!
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2016, 08:43:11 PM
sorry, I was just saying, Aussies should have guns
And Aussies don't think that. We understand the science that says that guns used for "protection" don't actually work and increase the chance of death, particularly suicide. We don't have some fantasy about protecting ourselves from our own government.
Australians are not against guns for farmers and hunters and the like, but the notion that citizens of cities should be carrying weapons makes no sense and we wouldn't feel safer doing it. We'd feel less safe. And statistically we'd be right.
But please, you should feel free to live in a bubble where you focus on the 1 in 23 times a gun is used right, and not the 22 in 23 times that it goes horribly wrong. Feel free to speculate on how all those people in Port Arthur wouldn't have died if only someone in the cafe was armed.... and had lightning reflexes and was watching the door instead of tucking into a burger.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2016, 09:08:11 PM
Nurse Rachet
:laugh:
Lady Macbeth with a needle!
Frankly, though, I think there will be a rerun of 9/11 in the next 6 weeks that may be a big game changer.
OK, guys and girls. This thread is hard to keep up for any moderator, and for me personally at times not always very enticing to read (rather depressing actually)
But it is also comforting (and scary at the same time) in the fact that it shows that complete political chaos and institutional decay is not limited to Europe....
Anyway, proceedings here are - predictably - quite heated... :D
But please remember: no name calling in respect to other members and no meaningful debate can take without mutually respectful attitudes.
Play the ball, not the (wo)man!
~ end of service anouncement ~ 8)
Q
Seen on a friend's Facebook page:
QuoteA sitting U.S. President gives the eulogy for a former Israeli prime minister while a wannabe president is tweeting at 3 am asking the American people to look at sex tapes of a former Miss Universe.
Quote from: sanantonio on September 30, 2016, 01:21:40 PM
Yes, that is the binary choice I meant. The deciding issue for Republicans is which of those two candidates do they trust with the Supreme Court. The choice is obvious.
You are aware, aren't you, that a Prez can't just stack the SCOTUS, without winning the approval of the Senate?
Apart from the fact or opinion that Hillary is not (just like Obama) a wild liberal Democrat, but a moderate who would have suited the GOP equally well say, in the 1970s, she will have to propose SCOTUS candidates that make it through the Senate hearings.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 01, 2016, 12:12:58 AM
A sitting U.S. President gives the eulogy for a former Israeli prime minister while a wannabe president is tweeting at 3 am asking the American people to look at sex tapes of a former Miss Universe.
Exactly, really petty and stupid of DDT.
Obama gave a surprisingly good speech. Don't suppose he wrote it though.
Billy boy (smirk) had to make an appearance. No other former US presidents came although as Obama mentioned there were 10 since JFK who were in office while Peres was in a governmental capacity.
Not that the gentleman who raised the point will be persuaded even by a conservative opinion (worth quoting in full):
Trumpkins' Supreme Court excuse crumbles
Jennifer Rubin, 22 September
Republicans straining to justify support for Donald Trump cling to the notion that the Supreme Court is a good enough reason. Along with many other conservatives, we have previously explored some reasons why it is not — e.g., the ship has sailed on gay marriage and abortion; national security overrides judicial concerns; Justice Anthony Kennedy would still be there for a fifth vote against conservatives. Yesterday, Trump added two powerful grounds for abandoning the hoax that he will deliver a strong conservative court.
First, while apparently attempting outreach to African Americans — more realistically, trying to appeal to white audiences who harbor African American stereotypes — he declared that he would support a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy. Think about that, conservative admirers of the 10th Amendment. It's not up to the president in our constitutional system to tell local police what they should and should not do. That should tell you something about Trump's pathetic ignorance about our Constitution. (It ranks up there with saying his sister the judge "signs" bills.) Moreover, the practice has already been declared unconstitutional by a federal court in Trump's own state. Surely he has heard about it?
It's a tad embarrassing when the socialist mayor of New York has a better grasp of the law than the GOP presidential nominee. (Bill de Blasio said Trump's proposal was "appalling" and declared, "he's either ignorant about the history of the city or he's lying about it.")
In addition to de Blasio's suggestions, it may be that Trump intends to ignore the court ruling, or alternatively, force opponents to file suit when he tries implementing stop-and-frisk everywhere else. Maybe all of these explanations apply. In any case, it makes Trump apologists who spout "But the Supreme Court!" argument look ridiculous. (It is noteworthy that he backtracked this morning saying he was talking about Chicago. He wasn't, but in any event he's still proposing the president micromanage local police forces in ways that have been ruled discriminatory.)
All of that would be bad enough. However, Trump also let on that he is going to add names to that supposedly inviolate list of potential Supreme Court nominees — none of them he could name without a teleprompter, no doubt — thrust under his nose by well-meaning conservatives. He declared that he would pick from a list of 20 names — not the 11 he previously listed. Well, he did previously suggest that he might appoint political backer and high-tech mogul Peter Thiel. (Liberals would be happy with him, I suppose, since he is an ardent defender of gay rights.) Trump could have forgotten the number of judges on the list (11? 20? whatever?). If so, it tells you something about how important this is to him.
One is tempted to shake the Trumpkin self-deluders by the lapels and cry, "You've been scammed!" It would, unfortunately, do no good. It is hard to imagine even they, who claim to care about the court, actually believe Trump would appoint judges (not only to the Supreme Court but at the district and circuit court levels) to their liking on anything like a consistent basis. It would no doubt take a nanosecond for him to "trade" a Supreme Court justice for Democratic support for some other priority that is also an anathema to conservatives (e.g. federal child care, tariff legislation).
Let's get real here. Pro-Trump leaders of conservative groups (including evangelicals) and conservative pundits using the Supreme Court to justify their support for a candidate entirely ignorant of and dismissive of legal restraints are kidding themselves and misleading others. They should be honest: They are supporting Trump out of blind party loyalty, careerism (including keeping conservative audiences from shrinking even further than they have), irrational moral equivalence between Trump and Hillary Clinton or because they actually like one or more of his policies (e.g., rounding up 11 million immigrants). Should they be ashamed? By their support for Trump they've demonstrated they are beyond shame — and reason.
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective. Follow @JRubinBlogger
Nor will this matter to those whose objection to Clinton is that she is "dishonest," while those objecting seem to have an inexhaustible capacity for falsehood from El Tupé, but Daniel Dale (@ddale8) of the Toronto Star tweets daily the falsehoods which come forth from the podium, and against which the Tuperos file not a single protest on behalf of the truth, that bedeviled truth which is such a prominent stage-prop in their show of fury against Clinton.
"There's been a lot of talk about sex tapes today, and in a strange turn of events, only one adult film has emerged today, and its star is Donald Trump," Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told a group of reporters stationed outside a fundraiser in Miami Beach.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2016, 05:29:47 AM
Not that the gentleman who raised the point will be persuaded even by a conservative opinion (worth quoting in full):
Trumpkins' Supreme Court excuse crumbles
Jennifer Rubin, 22 September
Republicans straining to justify support for Donald Trump cling to the notion that the Supreme Court is a good enough reason. Along with many other conservatives, we have previously explored some reasons why it is not — e.g., the ship has sailed on gay marriage and abortion; national security overrides judicial concerns...
...he declared that he would support a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy. Think about that, conservative admirers of the 10th Amendment. It's not up to the president in our constitutional system to tell local police what they should and should not do. That should tell you something about Trump's pathetic ignorance about our Constitution.
Rudy Giulani begs to disagree about the constitutionality of "stop and frisk". (It has been done routinely anyway at airports since 9/11/2001.)
"One of the strategies that helped bring about an 85% reduction in crime in New York City between 1994 and 2013 was the careful and appropriate use of "stop and frisk." This practice dramatically reduced the number of guns, knives and other dangerous weapons, as well as illicit drugs, in the city.
Stop and frisk is based on an 8-1 decision of the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio. That ruling hasn't been overturned or even modified by the court since it was handed down in 1968. Stop and frisk is constitutional and the law of the land. The majority opinion, written by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren, approved the constitutionality of stopping a suspect if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, or was about to commit, a crime. If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion the person is armed, he can conduct a pat-down—that is, a frisk—of a person's outer clothing."As for the "ship has already sailed", there is PLENTY to be done to restrain abortion for instance, that has gotten totally out of control, the same with nationalized medicine. The power should be shifted rather to the States instead of having 5 out of 9 people on the Supreme Court deciding moral issues for 318 million people. In effect, they are overriding their power originally given to them, in effect legislating from the bench which was never their function.
The issues that remain are massive, what to do about the disastrous deal made with Iran, bringing American industry back to the US by getting rid of unfair taxes on their products, and of course reducing the mammoth tax burdens which are the real reasons for choking small to medium businesses. Hillary wants to distribute freebies but fails to mention who is going to pay for them.
Pardon me for sharing another opinion piece in full.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/pro-life-voting-for-hillary-clinton (http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/pro-life-voting-for-hillary-clinton)
So you're thinking of voting for a pro-choice candidate... (2 Aug 2016)
I'm pro-life.
Or, put another way, I believe the sacred personhood of an individual begins before birth and continues throughout life, and I believe that sacred personhood is worth protecting, whether it's tucked inside a womb, waiting on death row, fleeing Syria in search of a home, or playing beneath the shadow of an American drone.
I've also voted for both pro-life and pro-choice candidates for political office, including Barack Obama in 2012 and 2008, and George W. Bush in 2004 and 2000.
So I speak as someone who has struggled with, and in some cases regretted, her decisions at the ballot box, and who recognizes no single political party boasts a consistent pro-life ethic, just as no single political party embodies the teachings of Jesus or the values of his Kingdom. (If you think this is the first year your vote fails to reflect Christian principles, I've got some bad news.) I speak too as someone acutely aware of the inconsistencies and uncertainties in my own pro-life convictions, which continue to be challenged and changed in the midst of lived experience.
While I've written in the past about feeling caught between the pro-life and pro-choice camps, I've never used my platform to endorse a presidential candidate. But as so many others have said, this year is different. Knowing many of my pro-life friends feel torn between voting for an unpopular but highly qualified pro-choice candidate in Hillary Clinton and an incompetent narcissist who poses a unique threat to our American democracy in Donald Trump, I'd like to make a proposal:
You should vote for Hillary Clinton.
And I'd like to suggest that voting for a pro-choice candidate in this election, or any election, need not overburden your conscience.
Here's why:
In the eight years since we've had a pro-choice president, the abortion rate in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest since 1973. I believe the best way to keep this trend going is not to simply make it harder for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies but to create a culture with fewer unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Data suggests progressive social policies that make healthcare and childcare more affordable, make contraception more accessible, alleviate poverty, and support a living wage do the most to create such a culture, while countries where abortion is simply illegal see no change in the abortion rate.
By focusing exclusively on the legal components of abortion while simultaneously opposing these family-friendly social policies, the Republican Party has managed to hold pro-life voters hostage with the promise of outlawing abortion, (which has yet to happen under any Republican administrations since Roe v. Wade), while actively working against the very policies that would lead to a significant reduction in unwanted pregnancies.
So even though I think abortion is morally wrong in most cases, and support more legal restrictions around it, I often vote for pro-choice candidates when I think their policies will do the most to address the health and economic concerns that drive women to get abortions in the first place. For me, it's not just about being pro-birth; it's about being pro-life. Every child deserves to live in a home and in a culture that welcomes them and can meet their basic needs. Every mother deserves the chance to thrive. Forcing millions of women to have children they can't support, or driving them to Gosnell-style black market clinics, will not do. We have to work together—pro-life and pro-choice, Democrat and Republican, conservative Christian and progressive Christian—to create a culture of life that celebrates families and makes it easier to have and raise kids. This is the only way to make our efforts at rarifying abortion truly sustainable.
This year, Hillary Clinton has better policy proposals to help improve the lives of women, children, and families than Donald Trump, whose pro-life convictions are lukewarm at best, and whose mass deportation plan would rip hundreds of thousands of families apart, whose contempt for Latinos, Muslims, refugees and people with disabilities would further marginalized the "least of these" among us, and whose support for torture and targeting civilians in war call into question whether Christians who support him are truly pro-life or simply anti-abortion.
(It should be noted that Gary Johnson, whose name I hear a lot from evangelical voters, is also pro-choice. For my thoughts on voting third party, see the comment section below. And for a similar take on all this, but from the perspective of a pro-life activist with special needs kids, be sure to read Shannon Dingle's post, "I'm pro-life. And I'm voting for Hillary. Here's why." It's excellent.)
Those are my views in summary, but I'd like to unpack them in four main points:
First, voting pro-choice is not the same as voting for abortion.
Regarding the 2016 election, the Washington Post recently declared that "for evangelicals, the question has become: which is a worse sin, abortion or racism?" While the people quoted within the article offer far more nuanced perspectives, the headline betrays a common but reductive sentiment—that people who vote for pro-choice candidates are voting for abortions. I can't tell you the number of times I've been called a "baby killer" by conservative Christians, some of whom routinely sent me images of mutilated fetuses during my pregnancy, which is no way to treat any woman, regardless of her views on abortion.
But characterizing all pro-choice voters as pro-abortion is inaccurate and unfair. In fact, a majority of Americans (56%) say abortion should be legal in most cases, even though nearly half (49%) believe it is immoral. Even those numbers don't tell the whole story. While it would be easier to debate one another if reproductive issues fell neatly into black-and-white categories of right and wrong, good and evil, most of us recognize this is simply not the case. The fact that a woman's body naturally rejects dozens of fertilized eggs in her lifetime raises questions about where we draw the line regarding the personhood of a zygote. Do we count all those "natural abortions" as deaths? When does personhood begin—at fertilization? implantation? the presence of brainwaves? the second trimester? There is disagreement among Christians about this, (and historically, even among evangelicals), so is it really my place, or the government's job, to impose my beliefs on people of all faiths and convictions? If abortion is criminalized, should every miscarriage be investigated by police? Should in vitro fertilization be outlawed? Most of us would question whether this couple should have been forced to deliver their stillborn baby, or this woman told by her insurance company that terminating a desperately wanted but unviable pregnancy counted as an abortion. Given the complex nature of these and other issues, the degree to which the government should make decisions on behalf of women and families regarding pregnancy is, and should be, debatable.
I think it's safe to say that few people who vote for Hillary Clinton this year will do so because they want the abortion rate to go up. Every person I've spoken with personally, whether pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere in between, wants to see abortions reduced. That said, I'm concerned by efforts from some in the democratic party to move beyond the "safe, legal, and rare" posture on abortion to one that treats it as just another routine health procedure. (The recent "comedians in cars getting abortions" sketch is a troubling reflection of this trend.) I intend to speak out about this, and other concerning changes to the democratic platform, and would encourage other pro-life progressives to do the same.
Second, criminalizing abortion won't necessarily reduce abortions.
Recent data published by The Lancet journal shows that countries where abortion is illegal or heavily restricted—mainly in Africa and Latin America— don't have lower abortion rates than the rest of the world. In those countries, the rate is 37 abortions per 1,000 women, compared to 34 per 1,000 in countries where it is legal. In fact in Latin America, a region with highly restrictive abortion laws, one in three pregnancies (32%) ended in abortion in 2010--2014, higher than any other region.
This data underscores an important reality: that women will continue to seek out abortions even if they are illegal. This was certainly true in the U.S. before Roe v. Wade, and remains true for women who resort to dangerous and clandestine methods of terminating pregnancies in countries where it is illegal.
Still, we have to be careful of comparing apples to oranges when it comes to the statistics. Most of the countries where abortion is illegal also suffer from widespread poverty and limited access to contraception—huge drivers in the abortion rate. In addition, some surveys show that here in the U.S., states with more abortion restrictions do in fact have lower abortion rates, suggesting legal changes may indeed have some effect.
So, with those considerations in mind, I think it's safer to say that while legal restrictions on abortion might put a dent in the abortion rate, they won't put an end to abortion as we know it, and, most importantly, they won't do a thing to alter the number of unwanted pregnancies. Rather than waiting around for a hypothetical and unlikely legal scenario to play out, our efforts would be better spent working to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies using the tools we already have...which brings me to my next point.
Pro-life advocates should support, rather than oppose, efforts to help low-income families care for their children.
When President Obama recently announced an initiative aimed at improving the distribution of free or low-cost diapers to poor families struggling to care for their babies, many conservatives sneered, calling it the ultimate example of a "nanny state."
It was frustrating to see an idea that was so obviously pro-life and pro-family get lampooned by the very people who say they want millions of low-income women to have millions more babies. I know I'm not the only one who gets red faced whenever a self-proclaimed pro-life politician or pastor belittles and demeans "welfare queens" and "moocher moms," seemingly unaware of the hypocrisy of forcing women to have children they can't afford while simultaneously dismantling the social safety net helps them care for those children.
The fact is, most women who choose to have abortions do so because they feel they cannot manage the financial burden of carrying out the pregnancy and raising another child. The latest survey from Guttmacher found that 49% of abortion patients in 2014 had incomes of less than 100% of the federal poverty level ($11,670 per year) and 26% had incomes of 100-199% of the federal poverty level. The survey reports, "the reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents."
Imagine you're a mother of two working 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job in food service, while your husband hunts for a job. (At $7.25 per hour, that works out to $15,080 a year.) Childcare takes about 30 percent of those earnings, rent groceries and other bills the rest. Now imagine that, like a third of American workers, you don't get any paid sick days, so every time one of your children gets an ear infection or catches the flu, your pay is docked for taking time off to care for them. Imagine too that you can barely afford your health insurance, much less days off for doctor visits, and your employer doesn't offer any paid maternity leave.
Now imagine you get pregnant...
This is the reality faced by millions of women who consider abortions each year, and the sad irony is the same pro-life politicians who want to force them to have their babies typically oppose raising the minimum wage, ensuring paid sick leave and parental leave for all American workers, and protecting the 20 million people who can finally afford health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act. They also tend to oppose additional funding for successful programs like WIC, which provides food assistance to low-income pregnant and postpartum women and their children.
Creating a culture of life isn't just about standing in a picket line with a "Choose Life" sign. It's about seriously addressing the problem of income inequality in this country so that no woman has to choose between getting an abortion or raising her child in poverty. It means celebrating parenthood by making America the most generous country in the developed world when it comes to maternity and paternity leave, not the least generous, and it means working together on efforts to reduce the costs of food, diapers, childcare, pediatrician visits, college tuition, adoption, and resources for special needs children.
Like her or not, agree with her or not, Hillary Clinton has devoted much of her life to tackling these very issues, and she's made them a centerpiece of her campaign. (Check out Shannon's post for more on this.) Some of Clinton's plans include guaranteeing 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, expanding early childhood education, capping childcare expenses at 10 percent of a household's income, helping the families of children with autism and other special needs get access to more resources and support, and insuring more families through the Affordable Care Act. In the past, she has worked with Republicans on legislation that reformed the foster care system and encouraged more adoptions, issues I know matter to many pro-life evangelicals who advocate on behalf of adoption and open their homes to children.
Sometimes I think it's easier for us to talk about "saving millions of babies" than it is to work at creating a culture that can sustainably welcome those babies as they grow into children and adults. Speaking in abstract terms about blank, amorphous "innocent lives" keeps us from confronting the reality that if most of these children are born at or near the poverty line, then the lives we are saving are more likely to be troubled ones, and if nothing changes, those lives will get caught in vicious cycles powered by poverty and systemic racism. If today's "innocent human life" is tomorrow's "welfare queen," you might want to consider whether your convictions are truly pro-life or simply pro-birth. Will your fight for life continue when those babies grow up and the lives we're talking about are kids stuck in the foster care system or in failing schools, teenagers struggling with addiction, immigrants looking for work, or young black men worrying that a traffic stop might end their lives?
Thinking holistically about pro-life values means thinking beyond the labor and delivery unit. If we don't address income inequality in this country, and if we don't support robust plans to improve healthcare and education, we simply can't sustain the very lives we're advocating be protected.
Fourth, (and I've made this point so often before I won't belabor it), if we want to dramatically reduce the abortion rate in this country, we must support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable.
Study after study after study after study shows this to be true.
Not only would improved access to contraception impact the abortion rate in the U.S., it would dramatically reduce maternal and infant deaths around the world. There are more than 220 million women in developing countries who don't want to get pregnant, but who lack access to family planning information and contraceptives. Every year, nearly 300,000 of them will die during pregnancy or from complications giving birth, and many more will be permanently disabled. More than 2.6 million babies will be stillborn, and another 2.9 million will die before they are a month old.
As Melinda Gates explains in here, giving women the opportunity to time their pregnancies and space out their children through effective, low-cost contraception is key to turning these numbers around. Some estimate it could save as many as 2 million children every year, and dramatically curb maternal mortality rates.
If that isn't pro-life, I don't know what is.
Finally, a word to evangelicals about Donald Trump...
According to Pew Research Center, white evangelical Christians overwhelmingly support Donald Trump for president. A solid 78 percent plan to vote for him. While a few prominent evangelical leaders have spoken out against Trump's character and polices, others have endorsed him as evangelical's best bet for retaining power and influence over the culture. Some evangelicals have gone so far as to declare Trump "born again," even though he says he has no need for God's forgiveness.
If these numbers hold, and on election night a reporter looks into a camera and says evangelical Christians proved Trump's most faithful supporters, the reputation of the evangelical movement will be tied to Trump for years to come. This will put evangelicals in the difficult position of having to explain...
- how you can claim God's love for kids with special needs while supporting a man who openly mocks people with disabilities,
- how you can oppose sexual immorality while shrugging off the transgressions of a strip club owner who brags about his sexual exploits and extramarital affairs and who publicly sexualized both of his daughters,
- how you can make grand announcements about your efforts to move toward racial reconciliation while working to elect as president a man people in his own party acknowledge is racist, and who is widely supported by white supremacist groups,
- how you can appeal to "religious liberty" to justify denying wedding cakes to gay and lesbian couples without challenging a candidate who wants to increase surveillance of Muslim neighborhoods, create a database of Muslim citizens, and ban Muslims from visiting the U.S., which would suggest the only "religious liberty" you want to protect is your own,
- how you can claim your conservative views on women's roles aren't anti-woman while supporting a misogynist who says he likes to have a "young and beautiful piece of ass" on his arm, calls women "bimbos" and "fat pigs," and distributed unflattering pictures of a political opponent's wife as a campaign tactic,
- how you can claim it's unfair to characterize evangelicals as anti-intellectual while following a man who believes conspiracy theories from the National Enquirer, thinks climate change is a hoax, says vaccines cause autism, and displays such breathtaking ignorance regarding the state of the world and foreign policy that no former presidents will endorse him and multiple generals, foreign policy experts, editorial boards, and heads of state have denounced him as dangerously uninformed,
- how you can quote Bible verses about "welcoming the stranger" while supporting a candidate who wants to turn away desperate refugee families,
- how you can call yourself "family values" voters while supporting Trump's mass deportation, which would orphan or displace 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens but who have at least one parent who is an undocumented immigrant,
- how you can claim it's a "morally good choice" to elect a president who wants to bring back waterboarding and other forms of torture, who wants to target the families of terrorists because "that's what they do to us," and who admires the tactics of Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein
As Richard Rohr said, "the evangelical support of Trump will be an indictment against its validity as a Christian movement for generations to come."
Evangelicals, I implore you: Don't support Donald Trump. Don't support a racist demagogue who can't even quote a single Bible verse properly and who takes to Twitter to viciously insult everyone he disagrees with. He's playing you. Whatever promises he's made regarding Supreme Court appointments should be weighed against a pattern of lies and failure to follow-through (hello, tax returns?).
Donald Trump is not your pro-life savior.
Of course, neither is Hillary Clinton.
But Clinton is far better positioned to keep the abortion rate at the record low it saw under President Obama while the Republican Party works for the next four years to produce the kind of candidate the people of this country deserve.
Stop and frisk: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/
In short, practice itself is constitutional, implementation of it in NYC was not.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2016, 07:26:54 AM
Pardon me for sharing another opinion piece in full.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/pro-life-voting-for-hillary-clinton (http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/pro-life-voting-for-hillary-clinton)
So you're thinking of voting for a pro-choice candidate... (2 Aug 2016)
I'm pro-life.
Or, put another way, I believe the sacred personhood of an individual begins before birth and continues throughout life, and I believe that sacred personhood is worth protecting, whether it's tucked inside a womb, waiting on death row, fleeing Syria in search of a home, or playing beneath the shadow of an American drone.
First, voting pro-choice is not the same as voting for abortion.
Regarding the 2016 election, the Washington Post recently declared that "for evangelicals, the question has become: which is a worse sin, abortion or racism?" While the people quoted within the article offer far more nuanced perspectives, the headline betrays a common but reductive sentiment—that people who vote for pro-choice candidates are voting for abortions. I can't tell you the number of times I've been called a "baby killer" by conservative Christians, some of whom routinely sent me images of mutilated fetuses during my pregnancy, which is no way to treat any woman, regardless of her views on abortion.
But characterizing all pro-choice voters as pro-abortion is inaccurate and unfair. In fact, a majority of Americans (56%) say abortion should be legal in most cases, even though nearly half (49%) believe it is immoral. Even those numbers don't tell the whole story. While it would be easier to debate one another if reproductive issues fell neatly into black-and-white categories of right and wrong, good and evil, most of us recognize this is simply not the case. The fact that a woman's body naturally rejects dozens of fertilized eggs in her lifetime raises questions about where we draw the line regarding the personhood of a zygote. Do we count all those "natural abortions" as deaths? When does personhood begin—at fertilization? implantation? the presence of brainwaves? the second trimester?
There is disagreement among Christians about this, (and historically, even among evangelicals), so is it really my place, or the government's job, to impose my beliefs on people of all faiths and convictions? If abortion is criminalized, should every miscarriage be investigated by police? Should in vitro fertilization be outlawed? Most of us would question whether this couple should have been forced to deliver their stillborn baby, or this woman told by her insurance company that terminating a desperately wanted but unviable pregnancy counted as an abortion. Given the complex nature of these and other issues, the degree to which the government should make decisions on behalf of women and families regarding pregnancy is, and should be, debatable.
I think it's safe to say that few people who vote for Hillary Clinton this year will do so because they want the abortion rate to go up. Every person I've spoken with personally, whether pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere in between, wants to see abortions reduced. That said, I'm concerned by efforts from some in the democratic party to move beyond the "safe, legal, and rare" posture on abortion to one that treats it as just another routine health procedure. (The recent "comedians in cars getting abortions" sketch is a troubling reflection of this trend.) I intend to speak out about this, and other concerning changes to the democratic platform, and would encourage other pro-life progressives to do the same.
Second, criminalizing abortion won't necessarily reduce abortions.
Recent data published by The Lancet journal shows that countries where abortion is illegal or heavily restricted—mainly in Africa and Latin America— don't have lower abortion rates than the rest of the world. In those countries, the rate is 37 abortions per 1,000 women, compared to 34 per 1,000 in countries where it is legal. In fact in Latin America, a region with highly restrictive abortion laws, one in three pregnancies (32%) ended in abortion in 2010--2014, higher than any other region.
This data underscores an important reality: that women will continue to seek out abortions even if they are illegal. This was certainly true in the U.S. before Roe v. Wade, and remains true for women who resort to dangerous and clandestine methods of terminating pregnancies in countries where it is illegal.
So, with those considerations in mind, I think it's safer to say that while legal restrictions on abortion might put a dent in the abortion rate, they won't put an end to abortion as we know it, and, most importantly, they won't do a thing to alter the number of unwanted pregnancies. Rather than waiting around for a hypothetical and unlikely legal scenario to play out, our efforts would be better spent working to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies using the tools we already have...which brings me to my next point.
Pro-life advocates should support, rather than oppose, efforts to help low-income families care for their children.
When President Obama recently announced an initiative aimed at improving the distribution of free or low-cost diapers to poor families struggling to care for their babies, many conservatives sneered, calling it the ultimate example of a "nanny state."
It was frustrating to see an idea that was so obviously pro-life and pro-family get lampooned by the very people who say they want millions of low-income women to have millions more babies. I know I'm not the only one who gets red faced whenever a self-proclaimed pro-life politician or pastor belittles and demeans "welfare queens" and "moocher moms," seemingly unaware of the hypocrisy of forcing women to have children they can't afford while simultaneously dismantling the social safety net helps them care for those children.
Thinking holistically about pro-life values means thinking beyond the labor and delivery unit. If we don't address income inequality in this country, and if we don't support robust plans to improve healthcare and education, we simply can't sustain the very lives we're advocating be protected.
Fourth, (and I've made this point so often before I won't belabor it), if we want to dramatically reduce the abortion rate in this country, we must support efforts to make contraception more accessible and affordable.
But Clinton is far better positioned to keep the abortion rate at the record low it saw under President Obama while the Republican Party works for the next four years to produce the kind of candidate the people of this country deserve.
Yikes, I don't know who this Rachel Evans is but machine-gun verbosity doesn't make something right. I don't know where to start, her arguments are so convoluted. Offhand, Obama voted against restrictions for late term abortions, on other words, when a fetus can feel pain. (I can look that up.)
Hillary Clinton is endorsed by Planned Parenthood, a VERY bad organization founded by the arch racist Margaret Sanger who wanted to restrict births in the Black community. They peddle the same schlock as this woman in her article, that they are really concerned with preventing unwanted pregnancies, but MOST of their VERY lucrative business comes precisely from abortion. OK, they can do it but it doesn't need to be supported by tax dollars! Some people may object on moral grounds as I do.
It may come that there will be a universal awakening as to the lies that have been put forward by PP (and I never said all of those who work for them are inherently evil but many of them are deluded). This will be similar but far worse than admitting the carnage of having promoted smoking for decades. They don't even admit of devastating psychological consequences not only to the mothers but fathers as well. The last count was 60 million in the US since Roe and Wade. The exceptions for rape and danger to the mother slipped in the door but they are an extremely small minority of those performed. And she said that prohibitions will not reduce the number, now in the 10's of millions?
What's really at fault is the culture of convenience and over-sexualization at increasingly younger ages. This cannot be changed overnight but at least restrictions should be put into place to prevent young people from ruining their lives and/or a lifetime of regret.
As for helping people cope with unwanted pregnancies, there are charitable organizations that do just that.
Concerning the abortion debate, you´re definitely very far away from the sphere of the general, North-West European one, and the considerations and references we use.
I´m pretty sure that to almost all people (~80-90%) over here, if Trump wins in 5 weeks, it will be thought of as the US having gone officially & manifestly bonkers.
But it´s an American decision-making, of course.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 01, 2016, 07:56:08 AM
Yikes, I don't know who this Rachel Evans is but machine-gun verbosity doesn't make something right. I don't know where to start, her arguments are so convoluted. Offhand, Obama voted against restrictions for late term abortions, on other words, when a fetus can feel pain. (I can look that up.)
Hillary Clinton is endorsed by Planned Parenthood, a VERY bad organization founded by the arch racist Margaret Sanger who wanted to restrict births in the Black community. They peddle the same schlock as this woman in her article, that they are really concerned with preventing unwanted pregnancies, but MOST of their VERY lucrative business comes precisely from abortion. OK, they can do it but it doesn't need to be supported by tax dollars! Some people may object on moral grounds as I do.
So, the KKK is better than Planned Parenthood then? We're just going by endorsements here.
The notion that one must vote for a crackpot like Trump to avoid the inconvenience of voting down an unsuitable SCOTUS nominee is not plausible. I doubt that the remnant of Repubs and conservatives that actually have principles and are revolted by Trump are going to throw the Presidency away. This is not a trade off they will make.
Oh yes, Cruz came crawling back. No amount of humiliation is too much for him.
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 01, 2016, 08:11:21 AM
So, the KKK is better than Planned Parenthood then? We're just going by endorsements here.
You were saying?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/video-kkk-grand-dragon-endorses-hillary-clinton/
Ku Klux Klan leader Will Quigg endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
At 2:20 he says he will vote for Hillary Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L65RBwrtOeQ
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group announced earlier this year.
Quote from: Turner on October 01, 2016, 08:09:59 AM
Concerning the abortion debate, you´re definitely very far away from the sphere of the general, North-West European one, and the considerations and references we use.
Not the Catholic Church (about 1 billion strong) and I hear that Islam forbids it.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 01, 2016, 08:29:45 AM
You were saying?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/video-kkk-grand-dragon-endorses-hillary-clinton/
Ku Klux Klan leader Will Quigg endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
At 2:20 he says he will vote for Hillary Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L65RBwrtOeQ
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group announced earlier this year.
The argument based on who supports a person is extremely weak. I wasn't actually endorsing that line of thinking, just pointing out that you're sure to find that it goes both ways.
Anyway, we could always say "Donald Trump, the favorite of Stormfront," and keep going in circles, but like I said, it's not a good argument anyway.
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 01, 2016, 08:35:10 AM
The argument based on who supports a person is extremely weak. I wasn't actually endorsing that line of thinking, just pointing out that you're sure to find that it goes both ways.
Anyway, we could always say "Donald Trump, the favorite of Stormfront," and keep going in circles, but like I said, it's not a good argument anyway.
Going both ways means that the endorsee wholeheartedly accepts the endorsement.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-and-planned-parenthood-unite-after-weathering-the-storm
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 01, 2016, 08:31:39 AM
Not the Catholic Church (about 1 billion strong) and I hear that Islam forbids it.
Catholicism is weak in North-Western Europe, we´re mainly Protestants; one has to go to Eastwards to Poland for example (which is right now the scene of very high tensions due to a right-wing government reducing women´s right to abortion, plus democracy´s institutions in general), or to Ireland, or to Southern Germany, to find strong Catholic influences in the political debates.
By the way, Catholicism has many more followers outside Europe these days.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 01, 2016, 08:39:24 AM
Going both ways means that the endorsee wholeheartedly accepts the endorsement.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-and-planned-parenthood-unite-after-weathering-the-storm
Your argument is awful at any rate. Margret Sanger's remarks, frequently taken out of context, are not necessarily related to the current actions and positions of Planned Parenthood today. I know that among conservatives there are ongoing controversies surrounding the organization, but this makes the founder's ideas irrelevant and thus a red herring.
http://fallacyfiles.org/contexts.html#Sanger
Furthermore, my point was that
X person/organization that I think is bad endorses Y person, therefore Y person is as bad as X is inherently a flawed argument, and not worthy of real consideration. I don't dislike Trump because Stormfront loves him, I dislike him for plenty of other reasons (some of which are related to their love of him, but that's a separate argument).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_hominem_fallacy
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2016, 09:08:11 PM
And no, this is not my usual style. I drank myself into a blackout hours ago.
How old are you?
Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2016, 08:47:31 PM
Let me say, snyprrr, you should stay away from political threads. It seems you're completely out of your element here.
But where else does he go?
The candidates are not running for the Presidency of a church, or one church over another, or secular humanists over any of them, except to the extent that secular government is the tradition since the founding of the country. But even so, one of the strongest reasons for secular government is that it offers the protection of religious freedom, while religions will only give you the supremacy of the favored over the disfavored. No one in their right mind with any sense of history would leave religious freedom to any religion.
Quote from: drogulus on October 01, 2016, 10:36:01 AM
secular government is the tradition since the founding of the country.
"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." ---
George Washington, first POTUS
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ---
John Adams, second POTUS
Quote from: Florestan on October 01, 2016, 12:17:18 PM
"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." --- George Washington, first POTUS
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --- John Adams, second POTUS
Yes, religion and morality together cover the bases for leaders of a secular government and Constitution. I agree the Constitution wasn't made for criminals.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 10:11:44 AM
But where else does he go?
He's been knpwn to post occasionally fine and rational posts on some composer threads.
Quote from: The new erato on October 01, 2016, 04:15:36 PM
He's been knpwn to post occasionally fine and rational posts on some composer threads.
That's good to know. Truly.
He's also been known to post great big rambling posts about how this or that recording doesn't live up to his exacting requirements, with all the random shifts of punctuation, capitalisation and font in evidence here.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 01, 2016, 06:03:56 PM
He's also been known to post great big rambling posts about how this or that recording doesn't live up to his exacting requirements, with all the random shifts of punctuation, capitalisation and font in evidence here.
How have I managed to miss all this.
So the NYT claims that Trump hasnt paid any federal taxes for the past 18 years. Completely consistent with him boasting "Tax evasion makes me smarter".
My belief is that he is done. Time to move to other GMG threads.
Quote from: Spineur on October 01, 2016, 10:54:30 PM
So the NYT claims that Trump hasnt paid any federal taxes for the past 18 years. Completely consistent with him boasting "Tax evasion makes me smarter".
My belief is that he is done. Time to move to other GMG threads.
The tax evasion story doesn't help, it'll put a dent in his poll numbers. But it's not over yet.
Remember that a large number of Trump followers firmly believe that taxation is theft, and they'll dream of a Trump Prez turning the US into a tax free zone.
Quote from: Spineur on October 01, 2016, 10:54:30 PM
So the NYT claims that Trump hasnt paid any federal taxes for the past 18 years. Completely consistent with him boasting "Tax evasion makes me smarter".
My belief is that he is done. Time to move to other GMG threads.
I'm not surprised that he didn't pay any taxes, why would he? ;)
Taxex are paid by the middle class in any modern society anyway. The poor obviously don't have the means, the rich have ample possibilities to avoid paying taxes at all.
If the rich would pay taxes (in some countries they actually do) their numbers and by consequence the revenues are relatively small, so it's more a matter of principle...
Large companies is another matter of course: their contribution would be significant. But generally they hardly pay any taxes. As a matter of fact, the US recently rebuked the European Commission for clamping down on "special tax deals" (no or hardly any tax) between companies like Apple and EU-member states.
Yes, why would we pay taxes? You would be an idiot if you can avoid it... It's stealing from hard working people (and handing it out to the poor). That's exactly what many conservative middle clas voters are going think when they
will vote for Trump.
They want what he has, and they think are going to get it by voting for for him. They have no faith in government anyway, so why pay for it? ::)
I compared Trump to Silvio Berlusconi before and this is exactly what happened with Berlusconi: people saw him as a successful businessman that would run the Italian government as successful as his own business and make them rich. Instead he used his political powers to serve his own vanity and personal financial interests.
L'histoire se répète....Q
I agree Que, I read right through the original article. For me the only damage it does is to his reputation as a successful businessman. If he paid no Federal Taxes, it is probably due to enormous business losses which he can legitimately set against both past and subsequent tax liabilities. We already knew how he basically gambled with other people's money and enriched himself. So, I see nothing here that is going to get people excited.
The scandal is the way in which corporate debt can be escaped and the controlling individuals are rarely held accountable. But that is how the powerful have arranged affairs in most of the West.
More interesting woud be the net worth and charity giving, pages that have not been divulged. Also nice to know the leak seems to have come via Trump Tower.
Mike
Quote from: Que on October 02, 2016, 01:01:36 AM
I compared Trump to Silvio Berlusconi before and this is exactly what happened with Berlusconi: people saw him as a successful businessman that would run the Italian government as successful as his own business and make them rich. Instead he used his political powers to serve his own vanity and personal financial interests.
Berlusconi, hmm, interesting, you may have a point.
As for Hillary, she is not poor either but tries to use the gap between her wealth and DT's as her being the underdog. This was her repeating theme in the debate like a leitmotiv.
from Policy.mic:
The most recent estimates of Clinton's net worth put her wealth between $30 and $50 million. Her disclosure to the Federal Election Commission indicates she is worth $31 million. Forbes estimates the combined worth of Hillary and former president Bill Clinton at $45 million.
The Clintons were "dead broke" when they left the White House, according to Hillary. But since 2001, they have earned more than $230 million, according to Forbes. Many of those millions came from highly-compensated speeches given all over the world, some of them delivered to Wall Street banks. According to former aides and Secret Service members, the old girl has quite a temper and even potty mouth. So, really she should not be pointing a finger at others when three are pointing back at her.
Quote from: Herman on October 02, 2016, 12:35:34 AM
The tax evasion story doesn't help, it'll put a dent in his poll numbers. But it's not over yet.
Remember that a large number of Trump followers firmly believe that taxation is theft, and they'll dream of a Trump Prez turning the US into a tax free zone.
I agree with this. And that is probably even secondary to his primary populist role, as a releaser of aggression.
Quote from: Que on October 02, 2016, 01:01:36 AM
Yes, why would we pay taxes? You would be an idiot if you can avoid it... It's stealing from hard working people (and handing it out to the poor).
That's exactly what many conservative middle clas voters are going think when they will vote for Trump.
They want what he has, and they think are going to get it by voting for for him. They have no faith in government anyway, so why pay for it? ::)
I compared Trump to Silvio Berlusconi before and this is exactly what happened with Berlusconi: people saw him as a successful businessman that would run the Italian government as successful as his own business and make them rich. Instead he used his political powers to serve his own vanity and personal financial interests.
Q
Well, what may happen is that the Trump campaign will die by a thousand cuts, and this is a major cut all the same. At best this was going to be a very close race, and if a sufficient nr of subgroups are alienated he'll lose.
If only people who think roads and hospitals and the army will pay for themselves are going to turn out for Trump, or people who think they'll get as crassly ostentatiously Eighties rich as Trump just by pulling the lever for him, then Trump and the GOP won't win.
This is why Trump's defense is now slagging off Hillary, floating weirdo notions about the Clintons' marital life (look who's talking!) in hopes of reducing the D turnout.
Quote from: Herman on October 02, 2016, 12:35:34 AM
The tax evasion story doesn't help, it'll put a dent in his poll numbers. But it's not over yet.
Remember that a large number of Trump followers firmly believe that taxation is theft, and they'll dream of a Trump Prez turning the US into a tax free zone.
There is a core of his support who will vote for anything that can stand on two feet who is not Hillary Clinton. The GOP could have nominated Gaddafi, and they would vote for him, and you if you asked them how they could, their response will be their objections to Clinton.
LOL !!
And just now:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/782541307168391168
"I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes"
Reading the comments to his non-denial tweet however, is quite illuminating.
So far a clear majority of negative ones.
Quote from: Spineur on October 02, 2016, 03:44:18 AM
LOL !!
This was of course Mittens Romney's favorite meme too. But the 47% who "don't pay federal taxes" are largely low-income workers who fall into a low tax bracket to start with, and then can use benefits like the earned income credit (Reagan's proudest piece of legislation). Forbes Magazine put it this way:
Quote
The vast majority of non-income taxpayers fall into three categories:
•17 percent includes students, people with disabilities or illnesses, the long-term unemployed, and other people with very low taxable incomes. Also included would be people like our soldiers in foreign wars who are exempted from paying income taxes while they are on active duty in a war zone.
•22 percent of people who did not pay federal income taxes in 2009 are people aged 65 or older who have modest incomes (and do not have earnings).
•61 percent are working people who pay payroll taxes but are not paying income taxes.
Trump, however, is taking advantage of arcane tax benefits available only to the very wealthy. Provisions like net operating losses, like-kind exchanges, at-risk rules, capital loss carryovers and the like were written into the tax code by the rich and for the rich to ensure they can get away with freeloading far more than any of the supposedly non-taxing paying 47% that 1 percenters like Romney so freely criticize.
Trump´s Pennsylvania rally yesterday evening must however cost him some votes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/02/as-news-of-trumps-taxes-broke-he-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/
So Trump managed to lose more money than any one else in history running for President, and it takes him 18 years to wipe the losses off the balance sheet. Quite an achievement, I say. And he can be counted on to manage the people's tax money ? ??? What a stupid Joe !
Re: abortion
Although I am not for abortion, I am pro-choice. I would like to see fewer abortions, but I think this decision resides entirely with the individual. For me it is an issue of personal liberty. The worst thing the Republican party ever did, imo, was align itself with the evangelical movement. I think that the true conservative position is to oppose government encroachments on personal liberty.
Re: taxes
I do not trust the reportage of the NYT, however, if Trump paid zero taxes, good for him. I wish every citizen of the US used every legal means to pay as little in federal income taxes as possible. The less money the federal government has the less harm it can do. Most of the pragmatic work of government occurs at the local level which is funded by property, sales, and other taxes. The federal government has entered into areas it does not belong, e.g. education. Government works best the closer it is to the people, the more remote are the levers of power, the less accountable government is to the people.
;)
Quote from: Turner on October 02, 2016, 04:27:02 AM
Trump´s Pennsylvania rally yesterday evening must however cost him some votes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/02/as-news-of-trumps-taxes-broke-he-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/
I read the whole thing. Unbelievable. A terminal case of logorrhea. He cannot focus his attention on
anything. No coherence, no logic, no argumentation. I don't know if he was high on something other than himself, but this is really alarming.
Quote from: Turner on October 02, 2016, 04:27:02 AM
Trump´s Pennsylvania rally yesterday evening must however cost him some votes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/02/as-news-of-trumps-taxes-broke-he-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/
Amazing report about an incoherent Trump speech. Particularly the part at the end, about "maybe you want to go to a movie afterwards, but you're still excited about me, and besides, they don't make movies like they used to do anymore. so you go home" is bizarre and I'd almost say Snyprrrish.
In the comments section there is an astute reply to the obvious question why Hillary ain't twenty points ahead by now:
"because she's a woman. (I'm a woman too, just telling like it is. Any man going against trump would be 30 points ahead). As much as I like Hillary, and I do like her, the reality is I don't think many people are ready to see a woman as president."
Quote from: Que on October 02, 2016, 01:01:36 AM
Taxex are paid by the middle class in any modern society anyway.
(https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/49xxx/49440-Land-Figure1.png)
Quote from: Herman on October 02, 2016, 04:54:41 AM
In the comments section there is an astute reply to the obvious question why Hillary ain't twenty points ahead by now:
"because she's a woman. (I'm a woman too, just telling like it is. Any man going against trump would be 30 points ahead). As much as I like Hillary, and I do like her, the reality is I don't think many people are ready to see a woman as president."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/22/this-is-why-hillary-clinton-isnt-50-points-ahead-or-even-10-points-ahead/
Quote from: Herman on October 02, 2016, 04:54:41 AM
Amazing report about an incoherent Trump speech. Particularly the part at the end, about "maybe you want to go to a movie afterwards, but you're still excited about me, and besides, they don't make movies like they used to do anymore. so you go home" is bizarre and I'd almost say Snyprrrish.
He gibbers, no question.
Sarurnay Night Live's take on the presidential debate
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-BkOGxahd-E (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-BkOGxahd-E)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 02, 2016, 04:41:47 AM
I wish every citizen of the US used every legal means to pay as little in federal income taxes as possible. The less money the federal government has the less harm it can do. Most of the pragmatic work of government occurs at the local level which is funded by property, sales, and other taxes. The federal government has entered into areas it does not belong, e.g. education. Government works best the closer it is to the people, the more remote are the levers of power, the less accountable government is to the people.
The US attitude to its federal government always puzzles me a little. I mean, I do understand that there's a debate to be had about the best level of government to handle various matters, but there's a hostility in the US that I don't detect here. Even allowing for the fact that I live in the national capital and therefore don't automatically hear locals saying how power should reside in the states.
To me, all governments are accountable in the same way, at the ballot box. And these days distance isn't really an issue. I mean, sure, maybe Washington DC is a long distance away physically, but e-mails and phone calls and facebook posts don't have a distance problem.
And something like education... sorry, but what exactly is different between the educational needs of a child in Arizona and the educational needs of a child in Vermont? Apart from having some different lessons when it comes to environment and biology, and some different lessons about state history, what is so different that the federal government couldn't have any interest in some general standards applicable across the whole country?
If sanantonio finds it so laudable in El Tupé that he has fiddled his taxes, why the hesitation to release the returns? Clearly, the idea appears to be, that it is activity in which El Tupé can take pride.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 02, 2016, 03:36:17 PM
If sanantonio finds it so laudable in El Tupé that he has fiddled his taxes, why the hesitation to release the returns? Clearly, the idea appears to be, that it is activity in which El Tupé can take pride.
In fairness to Sanantonio, he could find it laudable, but know that many voters would not. However, I suspect that the lack of taxes paid is not the sole or even primary reason for Trump's lack of transparency here. Most people already assumed he (like most people in his position) didn't pay income tax. Given the apparent return address on the material, I suspect his campaign may have wanted to leak this now, both to get the no-tax clamor out of the way, and to make people feel like the cat was already out of the bag enough to weaken further demands for release of the returns, which probably reveal something far worse
Quote from: ørfeo on October 02, 2016, 03:04:36 PM
The US attitude to its federal government always puzzles me a little. I mean, I do understand that there's a debate to be had about the best level of government to handle various matters, but there's a hostility in the US that I don't detect here. Even allowing for the fact that I live in the national capital and therefore don't automatically hear locals saying how power should reside in the states.
To me, all governments are accountable in the same way, at the ballot box. And these days distance isn't really an issue. I mean, sure, maybe Washington DC is a long distance away physically, but e-mails and phone calls and facebook posts don't have a distance problem.
And something like education... sorry, but what exactly is different between the educational needs of a child in Arizona and the educational needs of a child in Vermont? Apart from having some different lessons when it comes to environment and biology, and some different lessons about state history, what is so different that the federal government couldn't have any interest in some general standards applicable across the whole country?
In the US, education began as a state/local matter. The federal government has gradually grown more involved, especially with the No Child Left Behind Act passed under GWBush. One of several things that conservatives hold against him. But basically, the traditional view is that education is best handled at the level where parents are most active: the local.
The basic complaint against the federal government is that it is too much under the control of the bureaucracy and the financial and political elites. Trump's shtik is that he can shake up the bureacracy and that he against his fellow members of the elites.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 02, 2016, 06:20:10 PM
In the US, education began as a state/local matter. The federal government has gradually grown more involved, especially with the No Child Left Behind Act passed under GWBush. One of several things that conservatives hold against him. But basically, the traditional view is that education is best handled at the level where parents are most active: the local.
The basic complaint against the federal government is that it is too much under the control of the bureaucracy and the financial and political elites. Trump's shtik is that he can shake up the bureacracy and that he against his fellow members of the elites.
Just to be clear, education is a state matter here in Australia as well. What's happened is a sizeable amount of federal influence because (in part due to a couple of court decisions a couple of generations ago) the federal government has a lot of the money and it places conditions on the funding.
The thing is, while there is definitely some grumbling at times about federal overreach, it just doesn't seem to rise to anything like the level of distrust in the US. I don't know if it has anything to do with the sheer number of states (getting 6 states and 2 territories around the bargaining table is difficult enough, I can't imagine what it's like trying to talk to 50), or if it's due to the origins of the USA as a rebellion against a distant government (as opposed to Australia's origins as a free trade deal) and/or the Civil War, but it really does feel like there is a greater antipathy in the US.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 02, 2016, 06:55:04 PM
Just to be clear, education is a state matter here in Australia as well. What's happened is a sizeable amount of federal influence because (in part due to a couple of court decisions a couple of generations ago) the federal government has a lot of the money and it places conditions on the funding.
The thing is, while there is definitely some grumbling at times about federal overreach, it just doesn't seem to rise to anything like the level of distrust in the US. I don't know if it has anything to do with the sheer number of states (getting 6 states and 2 territories around the bargaining table is difficult enough, I can't imagine what it's like trying to talk to 50), or if it's due to the origins of the USA as a rebellion against a distant government (as opposed to Australia's origins as a free trade deal) and/or the Civil War, but it really does feel like there is a greater antipathy in the US.
It reaches deep into US history. Some conservative writing will leave you convinced that the Constitution of 1789 was a powergrab from the states to the national level by centralizing elites led by Hamilton, and should have been defeated.
And the Civil War is a philosophical quagmire because it ended a very evil thing (slavery) by totally redoing the state vs federal balance in an unjust way, and the South tried to use a good thing ( the status quo ante of the Constitution) to protect that evil thing.
I don't believe slavery alone made states bad, nor do I believe the Federal government and Constitution were inferior power grabs to state level ones with their religious supremacy and abrogation of liberties. Until the Constitution applied to states they were tyrannies. They held no moral high ground. What's changed? Virtually every conflict today is between federal power protecting individual rights against state sponsored abuse. This has always been the case. This will continue to be the case. Personally I see the federal grab of "high ground" authority as inevitable.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 02, 2016, 07:11:03 PM
Some conservative writing will leave you convinced that the Constitution of 1789 was a powergrab from the states to the national level by centralizing elites led by Hamilton, and should have been defeated.
And sour grapes, we have learned, have no time limit.
White House candidate Donald Trump's allies have said he is a "genius" if a report is true that he paid no federal income taxes for 18 years. (http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37533263)
I don't think I would call a businessman who lost near a billion dollars a genius, but that's just me... 8)
Making sure the loss was tax purposes deducted from any subsequent profits, was the job of his accountants. It doesn't tell us anything about Trump's (business) capabilities.
Q
(http://static2.uk.businessinsider.com/image/57f18c31dd0895922c8b4c4a-1013/screen%20shot%202016-10-02%20at%206.31.07%20pm.png)
I´m probably not the only one who felt that those glasses also undermined his credibility a bit, when he was describing Trump´s tax evasion as the work of a genius.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on October 02, 2016, 04:09:00 PM
In fairness to Sanantonio, he could find it laudable, but know that many voters would not. However, I suspect that the lack of taxes paid is not the sole or even primary reason for Trump's lack of transparency here. Most people already assumed he (like most people in his position) didn't pay income tax. Given the apparent return address on the material, I suspect his campaign may have wanted to leak this now, both to get the no-tax clamor out of the way, and to make people feel like the cat was already out of the bag enough to weaken further demands for release of the returns, which probably reveal something far worse
I expect you are right, that there are yet less flattering details to be aired if El Tupé were to release the returns.
But, I do not quite credit your suggestion that this is anything his campaign strategized; that presupposes a discipline and focus which the campaign has consistently lacked.
Thank heaven.
Washington and Lincoln should be turning in their graves at the low level to which this election has sunk.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 03, 2016, 01:04:47 AMWashington and Lincoln should be turning in their graves at the low level to which this election has sunk.
Especially Abe, given that it's his party who sunk it. I've just read about the voter suppression in NC and it makes my stomach churn. Sad!
Either this is not what his campaign meant, or it is what they meant and it was dunderheaded.
After details from Donald Trump's 1995 tax return revealed he may not have paid federal income taxes for as many as 18 years, voters in the critical battleground state were quick to criticize him and question his business acumen. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/following-trump-tax-revelations-voters-in-toledo-question-his-business-acumen/2016/10/02/a2de2e62-88c8-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_voters-620pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 03, 2016, 01:04:47 AM
Washington and Lincoln should be turning in their graves at the low level to which this election has sunk.
Indeed. But (again, without pretending that the Democratic nominee was 'the perfect choice') it is exactly the trajectory which one expected, given that the GOP nominated its present monstrosity.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 03, 2016, 01:18:29 AM
Indeed. But (again, without pretending that the Democratic nominee was 'the perfect choice') it is exactly the trajectory which one expected, given that the GOP nominated its present monstrosity.
Both parties could have and should have come up with something better. Sanders was only a side-kick ready for disposal once the lady got the nomination.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 03, 2016, 01:36:14 AM
Both parties could have and should have come up with something better. Sanders was only a side-kick ready for disposal once the lady got the nomination.
Democrats had two or three acceptable choices. Republicans had 17 to choose from, easily a half dozen of whom would have been credible candidates. Instead it chose to nominate what in any other cycle would have been one of its joke candidates: this walking piece of human stench, this nauseating piece of garbage, this gigantic sociopathic turd.
The major takeaway from the three pages of Trump's 1995 returns that the Times made public is that Trump is right when he says the system is rigged. What he doesn't say is that it's rigged in his favor and in the favor of people like him — and against regular people, those of us who earn money, pay income tax on it, and financially support the country in which we live. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/02/the-most-shocking-part-of-donald-trumps-tax-records-isnt-the-916-million-loss-everyones-talking-about/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wb-sloan-840p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 03, 2016, 02:48:07 AM
The major takeaway from the three pages of Trump's 1995 returns that the Times made public is that Trump is right when he says the system is rigged. What he doesn't say is that it's rigged in his favor and in the favor of people like him — and against regular people, those of us who earn money, pay income tax on it, and financially support the country in which we live. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/02/the-most-shocking-part-of-donald-trumps-tax-records-isnt-the-916-million-loss-everyones-talking-about/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wb-sloan-840p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: Allan SloanIf Trump were truly smart — and wanted to lead by example — he would have disclosed his tax returns, showed the loopholes he used, and vowed to close them.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 03, 2016, 02:50:24 AM
SLOAN: If Trump were truly smart — and wanted to lead by example — he would have disclosed his tax returns, showed the loopholes he used, and vowed to close them.
But of course he wouldn't and won't. Because bottom line is: he's out only to enrich his own coffers. This is what makes the whole situation so pathetic and sad. His supporters have legitimate grievances, as Chris Matthews has pointed out:
QuoteA lot of this support for Trump, with all his flaws which he displays regularly, is about the country — patriotic feelings people have, they feel like the country has been let down. Our elite leaders on issues like immigration, they don't regulate any immigration it seems. They don't regulate trade to our advantage, to the working man or working woman's advantage. They take us into stupid wars. Their kids don't fight but our kids do.
It's patriotic. They believe in their country. .... [There is a] deep sense that the country is being taken away and betrayed. I think that is so deep with people that they're looking at a guy who's flawed as hell like Trump and at least it's a way of saying I am really angry about the way the elite has treated my country. And it's so deep that it overwhelms all the bad stuff from Trump. It's that strong. It's a strong force wind.
But they've hitched their wagon to a con-man who talks a good game but in the end couldn't care less about them. One story I read about Trump long ago was that he contracted for a fleet of limousines, but rejected all of them solely because they were a quarter-inch too long or short. The case came to court and sad to say, he won. This is the man, so petty, so lacking in self-control, so ill-informed, so obsessed with a woman's weight that he issues tweets in the middle of the night about it, whom some of you want to see in the White House.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 03, 2016, 03:23:42 AM
[...] His supporters have legitimate grievances, as Chris Matthews has pointed out:
[...]
But they've hitched their wagon to a con-man who talks a good game but in the end couldn't care less about them.
Yes, and yes.
Sure scares the hell outta me and I'm a ghost!
I have great sympathy for Christians. If they cast their lot with Trump, who am I to be critical?
"would you fuck her?"
- Rev. Trump to men on the set of The Apprentice
Also, from time to time Trump opposes legal abortion. So he's got that going for him along with total consciousness. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 03, 2016, 02:10:45 AM
Democrats had two or three acceptable choices. Republicans had 17 to choose from, easily a half dozen of whom would have been credible candidates. Instead it chose to nominate what in any other cycle would have been one of its joke candidates: this walking piece of human stench, this nauseating piece of garbage, this gigantic sociopathic turd.
I disagree. The R field was large but aside from Kasich, very weak. Their runner-up was a whiny extremist with a thin record.
The problem with nice guys like Romney (whom I supported back then) is they finish last. Candidates for political office are more a packaged item concocted to appeal to the masses. An astute observer noted that Obama played the underdog card better than Hillary so easily trounced her. The effect is psychological, has little to do with issues or reason. She's doing that now vs. Trump - her father was a working man, declared they were "flat broke" when sitting on pricey properties back then - seems to be a recurring theme with her.
She knows how to play the victim card that can very well turn out to be the Ace in the end.
Quote from: Pat B on October 03, 2016, 07:44:57 AM
I disagree. The R field was large but aside from Kasich, very weak. Their runner-up was a whiny extremist with a thin record.
With each election cycle the Repub base feels more persecuted and more ignored by the establishment powers, recently directing its fire against the Repubs. As Repub officeholders try to respond by becoming more extreme they become even less effective. They can't favor economic expansion, they painted themselves into the opposite corner. Immigration reform is likewise out of bounds. The "hoaxification" of science blocks any effort to deal effectively with rising sea levels. It's a perfect storm of bad leaders and bad followers encouraging each other to be worse.
Quote from: Pat B on October 03, 2016, 07:44:57 AM
I disagree. The R field was large but aside from Kasich, very weak.
It might be that if the field had been only
poco's half dozen credibles, they might
possibly have waxed better over the course of the primary process. (I remember early on in the 2000 season, a co-worker responding to a televised appearance by essentially dismissing Geo. W. Bush as "an empty suit." And, like Jn Cleese,
he got better.)
OTOH,
Ernie's point about
bad leaders and bad followers is, I think, very well taken.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 03, 2016, 08:09:52 AMShe knows how to play the victim card that can very well turn out to be the Ace in the end.
She doesn't need an Ace when her opponent keeps slapping himself with the full deck.
In other news, Clinton's Former Prosecutor Endorses Her for President. (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-03/clinton-s-former-prosecutor-michael-chertoff-endorses-her)
QuoteOver the weekend, Chertoff -- the former secretary of Homeland Security -- told me his decision came down to national security. "I realized we spent a huge amount of time in the '90s on issues that were much less important than what was brewing in terms of terrorism," he said. For Chertoff, Clinton "has good judgment and a strategic vision how to deal with the threats that face us."
Whitewater has not come up much in this election season. But it was the Benghazi of the 1990s. Just as the Benghazi investigation begat a Congressional probe into Clinton's e-mail server, the Whitewater investigation led Congress to President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. So it's significant that an investigator from that era is now in Hillary Clinton's corner.
"People can go back decades and perhaps criticize some of the judgments that were made," Chertoff said. "That is very, very insignificant compared to the fundamental issue of how to protect the country."
Just as Chertoff does not think Clinton's dodgy friendships from her Arkansas days disqualify her from the presidency, he says the same thing about Clinton's use of a private e-mail system. It was a mistake, he said, but "she did not intentionally endanger national security."
During HRCs tenure as Sec. of State it became much easier to potentially endanger national security through the use of private communication channels. HRC got caught in the switch. I'd rather not excuse her mistake on the grounds that her need for privacy from her army of pursuers is real (it certainly is), it's just not an excuse. Sorry Mrs. Beast, you got caught.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 03, 2016, 08:09:52 AM
The problem with nice guys like Romney (whom I supported back then) is they finish last.
As a resident of Massachusetts, I was not crazy about Romney; and part of my quarrel with him in his run for the presidency is, he allowed the base, or the national-Republican mean, to draw him into a waffling reversal on the health care issue, which was a bipartisan success here. Perfect? No; but a success.
And be fair: it was Romney's race to lose, and he did. Part of that reason is the same la-la-land Fox "News" bubble with which El Tupé is insulating himself from inconvenient facts. Up through Election Night, Romney thought he had it in the bag.
QuoteShe knows how to play the victim card that can very well turn out to be the Ace in the end.
With El Tupé doing his "impersonations," there is nothing "victim cardish" about it. El Tupé is every bit as nasty as any sober observer has known him to be.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 03, 2016, 08:34:17 AM
As a resident of Massachusetts, I was not crazy about Romney [....]
(And, as a resident of Massachusetts, I was not crazy about Kerry, either, FWIW.)
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 03, 2016, 08:22:04 AM
"Over the weekend, Chertoff -- the former secretary of Homeland Security -- told me his decision came down to national security. "I realized we spent a huge amount of time in the '90s on issues that were much less important than what was brewing in terms of terrorism," he said. For Chertoff, Clinton "has good judgment and a strategic vision how to deal with the threats that face us."... So it's significant that an investigator from that era is now in Hillary Clinton's corner.
"People can go back decades and perhaps criticize some of the judgments that were made," Chertoff said. "That is very, very insignificant compared to the fundamental issue of how to protect the country."
Just as Chertoff does not think Clinton's dodgy friendships from her Arkansas days disqualify her from the presidency, he says the same thing about Clinton's use of a private e-mail system. It was a mistake, he said, but "she did not intentionally endanger national security."
In other news, Clinton's Former Prosecutor Endorses Her for President. (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-03/clinton-s-former-prosecutor-michael-chertoff-endorses-her)
Going backwards, ignorance of the law is no excuse. She did not "make a mistake'. In all probability, Russians could have gotten more than a peek at the emails, so that is already endangering "national security". Terrorism came as a DIRECT result of the void left in the Middle East by pulling out of Iraq and preparing the ground for the Arab Spring. In terms of security, the past 8 years have been a disaster. Also factor in the holes in the bucket immigration policies. They need to be patched up. Only one person (as much as he is personally flawed) is squarely facing that issue. Also let's not forget the goofy, self-destructive deal with Iran that does impact an ally of the US, Israel.
"The Trump Foundation must immediately cease soliciting contributions or engaging in any other fundraising activities in New York," Sheehan wrote to the foundation, of which Trump himself is still president. The Trump Foundation has no paid employees, and its board consists of Trump, three of his children and one Trump Organization employee. They all work one half-hour per week, according to the charity's most recent IRS filings. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-foundation-ordered-to-stop-fundraising-by-ny-attorney-generals-office/2016/10/03/1d4d295a-8987-11e6-bff0-d53f592f176e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpfoundation-104pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
A heckuva businessman.
A heckuva businessman.
Are the donators expecting a charitable donation receipt ? ::)
And more on the steaming turd topped by a hairpiece:
The headline alone would send a shudder down the spine of most elected officials: "'Apprentice' cast and crew say Trump was lewd and sexist."
That's the top of a story from the Associated Press posted Monday morning that details Trump's often-inappropriate behavior toward women who both appeared and worked on his hit TV show "The Apprentice." The AP talked to 20(!) former contestants or crew members on the show including 12(!) who spoke on the record to the news organization. That's remarkable. And what's as remarkable is that they all told a very similar story about Trump: He would openly discuss women's looks and whether or not he would sleep with them while on the set of the show. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/03/this-apprentice-story-would-kill-most-candidacies-for-trump-its-just-another-monday/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_fix-apprentice-240pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
As the WP writes, don't worry. None of that dreck will stick. The man's a genius after all.
While Hillary (the dark witch of Endor) is so evil, evil...
How else are you to explain to the country, the world, and future generations that 100 million Americans, some of them otherwise informed - educated even - still intend to vote for Trump ?
I thought this had a lot of insight into American politics.
nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/barack-obama-on-5-days-that-shaped-his-presidency.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/barack-obama-on-5-days-that-shaped-his-presidency.html)
Quote from: André on October 03, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
Are the donators expecting a charitable donation receipt ? ::)
Under US tax law, political contributions are not deductible.
They are here, up to a very low ceiling.
This guy is supposed to be the best Trump impersonator.
https://www.youtube.com/v/YfXdmHseiFA#t=118
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 03, 2016, 09:37:34 AM
Going backwards, ignorance of the law is no excuse. She did not "make a mistake'. In all probability, Russians could have gotten more than a peek at the emails, so that is already endangering "national security". Terrorism came as a DIRECT result of the void left in the Middle East by pulling out of Iraq and preparing the ground for the Arab Spring. In terms of security, the past 8 years have been a disaster. Also factor in the holes in the bucket immigration policies. They need to be patched up. Only one person (as much as he is personally flawed) is squarely facing that issue. Also let's not forget the goofy, self-destructive deal with Iran that does impact an ally of the US, Israel.
The reason it was necessary to fully withdraw from Iraq was because the Iraqi government insisted that if U.S. troops stayed it could only be under the condition that they be subject to local jurisprudence for any alleged criminal acts. No commander in chief in the history of the U.S. has ever submitted to such a demand. The void in the Middle East was created by the U.S. military action that, for no reason related to U.S. security, unseated Saddam Hussein, whose Sunni dominated regime had been the counterbalance to Iran for decades. The disbanding of the Iraqi military in 2003 is the root cause for the existence of ISIS, which, under other names, was already in full operation by 2006.
Quote from: André on October 03, 2016, 11:32:57 AM
As the WP writes, don't worry. None of that dreck will stick. The man's a genius after all.
While Hillary (the dark witch of Endor) is so evil, evil...
How else are you to explain to the country, the world, and future generations that 100 million Americans, some of them otherwise informed - educated even - still intend to vote for Trump ?
There simply is no explanation for it. I respectfully submit that every Trump supporter I have met so far has clearly drunk the Kool-Aid, to the extent that no amount of sober discussion has any effect, the Kool-Aid appears to render them deaf, although not, unfortunately, dumb. They are still able to chant, in unison, the mantra of the day. Today's mantra was "
Of course he didn't pay any taxes, the man is a genius!". I hate to see what tomorrow brings. ::)
8)
From what I can tell, Trumpists hate the Establishment, and think Trump is the best way to challenge it.
Pointing out his manifold detects doesn't work because in the mind of a true Trumpist
1)Such defects don't subtract from his ability to challenge the Establishment
2) Stories about these defects are lies or half truths produced by the Establishment, and anyone who points them out is really just a tool of the Establishment, or a member thereof.
For the record, I currently plan to vote for Trump. But that is because I think Hillary is globally corrupt, as much a narcissist as Trump, and will staff the Executive branch with culture warriors intent on imposing their views on the rest of us, as opposed to letting rational persuasion and the tincture of time help everyone come to terms with good changes and jettison bad changes.
But that is an antiHillary vote, not a proTrump vote: and if he disgusts me enough the day I go into the voting booth, I will end up casting a NOTA vote.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 03, 2016, 06:39:00 PM
For the record, I currently plan to vote for Trump. But that is because I think Hillary is globally corrupt, as much a narcissist as Trump, and will staff the Executive branch with culture warriors intent on imposing their views on the rest of us, as opposed to letting rational persuasion and the tincture of time help everyone come to terms with good changes and jettison bad changes.
"Globally corrupt" is the kind of thing you say when you hate someone for reasons you don't care to share. If there was any real corruption involved we could talk about that. As for culture warriors, they have their uses. I just don't always agree with them.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 03, 2016, 06:39:00 PM
For the record, I currently plan to vote for Trump. But that is because I think Hillary is globally corrupt, as much a narcissist as Trump, and will staff the Executive branch with culture warriors intent on imposing their views on the rest of us, as opposed to letting rational persuasion and the tincture of time help everyone come to terms with good changes and jettison bad changes.
But that is an antiHillary vote, not a proTrump vote: and if he disgusts me enough the day I go into the voting booth, I will end up casting a NOTA vote.
I can sympathize with some of your thinking here. I have the luxury of voting third party, because I live in IL, where people would vote for Hillary's cremated corpse if they got the chance. But if I lived in a swing state, I would seriously consider voting for Trump (and then throwing up afterwards).
Why? Not so much because of culture warriors (although you may have a point there), but because of
real warriors. Basically, if HRC gets elected, I put the chance of her starting World War III at somewhere around 40%. If Trump gets in, I put it around 25%.
Such is the stark dilemma we face.
Quote from: drogulus on October 03, 2016, 06:53:10 PM
"Globally corrupt" is the kind of thing you say when you hate someone for reasons you don't care to share. If there was any real corruption involved we could talk about that. As for culture warriors, they have their uses. I just don't always agree with them.
No, it is the appropriate term for the Clinton Foundations.
The denial of reality by Trumpists has a clear parallel in some Clintonists.
I am not against culture warriors. But I am against putting them in positions from which they can force their positions on others.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 03, 2016, 07:03:36 PM
I can sympathize with some of your thinking here. I have the luxury of voting third party, because I live in IL, where people would vote for Hillary's cremated corpse if they got the chance. But if I lived in a swing state, I would seriously consider voting for Trump (and then throwing up afterwards).
Why? Not so much because of culture warriors (although you may have a point there), but because of real warriors. Basically, if HRC gets elected, I put the chance of her starting World War III at somewhere around 40%. If Trump gets in, I put it around 25%.
Such is the stark dilemma we face.
I live in a very swingy state, Florida.
I would reverse the chances of who gets in a war. I think Trump might well insult us into a war, or go to war out if personal pique. Hillary will get us into a hot war only through an actual mistake in judgement or only after thinking it through in a way Trump would not.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 03, 2016, 07:06:25 PM
No, it is the appropriate term for the Clinton Foundations.
I am not against culture warriors. But I am against putting them in positions from which they can force their positions on others.
I didn't think you had much of a reason. The Clinton Foundation is corrupt? Have you any idea what you're talking about?
Every Clinton hater for decades acts as though the objects of their hatred have not been scrutinized, that they have discovered something about Whitewater, Vince Foster, the WH travel office that no one has found before. NOW we'll get them! So there's a foundation, ha! They finally slipped up this time, it's a cesspool of corruption, it has to be, please, please let it be.
The foundation is in fact (fact: something that is indisputably the case) highly regarded by charity watchers. I looked it up, because I was curious.
As for culture warriors in positions of power, that's what they're for. If what they do doesn't hurt anyone, they not trying hard enough.
Quote from: drogulus on October 03, 2016, 07:41:54 PM
I didn't think you had much of a reason. The Clinton Foundation is corrupt? Have you any idea what you're talking about?
Every Clinton hater for decades acts as though the objects of their hatred have not been scrutinized, that they have discovered something about Whitewater, Vince Foster, the WH travel office that no one has found before. NOW we'll get them! So there's a foundation, ha! They finally slipped up this time, it's a cesspool of corruption, it has to be, please, please let it be.
The foundation is in fact (fact: something that is indisputably the case) highly regarded by charity watchers. I looked it up, because I was curious.
As for culture warriors in positions of power, that's what they're for. If what they do doesn't hurt anyone, they not trying hard enough.
As I said, the denial of reality has parallels among the Clintonistas.
Entities, foreign and otherwise, make donations to a foundation run by an official who makes decisions affecting them. The official might channel 100 percent to charity, and it would still be corruption.
Federal Court Blocks Gov. Pence's Attempt To Bar Syrian Refugees From Indiana (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/03/496466007/federal-court-blocks-gov-pences-attempt-to-block-syrian-refugees-from-indiana?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news)
As I was saying a few posts back, states often make it their business to act despicably, safe in the knowledge that the federal government will act as the moral center. It's no use complaining that the federals seized the role or the states gave it away, I think a federal constitution strong enough to protect the rights of citizens determined where moral authority would reside.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 03, 2016, 07:53:59 PM
Entities, foreign and otherwise, make donations to a foundation run by an official who makes decisions affecting them.
I found an article on the CNN discussing the "controversy" about the foundation.
What is the Clinton Foundation and why is it controversial? (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/clinton-foundation-explainer/)
"How does the philanthropic world see the Clinton Foundation?
They're held in high esteem. There are watchdog groups that judge charities on how they're run, how transparent they are and how much they spend on programs -- some charities raise a ton of money, but spend a large percentage on salaries and bonuses instead of their actual cause.
Charity Watch gave the Clinton Foundation an A grade, while GuideStar gave it a platinum rating.
Daniel Borochoff of Charity Watch noted that in 2014, 87.2% of the foundation's funding went to its programs, "which is really high." The foundation, he said, does "really important, valuable work that saves lives of lots of people." IOW what I found when I checked is what the article said.
But then, c'mon, cards on the table, you didn't really think that "pay for play" and foreign donor shit would fly, did you? We are not low information here in Extinctionland. This is the same "create a miasma of doubt" as you guys always put out. When the foundation story fizzles out you'll have another already in the pipeline. Give us a hint.....
New York Times: How Hillary Clinton Grappled With Bill Clinton's Infidelity, and His Accusers
Hillary Clinton was campaigning for her husband in January 1992 when she learned of the race's newest flare-up: Gennifer Flowers had just released tapes of phone calls with Bill Clinton to back up her claim they had had an affair. Other candidates had been driven out of races by accusations of infidelity. But now, at a cold, dark airfield in South Dakota, Mrs. Clinton was questioning campaign aides by phone and vowing to fight back on behalf of her husband. "Who's tracking down all the research on Gennifer?" she asked, according to a journalist traveling with her at the time.
...privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign's aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting — tactics that women's rights advocates frequently denounce. The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to impugn Ms. Flowers's "character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition."
In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the investigator's staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then disseminated to the news media.
By the time Mr. Clinton finally admitted to "sexual relations" with Ms. Flowers, years later, Clinton aides had used stories collected by the private investigator to brand her as a "bimbo" and a "pathological liar."
Ms. Flowers, a lounge singer and Arkansas state employee at the time, sold Star magazine her story claiming an affair with Mr. Clinton that had lasted more than 10 years. In a meeting with aides, the Clintons scripted a unified defense that they delivered in the interview on "60 Minutes."
With Mrs. Clinton nodding agreement, Mr. Clinton admitted to the TV audience to "causing pain in my marriage," but denied an affair with Ms. Flowers. Mrs. Clinton professed sympathy for Ms. Flowers, saying she had been caught up in rumors through no fault of her own. But at a news conference the next day, Ms. Flowers reasserted her claims, playing excerpts from her calls with Mr. Clinton.
Glimpsing the news conference in South Dakota, Mrs. Clinton directed an aide to get Mr. Clinton on the phone, Gail Sheehy, a journalist traveling with her, recalled in a recent interview. "It was a reaction of no surprise, but immediate anger and action," said Ms. Sheehy, who also described her observations in a Vanity Fair article that year. "Not anger at Bill, but at Flowers, the press and Republicans." Back on a plane that night, Mrs. Clinton told Ms. Sheehy that if she were to question Ms. Flowers in front of a jury, "I would crucify her."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 03, 2016, 07:06:25 PM
No, it is the appropriate term for the Clinton Foundations.
Huh? The Clinton Foundation is a charity which gets an A rating from independent watchdog groups because of the high fraction of the money collected that goes directly to relief.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 03, 2016, 07:03:36 PM
Basically, if HRC gets elected, I put the chance of her starting World War III at somewhere around 40%. If Trump gets in, I put it around 25%.
Oh come on. How do you think Trump is going to behave the second he and a leader of another country don't see eye to eye?
His attitude in business has been either to threaten to sue people, or to dare them to go ahead and sue him. In charge of a country, he's going to threaten to fire missiles or dare them to go ahead and fire a missile.
He puts everyone into two camps: there are brilliant amazing people, and there are disgusting horrible people. If Trump gets in, he is going to behave like a petulant 12-year-old because that's what he has been doing the entire time, and the risk of him pissing off someone is going to be pretty high. Stay tuned for cranky tweets about the President of China at 4 in the morning.
Put that against a woman who has already negotiated international deals, and I know which one seems more likely to me to risk starting a war.
These two last posts are worthy of attention. Abstaining from a vote, or voting for a 3rd party candidate, is also an option if you really dislike HRC so much (yes, she is an apparatchik and the system may have screwed many americans). How anybody may imagine that the nutcase and upper 1%-er Trumf would make things better are totally beyond me.
Quote from: André on October 03, 2016, 11:32:57 AM
How else are you to explain to the country, the world, and future generations that 100 million Americans, some of them otherwise informed - educated even - still intend to vote for Trump ?
That number is debatable. Onle on Nov 8 will we know how many people really did it.
But the main answer is: the internet. Rather than a fount of information, as was first thought, the internet has developed into a myriad world of echo chambers where people can close themselves off from undesiarble info and only seek out likeminded stuff.
So if you're disappointed or angry because life is a little more complicated than you thought when you were sixteen, there are a lot of places you can go on the internet. The places with the conspiracy stuff, and the "the immigrants took our jobs" and "Hillary is your worst nightmare, just look at her!"
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 03, 2016, 09:05:54 PM
New York Times: How Hillary Clinton Grappled With Bill Clinton's Infidelity, and His Accusers
Hate to tell you, ZB, but virtually no one cares. It's such a long time ago.
If you want to see rank sexism at work, one need look no further than the fact that everyone seems more interested in how Clinton dealt with her husband's infidelity than with how Trump got married 3 times and cheated on his 1st wife.
Because, you know, men are just supposed to be like that.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 04, 2016, 12:07:04 AM
If you want to see rank sexism at work, one need look no further than the fact that everyone seems more interested in how Clinton dealt with her husband's infidelity than with how Trump got married 3 times and cheated on his 1st wife.
Because, you know, men are just supposed to be like that.
Especially
successful men that are able to fix everybodys problems. Pfuyttt !
What I find amusing is that, although the USA is a constitutional republic with firmly established checks and balances (of which Americans are very proud), each camp fears that the other´s candidate wining means that he or she will do just whatever crosses his or her mind, as if that very constitution and those very checks and balances did not exist and the President were entitled and had the power to act exactly as he or she pleases, car tel est son bon plaisir. Looking from the outside, Hillary and Donald seem to be not that much candidates for a constitutional Presidency, but pretendents to the crown of an absolute Monarchy. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on October 04, 2016, 12:21:24 AM
What I find amusing is that, although the USA is a constitutional republic with firmly established checks and balances (of which Americans are very proud), each camp fears that the others candidate winning means that he or she will do just whatever crosses his or her mind, as if that very constitution and those very checks and balances did not exist and the President were entitled and had the power to act exactly as he or she pleases, car tel est son bon plaisir. Looking from the outside, Hillary and Donald seem to be not that much candidates for a constitutional Presidency, but pretendents to the crown of an absolute Monarchy. ;D ;D ;D
Spot on! The real extent of the power, the king makers, are behind the scenes holding the purse strings. This means how much clout and connections one has but not only that, who needs to be paid back for supporting the candidate in order to get elected.
The system as it exists now is a bloated dinosaur. Decent people who aspire to office are destroyed like snowballs in hell. That's why outsiders with fewer inner connections and therefore less obligation will not be weighed down by them, also serving as checks to personal ambition. Reagan and Carter were less insiders than say the Bushes or Clintons. You can't get things done unless you have X,Y or Z in your pocket.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 12:38:45 AM
Spot on! The real extent of the power, the king makers, are behind the scenes holding the purse strings. This means how much clout and connections one has but not only that, who needs to be paid back for supporting the candidate in order to get elected.
The system as it exists now is a bloated dinosaur. Decent people who aspire to office are destroyed like snowballs in hell. That's why outsiders with fewer inner connections and therefore less obligation will not be weighed down by them, also serving as checks to personal ambition. Reagan and Carter were less insiders than say the Bushes or Clintons. You can't get things done unless you have X,Y or Z in your pocket.
Or as we say in Europe; the US is not a Democracy in the sense of the European meaning of the word.
Quote from: The new erato on October 04, 2016, 12:56:13 AM
Or as we say in Europe; the US is not a Democracy in the sense of the European meaning of the word.
All "democracies" were, are and always will be in fact oligarchies. Exactlly how extensive, rich, powerful and disconnected from the people the oligarchy is depends from country to country.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 04, 2016, 12:07:04 AM
If you want to see rank sexism at work, one need look no further than the fact that everyone seems more interested in how Clinton dealt with her husband's infidelity than with how Trump got married 3 times and cheated on his 1st wife.
Because, you know, men are just supposed to be like that.
And cheated on his 2
nd.
TODD: But your past? You have your own infidelities, sir.
GIULIANI: Well, everybody does ....Really; Newt, Rudy & El Tupé get a pass, as the offenders. Clinton, well, she "plays the victim card."
So, between the Trump Foundation and the Clinton Foundation, it's the Clintons who are the more reprehensible?
Hillary Clinton has at the very least performed public service; that cannot all be dismissed out of the legitimate concerns. The best that can be said of El Tupé is that his consuming greed blinds him to small matters like propriety and the facts.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 04, 2016, 01:12:07 AM
to small matters like propriety and the facts.
I think you forgot quite a lot of nouns here; decency, modesty et al.....
I'll give him one thing though, he has integrity. But only to his own interests.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 04, 2016, 01:12:07 AM
Hillary Clinton has at the very least performed public service; that cannot all be dismissed out of the legitimate concerns. The best that can be said of El Tupé is that his consuming greed blinds him to small matters like propriety and the facts.
Sorry, Hillary's service is ONLY to herself. Anyone who gets in her way, WATCH OUT!
Most successful politicians and businessmen have more than a touch of narcissism, hanky-panky and a trenchant mouth. If they didn't have one trait, they had the others. Before swearing was universal even among school kids, Nixon frequently spiked his remarks as well did Johnson.
I really don't care about those but about policy. The Bushes may have been good family men but they were lousy in their jobs, the last one in particular.
Quote from: The new erato on October 04, 2016, 01:55:51 AM
I think you forgot quite a lot of nouns here; decency, modesty et al.....
Ah, decency!
Actual things El Tupé has said about the military:
"I always wanted a Purple Heart."
"Avoiding STDs was my Vietnam."
"PTSD sufferers aren't strong."
"It's the gang that can't shoot straight."
"I prefer soldiers who don't get captured."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 04, 2016, 03:01:59 AM
Ah, decency!
Actual things El Tupé has said about the military:
"I always wanted a Purple Heart."
"Avoiding STDs was my Vietnam."
"PTSD sufferers aren't strong."
"It's the gang that can't shoot straight."
"I prefer soldiers who don't get captured."
I don't know where you got those statements, but presume they were from his half-baked youth.
Now he has voiced what seems to be a genuine concern for Vets, that they should get better treatment than what they are getting now.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 03:56:12 AM
I don't know where you got those statements, but presume they were from his half-baked youth.
Now he has voiced what seems to be a genuine concern for Vets, that they should get better treatment than what they are getting now.
No, my Trump-loving friend:
"When people come back from war and combat and they see maybe what the people in this room have seen many times over, and you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it," Trump told a room full of veterans THIS PAST MONDAY.
I would suggest that the oven was turned off and the cake has remained half-baked.
Trump´s remark mocking John McCain ("I prefer soldiers who don´t get captured") dates from 2015 and it´s one of the most widely published and also internationally well-known of his comments.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 03:56:12 AM
I don't know where you got those statements, but presume they were from his half-baked youth.
Most of them I recognise as things he said during 2016.
And I am genuinely puzzled/worried that you're not aware of them. Where are you getting your news from, that doesn't tell you about these kinds of remarks?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 04, 2016, 04:01:54 AM
No, my Trump-loving friend:
"When people come back from war and combat and they see maybe what the people in this room have seen many times over, and you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it," Trump told a room full of veterans THIS PAST MONDAY. I would suggest that the oven was turned off and the cake has remained half-baked.
First of all, I DON'T love Trump because I don't love narcissists. In fact, I can't stand them. That said, there are also plenty successful musicians, actors and performers who have more than a trace of me-ism. Studies have shown that having this trait helps to withstand the pressures of being in the public eye.
Well, it's true that some people were/are able to withstand combat without cracking and some are not. Is that untrue or insulting?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 04:11:42 AM
First of all, I DON'T love Trump because I don't love narcissists. In fact, I can't stand them. That said, there are also plenty successful musicians, actors and performers who have more than a trace of me-ism. Studies have shown that having this trait helps to withstand the pressures of being in the public eye.
Well, it's true that some people were/are able to withstand combat without cracking and some are not. Is that untrue or insulting?
But he isn't running for an Oscar or an Emmy or a Grammy, he's running to be President. And it isn't really an Oscar-worthy performance.
I don't know, ZB: you are laying in a dugout taking fire, fellow soldiers laying there next to you. An hour or so in, a little mortar round explodes on the other side of the guy laying next to you, your partner for the last year in all this shit. You look over and the whole right side of his body is missing, but he isn't quite dead yet, you talk for a couple of minutes until he dies. After the battle is over, and for the next 15 years or so, you can't sleep at night, all you can see is your friend oozing out on the ground while you wonder why it was him and not you. Finally you can't take it any more and you get your gun and stick it in your mouth and blow the top of your head off so you can quit seeing that picture. Your epitaph is Donald Trump telling the world what a weak-dick you were. Wonderful.
8)
Quote from: Florestan on October 04, 2016, 01:07:20 AM
All "democracies" were, are and always will be in fact oligarchies. Exactlly how extensive, rich, powerful and disconnected from the people the oligarchy is depends from country to country.
............. and the exact process of historical change, for the better or worse.
In a Time of Trump, Millennial Jews Awaken to Anti-Semitism
(http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-anti-semitism-young-jews-214314)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 04:11:42 AM
Well, it's true that some people were/are able to withstand combat without cracking and some are not. Is that untrue or insulting?
It is not untrue. Coming from the same foul mind that ridicules a reporter for a disability, stays up all night tweeting about a woman's weight, and comments about his own daughter's hot body, it is egregiously insulting. And you are voting for this reptile to lead our great nation.
But, this reptile is so presidential!
http://www.youtube.com/v/Xbs7Re49SqA
He's going to lead this country when he cannot be bothered to prep for a debate with Clinton? Give me a break. Give me a break.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 04, 2016, 06:08:30 AM
But, this reptile is so presidential!
He's going to lead this country when he cannot be bothered to prep for a debate with Clinton? Give me a break. Give me a break.
More likely he did prepare, and how! It was only being disingenuous like a kid saying he didn't prepare for a test but got an A anyway. Makes him SEEM smarter.
I don't know why he keeps digging his own grave every time he opens his mouth, though...
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 06:19:08 AM
More likely he did prepare, and how! It was only being disingenuous like a kid saying he didn't prepare for a test but got an A anyway. Makes him SEEM smarter.
Didn't SEEM smart to me.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 06:19:08 AM
I don't know why he keeps digging his own grave every time he opens his mouth, though...
Duh . . . .
Quote from: ørfeo on October 03, 2016, 11:25:22 PM
Oh come on. How do you think Trump is going to behave the second he and a leader of another country don't see eye to eye?
[snipped]
Put that against a woman who has already negotiated international deals, and I know which one seems more likely to me to risk starting a war.
Hillary has an actual track record of promoting death, destruction, and chaos across the greater Middle East and beyond. And she seems to have learned nothing from her many experiences in this area. Just a couple of weeks ago, she was still blustering about "our duty to lead" and so forth. (Which means in plain English, "I'm gonna get us into more wars.")
Trump is grossly inconsistent, but he has made some peace-like noises, of a type I haven't heard from a corporate party candidate in ages. Beyond that, his main interests in life are making money, aggrandizing himself, and generally living the good life. The nuclear destruction of the world would seriously impinge on his hedonism, which is why I think he would show some caution in this area.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 04, 2016, 07:26:11 AM
Hillary has an actual track record of promoting death, destruction, and chaos across the greater Middle East and beyond. And she seems to have learned nothing from her many experiences in this area. Just a couple of weeks ago, she was still blustering about "our duty to lead" and so forth. (Which means in plain English, "I'm gonna get us into more wars.")
She's not much of a peacemonger, I'll give you that. My concern is more with the war we're in than "more wars" which are the same one. Our enemy respects borders less our policy does, a point King Abdullah made on 60 Minutes. We see wars divided up by national boundaries, the people fighting us don't. Fighting this war is indistinguishable from "more wars". There will be "more war" and "more wars" in this one. We can choose to stop if you think that's wise. I don't see how we can choose our enemies to stop, though.
As much as I am not a Trump fan I have to admit these debates are setting him up to fail. He is a business man, going into a DEBATE with someone who has spent a lifetime in politics, someone used to talking in front of audiences and debating issues, someone with a law degree from YALE. I just don't see how he comes out ahead.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 04, 2016, 07:45:50 AM
As much as I am not a Trump fan I have to admit these debates are setting him up to fail. He is a business man, going into a DEBATE with someone who has spent a lifetime in politics, someone used to talking in front of audiences and debating issues, someone with a law degree from YALE. I just don't see how he comes out ahead.
He tweets that he has won!
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 04, 2016, 07:45:50 AM
As much as I am not a Trump fan I have to admit these debates are setting him up to fail. He is a business man, going into a DEBATE with someone who has spent a lifetime in politics, someone used to talking in front of audiences and debating issues, someone with a law degree from YALE. I just don't see how he comes out ahead.
That's a pretty piss-poor excuse, equivalent to saying, "I want this job but I'm not qualified to take the necessary steps to get it!"
Whining: "It's all so unfair. The mike didn't work. They didn't ask fair questions. She kept interrupting me. Oh wait, I kept interrupting her."
They made me debate! And I won! But the system is rigged!
No matter his ultimate motivation for questioning a Clinton victory — whether he really believes that's what will happen, or because he thinks it's a good marketing strategy for securing fans' loyalty — he is (once again) idly jackhammering at the bedrock of democracy: the willingness to accept when your opponent has won. (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13153832/donald-trump-refuse-to-concede)
Julian Assange promises Wikileaks revelations before Nov. 8. The man holds a massive grudge against the Obama administration and then Secretary of State Clinton.
In new blow to campaign, Trump's foundation ordered to halt fundraising (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN1231V5)
The order followed a series of reports in The Washington Post that suggested improprieties by the foundation, including using its funds to settle legal disputes involving Trump businesses.
"The failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports required under Article 7-A with the Charities Bureau shall be deemed to be a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York," according to a letter dated on Friday that the office posted online on Monday.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Is Trump getting the Clinton scandal treatment from a Dem AG, or is this a legitimate charge? First, we have to understand that Clinton scandals are far more likely to come from the media or partisan committee investigations, not from AGs. The standards are (heh!) different. An AG, regardless of party affiliation, that brings phoney charges can face prosecution, even in Red States! Where are the AGs in Clinton scandals? Are there no Repub AGs? Will no one rid me of this Hildebeast? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
How much should I trust this site? Or is it another site run by the left ?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 04, 2016, 08:36:24 AM
How much should I trust this site?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/)
The track record is rather impressive so far.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9662363/Nate-Silver-politics-geek-hailed-for-Barack-Obama-wins-US-election-forecast.html
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 04, 2016, 08:36:24 AM
How much should I trust this site? Or is it another site run by the left ?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/)
My impression (FWIW) is that it is more reputable and diligent than
another site run by the left. (I appreciate your hesitancy, though; I still cannot bring myself really to rely on the
Huffington Post, e.g. 8) )
Quote from: North Star on October 04, 2016, 08:44:03 AM
The track record is rather impressive so far.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9662363/Nate-Silver-politics-geek-hailed-for-Barack-Obama-wins-US-election-forecast.html
Hmmm, so Trump is basically screwed unless he has some magic bullets left.
I rate polls by the success of their methods over time. Track record is all for me. I don't give a shit if the poll is sponsored by the Daily Worker or Lesbian Stormtroopers from the 25th.Century.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 04, 2016, 09:00:07 AM
Hmmm, so Trump is basically screwed unless he has some magic bullets left.
Even if the GOP had nominated someone less loony, the electoral map would have been a challenge. El Tupé has self-destructively made the challenge steeper. That said, the margins in many states are too narrow for Clinton to be anything like complacent, and she is working hard.
If El Tupé makes a great success of the second debate, we're back to biting nails, maybe. Or, Clinton could inch closer to packing it away.
The best new Senate race gaffe is about whether [El Tupé] is a good role model for children (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/4/13161424/kelly-ayotte-donald-trump-role-model)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 04, 2016, 09:03:53 AM
Even if the GOP had nominated someone less loony, the electoral map would have been a challenge.
Loony would be an understatement - a crazy man, couple of pliers short of a tool set would be more like it.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 04, 2016, 07:45:50 AM
As much as I am not a Trump fan I have to admit these debates are setting him up to fail. He is a business man, going into a DEBATE with someone who has spent a lifetime in politics, someone used to talking in front of audiences and debating issues, someone with a law degree from YALE. I just don't see how he comes out ahead.
Maybe having no experience in government would make him incompetent to govern, not just incompetent to participate in the debates.
As far as his business acumen, the NYTimes had an interesting article about his experience in the 1980's and 1990's. Apparently when he was on the verge of personal bankruptcy his father did things like send lawyers to the Trump Casinos to buy millions of dollars worth of gambling chips and not cash them in.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 03, 2016, 09:38:20 PM
Huh? The Clinton Foundation is a charity which gets an A rating from independent watchdog groups because of the high fraction of the money collected that goes directly to relief.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
The problem is not the outflow (although there are some questions there as to who actually recieves the money) but the inflow.
People donated to the Foundation who had direct sizeable interests in what she decided. And she knew who they were.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 04, 2016, 12:15:03 PM
The problem is not the outflow (although there are some questions there as to who actually recieves the money) but the inflow.
People donated to the Foundation who had direct sizeable interests in what she decided. And she knew who they were.
Just like a PAC then? Except that money don't go to charities?
Quote from: drogulus on October 04, 2016, 08:27:27 AM
In new blow to campaign, Trump's foundation ordered to halt fundraising (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN1231V5)
The order followed a series of reports in The Washington Post that suggested improprieties by the foundation, including using its funds to settle legal disputes involving Trump businesses.
"The failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports required under Article 7-A with the Charities Bureau shall be deemed to be a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York," according to a letter dated on Friday that the office posted online on Monday.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Is Trump getting the Clinton scandal treatment from a Dem AG, or is this a legitimate charge? First, we have to understand that Clinton scandals are far more likely to come from the media or partisan committee investigations, not from AGs. The standards are (heh!) different. An AG, regardless of party affiliation, that brings phoney charges can face prosecution, even in Red States! Where are the AGs in Clinton scandals? Are there no Repub AGs? Will no one rid me of this Hildebeast? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Something can be legal but unethical or immoral. Something can be illegal but still be ethical or immoral.
Surely you learned this fact along the way.
Quote from: The new erato on October 04, 2016, 12:19:11 PM
Just like a PAC then? Except that money don't go to charities?
That seems to be the case.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 04, 2016, 12:15:03 PM
The problem is not the outflow (although there are some questions there as to who actually recieves the money) but the inflow.
People donated to the Foundation who had direct sizeable interests in what she decided. And she knew who they were.
And foreign leaders buy $200 chocolate boxes for the POTUS that are destroyed on receipt under the rules of the Secret Service. Giving to a charity seems like a better idea to me.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 04, 2016, 07:26:11 AM
Hillary has an actual track record of promoting death, destruction, and chaos across the greater Middle East and beyond. And she seems to have learned nothing from her many experiences in this area. Just a couple of weeks ago, she was still blustering about "our duty to lead" and so forth. (Which means in plain English, "I'm gonna get us into more wars.")
Trump is grossly inconsistent, but he has made some peace-like noises, of a type I haven't heard from a corporate party candidate in ages. Beyond that, his main interests in life are making money, aggrandizing himself, and generally living the good life. The nuclear destruction of the world would seriously impinge on his hedonism, which is why I think he would show some caution in this area.
You seem to have missed the meaning of my post on a couple of levels.
First of all, I was replying to a proposition about who was most likely to start World War III. Not who was most likely to carry on using the US military. I'm not arguing that Clinton would suddenly be more lovey-dovey than past US presidents. If you think the current administration has been promoting death, destruction and chaos then sure, Clinton will most likely give you more of the same.
Secondly, you seem to have completely missed the point of the part of my post that you snipped out. I'm not arguing that Trump would intentionally start World War III. I'm arguing that there's a high risk of him blundering into it. I'm sure he makes peace overtures while saying such and such people are great and amazing. Not so much while he's accusing China of inventing climate change.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 04, 2016, 01:16:28 PM
If you think the current administration has been promoting death, destruction and chaos then sure, Clinton will most likely give you more of the same.
However, what makes it worse is Clinton's rabid attitude to countries that can actually hit back, above all Russia. Unlike her previous targets (e.g. Libya), Russia and China can actually destroy the USA. Obama has been somewhat restrained when dealing with them, but I have no faith that Clinton will be so as well.
So, if you want to get into a devastating shooting match with major powers
for no good reason at all, HRC is your clear choice.
QuoteSecondly, you seem to have completely missed the point of the part of my post that you snipped out. I'm not arguing that Trump would intentionally start World War III. I'm arguing that there's a high risk of him blundering into it.
Yes, that danger exists.
To me the "Clinton is warlike" argument is similar to the "Clinton is duplicitous" argument - it does have some truth (in fact, even more so than the accusations of lying; her pattern of advocating rash responses that Obama wisely thought twice on, runs deeper than her pattern of concealing facts), but it is grossly overshadowed by the identical flaw in Donald Trump. True, Hillary lied about emails; but Trump lies compulsively about
everything. And true, Hillary has shown poor judgment about foreign military incursions, but Trump has been even worse.
This is where Apollo and I disagree -
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 04, 2016, 07:26:11 AM
Trump is grossly inconsistent, but he has made some peace-like noises,
He may have, but he's also said the following things:
"I would bomb the shit out of them. I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up every single inch. There'd be nothing left."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8
"If we're going to get out, take the oil."
"Can you imagine General Douglas MacArthur or General Patton saying we can't bomb because we're gonna hurt the atmosphere? You have to knock the hell out of the oil."
To Bob Schieffer: "I'm the most militaristic person on your show. I want to have a much stronger military. ...Well, you know, the time to have done [sent troops to Syria] would have been when he drew the line in the sand. I might have gone in. Now it's such a mess over there, with everybody involved, and the airspace is very limited. It's not that big of an area. The airspace is very limited. So are we going to start World War III over Syria?"
Now, that one is interesting because of the nuance it displays. He recognizes that now Syria would be a disastrous military incursion, but in the context of saying that there
was a right time to invade. The main concern, honestly, I suspect, is that he does not want to antagonize his buddy, Russia.
"There is something missing from our president. Had he crossed the line and really gone in with force, done something to Assad--if he had gone in with tremendous force, you wouldn't have millions of people displaced all over the world."
"Iran's nuclear program must be stopped--by any and all means necessary. Period."
"I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It's a horror to use nuclear weapons....I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be. But I will never, ever rule it out."
"I will have a military that's so strong and powerful, and so respected, we're not gonna have to nuke anybody."
And here's a book excerpt from 2000 - old, but relevant:
[In a Trump presidency], North Korea would suddenly discover that its worthless promises of civilized behavior would cut no ice. I would let Pyongyang know in no uncertain terms that it can either get out of the nuclear arms race or expect a rebuke similar to the one Ronald Reagan delivered to Ghadhafi in 1986. I don't think anybody is going to accuse me of tiptoeing through the issues or tap-dancing around them either. Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?
(http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/candidates.png)
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 04, 2016, 02:03:00 PM
However, what makes it worse is Clinton's rabid attitude to countries that can actually hit back, above all Russia.
It is Russia that is taking a more aggressive stance with its nuclear weapons policy, not an American SheBeast. Clinton is vastly better to have as President than an insecure Orange Baby that gets a baby hard on when Putin "praises" him.
How do all of you think appeasement will work with Putin? I'm just asking.
Putin does not think he can take the Baltic states without firing a shot, he thinks he can take them without us firing a shot. Is that true? Will it also be true of Poland?
What should U.S. policy be towards the defense of NATO countries? We better let them know if they're on their own, it's only fair that they should know the alliance leader is planning to betray them.
How far does this go?
Brian -
Point taken, and to reiterate, I am not actually voting for Trump. But I will not vote for HRC under any circumstances. A couple of articles for your consideration:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/09/27/debate-trumps-three-points-peace/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/09/26/wannabe-global-dominatrix-hillary-clinton-never-met-a-war-she-didnt-want-other-americans-to-fight/#213c2b8e6aa9
Quote from: drogulus on October 04, 2016, 03:49:53 PM
Putin does not think he can take the Baltic states without firing a shot, he thinks he can take them without us firing a shot. Is that true? Will it also be true of Poland?
Why even bring this up? Poland is a member of the EU and NATO, and there are no territorial disputes currently existing between it and Russia. I can think of a dozen places where conflict is more likely to flare than between Russia and Poland.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 04, 2016, 06:15:33 PM
Why even bring this up? Poland is a member of the EU and NATO, and there are no territorial disputes currently existing between it and Russia. I can think of a dozen places where conflict is more likely to flare than between Russia and Poland.
Right, exactly right, why bring it up? Why
even bring it up, even. It's not like Putin is going to invade a sovereign country.
"Poland belongs to the group of European Union member states that will be most affected by an aggressive Russian foreign policy. Poland has a direct border with the Russian exclave, Kaliningrad Oblast, which because of its strategic location will remain the most militarised region in Europe. At the same time, Russia sees Kaliningrad as a vulnerable outpost because it is surrounded by the most "hawkish" NATO member states (Lithuania and Poland). If the Kremlin were to decide to have a local, short war with NATO, the Baltic republics would be among the most obvious targets for Russian military aggression. And if the conflict were to escalate, Russia would probably want to neutralise Poland by occupying the Polish-Lithuanian border region (the Suwałki corridor) located between Kaliningrad and Belarus."
Maybe Putin is a little ahead of you in terms of what
he thinks about. What do you think? Where do you think he'll go next?
One last point, what will it mean for Poland if we disavow our NATO commitments? And finally, what will it mean for the U.S. if we don't?
(http://www.ecfr.eu/img/logo.jpg)
An unpredictable Russia: the impact on Poland (http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_an_unpredictable_russia_the_impact_on_poland)
Let me remind you that the warmongering Poles have a nasty habit of provoking invasions of their country. It won't take a Putin-Trump Nonagression Pact either, they'll do it just to spite us.
Quote from: drogulus on October 04, 2016, 07:06:46 PM
One last point, what will it mean for Poland if we disavow our NATO commitments? And finally, what will it mean for the U.S. if we don't?
Presumably, it will mean that Poland and other European countries will have to make their own security arrangements. How is this bad for the people of the USA?
This is the value of the Trump campaign: in his crude vulgar way, he raises the issues that are sitting there in plain sight, but which our elites don't want to touch. Case in point: why are we providing an ever-expanding range of security guarantees to European and Asian countries that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves? And do you sleep more soundly, knowing that great military powers like Albania and Montenegro are looking out for us?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 04, 2016, 12:21:57 PM
That seems to be the case.
Then I think influencing politics through the Clinton foundations seems like a better idea.
QuoteMaybe Putin is a little ahead of you in terms of what he thinks about. What do you think? Where do you think he'll go next?
I didn´t watch the vice-president debate yesterday, but reports are very clear: Pence showed a hardliner attitude towards Putin, but also said notoriously untrue things about Trump having the same attitude. There are 2 possibilities regarding this: 1) Trump and Pence are presenting both opinions in order to attract voters of both opinions 2) Trump and Pence don´t communicate enough, and Pence is ignorant of Trump´s views. Both options are not very attractive, and suggest a less coherent policy than that of the Democrats.
I agree that the Russia situation, in particular also the militarization of the public mind there - is very worrying.
It´s been increasing in the last couple of years, and Russia has simply got all the signs of a violent dictatorship now. Besides the invasion of Ukraine, the undermining of Western democracies into freak shows by supporting left- and right wing extremists there, the involvement in Syria, it´s causing real headaches in the Baltic region in particular, including Sweden. Russia has also in effect taken parts of Moldova and recently held military exercises there (which however is more of a symbolic piece of land, of no economical value). It´s not realistic that they´ll invade Poland though.
Reports are that right now, there are exercises in civil defense in Russia involving 40 mio of the inhabitants, they´ve just started a programme of bomb shelters for 11 mio people in Moscow, the number of military drills is very large, several newspapers talk of a possible, upcoming war, etc. The big question is of course - how much of this is related to real prospects, how much is related to the elite and Putin trying to stay in power, and how much is bargaining material in a power game towards the West.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 02:28:20 AM
Sorry, Hillary's service is ONLY to herself. Anyone who gets in her way, WATCH OUT!
If self-interest was her motivation she'd had stayed in a law practice and gotten rich that way, long before making money writing a book and giving speeches.
She chose public office. Secretary of State is one of the toughest jobs physically; it's the equivalent of working in a coal mine.
Same thing for the White House. Just look at the in - out pictures of most presidents.
Quote from: Herman on October 04, 2016, 10:59:34 PM
If self-interest was her motivation she'd had stayed in a law practice and gotten rich that way, long before making money writing a book and giving speeches.
She chose public office. Secretary of State is one of the toughest jobs physically; it's the equivalent of working in a coal mine.
Same thing for the White House. Just look at the in - out pictures of most presidents.
I am not going to repeat all the incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton. It's all there for anyone who cares to read it. More than self-interest or even money (though she has plenty of it), though, she is driven by a craving for POWER. She would have not stuck by Billy-boy, moreover harassing his victims, if he weren't the ticket to getting into the White House yet again. She is in every way, Lady Macbeth, who will do anything, say anything to get that crown on her head.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 04, 2016, 12:15:03 PM
The problem is not the outflow (although there are some questions there as to who actually recieves the money) but the inflow.
People donated to the Foundation who had direct sizeable interests in what she decided. And she knew who they were.
Fair enough. But that could be said of the Trump Foundation too -- and of many PACs and major campaigns.
While we're on the subject: the conservatives of the Roberts Court have taken the position that "Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties" and that "it is hard to see how a candidate today could receive 'massive amounts of money' that could be traced back to a particular donor" (
McCutcheon v. FEC).
From my perspective, they have eliminated corruption, not by ending the practice, but by redefining the word.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 11:22:58 PM
I am not going to repeat all the incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton. It's all there for anyone who cares to read it. More than self-interest or even money (though she has plenty of it), though, she is driven by a craving for POWER. She would have not stuck by Billy-boy, moreover harassing his victims, if he weren't the ticket to getting into the White House yet again. She is in every way, Lady Macbeth, who will do anything, say anything to get that crown on her head.
For the sake of discussion, call this "essentially true, but rhetorically exaggerated" with the supporting exhibit your curious repetition of the substantially debunked "she ripped off the White House furniture!" canard.
It is no argument at all to vote for El Tupé, because exactly the same, and worse, is true of him, only without decades' accrual of political grudge.
"... and worse," e.g.: the white supremacist cast to his entire effort; the blatant abuse of Trump Foundation monies; the locker-room tone to his discourse; a narcissist who tweets hateful rubbish about a Latina model at 3:20 AM; who instead of apologizing for contemptible slurs against a Gold Star family, claims that he "made sacifices, too!"
&c., &c, &c. This, too, is out there for anyone to read.
Dana Milbank tells it plain:
Mike Pence gives Republicans buyer's remorse (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mike-pence-gives-republicans-buyers-remorse/2016/10/05/8be23d9c-8a72-11e6-bff0-d53f592f176e_story.html?utm_term=.b0f7b6ec2f36)Had they chosen someone like him as the candidate, they could be winning.Quote from: Dana MilbankPence hasn't tweeted about a sex tape at 5 a.m. He hasn't shamed a woman publicly for gaining weight. He didn't mock a political opponent's pneumonia-induced stumble, nor claim that his opponent is "crazy" and unfaithful to her husband, nor suggest that returning soldiers with PTSD are weak.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 04, 2016, 11:22:58 PM
I am not going to repeat all the incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton. It's all there for anyone who cares to read it. More than self-interest or even money (though she has plenty of it), though, she is driven by a craving for POWER. She would have not stuck by Billy-boy, moreover harassing his victims, if he weren't the ticket to getting into the White House yet again. She is in every way, Lady Macbeth, who will do anything, say anything to get that crown on her head.
I think it's safe to say that anyone who runs for President of the United States has an interest in power. This is hardly a point of distinction between candidates.
The rest of my response... well, I'm not going to bother repeating it either.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2016, 01:13:19 AM
For the sake of discussion, call this "essentially true, but rhetorically exaggerated" with the supporting exhibit your curious repetition of the substantially debunked "she ripped off the White House furniture!" canard.
It is no argument at all to vote for El Tupé, because exactly the same, and worse, is true of him, only without decades' accrual of political grudge.
"... and worse," e.g.: the white supremacist cast to his entire effort; the blatant abuse of Trump Foundation monies; the locker-room tone to his discourse; a narcissist who tweets hateful rubbish about a Latina model at 3:20 AM; who instead of apologizing for contemptible slurs against a Gold Star family, claims that he "made sacifices, too!"
&c., &c, &c. This, too, is out there for anyone to read.
Isn't it a little early in the morning for a rant? Where did I repeat the issues of the furniture, which is not something I made up but is cross referenced? The Clinton's returned what they "thought" they could keep. Oh gosh, aren't they disingenuous, like it was a "mistake" to have a private server for sensitive top-class information?
Anyone who is on the payroll of Saudi Arabia could not claim to support women's rights. It is bad enough in most Arab and Moslem countries where there are honor killings for even suspicion of talking to a guy, but over there they need to be chaperoned going out of the house, and moreover, not permitted to drive.
It is an argument when there is a binary choice (forget about those on the margins). I said before I care less for the personality (let's admit it, public figures are generally narcissistic) but for policy. Pence had to water down the protection of religion act in Indiana otherwise he would be a cipher by now. However, Trump did promise to attend to the issue of whittling down of religious freedom by
special interest groups by protecting the First Amendment.
As for the former Miss Venezuela, Hillary first mentioned her name as a sleaze reference (like she herself never cussed anyone out). Offhand, DT mentioned that she did appear in a sleaze film that would have been buried in the internet if Hillary didn't bring it up. I'm sorry but I know these types of women too well. They are provocative and then play "wounded bird" when getting their just desserts.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 04, 2016, 07:34:34 PM
Presumably, it will mean that Poland and other European countries will have to make their own security arrangements. How is this bad for the people of the USA?
This is the value of the Trump campaign: in his crude vulgar way, he raises the issues that are sitting there in plain sight, but which our elites don't want to touch. Case in point: why are we providing an ever-expanding range of security guarantees to European and Asian countries that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves? And do you sleep more soundly, knowing that great military powers like Albania and Montenegro are looking out for us?
Why are we providing security guarantees in Europe and Asia?
Because the countries we are protecting can't take care of themselves without the guarantees. Russia and China have too much military power and aggressive intentions.
Why is it our job to provide the guarantees?
It's the price you pay for "we're no. 1" or "great again". The maritime superpower is the guarantor of the world system. In order to have the advantages this system bestows on us we police the system for everyone in a reasonably fair way.
Pence Relaxes Onstage By Imagining Entire Debate Audience Burning In Hell :
http://www.theonion.com/article/pence-relaxes-onstage-imagining-entire-debate-audi-54094
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 04, 2016, 07:34:34 PM
why are we providing an ever-expanding range of security guarantees to European and Asian countries that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves?
That´s precisely the issue: Poland, the Baltic States and Romania are not perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Their whole military power put together is no match for Russia´s.
Now, as to why should the USA guarantee their security,
drogulus has already partially answered. Another reason is that the last time those countries were left defenseless a world war broke which eventually swept the USA too.
Pence was being flagrantly dishonest. He did say, "I think it's inarguable that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country." Trump really did suggest that Japan and South Korea should get nukes. Pence was simply lying.
And given that VP debates don't generally swing presidential elections, it's perverse to look at Pence's relatively solid tone and temperament during the debate and conclude that he's going to win voters over. That's just theater criticism.
All that being said, Pence had a different task from trying to help his current ticket. If and when Trump loses the general election, Pence immediately becomes a major candidate for the 2020 GOP nomination. He's a national figure with huge name recognition and he hasn't earned the kind of intra-party enemies of a Marco Rubio or a Ted Cruz. Moreover, he has a personal connection to Trump voters and the potential to win them over.
If you view the debate from the vantage point of a Republican donor or party elite, weighing how the party is going to recover after the disaster that is Donald Trump, Pence did exceptionally well. He delivered exactly the kind of performance a donor like that would be searching for. He hit Trumpian themes on immigration and national security, and showed unerring loyalty to the ticket. He can win over the voters who denied GOP elites the nomination this year. (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13169058/vice-president-vp-debate-winners-losers)
Tim Kaine brought up real Donald Trump quote after real Donald Trump quote, and Pence simply invented a world where they were never said, where they never mattered. His primary defense of his running mate was that he has not said or done any of the things he's said and done over the past year. That's appalling.
And, you know, I think there are people here who just may live in that same invented world.
Thank God, he does not have the self-control of a two-year-old.
Donald Trump made it 6 minutes into the VP debate before tweeting something bizarre (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13169332/trump-vice-president-debate-twitter)
Quote from: drogulus on October 05, 2016, 04:23:57 AM
Why are we providing security guarantees in Europe and Asia?
Because the countries we are protecting can't take care of themselves without the guarantees. Russia and China have too much military power and aggressive intentions.
Why is it our job to provide the guarantees?
It's the price you pay for "we're no. 1" or "great again". The maritime superpower is the guarantor of the world system. In order to have the advantages this system bestows on us we police the system for everyone in a reasonably fair way.
Estimated GDP (nominal) of the European Union, 2016: $16.48 trillion
Estimated GDP (nominal) of Russia, 2016: $1.1 trillion
They're not even close. Any bloc with as much money as the EU should be able to take care of itself.
"We're no. 1" means you waste money building schools in places like Afghanistan while schools back home fall apart.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2016, 06:38:35 AM
Thank God, he does not have the self-control of a two-year-old.
Donald Trump made it 6 minutes into the VP debate before tweeting something bizarre (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13169332/trump-vice-president-debate-twitter)
I wonder for this Sunday if Madame Secretary can just duct-tape her own mouth shut and let Trump talk the entire time and still come out ahead since sooner or later he will say something straight from left field.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 05, 2016, 06:43:36 AM
I wonder for this Sunday if Madame Secretary can just duct-tape her own mouth shut and let Trump talk the entire time and still come out ahead since sooner or later he will say something straight from left field.
I'm sure she will happily let him talk, partly because of the quality of what comes forth, and partly because of the contrast in demeanor that draws from his constant petulant interruptions.
There are now rumors that Pence doing better in his debate, than Trump did in his, is making #1 a little jealous...
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 05, 2016, 06:39:41 AM
Estimated GDP (nominal) of the European Union, 2016: $16.48 trillion
Estimated GDP (nominal) of Russia, 2016: $1.1 trillion
They're not even close. Any bloc with as much money as the EU should be able to take care of itself.
"We're no. 1" means you waste money building schools in places like Afghanistan while schools back home fall apart.
Yes, Germany could have become a military superpower long ago. NATO involved a pair of guarantees, we will defend Europe from Germany, and we will defend Germany from Russia. My view is that's the only way it could have worked to get everyone on the same side. Is this arrangement obsolete? I don't think so.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2016, 06:47:33 AM
I'm sure she will happily let him talk, partly because of the quality of what comes forth, and partly because of the contrast in demeanor that draws from his constant petulant interruptions.
Yes, you can tell from the glee on her face at times during the first debate that she couldn't believe her own good fortune.
Japan is going to remilitarize. I think they have to. I want them to. I also want to keep them within the alliance system, which means Japan knowing we won't abandon our "obsolete" alliance with them. The increased militarization of our partners implicit the the present situation will only be amplified as we seek to reduce our role. I prefer keeping as much influence over these developments as we can manage. This will require the kind of skill one candidate possesses and the other does not.
Quote from: drogulus on October 05, 2016, 07:56:25 AM
Yes, Germany could have become a military superpower long ago. NATO involved a pair of guarantees, we will defend Europe from Germany, and we will defend Germany from Russia. My view is that's the only way it could have worked to get everyone on the same side. Is this arrangement obsolete? I don't think so.
It is not that simple. A reduction of the armed forces was a condition for the German unification in 1990. These treaties could maybe be re-negotiated but it does not seem likely. After all, there was a certain superpower that yielded an important country within its influence to the NATO sphere and Russia would have to be involved in such renegotiations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany
Well, we can't say we didn't know this was coming:
http://www.youtube.com/v/qZOWItkanDs
Quote from: Jo498 on October 05, 2016, 08:56:37 AM
It is not that simple. A reduction of the armed forces was a condition for the German unification in 1990. These treaties could maybe be re-negotiated but it does not seem likely. After all, there was a certain superpower that yielded an important country within its influence to the NATO sphere and Russia would have to be involved in such renegotiations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany
I would say that among the consequences of Russian aggression is they forfeit any influence over German militarization. We might offer them assurances if they agree to withdraw from all of Ukraine, but otherwise it's out of the question. Also, the Soviet Union does not exist.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 05, 2016, 06:34:15 AM
Tim Kaine brought up real Donald Trump quote after real Donald Trump quote, and Pence simply invented a world where they were never said, where they never mattered. His primary defense of his running mate was that he has not said or done any of the things he's said and done over the past year. That's appalling.
And, you know, I think there are people here who just may live in that same invented world.
The phrase you are looking for is "memory hole."
I had highish hopes for Kaine, but in the parts I saw he was pretty annoying.
Quote from: Brian on October 05, 2016, 07:42:00 AM
There are now rumors that Pence doing better in his debate, than Trump did in his, is making #1 a little jealous...
Isn't that just the Republican assessment of how the debate went that was accidentally published 2 hours before the debate? It told you his strongest points and everything.
Quote from: Brian on October 05, 2016, 07:42:00 AM
There are now rumors that Pence doing better in his debate, than Trump did in his, is making #1 a little jealous...
Would it really have been possible for Pence to have done worse?
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
H. L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun
26 July 1920
Humorous, to be sure, but not entirely appropriate this election. There's a better quote which more perfectly fits Trump:
"Trump is not crazy, he's just an asshole!"
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 05, 2016, 03:33:05 PM
Would it really have been possible for Pence to have done worse?
;^)
El Tupé's tweet-rage ailment is contagious, as Hannity concedes that his "interviews" are all about lobbing the creampuffs:
Fox's Sean Hannity publicly fired back at his colleague Megyn Kelly after Kelly said on her program that Donald Trump will only appear on Hannity's show in order to avoid tough interviews or "unsafe spaces."
Hannity replied testily to her on Twitter, tweeting "u should be mad at @hillaryClinton. Clearly you support her. And @realDonaldTrump did talk to u." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-hosts-hannity-kelly-trade-testy-exchanges-over-trump-interview/2016/10/06/3a1c3440-8b8a-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_hannity-225am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Hey, that wasn't sexism! It was Entertainment! (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/6/13187046/trump-justifies-sexism-entertainment)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 06, 2016, 03:59:14 AM
El Tupé's tweet-rage ailment is contagious, as Hannity concedes that his "interviews" are all about lobbing the creampuffs:
Fox's Sean Hannity publicly fired back at his colleague Megyn Kelly after Kelly said on her program that Donald Trump will only appear on Hannity's show in order to avoid tough interviews or "unsafe spaces."
Hannity replied testily to her on Twitter, tweeting "u should be mad at @hillaryClinton. Clearly you support her. And @realDonaldTrump did talk to u." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-hosts-hannity-kelly-trade-testy-exchanges-over-trump-interview/2016/10/06/3a1c3440-8b8a-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_hannity-225am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
*Munches popcorn* :)
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 05, 2016, 03:46:14 PM
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun
26 July 1920
Already happened, 16 years in a row!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 01:34:12 AMAlready happened, 16 years in a row!
Yeah, the guy who navigated your country through a financial crash, who inherited a completely botched up war, who made historical breakthrough regarding your neanderthal health system and who regained respect for America throughout the world, all while having to cope with the GOP roadblock, birther idiots and outright racists.. that guy - is a moron? Rrrrriiiight.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, history, unclouded by the BS of Fox News & alt-right media, will judge Obama as one of America's top presidents. He had his share of failures but in overall, he's someone you guys should be proud of.
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 07, 2016, 03:24:20 AM
Yeah, the guy who navigated your country through a financial crash, who inherited a completely botched up war, who made historical breakthrough regarding your neanderthal health system and who regained respect for America throughout the world, all while having to cope with the GOP roadblock, birther idiots and outright racists.. that guy - is a moron? Rrrrriiiight.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, history, unclouded by the BS of Fox News & alt-right media, will judge Obama as one of America's top presidents. He had his share of failures but in overall, he's someone you guys should be proud of.
Perhaps Zamyra meant
Clinton &
Bush, though.
While I understand that the ritual whingeing about Obama will not die off for many years, it is already hard to take it very seriously, for two reasons, to start with:
1. Four years ago, Obama was at probably the low point of his popularity. He was, then, a not-very-popular incumbent President, in a political season which was hostile to incumbents (a broad sentiment which, considering this year's Rage Against the Establishment, has only intensified). The Republican nominee was the eminently reasonable (even without comparing him to this year's bewigged drama queen) Mitt Romney, so that (to repeat) the race was Romney's to lose. The American people re-elected Obama. The referendum on whether Obama was Too, Too Awful went to the people, and he was taken on for a second term.
2. That is all now ancient history. I don't say Obama is flawless (he is not), but he now enjoys high overall popularity on a par with the sainted Reagan.
I have long gotten over the Bush-Gore-Florida controversy, but I know there are some who, eeww, seem to enjoy licking those wounds rather than letting them heal. America as a whole thinks well of Obama. Even setting aside the Birther obscenity, I get it: Obama-Hating will remain an active cottage industry for a while. But it is already rather a cranky activity.
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 07, 2016, 03:24:20 AM
Yeah, the guy who navigated your country through a financial crash, who inherited a completely botched up war, who made historical breakthrough regarding your neanderthal health system and who regained respect for America throughout the world, all while having to cope with the GOP roadblock, birther idiots and outright racists.. that guy - is a moron? Rrrrriiiight.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, history, unclouded by the BS of Fox News & alt-right media, will judge Obama as one of America's top presidents. He had his share of failures but in overall, he's someone you guys should be proud of.
Where were you, sleeping for the past eight years? The economy is much worse, employment did not improve despite his promises, the national debt has ballooned to $18 or so trillion, health care expenses shot up despite "Affordable Care" a misnomer if there ever was one, inter-racial violence is rife, security from terror is almost non-existent, religious freedom is under attack like never before, respect abroad is practically nil, otherwise why cower and give $1.3 billion to Iran.
This was the era in which the apocalyptic ISIS filled the void left by you know who and his Secretary of State.
If Hill gets elected, we should expect more of the same and even worse.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 07, 2016, 04:31:47 AM
Source please.
If you're running a business and have a $18 trillion deficit, much of which is owed to China, doesn't that indicate something is amiss? The point is nothing was really done to ameliorate it, just go on spending sprees, mirrored with his own family taking trips that really pushed the envelope, estimated at about $58 million from 2009!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/take-tour-president-barack-obamas-7076592
In contrast, there are some leaders in the world who have a conscience like the Governoress of Tokyo who voluntarily accepted a 50% reduction in her yearly salary.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 04:22:57 AM
While I understand that the ritual whingeing about Obama will not die off for many years, it is already hard to take it very seriously, for two reasons, to start with:
1. Four years ago, Obama was at probably the low point of his popularity. He was, then, a not-very-popular incumbent President, in a political season which was hostile to incumbents (a broad sentiment which, considering this year's Rage Against the Establishment, has only intensified). The Republican nominee was the eminently reasonable (even without comparing him to this year's bewigged drama queen) Mitt Romney, so that (to repeat) the race was Romney's to lose. The American people re-elected Obama. The referendum on whether Obama was Too, Too Awful went to the people, and he was taken on for a second term.
2. That is all now ancient history. I don't say Obama is flawless (he is not), but he now enjoys high overall popularity on a par with the sainted Reagan.
I have long gotten over the Bush-Gore-Florida controversy, but I know there are some who, eeww, seem to enjoy licking those wounds rather than letting them heal. America as a whole thinks well of Obama. Even setting aside the Birther obscenity, I get it: Obama-Hating will remain an active cottage industry for a while. But it is already rather a cranky activity.
I don't know if Obama will be viewed positively by history. Right now he is popular in large part because compared to Clinton and Trump, well, he is for lack of a better word, preferable. Also, people tend to be kind to presidents as they are preparing to walk out the door of the White House for the last time. But it is hard to square his popularity with his legacy: a bitterly divided society over race, class and politics; a lackluster record in foreign policy and then of course, there's Obamacare.
No, I think once the dust of this presidential campaign settles, Obama's stock is not a good buy.
;)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 04:39:18 AM
If you're running a business and have a $18 trillion deficit, much of which is owed to China, doesn't that indicate something is amiss? The point is nothing was really done to ameliorate it, just go on spending sprees, mirrored with his own family taking trips that really pushed the envelope, estimated at about $58 million from 2009!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/take-tour-president-barack-obamas-7076592
In contrast, there are some leaders in the world who have a conscience like the Governoress of Tokyo who voluntarily accepted a 50% reduction in her yearly salary.
Unemployment rate in the US.
(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2006_2016_all_period_M09_data.gif)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 04:39:18 AM
If you're running a business and have a $18 trillion deficit, much of which is owed to China, doesn't that indicate something is amiss?
The idea that running a country is the same as "running a business" and that the finances work the same is one of the greatest, foolhardy falsehoods that has been running around for the last couple of decades.
The goal of a business is to make money. That's not the goal of a government. ONE of the goals of a government is to enable other people to go out and run businesses.
Besides, if you run the argument that a deficit indicates something is amiss, there must be something amiss with most people because they have mortgages.
That's not a source. That's just you arguing that you understand how the economy works and immediately demonstrating that you don't have a detailed grasp of the subject.
Quote from: North Star on October 07, 2016, 04:41:51 AM
Unemployment rate in the US.
The Labor Department said Friday that the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.9 percent in January, the lowest since February 2008. But does that tell the whole story?
Most economists look past the main unemployment number (also known as the "U-3") to other metrics that provide more perspectives on the economy. On jobs day, the Labor Department releases a slew of data, each of which says something different about the state of jobs and wages. One of those figures is the U-6 rate.
While the U-3 rate measures all unemployed workers as a percent of the civilian labor force, the U-6 includes more. It's defined as all unemployed as well as "persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons" plus all marginally attached workers, as a percentage of the labor force.
That means the rate for the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged remains stubbornly above prerecession levels. The U-6 rate remained unchanged at 9.9 percent in January. Overall, the U-6 has been more volatile than the U-3 rate. It's down 1.4 percentage points over the past year, versus an 0.8-point drop in the U-3.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/05/but-whats-the-real-unemployment-rate.html
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 04:30:47 AM
Where were you, sleeping for the past eight years? The economy is much worse, employment did not improve despite his promises, the national debt has ballooned to $18 or so trillion, health care expenses shot up despite "Affordable Care" a misnomer if there ever was one, inter-racial violence is rife, security from terror is almost non-existent, religious freedom is under attack like never before, respect abroad is practically nil, otherwise why cower and give $1.3 billion to Iran.
This was the era in which the apocalyptic ISIS filled the void left by you know who and his Secretary of State.
If Hill gets elected, we should expect more of the same and even worse.
You're painting a tendentious picture, and of course there are a number of measures by which the economy is much stronger (this isn't the Soviet Union, it's a free market, so, certainly, there are many moving parts).
Now, one allows room for your pessimism about Clinton's election. But there is absolutely nothing, in
what we know of the
deliberately obfuscatory El Tupé's business activity, to give us even the least indication that he is to be trusted with money.
You're allowed your pessimism w/r/t Clinton. I don't buy any of this faith-based optimism in El Tupé—not in his business dealings, not in his character—it puzzles me that you find
anything in what he says which is remotely trustworthy.
You cannot. So your whole support of that buffoon is some pitiful blend of blind hope in a demonstrated liar and cheat, and entrenched hatred of Clinton.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 04:59:42 AM
The Labor Department said Friday that the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.9 percent in January, the lowest since February 2008. But does that tell the whole story?
Most economists look past the main unemployment number (also known as the "U-3") to other metrics that provide more perspectives on the economy. On jobs day, the Labor Department releases a slew of data, each of which says something different about the state of jobs and wages. One of those figures is the U-6 rate.
While the U-3 rate measures all unemployed workers as a percent of the civilian labor force, the U-6 includes more. It's defined as all unemployed as well as "persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons" plus all marginally attached workers, as a percentage of the labor force.
That means the rate for the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged remains stubbornly above prerecession levels. The U-6 rate remained unchanged at 9.9 percent in January. Overall, the U-6 has been more volatile than the U-3 rate. It's down 1.4 percentage points over the past year, versus an 0.8-point drop in the U-3.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/05/but-whats-the-real-unemployment-rate.html
Fine. You'll see the same trends in U-3, U-5 and U-6 rates, though. You'll notice that after the inherited economic crisis, unemployment has been steadily decreasing. And I doubt that the president's salary has had a larger effect on the US economy than the Republican opposition to the stimulus package.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 05:13:45 AM
You're painting a tendentious picture, and of course there are a number of measures by which the economy is much stronger (this isn't the Soviet Union, it's a free market, so, certainly, there are many moving parts).
Now, one allows room for your pessimism about Clinton's election. But there is absolutely nothing, in what we know of the deliberately obfuscatory El Tupé's business activity, to give us even the least indication that he is to be trusted with money.
You're allowed your pessimism w/r/t Clinton. I don't buy any of this faith-based optimism in El Tupé—not in his business dealings, not in his character—it puzzles me that you find anything in what he says which is remotely trustworthy. You cannot. So your whole support of that buffoon is some pitiful blend of blind hope in a demonstrated liar and cheat, and entrenched hatred of Clinton.
When a person takes out the "hate" card, I usually expect it from unintelligent people without an argument, since this is the easiest word to throw at someone. I really don't hate her, I have sincere pity. I don't think she is a happy person. How could she be with a "husband" like that? Any self-respecting woman should have dumped him a long time ago but she needed to be attached to Billy-boy not out of love but to secure her political career.
It could be that men are not as much attuned to what it means to sacrifice one's feelings on the altar of ambition. It could be in the biological scheme of things, doing so doesn't hurt them so much. Hillary's betrayal of women starts with herself but doesn't end there. I am sorry to bring this up again but anyone who has an endorsement from an organization that is the antithesis of womanhood, so-called Planned Parenthood is likewise. She and Kaine (Catholic in the sense that Ted Kennedy was, completely in opposition to Christian teaching), can't get enough of abortion which is totally out of control the way it is.
One needs to touch base on the issues and not get side tracked in the mires of political correctness. Trump (who may be lying) promised to protect religious freedom. I really feel Hillary does not give a damn.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/pdf/DJT_catholic_leadership_conference_letter.pdf
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 05:33:59 AM
I am sorry to bring this up again
You really aren't. On the contrary, you bring up the fact that Clinton has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood as regularly as possible, without any prompting. We were talking about the economy, and yet somehow that's an opportunity to talk about abortion again.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 07, 2016, 05:41:40 AM
You really aren't. On the contrary, you bring up the fact that Clinton has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood as regularly as possible, without any prompting. We were talking about the economy, and yet somehow that's an opportunity to talk about abortion again.
Sorry, this thread is about the elections. And I really do despise the subject of abortion. I wish not to hear about it 24/7.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 05:46:32 AM
Sorry, this thread is about the elections. And I really do despise the subject of abortion. I wish not to hear about it 24/7.
But you're the only person who brings it up!!
Quote from: ørfeo on October 07, 2016, 05:47:46 AM
But you're the only person who brings it up!!
She and Kaine made it a central issue of their campaign.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 05:13:45 AM
You're painting a tendentious picture, and of course there are a number of measures by which the economy is much stronger (this isn't the Soviet Union, it's a free market, so, certainly, there are many moving parts).
Now, one allows room for your pessimism about Clinton's election. But there is absolutely nothing, in what we know of the deliberately obfuscatory El Tupé's business activity, to give us even the least indication that he is to be trusted with money.
You're allowed your pessimism w/r/t Clinton. I don't buy any of this faith-based optimism in El Tupé—not in his business dealings, not in his character—it puzzles me that you find anything in what he says which is remotely trustworthy. You cannot. So your whole support of that buffoon is some pitiful blend of blind hope in a demonstrated liar and cheat, and entrenched hatred of Clinton.
First, I have always thought that linking the economy to a president is questionable. Economic trends generally are slow developing and include many variables beyond what any president can claim credit or accept blame for.
Second anyone who trusts Hillary Clinton has a problem themselves with objectivity. I just think Trump is better on the issues I care about and will work better with a Republican Congress than Clinton. I don't trust any candidate's promises, and would hope no intelligent person would. Remember, "if you like your current doctor or plan you won't have to change; and premiums will not go up?"
;)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 05:53:55 AM
She and Kaine made it a central issue of their campaign.
But it's
you that keeps making it an issue of this thread. While saying you don't want to hear about it 24/7.
Over and over again.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 14, 2016, 02:08:19 AM
Ignorance may be the reason the moniker "Planned Parenthood" is taken at face value. Their foundress, Margaret Sanger was a unashamed racist. Her "planning" was to reduce the birth rates of Black people. As the abortion rate seems to be high in that community, she is succeeding.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 01, 2016, 07:56:08 AM
Hillary Clinton is endorsed by Planned Parenthood, a VERY bad organization founded by the arch racist Margaret Sanger who wanted to restrict births in the Black community. They peddle the same schlock as this woman in her article, that they are really concerned with preventing unwanted pregnancies, but MOST of their VERY lucrative business comes precisely from abortion.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 31, 2016, 11:51:40 PM
PP depicts abortion, their MAIN million $ business, like a walk in the park.
You are obsessed. Over and over, you tell us that Clinton is unacceptable because she's been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and you tell us about how Planned Parenthood is about abortion. You drag the subject up when no-one else here, in this thread, is talking about it. I did a search. We have search facilities here you know.
So turning around and acting as if it isn't one of your favourite subjects is just disingenuous. You absolutely love talking about it, just so you can express your horror and disgust again and again. It's the little thrill that you get from reminding everyone how awful "those people" are.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 05:59:12 AM
First, I have always thought that linking the economy to a president is questionable. Economic trends generally are slow developing and include many variables beyond what any president can claim credit or accept blame for.
Second anyone who trusts Hillary Clinton has a problem themselves with objectivity. I just think Trump is better on the issues I care about and will work better with a Republican Congress than Clinton. I don't trust any candidate's promises, and would hope no intelligent person would. Remember, "if you like your current doctor or plan you won't have to change; and premiums will not go up?"
Exactly, if percentage points go up, we can thank our Great Leader! He brought us out of Egypt! The debt, however, is the dinosaur in the room. How can the US claim it is "progressing" when it is owing so much money? I don't think Hill ever brought up the subject of the debt. There comes a point when a horse "just upped and died" after being bled out so much.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 07, 2016, 06:01:21 AM
But it's you that keeps making it an issue of this thread. While saying you don't want to hear about it 24/7.
Over and over again.
You are obsessed. Over and over, you tell us that Clinton is unacceptable because she's been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and you tell us about how Planned Parenthood is about abortion. You drag the subject up when no-one else here, in this thread, is talking about it. I did a search. We have search facilities here you know.
So turning around and acting as if it isn't one of your favourite subjects is just disingenuous. You absolutely love talking about it, just so you can express your horror and disgust again and again. It's the little thrill that you get from reminding everyone how awful "those people" are.
This doesn't deserve an answer.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 06:06:44 AM
This doesn't deserve an answer.
ROFL. It doesn't
need an answer. Because it's unarguable. It's based entirely on your own behaviour.
I'm not even arguing about whether your perception of Planned Parenthood is correct. What I'm saying is that the only person who feels the need to bring the subject up is you. So saying that you are "sorry to bring this up again"... it's just not tenable that your regret is genuine.
We get it. We know your view. Feel free to
not bring it up ever again, and then we can all have a thread that is abortion-discussion-free.
Or you can keep hammering us all over the head with the evils of Planned Parenthood and their endorsement of Hillary, but don't do it with this false apology about how you don't really want to mention it but we somehow forced you.
To give myself at least some protection from your ridiculous arguments, you're now on my Ignore list. I'm sure that will make both of us happier. I'll have less cause to read your random illogical sprays, and you'll have one less person calling you to account for your shit.
It can't possibly get any better than "this doesn't deserve an answer", which I'm fairly sure translates to "crap, I can't think of anything to say to wriggle out of this". That's the pinnacle, so I should retire on a high.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 07, 2016, 06:24:40 AM
To give myself at least some protection from your ridiculous arguments, you're now on my Ignore list. I'm sure that will make both of us happier. I'll have less cause to read your random illogical sprays, and you'll have one less person calling you to account for your shit.
It can't possibly get any better than "this doesn't deserve an answer", which I'm fairly sure translates to "crap, I can't think of anything to say to wriggle out of this". That's the pinnacle, so I should retire on a high.
You have such a lovely vocabulary. I must have touched a raw nerve...
Well, back to The Great Entertainer:
Despite being spoon-fed softball questions — "Are you going to bring jobs back?" — and standing in front of an audience of supporters, Trump struggled to stay anywhere close to a coherent message, repeatedly rambling in answers and seeming more interested in settling personal grievances than talking about the issue at hand. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/07/donald-trumps-debate-prep-is-going-great/)Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 05:59:12 AM
I just think Trump is better on the issues I care about and will work better with a Republican Congress than Clinton.
I admire the optimism. We have no indication that El Tupé "works with" anyone.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 06:38:29 AM
Well, back to The Great Entertainer:
Despite being spoon-fed softball questions — "Are you going to bring jobs back?" — and standing in front of an audience of supporters, Trump struggled to stay anywhere close to a coherent message, repeatedly rambling in answers and seeming more interested in settling personal grievances than talking about the issue at hand. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/07/donald-trumps-debate-prep-is-going-great/)
I admire the optimism. We have no indication that El Tupé "works with" anyone.
Well, Paul Ryan has that impression after his meetings with Trump. I am more willing to trust Ryan in this regard, than, well, anyone.
Oh, and speaking of spoon fed questions, Hillary avoided the press for over a year and regualrly insists on seeing the questions before a televised interview. And the shows she goes on are entertainment not news, like the Steve Harvey show.
But of course, you parrot the mainstream media's coverage of Trump (a press that has admitted to working against him (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=2)*) and see Hillary through rose-colored glasses. I get it.
;)
* In a recent piece the Times' "Mediator," Jim Rutenberg, not only acknowledged the Trump candidacy has led to objectivity being tossed out the window, he seemed to ratify the fact as good journalism. To do otherwise, he wrote, "would also be an abdication of political journalism's most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world."
Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 05:59:12 AM
... Remember, "if you like your current doctor or plan you won't have to change; and premiums will not go up?"
One of the most pertinent remarks I have heard on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is, that it's like a boat in which several passengers are hacking holes in the hull, and then complaining that the vessel leaks.
Call it just an opinion, but:
Yes, Obamacare needs tweaks — but it's been a policy triumph (http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/7/13192640/obamacare-exchanges-insurance-healthcare-fix)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 06:43:31 AM
Oh, and speaking of spoon fed questions, Hillary avoided the press for over a year and [regularly] insists on seeing the questions before a televised interview. And the shows she goes on are entertainment not news, like the Steve Harvey show.
But of course, you parrot the mainstream media's coverage of Trump (a press that has admitted to working against him (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=2)*) and see Hillary through rose-colored glasses. I get it.
I'm also parroting Fox's Megyn Kelly. Oops (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/6/13185516/sean-hannity-megyn-kelly-trump).
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 06:53:49 AM
One of the most pertinent remarks I have heard on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is, that it's like a boat in which several passengers are hacking holes in the hull, and then complaining that the vessel leaks.
Call it just an opinion, but:
Yes, Obamacare needs tweaks — but it's been a policy triumph (http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/7/13192640/obamacare-exchanges-insurance-healthcare-fix)
Any person between the ages of 21 and 35 not covered by their employer (e.g. high tech entrepreneurs) or on their parent's plan, who, prior to a federal mandate to buy insurance, probably chose not to invest in what they perceived as an unnecessary expense at that stage of their lives. Now, they have the worst of both worlds. Because the only plan thay can afford has such high deductibles, usually between $4K-$8K, they have to pay a new "tax", i.e. the premiums, and still face huge out of pocket expenses.
That cannot be blamed on Republicans who have been against Obamacare from the get-go, but on the program's primary policy ingredient, the mandate. An article the Sup. Ct. should of struck down, and something for which John Roberts will never live down.
Tweaks? Well, not hard to understand when a 2500 page law gets forced down Congress's throat over a weekend, in which most were not even allowed to read the document before voting.
Obamacare has turned unintended consequences into his legacy.
;)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 06:56:34 AM
I'm also parroting Fox's Megyn Kelly. Oops (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/6/13185516/sean-hannity-megyn-kelly-trump).
If you read the original article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/06/megyn_kelly_trump_will_only_appear_on_sean_hannitys_safe_space_show.html) instead of the media's spin of it, you'd see she first points out Hillary's problem in this regard:
"MEGYN KELLY: They're both in their own version of a 'presidential protection program.' Where you say she designed her situation so she's not in a place where she feels uncomfortable or anything unexpect could come at her. That's why she sat for a half an hour with Mary J. Blidge, the singer. That's why she did Entertainment Tonight this evening. That's why when she went on the Steve Harvey Show she had all the questions in writing in advance, and feigned surprise as the questions they were asked.
And Donald Trump, with all due respect to my friend at 10:00, will go on Hannity and pretty much only Hannity and will not venture out to the unsafe spaces these days, which doesn't exactly expand the tent for either one of them."
:)
You're eager to discount the opposing opinion as spin. I get it.
The fact does not change that El Tupé lives in a more protective bubble than Clinton. (Acknowledging — what is not new for the present writer — that for probably all the primaries and the beginning of the general campaign, Clinton refused to face the press.)
And that all that is necessary to have bad press for El Tupé, is to print or otherwise broadcast his words. As he says them.
On Obama Fiscal Policy:
1) Obama inherited a massive financial market crisis, caused in large part by lax financial regulation.
2) Due to automatic stabilizers in fiscal policy (lower tax receipts, higher expenditures) and a few modest stimulatory packages, the federal deficit skyrocketed immediately after Obama's election (before actually), but the deficit has been falling since then
3) Federal debt-to-GDP in the US is the same in 2016 as it was in 2009.
That strikes me as an excellent overall fiscal performance. It reminds me of the fact that the deficit was reduced to a surplus under Clinton 1. The GOP complains bitterly about fiscal prudence, but as soon as they get elected the deficit and debt skyrocket and the Democrats are left to clean up the mess.
There is much that can be said about rising income and wealth imbalances, health care in the US, the trade deficit, etc. These are topics which would need to be analyzed carefully. This is probably not the proper forum. Regardless, on any topic you might choose, Trump is not the answer.
Trump, at best, knows how to complain. He knows nothing about how to fix. He is a complainer and a grenade thrower who's administration would be a non-stop soap opera. There is no coterie of more moderate handlers (a la Pence or Ryan) who could convert a Trump presidency into anything but a domestic and international fiasco.
Trump belongs on the Jerry Springer show, not in the White House. Shame on the GOP for picking such a loser!!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 07:17:28 AM
You're eager to discount the opposing opinion as spin. I get it.
The fact does not change that El Tupé lives in a more protective bubble than Clinton. (Acknowledging — what is not new for the present writer — that for probably all the primaries and the beginning of the general campaign, Clinton refused to face the press.)
And that all that is necessary to have bad press for El Tupé, is to print or otherwise broadcast his words. As he says them.
LOL. Trump lets it all hang out, being self-protective is what his staff wishes he'd be. The only reason his candidacy still has any traction is because so many people are opposed to another four years of rule by a political insider.
;)
And, of course. eight years ago we might have read Instead of ushering in a new era of race equality, Obama's presidency could become a referendum on a black man as POTUS.
Think sexism against Hillary Clinton is bad? Wait until she wins. (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/6/13178190/hillary-clinton-sexism-in-office)
Soon the Trump candidacy will just be a bad memory, like the OJ Simpson trial:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now
However, the GOP ought to do some soul-searching to figure out how their party got co-opted by a charlatan like Trump. There is a saying "you reap what you sow" − and the GOP sure got what they deserve. The GOP needs to find a way to move away from a "Fox News" mentality toward a more substantial engagement with the issues. Otherwise their carefully cultivated army of zombies will be available for the next showman/demogogue to hijack.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 07:25:28 AM
And, of course. eight years ago we might have read Instead of ushering in a new era of race equality, Obama's presidency could become a referendum on a black man as POTUS.
Think sexism against Hillary Clinton is bad? Wait until she wins. (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/6/13178190/hillary-clinton-sexism-in-office)
After Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Teresa May, Sarah Palin, Condoleeza Rice, etc., why should anyone be surprised at a woman in office, with or without pantsuits? Sexism is a tired old card, like racism, worn out from being passed around too often.
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 07, 2016, 07:31:24 AM
Soon the Trump candidacy will just be a bad memory, like the OJ Simpson trial:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now
However, the GOP ought to do some soul-searching to figure out how their party got co-opted by a charlatan like Trump. There is a saying "you reap what you sow" − and the GOP sure got what they deserve. The GOP needs to find a way to move away from a "Fox News" mentality toward a more substantial engagement with the issues. Otherwise their carefully cultivated army of zombies will be available for the next showman/demogogue to hijack.
You have entirely missed the point of the Trump candidacy. I reccognize that the odds are very much against a Trump victory. But elites have been put on notice (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/hell-likely-lose---but-trump-is-the-final-warning-to-elites/article32278545/). If the Republican party has learned anything it is that business as usual has become toxic to a large swath of the American electorate.
I only hope more in the Democratic/Liberal machine think like you.
;)
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 07, 2016, 07:31:24 AM
Soon the Trump candidacy will just be a bad memory, like the OJ Simpson trial:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now)
However, the GOP ought to do some soul-searching to figure out how their party got co-opted by a charlatan like Trump.
You say that, and yet, here are intelligent fellow GMG-ers who genuinely think El Tupé preferable to any of the other 16 contenders.
There are no "elites" running the show behind the scenes − this is just another loaded phrase, good for soundbites on Fox.
If there were elites to worry about, they would look like Trump. Living like billionaires in glass towers and fancy private planes, living a privileged, pampered, and deeply immoral lifestyle − funded in part by inherited money, and in part by cheating creditors, skirting the tax laws, setting up phony foundations, etc.
They would probably be so spoiled that once they decide to engage in public service they think they are entitled to become president at once, despite zero experience and zero good ideas. They would think they could just buy an election, and repeatedly lie to the public − denying on Tuesday what they said on Monday, over and over again.
Moreover, once in office, they would quickly loot the government, passing tax breaks that only benefit themselves and their friends, over-charging the government for services provided by their companies, etc. They would even find ways of cheating their donors!
Trump is certainly one of the world's biggest egoists and liars. You can remain fooled by him if you want. Thankfully, the gullible are a shrinking minority.
I have to give Trump credit on one point though.
As a complainer, Trump is right to complain about global trade imbalances. No one else in US politics has focused on the issue, and on this one point Trump has a point. What's more, it is a very important point.
The problem is that Trump has no clue how to fix the problem. He's more likely than not to make things worse. Moreover, with his bombastic style, who knows what kind of damage he could do in the meantime. He is not the kind of person you can trust to fix the problem.
The larger issue, which Trump only partly understands, is that the international monetary system is deeply flawed. Some countries are benefiting from persistent trade surpluses while others suffer from persistent deficits. History shows that when large imbalances persist long enough, eventually the international trading and monetary system breaks down. Sooner or later, persistent losers choose not to keep playing the game. They turn inwards towards autarky instead. The period from 1920 to 1940 is full of examples of this phenomenon.
Who are the persistent losers under the current international system? The US and UK (also Greece and maybe Portugal within the Eurozone). Where are weird things happening in politics? The US and the UK. I don't think this is just a coincidence. Even the worm turns sooner or later.
How can the US be a loser in the system if they get far more stuff from China, Germany etc. than they export? If you think in terms of real products they are among the biggest winners. This is probably a main reason why the imbalances still "work" somehow.
One irony about El Tupé supporters complaining about "mainstream media bias" is, that the mainstream media gave El Tupé yuuuge free coverage at the outset, which benefited his campaign greatly. (Oh, it's only "bias" if there is commentary critical of El Tupé, check.)
Another is:
Republicans are paying the price for their addiction to their own media (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-are-paying-the-price-for-their-addiction-to-their-own-media/2016/10/06/bf2c2bb4-8a5d-11e6-b24f-a7f89eb68887_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2ed7dfbd8820)
Quote from: Jo498 on October 07, 2016, 08:09:11 AM
How can the US be a loser in the system if they get far more stuff from China, Germany etc. than they export? If you think in terms of real products they are among the biggest winners.
Good question.
When you run an external surplus, you enjoy both a trade surplus and a financial surplus. You export more than you import and simultaneously, your trading partner owes you more and more money (or equivalently you buy an increasing pile of their financial assets).
Net exports boost effective demand for your producers. Producers produce more and simultaneously make more profits. Stronger demand and profits encourages further investment in production capacity, allowing you to boost your overall competitiveness as a supplier. The strong get stronger. Simultaneously, higher output boosts labor demand, creating jobs, reducing unemployment.
Meanwhile, your rising pile of external wealth helps to stabilize your economy, removes your dependence on foreign creditors, and leads to rising prestige and power in international relations.
In terms of the US versus China, the US gains a larger pile of consumables − DVD players, and the like. But at the cost of declining wealth, an eroding production base, and higher unemployment. Meanwhile China benefits from increasing wealth, a more competitive production base, and more jobs. The benefits the US receives are ephemeral; but the benefits China receives are lasting and self-reinforcing.
Amazingly, it is not so difficult to "peg" a trade surplus. In fact the procedure is not so different from pegging an exchange rate. However, a pegged surplus is much more stable and beneficial. China and others have figured out this important component of "export-led development". Meanwhile the US is getting badly beaten in a great currency game it doesn't even understand.
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 05, 2016, 03:46:14 PM
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun
26 July 1920
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 01:34:12 AM
Already happened, 16 years in a row!
As painfully wrong as he is about everything else, ZB was very nearly right about this one. Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan combined for 12 years of moronitude in office. The result was a war.
Since then, it's hard to identify 12, let alone 16, consecutive years of "downright morons"; Harding certainly qualifies, but Coolidge and Hoover's moronitude was by omission, rather than action; Nixon was too cunning and accomplished to really qualify; and even G.W. Bush was well-intentioned and occasionally effective. And most intelligent critics of Obama would argue that his problem was the exact opposite of being a moron.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 07:42:15 AM
elites have been put on notice (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/hell-likely-lose---but-trump-is-the-final-warning-to-elites/article32278545/).
Excellent article, thanks for posting.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 08:14:47 AM
One irony about El Tupé supporters complaining about "mainstream media bias" is, that the mainstream media gave El Tupé yuuuge free coverage at the outset, which benefited his campaign greatly. (Oh, it's only "bias" if there is commentary critical of El Tupé, check.)
Another is:
Republicans are paying the price for their addiction to their own media (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-are-paying-the-price-for-their-addiction-to-their-own-media/2016/10/06/bf2c2bb4-8a5d-11e6-b24f-a7f89eb68887_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2ed7dfbd8820)
You can and should blame Trump for believing so much of the nonsense that is spouted by the alternative media, but the deeper problem is with the outlets themselves. The right wing has created its own echo chamber which is increasingly disconnected from reality. There are millions of Americans who share Trump's outré beliefs — which helps to explain why his presidential campaign has done better than expected.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 07:42:15 AM
You have entirely missed the point of the Trump candidacy. I reccognize that the odds are very much against a Trump victory. But elites have been put on notice (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/hell-likely-lose---but-trump-is-the-final-warning-to-elites/article32278545/). If the Republican party has learned anything it is that business as usual has become toxic to a large swath of the American electorate.
I only hope more in the Democratic/Liberal machine think like you.
;)
Ah, it's
the other guys who are in the machine.
As to the notice, I read that even earlier in another mainstream media source:
Elitism won't defeat Trumpism (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elitism-wont-defeat-trumpism/2016/08/07/ca4971b6-5b67-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html?utm_term=.341567a12962)
The combination of Trump business record (increasingly seen as glitzy but not successful and not run according to legal and business norms) and his policies (protectionism, anti-immigrant, fiscally reckless) make him an unacceptable choice for many business owners who honor their commitments, pay suppliers, treat employees with respect and function in the global economy. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/07/real-business-people-start-letter-condemning-trump/?utm_term=.dad98f47e280)
Donald Trump did a practice town hall last night. It didn't go well.Updated by Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias matt@vox.com Oct 7, 2016, 9:30aIn the first presidential debate, Donald Trump treated us to the spectacle of a man too lazy, undisciplined, and over-confident to bother preparing for an important moment.
So ahead of the second debate, Trump's team is trying to get him to take it more seriously. For instance, Thursday night in New Hampshire they had Trump do an event in the town hall format rather than his usual rallies.
And it seems like it was a total disaster.
According to news reports, the following things happened:
- Rather than take questions from undecided voters, Trump had conservative radio host Howie Carr ask the questions on behalf of members of a handpicked crowd of Trump supporters.
- Trump observed that Hispanics in Nevada like to be referred to as Latinos.
- Trump launched into various attacks on Nate Silver, Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk, and CNBC's John Harwood.
- Trump pandered to the New England crowd by telling them he was rooting for the Red Sox in their ongoing playoff matchup against the Cleveland Indians, even though ultimately pandering to Ohio voters is more important, and Trump is supposed to be a Yankees fan.
- After saying he would take 20 questions, Trump only sat through 12 — making the whole event last just 30 minutes rather than the 90 he is going to need to stay focused for on Sunday.
- Trump disavowed the previous week and a half's worth of complaints about the microphone at the previous debate, and now says (accurately): "It wasn't that the mike didn't work."
- Trump pronounced himself very disappointed with the performance of FBI Director James Comey, a Republican and former George W. Bush administration figure who has long commanded bipartisan respect on Capitol Hill.
- Trump put a two-minute countdown clock on the stage to try to keep himself to the time limit he'll have on Sunday's debate, but repeatedly blew through it.
Obviously we won't know what happens until we watch the debate on Sunday. Maybe Trump will do great. Maybe Trump has been doing secret preparation and the apparently sloppy New Hampshire performance was part of a disinformation campaign to lower expectations.
But at least on the surface it looks like what we're seeing is that Trump is who we thought he is — a guy with undeniable charisma and television skills who is simply averse to the boring work of preparation and thinking things through. It's a bad quality in a presidential candidate, but a potentially disastrous one in an actual president.
Quote from: Brian on October 07, 2016, 08:32:24 AM
As painfully wrong as he is about everything else, ZB was very nearly right about this one. Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan combined for 12 years of moronitude in office. The result was a war.
Buzzer, not a "he"! ???
Quote from: Brian on October 07, 2016, 08:32:24 AM
Since then, it's hard to identify 12, let alone 16, consecutive years of "downright morons"; Harding certainly qualifies, but Coolidge and Hoover's moronitude was by omission, rather than action; Nixon was too cunning and accomplished to really qualify; and even G.W. Bush was well-intentioned and occasionally effective. And most intelligent critics of Obama would argue that his problem was the exact opposite of being a moron.
You have a point. Cunning is not moronic. But only morons would spend tax money like there is no tomorrow.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 07:42:15 AM
You have entirely missed the point of the Trump candidacy. I reccognize that the odds are very much against a Trump victory. But elites have been put on notice (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/hell-likely-lose---but-trump-is-the-final-warning-to-elites/article32278545/). If the Republican party has learned anything it is that business as usual has become toxic to a large swath of the American electorate.
But if the Republican Party learned anything from 2012 it was that they needed to be a lot more inclusive, which suggests that the Republican Party is not very good at learning.
If Trump loses to the least popular D candidate in decades, I'm not sure that "more candidates like Trump"
should be the lesson for Rs anyway.
Barring a Trump win, my guess is that their 2020 nominee will be somebody like Tom Cotton.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 09:29:51 AM
Buzzer, not a "he"! ???
Whoops! I'm very sorry. I make poor assumptions 8)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 09:29:51 AM
You have a point. Cunning is not moronic. But only morons would spend tax money like there is no tomorrow.
Hmm...that's gotta be at least several dozen presidents, by your definition...
Takes a genius to book a $1 billion loss though 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 08:36:48 AM
You can and should blame Trump for believing so much of the nonsense that is spouted by the alternative media, but the deeper problem is with the outlets themselves. The right wing has created its own echo chamber which is increasingly disconnected from reality. There are millions of Americans who share Trump's outré beliefs — which helps to explain why his presidential campaign has done better than expected.
I'm not sure belief has anything to do with what Trump espouses or that the concept of truth versus falsehood has anything to do with how he approaches reality. Words to him seem merely to be means by which one extracts material assets, or forces advantageous concessions of power and recognition, from other humans. That is to say, he is a narcissistic sociopath. Thinking he is a human personality in the full sense is a grave error.
Quote from: BasilValentine on October 07, 2016, 10:17:29 AM
a narcissistic sociopath.
Watch out! the scorn heaped on my head by the resident GMG Thought Police for saying the same thing months ago was a wonder to behold. Do a print preview of the thread and search for "sociopath." At times one has be very careful when one says true things on this board.
Quote from: Pat B on October 07, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
But if the Republican Party learned anything from 2012 it was that they needed to be a lot more inclusive, which suggests that the Republican Party is not very good at learning.
If Trump loses to the least popular D candidate in decades, I'm not sure that "more candidates like Trump" should be the lesson for Rs anyway.
Barring a Trump win, my guess is that their 2020 nominee will be somebody like Tom Cotton.
A "candidate like Trump" as in someone who would represent a change from the business-as-usual party regulars.
Trump's problem has been his complete disregard for common sense messaging. His need to respond to every perceived slight is tedious and beneith the diginity of the office for which he is campaigning. Basically, his ideas about trade, taxes, immigration and security are being buried by his adolescent and irratic tirades. Hence his inability to remain competitve against Hillary Clinton despite her enormous negatives.
The phrase "political elites" is shorthand for the
corporate donars and their
lobbyists, big-name
journalists and opinion swayers, and the leadership of
elected officials and other
Beltway insiders. They all go to the same cocktail parties and are so threatened by what Trump represents, his opposition transcends partisanship and aligns all insiders against the rabble rouser who is storming the gates to the palace. It exposes how little really separates Democrats and Republicans who all suck at the same corporate teat and have the most to lose by a Trump victory.
;)
Just an example of his schtick which brings guffaws and cheers from his core supporters, but which sounds like rubbish to anyone who hasn't drunk the El Tupé Kool-Aid:
I think CNN, they call it the Clinton News Network that's why the ratings aren't doing very well.
Where "they call it" means "I'm saying that, but this makes it sound almost like it ought to be something near a fact"; and the irrelevant (nor do we have any reason to consider it at all informed) snark about the ratings.
No, El Tupé isn't going to pivot to discussion of substance anytime soon. Ooh, maybe he'll do more impressions on Sunday night . . . .
That's Presidential!
QuoteTrump wanted the Central Park Five executed. DNA tests proved their innocence. He's not backing down.
Trump still can't admit he made a mistake.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 04:40:04 AM
I don't know if Obama will be viewed positively by history. [...] it is hard to square his popularity with his legacy: a bitterly divided society over race, class and politics;
And how on earth is Obama to blame for other people's racism?
Oh, I see. Because he's black, it's his fault.
"Grab her by the pussy." Trump caught on microphone (in 2005, newly surfaced audio) talking about women in all sorts of crude ways. Trump's official defense is that it's "locker-room banter" and Bill Clinton talks that way too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html
Quote from: Herman on October 07, 2016, 12:23:10 PM
And how on earth is Obama to blame for other people's racism?
Oh, I see. Because he's black, it's his fault.
No. It is because he, and Eric Holder, enflamed tensions after Ferguson and elsewhere, for example.
Presidents are supposed to lead, and as America's first Black president there was the expectation that race relations would improve, in part because that was one of the things he promised as Candidate Obama. However, according to recent polling (http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm) Americans rate black-white relations much more negatively today than they have at any point in the past 15 years.
Managing racial tensions has been an important yardstick of presidential success since FDR; Obama has offered no leadership and in fact, race relations are worse off now than eight years ago.
In terms of living in a media bubble, I recently saw an article saying that Trump is heading down the same Fox-focused path that Romney did in 2012, only more so.
Remember how that turned out? Fox was full of how Romney was winning, right up until they broadcast the shock and outrage and the downright telling off of voters when Romney didn't win.
One of the year things that truly disturbs me about Trump, though, is the way he's been preparing the ground for losing by implying this will be because things are rigged. He has openly talked about this in ways that sound as if he is going to urge his supporters to not accept the election result.
Thanks to all who support their views through media links. This is still the way most people on Earth not living under tyranny can get facts, hear about conflicting opinions and have an understanding about issues. US media may be of differing backgrounds and persuasions, but they are overwhelmingly up to the task of reporting and analysing.
I exclude from the above all the (left or right-leaning) opinions that emanate from so-called "alternative media". In a country that as per occidental values defines democracy and free speech, I don't think kookoo views need be added to the enormous array of well researched, well argued and well written media such as the USA offers its communities.
.....................................................................................
Speaking of communities, what is the role of the Federal Government in tying up common values to regulations, common goals to economic and global policies, federating its citizens toward a common purpose ?
In Canada we have our own model, as does Australia, Brasil or the UK, with small or large numbers of entities (States, Provinces) deciding on issues and then arguing with the federal entity that often tries to uniformize local policies in search of a semblance of uniformity (for example, abortion, end-of-life care, immigration, health, culture, religious freedom, etc etc).
Which is okay. That's what we agreed at the outset after all and so far no civil war, rebellion or secession has broken out. And when it reaches real hotness, a referendum is called for and everybody goes back to their huts to lick their wounds and pick up the good life where they left it.
Why is it that on many of these issues there seems to be such bitterness, such animosity, in the US of A ? Obviously some scores have never been settled (racial equality and wealth distribution most prominently), but nobody is even open to the idea of contemplating the thought of a semblance of the shadow of a tentative agreement on these issues :(. I mean, many people in the US mean WAR against their own federal government. ???
This is something that baffles the First World, does nothing to reassure the Second World with their own internecine issues and downright antagonizes the Thirld World with its accent on White Supremacy ( a perception that most Judeo/Christian Whites in the US knowingly deny or are totally impervious to).
The US after all has come a long way (from the antislavery movement that culminated in the Civil War to the antisemitic views of Roosevelt, Truman and Nixon), to the "birther" movement that plagued the latest Presidency. Bravo !
Now, more needs to be done and IMHO wealth redistribution is the most pressing issue.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 07, 2016, 02:00:10 PMOne of the year things that truly disturbs me about Trump, though, is the way he's been preparing the ground for losing by implying this will be because things are rigged. He has openly talked about this in ways that sound as if he is going to urge his supporters to not accept the election result.
This is actually a big deal. One of the distinctions between function and dysfunctional democracies is that in functional democracies the party that looses concedes and promises to support the elected leader/government. Gore fought Bush in the courts, but when the decision was made he sucked it up and admitted he had lost (even if he did not believe it in his heart). If Trump goes down the road of claiming he lost because the election is rigged, yada yada yada, it could be a big problem, and could set the US on a path to becoming truly dysfunctional.
Quote from: Brian on October 07, 2016, 12:25:46 PM
"Grab her by the pussy." Trump caught on microphone (in 2005, newly surfaced audio) talking about women in all sorts of crude ways. Trump's official defense is that it's "locker-room banter" and Bill Clinton talks that way too.
Further proof, if any is needed, that Trump belongs on the Jerry Springer show, not in a presidential campaign.
Trump has been living and acting this way his whole life. Plenty of other dirt has been hidden behind forced non-disclosure agreements, threatened lawsuits, payoffs, etc. There is even some evidence that he repeatedly had sex with a 13 year old girl around the same time as the above quotes. It seems that one of his party buddies was into underage girls and eventually Trump succumbed to temptation. His friend subsequently beat the girl, because he was supposed to be the one to take her virginity.
It kills me that some Christian Fundamentalists are supporting Trump, as if he is their champion. Which part of the Christian message does Trump's life reflect? None of it. If ever there was a rich man headed straight to hell, it is Trump.
Let's hope he doesn't drag down too many others with him!
The Don sure knows how to treat a lady! Thoroughly discredited at this point, he ought to do at least one noble deed and resign the race. Pence could prob. give Hillary a run for her money, though I certainly hope not...
Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 11:15:31 AM
The phrase "political elites" is shorthand for the corporate donars and their lobbyists, big-name journalists and opinion swayers, and the leadership of elected officials and other Beltway insiders.
I'd like to remind you that the last time I agreed with you that corporate donors are not a great thing, you turned around and started arguing how it was important that corporations had the ear of politicians because corporations were more affected than the ordinary man on the street.
I still think that latter argument is a pile of rubbish, but it was your argument. I continue to feel that the only reason you MADE that argument was because you stuck a label on my head that said "opponent" and concluded that if I was against corporate influence over politicians, you suddenly needed to be in favour of it.
But now you're back again to saying that they're part of the "political elites", which appears to you have a negative connotation.
I note now that "elected officials" are part of the club as well. Well, elected people SHOULD be part of the club, shouldn't they? Or is this just a typo?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 07, 2016, 10:44:43 AM
Watch out! the scorn heaped on my head by the resident GMG Thought Police for saying the same thing months ago was a wonder to behold. Do a print preview of the thread and search for "sociopath." At times one has be very careful when one says true things on this board.
Anyone who has heard the tape will have to admit that what I wrote is an objective description. Trump claims sexual assault as a right due him because he is rich and famous. That, my friends, is a sociopath.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 11:45:47 AM
Just an example of his schtick which brings guffaws and cheers from his core supporters, but which sounds like rubbish to anyone who hasn't drunk the El Tupé Kool-Aid:
I think CNN, they call it the Clinton News Network that's why the ratings aren't doing very well.
Where "they call it" means "I'm saying that, but this makes it sound almost like it ought to be something near a fact"; and the irrelevant (nor do we have any reason to consider it at all informed) snark about the ratings.
No, El Tupé isn't going to pivot to discussion of substance anytime soon. Ooh, maybe he'll do more impressions on Sunday night . . . .
In fact, many if not most of Trump's lines are picked up from the right wing blogs and websites. CNN=Clinton News Network has been a staple since the campaign season began, anchored in a certainty (meaning total disregard of fact) that the major media outlets are heavy-handidly biased in Hillary's favor. Trump's only contribution is the business about the ratings, and even that is not entirely original.
Quote from: André on October 07, 2016, 02:19:10 PM
Thanks to all who support their views through media links. This is still the way most people on Earth not living under tyranny can get facts, hear about conflicting opinions and have an understanding about issues. US media may be of differing backgrounds and persuasions, but they are overwhelmingly up to the task of reporting and analysing.
I exclude from the above all the (left or right-leaning) opinions that emanate from so-called "alternative media". In a country that as per occidental values defines democracy and free speech, I don't think kookoo views need be added to the enormous array of well researched, well argued and well written media such as the USA offers its communities.
.....................................................................................
Speaking of communities, what is the role of the Federal Government in tying up common values to regulations, common goals to economic and global policies, federating its citizens toward a common purpose ?
In Canada we have our own model, as does Australia, Brasil or the UK, with small or large numbers of entities (States, Provinces) deciding on issues and then arguing with the federal entity that often tries to uniformize local policies in search of a semblance of uniformity (for example, abortion, end-of-life care, immigration, health, culture, religious freedom, etc etc).
Which is okay. That's what we agreed at the outset after all and so far no civil war, rebellion or secession has broken out. And when it reaches real hotness, a referendum is called for and everybody goes back to their huts to lick their wounds and pick up the good life where they left it.
Why is it that on many of these issues there seems to be such bitterness, such animosity, in the US of A ? Obviously some scores have never been settled (racial equality and wealth distribution most prominently), but nobody is even open to the idea of contemplating the thought of a semblance of the shadow of a tentative agreement on these issues :(. I mean, many people in the US mean WAR against their own federal government. ???
This is something that baffles the First World, does nothing to reassure the Second World with their own internecine issues and downright antagonizes the Thirld World with its accent on White Supremacy ( a perception that most Judeo/Christian Whites in the US knowingly deny or are totally impervious to).
The US after all has come a long way (from the antislavery movement that culminated in the Civil War to the antisemitic views of Roosevelt, Truman and Nixon), to the "birther" movement that plagued the latest Presidency. Bravo !
Now, more needs to be done and IMHO wealth redistribution is the most pressing issue.
It might be said that the central point of contention is specifically what the role and reach of the Federal Government is.
Subsidiary to that, the people who want a smaller Federal government would tell you that the government, at any level or size, had no business redistributing wealth.
Quote from: BasilValentine on October 07, 2016, 05:44:57 PM
Anyone who has heard the tape will have to admit that what I wrote is an objective description. Trump claims sexual assault as a right due him because he is rich and famous. That, my friends, is a sociopath.
I am not the one who disputes that description. I made it months ago and was excoriated by the resident Know It Alls for venturing to offer an uncredentialed "clinical diagnosis" of someone I had never personally examined.
Quote from: Herman on October 07, 2016, 12:23:10 PM
And how on earth is Obama to blame for other people's racism?
Oh, I see. Because he's black, it's his fault.
Three main factors are in play
1. Blacks have come to realize that just because one of their own is President does not mean there is any substantial improvement in their daily lives.
2. Obama reinforces many attitudes in the black community about institutional racism instead of criticizing the ones that are not fully based in reality: meaning above all he should be, but is not, pointing to the fact that many problems arise from poverty and not racism, and that the black community seems unable to rid itself of widespread antisocial behaviour (most notably the rate of black on black homicide).
3. A political strategy by the American left, to label as racist and therefore not worthy of consideration, any opposition to Obama, even though that opposition is to the policies of the most leftward leaning President since FDR, and would occur even if Obama was a blue eyed blonde haired pureblood WASP.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 07, 2016, 05:49:10 PM
Subsidiary to that, the people who want a smaller Federal government would tell you that the government, at any level or suze, had no business redistributing wealth.
Then one wonders what government is actually for. Some people are very keen to tell you what the government ought not to be doing, but they're not usually very good at identifying what the role of government is supposed to be.
Plus we need to distinguish the Legislature from the Executive, of course.
I have noticed from time to time that there at least some Americans who seem to believe that people without wealth shouldn't be helped by government, but by churches and charities. These are not necessarily the people who actually give anything to churches and charities that would enable them to help the poor. But it's an interesting mindset.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 07, 2016, 06:05:50 PM
Then one wonders what government is actually for. Some people are very keen to tell you what the government ought not to be doing, but they're not usually very good at identifying what the role of government is supposed to be.
Plus we need to distinguish the Legislature from the Executive, of course.
I have noticed from time to time that there at least some Americans who seem to believe that people without wealth shouldn't be helped by government, but by churches and charities. These are not necessarily the people who actually give anything to churches and charities that would enable them to help the poor. But it's an interesting mindset.
Exactly. Government should be not doing many things.
The classic libertarian formulation is that government should guarantee inherent rights and nothing more. In practice that means defend against exterior aggression ( invasion), interior agression (crime), and maintenance of a stable structure where citizens can resolve disputes (courts) and transact business (the rule of law). Post office and highways are grudging admissions of reality.
Beyond that, government by this view is not needed and ultimately counterproductive.
I should note conservatives here like to tout statistics showing they give more in charity, in proportion and frequency, than progressives, but I have never checked the accuracy of such statistics.
Conservative cognitive dissonance comes into play in two ways that may not be readily apparent.
First, after denouncing federal tyranny, they are apt to happily accept even worse intrusions at the state level by claiming the federal government is limited to delegated powers but the states are not.
Second, while happily claiming the Bill of Rights lists rights inherent in all humans, and that this list is not exhaustive, they are outraged when people try to extend those rights to non citizens and foreigners, and outraged when the courts formulate a right not actually mentioned in the BoR.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 07, 2016, 05:49:10 PM
Subsidiary to that, the people who want a smaller Federal government would tell you that the government, at any level or size, had no business redistributing wealth.
Any system of taxation is inevitably a system of redistributing wealth, and under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Therefore the legislative branch of the federal government most certainly does have the business of redistributing wealth and doing so is one of its primary responsibilities. Generally those who object to redistributing wealth have no objection to such redistribution when it works in their favor, such as the mortgage interest deduction for many homeowners or a net operating loss of $900,000,000+ that effectively exempts one from paying any federal taxes at all. They only object when redistribution works in someone else's favor.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 07, 2016, 06:24:01 PM
The classic libertarian formulation is that government should guarantee inherent rights and nothing more. In practice that means defend against exterior aggression ( invasion), interior agression (crime), and maintenance of a stable structure where citizens can resolve disputes (courts) and transact business (the rule of law). Post office and highways are grudging admissions of reality.
Beyond that, government by this view is not needed and ultimately counterproductive.
This is of course a very
nice conception of government from the point of view of anyone who is already in a position of advantage, and who can get what they want through the exercise of power and influence without resort to "crime".
It's a world view where everything is just fine and therefore the government doesn't need to intervene except to ensure that things stay as they are.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 07, 2016, 06:27:03 PM
Any system of taxation is inevitably a system of redistributing wealth, and under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Therefore the legislative branch of the federal government most certainly does have the business of redistributing wealth and doing so is one of its primary responsibilities. Generally those who object to redistributing wealth have no objection to such redistribution when it works in their favor, such as the mortgage interest deduction for many homeowners or a net operating loss of $900,000,000+ that effectively exempts one from paying any federal taxes at all. They only object when redistribution works in someone else's favor.
Redistribution of wealth means taking from those that have and giving it to those who do not, based on political considerations. Not because of any moral worth.
The mortgage deduction is a good example. It survives because the real estate vendors and mortgage brokers need it, not because of any social utility.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 07, 2016, 07:17:08 PM
Redistribution of wealth means taking from those that have and giving it to those who do not, based on political considerations. Not because of any moral worth.
The mortgage deduction is a good example. It survives because the real estate vendors and mortgage brokers need it, not because of any social utility.
Redistribution can work either up or down. And I said nothing about moral or social implications. Ronald Reagan did, however, in signing the Tax Reform Act of 1986:
"Flatter rates will mean
more reward for that extra effort, and vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their
fair share. And that's why I'm certain that the bill I'm signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code and a sweeping victory for
fairness, it's also the
best anti-poverty bill, the
best pro-family measure, and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 07, 2016, 10:05:58 AM
Takes a genius to book a $1 billion loss though
Not if the objective was to save on income tax for the next 18 years.
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 07, 2016, 04:51:26 PM
The Don sure knows how to treat a lady! Thoroughly discredited at this point, he ought to do at least one noble deed and resign the race. Pence could prob. give Hillary a run for her money, though I certainly hope not...
Pardon my French but a sewer mouth is worse in a woman:
http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/
"Good morning, ma'am," a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.
"F— off," she replied.
That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler, author of "First Family Detail," a compelling look at the intrepid personnel who shield America's presidents and their families — and those whom they guard.
Kessler writes flatteringly and critically about people in both parties. Regarding the Clintons, Kessler presents Chelsea as a model protectee who respected and appreciated her agents. He describes Bill as a difficult chief executive but an easygoing ex-president. And Kessler exposes Hillary as an epically abusive Arctic monster.
"When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously," Kessler explains. "As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident."
He adds: "Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi."
Kessler was an investigative reporter with the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post and has penned 19 other books. Among much more in "First Family Detail," he reports:
"Hillary was very rude to agents, and she didn't appear to like law enforcement or the military," former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman recalls. "She wouldn't go over and meet military people or police officers, as most protectees do. She was just really rude to almost everybody. She'd act like she didn't want you around, like you were beneath her."
While running for US Senate, Hillary stopped at an upstate New York 4-H Club. As one Secret Service agent says, Hillary saw farmers and cows and then erupted. "She turned to a staffer and said, 'What the f - - - did we come here for? There's no money here.' "
Secret Service "agents consider being assigned to her detail a form of punishment," Kessler concludes. "In fact, agents say being on Hillary Clinton's detail is the worst duty assignment in the Secret Service."
After studying the Secret Service and its relationships with dozens of presidents, vice presidents and their families, Ronald Kessler's astonishment at Hillary Clinton's inhumanity should reverberate in every American's head.
As he told me: "No one would hire such a person to work at a McDonald's, and yet she is being considered for president of the United States."
Quote from: sanantonio on October 07, 2016, 11:15:31 AM
A "candidate like Trump" as in someone who would represent a change from the business-as-usual party regulars.
Trump's problem has been his complete disregard for common sense messaging. His need to respond to every perceived slight is tedious and beneith the diginity of the office for which he is campaigning. Basically, his ideas about trade, taxes, immigration and security are being buried by his adolescent and irratic tirades. Hence his inability to remain competitve against Hillary Clinton despite her enormous negatives.
The phrase "political elites" is shorthand for the corporate donars and their lobbyists, big-name journalists and opinion swayers, and the leadership of elected officials and other Beltway insiders. They all go to the same cocktail parties and are so threatened by what Trump represents, his opposition transcends partisanship and aligns all insiders against the rabble rouser who is storming the gates to the palace. It exposes how little really separates Democrats and Republicans who all suck at the same corporate teat and have the most to lose by a Trump victory.
;)
You seem to be envisioning a hypothetical candidate with Trump's outsider appeal but without Trump's various flaws. That could be a powerful candidate indeed. Time will tell whether such a candidate exists, and what other flaws he or she has.
But don't get your hopes up too high. Outsider candidates, when elected, tend to quickly become insider politicians.
Meanwhile, many of your "political elites" on the R side -- like Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie, Paul LePage, Peter Thiel, T. Boone Pickens, Jerry Falwell Jr., Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity -- are in fact supporting Trump. Those who are half-hearted about it -- like Ted Cruz, Reince Priebus, Sheldon Adelson, John McCain, Paul Ryan -- have obvious, non-conspiratorial reasons for that. And the handful of major R politicians who have actually endorsed Clinton -- like John Warner and Richard Hanna -- are either out of office or leaving office, which gives them more leeway to openly speak their mind.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 07, 2016, 06:02:10 PM
Three main factors are in play
1. Blacks have come to realize that just because one of their own is President does not mean there is any substantial improvement in their daily lives.
2. Obama reinforces many attitudes in the black community about institutional racism instead of criticizing the ones that are not fully based in reality: meaning above all he should be, but is not, pointing to the fact that many problems arise from poverty and not racism, and that the black community seems unable to rid itself of widespread antisocial behaviour (most notably the rate of black on black homicide).
3. A political strategy by the American left, to label as racist and therefore not worthy of consideration, any opposition to Obama, even though that opposition is to the policies of the most leftward leaning President since FDR, and would occur even if Obama was a blue eyed blonde haired pureblood WASP.
Do you have a link for the bolded claim?
I do agree that many on the left are way too quick to play the race card on non-racial issues. It's lazy, even when I agree on the underlying issue.
The increase in body cameras and the ubiquity of camera phones is surely a factor too.
I think this may be whatJeff was aluding to:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html)
I dont think americans can elect a guy who would turn the white house into a "giant lupanar".
This and the tax scandal should put an end to your miseries.
Quote from: Spineur on October 07, 2016, 09:46:03 PM
I dont think americans can elect a guy who would turn the white house into a "giant lupanar".
Oh right, what would Monica Lewinsky say about that? Marilyn Monroe?
Nixon never cussed? Johnson? Hillary Clinton?
Cast the first stone people!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 10:05:52 PM
Oh right, what would Monica Lewinsky say about that? Marilyn Monroe?
Nixon never cussed? Johnson? Hillary Clinton?
Cast the first stone people!
You seem to be pretty much legitimizing it then, by the means of whataboutism.
Didn´t hear anything about HRC in that respect, merely a public insinuation from a certain "hero".
Quote from: Turner on October 07, 2016, 10:17:48 PM
You seem to be pretty much legitimizing it then, by the means of whataboutism.
Didn´t hear anything about HRC in that respect, merely a public insinuation from a certain "hero".
Not legitimatizing but acknowledging that it is wrong and taking attention away from much more important issues, just like he said.
Glass house Hillary may live to regret bringing up Alicia Machado,
und so weiter.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 10:47:44 PM
Not legitimatizing but acknowledging that it is wrong and taking attention away from much more important issues, just like he said.
You´re right, such as the general amount of deeds, experience and qualifications found in the man.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 07, 2016, 06:02:10 PM
Three main factors are in play
3. A political strategy by the American left, to label as racist and therefore not worthy of consideration, any opposition to Obama, even though that opposition is to the policies of the most leftward leaning President since FDR, and would occur even if Obama was a blue eyed blonde haired pureblood WASP.
I'll skip the first two which come down to ol' reliables like "Blacks are killing each other if white people don't police them'. Thanks for the giggle though.
As to Obama being the most left-leaning president since FDR, Obama is in reality, if you look at his policies rather than his skin color, a moderate.
His most "lefty" item, the Affordable Care Act was largely cribbed from earlier GOP proposals.
The problem is conservative America has moved so far to the right that the center has now become the Far Left. But it isn't.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 10:47:44 PM
Not legitimatizing but acknowledging that it is wrong and taking attention away from much more important issues, just like he said.
Glass house Hillary may live to regret bringing up Alicia Machado, und so weiter.
The GOP would have done better to elect a candidate bringing focus on those issues, then.
Quote from: The new erato on October 07, 2016, 11:07:08 PM
The GOP would have done better to elect a candidate bringing focus on those issues, then.
OK, I agree and would even support them. However, RINO's, or Republicans in Name Only, frequently are indistinguishable in policy from their Democrat counterparts.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 11:41:24 PM
OK, I agree and would even support them. However, RINO's, or Republicans in Name Only, frequently are indistinguishable in policy from their Democrat counterparts.
You mean they're not openly misogynistic and racist? Not worth your vote!
Quote from: Herman on October 07, 2016, 11:49:48 PM
You mean they're not openly misogynistic and racist? Not worth your vote!
They could be covertly misogynist (even worse) and as the Ole Girl proposes, everyone allegedly has a touch of racism.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 07, 2016, 11:53:23 PM
They could be covertly misogynist (even worse) and as the Ole Girl proposes, everyone allegedly has a touch of racism.
actually her words were "implicit bias" which is not the same.
Quote from: Herman on October 08, 2016, 12:05:23 AM
actually her words were "implicit bias" which is not the same.
When you are talking about racism, what does "implicit bias" mean except my people are better, smarter, (fill in the blanks) than THEM? Some people don't actually think or feel that way, Buddhist monks, for instance. So she is wrong, only talking about herself.
Over here, some are pointing to that the actions without consent that Trump admits on the released tape seem illegal in California and can result in at least a half-year sentence.
Also probably one of the reasons that leading Republicans, including Paul Ryan, criticize Trump so much now.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 08, 2016, 12:09:29 AM
When you are talking about racism, what does "implicit bias" mean except my people are better, smarter, (fill in the blanks) than THEM? Some people don't actually think or feel that way, Buddhist monks, for instance. So she is wrong, only talking about herself.
You work with different information (often of the conspiracy kind); your intellect seems to work in a different way; I don't think there are many on GMG who speak the same language as you.
You're one of those blissful people who manage to skew their view in such a manner that after all that's been aired you're still adamantly saying that Clinton is bad for women and minorities and Trump is no saint but much better than Clinton.
The only reason I can think for opting for such morally painful positions is that very bad stuff happened to you in your life, but I'm sure you will reject this, too.
This article is about Colin Woodard's latest book, American Character.
It's very interesting. Woodard's view has to be put in the perspective of his own earlier book, American Nations.
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/13/book-review-american-character-elucidates-opposing-forces-at-work-in-american-politics/ (http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/13/book-review-american-character-elucidates-opposing-forces-at-work-in-american-politics/)
Quote from: Brian on October 07, 2016, 12:25:46 PM
"Grab her by the pussy." Trump caught on microphone (in 2005, newly surfaced audio) talking about women in all sorts of crude ways. Trump's official defense is that it's "locker-room banter" and Bill Clinton talks that way too.
There are many things about El Tupé's character to object to. But one for which, in the context of this presidential campaign, I am consistently grateful is his kneejerk, "Never apologize, point the finger at someone, anyone, else."
You see? I'm not doing anything wrong!
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 07, 2016, 05:45:31 PM
In fact, many if not most of Trump's lines are picked up from the right wing blogs and websites. CNN=Clinton News Network has been a staple since the campaign season began, anchored in a certainty (meaning total disregard of fact) that the major media outlets are heavy-handidly biased in Hillary's favor. Trump's only contribution is the business about the ratings, and even that is not entirely original.
Thanks for the enlightenment! I read that as largely confirming the piece I linked to earlier, that the Republican Party is suffering the aftereffect of believing its own selective propaganda.
(And of course, there are left-wing equivalents of those dubious "news sources," which are not any more reliable nor respectable.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 07, 2016, 06:27:03 PM
Any system of taxation is inevitably a system of redistributing wealth, and under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Therefore the legislative branch of the federal government most certainly does have the business of redistributing wealth and doing so is one of its primary responsibilities. Generally those who object to redistributing wealth have no objection to such redistribution when it works in their favor, such as the mortgage interest deduction for many homeowners or a net operating loss of $900,000,000+ that effectively exempts one from paying any federal taxes at all. They only object when redistribution works in someone else's favor.
Viz. Giuliani excoriating the poor for exploiting
their "loopholes," by not paying any taxes.
Didn't a buffoon like Sean Hannity claim he has over 1000 pages of evidence that show why Hillary is not fit to be president? Where are they?
Quote from: Pat B on October 07, 2016, 09:14:30 PM
You seem to be envisioning a hypothetical candidate with Trump's outsider appeal but without Trump's various flaws. That could be a powerful candidate indeed. Time will tell whether such a candidate exists, and what other flaws he or she has.
But don't get your hopes up too high. Outsider candidates, when elected, tend to quickly become insider politicians.
That is, I think, true; and points to the double-edged sword which is El Tupé: he "likes to be unpredictable" (which an unsympethetic observer might say, means that he is simply erratic and undisciplined); so he is unlikely to 'become an insider' (as the nominee, he is a lousy "leader of the GOP," lashing out at anyone, right or left, who does not salve his ego) . . . but he is equally unlikely to reach out to anyone outside his core supporters, who are with him either full willingly, or with noses pinched.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 08, 2016, 05:08:43 AM
Didn't a buffoon like Sean Hannity claim he has over 1000 pages of evidence that show why Hillary is not fit to be president? Where are they?
Like Trump's plans for defeating ISIS, they're kept nice and safe so that the "enemy" can't find out about them.
Quote from: The new erato on October 07, 2016, 11:07:08 PM
The GOP would have done better to elect a candidate bringing focus on those issues, then.
Or,
any candidate who does not sabotage himself with behavior which keeps his shortcomings in the news cycle day after day.
Quote from: Turner on October 08, 2016, 12:28:22 AM
Over here, some are pointing to that the actions without consent that Trump admits on the released tape seem illegal in California and can result in at least a half-year sentence.
Also probably one of the reasons that leading Republicans, including Paul Ryan, criticize Trump so much now.
And it has
really gotten bad if Paul Ryan is criticizing him. He has been the Nose-holder-in-Chief, by his endorsement most strongly "legitimizing" the illegitimable.
His wealth, of course, has always insulated him from actual personal responsibility for his disgusting behavior and loathsome character. Someone should tell him (as if he would listen to anyone) that a defiant apology, is not an apology.
(An aside, since I've seen it mentioned: Even if there were a way to bump Mike Pence up to the top of the ticket, a poll out this week shows that Hillary Clinton would likely beat him, too.) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/07/theres-no-longer-any-way-for-republicans-to-boot-donald-trump-from-the-ballot/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpryan-1030pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: Herman on October 08, 2016, 05:00:06 AM
You work with different information (often of the conspiracy kind); your intellect seems to work in a different way; I don't think there are many on GMG who speak the same language as you. You're one of those blissful people who manage to skew their view in such a manner that after all that's been aired you're still adamantly saying that Clinton is bad for women and minorities and Trump is no saint but much better than Clinton.
The only reason I can think for opting for such morally painful positions is that very bad stuff happened to you in your life, but I'm sure you will reject this, too.
Something happened in my life and it's called maturity. Some people age but they don't grow up. Maturity means accepting that we are all flawed. Voting for a candidate is more about the issues not about dredged up private conversations that shouldn't be ethical to broadcast all over the world. We can all say things out of line or character in anger or just to be in sync with people around. I've done it, who hasn't?
There is a difference between that and habitual cussing out Secret Service or White House staff. It is another level to persecute the victims of one's husband's philandering. Hopefully the lady's glass house will get a few cracks in the near future.
Hillary Clinton to me is the antithesis of womanhood. I am not a fan of radical feminists or pant-suited nuns. I lived long enough to know what these harpies stole from the rest of us women who still remember and value modesty and chivalry. Maybe I can't help being an idealist as a musician (Libra, too) but I don't regard it as a fault.
I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her.
(For the record, my wife asked me last night if I has watched the video. I had not, so this morning I am doing my assigned homework.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 08, 2016, 05:31:37 AM
(An aside, since I've seen it mentioned: Even if there were a way to bump Mike Pence up to the top of the ticket, a poll out this week shows that Hillary Clinton would likely beat him, too.) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/07/theres-no-longer-any-way-for-republicans-to-boot-donald-trump-from-the-ballot/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpryan-1030pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
That's just the point. There was no other Republican who had a chance with Clinton. Mr. Nice Guy simply doesn't cut it. She simply would have wiped the floor with him (or her). They went with "media circus" instead that may just have a sliver of a possibility. I would have preferred something else but in our stage of history (as in "Decline of the Roman Empire") people are moved by sound bytes, immediate gratification and visceral urges, not by taking the time and trouble to think and weigh issues. Pence, BTW, would be far preferable to Kaine in the event of the need for succession.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 08, 2016, 05:51:12 AM
That's just the point. There was no other Republican who had a chance with Clinton. Mr. Nice Guy simply doesn't cut it. She simply would have wiped the floor with him (or her). They went with "media circus" instead that may just have a sliver of a possibility. I would have preferred something else but in our stage of history (as in "Decline of the Roman Empire") people are moved by sound bytes, immediate gratification and visceral urges, not by taking the time and trouble to think and weigh issues. Pence, BTW, would be far preferable to Kaine in the event of the need for succession.
Hence the fact that there's anyone out there who will consider voting for Trump, the epitome of a sound-byte candidate.
So, as a Bernie supporter I certainly was (and continue to be) interested in the transcripts of Clinton's highly remunerative speeches to the brokers. In any normal cycle, this news item might prove a momentary obstacle for the Democratic nominee.
If, Republican friends, this defaults to a non-issue in comparison to the present story of which El Tupé cannot, cannot, cannot let go, we all know why; and the blame cannot be fairly laid upon Clinton.
In one October 2015 exchange, staffers appear to discuss ways to capitalize on Sanders's comment during a Democratic debate that people were sick of hearing about Clinton's "damn emails." Adviser Joel Benenson appears to have suggested that Clinton could make a joke about her testimony before a Republican-led committee investigating the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. "I was kind of expecting around hour #8 Bernie Sanders would burst in and shout--'enough about your damn emails Hillary!!' " But Podesta nixed the idea. "I defer if others think this buys us good will with Sanders people, but email jokes in Iowa usually end up badly and don't we want to move on?" he wrote back. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-appear-to-reveal-excerpts-of-speech-transcripts-clinton-refused-to-release/2016/10/07/235c26ac-8cd4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wikileaks-1045pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Bernie's "the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damned e-mails" line was a great combination of strong in message, but neutral in application. He did not (I do not think) mean it as exculpatory, but it was shrewd of the Clinton campaign to pick up on that application of this valuable sound-bite. (It underscores an apt remark I read early in the primaries, drawing a comparison with the GOP food fight, that Sanders paid Clinton the compliment of "rational opposition.")
Some great quotes from an article over on bbcnews.com:
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595079 (http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595079)
Avik Roy in Forbes, cites a number of the faux pas that have dogged Mr Trump over the past few weeks.
He says: "None of this was enough to prevent nearly all leading GOP [Republican] lawmakers from endorsing Trump as their nominee. But the latest tape just might. Why?
"Because few Republican lawmakers have Muslim relatives. Few Republican lawmakers are of Mexican heritage. Few Republican lawmakers have faced discrimination based on the colour of their skin. But all of them have white female relatives. And therefore, when Trump talks about grabbing white women by the genitals, they can directly relate."
"I never said I was a perfect person?" Not sure anyone asked for perfection, mate, just not "shameless giant unrepentant misogynist."
"This isn't about fitness for the presidency. This is about basic human decency.
"Trump has bragged that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his supporters would stay loyal. Now we get to find out."
Thanks to Trump, Mexican are going to be instantaneously richer: tomorrow the Mexican peso is going to be skyrocking through the roof.
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 08, 2016, 05:12:15 AM
Like Trump's plans for defeating ISIS, they're kept nice and safe so that the "enemy" can't find out about them.
Oh man, Hillary must be so happy she is doing backflips...
I am just fascinated by this:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/If you are a betting man The Don has no chance... He is getting trounced in EVERY swing state.
There are also some strange distributions, like IN red but OH and IL are solid blue. VA is blue but WV is as red as it gets.
Ohio is still pale blue. Definitely hangs in the balance. But Clinton has many paths to an electoral majority without the Buckeye State; El Tupé has none.
The polls do not yet account for any fallout from the Washington Post's explosive disclosure on Friday of a tape from 2005 in which Trump made a variety of lascivious comments about women, including bragging about being able to get away with groping women because he was "a star." (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-are-trumps-polls-getting-worse/?ex_cid=2016-forecast)
Almost nobody in the Republican Party is defending Donald Trump right now, in the wake of a new Washington Post report showing him speaking in very lewd terms about women in 2005.
And the denunciations that have rolled in so far are coming from all sides of the party — from those who support Trump to those who have long opposed him to those close to him who are offering platitudes about how what he said was wrong, but that he's still better than Hillary Clinton. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/07/the-gops-brutal-responses-to-the-new-trump-video-broken-down/)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 08, 2016, 07:48:26 AM
Ohio is still pale blue. Definitely hangs in the balance. But Clinton has many paths to an electoral majority without the Buckeye State; El Tupé has none.
except Hil has a 18 pct lead in OH.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 08, 2016, 08:18:33 AM
except Hil has a 18 pct lead in OH.
Here's hoping that stays strong!
It's a matter of time; it would be a strong statement if the flip is this Election Day.
The GOP's biggest fear appears to be coming true: Independents ditching Donald Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/07/the-gops-biggest-fear-appears-to-be-coming-true-independents-ditching-donald-trump/)
Just watched Robert de Niro video on Donald Trump. Waouh ! Some people are really getting pretty mad !
Exactly what happened when Berlusconi got caught with an underage girl.
Despite his denegation, I think he will have to quit very soon and leave Pence in the front seat. This may actually be a big blow to Hillary.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 08, 2016, 05:35:20 AM
Something happened in my life and it's called maturity. Some people age but they don't grow up.
Yeah, and one of those is going to get your vote to handle, among other things, the nuclear codes.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 08, 2016, 05:35:20 AM
Something happened in my life and it's called maturity. Some people age but they don't grow up.
I do think that quite the perfect indictment of El Tupé.
Trump is trying to say that the 2005 video is not representative of who he is. The thing is, there are a long list of incidents over the campaign that will confirm for people that it's exactly who he is. His language about women has been like this a lot.
https://driftingthrough.com/2016/10/06/an-open-letter-to-donald-trump-from-some-angry-women/
Quote from: Spineur on October 08, 2016, 09:14:08 AM
Just watched Robert de Niro video on Donald Trump. Waouh ! Some people are really getting pretty mad !
Exactly what happened when Berlusconi got caught with an underage girl.
Despite his denegation, I think he will have to quit very soon and leave Pence in the front seat. This may actually be a big blow to Hillary.
TicTac USA, Melania Trump and John McCain are not exactly pleased either...
Looks like this might be the breaking point - approx. 20 Republican leaders, including John McCain, John Thune, and Kelly Ayotte, have un-endorsed Trump and some have even asked him to quit.
Of course, there's no way he will quit, right?
He won't quit, and the RNC really cannot compel him to quit.
I don't think Pence will really fare much better against Clinton; even against the ideal GOP candidate, the electoral map is a challenge; and once the campaign is focused on bringing to the public's attention greater color on Pence, I do not imagine him attracting more Independents than has El Tupé.
No, but he would at least attract more Republicans. The ones who are currently planning to stay at home.
Trump, who opened his campaign by characterizing Mexicans as "rapists," is now heard on tape boasting that he can commit an act which, I am sure, meets the criteria for felony sexual assault in all 50 states with impunity because he is "a star." The irony!
Quote from: Scarpia on October 08, 2016, 07:36:25 PM
Trump, who opened his campaign by characterizing Mexicans as "rapists," is now heard on tape boasting that he can commit an act which, I am sure, meets the criteria for felony sexual assault in all 50 states with impunity because he is "a star." The irony!
What's ironic is how the Democrats who didn't think Bill Clinton's actual sexual assaults: Kathleen Willey, Paul Jones, and Juanita Broderick (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-08/another-trump-recording-emerges-paula-jones-kathleen-willey-and-juanita-broaddrick-a) (all these women accuse him of assault or rape, not just an extra marital affair, of which he also had plenty) were disqualifying acts, are all now are shocked, shocked, at Trump's dirty mouth.
I do think Trump is disgusting; but really. Methinks the WPost and NYC and all the the rats fleeing Trumps leaky ship protest too much.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Or maybe the world's changed in the last 20 years.
Nah, that COULDN'T be it.
Also, I really like how you talk about "actual" assaults before getting around to throwing in the word "accused". Which is it? I'm not saying that these things definitely didn't happen. What I'm saying is that you've got allegations against Bill Clinton and you're comparing them to verified words out of Trump's mouth. Sure, action versus words is important, but so is alleged versus proven.
Quote from: Brian on October 08, 2016, 02:38:04 PM
Looks like this might be the breaking point - approx. 20 Republican leaders, including John McCain, John Thune, and Kelly Ayotte, have un-endorsed Trump and some have even asked him to quit.
Of course, there's no way he will quit, right?
Of course, Trump won't quit! As much as we'd love him to throw in the hairpiece, it looks like we're just not that lucky.
Quote from: Brian on October 08, 2016, 02:38:04 PM
Looks like this might be the breaking point - approx. 20 Republican leaders, including John McCain, John Thune, and Kelly Ayotte, have un-endorsed Trump and some have even asked him to quit.
Of course, there's no way he will quit, right?
There's a large dose of hypocrisy here. The latest revelations are entirely of a piece with other things we heard; it's just a little more crass.
What urges those GOP folks to dump Trump now is that they're thinking of their own electoral skin.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 08, 2016, 07:51:17 PM
What's ironic is how the Democrats who didn't think Bill Clinton's actual sexual assaults: Kathleen Willey, Paul Jones, and Juanita Broderick (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-08/another-trump-recording-emerges-paula-jones-kathleen-willey-and-juanita-broaddrick-a) (all these women accuse him of assault or rape, not just an extra marital affair, of which he also had plenty) were disqualifying acts, are all now are shocked, shocked, at Trump's dirty mouth. I do think Trump is disgusting; but really. Methinks the WPost and NYC and all the the rats fleeing Trumps leaky ship protest too much. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Not to mention self-righteousness. A private conversation 11 years ago in the non-English speaking world, meaning where there is not a tradition of Puritanism, would not get such a rise. And really it shouldn't be ethical either to divulge. Geez, where are the thought police? Apparently everywhere. Billy-boy never apologized, yet what he did was worse. Those who muckrake may find s**tloads on their own heads, maybe even in the next 24 hours...
Quote from: Herman on October 09, 2016, 01:32:58 AM
There's a large dose of hypocrisy here. The latest revelations are entirely of a piece with other things we heard; it's just a little more crass.
What urges those GOP folks to dump Trump now is that they're thinking of their own electoral skin.
Aye; all the rest of us have known for months that he is unfit for the office.
A very good article on the current state of Putin, Trump & the US elections, I think:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/seven-reasons-the-new-russian-hack-announcement-is-a-big-deal-214330
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 09, 2016, 03:32:18 AM
Aye; all the rest of us have known for months that he is unfit for the office.
I grant you his rhetoric is crude. But does this actually render him unfit for office? As I said before, all the Democrats circled the wagons around Bill Clinton, and Hillary defended him and intimidated the women accusing him. Also, there was Vernon Jordan's book in which he jokingly bragged about him and Bill Clinton "talking pussy" on the golf course and that "there's nothing wrong with a little poontang talk". Even Wikipedia mentions it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Jordan#Clinton_administration).
The difference in this case is that Trump is caught on tape. Republican elected officials are running for the high grass to save their own asses because they have no loyalty to Trump mainly because he is not a member of their club. Also, the NYT, CNN, WPost and other major media outlets are making a point to carry Hillary Clinton's water on this and other issues damaging to Trump in order to sink his campaign also because he is not one of them. Many Republicans are one of them, e.g. John McCain, and others who also benefit from the status quo.
This is an example of what is really wrong with our elective process. The voters do not benefit from an objective press to cover this election fairly, and we have a Congress filled with corrupt elected officials. All of which leads to a double standard being used, in order to safeguard the status quo, against the one person who threatens the status quo. This is an elective system and political machine which a majority of the voters are sick and tired of, which is why Trump got the nomination in the first place.
And if you think Trump is unique in his private language about women you are sadly naive. I would venture to guess that every CEO, the majority of celebrities and politicians have said similar things or done worse (Bill Cosby anyone?).
Trump is an extremely obnoxious and probably a critically flawed candidate. But his attempt to storm the gates of power resonated with millions of voters, not all Republican btw, and hopefully there will be a more competent candidate in the future.
The USA is lost if there is no one to break the corporate grip on Washington and the media.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 09, 2016, 05:25:41 AM
The voters do not benefit from an objective press to cover this election fairly
...
Trump is an extremely obnoxious and probably a critically flawed candidate.
Well, how do you know that if not for the press?
Not for the first time, I feel like you're arguing against yourself. You have a very clear view that "the system" is a problem, and you indicate frequently that you are against the powers that be.
But the "powers that be" as you perceive them are telling you that Trump is awful. Do you agree with them, or not?
Personally I can't see any value in installing Trump in the White House just because he's not "one of them". For starters it's fairly ludicrous to label him as an outsider when he has power and influence dripping from him, it's just commercial/business influence instead of political influence. He might not be "one of them" in the political sense, but he's hardly "one of us" either. Not even close.
I'm sure it's possible to have a candidate who is a relative outsider who is also credible. On the other side of politics Bernie Sanders seemed to tap into many of the same sentiments. But on the Republican side, the guy who attracted the voters just ain't credible.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 09, 2016, 05:25:41 AM
Also, the NYT, CNN, WPost and other major media outlets
I wonder if all of those offering these knee-jerk reactions to the NYT and WPost actually read these newspapers. I do, and I find a wide variety of editorial viewpoints therein including conservative columnists David Brooks and Ross Douthat of the Times. Yes, the NYT has its share of liberals including Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, but MoDo in particular has always been scathing about the Clintons and hasn't changed her tune. And as orfeo quite rightly remarks, how do you know all these things if not for the press?
Juanita Broaddrick Wants To Be Believed (https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/juanita-broaddrick-wants-to-be-believed?utm_term=.xyXGjyjBy#.qeR5v1vq1)
Who chose the title for this article? Are we to assume that wanting to be believed is unusual?
I find her story to be credible.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 09, 2016, 05:25:41 AM
I grant you his rhetoric is crude. But does this actually render him unfit for office? As I said before, all the Democrats circled the wagons around Bill Clinton, and Hillary defended him and intimidated the women accusing him. Also, there was Vernon Jordan's book in which he jokingly bragged about him and Bill Clinton "talking pussy" on the golf course and that "there's nothing wrong with a little poontang talk". Even Wikipedia mentions it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Jordan#Clinton_administration).
The difference in this case is that Trump is caught on tape. Republican elected officials are running for the high grass to save their own asses because they have no loyalty to Trump mainly because he is not a member of their club. Also, the NYT, CNN, WPost and other major media outlets are making a point to carry Hillary Clinton's water on this and other issues damaging to Trump in order to sink his campaign also because he is not one of them. Many Republicans are one of them, e.g. John McCain, and others who also benefit from the status quo.
This is an example of what is really wrong with our elective process. The voters do not benefit from an objective press to cover this election fairly, and we have a Congress filled with corrupt elected officials. All of which leads to a double standard being used, in order to safeguard the status quo, against the one person who threatens the status quo. This is an elective system and political machine which a majority of the voters are sick and tired of, which is why Trump got the nomination in the first place.
And if you think Trump is unique in his private language about women you are sadly naive. I would venture to guess that every CEO, the majority of celebrities and politicians have said similar things or done worse (Bill Cosby anyone?).
Trump is an extremely obnoxious and probably a critically flawed candidate. But his attempt to storm the gates of power resonated with millions of voters, not all Republican btw, and hopefully there will be a more competent candidate in the future.
The USA is lost if there is no one to break the corporate grip on Washington and the media.
I agree with much of what you say here. A couple of things occurred to me while reading: if he (DFT) isn't a member of this or that group, thus an outsider, what group is he a member of which seems to resonate with all these voters? Surely, surely, they don't think he is one of them?!? 'cause that just ain't happenin'. Also, even the idea of being disaffected kindred spirits is just a a ploy to manipulate them. DFT isn't disaffected, he has been making a bundle off whatever is available, and there is plenty available with his money and connections.
I am all for some major reform in Washington. Let's start with getting the 30 and 40 years senators and congressman off to the retirement home where they belong. Let's look at real campaign finance reform. Let's look at term limits in a serious way. Putting a manipulative lunatic into the White House isn't going to accomplish any of those things. Note that I didn't identify a particular person there.
But DFT's plainly stated (in the last debate) goal of eliminating governmental regulation as a way of saving money, and lowering taxes on big business to promote trickle-down, a discredited theory at best, and dumping any sort of health care reform, what sort of a positive is coming out of this? Some nebulous promises about "I'll create jobs, there will be millions of jobs..." doesn't amount to a puddle of skunk piss unless there is a viable,solid plan to do it. And I haven't heard one yet.
In any case, I am an 'anyone but Trump'er', with the exception of any radical Xtian extremists who want Xtian 'Sharia' Law here, which leaves out Cruz and Pence, for example. I just don't believe that anyone can be a successful candidate and eventual President by simply being against things. At some point, you have to be
for something. And I don't mean 'when the time comes...' either!
8)
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 08, 2016, 08:40:37 PM
Of course, Trump won't quit! As much as we'd love him to throw in the hairpiece, it looks like we're just not that lucky.
Quite the contrary: I'd love to see that git trounced at the election.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 09, 2016, 05:35:56 AM
I'm sure it's possible to have a candidate who is a relative outsider who is also credible. On the other side of politics Bernie Sanders seemed to tap into many of the same sentiments. But on the Republican side, the guy who attracted the voters just ain't credible.
Those of you who can stand to read book-length posts might find this one interesting. Eric Zuesse, historian and Bernie Sanders supporter, writes about why Bernie fans should prefer Trump to Clinton:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/im-bernie-sanders-voter-heres-why-ill-vote-trump
Quote from: sanantonio on October 09, 2016, 05:25:41 AM
And if you think Trump is unique in his private language about women you are sadly naive.
It's not just "private language" aka locker room talk. He walked the walk.
There are dozens of stories of women with stories about the way Trump groped them, pressed them to have sex with him.
I expect we'll hear some of those tonight.
Just this week, this story of a Florida woman who had a business together with her husband, and Trump wanted a piece of the business, but alos of the woman, and said to her husband, in advance of talking about business, he needed to get away because Trump was yugely attracted to his wife.
There is the whole scale of douchebaggery, from "inspecting" unclad Miss USA candidates, even down to Trump taking a woman out for dinner and when the check comes it turns out he can't pay, so she gets the check.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 09, 2016, 06:27:04 AM
I wonder if all of those offering these knee-jerk reactions to the NYT and WPost actually read these newspapers. I do, and I find a wide variety of editorial viewpoints therein including conservative columnists David Brooks and Ross Douthat of the Times. Yes, the NYT has its share of liberals including Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, but MoDo in particular has always been scathing about the Clintons and hasn't changed her tune. And as orfeo quite rightly remarks, how do you know all these things if not for the press?
Absolutely.
The Press (and that includes TV and internet) is just a channel through which people get their information. Unless one adheres to some kind of conspiracy theory here, it's a question of supply and demand. Just as there are conservative minded people, there is a conservative press to feed them what they need to hear and read, and the same goes for liberal minded people who will choose to get their info from the sources they relate to.
Most major outlets are not in the business of influencing people. If they do show a bias their constituency is well aware of it and that's why they choose that source in the first place (I'm thinking CNN and Fox News for example). An
objective press is not one that takes no sides. Anybody is free to agree or disagree. You can't take the Press to court for not agreeing with your views. You just select another source. That's freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.
And of course, any individual has the absolute right to change minds and political sides over the course of his or her life. That will likely influence the choice of news sources.
......................................................................
Here's an interesting footnote to the campaign from the Texas Tribune (which *I think* is an objective outlet): could the 1824 election repeat itself ? Tantalizing thought...
https://www.tribtalk.org/2016/10/06/what-the-1824-election-can-teach-us-about-2016/
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 09, 2016, 06:55:50 AM
I agree with much of what you say here. A couple of things occurred to me while reading: if he (DFT) isn't a member of this or that group, thus an outsider, what group is he a member of which seems to resonate with all these voters? Surely, surely, they don't think he is one of them?!? 'cause that just ain't happenin'. Also, even the idea of being disaffected kindred spirits is just a a ploy to manipulate them. DFT isn't disaffected, he has been making a bundle off whatever is available, and there is plenty available with his money and connections.
Trump has not been an elected official which both makes him inexperienced as a politician and someone who has a better chance than yet another politician to change the system. He is the wrong messenger but has the right message.
QuoteI am all for some major reform in Washington. Let's start with getting the 30 and 40 years senators and congressman off to the retirement home where they belong. Let's look at real campaign finance reform. Let's look at term limits in a serious way. Putting a manipulative lunatic into the White House isn't going to accomplish any of those things. Note that I didn't identify a particular person there.
I agree that politicians who remain in office for 30-40 years are a problem. A big part of that is because our elective process favors incumbents. While Trump is extremely flawed, I do think he might have created an opportunity for more non-traditional candidates to challenge the old guard.
QuoteBut DFT's plainly stated (in the last debate) goal of eliminating governmental regulation as a way of saving money, and lowering taxes on big business to promote trickle-down, a discredited theory at best, and dumping any sort of health care reform, what sort of a positive is coming out of this? Some nebulous promises about "I'll create jobs, there will be millions of jobs..." doesn't amount to a puddle of skunk piss unless there is a viable,solid plan to do it. And I haven't heard one yet.
I agree his presentation of his policies has been poorly delivered. However, I do agree that government regulations do often tie the hands of entrepreneurs and business and tamp down innovation and economic expansion which is how real new jobs are created. Clinton is promising more government funded job creation, much like Obama's stimulus programs. Government stimulated job creation is not real job creation and is short term and does not address the underlying problems the US economy is facing.
Again, Trump is very far from the ideal candidate, but he is the only one whose candidacy challenges the status quo.
QuoteIn any case, I am an 'anyone but Trump'er', with the exception of any radical Xtian extremists who want Xtian 'Sharia' Law here, which leaves out Cruz and Pence, for example. I just don't believe that anyone can be a successful candidate and eventual President by simply being against things. At some point, you have to be for something. And I don't mean 'when the time comes...' either!
I have said before this election is a binary choice: Trump or Clinton. One of those two will be the next president. I will not stay at home even though Tennessee is safely a Red state, and will vote for Trump and Republican down the ticket. Clinton is, in my opinion worse, than Trump because her Liberal policies represent the wrong direction I think for the US.
Trump is for something: lower taxes; pragmatic trade negotiations; border control and enforcement, economic expansion and job creation - while at the same time not being a social conservative (although he pandered to the evangelicals during the primaries). Unfortunately, for him and everyone who voted for him, he has shot off his legs with a shotgun and I just about ruined any chance that 1) his actual policy message can get out and 2) winning the election because he has conducted his campaign in a manner beneath the dignity of the office he seeks.
8)
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 09, 2016, 07:59:55 AMEric Zuesse, historian and Bernie Sanders supporter, writes about why Bernie fans should prefer Trump to Clinton.
Weird, these Sanders supporters going against the opinion / advice of the guy they supported. But even weirder is the belief that Trump would do well on the issues Zuesse lists.
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 09, 2016, 09:07:30 AM
Weird, these Sanders supporters going against the opinion / advice of the guy they supported.
Yeah, well Bernie disappointed a lot of his supporters with that endorsement.
Trump in favour of job creation?
Well sure, so long as you think it still counts as a job when you don't get paid.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 08, 2016, 07:51:17 PM
What's ironic is how the Democrats who didn't think Bill Clinton's actual sexual assaults: Kathleen Willey, Paul Jones, and Juanita Broderick (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-08/another-trump-recording-emerges-paula-jones-kathleen-willey-and-juanita-broaddrick-a) (all these women accuse him of assault or rape, not just an extra marital affair, of which he also had plenty) were disqualifying acts, are all now are shocked, shocked, at Trump's dirty mouth.
I do think Trump is disgusting; but really. Methinks the WPost and NYC and all the the rats fleeing Trumps leaky ship protest too much.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
I don't give Bill Clinton a pass, particularly in the Monica Lewinski incident. It revealed him as having a gravely defective character, and he demeaned the office of the president. The fact that a flawed person once became president means the precedent has been set and we should not hesitate to elect an amoral, misogynistic narcicist and pathological liar to be president?
At least you could say of Bill Clinton that, despite his moral failings, he led the country through a period of economic growth, prosperity and peace.
Donald Trump used to make light of Bill Clinton's sex scandals. Now they're his main weapon. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/trump-clinton-sex-then-vs-now/index.html?adkey=bn)
In another interview, with CNBC in 1998 and first unearthed by the Washington Post, Trump called Clinton accuser Paula Jones "a loser." In August 1998, Trump again dismissed Jones, and said Bill Clinton was actually the victim.
"I don't necessarily agree with his victims," Trump said to Fox News' Neil Cavuto in a clip uncovered earlier in the year by the "Daily Beast." "His victims are terrible. He is, he is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position."
"These people are just, I don't know, where he met them - where he found them," Trump continued. "But the whole group — it's truly an unattractive cast of characters. Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, I mean, this woman, I watch her on television. She is so bad. The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group. I'm not just talking about physical."
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)
For once i agree with Don.
This whole thing is becoming (more) surreal. Trump just held a little press event where two women flanked him on each side and voiced their support for the oh-so-modest Donald. One of them claimed Bill Clinton had raped her. Obviously this is why we should support Donald Trump for president.
I look forward to the next two hours with fascinated dread.
It's getting more bizarre by the moment. From the (evil, as we all know) NY Times:
QuoteThe Republican Party was at the brink of civil war on Sunday as Donald J. Trump signaled he would retaliate against lawmakers who withdraw their support from his campaign, and senior party leaders privately acknowledged that they now feared losing control of both houses of Congress.
On Twitter, Mr. Trump attacked the Republicans fleeing his campaign as "self-righteous hypocrites" and predicted their defeat at the ballot box. In a set of talking points sent to his supporters Sunday morning, Mr. Trump's campaign urged them to attack turncoat Republicans as "more concerned with their political future than they are about the country."
QuoteTrump Tower, since Friday afternoon, has become a kind of lonely fortress for its most famous occupant, who holes up inside, increasingly isolated and upset, denounced almost every hour by another Republican official.
Mr. Trump was asked to stay away from a party gathering Saturday afternoon in Wisconsin, where Speaker Paul D. Ryan and other state luminaries took the stage, a striking rebuke that left the Republican nominee for president with no place to go on a Saturday 31 days before the election.
QuoteAs Republicans across the country contend with the fallout from a newly released recording in which Donald J. Trump made vulgar and sexually degrading comments about women, perhaps nowhere was reaction more swift and decisive than in Utah, home to a sizable Mormon population already deeply unsettled by a sense of the candidate's moral shortcomings.
Within hours of the video's release on Friday, a number of top Republican officials in the state yanked their endorsements, including Gov. Gary Herbert, a Mormon, who declared Mr. Trump's statements "beyond offensive and despicable." Representative Jason Chaffetz, who is also Mormon, said that if he voted for Mr. Trump he would no longer be able to look his 15-year-old daughter in the eye.
On Saturday, the Deseret News, a media outlet owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, broke with an 80-year tradition of refraining from presidential endorsements to publish an editorial calling on Mr. Trump to step aside.
As of 9:32 PM Trump is in full jackass mode. Can't watch this.
I don't care what anyone else thinks − there's no way in H##L I'm gonna vote for this sleeze-ball. I'd vote for Mike Tyson before I'd vote for this clown.
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 09, 2016, 05:33:36 PM
As of 9:32 PM Trump is in full jackass mode. Can't watch this.
I don't care what anyone else thinks − there's no way in H##L I'm gonna vote for this sleeze-ball. I'd vote for Mike Tyson before I'd vote for this clown.
The Giants are at Green Bay. Good game, too. Just sayin'.... :)
8)
Having got sick of all this sniffing by the Orange Baby I finally decided to Google "Trump drug use" and it appears Howard Dean is probably wrong about cocaine. It's likely a form of speed. The symptoms of long term use fit.
Brady is back, 406 yds, 3 TDs. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
After about 30 minutes, I went back to music. Life's too short to waste on watching the Donald avoid answering tough questions. He's always on the attack. Always. He never shuts up for a minute to realize that he's not even answering the question that has been asked but going on a tirade against Clinton yet again. If his 'locker room' talk wasn't enough, his asshole, I'm never wrong attitude should've been enough tonight.
He's totally incoherent, but she is not crisp tonight. She really is not taking the same advantage of her opportunities to demolish him as she did in the first debate. And she had no defense against the "deplorables" remark, which was the dumbest thing she said all campaign. This debate sounds like a tired retread of the first one.
At 95 minutes in, the first mention of climate change in either debate.
Last audience question, best of the night: "Do you respect anything about the other?"
Moderator: "Mr. Trump?"
Trump is silent.
Hillary: "I respect his children."
Trump: "I respect that she's a fighter."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 09, 2016, 06:36:49 PM
Last audience question, best of the night: "Do you respect anything about the other?"
Shows again how trivial these shows are. Especially after Trump's Mussolini retort about jailing HRC the necessary question would again have been whether both candidates would respect the Nov 8 outcome.
Well, I have this to say about that debate:
Throwing political opponents in jail is something we associate with tinpot dictatorships. Not the supposed Leader of the Free World.
As someone who writes laws for a living, the fact that a candidate for President of the USA can have so little regard for the rule of law and separation of powers is truly disturbing.
Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times (and of course, let's be clear: this is the evil, liberal, distorted, malicious, partisan mainstream media, which means anything that appears there no matter what the source must be automatically discounted):
"Let's be clear: a candidate for president promised to put his opponent in jail if he wins. Everything else is secondary."
And of course, this is manna from heaven to the "Lock her up!" crowd. Never mind that "Lock her up!" is explicitly and profoundly at variance with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and numerous other laws and traditions of this country (since the only amendment that really counts is the Second, even though its current SC interpretation has nothing to do with what the Founders intended).
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 09, 2016, 06:09:34 PM
After about 30 minutes, I went back to music. Life's too short to waste on watching the Donald avoid answering tough questions.
Let me guess, you went to listen to Ives? ;D
Donald Trump is running for dictator, not for president. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/9/13222826/donald-trump-debate-clinton-jail-dictator)Quote from: Ezra KleinThe debate's most unnerving moment came early. "If I win, I'm going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there's never been so many lies, so much deception," Trump told Hillary Clinton.
"It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of [El Tupé] is not in charge of the law of our country," Clinton shot back.
[El Tupé], determined as always to make subtext into text, left no room for confusion. "Because you'd be in jail," he said.
So there it was. The Republican nominee for president of the United States has promised to imprison his opponent if he wins the election. "This is what happens in dictatorships," wrote the New York Times' Max Fisher. "Not democracies."
And, let's say it again: El Tupé accusing anyone else on the planet of lies and deception, is the biggest con of this election cycle.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 10, 2016, 05:12:02 AM
Let me guess, you went to listen to Ives? ;D
"Debate" . . . unanswered question . . . very nicely played,
Poju!
His staff and any Republicans still on board deserve the blistering loss that awaits them in November and the professional humiliation that goes with enabling a creep. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/09/the-second-debate-the-end-of-trump/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.439e2feec30c)
Quote from: 71 dB on October 10, 2016, 05:12:02 AM
Let me guess, you went to listen to Ives? ;D
With Ives, you go back to a kindler, gentler, more optimistic America. At least that's what the illusion tells you.
Trump´s Taj Mahal closing down today, 3000 losing their jobs:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Trump-Taj-Mahal-Closes-After-26-Years-on-Atlantic-City-Boardwalk-396507061.html
Even we Europeans have heard of that casino, so a big brand for him.
Canadians are celebrating Thanksgiving today.
Quote from: Turner on October 10, 2016, 05:38:41 AM
Trump´s Taj Mahal closing down today, 3000 losing their jobs:
That's because he's smart.
Ok so does Daughter Ogler here have any shot of winning in November?
This article seems to think the only question is how badly Grandma is going to beat him:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/09/the-second-debate-the-end-of-trump/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.8d2a2b47dae0 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/09/the-second-debate-the-end-of-trump/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.8d2a2b47dae0)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 10, 2016, 06:13:04 AM
Ok so does Daughter Ogler here have any shot of winning in November?
That shot is barely on the table, at best.
Quote from: listener on October 10, 2016, 05:47:12 AM
Canadians are celebrating Thanksgiving today.
Among the things you have to be thankful for: a decent, rational leader.
Anyone saw this picture of Daugher Ogler/Child Molester with poor Ivanka?
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2016/02/ivanka-trump-strokes-donald-trumps-face-in-creepy-throwback-pic/ (http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2016/02/ivanka-trump-strokes-donald-trumps-face-in-creepy-throwback-pic/)\
or this one:
(http://cdn2.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/landscape_928x523/2015/09/donald_trump_rollout_-_h_2015.jpg)
I have THREE daughters and that picture does not look sane to me...
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 10, 2016, 06:30:59 AM
Anyone saw this picture of Daugher Ogler/Child Molester with poor Ivanka?
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2016/02/ivanka-trump-strokes-donald-trumps-face-in-creepy-throwback-pic/ (http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2016/02/ivanka-trump-strokes-donald-trumps-face-in-creepy-throwback-pic/)\
or this one:
(http://cdn2.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/landscape_928x523/2015/09/donald_trump_rollout_-_h_2015.jpg)
I have THREE daughters and that picture does not look sane to me...
I do notice she has a death-grip on his tiny hands.... :-\
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 10, 2016, 06:42:35 AM
I do notice she has a death-grip on his tiny hands.... :-\
8)
Probably to prevent his hands from groping higher...
Quote from: Turner on October 10, 2016, 05:38:41 AM
Trump´s Taj Mahal closing down today, 3000 losing their jobs:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Trump-Taj-Mahal-Closes-After-26-Years-on-Atlantic-City-Boardwalk-396507061.html
Good riddance to that eyesore!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 10, 2016, 05:17:00 AM
With Ives, you go back to a kindler, gentler, more optimistic America. At least that's what the illusion tells you.
I think of Gershwin in that context. Composers and writers who encompass the spirit of an age could be a good subject for a thread.
Clinton was best when facing the audience questioners directly, expressing a desire to bring the country together and reminding them of her accomplishments. But she won the debate early on. In keeping her cool and indicting Trump's bad behavior and finally provoking him to threaten to put her in jail, she made certain no one not already in Trump's corner would sign on with him. As in the first debate and the vice-presidential debate, she created more than enough material for a new raft of ads. She's well on her way to a victory in November; how big it will be is the only question. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/09/the-second-debate-the-end-of-trump/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.439e2feec30c)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 10, 2016, 07:06:13 AM
I think of Gershwin in that context. Composers and writers who encompass the spirit of an age could be a good subject for a thread.
I need to find that
Gershwin bio which I started, oh, it must be five or six years ago now . . . .
[El Tupé] showed during last night's second presidential debate in St. Louis that he is willing to go down in flames, and he is happy to take down-ballot Republicans with him. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/10/10/daily-202-more-than-trump-the-republican-party-was-the-biggest-loser-in-last-night-s-debate/57fb0c74e9b69b0592430208/)
Quote from: Jas. HohmannConservative Washington Examiner columnist Byron York argues that "Trump's performance will shut down Republican defections from his struggling campaign, at least for now": "Say you were a Republican lawmaker contemplating breaking with Trump. You didn't do it Saturday, when several GOP officials jumped, because you wanted to see how Trump would do in the debate Sunday night. Now you've seen it — a more aggressive, hard-hitting, and focused effort than Trump's losing performance in Debate One — and you're probably not going to abandon Trump now."
Weekly Standard Executive Editor Bill Kristol concurs but describes this as a fatal mistake: "Here's the problem: Some Republican leaders could well make the mistake of thinking that because Trump wasn't destroyed at the debate, there isn't now a dire need to act. They could decide that because Trump didn't dissolve into a puddle in the center of the town hall, the situation has stabilized, and the status quo is sustainable. That would be a fatal mistake. The Declaration of Independence identified the problem: 'All experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.' Republicans may be disposed to suffer, rather than take bold action, contrary to the forms to which they are accustomed, to shove Trump aside. Republican leaders may think, or hope, that Trump is a sufferable evil. They will be cruelly disappointed in that judgment."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 10, 2016, 07:21:54 AM
[El Tupé] showed during last night's second presidential debate in St. Louis that he is willing to go down in flames, and he is happy to take down-ballot Republicans with him. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/10/10/daily-202-more-than-trump-the-republican-party-was-the-biggest-loser-in-last-night-s-debate/57fb0c74e9b69b0592430208/)
I am good with that :laugh:
Anyway I am surprised The Groper is still in it. People have gotten fired for saying/doing a lot less. Don Imus was fired for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy headed 'ho's" in a joke.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 10, 2016, 07:09:55 AM
I need to find that Gershwin bio which I started, oh, it must be five or six years ago now . . . .
One of my favorite persons and composers as well. There is a juncture in which a composer (or writer) is not only influenced by an era but serves to define, or even embody it.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 10, 2016, 07:25:51 AM
[snipped Kristol quote]
If Bill Kristol is saying this, that's good news for Trump, because Kristol has never been right about anything.
The Republicans dissing Trump have their own races to consider, and I doubt their un-endorsement will change any votes. Although I did write an angry email to my Governor this morning after seeing him call for Trump to step aside. I won't be voting for Bill Haslam for anything in the future, he' been pretty lackluster overall, anyway.
The Republicans walking away from Trump are essentially RINOs but I do hope they win their elections so we keep the Senate.
My favorite debate moments were when Trump called Hillary "the devil" and promised to appoint a special prosecutor if elected. That second one got him some votes, I'm sure.
All in all, Trump did well - almost as good as when he body slammed Vince McMahon:
https://www.youtube.com/v/TuesauNtqTU
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 08:01:47 AM
All in all, Trump did well - almost as good as when he body slammed Vince McMahon:
Yes, that's quite a recommendation.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 10, 2016, 08:03:27 AM
Yes, that's quite a recommendation.
I guess you don't see the connection between politics and pro wrestling. ???
Pretty obvious to me.
;)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 10, 2016, 07:06:13 AM
I think of Gershwin in that context. Composers and writers who encompass the spirit of an age could be a good subject for a thread.
Ives is the perfect composer to represent a nostalgic image of a more innocent, optimistic America: the Holidays Symphony, Symphony No. 2, the Concord Sonata paying homage to all the great transcendentalist authors of the mid-19th century, etc. - without any hint of the darker side of American history, especially the slavery and racism that affect us all to this day. Ives is all about brass bands and the Fourth of July. Gershwin above all in Porgy and Bess provides the offset that reminds us of the black experience.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 08:07:58 AM
I guess you don't see the connection between politics and pro wrestling. ???
Pretty obvious to me.
;)
I guess you don't have much sense of when someone is addressing you ironically.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 10, 2016, 08:10:36 AM
I guess you don't have much sense of when someone is addressing you ironically.
Try using emotions.
:blank:
Unlike most of my liberal friends, I thought Trump won that debate, despite how incoherent and hideous his speech was from start to finish. He won because Hillary gleefully jumped down in the mud with him - after she quoted Michelle Obama and vowed to take the high road, she spent the whole rest of the debate non-answering questions by saying, "Well, TRUMP this and that." Moreover, he won by turning the entire debate into a Trumpian spectacle. Everyone else agreed to play by his rules, with his interruptions, his name-calling, and his bitter contempt for the moderators, which they returned. In the first debate, Trump looked like a foreigner out of place; in this one, he made everyone else complicit, by making them partake in his language and demeanor. The audience seemed traumatized.
On the other hand, the victory will no doubt be Pyrrhic. It reminded me of trench warfare in 1916: nobody gained anything of substance, no minds were changed, no battle lines were shifted, and whatever points were scored were minuscule. Moreover, Trump no doubt was terrifying to undecided voters, both verbally (vowing to put Hillary in jail, spouting conspiracy theories 70% of Americans don't understand, reviving the Bill Clinton years) and physically (stalking behind Hillary with a horrible expression, shifting from one foot to the other).
For all the sheer insanity of what happened last night, the result may be pretty conventional: Trump rallied his base of die-hard supporters, while failing to win over many others. Just as has happened for the past 9 months.
Hillary did have one very nice moment when Trump accused her of never accomplishing anything and she responded with a proud, clear two-minute resume of her favorite achievements. If only she had taken the high road more.
"Bill, why do you rape?"
Don't Grab My Pussy, Mr. Clinton!!
Just so you're all prepared, the Trump "N*****" video will be coming out shortly. Remember that I told you, so you can't get all surprised when it happens. However, the Bill&Hill "blackface" pic is already up for those who haven't seen it.
PUSSY2016
Quote from: snyprrr on October 10, 2016, 08:45:09 AM
"Bill, why do you rape?"
Don't Grab My Pussy, Mr. Clinton!!
Just so you're all prepared, the Trump "N*****" video will be coming out shortly. Remember that I told you, so you can't get all surprised when it happens. However, the Bill&Hill "blackface" pic is already up for those who haven't seen it.
PUSSY2016
Meow!
https://www.youtube.com/v/_IGzuhOuz00
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2016, 08:23:54 AM
. . . Trump no doubt was terrifying to undecided voters, both verbally (vowing to put Hillary in jail, spouting conspiracy theories 70% of Americans don't understand, reviving the Bill Clinton years) and physically (stalking behind Hillary with a horrible expression, shifting from one foot to the other).
And that's the guy who won 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 10, 2016, 05:13:43 AM
"Debate" . . . unanswered question . . . very nicely played, Poju!
Thanks Karl! 0:)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 08:12:46 AM
Try using emotions.
:blank:
I think you mean emoticons, and they should not as a rule be necessary if the sentence is effectively constructed.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 10, 2016, 09:45:53 AM
I think you mean emoticons, and they should not as a rule be necessary if the sentence is effectively constructed.
LOL - I didn't notice the typo. Anyway, I think we got it straightened out.
:D
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2016, 08:23:54 AM
Unlike most of my liberal friends, I thought Trump won that debate, despite how incoherent and hideous his speech was from start to finish.
Andrew Sullivan, in full pessimistic mode only exceeded by my own:
"I'm horrified to say that Trump will survive this, even though he absolutely shouldn't. I suspect this performance will prevent a total meltdown in his campaign. His Breitbart-style attacks on Clinton will have riled up his base. Her defensive rebuttals were not crude enough to hit home. But it remains true that this man openly pledged to put his opponent in jail if he is elected – something that is truly destructive of a liberal democracy. He pledged to ally with Putin's Russia in global politics. He offered mere slogans when asked to provide substantive policy answers. And he took politics to a new low in his tabloid antics.
He's a disgrace and a national embarrassment. And he may still win this election."
To which I can only add: vox populi, vox populi.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 09:51:19 AM
LOL - I didn't notice the typo. Anyway, I think we got it straighened out.
:D
Oh, good!
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 08:01:47 AM
.......
All in all, Trump did well - almost as good as when he body slammed Vince McMahon:
https://www.youtube.com/v/TuesauNtqTU
;)
This is a good one. It fits perfectly the description given by a journalist on French TV referring to
"Les nouvelles frasques Trumpesques"
Untranslatable, but so cute...
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 10, 2016, 09:51:37 AM
Andrew Sullivan, in full pessimistic mode only exceeded by my own:
"I'm horrified to say that Trump will survive this, even though he absolutely shouldn't. I suspect this performance will prevent a total meltdown in his campaign. His Breitbart-style attacks on Clinton will have riled up his base. Her defensive rebuttals were not crude enough to hit home. But it remains true that this man openly pledged to put his opponent in jail if he is elected – something that is truly destructive of a liberal democracy. He pledged to ally with Putin's Russia in global politics. He offered mere slogans when asked to provide substantive policy answers. And he took politics to a new low in his tabloid antics.
He's a disgrace and a national embarrassment. And he may still win this election."
To which I can only add: vox populi, vox populi.
Still no room for complacency: check.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 10, 2016, 10:03:17 AM
Still no room for complacency: check.
Ain't over till it's over. OTOH, even if Hill wins, expect a Repub congress to make her life even more difficult than it did Barry's.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 10, 2016, 08:53:07 AM
Meow!
https://www.youtube.com/v/_IGzuhOuz00
I'm getting an unsafe warning from my browser for this video. I'll do a malware scan and not report the results. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)
He is reading from a book he wrote. He's discussing Malcolm X with a friend.
One of the guys sitting nearby must have overheard us because he leaned over with a sagacious expression on his face.
"You guys talking about Malcolm? Malcolm tells it like it is. No doubt about it."
"Yeah," another guy said. "But I'll tell you what. You won't moving to no African jungle anytime soon. Or some goddamn desert somewhere sitting on a carpet. With a bunch of Arabs. No sir. You won't stop me eating no ribs, either. Gotta have them ribs. And pussy too. Don't Malcolm talk about no pussy. Now you know that ain't gonna work."
I noticed Ray laughing and looked at him sternly.
"What are you laughing at?" I said to him. "You never even read Malcolm. You don't even know what he says." If you'd like to watch the whole video to get the context go to snopes.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 10, 2016, 07:01:22 AM
Good riddance to that eyesore!
Your empathy for the 3000 workers who are losing their jobs is amazing.... ::) . I don't mind about the eyesore, it could be worse. But the Taj Mahal shutdown points to two dire realities:
- gaming is a societal cancer. ALL gaming.
- lack of skills and education is the surest way to ignorance and mental decay, and the point of entry to a life of poverty. The kind of jobs Trump has created throughout his career.
Spencer philiosophy and economics (survival of the fittest) unfortunately seem to apply to Western society in direct correlation to the level of government involvement in these areas: equality in, and quality of education, development of skills, and higher forms of knowledge (arts, philosophy, applied and pure sciences, social sciences, politics).
Many Americans complain about their political system: Washington, the State Capitol, its "cast" system (in large part inherited from british aristocracy/emergent industrial bourgeoisie).
200+ years of economic, social disparities that have inevitably grown over the years, encroachment of the power centre to the detriment of the community, and the increasing bitterness and refusal of those communities to accept and adapt to the changing world around them. WWII was the great, unifying, federating event that assembled a group of disparate regions and states into a uniquely powerful superpower.
70 years later, very little of that fervour and collective
élan toward the Common Good remains. Social darwinism and the subsequent rush toward attainment of material comfort have all but taken over the Western World, but nowhere more so than in the USA.
This election reveals a chasm between individuals and communities (towns, counties, states) that hanker to a past that is long gone but refuses to die, and those that will not build their lives on the rubbles of past generations. Looking at the american election and its Dallas, Dynasty, Days of our Lives upturns and downturns, is something at once surprising and fascinating. Like watching... well, I won't say it.
Instead of polling Americans about Washington again, a pair of academics at Johns Hopkins tried something new — polling Washington about Americans. What they found was a combination of ignorance, contempt and disdain.
Survey data from the polled group — staffers from the White House and Capitol Hill plus career civil servants and the policy community of lobbyists and others who work closely with government from outside it — indicate that the functionary class thinks of itself as our betters. Our bosses, not our representatives. They see their own judgment as being far superior to that of the rest of us — the people whose wishes they are supposed to be carrying out. (http://nypost.com/2016/10/09/how-dumb-does-washington-think-we-all-are/)
Which is why Trump still might just win.
;)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 10, 2016, 06:30:59 AM
Anyone saw this picture of Daugher Ogler/Child Molester with poor Ivanka?
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2016/02/ivanka-trump-strokes-donald-trumps-face-in-creepy-throwback-pic/ (http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2016/02/ivanka-trump-strokes-donald-trumps-face-in-creepy-throwback-pic/)\
or this one:
(http://cdn2.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/landscape_928x523/2015/09/donald_trump_rollout_-_h_2015.jpg)
I have THREE daughters and that picture does not look sane to me...
Was this on their honeymoon? Sorry, I had to say it. :blank:
There's this one too, which is even more provocative and absolutely disgusting:
(http://images.thehollywoodgossip.com/iu/s--5xL1WUcF--/t_full/f_auto,fl_lossy,q_75/v1454505513/a-young-ivanka-trump-strokes-her-dads-face.png)
The Orange Sniffer could release his medical records and erase all doubts about his alleged drug use. Isn't this why candidates are supposed to release them, just for situations like this? The sniffing was even worse in the second debate than the first, the agitation, pacing the podium, grimacing, nervousness all beyond the level where allowances can be made. He looks terrible.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 11:27:31 AM
Instead of polling Americans about Washington again, a pair of academics at Johns Hopkins tried something new — polling Washington about Americans. What they found was a combination of ignorance, contempt and disdain.
Survey data from the polled group — staffers from the White House and Capitol Hill plus career civil servants and the policy community of lobbyists and others who work closely with government from outside it — indicate that the functionary class thinks of itself as our betters. Our bosses, not our representatives. They see their own judgment as being far superior to that of the rest of us — the people whose wishes they are supposed to be carrying out. (http://nypost.com/2016/10/09/how-dumb-does-washington-think-we-all-are/)
Which is why Trump still might just win.
;)
Professional elites of every kind had better believe their judgment is superior. I certainly want people to be better at their jobs than some guy pulled in off the street, even if the luck of the draw is that the street person is intelligent and well educated.
Trump might win, not because the elites think we are dumb, but because we are even dumber than they dare to think we are. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: André on October 10, 2016, 11:21:42 AM
Your empathy for the 3000 workers who are losing their jobs is amazing.... ::)
At a time when the Donald is pretending to be a job creator, this is not the most propitious timing.
Trump on DeNiro: "He is a bad actor, a clown". He want to punch me in the face ? " I am waiting for him in front of the Trump tower"
Very high in the Trump tower and very deep underground...
Quote from: drogulus on October 10, 2016, 11:49:58 AM
Professional elites of every kind had better believe their judgment is superior. I certainly want people to be better at their jobs than some guy pulled in off the street, even if the luck of the draw is that the street person is intelligent and well educated.
Sure, Washington staffers are better at filing the right form for requisitioning office supplies or understanding the myriad procedure rules for covering your mouth before coughing in the House of Representatives. But they are clueless about how to create jobs; something any small businessman knows more about. Their audacity is thinking that their "solutions" will actually begin to solve our problems.
8)
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 10, 2016, 11:37:37 AM
Was this on their honeymoon? Sorry, I had to say it. :blank:
There's this one too, which is even more provocative and absolutely disgusting:
(http://images.thehollywoodgossip.com/iu/s--5xL1WUcF--/t_full/f_auto,fl_lossy,q_75/v1454505513/a-young-ivanka-trump-strokes-her-dads-face.png)
That's the one I linked to I think...
There is also this one, not sure whether it is worse but makes him look like a pimp (just look at where his right hand is):
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--HfjL-qtk--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/o2llmskpgmsqmscwispu.jpg)
The fact that she still grew up normal has to be a kind of miracle.
OR this one where not only is he got his hands where they don't belong but also looking down her dress:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/22/15/367D8C4900000578-0-image-a-28_1469196210581.jpg)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 08:01:47 AM
My favorite debate moments were when Trump called Hillary "the devil" and promised to appoint a special prosecutor if elected. That second one got him some votes, I'm sure.
Not from anyone who has any kind of understanding of the law, it didn't.
Oh wait, only professional elites care about what the law actually says, right? You know, those people called lawyers.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 10, 2016, 12:14:23 PM
The fact that she still grew up normal has to be a kind of miracle.
An assumption is being made here . . . .
Sing: "But my heart belongs to Daddy."
Wondering what that idiot Hannity is saying now.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 10, 2016, 12:23:22 PM
Not from anyone who has any kind of understanding of the law, it didn't.
Oh wait, only professional elites care about what the law actually says, right? You know, those people called lawyers.
There would nothing stopping President Trump from asking his Director of the FBI to re-open the investigation and to forward his recommendation to the Trump Attorney General (probably Chris Christie who is chomping at the bit to put Hillary under indictment). There is ample evidence of her violating the relevant statute. "Intent" to harm the USA is not in language the statute, just the evidence that classified documents were unsecured. Anyone with some knowledge of the law would know that:
Here is the felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18):
With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.Nope. Nothing at all. He just needs to win.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 12:34:49 PM
There is ample evidence of her violating the relevant statute. "Intent" to harm the USA is not in language the statute, just the evidence that classified documents were unsecured.
Aha. So finally, you answer the question I posed to you weeks ago. You ARE the kind of amateur lawyer that thinks that if "intent" isn't in the actual language then intent doesn't count.
Never mind all the judges and lawyers who will tell you otherwise, right?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 12:34:49 PM
There would nothing stopping President Trump from asking his Director of the FBI to re-open the investigation and to forward his recommendation to the Trump Attorney General (probably Chris Christie who is chomping at the bit to put Hillary under indictment). There is ample evidence of her violating the relevant statute. "Intent" to harm the USA is not in language the statute, just the evidence that classified documents were unsecured. Anyone with some knowledge of the law would know that:
Here is the felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Nope. Nothing at all. He just needs to win.
;)
He won't do that if he wins. If he wins then Grandma is no longer important nor someone in his way and is thus not a political enemy. There would be no point in going after her, from a purely business point of view.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 10, 2016, 12:38:23 PM
Aha. So finally, you answer the question I posed to you weeks ago. You ARE the kind of amateur lawyer that thinks that if "intent" isn't in the actual language then intent doesn't count.
Never mind all the judges and lawyers who will tell you otherwise, right?
No. The fact is intent is not an article of proof needed to indict under the statute I cited (there are other statutes in which intent is required, but there would be no reason to seek an indictment under those statutes). Ask David Petraeus.
There is always an element of discretion used when a prosecutor decides whether to indict a suspect: How costly the trial might be, how hard to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, etc. The FBI chose, which was within their discretion, to recommend to the Justice Dept. not to indict. A different FBI director could offer a different recommendation.
::)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 12:46:02 PM
No. The fact is intent is not an article of proof needed to indict under the statute I cited (there are other statutes in which intent is required, but there would be no reason to seek an indictment under those statutes). Ask David Petraeus.
There is always an element of discretion used when a prosecutor decides whether to indict a suspect: How costly the trial might be, how hard to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, etc. The FBI chose, which was within their discretion, to recommend to the Justice Dept. not to indict. A different FBI director could offer a different recommendation.
::)
There isn't space here to try and educate you in fundamental criminal law principles about intention, recklessness and negligence. Nor to explain how fundamentally different the Petraeus case is. Besides I have to get to work where I'll be paid for knowing far more about these things than you do.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 10, 2016, 12:42:38 PM
He won't do that if he wins. If he wins then Grandma is no longer important nor someone in his way and is thus not a political enemy. There would be no point in going after her, from a purely business point of view.
Maybe so. But Trump can be vindictive. I'm not saying he will, or even that I think he should, but when he said that during the debate, I could hear his supporters cheering him on.
;)
Quote from: ørfeo on October 10, 2016, 12:47:38 PM
There isn't space here to try and educate you in fundamental criminal law principles about intention, recklessness and negligence. Besides I have to get to work where I'll be paid for knowing far more about these things than you do.
Maybe it is different in Australia. Before you get on your high horse why don't read the statute.
Quote18 U.S. Code § 793(f) - Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
But it is neither here nor there, she was cleared by the FBI and is now an established fact. I'll grant you it is not slam dunk but a case could be made.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 12:50:30 PM
Maybe it is different in Australia. Before you get on your high horse why don't read the statute. But it is neither here nor there, she was essentially given a pass by the FBI and is now an established fact.
Only in your own brain.
You really, really have no clue, and the sad thing is that you know JUST enough to think you understand the law. Knowledge and intent matter, and it doesn't require those exact words to appear in an old statue, written in an old style, before it matters.
http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-petraeus/
Quote from: ørfeo on October 10, 2016, 12:54:16 PM
Only in your own brain.
You really, really have no clue, and the sad thing is that you know JUST enough to think you understand the law. Knowledge and intent matter, and it doesn't require those exact words to appear in an old statue, written in an old style, before it matters.
http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-petraeus/
As I said it is now an established fact that the FBI recommended no indictment. There is no point in our arguing about it. But, I could also post articles written by legal scholars who have a different opinion from yours and Fortune magazine.
:)
And I've read the statute. Months ago. I know it doesn't say anything about intent. The whole point of what I said to you a while ago and now is that reading one section of one statute is not enough to understand the role of intent in criminal law.
There's only, oh, a couple of centuries of judgements on the question of "mens rea" that you need to catch up on.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 12:46:02 PM
The fact is intent is not an article of proof needed to indict under the statute I cited (there are other statutes in which intent is required, but there would be no reason to seek an indictment under those statutes). Ask David Petraeus.
I'm quoting this again and bolding the part where you linked Petraeus with "no intent", just to demonstrate that you didn't even read the Forbes article. Which I picked because it was clearly written and straightforward.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 12:00:50 PM
Sure, Washington staffers are better at filing the right form for requisitioning office supplies or understanding the myriad procedure rules for covering your mouth before coughing in the House of Representatives. But they are clueless about how to create jobs; something any small businessman knows more about. Their audacity is thinking that their "solutions" will actually begin to solve our problems.
8)
You confuse means and goals here. The political elites don't agree on when to use expertise on job creation except when the situation is dire. The nature of the emergency forces practice to conform to sound ideas, not the usual ones. When the worst of the crisis is past the level of fear subsides and normal ideas crowd back in.
The expertise is there. How to create jobs is known. We do it whenever we need to badly enough. The biggest problem is using the knowledge for positive reasons and not only to avoid catastrophe.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 10, 2016, 08:53:07 AM
Meow!
https://www.youtube.com/v/_IGzuhOuz00
snopes.com is your friend,
zb: http://www.snopes.com/obama-demands-rib/ (http://www.snopes.com/obama-demands-rib/)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 10, 2016, 02:31:01 PM
snopes.com is your friend, zb: http://www.snopes.com/obama-demands-rib/ (http://www.snopes.com/obama-demands-rib/)
No, I hazard a guess that it's not. But I did refer to snopes in my own vastly superior comment on the misuse of this video snippet. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 10, 2016, 07:27:34 AM
Anyway I am surprised The Groper is still in it. People have gotten fired for saying/doing a lot less. Don Imus was fired for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy headed 'ho's" in a joke.
The Rutgers comment, not really the worst thing Imus ever said, may have been only a pretext for his cancellation. Regardless, it's easier to cancel an over-the-hill radio host than to replace a major-party presidential nominee in October.
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2016, 08:23:54 AM
Unlike most of my liberal friends, I thought Trump won that debate, despite how incoherent and hideous his speech was from start to finish. He won because Hillary gleefully jumped down in the mud with him - after she quoted Michelle Obama and vowed to take the high road, she spent the whole rest of the debate non-answering questions by saying, "Well, TRUMP this and that." Moreover, he won by turning the entire debate into a Trumpian spectacle. Everyone else agreed to play by his rules, with his interruptions, his name-calling, and his bitter contempt for the moderators, which they returned. In the first debate, Trump looked like a foreigner out of place; in this one, he made everyone else complicit, by making them partake in his language and demeanor. The audience seemed traumatized.
I watched bits and pieces -- I can't take more than that -- and I thought both were terrible. Clinton was as you described (as was Kaine in the VP debate). But I thought Trump seemed sullen, maybe even resigned.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 10, 2016, 11:27:31 AM
Instead of polling Americans about Washington again, a pair of academics at Johns Hopkins tried something new — polling Washington about Americans. What they found was a combination of ignorance, contempt and disdain.
Survey data from the polled group — staffers from the White House and Capitol Hill plus career civil servants and the policy community of lobbyists and others who work closely with government from outside it — indicate that the functionary class thinks of itself as our betters. Our bosses, not our representatives. They see their own judgment as being far superior to that of the rest of us — the people whose wishes they are supposed to be carrying out. (http://nypost.com/2016/10/09/how-dumb-does-washington-think-we-all-are/)
Which is why Trump still might just win.
And Trump doesn't think of himself as our better?
Quote from: Pat B on October 10, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
I watched bits and pieces -- I can't take more than that -- and I thought both were terrible. Clinton was as you described (as was Kaine in the VP debate). But I thought Trump seemed sullen, maybe even resigned.
He just comes across as a crazy loon. Who walks around with a permanent scowl on his face and arms behind his back like Harrison Ford's character from
K19 The Widowmaker ?
And when do you hear someone refer to Lincoln as "the late Abe Lincoln"? I am no expert but there must be a rule that when you have been dead for over 160 yrs you don't use "late" anymore. He also can't stop the nickname thing. Do we have to hear "Honest" Abe from him? Come on !
Apologies if this violates GMG terms.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuchM5iW8AAaiEp.jpg)
Fact check moment
The Trump Taj Mahal is currently owned by Carl Icahn. Not DJT.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/trump-taj-mahal-close-26-years-trump-opened-42693677
The article does not discuss why Icahn is the owner, but IIRC he took it over when Trump lost it through bankruptcy.
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2016, 04:44:27 PM
Apologies if this violates GMG terms.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuchM5iW8AAaiEp.jpg)
That's not a nice way to talk about Trump's wife...
Donald Trump, speaking at rally, quotes from bogus story reported - and then retracted - by Kremlin propaganda agents.
http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635
"The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?"
Trump's new campaign manager:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01669/spies-460_1669811c.jpg)
Trump is such an easy target.
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2016, 04:44:27 PM
Apologies if this violates GMG terms.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuchM5iW8AAaiEp.jpg)
A campaign motivated by hate instead of politics.
Quote from: The new erato on October 10, 2016, 08:45:14 PM
A campaign motivated by hate instead of politics.
When you live in glass houses...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/10/09/trump-holds-press-conference-with-bill-clinton-rape-accusers/
Juanita Broddrick, Paula Jones, Kathy Shelton and Kathleen Willey expressed their support for Trump as they levied heavy accusations against the Clintons from how the pair handled sexual assault cases to their own involvement in alleged sexual misdeeds.
"Mr. Trump may have said some bad words, but Bill Clinton raped me, and Hillary Clinton threatened me," Broddrick said. "I don't think there's any comparison."
Shelton, who was allegedly raped in 1975 at the age of 12, accused Hillary Clinton of "laughing" and knowing that the man she represented was guilty of rape.
PS Glenn Beck does not support Trump.
As Donald Trump detailed the consequences of former President Bill Clinton's sexual scandals, a television camera caught Bill Clinton's facial expression from the audience during Sunday night's debate.
You might say the former commander in chief wasn't too happy:
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/bill-clinton-stare.jpg)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/10/10/camera-catches-bill-clintons-face-as-trump-details-fallout-over-former-presidents-sexual-scandals/
"So don't tell me about words. Absolutely I apologize for those words," Trump said before noting that Bill Clinton was impeached, lost his law license and paid an $850,000 settlement to Paula Jones over her accusations of sexual harassment. Trump added that Hillary Clinton attacked women who accused her husband of sexual abuse, and therefore chiding him for the leaked audio is "disgraceful and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth."
While Trump is wallowing in the filth....
For the first time in its nearly 50-year history, Foreign Policy has endorsed a presidential candidate, adding its voice to the growing chorus of publications breaking with tradition to support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
"In the nearly half century history of Foreign Policy, the editors of this publication have never endorsed a candidate for political office," the editorial board explained in an article published late Sunday. "We cherish and fiercely protect this publication's independence and its reputation for objectivity, and we deeply value our relationship with all of our readers, regardless of political orientation. It is for all these reasons that FP's editors are now breaking with tradition to endorse Hillary Clinton for the next president of the United States."
FP's editorial board believes Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump ― whom it labels "the worst major-party candidate for the job in U.S. history" ― presents such a threat to global stability that the publication had an obligation to weigh in.
To support its argument, FP lays out a damning, comprehensive list of Trump's questionable policy proposals, arguing that he's already hurt America's international standing without even setting foot in office.
The list includes Trump's praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin's leadership and his encouragement of Russian interference in the U.S. election, his support for torture in violation of international law, his wavering support for treaties with U.S. allies, and his jaw-dropping statements about the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons.
"In the areas in which we at FP specialize," the editorial board writes, "he has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of the most basic facts of international affairs, let alone the nuances so crucial to the responsibilities of diplomacy inherent in the U.S. president's daily responsibilities."
"The dangers Trump presents as president stretch beyond the United States to the international economy, to global security, to America's allies, as well as to countless innocents everywhere who would be the victims of his inexperience, his perverse policy views, and the profound unsuitability of his temperament for the office he seeks."
[Trump] has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of the most basic facts of international affairs, let alone the nuances so crucial to the responsibilities of diplomacy inherent in the U.S. president's daily responsibilities.
Foreign Policy editorial board
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 10, 2016, 12:42:38 PM
He won't do that if he wins. If he wins then Grandma is no longer important nor someone in his way and is thus not a political enemy. There would be no point in going after her, from a purely business point of view.
Hillary will be hounded by Republican initiated lawsuits no matter what; it's been like this for 25 years.
Quote18 U.S. Code § 793(f) - Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
What´s the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness"? Just asking.
Quote from: Foreign Policy editorial board
"The dangers Trump presents as president stretch beyond the United States to the international economy, to global security, to America's allies, as well as to countless innocents everywhere who would be the victims of his inexperience, his perverse policy views, and the profound unsuitability of his temperament for the office he seeks."
Without in any way trying to minimize the potential dangers of a Trump presidency --- as a Romanian I am quite worried about his views on Russia and NATO --- I think, though, that when it comes to "countless innocent victims everywhere" Hillary Clinton´s record is far worse than Trump´s
In the most charitable interpretation, this state of affairs ties GOP officials' hands because they don't want to defy the will of their party's voters, as expressed in a democratic process. They are, after all, supposed to represent the people. Attempting to crush the Trump insurgency from the top down could just end up inflaming the anti-establishment mood even further.
The less charitable interpretation is that GOP elites are cravenly trying to protect their own careers. They fear losing in future primaries if they abandon Trump in his moment of need. They fear losing in the general election if Trump's prospects are so poor that they significantly depress GOP base turnout. And they fear being attacked by Trump himself. (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/10/13227220/trump-republican-party-civil-war)
("The sorry state of the Republican Party right now, in one tweet")
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 10, 2016, 09:54:01 PMTrump added that Hillary Clinton attacked women who accused her husband of sexual abuse,
I thought wifes and husbands are supposed to defend each other...
Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2016, 03:48:48 AM
I thought wifes and husbands are supposed to defend each other...
Much more reprehensible behavior than the sexual assault El Tupé brags about (he denied actually doing it in the debate, but of course, (a) he would have to and (b) he lies as quick as blinking).
Quote from: Florestan on October 11, 2016, 12:59:50 AM
when it comes to "countless innocent victims everywhere" Hillary Clinton´s record is far worse than Trump´s
I had to think real hard, but maybe it's because Trump was never involved in Foreign Policy (other than Miss Universe)?
Just rest assured that a Trump president would start foreign conflicts without batting an eye....
The only thing more frustrating to root for other than a Donald Trump presidential win is a Cubs World Series victory.
Go Cubs!
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 11, 2016, 04:45:34 AM
The only thing more frustrating to root for other than a Donald Trump presidential win is a Cubs World Series victory.
Go Cubs!
;)
Well, that's one I can go along with. Go Cubs! :)
8)
Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2016, 03:48:48 AM
I thought wifes and husbands are supposed to defend each other...
It would be a 'family values' virtue among the Republican base under any other circumstances. ::)
8)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 11, 2016, 04:45:34 AM
The only thing more frustrating to root for other than a Donald Trump presidential win is a Cubs World Series victory.
Go Cubs!
;)
Let the Cubs be themselves!
Quote from: 71 dB on October 11, 2016, 03:48:48 AM
I thought wifes and husbands are supposed to defend each other...
There is a big difference between legitimate defense and enabling the addiction of one's spouse. After listening to Juanita Brodderick's account of what Mr. Clinton did to her in 1978, this could only be a bonafide illness. This is almost 40 years ago, however. Wasn't there any intelligent person around (like college educated) who could have recognized he had a problem and taken steps to do something about it? This is really crazy.
Crazier that it didn't end there. The Oval Office in the White House wasn't sacred. There are addictions that may have less impact on other than one's family, like gambling or substance abuse but of course could lead to stealing or DUI accidents. However, sexual addiction is criminal by its very nature in that it has victims, either in the family or outside. How this mutton-head got away with it all this time is mind-boggling, except "capital punishment" for the rich and powerful is: "When you have capital, you don't get punishment".
To wit, a person like Martha Stewart allegedly lied to the FBI once and had to spend a year in the can. Shillery gets to continuously lie while cocking a snook at the laws to the applause of her cheering crowds. Absolutely NUTS!!!
...Put this all together, and you get a picture of a businessman who's done everything he can to enrich himself — at times going outside the bounds of the law. And he doesn't seem to care if the people around him do the same. That presents a very serious threat to American norms against corruption.
"Americans pride themselves on our politicians' respect for the rule of law, on the checks and balances that protect us from the powerful," Ezra Klein wrote earlier this year. "But as often as not, our real protection is found not in laws but in norms."
And that's the deeper problem underlying all this — that Trump has repeatedly shown he has little respect for norms of ethical or acceptable behavior. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/11/13228598/donald-trump-racism-sexism-corruption)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 11, 2016, 05:03:19 AM
In that case, all is lost.
8)
Nooo!
Congratulations to Cleveland, by the way.
Donald Trump's backers have been reduced to suggesting groping may not be sexual assault (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/10/donald-trumps-backers-have-been-reduced-to-suggesting-groping-may-not-be-sexual-assault/)Quote from: Aaron BlakeDefending Donald Trump is a full-time job. And it's thankless. But rarely does it force Republicans to take such a tortured and ill-advised position as this.
Trump's defenders are now quibbling with the idea that his hot-mic moment — in which Trump said "grab them by the p---y" when talking about being able to do what he wanted with women — described sexual assault.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 11, 2016, 05:14:00 AM
And that's the deeper problem underlying all this — that Trump has repeatedly shown he has little respect for norms of ethical or acceptable behavior.[/url][/i]
The truth will set everyone free in the end. Billy should also go to jail for rape. In Arkansas during his term, the "three strikes and you're out" policy was instituted for life imprisonment no matter what the offense was.
Like Don Juan, he has quite a list of women he violated but with his wife enabling the master, harassing his victims and keeping score for him. This scandal might finally bite her back as it is far worse than "locker room" talk.
Just four more weeks until...
Trump => Ignore
Soon disgusting Trump will be just another unpleasant memory, like the OJ Simpson trial or the Jerry Springer show.
It is important to remember in the midst of this freak show that there are decent people out there.
Like Warren Buffett, for one. Trump casually and shamelessly lied about Buffett's taxes in the middle of the debate; Buffett quickly and politely shot him down.
Buffett, who knows far more about running businesses than Trump ever will, has been cheerfully paying his federal income taxes every year for 72 years, and has never bothered trying to dodge them (except for reinvesting all profits at Berkshire Hathaway).
Buffett happily paid $3.5 million in taxes last year, and gave away (to a real charity, mind you) a whopping $2.8 billion.
Buffett not only knows more about running businesses than Trump ever will, he also gives away *annually* more money than Trump will ever see.
And he happily supports Clinton!
Buffett once said when hiring a manager he looks for three things: intelligence, energy, and character. Without character, the intelligence and energy will just come back to bite you.
So how do Trump and Clinton rate in intelligence, energy, and character?
Trump
Intelligence B+
Energy A
Character F
Clinton
Intelligence A-
Energy B
Character A-
Trump's character is on full display in all its wretchedness. He's got the Republican party in a head-lock and is not letting up. God help us all if he gets the country in his grips.
Clinton is not perfect, but she would make a much better hire than Trump. Thankfully, this is understood by the majority of American voters.
So let me be the first to say:
Donald Who?
This morning it struck me that for his entire career as a businessman Donald Trump learned that he could enhance his brand by 1) never admitting defeat or making a mistake despite the objective record of a deal's failure and 2) to never apologize, instead double down and go on the attack. For the last 40 years as a New York businessman those tactics worked. Why? Because there was no real accounting and the battles were short term.
However, a presidential campaign is an altogether different kind of beast. It requires over a year of campaigning with marathon style pacing, clear and consistent messaging, fund raising, perceptive analysis of the polling and management of the press - all of which culminates with a winner-take-all reckoning on Election Day. Everything about his previous experience left Trump not only unprepared for this kind of challenge but having learned precisely the wrong lessons from the past.
There were two moments where I think his old tricks put him on the path to defeat: The week after the Democratic convention when he attacked the Khan family; then during and after the first debate. He had a good convention, got a nice bounce but then lost it with the attacks on the Khans for really something he should have ignored. By the time of the first debate he had finally regained his competitive position after the Khan mistake because of Kelly Ann Conway's management of his campaign: strong messaging and more rhetorical discipline. In fact he had all the momentum and Clinton was sinking in the polls. But, his arrogant lack of preparation for the first debate led to his horrible performance. Then his escalating bad behavior for the next week or two compounded his poor performance. His attempts to correct this downward trajectory has so far proven to be been too little too late.
Hence with three weeks to go, Donald Trump has positioned himself to suffer a humiliating defeat, for himself and the Republican party. A defeat for which he cannot blow smoke by claiming victory afterwards, although I am sure he will attempt something of the sort. This defeat will have many mothers but really it is all on Trump.
Of course in my opinion the real loser is the country.
>:(
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 11, 2016, 05:51:22 AM
Warren Buffett, for one. Trump casually lies about Buffett's taxes; Buffett quickly and politely shoots him down.
Buffett, who knows far more about running businesses than Trump ever will, has been cheerfully paying his federal income taxes every year for 72 years, and has never bothered trying to dodge them (except for reinvesting all profits at Berkshire Hathaway).
Buffett happily paid $3.5 million in taxes last year, and gave away (to a real charity, mind you) a whopping $2.8 billion.
Buffett not only knows more about running businesses than Trump ever will, he also gives away annually more money than Trump will ever see.
And he happily supports Clinton!
Separately, Monica Lewinsky is voting for Hillary Clinton.
Quote from: drogulus on October 10, 2016, 02:41:13 PM
No, I hazard a guess that it's not. But I did refer to snopes in my own vastly superior comment on the misuse of this video snippet. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angry.gif)
I bow to your superiority in this,
Ernie.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 11, 2016, 05:58:25 AM
This morning it struck me that for his entire career as a businessman Donald Trump learned that he could enhance his brand by 1) never admitting defeat or making a mistake despite the objective record of a deal's failure and 2) to never apologize, instead double down and go on the attack. For the last 40 years as a New York businessman those tactics worked. Why? Because there was no real accounting and the battles were short term.
However, a presidential campaign is an altogether different kind of beast. It requires over a year of campaigning with marathon style pacing, clear and consistent messaging, fund raising, perceptive analysis of the polling and management of the press - all of which culminates with a winner-take-all reckoning on Election Day. Everything about his previous experience left Trump not only unprepared for this kind of challenge but having learned precisely the wrong lessons from the past.
There were two moments where I think his old tricks put him on the path to defeat: The week after the Democratic convention when he attacked the Khan family; then during and after the first debate. He had a good convention, got a nice bounce but then lost it with the attacks on the Khans for really something he should have ignored. By the time of the first debate he had finally regained his competitive position after the Khan mistake because of Kelly Ann Conway's management of his campaign: strong messaging and more rhetorical discipline. In fact he had all the momentum and Clinton was sinking in the polls. But, his arrogant lack of preparation for the first debate led to his horrible performance. Then his escalating bad behavior for the next week or two compounded his poor performance. His attempts to correct this downward trajectory has so far proven to be been too little too late.
Hence with three weeks to go, Donald Trump has positioned himself to suffer a humiliating defeat, for himself and the Republican party. A defeat for which he cannot blow smoke by claiming victory afterwards, although I am sure he will attempt something of the sort. This defeat will have many mothers but really it is all on Trump.
This is a great post that I appreciated reading - it gets to the heart of the problem, which is that running a campaign is running a major enterprise, a big business operation, and you're right - Trump had exactly the wrong kind of business experience for it. In fact, frankly, his campaign has been incompetent when it wasn't in the hands of Conway. (Apparently Stephen Bannon has been gaining influence, the past week or two.)
In private enterprise, Trump was always moving on to the next thing, grabbing headlines with some bold scheme, banking on people forgetting about the last one - Trump Shuttle, the casinos, the attempt to build the world's tallest building in 80s New York - and despite many of those projects failing, he was able to build a reputation through sheer activity, force of personality, and unceasing determination. As a politician that doesn't work the same way. In particular, the fact that his campaign and personality are geared to appeal very specifically to 35% of the population, while alienating 50%, is one fatal flaw which has not changed since Day 1.
Agree with Brian, overall good post, sananton'. Though I note that what you call a good convention, Geo. Will today diagnosed as a mini-Nuremberg rally for Republicans whose three-word recipe for making America great again was the shriek "Lock her up!" This presaged his banana-republican vow to imprison his opponent.
(RTWT here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-vile-candidacy-is-chemotherapy-for-the-gop/2016/10/10/73e40f30-8f05-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.f5b9125197f3), if you wish.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 11, 2016, 06:23:10 AM
Agree with Brian, overall good post, sananton'. Though I note that what you call a good convention, Geo. Will today diagnosed as a mini-Nuremberg rally for Republicans whose three-word recipe for making America great again was the shriek "Lock her up!" This presaged his banana-republican vow to imprison his opponent.
(RTWT here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-vile-candidacy-is-chemotherapy-for-the-gop/2016/10/10/73e40f30-8f05-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.f5b9125197f3), if you wish.)
Hah. I meant "good" in that he got a bounce. Yep, the Trump brand in two foot letters is a bit over the top.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 11, 2016, 06:25:42 AM
Hah. I meant "good" in that he got a bounce. Yep, the Trump brand in two foot letters is a bit over the top.
;)
Spoken like a gentleman! 8)
Anyone read this article
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/opinion/donald-trumps-sad-lonely-life.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/opinion/donald-trumps-sad-lonely-life.html?_r=0)
This just about summarizes it all:
Trump's emotional makeup means he can hit only a few notes: fury and aggression. In some ways, his debate performances look like primate dominance displays — filled with chest beating and looming growls. But at least primates have bands to connect with, whereas Trump is so alone, if a tree fell in his emotional forest, it would not make a sound.
Ooga booga.
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 10, 2016, 10:27:02 PM
For the first time in its nearly 50-year history, Foreign Policy has endorsed a presidential candidate, adding its voice to the growing chorus of publications breaking with tradition to support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
I guess the respectable establishmentarians at
Foreign Policy aren't too bothered by moments like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI
Being bothered is far better than being scared shitless!
Quote from: sanantonio on October 11, 2016, 05:58:25 AM
This morning it struck me that for his entire career as a businessman Donald Trump learned that he could enhance his brand by 1) never admitting defeat or making a mistake despite the objective record of a deal's failure and 2) to never apologize, instead double down and go on the attack. For the last 40 years as a New York businessman those tactics worked. Why? Because there was no real accounting and the battles were short term.
In the NYC business world DT is looked at as a toxic failure. A rich kid with who never learns. Only bad guys do business with him and the Russians.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 11, 2016, 07:47:10 AM
But at least primates have bands to connect with, whereas Trump is so alone, if a tree fell in his emotional forest, it would not make a sound.[/i]
well, obviously Trumps got Ivanka and his two sons. (Whether Melania will hang on depends on what kind of sexual revelations turn up in the coming two weeks, to make it perfectly clear that it wasn't just locker room
talk, but action, too, i.e. Trump's history of date rape.)
That's why Clinton paid them this compliment at the close of the town hall debate.
Quote from: The new erato on October 11, 2016, 11:42:47 AM
Being bothered is far better than being scared shitless!
Indeed. Every one of the historically significant endorsements that I've read hasn't been on the basis that Clinton is the most wonderful candidate they've ever seen, it's been on the basis that Trump is the most awful candidate they've ever seen.
Responding with a criticism of Clinton misses the point entirely. It's a two horse race and one of the horses is going to win. Calling off the race is not one of the available options.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 11, 2016, 12:52:57 PM
Indeed. Every one of the historically significant endorsements that I've read hasn't been on the basis that Clinton is the most wonderful candidate they've ever seen, it's been on the basis that Trump is the most awful candidate they've ever seen.
I have seen many, beginning with Obama's endorsement.
Many people have stated, not without reason, that Clinton is the best prepared and most dedicated candidate ever.
I said historically significant endorsements. The Democrat president endorsing the Democrat nominee doesn't count. I'm talking about the organisations who either don't usually endorse anyone, or who have a long history of endorsing Republicans.
Quote from: Eric KleefeldI've seen Trumpism compared to a cancer in the Republican Party. If so, keep in mind the patient was smoking three packs a day for 50 years.
https://twitter.com/EricKleefeld/status/785938858714144769
The view from the ground
I wonder what people are seeing where they live, in terms of lawn signs, bumper stickers, and other expressions of support.
My town went 53%-45% D/R in 2012. So far I have seen a grand total of 2 Trump signs on lawns here, and one disappeared after a couple of days. I have seen no Hillary signs at all. But I have seen a lot of signs for local candidates, including one urging me to write in somebody for coroner.
Elsewhere, few presidential signs in evidence. A while back, I drove through Park Ridge (Hillary's hometown), but to my surprise, did not see any Hillary signs. To be fair, no Trump signs either.
My sister, a fan of the novels of Patrick O'Brian, has an "Aubrey-Maturin 2016" sticker on her car. I can't recall seeing any Trump or Clinton bumper stickers anywhere.
Anecdotal but interesting: the only voters I know who have definitely committed to Trump are immigrants.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 11, 2016, 05:52:36 PM
The view from the ground
I wonder what people are seeing where they live, in terms of lawn signs, bumper stickers, and other expressions of support.
My town went 53%-45% D/R in 2012. So far I have seen a grand total of 2 Trump signs on lawns here, and one disappeared after a couple of days. I have seen no Hillary signs at all. But I have seen a lot of signs for local candidates, including one urging me to write in somebody for coroner.
Elsewhere, few presidential signs in evidence. A while back, I drove through Park Ridge (Hillary's hometown), but to my surprise, did not see any Hillary signs. To be fair, no Trump signs either.
My sister, a fan of the novels of Patrick O'Brian, has an "Aubrey-Maturin 2016" sticker on her car. I can't recall seeing any Trump or Clinton bumper stickers anywhere.
Anecdotal but interesting: the only voters I know who have definitely committed to Trump are immigrants.
Explanation: The campaign is so toxic that sane people lay low.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 11, 2016, 05:52:36 PMMy sister, a fan of the novels of Patrick O'Brian, has an "Aubrey-Maturin 2016" sticker on her car.
Now that's a ticket I could get behind unequivocally!
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 11, 2016, 05:52:36 PM
Anecdotal but interesting: the only voters I know who have definitely committed to Trump are immigrants.
We know more native-born
Tuperos, perhaps, but he also has strong support in the ex-pat Russian Jewish community here.
(It may seem that I said that only to make
snypsss suffer, but it is true.)
What planet do these people inhabit?
Trump surrogate said Clinton can't complain about his sexist comments because she likes Beyoncé (http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/11/13241452/trump-clinton-beyonce)
This is probably the most savagely cutting, well-written thing that I've read about how we got to Trump.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/10/11/trump-the-gop-and-the-fall/
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 12, 2016, 02:55:29 AM
What planet do these people inhabit?
Trump surrogate said Clinton can't complain about his sexist comments because she likes Beyoncé (http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/11/13241452/trump-clinton-beyonce)
A planet where they think a rude word is the problem, not what the word was used to convey.
Honestly, there's something deeply clueless about thinking that everything would have been fine if only Trump had used a medical doctor's term for the female genital area.
The delusion is on a grand scale. Anything remotely negative about Clinton is a cue for the Lock her up! chant.
But El Tupé is the golden boy. He could rape a model in broad daylight on W 46th Street, and his supporters will say, But he's not Clinton; he's got my vote.
(That's a joke, of course. El Tupé would never be caught outside of a limo on W 46th Street.)
Yeah well. Beyonce's last two albums have stunned me and radically expanded my musical horizons, so I'm instinctively biased against such a petty criticism.
EDIT: I think I've just realised what I should be listening to this evening. Thanks, Obama!
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 11, 2016, 05:52:36 PM
The view from the ground
I wonder what people are seeing where they live, in terms of lawn signs, bumper stickers, and other expressions of support.
Ari Rabin-Havt, who hosts a program on the Sirius Progressive Channel, and who has worked for Media Matters, campaigns and on the staffs of Senator Harry Reid and Congressman Ted Strickland, is fond of saying "Yard signs don't vote".
Anyway, I've only noticed three: One for Hillary (in my own yard ;D), one for Trump on my route to work, and a neighbor across the street from me (a family of Vietnamese immigrants, FWIW) has this sign:
EVERYBODY SUCKS
WE'RE SCREWED
2016
I've not seen a whole lot of bumper stickers. One for Hillary (not counting my car which has "I'm with her" AND "Feel the Bern" magnets on it). None I can recall for Trump.
I live in the red state of Alabama, BTW. I usually see a lot more, especially pro-Republican.
There's an election here in the Australian Capital Territory this weekend. Very, very few signs in people's yards. But signs have been breeding along the main roads for weeks and I can't wait to be rid of them. Not least because most of them have the word "trams" on them. I am absolutely sick to death of hearing about trams. The first person who manages to get through a speech without mentioning trams will win my vote.
". . . And so I sort of get away with things like that." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/12/former-miss-arizona-trump-just-came-strolling-right-in-on-naked-contestants/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_mm-msarizona335am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote
EVERYBODY SUCKS
WE'RE SCREWED
2016
(http://internationaltimes.it/wp-content/uploads/vote+for+nobody.jpg)
Quote from: Florestan on October 12, 2016, 04:15:18 AM
(http://internationaltimes.it/wp-content/uploads/vote+for+nobody.jpg)
Well, sure, so long as you think they're all
equally bad and you're happy to abdicate the result to those that make a choice.
I've never understood this approach myself. Possibly that's because I'm Australian and so I'm used to compulsory voting, and also a Canberran and so naturally engaged in the political process as it's a major part of the city.
But to me there's a kind of fantasy element to it, a belief that somehow if a person doesn't vote, this prevents the result of an election impacting up on the person. Here in the real world, though, the outcome affects you whether you like/want the outcome or not. Someone's going to get the job. So the first choice to make is whether or not to have a say. Not having a say doesn't absolve you of living with the result.
The one thing that poster doesn't say, and can't say, is that
nobody will be elected. And that's the glaring omission.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 12, 2016, 04:27:53 AM
Well, sure, so long as you think they're all equally bad and you're happy to abdicate the result to those that make a choice.
I've never understood this approach myself. Possibly that's because I'm Australian and so I'm used to compulsory voting, and also a Canberran and so naturally engaged in the political process as it's a major part of the city.
But to me there's a kind of fantasy element to it, a belief that somehow if a person doesn't vote, this prevents the result of an election impacting up on the person. Here in the real world, though, the outcome affects you whether you like/want the outcome or not. Someone's going to get the job. So the first choice to make is whether or not to have a say. Not having a say doesn't absolve you of living with the result.
The one thing that poster doesn't say, and can't say, is that nobody will be elected. And that's the glaring omission.
Hey, that was just for fun, no need to take it that seriously, really. :D
We´ll have parliamentary elections coming December and I will surely vote. I haven´t decided yet for which party, but definitely not for any of the major parties. I am sick and tired of voting for the lesser evil, I will vote for what I think is the greater good even if it has no chance of getting into the Parliament, let alone winning the elections.
And btw, compulsory voting means that you only have to be physically present in the booth; nobody can prevent you for making your ballot null and void by voting for two or three parties simultaneously. And that is exactly what I would do each and every election if voting were compulsory in Romania. ;D
Yeah, I know what compulsory voting means. It still means the great majority of people cast a vote.
And as we have a preferential system, it also means those votes mean something. In the ACT election with multi-member electorates, even moreso.
"Democracy doesn't work unless you participate."
— Frank Zappa
Quote from: ørfeo on October 12, 2016, 04:52:35 AM
And as we have a preferential system, it also means those votes mean something. In the ACT election with multi-member electorates, even moreso.
In Romania you can vote for only one party. Voting for more than one means the ballot is null and void.
In a preferential system I would just write "Everybody sucks! Screw them all!" on the ballot. That will surely render it null and void, I presume. :D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 12, 2016, 05:18:40 AM
"Democracy doesn't work unless you participate."
— Frank Zappa
Making one´s ballot null and void is also a form of participation and of expressing one´s discontent and disagreement with the political establishment in its entirety. I suppose this is (still) allowed in a free country. :)
Quote from: Florestan on October 12, 2016, 05:28:41 AM
Making one´s ballot null and void is also a form of participation and of expressing one´s discontent and disagreement with the political establishment in its entirety. I suppose this is (still) allowed in a free country. :)
It's allowed.
I'm not really buying the "non-participation is still participation" argument.
So, of course, it's allowed. And I'm allowed to say that I think it pointless and potentially foolish.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 12, 2016, 05:58:51 AM
I'm not really buying the "non-participation is still participation" argument.
So, of course, it's allowed. And I'm allowed to say that I think it pointless and potentially foolish.
The way I see it, non-participation means staying at home and not showing up at the booth.
Hillary Clinton to Panicked Republicans: You're on Your Own (https://newrepublic.com/article/137729/hillary-clinton-panicked-republicans-youre)
Cute video of The Groper with baby. Almost makes him look half human:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/watch_trump_with_baby_trump_at_rally.html (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/watch_trump_with_baby_trump_at_rally.html)
Can't help but notice how white the audience is.
Quote from: Florestan on October 12, 2016, 05:28:41 AMMaking one´s ballot null and void is also a form of participation and of expressing one´s discontent and disagreement with the political establishment in its entirety. I suppose this is (still) allowed in a free country. :)
As far as I know, failing to mark the ballet would simply cause no vote to be registered, and statistically it would manifest itself as lower voter turnout. That is a sign of voter apathy and just allows the dominant parties to maintain their position with an even lower level of support from the electorate. The real way to make a protest vote is to vote for a minor party candidate (the Green party, the Libertarian party, the Communist party, etc). In the past third party candidates have drawn enough votes to tip the scales (Ralph Nader sapping Al Gore's support and Ross Perot arguably sapping George H. W. Bush support. In the distant past minor parties have even ascended to become dominant parties (the Republicans in the 19th century). More recently the "Independent Party" actually managed to elect some candidates before sputtering and dying.
What is hurting the U.S. is ever increasing voter cynicism and loss of faith in public institutions.
'FOBs': How Hillary's State Dept. Gave Special Attention to 'Friends of Bill' After Haiti Quake (https://gma.yahoo.com/fobs-hillarys-state-dept-gave-special-attention-friends-231800812--abc-news-topstories.html)
Quote from: Scarpia on October 12, 2016, 06:26:21 AM
As far as I know, failing to mark the ballet would simply cause no vote to be registered, and statistically it would manifest itself as lower voter turnout.
Here´s how things work in Romania.
If you decide to go to the booth, you must provide your ID on the spot in order to be given the ballot and the stamp. Once you provided your ID, you are automatically registered and counted in the turnout, irrespective whether you vote correctly by stamping one party only or render your ballot null and void by stamping more than one party. The null and void ballots are counted separately. Thus, one can finally have, say, 52% turnout, out of which 12% are null and void ballots.
QuoteThe real way to make a protest vote is to vote for a minor party candidate
I agree.
Just to be clear: I do not advocate non-participation or rendering one´s ballot null and void, but I understand perfectly the concerns and discontent of those who opt for either way and I think they are legitimate.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 12, 2016, 06:26:21 AM
What is hurting the U.S. is ever increasing voter cynicism and loss of faith in public institutions.
That´s actually a widespread phenomenon not limited tio the US. But these are the results of decades of bad policies, of politicians shamelessly lying in order to get themselves elected, of vested interest lobbying and bribing the politicians, of widespread, bi- or multi-partisan corruption and of the malfunctioning (as a result) of those institutions. Blaming it on the voters is reversing the cause and the effect.
Quote from: Florestan on October 12, 2016, 06:11:28 AM
The way I see it, non-participation means staying at home and not showing up at the booth.
Indeed.
Trump: murder is at a 45-year high. Actual statistics: that's not remotely true. (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/12/13255466/trump-murder-rate)
... to arrive at someone with a y chromosome you can feel sorry for.
http://www.youtube.com/v/GHt0vp07iwE
Quote from: drogulus on October 12, 2016, 06:13:32 AM
Hillary Clinton to Panicked Republicans: You're on Your Own (https://newrepublic.com/article/137729/hillary-clinton-panicked-republicans-youre)
Good article. Interesting. I particularly agree with the assertion that Trump and Republicans are naught more than
Doppelgängers, a Jekyll & Hyde of the same coin. Let them all go down together, we won't miss them.
8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 12, 2016, 07:32:46 AM
... to arrive at someone with a y chromosome you can feel sorry for.
http://www.youtube.com/v/GHt0vp07iwE
Love John Oliver; he is as fearless and straight as it gets, kinda like Jon Stewart without a bleep machine going. And he is oh so right.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 12, 2016, 07:53:14 AM
Good article. Interesting. I particularly agree with the assertion that Trump and Republicans are naught more than Doppelgängers, a Jekyll & Hyde of the same coin. Let them all go down together, we won't miss them.
8)
The so-called conservatives spew ideas that most of the country don't understand. They keep quoting the Constitution - written in a language a normal every day person does not comprehend, or the last so-called great Rep. President Ronald Reagan (whose presidency was some 35 yrs ago). No wonder this country is so out of touched with "conservatism". To most of Americans "fourscore and seven" is 35 pts in an NFL game.
Each day that goes by I'm less interested in how Repubs react to Trump. Pro-Trump, anti-Trump, voters, office holders, party officials, campaign functionaries, media allies, all of you are in my book injectors of poison now suffering the effects like the rest of us.
Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q?il=0)
(http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20161012&t=2&i=1157199691&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=780&pl=468&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC9B1GJ)
If you put it like that.....
In other news:
Trump: "I am not an elephant!"
Candidate claims membership in human species "going back decades".
For a somewhat different perspective.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
Quote from: ørfeo on October 12, 2016, 12:47:51 PM
For a somewhat different perspective.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
So redneck inbreds are Republicans and educated city dwellers are Democrats. Tell me something I don't know. If rural America is so great how come most people after they get an education couldn't wait to move out of there?
Jill Stein agrees with me on the extreme danger of Hillary:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html
"On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia."
Quote from: drogulus on October 12, 2016, 10:43:51 AM
Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q?il=0)
(http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20161012&t=2&i=1157199691&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=780&pl=468&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC9B1GJ)
If you put it like that.....
I've seen that idea from people who have been longtime conservatives.
One of the odder twists of this election is seeing the American rightwing claim the Democrat is too hawkish towards Putin, and that we should ally ourselves with the head of the KGB ( whatever its contemporary form may be) as he seeks to reconstitute the Russian, possibly the Soviet Empire.
This of course does not keep the same people from claiming Hillary is a Marxist.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 12, 2016, 06:28:47 PM
One of the odder twists of this election is seeing the American rightwing claim the Democrat is too hawkish towards Putin, and that we should ally ourselves with the head of the KGB ( whatever its contemporary form may be) as he seeks to reconstitute the Russian, possibly the Soviet Empire.
Oh please, not this canard again. I've been reading in Western media about Putin's supposed quest to "reconstitute the Russian Empire" since about 2003. Yet 13 years later, he is nowhere close to succeeding in this impossible quest. (Sort of like how Iran has been always a few months/years away from a nuclear bomb for the past 15 years or so.)
BTW, referring to Zhirinovsky as a "Putin ally" imputes to him greater significance than he actually has. He's really a kind of court jester; his job is to make inflammatory statements, and he's been doing it since he first came on the scene in the late 1980s.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 12, 2016, 06:46:49 PM
Oh please, not this canard again. I've been reading in Western media about Putin's supposed quest to "reconstitute the Russian Empire" since about 2003. Yet 13 years later, he is nowhere close to succeeding in this impossible quest. (Sort of like how Iran has been always a few months/years away from a nuclear bomb for the past 15 years or so.)
BTW, referring to Zhirinovsky as a "Putin ally" imputes to him greater significance than he actually has. He's really a kind of court jester; his job is to make inflammatory statements, and he's been doing it since he first came on the scene in the late 1980s.
Not all quests succeed. But it seems a very accurate summary of his foreign policies.
Mind you, the idea that we should not oppose him has some points in its favor.
Nor do I think we are very much in danger from a nuclear war under either Clinton or Trump.
But the Green Party candidate is continuing a leftist tradition, now almost a century old, of being dovish to Russia.
No, the surreal element comes from the fact that being dovish towards Russia is an idea taking root among the American Right.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 12, 2016, 06:46:49 PM
Oh please, not this canard again. I've been reading in Western media about Putin's supposed quest to "reconstitute the Russian Empire" since about 2003. Yet 13 years later, he is nowhere close to succeeding in this impossible quest. (Sort of like how Iran has been always a few months/years away from a nuclear bomb for the past 15 years or so.)
BTW, referring to Zhirinovsky as a "Putin ally" imputes to him greater significance than he actually has. He's really a kind of court jester; his job is to make inflammatory statements, and he's been doing it since he first came on the scene in the late 1980s.
Yes, I understand his role, but it's not primarily court jester. He's the leader of one of the tame "opposition" parties. His job is to make Putin look good and promote the illusion of democratic process.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 12, 2016, 07:02:01 PM
Not all quests succeed. But it seems a very accurate summary of his foreign policies.
I don't want to derail this thread into an in-depth discussion of post-Soviet politics, but I do have one question for you, re: the belief that Putin's goal is to rebuild the Russian Empire or USSR.
In 2008, Russia engaged Georgia in a brief war. The Georgian army was totally defeated, and NATO was not going to come to their rescue. Georgia isn't a NATO country anyway, so it could expect no help from that alliance.
At that point, Russia could have easily occupied and absorbed all of Georgia. It would have been the ideal place to begin the rebuilding of the USSR in earnest.
Why didn't they do it?And here we are, 8 years later, and Georgia is still an independent country.
QuoteMind you, the idea that we should not oppose him has some points in its favor.
Indeed, but you state above that the "American rightwing" says we should
ally with Putin. Some people are saying that, but it's still a very fringe position. More common is to support neutrality, or at least not openly antagonizing or provoking Russia.
QuoteBut the Green Party candidate is continuing a leftist tradition, now almost a century old, of being dovish to Russia.
But the reasoning now is very different. Ideological support of the Soviet Union, which used to animate sectors of the left, is long gone.
Quote from: drogulus on October 12, 2016, 07:27:19 PM
Yes, I understand his role, but it's not primarily court jester. He's the leader of one of the tame "opposition" parties. His job is to make Putin look good and promote the illusion of democratic process.
The real opposition party in Russia is the Communist Party. This is rarely mentioned in English-language media, but they usually come second in elections.
Nobody in Russia takes Zhirinovsky's party (ludicrously misnamed the Liberal Democratic Party) seriously.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 12, 2016, 02:29:06 PM
So redneck inbreds are Republicans and educated city dwellers are Democrats. Tell me something I don't know. If rural America is so great how come most people after they get an education couldn't wait to move out of there?
If that's what you took out of the article, I suggest you read it again. Properly.
For starters, if you actually read the article you'd already know many of the reasons why people move. A serious lack of economic activity and job opportunity.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 12, 2016, 07:53:14 AM
Good article. Interesting. I particularly agree with the assertion that Trump and Republicans are naught more than Doppelgängers, a Jekyll & Hyde of the same coin. Let them all go down together, we won't miss them.
I agree that the GOP have dug this grave themselves; right now Trump looks like an Independent hijacking the party, but the biggest difference he plainly says the things the classic GOP representatives suggested.
For instance Pence in Iowa, to the upset woman who talked about a revolution should it turn out Clinton gets elected. Pense talked about closely watching for voter fraud at a state level, Indiana, Iowa, etc.
There is no evidence whatsoever of voter fraud in the sense of people (read: black people) voting mutiple times. But that was what Pence (posing as Mr Squeaky Clean) was suggesting.
He couldn't bring himself to do what McCain did, eight years ago, when a similarly deluded audience member siad that Obama was "an Arab". Gently, but roundly dismiss that thought.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 12, 2016, 07:53:14 AM
Let them all go down together, we won't miss them.
But on the other hand, it is a yuge problem if in the world's one remaining democratic superpower one of two parties is so dysfunctional that it can be hijacked by a millionaire tv-star, and nobody's stopping him.
It doesn't even look like anyone in the GOP is thinking how to proceed Nov 9; all they're doing is taking turns "Me No Trump" and the opposite the next day.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 12, 2016, 07:34:26 PM
Nobody in Russia takes Zhirinovsky's party (ludicrously misnamed the Liberal Democratic Party) seriously.
I actually read a book written by Zhirinovsky once (in 1997 I think). Something about how Russia needed to march southward to the sea (Persian Gulf? Indian Ocean?) to restore order.
Maybe that's how Putin sees the Syria operation?
Fascinating stuff.
Not.
I think it may be splitting hairs to say that Putin cannot make Russia into USSR 2.0. The important points as I see them are that Putin is in effect a quasi-Stalin autocrat, only this time with some of the trappings of democracy; and Russia remains a nuclear power. It were foolhardy to dismiss the potential hazards.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 12, 2016, 07:34:26 PM
The real opposition party in Russia is the Communist Party. This is rarely mentioned in English-language media, but they usually come second in elections.
Nobody in Russia takes Zhirinovsky's party (ludicrously misnamed the Liberal Democratic Party) seriously.
I didn't say the Liberal Democrats were a serious opposition party, I said they were not. Zhirinovsky is being used to make Putin seem reasonable by comparison, and to send a message that's too hot for Putin to deliver himself.
Sad.
Trump's lawyer sends laughable letter to the NY Times calling for retraction of sexual assault story
The legal threat seems to be an intimidation tactic, but it could backfire. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/13/13268336/trump-letter-new-york-times)
There are vast differences between american and russian world views and the means they put in place to achieve their goals.
The USA has lots of trouble assembling a coherent picture of the world. Plain ignorance borne of centuries of political isolationism precludes the gathering and the understanding of historic tendencies and up to date info. Case in point: a candidate to the election cannot name a single foreign head of state. Just ask Trump to name 5 (just 5) of the former USSR republics. Just ask any university graduate to name the second largest city of Germany, France or the UK. And we're not in Asia or Africa yet. The basic info is not there.
American diplomacy has no long term view whatsoever. None at all. What they do is purely an action/reaction reflex, inasmuch as the USA is itself concerned, and only in that case. Reaction (bomb, invade, then pull out) followed by zero planning for the aftermath. Most Americans have no collective global memory. They know their own history, but are clueless about the rest of the world.
Russia OTOH does have long term perspectives. Theirs is a very, very patient people (so are the Chinese), who have been around for centuries, if not millenia, surrounded by vast spaces (countries) with a constant history of playing with borders to protect their people and expand its zone of influence. They never make a move out of political principle alone. There has to be a long term geopolitical advantage. Ukraine and the Crimea are a case in point. It's only a question of time before they move toward the Baltic. If you know old folks of estonian, latvian or lituanian origin (I do), just ask them how they feel about their homeland. It will be 2 minutes in the conversation and they will mention that you can never trust the Russians. "Just wait...". Their concern stems from centuries of collective historic memory.
The making of USSR 2.0, as Karl puts it, is a mattter of time. It may not be around the corner, but they are patient.
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 13, 2016, 04:39:24 AM
I actually read a book written by Zhirinovsky once (in 1997 I think). Something about how Russia needed to march southward to the sea (Persian Gulf? Indian Ocean?) to restore order.
Maybe that's how Putin sees the Syria operation?
Fascinating stuff.
Not.
Putin has his Black Sea port, and has reinforced Tartus on the Mediterranean. His goal is to restore the Russian empire. It will have Romanov and Soviet features.
1721 After defeating Sweden, Russia gains control of Estonia, Livonia and Ingria. Tsar Peter I (later known as Peter the Great) is proclaimed as the first Emperor of all Russia
1772 The First Partition of Poland sees almost a third of Poland divided between Prussia, Austria and Russia. The full partition of Poland was completed by 1795.
1799 The Russian American Company is founded, and begins constructing settlements in North America, particularly in Alaska and California.
1809 The Finnish War concludes, and Sweden cedes Finland to the Russian Empire.
The goal of warm water ports that has animated Russian policy since Peter the Great has been realized.
Quote from: André on October 13, 2016, 05:40:55 AM
If you know old folks of estonian, latvian or lituanian origin (I do), just ask them how they feel about their homeland. It will be 2 minutes in the conversation and they will mention that you can never trust the Russians. "Just wait...". Their concern stems from centuries of collective historic memory.
As Romanian, I fully confirm this.
He said, we said
For 16 months, Washington Post columnists and contributors have been making the case against Donald Trump. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/opinions/2016/10/13/the-closing-argument-against-donald-trump/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.683d4837168a) [By simply reporting exactly what he has said, in many cases.]
Just to help continue the tangent...
A key aspect of the Soviet Union is that many Russians were moved to the satellite republics. I say "were moved" because I'm not sure how much say individuals ever had in the move.
But the overall result was quite deliberate. Regions that were not "Russia" ended up with very sizeable Russian populations. And those populations are still there after the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Estonia is 25% Russian, compared to 8% in the 1920s.
The fundamental reason Ukraine has been tearing itself apart is because Eastern Ukraine isn't ethnically Ukrainian, it's evenly divided ethnically and linguistically Russian predominates.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 13, 2016, 06:04:26 AM
A key aspect of the Soviet Union is that many Russians were moved to the satellite republics. I say "were moved" because I'm not sure how much say individuals ever had in the move.
But the overall result was quite deliberate. Regions that were not "Russia" ended up with very sizeable Russian populations. And those populations are still there after the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Estonia is 25% Russian, compared to 8% in the 1920s.
Exactly. And at the same time Russians were "moved in", the natives were "moved out". To be fair, though, that policy was initiated during the Tsars. Stalin only perfected it.
This is the main reason I reject sternly any suggestion of Republic of Moldavia being reunited with Romania and in the improbable case of a referendum I will vote against it: incorporating a sizeable Russian population into the Romanian state would be sheer, suicidal folly.
Quote from: Herman on October 13, 2016, 02:01:58 AM
There is no evidence whatsoever of voter fraud in the sense of people (read: black people) voting mutiple times. But that was what Pence (posing as Mr Squeaky Clean) was suggesting.
He couldn't bring himself to do what McCain did, eight years ago, when a similarly deluded audience member siad that Obama was "an Arab". Gently, but roundly dismiss that thought.
Exactly, Trump's gang and the so-called "conservatives" (not that they have anything in common really) chalks everything up to a liberal conspiracy: the cards are stacked against them from the start, they are misquoted, people just "had it in" for them etc. it is pretty tedious.
Trump and those die-hard nuts that support him are constantly looking for people to blame. Factories are closing and moving overseas. Well it must be because Mexicans are taking over all the jobs. Accept it: jobs are going overseas and no matter who is president they are NEVER coming back, deal it with ! All Muslims are terrorists until proven innocent (the bit during the debate when El Groper lectures the Muslim woman about how she needs to tell on her neighbor is both scary and bizarre. They are angry and are looking for scapegoats. The man just spews venom whereever he goes, instigating hate, it is tough to watch.
Quote from: André on October 13, 2016, 05:40:55 AM
The making of USSR 2.0, as Karl puts it, is a mattter of time. It may not be around the corner, but they are patient.
Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2016, 05:50:22 AM
As Romanian, I fully confirm this.
Would either of you guys like to take a stab at answering the question I posed to Jeffrey in post #5286?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 13, 2016, 05:02:43 AM
I think it may be splitting hairs to say that Putin cannot make Russia into USSR 2.0. The important points as I see them are that Putin is in effect a quasi-Stalin autocrat, only this time with some of the trappings of democracy; and Russia remains a nuclear power. It were foolhardy to dismiss the potential hazards.
Actually, the current model is very like that of long-lasting technically democratic states where there is only one party that counts: Mexico under the PRI, Japan under the LDP, or Singapore under the PAP. Other parties exist, but they play the role of spoilers or window-dressing. Another analogy is with US urban machine politics, but on a much bigger scale.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 13, 2016, 07:22:22 AM
Would either of you guys like to take a stab at answering the question I posed to Jeffrey in post #5286?
Which part ?
Quote from: André on October 13, 2016, 07:37:39 AM
Which part ?
In brief: if Russia is so keen to recreate the USSR, why didn't it take over Georgia when it had the chance?
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 13, 2016, 07:39:15 AM
In brief: if Russia is so keen to recreate the USSR, why didn't it take over Georgia when it had the chance?
Who said it didn't? A tame pet regime for a nominally independent country is much better PR than actually taking full possession.
Notice that Russia openly intervened in Ukraine only when the pet regime in place there lost power.
If you read this exceedingly well written account of the Georgia-Russia War, on Wikipedia,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
[url][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War/url]
you will find the answer(s). Read in particular the sections relating to "Russian interests and involvement", "Aftermath", and the "Geopolitical impact". You can skip the overlong battle by battle recension.
Russian president Medvedev declared: "the peace-enforcement operation has achieved its goal; security for peacekeepers and civilians has been restored. The agressor was punished, suffering huge losses". This had been preceded by the so-called "passportization" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two autonomous regions within the republic of Georgia, and their subsequent removal from Georgia.
In other words, Russia has surgically excised two regions from the republic of Georgia, which were instantly recognized by Russia as independent states. Goal achieved, the West applauds.
Read in particular the section on geopolitical impacts. It couldn't be more simply put.
Both of you are missing the point. "Recreating the USSR or Russian Empire" means recreating the USSR or Russian Empire (i.e. a single state). I submit that is the most likely impression it creates in the mind of a listener.
It doesn't mean "being surrounded by non-threatening states that aren't members of a hostile military alliance." That sounds a lot less sinister, which is why lines like "Putin wants to recreate the USSR" are essentially a form of scaremongering.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 13, 2016, 08:15:31 AM
Both of you are missing the point. "Recreating the USSR or Russian Empire" means recreating the USSR or Russian Empire (i.e. a single state). I submit that is the most likely impression it creates in the mind of a listener.
It doesn't mean "being surrounded by non-threatening states that aren't members of a hostile military alliance." That sounds a lot less sinister, which is why lines like "Putin wants to recreate the USSR" are essentially a form of scaremongering.
Soviet empire means subservient states surrounding the dominant country. Like Poland, etc. during the Cold War.
And the only reason NATO would be hostile to Russia is if Russia was being aggressive to its neighbors.
But that is what Putin wants. He is the one stirring up hostility and aggression.
Archaic Torso: You miss the geopolitical implications of the Medvedev doctrine and the fact that the total or partial russification of practically all neighboring states is the logical step toward a future military move. The West's non response to this clearly stated doctrine is the greatest threat the neighbouring countries have to fear. As I said earlier, the russians are very patient. They slowly, methodically place their pieces on the chessboard. A chess game takes longer than a video game.
I suggest you read that setion of the wiki article.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 13, 2016, 08:21:34 AM
Soviet empire means subservient states surrounding the dominant country. Like Poland, etc. during the Cold War.
And the only reason NATO would be hostile to Russia is if Russia was being aggressive to its neighbors.
But that is what Putin wants. He is the one stirring up hostility and aggression.
How do you suppose our leaders in Washington would react if Canada or Mexico joined a military alliance led by Russia or China?
Would they perceive it as hostile, or just local folks being friendly?
Here is an extract from that sub section of the 2008 Russo-georgian war on Wikipedia.
The war in Georgia showed Russia's assertiveness in revising international relations and undermining the hegemony of the United States. Shortly after the war, Russian president Medvedev unveiled a five-point Russian foreign policy. The Medvedev Doctrine stated that "protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country". The presence of Russian citizens in foreign countries would form a doctrinal foundation for invasion if needed. Medvedev's statement that there were areas in which Russia had "privileged interests", underlined Russia's particular interest in the former Soviet Union and the fact that Russia would feel endangered by subversion of local pro-Russian regimes.
This is just to facilitate the understanding of a very complex politic-military operation. The whole thing is really worth reading.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 13, 2016, 08:31:01 AM
How do you suppose our leaders in Washington would react if Canada or Mexico joined a military alliance led by Russia or China?
Would they perceive it as hostile, or just local folks being friendly?
If this is supposed to work as an analogy for the Baltic States, Poland and Romania joining NATO, itr is both flawed and disingenuous. After centuries of experiencing Russian imperalism and aggression, ranging from excissing parts of their territory to militarily occupying and ruling them, from interfering directly into the workings of their legislative bodies to crushing national liberation uprisings , from wiping them off the map enitrely to turning them into puppet states and anything in between, those countries (rightly) saw in joining NATO the big opportunity for, and the only way towards, being at long last safe, at least theoretically, from Russian depredations. It was emphatically not an act of aggression (it si precisely Russia, whether in the disguise of the Russian Empire or the USSR, that has always been the aggressor) but a defensive one.
Frankly, I am surprised you can buy the shameful Russian propaganda, which is exactly like an inveterate rapist complaining that his former victims being put under direct police protection means they harbor hostile intentions towards him.
Quote from: Florestan on October 13, 2016, 08:55:28 AM
If this is supposed to work as an analogy for the Baltic States, Poland and Romania joining NATO, itr is both flawed and disingenuous.
We've been over this before, so I'll just reiterate my belief that NATO should have been closed down in the 1990s, and that it was a possibly fatal mistake to expand it, and for the USA to be involved in defending an ever expanding list of client states.
The analogy is not as flawed as you think - Latin American countries have suffered much from US meddling over the centuries; I can understand why they would want to join such an alliance. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
"Trump has become a hate word"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/us/midwest-trump-school-chants/
This happened months ago but somehow, I had not seen any mention of such things. Disturbing.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 13, 2016, 09:05:25 AM
We've been over this before, so I'll just reiterate my belief that NATO should have been closed down in the 1990s, and that it was a possibly fatal mistake to expand it, and for the USA to be involved in defending an ever expanding list of client states.
The analogy is not as flawed as you think - Latin American countries have suffered much from US meddling over the centuries; I can understand why they would want to join such an alliance. Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
There is such an organization, the OAS.
Of which the US is a leading member.
But US meddling in Latin America is, while not trivial, far less than Russian meddling in East Europe.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 13, 2016, 09:15:07 AM
There is such an organization, the OAS.
Of which the US is a leading member.
Yes, but it's not actually a military alliance, is it?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 13, 2016, 09:15:07 AM
But US meddling in Latin America is, while not trivial, far less than Russian meddling in East Europe.
I think that's disputable. Just for reference purposes, I'll put this list here. It stops in 1996, because that's when it was compiled:
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html
Lawd, but he really is a train-wreck topped with a hairpiece:
Trump: I didn't sexually assault a People magazine reporter, because "look at her" (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/13/13272920/trump-sexual-assault-natasha-stoynoff)
The Selective Moral Outrage of the Left
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/selective-moral-outrage-left/)
The Fact-Checkers Keep Destroying Fact-Checking (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-fact-checkers-keep-destroying-fact-checking/article/2604163?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20From&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20From%20-%2010/10/16&utm_medium=email)
Media Abandons Its Integrity to Take Down Trump (http://nypost.com/2016/10/11/the-new-york-times-abandoned-its-integrity-just-to-bash-donald-trump/)
Rape Victim: Hillary Clinton Laughed at Me for Getting Raped (http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/rape-victim-hillary-clinton-laughed-blamed-getting-raped/)
Obama Lied. My Third Health Plan Just Died (http://obama%20lied.%20my%20third%20health%20plan%20just%20died)
Gowdy to Comey: You Have Five Immunity Agreements and No Prosecution, "That's Not The FBI That I Used To Work For" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/28/gowdy_to_comey_you_have_five_immunity_agreements_and_no_prosecution_thats_not_the_fbi_that_i_used_to_work_for.html)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 10:05:06 AM
The Selective Moral Outrage of the Left
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/selective-moral-outrage-left/)
This is actually a double-edged sword. If one argues against Bill Clinton here, where is the argument for giving El Tupé a pass?
So, which side of the political spectrum is being selective, again?
And since Bill Clinton isn't running for President, remind us all of the relevance?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Rape Victim: Hillary Clinton Laughed at Me for Getting Raped (http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/rape-victim-hillary-clinton-laughed-blamed-getting-raped/)
snopes.com is our friend (http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/)Which, under the circumstances, makes your link to a fact-checking piece something of an irony, yes?
Can't speak for others, but my chief problem with Russia is the simple fact that it basically became an ugly dictatorship again. I'm at peace with the fact that the world is run by superpowers who look after their interests, but I prefer my superpower democratic. America is far from nice & peachy, but Russia mutated back into something I abhor. From the oppression of both the free press and political opposition to the persecution of gays, that's not a country I want to see interfering with global affairs, simple as that.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 13, 2016, 10:14:41 AM
snopes.com is our friend (http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/)
Which, under the circumstances, makes your link to a fact-checking piece something of an irony, yes?
Trump is wrong: Hillary Clinton did not laugh about the rape of a 12-year-old By Zack Stanton
| 10/09/16 09:25 PM EDT
"Her client she represented got him off and she is seen laughing on two occasions laughing at the girl who was raped." — Donald Trump
It is totally false to say that Hillary Clinton laughed about the rape of a 12-year-old. And it has been thoroughly debunked. In 1975, Hillary Rodham was a young attorney when a criminal court judge appointed her to defend an indigent man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. In her memoir, Living History, Clinton wrote that she "really didn't feel comfortable taking on such a client, but [the prosecutor] reminded me that I couldn't very well refuse the judge's request."
In the 1980s, Arkansas journalist Roy Reed interviewed Hillary Clinton about the case, recording their conversation on tapes for a magazine story than never ultimately was published. In the recordings, there are spots where Clinton chuckles — but never about the central thrust of the case. At one point, recounting that her client passed a polygraph test, she chuckles while saying that it "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."
You can listen to the tape here.
Before the debate, Trump held an unusual press conference with three women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct ranging from harassment to assault to outright rape. Juanita Broaddrick alleges that Bill Clinton raped her when he was running for Arkansas attorney general in 1978. Paula Jones sued Clinton for allegedly exposing himself to her in a hotel room in 1991. The Jones suit, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, was ultimately dismissed by a judge on the grounds Jones could not show damages. While it was on appeal, Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to settle the suit without admitting liability.
The Jones case revealed his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and Clinton's decision to lie under oath about Lewinsky in the proceedings ultimately led to Clinton's impeachment by a Republican-controlled House, and acquittal by the Senate.
Kathleen Willey claims Clinton forcefully kissed her and groped her in the Oval Office in 1993.
Bill Clinton has denied the claims, and no charges were brought in any of the cases. Jones, Broaddrick, and Willey say Hillary Clinton was complicit in her husband's actions because she denied their stories or threatened them.
Also joining Trump was Kathy Shelton, who was the 12-year-old victim in a rape case in Arkansas in 1975. As the court-appointed defense attorney for the alleged perpetrator, Hillary Clinton pressed for a psychiatric exam of Shelton and won a plea bargain in which her client pled to a reduced charge. Clinton has said she had a professional duty to vigorously defend her client.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/10/trump-is-wrong-hillary-clinton-did-not-laugh-about-the-rape-of-a-12-year-old-229455#ixzz4MzUujuuf (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/10/trump-is-wrong-hillary-clinton-did-not-laugh-about-the-rape-of-a-12-year-old-229455#ixzz4MzUujuuf)
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 13, 2016, 10:15:39 AM
Can't speak for others, but my chief problem with Russia is the simple fact that it basically became an ugly dictatorship again. I'm at peace with the fact that the world is run by superpowers who look after their interests, but I prefer my superpower democratic.
On the other hand, liberal and/or democratic states are often very aggressive and imperialistic. A survey of European or American history makes this clear.
If my entire family has been incinerated by a drone strike, I'm probably not going to be comforted by the fact that the country that killed them holds somewhat competitive elections from time to time.
Democracy is better than dictatorship, but it's no guarantee of a sensible or peaceful foreign policy.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 13, 2016, 10:25:34 AM
Democracy is better than dictatorship, but it's no guarantee of a sensible or peaceful foreign policy.
True enow.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 13, 2016, 10:12:29 AM
This is actually a double-edged sword. If one argues against Bill Clinton here, where is the argument for giving El Tupé a pass?
So, which side of the political spectrum is being selective, again?
And since Bill Clinton isn't running for President, remind us all of the relevance?
Yes, we keep hearing this: it's an example of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy. "Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)". In other words, to suggest that what Trump has done isn't culpable because Bill Clinton is guilty of the same thing. (As was JFK.) But so what? As KH reminds us, Bill is not running, and what's more the temper of the country has changed since those times, those vulgar towards women are less likely to get the free ride they might have even a decade ago.
But the latest I'm hearing from the Twitterspace is that some of Trump's followers are now urging a repeal of the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage). Good luck with that. Ah, that US Constitution; we all love it so long as we ignore what it actually says.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 13, 2016, 10:12:29 AM
This is actually a double-edged sword. If one argues against Bill Clinton here, where is the argument for giving El Tupé a pass?
So, which side of the political spectrum is being selective, again?
And since Bill Clinton isn't running for President, remind us all of the relevance?
First of all, Trump has not been accused of raping anyone.
Secondly, the major media is going all out with attacking Trump on the groping issue (even going back 30 years) and ignoring the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton who did not consider Bill's sexual assaults disqualifying behavior for either the presidency or as husband.
Thirdly, the media, while they focus on discrepancies in Trump's story, do precious few stories on the lies Hillary has told and continues to tell concerning her emails/server/cover-up and the discrepancy between her secret language to donors as opposed to her public statements to voters.
For every one story the WPost or NYT or CNN may do on the WikiLeaks they run ten or more on Trump's tape or "bimbo eruptions" - a phrase Hillary coined to ridicule Bill's victims. Also, Bill's victims were all "Friends of Bill" who morphed from fundraisers and campaign volunteers into members in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" by Hillary - another bit of abuse the victims were treated to at the hands of one of the Clintons. This aspect is a non-story for the major media.
In their zeal to sink Trump the press has abandoned its journalistic integrity. In the process our society has lost a necessary element of our political process - the 4th estate. It has been going on for decades but this year it has reached its zenith of partisan bias. I know the Democrats lampoon the idea of a Liberal press. It is hard to give up such an ally, and much easier to simply deny it while suppressing a grin.
Thomas Jefferson believed that America's democracy could only work with a free press. Of course he never imagined a press actively siding with one party over the other and offering a biased view to the electorate in order to help elect one candidate.
Wait, what is this about Hillary's emails? I haven't heard about them, probably because the media haven't written about it enough.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 13, 2016, 09:22:03 AM
Yes, but it's not actually a military alliance, is it?
Yes, it is.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 10:41:57 AM
Thomas Jefferson believed that America's democracy could only work with a free press. Of course he never imagined a press actively siding with one party over the other and offering a biased view to the electorate in order to help elect one candidate.
He assumed that a free press would be biased because that was what saw all around him. I guess he didn't count bias as an argument against press freedom.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 10:41:57 AM
First of all, Trump has not been accused of raping anyone.
Frankly, it's only a matter of time.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 10:41:57 AM
For every one story the WPost or NYT or CNN may do on the WikiLeaks they run ten or more on Trump's tape or "bimbo eruptions" - a phrase Hillary coined to ridicule Bill's victims.
And that has a lot to do with economics, not bias. Many of the most damning policy arguments are boring to the average TV viewer, compared to, well, sex.
For example - just sticking to Trump - in recent days he has said that the US should have allowed Serbia to continue its genocide (edit: he now says that interview was a hoax); that the Central Park Five were guilty; that he wants the Republican Party to tell him the questions before the next debate; and that Hillary is conspiring "with international banks to plot the destruction" of American sovereignty. Also, Trump appears to use his charitable "foundation" as an illegal tax evasion scheme. But those stories aren't getting the same traction in the mass media because clicks and sex.
Oh, and by the way, WaPo and NYT ran WikiLeaks stories at the top of their front pages.
Quote from: North Star on October 13, 2016, 10:49:43 AM
Wait, what is this about Hillary's emails? I haven't heard about them, probably because the media haven't written about it enough.
Yours is typical of the kind of response one has come to expect from Democrats/Liberals. Right, you can act like the NYT, WPost and CNN have covered the issue fairly. While they did run one story when the Inspector General and FBI reports were released the majority of their stories are written attempting to minimize her culpability and blaming the bru-ha-ha on a right-wing obsession.
All of the analysis of what she did and the coverup has been provided by the Wall Street Journal, National Review (both of which were vocally anti-Trump), and Fox. Yes, right leaning media (if you counted up major media, you could find dozens of Liberal leaning for those three). But if not for their coverage they would be no clear-eyed critical repotage on Servergate.
Quote from: drogulus on October 13, 2016, 10:58:26 AM
Yes, it is.
Or maybe not. Perhaps it depends on how you define it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/30/map-the-u-s-is-bound-by-treaties-to-defend-a-quarter-of-humanity/#comments
"While clearly defense-orientated pacts such as NATO or bilateral agreements are included, the Organization of American States (OAS) also features, even though the OAS is rarely considered a defense pact"
The article is quite interesting, BTW.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 11:06:53 AM
Yours is typical of the kind of response one has come to expect from Democrats/Liberals. Right, you can act like the NYT, WPost and CNN have covered the issue fairly. While they did run one story when the Inspector General and FBI reports were released the majority of their stories are written attempting to minimize her culpability and blaming the bru-ha-ha on a right-wing obsession.
All of the analysis of what she did and the coverup has been provided by the Wall Street Journal, National Review (both of which were vocally anti-Trump), and Fox. Yes, right leaning media (if you counted up major media, you could find dozens of Liberal leaning for those three). But if not for their coverage they would be no clear-eyed critical repotage on Servergate.
This is false. The email server story was originally broken by the NY Times on March 2, 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0
Quote from: André on October 13, 2016, 05:40:55 AM
American diplomacy has no long term view whatsoever. None at all. What they do is purely an action/reaction reflex, inasmuch as the USA is itself concerned, and only in that case. Reaction (bomb, invade, then pull out) followed by zero planning for the aftermath. Most Americans have no collective global memory. They know their own history, but are clueless about the rest of the world.
Generally agree, except for the part about knowing our own history.
Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2016, 11:06:37 AM
Frankly, it's only a matter of time.
For example - just sticking to Trump - in recent days he has said that the US should have allowed Serbia to continue its genocide (edit: he now says that interview was a hoax); that the Central Park Five were guilty; that he wants the Republican Party to tell him the questions before the next debate; and that Hillary is conspiring "with international banks to plot the destruction" of American sovereignty. Also, Trump appears to use his charitable "foundation" as an illegal tax evasion scheme. But those stories aren't getting the same traction in the mass media because clicks and sex.
Trump is truly unhinged thinking he has nothing to lose, except the election of course. The guy never had a clue as to how to present himself as a presidential candidate, no sense of how to frame the issues. He tendancy is to go for the sensational as opposed to a sober presentation of what he would do as president. That's way to boring for a wild and crazy guy like him, who just wants execise his right to party.
All true.
But it does not release the press from doing a responsible job of covering Hillary's potential for abuse of power as president.
Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2016, 11:08:57 AM
This is false. The email server story was originally broken by the NY Times on March 2, 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0
As I said, the NYT and other media has reported the story but most of their coverage ever since has been to shield Hillary from the worst of the fallout.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 10:41:57 AM
First of all, Trump has not been accused of raping anyone.
Wrong.
Quote from: Pat B on October 13, 2016, 11:10:19 AM
Generally agree, except for the part about knowing our own history.
Also, the fatal error of thinking that everyone wants to be like us.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 11:16:10 AM
As I said, the NYT and other media has reported the story but most of their coverage ever since has been to shield Hillary from the worst of the fallout.
Ugh. They BROKE the story. They MADE it. They researched and investigated and tracked it down when nobody else knew it existed. That is the exact opposite of shielding. They have doggedly pursued it ever since.
There are two reasons you think they are "shielding" Hillary:
1. the email scandal turned out less horrible than you think
2. the dozens of Trump scandals turned out, often, more horrible than the email scandal
Quote from: drogulus on October 13, 2016, 10:58:26 AMHe assumed that a free press would be biased because that was what saw all around him. I guess he didn't count bias as an argument against press freedom.
Seconding this remark. I don't know much about the 18th century, but in the 19th century, it was expected that newspapers would be openly partisan. I think part of the problem with the current society is that the partisanship of Fox News, etc. is NOT openly declared and they pretend to be impartial.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 13, 2016, 10:25:34 AMIf my entire family has been incinerated by a drone strike, I'm probably not going to be comforted by the fact that the country that killed them holds somewhat competitive elections from time to time.
Democracy is better than dictatorship, but it's no guarantee of a sensible or peaceful foreign policy.
No argument from me there and this is exactly the area that's very problematic for me regarding Hillary. But I still believe she'll surround herself with competent people who give actual, honest thought to the impact of US intervention, and that her perceived 'hawkishness' will be softened by that.
Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2016, 11:21:06 AM
Ugh. They BROKE the story. They MADE it. They researched and investigated and tracked it down when nobody else knew it existed. That is the exact opposite of shielding. They have doggedly pursued it ever since.
There are two reasons you think they are "shielding" Hillary:
1. the email scandal turned out less horrible than you think
2. the dozens of Trump scandals turned out, often, more horrible than the email scandal
I think doggedly pursuing is an exaggeration. From what I've seen they have tried to minimize its significance ever since Comey's report came out. Also, while obnoxxious and boorish and possible rising to the level of sexual assault, nothing Trump has been accused of doing or is on tape saying rise to the level of a security threat to this country.
Here's Comey:
Quotelthough we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later "up-classified" e-mails).
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account.
You may not remember Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program. He was referred to in several emails by her top advisers as "our friend". Later he was executed for treason by Iran.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 10:41:57 AM
First of all, Trump has not been accused of raping anyone.
Secondly, the major media is going all out with attacking Trump on the groping issue (even going back 30 years) and ignoring the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton who did not consider Bill's sexual assaults disqualifying behavior for either the presidency or as husband.
Thirdly, the media, while they focus on discrepancies in Trump's story, do precious few stories on the lies Hillary has told and continues to tell concerning her emails/server/cover-up and the discrepancy between her secret language to donors as opposed to her public statements to voters.
For every one story the WPost or NYT or CNN may do on the WikiLeaks they run ten or more on Trump's tape or "bimbo eruptions" - a phrase Hillary coined to ridicule Bill's victims. Also, Bill's victims were all "Friends of Bill" who morphed from fundraisers and campaign volunteers into members in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" by Hillary - another bit of abuse the victims were treated to at the hands of one of the Clintons. This aspect is a non-story for the major media.
And how are you aware of all these matters if not for the media you profess to despise?
Quote from: North Star on October 13, 2016, 10:49:43 AM
Wait, what is this about Hillary's emails? I haven't heard about them, probably because the media haven't written about it enough.
She told the company in charge of her server to go ahead and delete the personal emails before they were subpoenaed, then they were subpoenaed and the guy who forgot to delete them went "OH SHIT..." and deleted them. I guess you could make a conspiracy out of that.
The other stuff about classified emails on her home server is a bit misunderstood. She was trying to fence off personal stuff and keep it off government servers, totally justified IMV. The thing is you can't cleanly separate work and personal except after the fact. The whole system needed adult supervision her staff was not capable of. That's her fault.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 13, 2016, 11:32:29 AM
And how are you aware of all these matters if not for the media you profess to despise?
Because it has been covered much more extensively by the non-Liberal media. Merely knowing about something is not the issue. How the reportage offers context (or not) offers critical analysis (or not) attempts to minimize the behavior (or not).
Quote from: Pat B on October 13, 2016, 11:18:42 AM
Wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 11:34:44 AM
Because it has been covered much more extensively by the non-Liberal media. Merely knowing about something is not the issue. How the reportage offers context (or not) offers critical analysis (or not) attempts to minimize the behavior (or not).
And please give me the names of these non-Liberal sources.
Trump has been accused of rape and is due in court in December, see here.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I also find it an odd idea that the press is supposed to highlight Clinton's potential abuse of power.....to report on something that might happen, but has not yet happened? Surely any presidential candidate can fall into that category.
I imagine you are relying on her history, which is seen on your side to be corrupt. Yet no one from FBI to Kenneth Star established anything indictable. And Star was assiduous and determined to the point of oppressive obsession, nevertheless conceding that if there had been a smoking gun, he would have found it.
Mike
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 11:31:38 AM
I think doggedly pursuing is an exaggeration. From what I've seen they have tried to minimize its significance ever since Comey's report came out. Also, while obnoxxious and boorish and possible rising to the level of sexual assault, nothing Trump has been accused of doing or is on tape saying rise to the level of a security threat to this country.
First of all, you need to fix your 'x' key ;D
EDIT: Oh, you edited out the typos, so now my comment looks silly ;D
Second, many/most of Trump's foreign policy positions arguably constitute a security threat.
Third, I don't know that the "liberal" media has minimized the email scandal since. It was just a question in the debate. I'm not sure what legitimately major server-related news stories have occurred since Comey's report; I know some of the emails were published but largely consisted of Clinton telling people to print things for records, or duplicates of emails we already knew about.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 13, 2016, 11:36:58 AM
And please give me the names of these non-Liberal sources.
The fullest coverage by non-Liberal media has been in the Wall Street Journal and National Review, both, btw that have been anti-Trump.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 11:44:34 AM
The fullest coverage by non-Liberal media has been in the Wall Street Journal and National Review, both, btw that have been anti-Trump.
Both "mainstream media" if any ever were.
Quote from: Brian on October 13, 2016, 11:40:48 AM
First of all, you need to fix your 'x' key ;D
EDIT: Oh, you edited out the typos, so now my comment looks silly ;D
Second, many/most of Trump's foreign policy positions arguably constitute a security threat.
Third, I don't know that the "liberal" media has minimized the email scandal since. It was just a question in the debate. I'm not sure what legitimately major server-related news stories have occurred since Comey's report; I know some of the emails were published but largely consisted of Clinton telling people to print things for records, or duplicates of emails we already knew about.
I am a horrible typist. :-[
We won't know how his foreign policy would really play out. Reagan was accused of the same thing, but he won the Cold War with this "evil empire" rhetoric and escalation of defense spending. Both of which Trump has mimicked and sent the media into conniption fits.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 13, 2016, 11:48:00 AM
Both "mainstream media" if any ever were.
I said "non-Liberal". There are a few mainstream media outlets which are non-Liberal, thankfully. People say that Fox News has a right-wing bias. I agree it does, thankfully, one major television network presents the Conservative POV. But no Democrat admits to a Liberal bias of NYT and WPost or CNN or ABC, CBS, etc.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 11:55:11 AM
But no Democrat admits to a Liberal bias of NYT and WPost or CNN or ABC, CBS, etc.
I'm pretty sure
every Democrat "admits" this, at least for NYT and MSNBC. Except for Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper, CNN, as I've said before, is too stupid to have a point of view on the world, let alone have a bias.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 13, 2016, 11:32:29 AM
And how are you aware of all these matters if not for the media you profess to despise?
Probably because he and others get their facts from such fools like Rush Limbaugh. Just saying.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 11:16:10 AM
As I said, the NYT and other media has reported the story but most of their coverage ever since has been to shield Hillary from the worst of the fallout.
In your partisanship you seem to be unaware that the NYT and Hillary Clinton have been enjoying a very bad, antagonistic relationship for many many years.
The NYT cannot stand HC because she's so unforthcoming and secretive, and the NYT has been a major party in the pursuing of the email story.
It is also the kind of paper that shows us that many other people in the State Dept have done exactly the same.
Quote from: Herman on October 13, 2016, 12:17:04 PM
In your partisanship you seem to be unaware that the NYT and Hillary Clinton have been enjoying a very bad, antagonistic relationship for many many years.
The NYT cannot stand HC because she's so unforthcoming and secretive, and the NYT has been a major party in the pursuing of the email story.
It is also the kind of paper that shows us that many other people in the State Dept have done exactly the same.
You just reminded me that the NYT employs an editorial columnist - Maureen Dowd - who sometimes seems to have "insult the Clintons" as her one and only goal in life.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Media Abandons Its Integrity to Take Down Trump (http://nypost.com/2016/10/11/the-new-york-times-abandoned-its-integrity-just-to-bash-donald-trump/)
Rape Victim: Hillary Clinton Laughed at Me for Getting Raped (http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/rape-victim-hillary-clinton-laughed-blamed-getting-raped/)
Obama Lied. My Third Health Plan Just Died (http://obama%20lied.%20my%20third%20health%20plan%20just%20died)
The one about Clinton laughing has been debunked. Many, many times. At heart it's a
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
EDIT: I also see from the rest of the thread since then that your determination to be an amateur lawyer who knows exactly what was criminal about the email affair has not abated. Why don't you just type LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! over and over again, it might as well have the same effect and has about as much grasp of the situation.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 11:55:11 AM
I said "non-Liberal". There are a few mainstream media outlets which are non-Liberal, thankfully. People say that Fox News has a right-wing bias. I agree it does, thankfully, one major television network presents the Conservative POV. But no Democrat admits to a Liberal bias of NYT and WPost or CNN or ABC, CBS, etc.
MSNBC is the left-wing reflection of Fox News.
Also...
The fact that Trump's denial of a sexual assault allegation includes a comment on the accuser's physical appearance confirms everything about his character. It doesn't even matter whether the allegation is true or not. THAT RESPONSE is enough to reinforce all the negative views about what kind of person Trump is.
The same really goes for the 2005 video. The man in that video is entirely consistent with the man that's been campaigning for a year. A man who simply can't resist juvenile remarks. A man who hasn't got beyond the "EW! I wouldn't touch HER!" kind of responses you would get between teenagers accusing each other of having kissed the unpopular girl.
The man is affluenza grown up.
Quote from: North Star on October 13, 2016, 10:49:43 AM
Wait, what is this about Hillary's emails? I haven't heard about them, probably because the media haven't written about it enough.
I just wanted to express appreciation of your wit,
sieur.
El Tupé gives up in The Old Dominion (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-campaign-pulls-virginia-reallocates-resources-competitive-battleground/story?id=42772071)
Now this is a fun argument: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 11:55:11 AM
I said "non-Liberal". There are a few mainstream media outlets which are non-Liberal, thankfully. People say that Fox News has a right-wing bias. I agree it does, thankfully, one major television network presents the Conservative POV. But no Democrat admits to a Liberal bias of NYT and WPost or CNN or ABC, CBS, etc.
Because, as I have already told you: just to take the NYT, it prints Conservative columnists like David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and others. So the liberal bias, while it may be present in the editorial board, does not represent the paper entirely.
From the WSJ
The Press Buries Hillary Clinton's Sins (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308)
As reporters focus on Trump, they miss new details on Clinton's rotten record.
If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.
But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven't heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.
It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let's review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.
Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends "can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents." She added: "It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc."
A few months later, in a September 2015 email, a Clinton confidante fretted that Mrs. Clinton was too bullheaded to acknowledge she'd done wrong. "Everyone wants her to apologize," wrote Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress. "And she should. Apologies are like her Achilles' heel."
Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton's emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.
A senior FBI official involved with the Clinton investigation told Fox News this week that the "vast majority" of career agents and prosecutors working the case "felt she should be prosecuted" and that giving her a pass was "a top-down decision."
The Obama administration—the federal government, supported by tax dollars—was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.
Worse, Mrs. Clinton's State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were "FOB" (Friends of Bill) or "WJC VIPs" (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren't? Routed to a standard government website.
The leaks show that the foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: "Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do."
The entire progressive apparatus—the Clinton campaign and boosters at the Center for American Progress—appears to view voters as stupid and tiresome, segregated into groups that must either be cajoled into support or demeaned into silence. We read that Republicans are attracted to Catholicism's "severely backwards gender relations" and only join the faith to "sound sophisticated"; that Democratic leaders such as Bill Richardson are "needy Latinos"; that Bernie Sanders supporters are "self-righteous"; that the only people who watch Miss America "are from the confederacy"; and that New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is "a terrorist."
The leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton's pocket. Donna Brazile, a former Clinton staffer and a TV pundit, sent the exact wording of a coming CNN town hall question to the campaign in advance of the event. Other media allowed the Clinton camp to veto which quotes they used from interviews, worked to maximize her press events and offered campaign advice.
Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease "the Red Army"—i.e. "the base of the Democratic Party."
Voters might not know any of this, because while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump. And the press is doing a diligent job of it.
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html)
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey's dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General's office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ's National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
"No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision," said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, "It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton's] security clearance yanked."
"It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted," the senior FBI official told Fox News. "We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said 'but we are doing nothing,' which made no sense to us."
Read the rest here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html).
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 04:33:29 PM
From the WSJ
Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease "the Red Army"—i.e. "the base of the Democratic Party."
Dude that applies to ALL politicians independent of party. Why is that a surprise?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 10:09:59 AM
Media Abandons Its Integrity to Take Down Trump (http://nypost.com/2016/10/11/the-new-york-times-abandoned-its-integrity-just-to-bash-donald-trump/)
Rape Victim: Hillary Clinton Laughed at Me for Getting Raped (http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/rape-victim-hillary-clinton-laughed-blamed-getting-raped/)
Obama Lied. My Third Health Plan Just Died (http://obama%20lied.%20my%20third%20health%20plan%20just%20died)
https://www.youtube.com/v/v4QTLbEa_7k
Quote from: sanantonio on October 13, 2016, 04:35:19 PM
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html)
This is for you
sananton. I would say you shouldn't expend energy for those who will not see the family of dinosaurs in the room. The name of the game is:
don't bother us with facts. Compare MENTALLY SICK Billy boy getting a free pass with serial rape for decades with his wife harassing his victims to international coverage of someone saying a "dirty word".
http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/anonymous-video-bill-clinton-raping-13-yr-old-girl-will-plunge-race-chaos/
Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flight...
"Bill Clinton ... associated with a man like Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was a pedophile," said Conchita Sarnoff, of the Washington, D.C. based non-profit Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, and author of a book on the Epstein case called "TrafficKing." "Why would a former president associate with a man like that?"
Epstein, who counts among his pals royal figures, heads of state, celebrities and fellow billionaires, spent 13 months in prison and home detention for solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on "Orgy Island," an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.Notice Epstein did spend some time in the can. But for the politically entrenched:
"when you have capital, you don't get punishment". The same yardstick was applied to the likes of Ted Kennedy who let his girlfriend drown in a car he drove off a pier while under the influence and escaped from the crime scene to go home and sleep it off. The teflon effect is for those who perpetrate the big lie. Small offenses get the steam roller because they are easier to comprehend and deal with.
When superficial charm is plastered over the dirt, I mean, how could smiling Ted (or fill in the blank) be so bad???
One may smile and smile and be a villain...
Gotta see! Having the time of their lives!!!
https://www.youtube.com/v/jB2zoidUeLU
Hey Bill, it's a penguin!!! :laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/v/WLYHu0AG8GI
He'll always be that con artist we knew back when:
[El Tupé] flip-flops on whether women's sexual allegations should be believed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/14/trump-flip-flops-on-whether-womens-sexual-allegations-should-be-believed/)
(Incidentally, that darned Washington Post "hid" the story of Wikileaks and Clinton's hacked e-mail on yesterday's front page! Where's the outrage?)
[El Tupé] is giving us a master class in why #WomenDontReport (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/13/13274972/donald-trump-is-giving-us-a-master-class-in-why-womendontreport)QuoteDonald Trump knows how rape culture operates, and he's taking advantage of it.
QuoteIn the past 24 hours, we've witnessed a master class in the way powerful men get away with assault, harassment, and abuse of their power.
The all-seeing Trump makes appearances in NY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0z9NDUlhZaw
How Donald Trump Supporters Attack Journalists (http://www.newsweek.com/epileptogenic-pepe-video-507417)
Because I have written critically about Trump, I have received innumerable death threats, sometimes just general invocations that I should die, sometimes more specific threats that I should be shot or "lynched," as one Trump fan wrote. I have been called "kike," "Jew" and "anti-American Zionist," even though I'm Episcopalian with a Jewish father (as if that makes a difference). I have received video cartoons that look like they are from Nazi Germany of hook-nosed men dressed in Jewish garb rubbing their hands greedily over piles of money. I have been told to go back where I came from, whatever that means. I have been called "fag," "pedo," and once—in an email that made no sense—"nigger-lover." One Trump fan mentioned he knew which schools my children attended, and correctly named them. Topping it off, some Trump fans have even gone after one of my sons online, although he knew enough to immediately block them.
Quote from: drogulus on October 14, 2016, 05:29:29 AM
How Donald Trump Supporters Attack Journalists (http://www.newsweek.com/epileptogenic-pepe-video-507417)
Because I have written critically about Trump, I have received innumerable death threats, sometimes just general invocations that I should die, sometimes more specific threats that I should be shot or "lynched," as one Trump fan wrote. I have been called "kike," "Jew" and "anti-American Zionist," even though I'm Episcopalian with a Jewish father (as if that makes a difference). I have received video cartoons that look like they are from Nazi Germany of hook-nosed men dressed in Jewish garb rubbing their hands greedily over piles of money. I have been told to go back where I came from, whatever that means. I have been called "fag," "pedo," and once—in an email that made no sense—"nigger-lover." One Trump fan mentioned he knew which schools my children attended, and correctly named them. Topping it off, some Trump fans have even gone after one of my sons online, although he knew enough to immediately block them.
Sickening. He has epilepsy, so a troll thinks it's a great joke to send him a seizure-inducing video? These people either have no contact with reality or they're devoid of empathy.
If the
Tuperos don't like a country with a free press, they might consider moving to Russia.
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 14, 2016, 05:40:09 AM
Sickening. He has epilepsy, so a troll thinks it's a great joke to send him a seizure-inducing video? These people either have no contact with reality or they're devoid of empathy.
Much like their candidate.
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 14, 2016, 05:40:09 AM
Sickening. He has epilepsy, so a troll thinks it's a great joke to send him a seizure-inducing video? These people either have no contact with reality or they're devoid of empathy.
Trump supporters are good that way. Like the idiots wearing shirts "LOCK HER UP" as if locking anyone up is going to improve their job situation or make the foreclosures going away.
Trump gives America chance to correct course (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/opinions/why-donald-trump-needs-to-win-kelly/index.html)
By Rep. Mike Kelly
(CNN)"For of all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these: 'It might have been.'"
John Greenleaf Whittier wrote those words 160 years ago, but they are just as relevant today. Indeed, they serve as a guiding light for the decisions I make every day, whether as a father or a husband or a businessman or a public servant. And in less than one month, those words will guide my decision as a voter.
Four years ago, I watched our country miss a tremendous opportunity to vastly improve our national well-being when we re-elected President Barack Obama and shunned Mitt Romney.
To this day, I believe the United States suffered on every measurable level -- economically, societally and internationally -- because of that decision, and I suspect many of my fellow Americans retrospectively agree.
Why? Because of what "might have been."
Compared to the undeniable chaos of the last four years, a Republican presidency would have delivered a dramatically better reality for our citizens and for the world.
The course of the next four years is completely in our control and should not be permitted to resemble the last eight years. The challenges of those years still exist, yet for now, so do many of the opportunities. Time will not stand still if we wait to seize them.
It is abundantly clear that a President Hillary Clinton, bound to a ruthlessly left-wing base, will simply not be able to break from the Obama trajectory and thus provide the stronger leadership these tough times demand. Only a unified Republican government, unbeholden to the status quo, is capable of confronting today's reality and securing a more prosperous and hopeful future for all Americans.
This, of course, means making Donald Trump our 45th president.
Read the rest HERE (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/opinions/why-donald-trump-needs-to-win-kelly/index.html).
Even Republicans know the Bill Clinton attacks don't work
(http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-bill-clinton-attacks-republicans-229760)
If the standard is "get Trump elected", then no, the attacks don't work and never have in past campaigns. But if the goal is to lay the foundation for the inevitable "Impeach Hiltery" campaign, then it's probably the best way to go about it.
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 14, 2016, 05:40:09 AM
Sickening. He has epilepsy, so a troll thinks it's a great joke to send him a seizure-inducing video? These people either have no contact with reality or they're devoid of empathy.
Of course, it's horrible and despicable. It would help if Trump himself could come out and restrain these dogs because they are not obviously helping his cause. But with all due respect, the level of rhetoric is at an all time low everywhere. Broadcasting bloopers said in private conversations 11 years ago used to be considered muckraking and uncharitable gossip. It isn't as though foul language isn't the norm on the streets, on TV, films and even in schools. There is a difference between action and words, although, sure, there is a connection between the two, but they should not be confused. In fact, not being able to distinguish them is at the basis of thought policing, which is already rampant.
Those who don't tow the line with the politically correct mandates of secularism, instead claiming their rights to conscientious religious objection are routinely hounded and even deprived of their livelihoods. There is brutality everywhere. Not restraining the criminal elements of unchecked immigration has produced actual assaults and rapes which are in the 10's of thousands. Really some people living in glass mansions should not throw stones and in a way it is good that all the rats can all come out of the woodwork. Billy-boy's victims were until recently consigned to the back burner but now, finally they can all come out en masse as a good reckoning for him and his wife.
QuoteOf course, it's horrible and despicable. It would help if Trump himself could come out and restrain these dogs because they are not obviously helping his cause.
They are his cause. His cause is fear (including fear of what Trumpists will do if Repubs "betray" him) and hatred. So the most fearful and hateful are drawn to him. This isn't an unfortunate byproduct of a campaign that wishes to focus on "the issues". The fear and hate are the issues.
Evangelicals Without Standards (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/evangelicals-without-standards-214352)
The prominent evangelicals sticking by Trump believe that he would be better on the issues—especially Supreme Court nominees and religious liberty—than Hillary Clinton would be. This is a reasonable position, although very few Trump supporters can remain clear-eyed about him. Subtly and often not so subtly, they find themselves defending the indefensible because forthrightly acknowledging all of Trump's faults makes backing him so awkward. They lower their standards and cede ground to the culture in a way they never would have imagined even a year ago.
And they are doing it for a campaign that is sinking, more than anything else, from the character flaws of the candidate. It would be a perfect morality tale for the religious right—if so many of its leaders weren't implicated in it.
While we're all posting articles, today the NY Times published a review of a series of anti-Hillary books. Pretty interesting comments:
"I've been bingeing on a lot of anti-Hillary Clinton books lately. Some of their gripes are legitimate and verifiable; some are halfway down the six-lane expressway to bonkersville. But of all the unlikely themes to emerge from them, of all the conspiracies they propose and the outrages they cite, the strangest of all is quite straightforward: that Mrs. Clinton is a potty mouth.
"It's hard to convey how pervasive this notion is. Some of these books are as obsessed with her supposed coarseness as they are with Travelgate, Benghazi, Vince Foster and missing emails. In Edward Klein's "Guilty as Sin," which came out last week, roughly two-thirds of the anonymously sourced quotations attributed to Mrs. Clinton are salted with obscenities. It's enough to make you wonder if the woman has David Milch on monthly retainer, generating her dialogue."
"...these blue outbursts wouldn't necessarily distinguish her from her male peers. According to Jesse Sheidlower, the lexicographer and author of "The F-Word," most studies show that men and women curse more or less the same amount. Women are plenty in touch with their inner Cartman."
-
"Most politicians have front-stage and backstage personalities, to borrow the language of the midcentury sociologist Erving Goffman. But the more consistent they are — either by being permanent backstage types (like John McCain, who tends toward informality, no matter what the setting) or front-stage types (like Ronald Reagan, who always seemed to be performing, no matter what the setting) — the more comfortable the public seems to be with them. The problem with Mrs. Clinton is that voters detect a huge gulf between her front-stage and backstage selves.
"You wonder whether this will be a problem for female politicians for years to come. They're obliged to hew to a much stricter set of regulations when they speak in public."
"As with Mr. Trump, the very traits that make Mrs. Clinton so unappealing to her detractors may make her immensely appealing to her fans. At one point in "Unlikeable," Mr. Klein has her putting her feet up on her desk, swigging a Michelob Ultra and doing impersonations of world leaders. Her haters will conclude from this image that she's sexless (beer-swilling) and disrespectful of her station. But her admirers will read it as pure Amy Schumer. And if Mrs. Clinton does indeed top her frustrations with a Tourettic garland of unprintables — well, then she's Selina Meyer on "Veep." And when Selina curses, it shows spine.
"Once again, our two cultures are talking past each other. And they probably will, right until the bitter end, when someone places his or her hand on the Bible and says a very different kind of oath."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/books/review-the-anti-clinton-brigades-four-letter-word-obsession.html
Now that the Nobel Prize Committee defied literature elitists worldwide and chose the "outsider" Bob Dylan, I perceive a trend that bodes well for The Trumpster.
;D
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 14, 2016, 08:22:26 AM
Of course, it's horrible and despicable. It would help if Trump himself could come out and restrain these dogs because they are not obviously helping his cause. But with all due respect, the level of rhetoric is at an all time low everywhere. Broadcasting bloopers said in private conversations 11 years ago used to be considered muckraking and uncharitable gossip. It isn't as though foul language isn't the norm on the streets, on TV, films and even in schools. There is a difference between action and words, although, sure, there is a connection between the two, but they should not be confused. In fact, not being able to distinguish them is at the basis of thought policing, which is already rampant.
In line with
Ernie's reply, El Tupé is his own biggest problem. And you are absolutely right that the level of rhetoric is at an all-time low everywhere, and the level which it has reached this season, is the level to which El Tupé has led the rhetorical plunge.
I think you have made an error in judgement to call this
bloopers. Another point is, a conversation while wearing a mic is not exactly
private; but let's say it inhabits a kind of grey area between private and public. That said: on one hand, El Tupé had every right to take the high road. He could have. He had the opportunity to take the high road on the matter of how he treated Alicia Machado. If he had been suitable presidential timber, he might well have weathered those irruptions. The trouble is always (praise God in the highest) that he is himself, and he almost never has the discipline to be at all oterwise. So, in the case of Alicia Machado, there was no hint of remorse, but his default of lashing out. And in the case of the conversation which you suggest ought to be disallowed, well, it was consistent with his behavior and remarks in public media (in the first place), and when he played his typical push-back routine, he opened up the microphone for those he has abused in the past.
For those who are all in for El Tupé, none of this makes any difference to their support. But to the majority of the country, his character
is the issue, and these revelations
are completely relevant.
I'm not sure I can forgive you, Brian, for making me aware that there is such a horrid thing as Michelob Ultra.
8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 14, 2016, 08:57:23 AM
I think you have made an error in judgement to call this bloopers. Another point is, a conversation while wearing a mic is not exactly private; but let's say it inhabits a kind of grey area between private and public. That said: on one hand, El Tupé had every right to take the high road. He could have. He had the opportunity to take the high road on the matter of how he treated Alicia Machado. If he had been suitable presidential timber, he might well have weathered those irruptions. The trouble is always (praise God in the highest) that he is himself, and he almost never has the discipline to be at all oterwise. So, in the case of Alicia Machado, there was no hint of remorse, but his default of lashing out. And in the case of the conversation which you suggest ought to be disallowed, well, it was consistent with his behavior and remarks in public media (in the first place), and when he played his typical push-back routine, he opened up the microphone for those he has abused in the past.
For those who are all in for El Tupé, none of this makes any difference to their support. But to the majority of the country, his character is the issue, and these revelations are completely relevant.
In back of where I am sitting at a computer there has been on the TV at least 5 minutes of repeated "up my skirt", couched in racy and explicit language for which any action has yet to be been proven or verified. So one is at least by the media condemned precluding any possibility or presumption of innocence. Heck, there are no real problems in the world, more important to dwell on?
The point I was making in the last post was the utter hypocrisy of the stone throwers. Michelle didn't swish her butt on TV? Barack Obama didn't sit in Jeremiah Wright's "church" where he would preach Goddam America? If SO MANY of Hillary's staff say more or less the same about her trenchant mouth, why shouldn't what they are saying as a group be true? Still, her husband actually DID those despicable acts to women, which for me, is a big joke to hear that she is some advocate of her sex.
That poor girl, Kathy Shelton's life was RUINED from the age of 12 when she was abducted by two men, beaten and raped. Where was sympathy for the victim who was deprived of the possibility of having children, 41 years ago, no less? Instead, she was subjected to humiliating investigations and even had the incredible accusation slapped on her that she "fantasized" about older men. The rape and assault were bad enough but the knowledge that there was no justice for the perpetrators when there was plenty of evidence is still agonizing for her. One of them got only 2 months in jail and his lawyer to thank for who was none other then Hillary Rodham.
As for Machado, Hillary was the one to bring it up while on national TV no less. She never called anyone a name, sure. It turned out the lady was problematic, even threatened a judge in her home country. OK, he could have been gentlemanly about the whole thing but Hillary fights dirty. Alicia did make a sleaze tape and she only has to thank Hillary for bringing it out of the archives.
Well, and now El Tupé, Jr. tells the wimmen, "If yez can't handle it, go teach kindergarten."
snypsss, call your office, now.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 14, 2016, 09:50:07 AM
In back of where I am sitting at a computer there has been on the TV at least 5 minutes of repeated "up my skirt", couched in racy and explicit language for which any action has yet to be been proven or verified. So one is at least by the media condemned precluding any possibility or presumption of innocence. Heck, there are no real problems in the world, more important to dwell on?
Oh, but there is: that this sexual predator might be in the White House, is a real problem.
You may say it's the media precluding any possibility or presumption of innocence, but it's actually his own words. Blame the media for reporting the facts, I suppose . . . .
So, the Constitution provides that anyone being tried is entitled to representation in court, yes? And lawyers who provide this service are doing public service and fulfilling a Constitutional obligation. And lawyers have an obligation to provide their client the best defense.
The situation is (surprise!) more nuanced than El Tupé and/or the Anti-Clinton propagandists can be interested in portraying.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 14, 2016, 09:50:07 AM
That poor girl, Kathy Shelton's life was RUINED from the age of 12 when she was abducted by two men, beaten and raped. Where was sympathy for the victim who was deprived of the possibility of having children, 41 years ago, no less? Instead, she was subjected to humiliating investigations and even had the incredible accusation slapped on her that she "fantasized" about older men. The rape and assault were bad enough but the knowledge that there was no justice for the perpetrators when there was plenty of evidence is still agonizing for her. One of them got only 2 months in jail and his lawyer to thank for who was none other then Hillary Rodham.
This attack has no traction because Hillary was acting as a public defender. She was doing her job. Everyone with even a passing familiarity with the legal system will understand the moral dilemmas that sometimes arise when defending a client who may be guilty.
From wiki:
Clinton then requested to the judge to excuse her from having to represent the defendant, as has been corroborated by Gibson in a CNN interview.
"She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her..."
— Mahlon Gibson, CNN
As a personal belief of a client's guilt is not sufficient for a lawyer to be released by the court of the lawyer's duty to represent the client, and as Clinton did not have the legally required first-hand knowledge of the defendant's guilt and the defendant himself denied the charge of rape, the court did not assent to Clinton's request.
The court then ordered Clinton to represent the defendant as his criminal defence lawyer. According to CNN, "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."[3]
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 14, 2016, 10:13:20 AM
This attack has no traction because Hillary was acting as a public defender.
Originally the charge was she laughed at the victim. She asked to be excused from defending an alleged rapist, the judge would not excuse her. Naturally, under the circumstances, it follows like night follows day that she would laugh at the plight of the victim. Only a sadist would try to avoid defending a rapist.
I'd be delighted to have her for a lawyer if I ever needed one. My lawyer better go to the wall for me.
8)
In The Atlantic:
Not surprisingly, there is little indication that the Trump campaign believes rape culture is a legitimate phenomenon. The Republican nominee's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, once said that "rape would not exist" if women were as physically strong as men, an argument that seems to suggest rape is the product of an innate impulse in all men and women's inherent weakness. Trump's campaign CEO Steve Bannon previously served as the executive chairman of Breitbart, a conservative website that references rape culture in quotation marks as if to suggest it does not actually exist. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-women-accusations-sexual-assault/504089/)
Trump reportedly asked the crowd at a rally why nobody has ever accused Obama of sexual assault.
There's a pretty obvious answer, there...
Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2016, 11:50:31 AM
Trump reportedly asked the crowd at a rally why nobody has ever accused Obama of sexual assault.
There's a pretty obvious answer, there...
I know! It's because he's a Muslim and he was still living in Africa at the time.
Quote from: North Star on October 14, 2016, 11:52:46 AM
I know! It's because he's a Muslim and he was still living in Africa at the time.
And he sent all his victims to the death panels.
Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2016, 11:50:31 AM
Trump reportedly asked the crowd at a rally why nobody has ever accused Obama of sexual assault.
There's a pretty obvious answer, there...
Highlighting the fact that you want to replace someone whose moral character has never been questioned in that way doesn't seem like a smart move.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 14, 2016, 11:48:11 AM
In The Atlantic:
Not surprisingly, there is little indication that the Trump campaign believes rape culture is a legitimate phenomenon. The Republican nominee's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, once said that "rape would not exist" if women were as physically strong as men, an argument that seems to suggest rape is the product of an innate impulse in all men and women's inherent weakness. Trump's campaign CEO Steve Bannon previously served as the executive chairman of Breitbart, a conservative website that references rape culture in quotation marks as if to suggest it does not actually exist. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-women-accusations-sexual-assault/504089/)
"Rape culture" and the game of RAPO (Eric Berne):
Thesis. This is a game played between a man and a woman which might more politely be called, in the milder forms at least, 'Kiss Off' or 'Indignation.' It may be played with varying degrees of intensity.
1. First-Degree 'Rapo,' or 'Kiss Off,' is popular at social gatherings and consists essentially of mild flirtation. White signals that she is available and gets her pleasure from the man's pursuit. As soon as he has committed himself, the game is over. If she is polite, she may say quite frankly 'I appreciate your compliments and thank you very much,' and move on to the next conquest. If she is less generous, she may simply leave him. A skilful player can make this game last for a long time at a large social gathering by moving around frequently, so that the man has to carry out complicated manoeuvres in order to follow her without being too obvious.
2. In Second-Degree 'Rapo,' or 'Indignation,' White gets only secondary satisfaction from Black's advances. Her primary gratification comes from rejecting him, so that this game is also colloquially known as 'Buzz Off, Buster.' She leads Black into a much more serious commitment than the mild flirtation of First-Degree 'Rapo' and enjoys watching his discomfiture when she repulses him. Black, of course, is not as helpless as he seems, and may have gone to considerable trouble to get himself involved. Usually he is playing some variation of 'Kick Me.'
3. Third-Degree 'Rapo' is a vicious game which ends in murder, suicide or the courtroom. Here White leads Black into compromising physical contact and then claims that he has made a criminal assault or has done her irreparable damage. In its most cynical form White may actually allow him to complete the sexual act so that she gets that enjoyment before confronting him. The confrontation may be immediate, as in the illegitimate cry of rape, or it may be long delayed, as in suicide or homicide following a prolonged love affair. If she chooses to play it as a criminal assault, she may have no difficulty in finding mercenary or morbidly interested allies, such as the press, the police, counsellors and relatives. Sometimes, however, these outsiders may cynically turn on her, so that she loses the initiative and becomes a tool in their games.http://www.heretical.com/games/rapo.html
Are you posting that to indicate that you agree with it and/or think its insightful?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 14, 2016, 10:58:04 AM
I'd be delighted to have her for a lawyer if I ever needed one. My lawyer better go to the wall for me.
The victim was a 12 year old girl! A public defender is supposed to prevent injustice, not perpetrate it by playing legalistic games. A private lawyer against a corporation or against someone one's own size can take out the heavy artillery but releasing them on a young teenager was simply indecent and despicable, adding gross insult to gross injury. She thought it was funny, had no empathy then as she hasn't any now.
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 14, 2016, 08:46:19 PM
Are you posting that to indicate that you agree with it and/or think its insightful?
I'm saying that some women can give guys indications that she might like that kind of attention. That piece of work who dredged up a touchy-feely from 30 years ago, could have stopped the process way before it got to home base, if what she says is true. I believe her as far as I can throw my piano.
I find it hard to believe you're a woman.
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 14, 2016, 09:18:48 PM
I find it hard to believe you're a woman.
Oh come now, you don't believe all that political correctness shlock? Poor little, innocent sweet thing who would not injure a fly!!!
I know these beeches better than you. There was one case in which a woman allowed herself to be massaged in a very compromising venue, the apartment of a clergy member no less, and then screamed RAPO for the whole world to hear, that fairly ruined him. I did take his side because she should have not been there in the first place.
Actually, I can't stand pant-suited women. I don't have any in my closet.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa264/oddryd/clintons.jpg)
The Dylan crack is a whole different thread, but allow me to roll my eyes at it just the same.
Eat a dang quesadilla!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 14, 2016, 09:11:32 PM
The victim was a 12 year old girl! A public defender is supposed to prevent injustice, not perpetrate it by playing legalistic games. A private lawyer against a corporation or against someone one's own size can take out the heavy artillery but releasing them on a young teenager was simply indecent and despicable, adding gross insult to gross injury. She thought it was funny, had no empathy then as she hasn't any now.
Have you listened to the tape? No one laughed at the victim. Hillary laughed at the bizarre way in which evidence was handled and then lost by the prosecution, which, by the way, is the reason the accused got off. Under those circumstances a public defender, even if it were ethical to do so (it isn't), would find it impossible "to prevent injustice."
Quote from: BasilValentine on October 15, 2016, 06:54:06 AM
Have you listened to the tape? No one laughed at the victim. Hillary laughed at the bizarre way in which evidence was handled and then lost by the prosecution, which, by the way, is the reason the accused got off. Under those circumstances a public defender, even if it were ethical to do so (it isn't), would find it impossible "to prevent injustice."
I didn't say she laughed at the victim but she certainly was in an upbeat mood. I viewed another vid in which a lawyer said she was well within her obligations to carry out her duties. He said it was "lawyer talk" (similar to "locker room" I suppose) where they brag to on another what victories they had. However, he said the victim being a 12 year old girl was not a subject for that kind of discussion. What was disgusting though was accusing her of fantasizing about older men. She was only a kid, give me a break!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 14, 2016, 09:11:32 PM
The victim was a 12 year old girl! A public defender is supposed to prevent injustice, not perpetrate it by playing legalistic games. A private lawyer against a corporation or against someone one's own size can take out the heavy artillery but releasing them on a young teenager was simply indecent and despicable, adding gross insult to gross injury. She thought it was funny, had no empathy then as she hasn't any now.
Her job is no different if she is a public defender or a million dollar mouthpiece. She is my lawyer and she damn well better defend me with all she has. What you are basically saying is that people who can't afford a high-powered private practice attorney don't deserve the same level of defense as those who can. That really pretty well pisses me off, I must say.
8)
QuoteHowever, he said the victim being a 12 year old girl was not a subject for that kind of discussion.
The subject was the polygraph results of the defendant. I listened to the tape. It's on YT.
There's no way you could interpret it as Hillary laughing at the plight of this girl. Her plight was probably the reason she didn't want to defend the accused, which also explains why the judge could not excuse her.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 15, 2016, 07:08:46 AM
I didn't say she laughed at the victim but she certainly was in an upbeat mood. I viewed another vid in which a lawyer said she was well within her obligations to carry out her duties. He said it was "lawyer talk" (similar to "locker room" I suppose) where they brag to on another what victories they had. However, he said the victim being a 12 year old girl was not a subject for that kind of discussion. What was disgusting though was accusing her of fantasizing about older men. She was only a kid, give me a break!
She wasn't bragging about a victory or anything else. In fact, she attributed the success of the defense wholly to the incompetence of the prosecution. She was describing a pathetic miscarriage of justice in which she had been forced to participate. She called the whole affair "sad." The interview was years after the events and Hillary's mood has nothing to do with anything.
Who accused the victim of fantasizing about older men? What is your source for this?
And while I'm at it, the accusations that Hillary "viciously attacked" her husbands victims is mostly false:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-viciously-attack/
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 15, 2016, 07:41:00 AM
Her job is no different if she is a public defender or a million dollar mouthpiece. She is my lawyer and she damn well better defend me with all she has. What you are basically saying is that people who can't afford a high-powered private practice attorney don't deserve the same level of defense as those who can. That really pretty well pisses me off, I must say.
To answer you and Valentine, this was uncalled for:
"As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing," Clinton said. 'I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way. Clinton offered no source for the claims."https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/
In other reports, she was lured into a car with two older men inside, not went with them willingly.
Justice was not done if a rapist got off with a 2 month sentence. She was made unable to bear children because of that crime.
Be pissed off all you want. So what!
Quote from: BasilValentine on October 15, 2016, 07:49:38 AM
And while I'm at it, the accusations that Hillary "viciously attacked" her husbands victims is mostly false:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-viciously-attack/
To counter your claim, here is a list of Billy's main mistresses and victims. I took some of the racy and explicit parts out, unlike CNN these days:
Below are the members of Bubba's 21+ Club.
Juanita Broaddrick who claims she was raped by Bill Clinton and Hillary tried to silence her.
Becky Brown was a nanny to Chelsea Clinton and the wife of L.D. Brown, an Arkansas state trooper. She claims he sexually harassed her in the mid-1980s.
Helen Dowdy, the wife of Hillary Clinton's cousin, claims she was groped by Bill Clinton at a wedding in 1986.
Gennifer Flowers revealed in 1992 that she had a 12-year sexual relationship with former U.S. President Bill Clinton . Clinton denied the affair at the time. However, In January 1998, as part of Paula Jones' case, Bubba testified under oath that he had sexual relations with Flowers. In 2016 Flowers stated that Hillary is an enabler of Bill Clinton's affairs." She told Esquire magazine in 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, "I mean, I would crucify her."
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title.
Connie Hamzy, In 1991, Hamzy was briefly in the news due to her claim that, in 1984, she had been approached by an Arkansas state trooper on behalf of Bill Clinton. George Stephanopoulos wrote in his memoir that Hillary said of Connie Hamzy in 1991, "We have to destroy her story."
Regina Blakely Hopper was a Miss Arkansas pageant winner in 1983, L.D. Brown, a former Arkansas state trooper, testified under oath that Ms. Hopper used to go to Governor's Mansion to have sex with then governor Bill Clinton.
Sandra Allen James was pinned against a wall by the former president ...(Ms. James' loud scream caused the Arkansas State Trooper outside the door to knock spoiling Bubba's moment).
Paula Corbin Jones filed suit in 1994, alleging that Bill Clinton propositioned her ...when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a low-level state employee.
Dorothy Kyle knows the Clintons well, having met "Billy" when she was just 11 years old, and he was "12, going on 13. Kyle began sleeping with Bill Clinton after high school and their affair didn't end until he moved to the White House" He was married, I was married, during part of this," Kyle said. "I have repented. I discovered I was a sex addict. I got treatment. I told Billy about the problem. I warned him, I begged him, to get help for his sex addiction problem." Ms. Kyle claims that Hillary tried to destroy her.
Sally Miller had a raucous three-month affair with Bill Clinton years before he became the 42nd President of the United States, and that relationship has her fearing for her life today. Beginning in 1992 she started to be harassed, she claims, with a sinister invitation from a Clinton operative who offered Miller a lucrative federal job if she promised to be a 'good little girl' – an offer she declined. 'They said 'if you don't take the job, we know where you go running and we'll break your pretty little legs," Miller claims. 'They said life isn't going to be fun anymore – and they meant it.'
Carolyn Moffet a legal secretary in Little Rock who was invited to Bill's hotel room after a fundraiser.
Eileen Wellstone, an English woman who said Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near Oxford University where Mr. Clinton was a student in 1969. A report filed at the time by a State Department official was ignored by superiors. Apparently, the State Department didn't want a Rhodes Scholar to have a rape charge.
Kathleen Willey told 60 Minutes that Bubba assaulted her in the White House.
Christy Zercher, an airline flight attendant on Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign plane...Ms. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
In 1972, when he was attending Yale (and dating Hillary) a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue in 2007, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name.
Also according to Capitol Hill Blue, "former Arkansas students confirmed that Clinton tried to force himself on them when he was a professor."
These next three examples come from the Daily Wire:
Roger Morris wrote in "Partners In Power" that another unnamed victim accused Clinton of unwanted sexual advances: A young woman lawyer in Little Rock claimed that she was accosted by Clinton When the husband later saw Clinton at the 1980 Democratic Convention, he delivered a warning. "If you ever approach her," he told the governor, "I'll kill you." Not even seeing fit to deny the incident, Bill Clinton sheepishly apologized and duly promised never to bother her again.
Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson wrote a book about Clinton called, Dereliction of Duty in which he accounted yet another victim of sexual abuse by the then-president. He wrote that a female stewardess on Air Force One complained that Clinton "sexually molested" and "cornered" her on the flight. Per Patterson, the woman only "wanted an apology."
Monica Lewinsky. Technically this one was consensual, but when a married President of the United States takes advantage of a 21-year-old woman...it's seems pretty close to statutory rape, and besides once things became public Hillary lead the effort to destroy her. If nothing else the guy has a
sickness, called sexual addiction. However, with addicts, there is in psychological parlance, the
enabler, who serves as a protection for the addiction either by supplying the drugs of choice or failing to try to stop it or as in this case, harassing the victims instead. An enabler frequently is just as sick as the addict. Draw you own conclusions.
http://lidblog.com/21-rapes-gropes-and-affairs-bubba-clintons-sexual-dalliances/
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 15, 2016, 08:38:23 AM
To counter your claim, here is a list of Billy's main mistresses and victims. I took some of the racy and explicit parts out, unlike CNN these days:
Nothing in your lengthy post counters my statement. You have not supplied a single instance of Hillary Clinton viciously attacking any of these women. So, then, my point stands: As politifact opined: This claim is mostly false.
The rest of your post supports the fact that Bill Clinton was a pig. Good catch there! We would never have known that.
Quote from: BasilValentine on October 15, 2016, 08:55:40 AM
Nothing in your lengthy post counters my statement. You have not supplied a single instance of Hillary Clinton viciously attacking any of these women. So, then, my point stands: As politifact opined: This claim is mostly false.
The rest of your post supports the fact that Bill Clinton was a pig. Good catch there! We would never have know that.
Juanita Broadderick was the first on the list so maybe you didn't read it at all.
The dynamic is sick on BOTH sides.
Of course, if she dropped him like a hot potato anytime along the way, she could not be running for president now. They have to keep up the myth of family unity. Sickos, the TWO of them!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 15, 2016, 08:10:35 AM
To answer you and Valentine, this was uncalled for:
"As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing," Clinton said. 'I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way. Clinton offered no source for the claims."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/
In other reports, she was lured into a car with two older men inside, not went with them willingly.
Justice was not done if a rapist got off with a 2 month sentence. She was made unable to bear children because of that crime.
Be pissed off all you want. So what!
The statement by Hillary is in an affidavit requesting the administration of a psyche test. It doesn't matter where she heard those things — the obvious answer is that she heard them from her client! And she would be obliged to use the claims in supporting her request for a psyche exam. There is nothing wrong with what she did and she would have been negligent in her defense had she done otherwise.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 15, 2016, 09:02:06 AM
Juanita Broadderick was the first on the list so maybe you didn't read it at all.
The dynamic is sick on BOTH sides.
Of course, if she dropped him like a hot potato anytime along the way, she could not be running for president now. They have to keep up the myth of family unity. Sickos, the TWO of them!
Broadderick's claim was taken into account in Politifact's analysis. No one missed it. What she claimed was that Hillary thanked her for service to her husband's campaign. She read something sinister into the way it was delivered which cannot be corroborated. It is absurd to characterize an expression of gratitude as a vicious attack.
Quote from: BasilValentine on October 15, 2016, 09:08:53 AM
Broadderick's claim was taken into account in Politifact's analysis. No one missed it. What she claimed was that Hillary thanked her for service to her husband's campaign. She read something sinister into the way it was delivered which cannot be corroborated. It is absurd to characterize an expression of gratitude as a vicious attack.
That is not what Broadderick was saying. There is a whole youtube interview with her. The point is however, hers is not an isolated instance. We're talking about at least 20 women who say more or less the same thing.
Shut them up would be a logical, but not pleasant response. How to put out all those little fires must be daunting.
OK; so they're about even in the groping contest. When there comes to suitability for the politics of the office however, there's still no contest.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 15, 2016, 08:10:35 AM
To answer you and Valentine, this was uncalled for:
"As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing," Clinton said. 'I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way. Clinton offered no source for the claims."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/
In other reports, she was lured into a car with two older men inside, not went with them willingly.
Justice was not done if a rapist got off with a 2 month sentence. She was made unable to bear children because of that crime.
Be pissed off all you want. So what!
It's her freaking job! That's so what. She offered no source. Clearly she didn't need to. Maybe the source was the girl's mother. It doesn't matter. It is NOT her job to decide her client is guilty and then conspire with the prosecutor to put him away for years. You sit there and pontificate about how awful she was, when clearly you don't understand the US justice system. I hope for your sake you are never in a position to have to discover the realities of it.
8)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 15, 2016, 09:27:02 AM
That is not what Broadderick was saying. There is a whole youtube interview with her. The point is however, hers is not an isolated instance. We're talking about at least 20 women who say more or less the same thing. Shut them up would be a logical, but not pleasant response. How to put out all those little fires must be daunting.
Twenty who say that Hillary viciously attacked them? Document it. You have nothing.
And Bill isn't running for president.
The most credible part of the Broaddrick story is that Bill Clinton raped her. The least credible part is that Hillary was trying to intimidate her into silence.
At one point while discussing this incident with a reporter Broaddrick said:
" "When you look back over almost 38 years, some of the anger fades, the fear fades, and you think, I hope she didn't know," Broaddrick said."
When Bill Clinton was President he couldn't bring himself to admit to Hillary what he was up to with women. He would not have told Hillary anything about a rape back when he was attorney general of Arkansas, he'd play the odds that it wouldn't come out before he said anything. Broaddrick's interpretation is understandable but likely wrong, and her statement to the reporter recently would support that interpretation.
Anyone who maintains that Hillary Clinton enjoyed the case involving a 12 year old girl is divorced from reality.
Quote from: BasilValentine on October 15, 2016, 10:28:55 AM
Twenty who say that Hillary viciously attacked them? Document it. You have nothing.
That's all I hear on conservative talk radio: Hillary helped Bill silence all the rape victims by threathening/bullying/bribing them. There is not one iota of evidence to any of this. If there ever was it would have surfaced a long long long time ago.
As far as Bill is concerned, many have already mentioned he is not running for President. I think Trump is making a big mistake by dragging Bill into this. There is nothing to gain.
Former U.S. intelligence officer: Russia has turned Trump into 'unwitting asset' (https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-u-s-intelligence-official-russia-has-turned-trump-into-unwitting-asset-172058187.html)
His campaign staff is witting, though. Can you imagine what conversations among the Trump team must be like when Agent Orange isn't in the room? Do they avoid each others eyes? Or is it a big joke? Frankly I have no clue, none at all.
Quote from: drogulus on October 15, 2016, 08:24:51 PM
Agent Orange
Heh. Did you just make that up? I'm now surprised I haven't seen it before.
'Unwitting' is one of the best adjectives yet for El Tupé.
Front page of the online Washington Post today, for those who are fond to think that "mainstream media" are "burying" news which is unfavorable to Clinton.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 16, 2016, 02:40:44 AM
Front page of the online Washington Post today, for those who are fond to think that "mainstream media" are "burying" news which is unfavorable to Clinton.
Keep telling yourself that. I have noticed that most people of the Liberal persuasion prefer living in an echo chamber (not that I am accusing you, Karl, of that). :D More of these folks than I can count have proudly announced to me "I
never watch (or read) anything from Fox News!" or "Anyone voting for Trump (you can substitute any right-wing belief) please un-friend me now!" ::)
Most of my northeastern relatives fit this description, and can say with a straight face that anyone who thinks like Repuiblicans do is actually not just wrong, but an "evil person". ???
By denying themselves access to the alternative, Conservative media, most Democrats are unable to appreciate the extent the NYT and WPost and other liberal organs skew the balance of their reportage (I freely admit that Fox editors are Conservative). But I have grown tired of this particular fight; I have learned it is futile trying to open the eyes of those who cannot be happy unless they ignore what doesn't jibe with their world view. For the record, I purposely read the opposing media partly as a gut check and to see how they present the news and to counter-balance what I am getting from Fox, WSJ and other Conservative media. Also, the NYT has a great Arts section.
What really galls me is when a Democrat tells me, "The NYT is not biased, after all they publish David Brooks." Yes, true. I imagine that is as convincing as if I told them, "Fox News is not biased, after all they feature Juan Williams and Mara Liasson."
;)
Speaking of the WPost ... They just published one the most cynical, hubris-infected pieces of non-journalism I have ever read:
Why we trust Donald Trump's accusers but didn't believe Bill Clinton's (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/14/why-we-trust-donald-trumps-accusers-but-didnt-believe-bill-clintons/?utm_term=.f9ebd9572c6c)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 16, 2016, 04:22:12 AM
Keep telling yourself that. I have noticed that most people of the Liberal persuasion prefer living in an echo chamber (not that I am accusing you, Karl, of that). :D More of these folks than I can count have proudly announced to me "I never watch (or read) anything from Fox News!" or "Anyone voting for Trump (you can substitute any right-wing belief) please un-friend me now!" ::)
Most of my northeastern relatives fit this description, and can say with a straight face that anyone who thinks like Repuiblicans do is actually not just wrong, but an "evil person". ???
By denying themselves access to the alternative, Conservative media, most Democrats are unable to appreciate the extent the NYT and WPost and other liberal organs skew the balance of their reportage (I freely admit that Fox editors are Conservative). But I have grown tired of this particular fight; I have learned it is futile trying to open the eyes of those who cannot be happy unless they ignore what doesn't jibe with their world view. For the record, I purposely read the opposing media partly as a gut check and to see how they present the news and to counter-balance what I am getting from Fox, WSJ and other Conservative media. Also, the NYT has a great Arts section.
What really galls me is when a Democrat tells me, "The NYT is not biased, after all they publish David Brooks." Yes, true. I imagine that is as convincing as if I told them, "Fox News is not biased, after all they feature Juan Williams and Mara Liasson."
;)
Speaking of the WPost ... They just published one the most cynical, hubris-infected pieces of non-journalism I have ever read:
Why we trust Donald Trump's accusers but didn't believe Bill Clinton's (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/14/why-we-trust-donald-trumps-accusers-but-didnt-believe-bill-clintons/?utm_term=.f9ebd9572c6c)
You can't even keep this straight.
Your basic claim was "they're not criticising Clinton!". Karl has accordingly provided you with multiple front page stories. To which your response is "they're not criticising Clinton enough! Not as much as Fox News does!"
Well, duh.
You want to talk about echo chambers? Just think back to what happened in 2012. Which party's supporters were living in a "we're going to win" echo chamber, hmm? One of my strongest memories of 2012 was the sheer OUTRAGE on display over on Fox as the numbers started coming showing that no, Romney was not going to win comfortably as Fox had been telling everybody.
That, my friend, is an echo chamber.
And it seems that this time, the numbers are so bad that Trump is abandoning the "I'm going to win" echo chamber for the "I'm going to lose because it's rigged" echo chamber. Which is actually more frightening.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 16, 2016, 04:22:12 AM
Speaking of the WPost ... They just published one the most cynical, hubris-infected pieces of non-journalism I have ever read:
The article is an opinion piece. The main point is that what Trump is doing with respect to his accusers is not materially different from what Clinton and his minions did. The difference, the author claims, is that the times have changed and unsupported charges of sexual abuse are not as readily dismissed today as they were in the 90s. Do you disagree with this position? What is your objection to it exactly?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 16, 2016, 04:22:12 AM
By denying themselves access to the alternative, Conservative media, most Democrats are unable to appreciate the extent the NYT and WPost and other liberal organs skew the balance of their reportage (I freely admit that Fox editors are Conservative).
The problem is.. there's conservative media and THEN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies) there's (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/) Fox (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/14/how-a-lie-takes-flight-on-fox-newss-hannity/?utm_term=.3707424eb28a) News (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/bill-oreilly-long-list-of-lies/). Remember death panels? The liberal 'skewage' is nowhere near the Fox sewage.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 16, 2016, 04:22:12 AM
What really galls me is when a Democrat tells me, "The NYT is not biased, after all they publish David Brooks." Yes, true. I imagine that is as convincing as if I told them, "Fox News is not biased, after all they feature Juan Williams and Mara Liasson."
Oh my, he's galled. Fancy that. Oh the horror, I shall cancel my subscription to the Times immediately. But the analogy is not in the least convincing. The Times publishes columnists in print/Internet mode who can present their cases as reasoned arguments, no matter what their sides, and also allows for reader comments. Fox News presents the token liberals as fall guys, patsies simply to be dismissed on air with a contemptuous wave of the hand by the Hannitys or O'Reillys or whichever other "thinker" is on at the moment.
So you're telling me the NYT has a liberal bias? What's next - Beethoven wrote nine symphonies?
Quote from: ørfeo on October 16, 2016, 05:09:00 AM
You can't even keep this straight.
Your basic claim was "they're not criticising Clinton!". Karl has accordingly provided you with multiple front page stories. To which your response is "they're not criticising Clinton enough! Not as much as Fox News does!"
Well, duh.
You want to talk about echo chambers? Just think back to what happened in 2012. Which party's supporters were living in a "we're going to win" echo chamber, hmm? One of my strongest memories of 2012 was the sheer OUTRAGE on display over on Fox as the numbers started coming showing that no, Romney was not going to win comfortably as Fox had been telling everybody.
That, my friend, is an echo chamber.
And it seems that this time, the numbers are so bad that Trump is abandoning the "I'm going to win" echo chamber for the "I'm going to lose because it's rigged" echo chamber. Which is actually more frightening.
You misunderstand me, my friend - I don't expect the Times to cover Hillary Clinton any differently than they do. It would be refreshing though to have a conversation with one of my Liberal friends who recognizes that the Times covers all the news from a left-leaning perspective.
Quote from: BasilValentine on October 16, 2016, 05:15:32 AM
Did you actually read it? Doesn't sound like it. The article is an opinion piece. The main point is that what Trump is doing with respect to his accusers is not materially different from what Clinton and his minions did. The difference, the author claims, is that the times have changed and unsupported charges of sexual abuse are not as readily dismissed today as they were in the 90s. Do you disagree with this position? What is your objection to it exactly?
Yeah, I got it. That's the cynical part. ;)
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 16, 2016, 05:18:23 AM
The problem is.. there's conservative media and THEN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies) there's (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/) Fox (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/14/how-a-lie-takes-flight-on-fox-newss-hannity/?utm_term=.3707424eb28a) News (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/bill-oreilly-long-list-of-lies/). Remember death panels? The liberal 'skewage' is nowhere near the Fox sewage.
I guess it was during the 2008 election, I can remember having a conversation with my sister-in-law in which she railed against Fox News as being so biased and wrong to the point of fabricating stories against Democrats. However, I pointed out that everything she accuses Fox News of but cannot demonstrate had been done by CBS when they relied on a source they did not vet and accepted a fake letter "proving" that George Bush had lied about his service record. Dan Rather had to resign over the lapse of journalistic integrity.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 16, 2016, 05:27:36 AM
You misunderstand me, my friend - I don't expect the Times to cover Hillary Clinton any differently than they do. It would be refreshing though to have a conversation with one of my Liberal friends who recognizes that the Times covers all the news from a left-leaning perspective.
It depends on what you mean by that. What's your point of reference?
There's no doubt that the Times is to the left of Fox, for example. But then, absolutely everything is to the left of Fox. Sane conservative media is to the left of Fox. Even some slightly loopy media is to the left of Fox.
If you're trying to suggest, on the other hand, that the Times is to the left of some kind of "objective" reference point then that's a more problematic idea, because it assumes what you're trying to prove.
Right now, whatever "objective" reference you use for Clinton vs Trump has to take into the account that even staunchly Republican media is now endorsing Clinton over Trump. If you're wondering why Clinton is not coming in for as much criticism as Trump, one need only look at the list of things that Trump has said which has led certain newspapers and magazines to endorse a Democrat for the first time in their long history.
One often hears about the need for balance in the media, but usually in a way that assumes that 50% on each side of an argument is always appropriate. But it's not. It's not appropriate to give 50% of airtime to climate sceptics when only about 3% of scientists express any kind of climate scepticism. It's not appropriate to give equal airtime to anti-vaxxers when anti-vaxxers are a fringe group relying on a study about autism that is a known forgery. And it's not appropriate to give equal levels of criticism to both Clinton and Trump in a year when one of the two lead party candidates for President has demonstrated an extraordinary lack of qualification for the position, as outlined by
Conservative media that hasn't simply swallowed the Kool-Aid that says a Democrat is automatically worse just for being a Democrat.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 16, 2016, 05:27:36 AM
I guess it was during the 2008 election, I can remember having a conversation with my sister-in-law in which she railed against Fox News as being so biased and wrong to the point of fabricating stories against Democrats. However, I pointed out that everything she accuses Fox News of but cannot demonstrate had been done by CBS when they relied on a source they did not vet and accepted a fake letter "proving" that George Bush had lied about his service record. Dan Rather had to resign over the lapse of journalistic integrity.
And who from Fox News resigned over their lapses of journalistic integrity? If you want full equivalence, it's not just a story about "the left media does bad things as well", it's a story about whether or not people face consequences when they have such a lapse.
Why is the NYTimes assumed to be the deviant? The Repubs have been veering more to the right, they have not stood still. How are the flagship media organizations supposed to represent journalistic norms without appearing to veer to the left? If you ask Dems the Times is seen as culturally liberal and politically and economically centrist.
In one aspect there is a change, not specifically in liberal media but across the board. Institutions that usually avoid taking partisan positions are opposing Trump. Republican newspapers are endorsing Clinton. Something beyond partisanship motivates this. The duties of citizenship can override any version of "fair and balanced" everywhere outside the Fox bubble.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 16, 2016, 05:49:27 AM
And who from Fox News resigned over their lapses of journalistic integrity? If you want full equivalence, it's not just a story about "the left media does bad things as well", it's a story about whether or not people face consequences when they have such a lapse.
If you can provide an example of a lapse on the scale of what CBS News did, and the face of the story that ought to resign, I will look at it.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 16, 2016, 05:47:03 AM
It depends on what you mean by that. What's your point of reference?
There's no doubt that the Times is to the left of Fox, for example. But then, absolutely everything is to the left of Fox. Sane conservative media is to the left of Fox. Even some slightly loopy media is to the left of Fox.
If you're trying to suggest, on the other hand, that the Times is to the left of some kind of "objective" reference point then that's a more problematic idea, because it assumes what you're trying to prove.
First there is supposed to be a separation between the editiorial page (or webpages) and the news side. I don't know how much you watch Fox or read their newspapers like the NY Post and others. The Wall Street Journal is another example of what I consider responsible Conservative coverage.
I think the Times has erased the Chinese Wall between the editorial side and the news side. Purely my opinion.
I do not think there is any news outlet that is "objective", they are all biased to a degree. And it is manifested in where they place a story (front page, above the fold, back pages, news section, Op-Ed page ...), how the headline reads, or do they even cover a story, and finally which "facts" they choose present or leave out, who speaks for the opposing view, and what kind of context do they provide.
So, I read a variety of media and like RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/) since they offer links to articles from both sides of the spectrum in equal measure.
Fox News has been vilified by Liberals and largely by Liberals who say they don't watch/read it. I am not a "fan" of Fox, or any specific news outlet, as I said, I consider them all biased. But, I do read many from a variety of political POVs, including both the Times and Fox.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 15, 2016, 09:49:49 AM
It's her freaking job! That's so what. She offered no source. Clearly she didn't need to. Maybe the source was the girl's mother. It doesn't matter. It is NOT her job to decide her client is guilty and then conspire with the prosecutor to put him away for years. You sit there and pontificate about how awful she was, when clearly you don't understand the US justice system. I hope for your sake you are never in a position to have to discover the realities of it.
The system shouldn't be so porous that a rapist of a young minor slips through so easily. A self-proclaimed defender of women should be ashamed of this case at the outset of her career.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 16, 2016, 05:49:27 AM
And who from Fox News resigned over their lapses of journalistic integrity? If you want full equivalence, it's not just a story about "the left media does bad things as well", it's a story about whether or not people face consequences when they have such a lapse.
In the context of Fox News, what is a "lapse"?
In the world of real journalism a struggle has been going on. The sheer volume of fabrications from Trump means the media has to treat everything with an elevated skepticism that will no doubt be seen as elevated partisanship by many Trump supporters. This can't be helped.
Many Repubs who have come out against Trump now find themselves in a position to understand the difference between liberal partisanship and the cultural liberalism of the journalistic profession. Cultural liberalism is based on the idea of objectivity towards facts, not balance between competing political factions. Liberal partisans among journalists have adversarial goals that take them away from objectivity, but not to the extent that they can ignore it. Partisan liberals must always look over their shoulder at the cultural liberals at the NYTimes and WaPo. Fox News is no danger to them, journalists governed by liberal norms are.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 16, 2016, 06:23:42 AM
The system shouldn't be so porous that a rapist of a young minor slips through so easily. A self-proclaimed defender of women should be ashamed of this case at the outset of her career.
You should listen to the tape more carefully. The "system" wasn't the problem. The problems were incompetence by whoever processed the evidence and, ultimately, lack of evidence. Hillary was clearly saddened by the case, during which she lost all faith in lie detectors. Of course she shouldn't be ashamed of the case. She got the guy a drastically reduced sentence, meaning she did her job well and correctly!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 16, 2016, 06:23:42 AM
The system shouldn't be so porous that a rapist of a young minor slips through so easily. A self-proclaimed defender of women should be ashamed of this case at the outset of her career.
That is a problem with "the system" and with police negligence, not with a public defender who executes her responsibilities efficiently. The rule of law is important. If police and prosecutors can conspire to convict people without evidence because "we all know they're guilty" we are in a very bad place.
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 15, 2016, 09:29:46 PM
Heh. Did you just make that up? I'm now surprised I haven't seen it before.
I made up Agent Orange. He's an agent, he's orange. Orange is the new "red" hehe heh he. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Pretty funny...
https://www.youtube.com/v/qVMW_1aZXRk
I thought Baldwin's Trump was 'okay,' but the part where he's 'stalking' Clinton was hilarious.
Sanantonio, Rupert Murdoch is all yours now, but he came from Australia and Australians have plenty of familiarity with his work.
Also, I really wish you would stop categorising the entire world. This is in fact something of an American trait, wanting everything to have its own box. But one doesn't have to be a "liberal" to have a problem with Fox, a news source that you nominated. Politics is a spectrum, not two teams.
Trumps revised tax plan would lead to a hugely inflationary increase in net government spending. It's hard to imagine that Congress, which won't enact far smaller tax/spend adjustments to get more growth and rebuild the country would suddenly decide to send the fiscal balance into the stratosphere for..... what? Has he no understanding that you don't spend way more or way less into the private sector than it can use? Will no one explain it to him? Will no one explain it to whoever is supposed to explain it to him?
The myth that familiarity with business practice endows one with economic wisdom is pervasive. The truth is many exceptionally talented capitalists are entirely impervious to the difference between money for users and the money system itself. Trump can run out of money, and so can I, or Apple, or Missouri, or any other money user. It does not follow though that the system that creates money can run out of money. It can't (it fakes it with debt limits and other stratagems because it can't). I don't know why this is so hard to understand, and why its significance is so elusive. I'll just say this, any business titan that thinks that a money system can (or should!) run out of money just like a user, like his own business or personal bank account is an economic dunce. I'm not talking about the way the system should work, I'm talking about the way it does work. There no way on earth that Trump has the kind of systemic overview necessary to understand the irrationality of his plan.
A picture is worth a thousand words....
(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/09/09-donald-trump-bill-clinton-1.w710.h473.2x.jpg)
"Blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc"
Quote from: Spineur on October 16, 2016, 02:13:28 PM
A picture is worth a thousand words....
(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/09/09-donald-trump-bill-clinton-1.w710.h473.2x.jpg)
"Blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc"
yes it is...
Look is there really that much of a difference between Grandma and El Groper? Trump just talks it but he grew up in NY, if you count real policy he is not all that different than most democrats.
Trump's Fans Have More to Lose Than Trump Himself (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/what-will-happen-to-the-trump-die-hards/504032/)
If anything, Trumpism has, in part, made the rest of the nation all the more eager to ignore the millions of white voters living on the edges of the economy. Many may now be written off without guilt, because they have shown themselves to be not just unfortunates but undesirables—irredeemable hate-mongers itching to reassert their cultural dominance. Of course, the political establishment will first need to spend a couple of months piously lecturing Trump fans. But once the finger wagging is done, non-Trump America will return to their regular lives, leaving disappointed Trump devotees to stew in the resentments and anxieties he, among others, has nurtured.
No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, this is a tragic outcome. It leaves Americans that much more segregated and alienated from one another. It's exactly this kind of cross-cultural suspicion and mistrust that has enabled Trump to come within spitting distance of the presidency. And it's what threatens to keep his supporters isolated and fuming on the sidelines, long after their champion has forgotten them.
I try not to let my gloating get in the way of recognizing just how sad it will be when the Trumpists realize that now they are not only ignored and excluded, they are hated as much as they hate everyone on their long hate list. But though I understand what a tragedy this is for them, if I ever learn a Trumpist has bought the house next door I will gently but firmly burn it down.
Ohhh, not really, I won't really burn their house down, I'll just burn it down kind of in my mind. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 16, 2016, 06:06:48 AM
If you can provide an example of a lapse on the scale of what CBS News did, and the face of the story that ought to resign, I will look at it.
There are several straight-up lies in the links of post #5439 (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,24159.msg1007855.html#msg1007855) along with many less black-and-white issues.
Here is an especially ridiculous one:
https://www.youtube.com/v/-_zF7nbEvwY
This could almost be considered satire since the part about Birmingham is not even believable.
Gosh, he is just so . . . presidential!
Trump didn't provide any evidence for the claim that people representing Clinton were behind what Republican officials in North Carolina are calling "an act of political terrorism." (Trump did say the attack occurred "because we are winning," though most polls show Clinton leading in the state by several points.) (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/16/13301040/donald-trump-north-carolina-firebombing)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 16, 2016, 05:38:06 PM
yes it is...
Look is there really that much of a difference between Grandma and El Groper? Trump just talks it but he grew up in NY, if you count real policy he is not all that different than most democrats.
Well, my understanding is that most (though not all) of Bill's deviancies have been with the woman's consent.
Just misread a thread title as Amazing shortcomings in your election.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 17, 2016, 05:12:58 AM
Just misread a thread title as Amazing shortcomings in your election.
And it's not a big stretch from that to an even more nauseating one. :-X
Donald Trump is repeating Syrian President Bashar Assad's talking points (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-repeating-syrian-president-221100761.html)
(http://l.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/JxybYPcSF1Q2uonQfG8BsQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjUwO2g9NjAx/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Donald_Trump_is_repeating_Syrian-912d8820354a05b589b7022768ea5c3d)
The airstrikes marked in red are mostly in territory held by the Syrian opposition to Assad. Only a few strikes have been launched against ISIS held territory. Is Trump unaware of this damning evidence of Russian intentions, or is he aware and untroubled by it?
^^^ It kills me how much Trump just parrots Kremlin talking points. On Syria. On Ukraine. On NATO. On the European Union. Et cetera.
Where did all the patriotic Republicans / Conservatives go ? ? ???
Hello !!! Wake up !!! It's time to stop believing what you want to believe and start paying attention to what your candidate actually says !!!
I'm all for a nuanced approach to foreign policy, but there's nothing nuanced about Trump's ignorance, indifference, and naivete.
Oh I forgot - Trump has already told us he knows more than the generals know. I guess that means we would be in safe hands.
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/trumpsteak1.jpg)
You trust this guy??
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 17, 2016, 05:43:39 AM
Where did all the patriotic Republicans / Conservatives go ? ? ???
It's not their party any more. They fought and lost.
The evangelicals have lost, too.
Falwell Jr. Deepens Rift With Anti-Trump Liberty U Students (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/16/falwell-jr-deepens-rift-with-anti-trump-liberty-u-students.html)
The Conservative Churches Resettling Refugees (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/the-conservative-churches-resettling-refugees/499421/)
^^^ So true.
If Trump were a "normal" Republican, like, say, Kasich or Bush, then a protest vote against Clinton might be justifiable.
But with Trump being such a misanthrope, I would argue it is immoral to vote for the guy. If you vote for him, you are implicitly endorsing all that he represents.
Here is an opinion piece called "Burning Down the House" by Timothy Egan (the New York Times, which is evil, and part of the conspiracy to "rig" the election, of course).
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/opinion/burning-down-the-house.html
It makes the case that during this "unhinged" phase of Trump's campaign is is not simply damaging the Republican party, but the political fabric of the country.
He's losing the Hop-Hop vote. (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/clinton-trump-hip-hop-lyrics/)
"The media is out to get Trump." Really, we are still whining about this one? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/17/time-to-defend-our-elections/?utm_term=.0804b2ee14cf)
"The media is a lousy excuse, the last refuge of political losers."
But then, we all know he lies, daily; even those of us who will vote for him, no matter what.
Trump's claims about voter fraud are based on a lie
Only 0.000004375 percent of national votes were fraudulent from 2000 to 2014. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/17/13305448/trump-voter-fraud)
And, in Other Reasons to Feel Really, Really Good About This Election . . .
About 1 in 5 voters think Trump made unwanted sexual advances, but are still voting for him
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/17/roughly-1-in-5-voters-think-trump-has-made-unwanted-sexual-advances-but-are-still-voting-for-him/)
Donald Trump's Bill Clinton strategy is going very poorly
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows people don't even think Bill Clinton's well-documented history of indiscretions and other allegations made against him are relevant to this campaign. And this is despite Trump's repeated efforts to raise them in recent weeks.
The Post-ABC poll asked whether people thought "Bill Clinton's treatment of women" is a legitimate issue. Just 31 percent of likely voters said it is, while two-thirds (67 percent) said it isn't. Even Republicans said by a 50-46 margin that it isn't a legitimate issue. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/17/donald-trumps-bill-clinton-strategy-is-going-very-poorly/) (Emphasis mine.)
The pattern of the 2016 race has been that Hillary Clinton is winning. Not to oversimplify or anything, but that's the pattern. Clinton gets the support of a bit under 50 percent of voters. Donald Trump gets the support of a bit over 40 percent.
[...]
He's got a core of support, made up heavily of white men without college degrees, and has at times managed to expand that outward. But those expansions tend to then contract as Clinton has a good convention or debate or Trump is caught on tape casually talking about sexual assaults. That sort of thing. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/17/this-is-what-donald-trumps-poll-ceiling-looks-like/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na)
Quote from: drogulus on October 17, 2016, 07:32:46 AM
It's not their party any more. They fought and lost.
The evangelicals have lost, too.
For now. It's hard to see how a Trump loss will shake out. The Rs have largely ignored McCain and Romney after their general election losses, and Trump's could be more decisive. OTOH with Rupert Murdoch having given way to his sons, Trump News could replace Fox as the base's preferred source of fact and fiction, which could make him
more influential than he currently is, especially with the party having no clear leader (Cruz has damaged his own brand to the point that he may face a serious primary challenge in 2018).
I've already predicted Tom Cotton as their 2020 nominee. He's a taller, less whiny Cruz, and he has laid relatively low this cycle, which now looks deft.
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 17, 2016, 07:42:46 AM
^^^ So true.
If Trump were a "normal" Republican, like, say, Kasich or Bush, then a protest vote against Clinton might be justifiable.
But with Trump being such a misanthrope, I would argue it is immoral to vote for the guy. If you vote for him, you are implicitly endorsing all that he represents.
I consider Trump the worst major candidate of my lifetime, but I don't think this is fair. All of the candidates -- and I include Johnson, Stein, and Mcmullin -- are far from perfect. A vote for any of them is a judgment of their advantages and disadvantages
relative to the others, not a full-fledged endorsement of every aspect of that candidate.
Quote from: Pat B on October 17, 2016, 12:35:09 PMI've already predicted Tom Cotton as their 2020 nominee. He's a taller, less whiny Cruz, and he has laid relatively low this cycle, which now looks deft.
Seems that's about the only way in which Republicans can improve their candidates.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 17, 2016, 10:08:10 AM
And, in Other Reasons to Feel Really, Really Good About This Election . . .
About 1 in 5 voters think Trump made unwanted sexual advances, but are still voting for him
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/17/roughly-1-in-5-voters-think-trump-has-made-unwanted-sexual-advances-but-are-still-voting-for-him/)
Of course. Since Bill Clinton also made unwanted sexual advances (even though he's not running for president), Donald Trump's unwanted sexual advances are of no importance.
Trump behaves publicly towards women in a way that is grossly offensive. As for his behavior in private, there are numerous allegations against him. Just like with Bill Clinton, it's for the courts to decide, not partisan lynch mobs. Everybody OK with that? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
The typical Trump supporter who calls up talk radio station always says he/she is really scared. He/she is really scared is Mexicans, Muslims, transgenders, and above all change.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 17, 2016, 04:24:01 PM
The typical Trump supporter who calls up talk radio station always says he/she is really scared. He/she is really scared of Mexicans, Muslims, transgenders, and above all change.
Fear is the best way to control people.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 17, 2016, 04:45:36 PM
Fear is the best way to control people.
Indeed. it's worked wonders for governments all over the world.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 17, 2016, 04:24:01 PM
The typical Trump supporter who calls up talk radio station always says he/she is really scared. He/she is really scared is Mexicans, Muslims, transgenders, and above all change.
What's this Mexo-phobia now? No, it is not fear of transgenders or Muslims but a legitimate concern about the effect of unchecked immigration and redefining core values derived from the Judeo-Christian. Change is not a value because it can lead to anti-values. In fact, you can "keep the change", Mr. O!
Top left of today's Washington Post front page is the Clinton e-mail story. That crooked "MSM": Helluva way to bury that news!
A bit further down on the left, a link to a column about Melania pinning the hubster's problems on The Press!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 12:58:03 AM
Top left of today's Washington Post front page is the Clinton e-mail story. That crooked "MSM": Helluva way to bury that news!
It can't be helped. The cats are already out of the bag.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 01:25:18 AM
It can't be helped. The cats are already out of the bag.
As
Brian points out, it was the major newspapers who broke the story.
Meanwhile:His indifference and/or hostility to the Constitution (why does he hate America so, we wonders, we wonders?) would make his taking the Oath of Office a putrid charade:
"Many Americans still support Trump in the belief that he will protect the Constitution. We understand that belief, but we do not share it," the group wrote. "Trump's long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution's basic features — including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and due process of law." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/17/conservative-originalists-letter-calls-trump-indifferent-or-hostile-to-the-constitution/)Conservatives understand that this goon ain't no Conservative.
Election Day is three weeks from today.
So at least, the Countdown draweth nigh.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 02:44:53 AM
"Many Americans still support Trump in the belief that he will protect the Constitution. We understand that belief, but we do not share it," the group wrote. "Trump's long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution's basic features — including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and due process of law."[/url][/i]
Conservatives understand that this goon ain't no Conservative.
Hate to disappoint you but at least one Christian forum has virtually NO support for Hillary, the main reason her being the doyenne of Planned Parenthood. Trump did write a letter to some ministers promising he would protect freedom of religion.
If y'all haven't noticed, freedom of conscience is observed more in the breach in the US than as a viable reason not to submit to secular correctness. This impacts freedom of expression since people are forced to self-censor, for instance, students in universities and writers for newspaper and journals.
Religion has lost its prestige in American society so much that one has to apologize for mentioning it. From what I can gather by reading some Christian opinions, a continuation of stacking the Supreme Court with liberals who will trample on traditional values by legislating from the bench, is devoutly not desired.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 17, 2016, 08:46:23 PM
redefining core values derived from the Judeo-Christian
stacking the Supreme Court with liberals who will trample on traditional values by legislating from the bench
If you think it's considered impolite to mention religion, try arguing for atheism for a while.
Morality pre-dates organized religion by tens of thousands of years, perhaps more. If your basic sense of moral decency tells you one thing, and your religion tells you a different thing, you're better off going with your innate sense of fairness.
Morality is not rocket science. Even monkeys and cats have a basic sense of fairness. Probably 95% of morality boils down to the golden rule, which is not particularly Judeo-Christian. The thought that one particular religion has some sort of inside track or monopoly on morality is just absurd.
I know you won't agree with me, but you should agree with me to this extent − the majority of human religions are wrong. Even you must admit that statement is mathematically true since no single religion is believed by more than 50% of the human population (thank goodness, by the way). You may choose to believe that your religion is the exception to the rule; I don't.
Having established (I hope) that no one has any special privileged insight into morality, here's a statement which you may consider shocking: prohibiting early-stage abortions is immoral. Women are not breeding cattle; and have the right to make major life decisions, at least before their baby is fully formed. I know you don't agree with me, but that's life. We live in a country where you can believe what you want, and I can believe what my heart tells me.
Thank goodness the religious right has not yet succeeded in stacking the Supreme Court with fanatics who will trample on the separation of church and state. Far too many wars have been fought over religion. The US republic was founded during a period of history when its leaders were acutely aware of this problem, and sought to protect the country from further religious wars. You ought to respect their wisdom.
Pushback − there needs to be more of it. :)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 03:39:15 AM
Hate to disappoint you but at least one Christian forum has virtually NO support for Hillary, the main reason her being the doyenne of Planned Parenthood. Trump did write a letter to some ministers promising he would protect freedom of religion.
If y'all haven't noticed, freedom of conscience is observed more in the breach in the US than as a viable reason not to submit to secular correctness. This impacts freedom of expression since people are forced to self-censor, for instance, students in universities and writers for newspaper and journals.
Religion has lost its prestige in American society so much that one has to apologize for mentioning it. From what I can gather by reading some Christian opinions, a continuation of stacking the Supreme Court with liberals who will trample on traditional values by legislating from the bench, is devoutly not desired.
I am nothing disappointed ;)
El Tupé writes and says much, much that even a majority of those who will vote for him do not believe. That we even have a conversation in which either of us considers him "the religious candidate" is something of a sarcasm.
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 18, 2016, 04:35:56 AM
Pushback − there needs to be more of it. :)
There certainly needs to be more pushback against trying to encode religion in the Law. That is un-Constitutional.
At any rate, this is looking increasingly moot:
Trump's path to an electoral college victory isn't narrow. It's non-existent.
Trump is and has been a disaster as a presidential nominee, and that will not change in the campaign's final days. Nor is there any reason to believe that voters from important demographic groups will warm to him. He continues to play only to his core supporters.
There is no surge among white voters for Trump — at least not enough to offset the Republican and swing voters he will lose. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/18/gop-still-faces-uphill-senate-climb/)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 04:43:33 AM
El Tupé writes and says much, much that even a majority of those who will vote for him do not believe. That we even have a conversation in which either of us considers him "the religious candidate" is something of a sarcasm.
'Lecherous and worthless': Megachurch pastor from Trump's own evangelical council denounces him (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/10/misogynistic-trash-megachurch-pastor-from-trumps-own-evangelical-council-denounces-him/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 17, 2016, 08:46:23 PM
What's this Mexo-phobia now? No, it is not fear of transgenders or Muslims but a legitimate concern about the effect of unchecked immigration and redefining core values derived from the Judeo-Christian. Change is not a value because it can lead to anti-values. In fact, you can "keep the change", Mr. O!
Mr. O? You mean Obama?
Anyway you can't deport 11 million Mexicans, it is just not possible unless you pull some SS blitz straight out of WWII. In this day and age no court is going to sanction that.
If you really want to keep them out building a wall won't do it either. What you can do is order sentries posted on borders on high lookouts and guard the boundary with machine guns. Announce to the world that if you try to come in you will be shot on sight. That will stop 99% of all attempted crossings.
Mexicans aren't the ones taking away what used to be good middle class factory jobs - those are overseas now and are never coming back. Mexicans take the jobs like 12 hrs dishwashing in a restaurant, wiping oatmeal from the chins of octogenarians in nursing homes, and whatever jobs the typical Anglo-Saxon in small town Ohio WON"T take.
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 18, 2016, 04:35:56 AM
If you think it's considered impolite to mention religion, try arguing for atheism for a while.
Morality pre-dates organized religion by tens of thousands of years, perhaps more. If your basic sense of moral decency tells you one thing, and your religion tells you a different thing, you're better off going with your innate sense of fairness.
Morality is not rocket science. Even monkeys and cats have a basic sense of fairness. Probably 95% of morality boils down to the golden rule, which is not particularly Judeo-Christian. The thought that one particular religion has some sort of inside track or monopoly on morality is just absurd.
I know you won't agree with me, but you should agree with me to this extent − the majority of human religions are wrong. Even you must admit that statement is mathematically true since no single religion is believed by more than 50% of the human population (thank goodness, by the way). You may choose to believe that your religion is the exception to the rule; I don't.
Having established (I hope) that no one has any special privileged insight into morality, here's a statement which you may consider shocking: prohibiting early-stage abortions is immoral. Women are not breeding cattle; and have the right to make major life decisions, at least before their baby is fully formed. I know you don't agree with me, but that's life. We live in a country where you can believe what you want, and I can believe what my heart tells me.
Thank goodness the religious right has not yet succeeded in stacking the Supreme Court with fanatics who will trample on the separation of church and state. Far too many wars have been fought over religion. The US republic was founded during a period of history when its leaders were acutely aware of this problem, and sought to protect the country from further religious wars. You ought to respect their wisdom.
I am not going to argue with you about an innate sense of morality that everyone carries around (OK I might buy that) and scrupulously adheres to it (hardly ever). The Founders of the US did not establish "freedom from religion" but "freedom for religion" as they were persecuted in England. They had a pessimistic view of humanity that in its natural state has as its default mode: "might makes right".
The most advanced civilizations preceding Christianity still had no time for women, children, poor, elderly and incapacitated. These had virtually no value. Slaves could be put to death. Charitable hospices were built for the first time by Christians. It was a long process over 2000 years for women to achieve equal rights but they came ultimately out of Christian ethics.
This is too long a subject to pursue but "what your heart tells you" might be diametrically opposed to another person, say a serial murderer who hears voices in his head. Who are you to tell him HE is deluded?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 04:49:06 AM
'Lecherous and worthless': Megachurch pastor from Trump's own evangelical council denounces him (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/10/misogynistic-trash-megachurch-pastor-from-trumps-own-evangelical-council-denounces-him/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na)
They can sneer all they want and cast the first stone but the recent accusations have been without any real evidence. I tend to believe Melania when she says:
"Melania Trump told Cooper she has seen women hand her husband pieces of paper with their phone numbers on them right in front of her, making it unlikely he would pursue women against their will."Remember the story of Potiphar's wife, you know, the "woman scorned"?
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/melania-trump-billy-bush-egged-donald-trump/2016/10/17/id/753897/#ixzz4NRUoBcX0
In Private, Clinton Split With Obama on Iran (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-17/in-private-clinton-split-with-obama-on-iran)
Clinton's skepticism of Rouhani is in line with other criticisms of Obama's foreign policy she shared in her behind-closed-doors speeches. For example, at an October 2013 speech at the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit, she was critical of Obama's decision to walk away from his "red line" on the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons. "You can't squander your reputation and your leadership capital," she said. "You have to do what you say you're going to do. You have to be smart about executing on your strategies. And you've got to be careful not to send the wrong message to others, such as Iran."
Yes, you have to have public and private positions. Leaders are not merely representatives. They must have the capacity to learn from experience. They have to think ahead of events.
Whether we elect a war- or peacemonger we'll continue to fight the war we've been fighting for decades against Sunni and Shia extremists who also fight each other. How we fight it is a matter of dispute, that we fight it is not entirely up to us. In a "war of choice" we don't do all the choosing.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 05:14:43 AM
I am not going to argue with you about an innate sense of morality that everyone carries around (OK I might buy that) and scrupulously adheres to it (hardly ever). The Founders of the US did not establish "freedom from religion" but "freedom for religion" as they were persecuted in England.
It's a package deal. Freedom for religion just changes the identity of the persecutors. The Founders didn't want any religious majority to have the power to persecute religious minorities. They didn't want "new improved" persecution, they wanted to abolish it. They wanted secular government. I agree with them that the condition of maximum freedom for all religions requires freedom from all religions.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 05:20:34 AM
They can sneer all they want and cast the first stone but the recent accusations have been without any real evidence. I tend to believe Melania when she says:
"Melania Trump told Cooper she has seen women hand her husband pieces of paper with their phone numbers on them right in front of her, making it unlikely he would pursue women against their will."
Remember the story of Potiphar's wife, you know, the "woman scorned"?
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/melania-trump-billy-bush-egged-donald-trump/2016/10/17/id/753897/#ixzz4NRUoBcX0
Whether Billy Bush egged The Donald on, The Donald consented to be egged. Whether women handed The Donald pieces of paper does not disprove the accusations made by numerous women against him. It's not a case of "he said, she said." It's a case of "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said. . . . "
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 18, 2016, 06:12:58 AM
It's not a case of "he said, she said." It's a case of "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said. . . . "
These are individual cases, 9 in total. Just because one might be right doesn't make the others right. In fact they can all be wrong or all right. Still there is no evidence. Maybe they all got some pocket money as well.
. . . but the recent accusations have been without any real evidence.
Quoth Jennifer Rubin: (Well, other than their accounts, the people they told about the incidents and her husband's own description of his behavior.)
Is Melania Trump devilishly clever — or totally out to lunch? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/18/is-melania-trump-devilishly-clever-or-totally-out-to-lunch/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b7afe6929ed8)
I found this pretty hilarious regarding K. Willey:
Clinton stated that the allegation was absurd because Willey is a small-breasted woman and he would never pursue such a woman
Kind of like Trump saying one of his accusers is too ugly for him to grope her.
Quote from: Jennifer RubinEven worse, Melania Trump sounded like an apologist and enabler of Donald Trump's alleged predatory behavior — and made him sound like a weak child. She claimed that Billy Bush had "egged" her husband on to talk "dirty." (If he cannot resist Billy Bush, imagine him up against Vladimir Putin!) She insisted her husband was merely engaged in "boy talk." Cooper deadpanned, "He was 59."
Donald Trump is preparing to argue that if he loses the presidential election on November 8, that's only because it was "stolen" from him.
So if Trump does go down to defeat, Republican and conservative leaders across the country will immediately face a choice on November 9.
Do they play along with Trump's bullshit, or do they tell their voters the truth — that he lost fair and square? (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/18/13279760/trump-voter-fraud-republicans)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 07:02:46 AM
These are individual cases, 9 in total. Just because one might be right doesn't make the others right. In fact they can all be wrong or all right. Still there is no evidence. Maybe they all got some pocket money as well.
The Republicans have been collecting dirt on the Clintons for over two decades now. Heck, there are plenty of people who make a good living doing just that. While they've clearly compromised Bill, Hillary comes out looking surprisingly clean.
Trump has been in the spotlight for less than a year, and serious efforts to collect dirt on him have hardly begun. Trump has also been covering his butt for a long time with various payoffs, non-disclosure agreements, and threats to sue. Based on his obviously predatory lifestyle, there's plenty more dirt out there on him that hasn't come out yet. Including that 13-year-old girl whom he slept with a few years back.
If Trump (God help us) is elected president, a lot more dirt will float to the surface.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 07:22:13 AM
Donald Trump is preparing to argue that if he loses the presidential election on November 8, that's only because it was "stolen" from him. So if Trump does go down to defeat, Republican and conservative leaders across the country will immediately face a choice on November 9. Do they play along with Trump's bullshit, or do they tell their voters the truth — that he lost fair and square?
I put my bets on a dark horse. Sooner or later we will have President Kaine. I don't think the lady can last out 4 years.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 07:32:44 AM
I put my bets on a dark horse. Sooner or later we will have President Kaine. I don't think the lady can last out 4 years.
Well, if she lasts eight years, you will be pleasantly surprised, then ;)
Separately, call it creepy rather than illegal . . .
Donald Trump has been making disturbing comments about young girls for years (http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/18/13282192/trump-young-girls-10-year-old-teens-sexual-comments)
The video of the child pulling back from him as he tries to kiss her on the lips; don't watch if your stomach is weak.
Wasn't there a comment by Trump regarding a 10 yr old girl something along the line of "In 10 yrs I will be dating her/sleeping with her etc."?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 07:35:14 AM
Well, if she lasts eight years, you will be pleasantly surprised, then ;)
Not a pleasant surprise to have 4 or 8 more years of everything that is wrong with the country.
The lady seems to have a neurological disorder. One does not "faint" from pneumonia and skip down Madison Avenue an hour and a half later. This kind of collapse is either neurological or cardio-vascular (according to some doctors). One learned opinion (can get the source if you want) says that the concussion in 2012 could have been more likely a result of an already existing condition like Parkinson's, not the other way around (in other words falling from a blackout). She also has exhibited freezing, strange tics and uncoordinated eye movements typical of just that.
If would have been much better for her to clench her life's ambition in 2008. I heard a very interesting take on that. The premise was losing to Obama because he represented more the underdog than her. Correcting the mistake, she's trying to project this with her "working class" father, and rich people carrying their share of the tax burden (while deftly hiding the millions she made in the past two decades).
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 18, 2016, 07:40:47 AM
Wasn't there a comment by Trump regarding a 10 yr old girl something along the line of "In 10 yrs I will be dating her/sleeping with her etc."?
More than one occasion, "I'll be dating her."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 08:06:05 AM
More than one occasion, "I'll be dating her."
And he wants to lock Grandma up?
Hillary Clinton's email problems just came roaring back (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/17/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-came-roaring-back/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fbiclinton-0545pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)Quote from: Chris CillizzaThe Clinton campaign will, as it has done every time there is any news about whether she sent or received classified material on her private server, chalk this up to an interagency dispute over classification. Typical bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, they will say. This sort of stuff happens all the time!
Except, not really . . . .
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 07:02:46 AM
These are individual cases, 9 in total. Just because one might be right doesn't make the others right. In fact they can all be wrong or all right. Still there is no evidence. Maybe they all got some pocket money as well.
And what kind of evidence would satisfy you? a videotape? Does it not concern you that Trump's alleged behavior is entirely consistent with the "locker room boy talk" for which we do have videotaped evidence in the Billy Bush conversation, as well as a whole history of well-documented derogatory attacks on women? And for someone so concerned with evidence, why do you poison the well by bringing up kickbacks for which you know perfectly well there is no evidence?
It boggles the mind as well to hear that you "tend to believe Melania" standing by her man when you have attacked Hillary Clinton for doing precisely the same for her man.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 08:06:05 AM
More than one occasion, "I'll be dating her."
Oh come now, I have heard that said in jest by my own uncles. Give me a break!
Trump says if he wins election he might meet with Putin before officially taking office (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-putin-meet-2016-10)
"If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him," Trump said in September. "I've already said he is very much of a leader. The man has very strong control over his country."
https://www.youtube.com/v/FO725Hbzfls
The point is not that Putin = Hitler. I'm making a different point, that on any scale of threat appeasement = appeasement where aggressive autocrats are concerned. It's the pattern we know so well from the '30s.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 18, 2016, 08:21:30 AM
And what kind of evidence would satisfy you? a videotape? Does it not concern you that Trump's alleged behavior is entirely consistent with the "locker room boy talk" for which we do have videotaped evidence in the Billy Bush conversation, as well as a whole history of well-documented derogatory attacks on women? And for someone so concerned with evidence, why do you poison the well by bringing up kickbacks for which you know perfectly well there is no evidence? It boggles the mind as well to hear that you "tend to believe Melania" standing by her man when you have attacked Hillary Clinton for doing precisely the same for her man.
Monica Lewinsky was just making it up? There was no one to corroborate his gift to her (and a few other things)?
Paula Jones, Broadderick, Gennifer Flowers? Standing by a known serial moocher for decades is on a totally different level. Actions do speak louder than words. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 08:47:10 AM
Oh come now, I have heard that said in jest by my own uncles. Give me a break!
Do your uncles also call you "a piece of ass"?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 08:53:41 AM
Monica Lewinsky was just making it up? There was no one to corroborate his gift to her (and a few other things)?
Paula Jones, Broadderick, Gennifer Flowers? Standing by a known serial moocher for decades is on a totally different level. Actions do speak louder than words. The hypocrisy is staggering.
What's staggering is that the only member on this thread to consistently excuse Trump's behavior is the only woman.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 08:53:41 AM
Standing by a known serial moocher for decades is on a totally different level. Actions do speak louder than words. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Now, this seems - I'm uncomfortable with this. A marriage is a private commitment between two people and, if they want it, a god. We have all seen weird marriages, or dysfunctional ones, or decisions that make no sense from the outside. There are men married to women 40 years younger, or serial philanderers like WJC and JFK, or that crazy lady who wanted to marry Charles Manson in jail last year.
It's easy for us to judge everyone from the outside, but if we're being honest: what right do we have to judge those things? What right do we have to condemn Hillary for "standing by a known moocher"? Maybe she loves him. Maybe they had conversations and agreements we're not privy to. Maybe she read him the riot act but was too classy to do so in public. I think chastising Hillary for "standing by" Bill is deeply confused, maybe misogynistic.
Speaking of which, when you say "actions do speak louder than words" and accuse Hillary of hypocrisy - that confuses me too, because while Hillary's actions have been
the use of words, Trump's actions have been
actually assaulting and molesting people. One of those is very clearly worse.
Standing by a known serial moocher for decades is indeed on a totally different level than sexual assault.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 08:53:41 AM
Monica Lewinsky was just making it up? There was no one to corroborate his gift to her (and a few other things)?
Paula Jones, Broadderick, Gennifer Flowers? Standing by a known serial moocher for decades is on a totally different level. Actions do speak louder than words. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Quote from: Brian on October 18, 2016, 09:18:42 AM
Now, this seems - I'm uncomfortable with this. A marriage is a private commitment between two people and, if they want it, a god. We have all seen weird marriages, or dysfunctional ones, or decisions that make no sense from the outside. There are men married to women 40 years younger, or serial philanderers like WJC and JFK, or that crazy lady who wanted to marry Charles Manson in jail last year.
It's easy for us to judge everyone from the outside, but if we're being honest: what right do we have to judge those things? What right do we have to condemn Hillary for "standing by a known moocher"? Maybe she loves him. Maybe they had conversations and agreements we're not privy to. Maybe she read him the riot act but was too classy to do so in public. I think chastising Hillary for "standing by" Bill is deeply confused, maybe misogynistic.
Speaking of which, when you say "actions do speak louder than words" and accuse Hillary of hypocrisy - that confuses me too, because while Hillary's actions have been the use of words, Trump's actions have been actually assaulting and molesting people. One of those is very clearly worse.
Brian is 100% right. No one is prepared to judge a marriage but the people in the marriage. They have a commitment to each other that they have found worthy of preserving and continuing over 40 years. It must be providing them mutual support, even if it does not involve an exclusive sexual relationship. The issue with Monica Lewinsky may have been, not that there was an intimate encounter, but that he was so indiscrete as to allow it to blow up into a public spectacle that humiliated her and endangered his presidency.
By Donald Trump has made multiple public statements which I find extremely troubling. He said that his ownership of the Miss Universe pageant "sort of" gives him the right to walk in on naked women in the dressing room. He told a television reporter that he can sexually assault women because he's "a star." Man women have come forward to say that he did to them exactly what he bragged he can do. He mocked a reporter with a congenital deformity, he mocked a mother who's son died in Iraq defending his unit from a bomb, he mocked John McCain's war service. He spent years claiming that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., then blamed Hillary Clinton for starting it. Her is a pathological liar who does not recognize the rights and human dignity of anyone but himself. For him to have the power of the office of president is terrifying to me.
We still have three weeks to go, and considering that this season has been an even wilder (and much less agreeable) ride than the Schnittke First, it may be rather bumpy yet. But:
The polls are split between Hillary Clinton winning and ... Hillary Clinton winning in a landslide (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13311128/polls-trump-clinton-2016-winning)
Quote from: Scarpia on October 18, 2016, 10:31:35 AM
The issue with Monica Lewinsky may have been, not that there was an intimate encounter, but that he was so indiscrete as to allow it to blow up into a public spectacle that humiliated her and endangered his presidency.
The more fundamental issue is that she worked for him, which is Not Okay in my book. Same with Paula Jones.
Had Jones come forward before the 1992 election, she might have made more of a political impact. I also think people are more aware of the issue now than 24 years ago.
Anyway, I don't think spouses are going to be decisive in this election.
Citizen Pain
After he loses the election, Donald Trump will enter a world of hurt. (https://newrepublic.com/article/137864/donald-trump-citizen-pain)
History will not be kind to Donald Trump. Nor should it be.
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 18, 2016, 03:57:44 PM
History will not be kind to Donald Trump. Nor should it be.
Completely agree, nasty fellows like him always get their comeuppance...ALWAYS.
Quote from: Pat B on October 18, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
The more fundamental issue is that she worked for him, which is Not Okay in my book. Same with Paula Jones.
Had Jones come forward before the 1992 election, she might have made more of a political impact. I also think people are more aware of the issue now than 24 years ago.
Anyway, I don't think spouses are going to be decisive in this election.
Yes; it's a profound misstep to live in the past, and flout Bill Clinton's flaws: he ain't on the ballot, and the younger electorate aren't invested in that resentment.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
So, no one here has seen the new Project Veritas video? I can't believe youse are still on PussyGate. wtf, guys- we have real life crimes going on and youse are ... ALL?... acting like rabid grannies over these unvetted allegations- at least the ClintonRapeSquad has a track record of legal action and such.
Anyway, we can either discuss the actual crimes of QUID PRO QUO - and I don't care what the State Dept spokesmouth, or Obama have to say about (how would he know the FBI isn't telling the truth?).
Maybe it's time to fry Obama for good? What did he know and when did he know it?
hey zbyrd-
Would you please just take the gloves off already. The GenPop here are beholden to any member of a MajorVictimGroup, so, by merely having the passageway-of-life, you can singlehandedly dispose of all their faux-phemenist brainwashing... if there's one thing these folks are terrified of, it's a woman (Italian horror movie scared!!). Please explain that some men haven't yet been chemically neutered and that today's woman really don't have it so bad. Something. Anything. Nuke 'em.
This latest Project Veritas video really is deplorable and disgusting. Please, all my dear keyboard strokes here, please tell me that what you hear on those vids is just wrong. Well, I don't need you to confirm it- but- please... seriously... can we stop talkin pussy hear for just.one.day.????
I have told you before I have to write in my candidate, just to be able to show my sheer impartiality and neutrality here. I can't support a narcissus - but... I am aflame against my brethren here for being such gutless cowards as to not see the absolute and pure corruption that is the Clinton/Bush cartel... in this case, the Clinton side... and in this case, Hilldawg.
Have you not read
Chelsea's email where she is so shocked at the level of corruption at the CF? Have you not watched this current video where lifelong Demo operatives gloat about their Chicago style old skool taktiks?
Hillary's a grassroots revolution??? HUH???? splain it to me lucy
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 05:08:29 PM
Yes; it's a profound misstep to live in the past, and flout Bill Clinton's flaws: he ain't on the ballot, and the younger electorate aren't invested in that resentment.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Hopefully the Bill Clinton Rape Video will come out at some point. I see on Drudge now they're looking into some sexy Hilldawg scandel thingy... seems she likes to grab the P too!!!!!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 05:08:29 PM
Yes; it's a profound misstep to live in the past, and flout Bill Clinton's flaws: he ain't on the ballot, and the younger electorate aren't invested in that resentment.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
please watch the project veritas video all the way thru
oh, and btw- HOWARD DEAN last night????? wtf was that???? please post CNN vid... I'm sure we can at least agree that he is a clueless cog
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 18, 2016, 03:57:44 PM
History will not be kind to Donald Trump. Nor should it be.
The main benefit of this campaign is that I've learned about Barry Goldwater. Perhaps in a few decades a new generation will learn about Trump in a similar way.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 18, 2016, 05:08:29 PM
Yes; it's a profound misstep to live in the past, and flout Bill Clinton's flaws: he ain't on the ballot.
You missed the part of a "champion of women" harassing his victims. Maybe it's too complex for you to understand the meaning of "enabling" an addict. If sexual acting out (including Lolita parties at his friend Epstein's island) was going on for decades, it shows a wife is not just standing by her man but is complicit, like supplying dope to a druggie. Without knowing anything else about the person (like she has quite a sewer mouth), this is not only a serious character flaw but psychologically unsound. It's a heightened form of lying to herself and everyone else so should not be trusted AT ALL!!! She is Lady Macbeth and Jezebel put together and it confounds me why you don't see it.
Gee, I simply can't imagine the commentary if Hillary had divorced her husband instead. [/sarcasm]
Quote from: ørfeo on October 18, 2016, 10:12:34 PM
Gee, I simply can't imagine the commentary if Hillary had divorced her husband instead. [/sarcasm]
Bleedin' obvious she would have been finished politically if she dumped Billy-boy. Divorce doesn't have the same censure it did decades ago. Instead, she would have been applauded to have freed herself from the jerk. Actually, doing just that would have earned some respect from me.
Meanwhile here's a goggle of the present Veep. If that had been me at 3:40 I would have bitten his hand:
https://www.youtube.com/v/6IL5u5U39Qo
For Brutus is an honourable man...So are they all, all honourable men...
Quote from: snyprrr on October 18, 2016, 05:19:53 PM
So, no one here has seen the new Project Veritas video? I can't believe youse are still on PussyGate. wtf, guys- we have real life crimes going on and youse are ... ALL?... acting like rabid grannies over these unvetted allegations- at least the ClintonRapeSquad has a track record of legal action and such.
Anyway, we can either discuss the actual crimes of QUID PRO QUO - and I don't care what the State Dept spokesmouth, or Obama have to say about (how would he know the FBI isn't telling the truth?).
Maybe it's time to fry Obama for good? What did he know and when did he know it?
hey zbyrd-
Would you please just take the gloves off already. The GenPop here are beholden to any member of a MajorVictimGroup, so, by merely having the passageway-of-life, you can singlehandedly dispose of all their faux-phemenist brainwashing... if there's one thing these folks are terrified of, it's a woman (Italian horror movie scared!!). Please explain that some men haven't yet been chemically neutered and that today's woman really don't have it so bad. Something. Anything. Nuke 'em.
This latest Project Veritas video really is deplorable and disgusting. Please, all my dear keyboard strokes here, please tell me that what you hear on those vids is just wrong. Well, I don't need you to confirm it- but- please... seriously... can we stop talkin pussy hear for just.one.day. ??? ?
I have told you before I have to write in my candidate, just to be able to show my sheer impartiality and neutrality here. I can't support a narcissus - but... I am aflame against my brethren here for being such gutless cowards as to not see the absolute and pure corruption that is the Clinton/Bush cartel... in this case, the Clinton side... and in this case, Hilldawg.
Have you not read Chelsea's email where she is so shocked at the level of corruption at the CF? Have you not watched this current video where lifelong Demo operatives gloat about their Chicago style old skool taktiks?
Hillary's a grassroots revolution??? HUH? ??? splain it to me lucy
Hopefully the Bill Clinton Rape Video will come out at some point. I see on Drudge now they're looking into some sexy Hilldawg scandel thingy... seems she likes to grab the P too!!!!!
I only hope you're El Tupé's debate coach,
snypsss.
Whatever may be the priority of El Tupé's determined supporters, it ain't the truth:
For the record, Trump wins at Liar's Dice — by a long shot, according to PolitiFact. At last count, Clinton has told the truth 24 percent of the time, compared with Trump at 4 percent. Clinton's statements have been "mostly true" 27 percent of the time compared with Trump's 11 percent. In the "pants-on-fire" category, meaning not just false but a bald-faced lie, Clinton scores 3 percent to Trump's 17 percent. At least he's winning at something. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-trump-could-still-win/2016/10/18/efb4a91e-956b-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ddaf17f12f22)
So, to be clear, probably no one who is voting for Clinton disagrees that her transparency and embrace of facts could use a shot of vitamins. But if you're in the tank with El Tupé, it is no better than a sarcasm to call Clinton a liar.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 01:06:14 AM
Whatever may be the priority of El Tupé's determined supporters, it ain't the truth:
For the record, Trump wins at Liar's Dice — by a long shot, according to PolitiFact. At last count, Clinton has told the truth 24 percent of the time, compared with Trump at 4 percent. Clinton's statements have been "mostly true" 27 percent of the time compared with Trump's 11 percent. In the "pants-on-fire" category, meaning not just false but a bald-faced lie, Clinton scores 3 percent to Trump's 17 percent. At least he's winning at something. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-trump-could-still-win/2016/10/18/efb4a91e-956b-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ddaf17f12f22)
So, to be clear, probably no one who is voting for Clinton disagrees that her transparency and embrace of facts could use a shot of vitamins. But if you're in the tank with El Tupé, it is no better than a sarcasm to call Clinton a liar.
Is that site supposed to be Holy Writ or something? There are many levels to factual "truth". Most of what politicians say are speculations and promises anyway that don't come under the heading of "truth". Most were statements and opinions one can agree or disagree with. This kind of test would not be admitted in any sane educational institution.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 19, 2016, 01:28:27 AM
Is that site supposed to be Holy Writ or something?
Nope. Just factual.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 01:06:14 AM
Whatever may be the priority of El Tupé's determined supporters, it ain't the truth:
For the record, Trump wins at Liar's Dice — by a long shot, according to PolitiFact. At last count, Clinton has told the truth 24 percent of the time, compared with Trump at 4 percent. Clinton's statements have been "mostly true" 27 percent of the time compared with Trump's 11 percent. In the "pants-on-fire" category, meaning not just false but a bald-faced lie, Clinton scores 3 percent to Trump's 17 percent. At least he's winning at something. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-trump-could-still-win/2016/10/18/efb4a91e-956b-11e6-bb29-bf2701dbe0a3_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ddaf17f12f22)
So, to be clear, probably no one who is voting for Clinton disagrees that her transparency and embrace of facts could use a shot of vitamins. But if you're in the tank with El Tupé, it is no better than a sarcasm to call Clinton a liar.
Further upon this theme: Everyone grants, I suppose, that El Tupé enjoys the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty. As a fabulously rich brat who routinely uses the threat of legal action as a cudgel, his financial resources repeatedly shield him from a legal ruling (for one thing).
But for our present purposes, my concern is really with the quality of judgement of Us Out Here. Given El Tupé's daily demonstration of his character as a serial liar, the Tuperos' insistence that
they believe him when he says there is nothing to the multiple allegations borders on slapstick.
Not that it's evidence or anything:
6 people went on the record to back up a reporter who says Trump assaulted her
Both Donald and Melania Trump have made some cringeworthy attempts to discredit People magazine reporter Natasha Stoynoff, who says Donald Trump pushed her up against a wall and forcibly kissed her while she was profiling him and a then-pregnant Melania in late 2005.
Donald brushed off Stoynoff's claims by strongly suggesting that she wasn't attractive enough to warrant his advances. "Look at her," Trump said during a speech. "Look at her words. You tell me what you think. I don't think so." (http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/18/13320496/donald-melania-trump-sexual-assault-people-natasha-stoynoff-witnesses)
There are people ready to put this guy in the Oval Office: his response to the allegations is just continuing to live into the Rape Culture—Look at her. Look at her words. You tell me what you think. I don't think so.
Quote from: snyprrr on October 18, 2016, 05:19:53 PM
hey zbyrd-
Would you please just take the gloves off already. The GenPop here are beholden to any member of a MajorVictimGroup, so, by merely having the passageway-of-life, you can singlehandedly dispose of all their faux-phemenist brainwashing... if there's one thing these folks are terrified of, it's a woman (Italian horror movie scared!!). Please explain that some men haven't yet been chemically neutered and that today's woman really don't have it so bad. Something. Anything. Nuke 'em.
Congratulations! I think you just may have convinced
zb to vote for Clinton.
(j/k)
Quote from: Brian ResnickPsychologists have long studied what power does to the mind. It isn't always pretty.
"Power magnifies personality" — remember that when casting votes for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
For many voters, and especially women voters, Donald Trump's presidential candidacy raises a central question loaded with fear: What happens if you give a person with a long history of abusing power even more power?
More than a dozen women have now alleged that Trump assaulted, groped, or harassed them. The majority said the incidents occurred in professional situations, where he clearly had the upper hand. The leaked Access Hollywood audiotape from 2005 made clear Trump believed his "star" status gave him special access to women's bodies, too. He was comfortable enough to brag about sexual assault while wearing a mic.
The question of whom we should grant political power to deeply matters because research in psychology finds power changes people. Power can have a corrupting effect. Power gives people confidence to indulge in their base urges. It makes us less empathetic, more likely to see our own success in a positive light and harshly condemn failures in others.
As Michael Kraus, who studies the psychology of power at Yale, wrote recently at Quartz, power is only likely to magnify the negative characteristics in a man like Trump. But for an interesting reason: It's not that power is, by itself, corrupting. It's that "power simply brings our true nature out into the open," Kraus writes.
In that light, the recent investigations into Trump's "true nature" — how he interacts with women and around employees, how he responds to failure, and on and on — matter. They may matter as much as his policy proposals and his would-be administration's agenda.
[
RTWT here ]
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 04:32:47 AM
[ RTWT here (http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/10/18/13285196/2016-trump-clinton-psychology-power) ]
Quote from: Brian ResnickThis is the way to think about how candidates will wield power: It isn't necessarily corrupting — it's freeing
So if, heaven forfend, we have
El Presidente Tupé, the shackles will
really be off.
Raise your hand if you're ready for that sort of spectacle. (Not
you,
snypsss; be a good fellow, and recuse yourself from the question.)
Finland sees propaganda attack from former master Russia (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-russia-informationattacks-idUSKCN12J197)
There's a new "silent majority," and it's voting for Hillary Clinton (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13288594/new-silent-majority)Quote from: Matthew Yglesias...But though Trumpniks are certainly the demographic descendants of Nixon's white working-class silent majority, the basic reality is that they are anything but silent. Trump's rallies are, as Trump would be the first to tell you, enormous, raucous affairs. He brings in big ratings. He attracts constant coverage, and so do his supporters, in the form of endlessly writerly explorations of the agonizing anxieties of "Trump Country" communities afflicted by everything from deindustrialization to opiate addiction to an influx of immigrants from the Dominican Republic.
Nor, crucially, are the Trumpniks a majority. Polls give every indication that Hillary Clinton is going to beat Trump, just as she beat Bernie Sanders — who also drew larger rally crowds and more think pieces than she did — in the Democratic primary. Clinton crowds aren't as big, and her voters aren't as loud or as interesting to the media. But there sure are a lot of them. And it's about time we acknowledge them and their emergence as a new silent majority that reelected America's first black president and is poised to elect its first woman.
Quote from: drogulus on October 19, 2016, 06:01:54 AM
Finland sees propaganda attack from former master Russia (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-russia-informationattacks-idUSKCN12J197)
Quote from: Jussi Rosendahl & Tuomas ForsellMantila said he believed the whole episode was a follow-up to earlier reports that suggested that Lenin's Bolshevik administration had no right to accept Finland's independence.
Quote from: Sid CaesarHoo-boy!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 06:59:51 AM
There's a new "silent majority," and it's voting for Hillary Clinton (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13288594/new-silent-majority)
Quote from: Matthew YglesiasWomen, famously, are quieter about their views — less likely to submit blind op-eds or send obnoxious emails — to the point that many of America's Trump-voting husbands are unaware their wives are for Clinton.
"Plus, he said them on a bus. Disgusting."
https://www.youtube.com/v/hKfNp8NU82o
Judging from all the coverage of Donald Trump's statements and treatment of women one would think that was the most important issue facing Americans today.
Hopefully tonight's debate will cover issues such as the candidate's respective policies on immigration, foreign relations, trade/economy and national security. Also, maybe Chris Wallace will press Clinton on her security lapses concerning emails and pay-for-play Clinton Foundation activities and her record as Secretary of State, specifically Benghazi.
I know these topics are not as titillating as rehashing Trump's history with women, but I think they are more important for choosing a president.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 08:51:05 AM
Judging from all the coverage of Donald Trump's statements and treatment of women one would think that was the most important issue facing Americans today.
Hopefully tonight's debate will cover issues such as the candidate's respective policies on immigration, foreign relations, trade/economy and national security.
I wouldn't put money on it. If Trump wanted to discuss those things he would have done so in the previous 2 debates. He isn't really interested in issues, but is prone to exaggerations and sensations. Also it wouldn't take much to set him off and turn him into a raging babbling maniac again.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 08:51:05 AM
Judging from all the coverage of Donald Trump's statements and treatment of women one would think that was the most important issue facing Americans today.
Alas, Chris Wallace has already said he's not going to ask about climate.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 08:51:05 AM
I know these topics are not as titillating as rehashing Trump's history with women, but I think they are more important for choosing a president.
I think we reached peak Benghazi long ago. It never made sense for investigations of how the incident happened to focus on wrongdoing by Sec. Clinton. Consulates in dangerous countries don't have the same level of security as embassies, and even embassies are vulnerable.
As for the fuss over how quickly we released accurate information about what actually happened, as opposed to how quickly authorities learned what actually happened, I have my own opinion, not fully informed (I hope) by facts.
I'm mostly interested in foreign affairs of the non-Trump kind, and how the next administration will perform on the economy.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 08:51:05 AM
Judging from all the coverage of Donald Trump's statements and treatment of women one would think that was the most important issue facing Americans today.
Hillary started it all with bringing up "Miss Piggy"in the 1st debate. She knew it would have shock value. Unfortunately it opened up a Pandora's Box for her and her husband. She is reputed to have the mouth of a harridan behind the scenes.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 08:51:05 AM
Hopefully tonight's debate will cover issues such as the candidate's respective policies on immigration, foreign relations, trade/economy and national security. Also, maybe Chris Wallace will press Clinton on her security lapses concerning emails and pay-for-play Clinton Foundation activities and her record as Secretary of State, specifically Benghazi.
I know these topics are not as titillating as rehashing Trump's history with women, but I think they are more important for choosing a president.
Aye, reducing the debt, stabilizing immigration, bringing jobs back from abroad, reducing taxes and last but not least something Hillary never brought up, defending freedom of conscience, not to force people with religious convictions to have to act against them. Trump did put it in writing to Christian ministers that he would do just that.
Russia is slowly and methodically bolstering its pan-Russia efforts. It started in Georgia in 2008 , and that war served to articulate the Medvedev doctrine. Then there was Crimea. Bordering states with a russian minority have been served notice of Moscow's intention to aggressively "defend" (by invasion if necessary) all of its nationals.
Kaliningrad will be a beachhead for fostering trouble in Finland and the Baltic States.
This is something I'd like to see addressed, but I don't think it will happen. It's not something to be discussed in the open.
App maker: Trump will win election (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/)
I think this same app predicted the Brexit vote correctly.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 09:32:14 AM
App maker: Trump will win election (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/)
I think this same app predicted the Brexit vote correctly.
This is what you are referring to?
— "California, who you voting for?" Trump got 55%, compared to 45% for Clinton. In the latest Public Policy Institute of California poll, Clinton has a 16-point advantage over Trump, 46% to 30%.There isn't a snow ball's chance in hell CA is voting for Trump.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 19, 2016, 09:19:00 AM
Aye, reducing the debt, stabilizing immigration, bringing jobs back from abroad, reducing taxes and last but not least something Hillary never brought up, defending freedom of conscience, not to force people with religious convictions to have to act against them. Trump did put it in writing to Christian ministers that he would do just that.
Except he doesn't know how to do any of that. Writing a letter? Anyone can do that.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 19, 2016, 09:19:00 AM
Trump did put it in writing to Christian ministers that he would do just that.
ZB, you will be betrayed just as you were by Reagan. Repub abortion politics says keep the issue alive.
As for the ministers "This morning I had another talk with the Republican candidate, Mr. Trump, and here is the paper which bears his name...."
Quote from: André on October 19, 2016, 09:19:45 AM
Kaliningrad will be a beachhead for fostering trouble in Finland and the Baltic States.
This is something I'd like to see addressed, but I don't think it will happen. It's not something to be discussed in the open.
There are aspects that won't be openly discussed, of course. But one thing we can discuss is the qualifications to lead the country through what could be a dangerous next few years. Hillary represent a broad spectrum of foreign policy understandings largely shared by both parties until recently. Trump is the advocate for a "burn the house down" rejection of shared goals. It's a straightforward extrapolation from the views he has expressed that we should withdraw from our commitments. This, far more than sex scandals, disqualifies Trump for the job he seeks.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 08:51:05 AM
Judging from all the coverage of Donald Trump's statements and treatment of women one would think that was the most important issue facing Americans today.
Hopefully tonight's debate will cover issues such as the candidate's respective policies on immigration, foreign relations, trade/economy and national security. Also, maybe Chris Wallace will press Clinton on her security lapses concerning emails and pay-for-play Clinton Foundation activities and her record as Secretary of State, specifically Benghazi.
I know these topics are not as titillating as rehashing Trump's history with women, but I think they are more important for choosing a president.
You go on convincing yourself that this is a mere matter of titillation.
Well, if El Tupé wrote a letter, we have no reason to doubt he will be true to his word.
I never said that.....I didn't mean it like that.....I was joking....Hillary lies......that paper was rigged.....take a look at those right-to-lifers.....a bunch of losers.....Sad!
Quote from: drogulus on October 19, 2016, 10:04:32 AM
I never said that.....I didn't mean it like that.....I was joking....Hillary lies......that paper was rigged.....take a look at those right-to-lifers.....a bunch of losers.....Sad!
And it isn't as if he has ever failed to fulfill his part of any of his contracts.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 10:10:17 AM
And it isn't as if he has ever failed to fulfill his part of any of his contracts.
Maybe those ministers should have done a better job if they wanted to be paid what I promised them!
I never said that.....I didn't mean it like that.....I was joking....Hillary lies......that paper was rigged.....take a look at those right-to-lifers.....a bunch of losers.....Sad! AND I AM GOING TO BOMB ISIS !
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 09:52:43 AM
You go on convincing yourself that this is a mere matter of titillation.
No, you're right, it is a matter of distraction.
As I read it, this isn't mere titillation:
• 57 percent of likely voters say his response to the "Access Hollywood" video of him making lewd and sexually aggressive comments about women was insincere. Just 40 percent say it was sincere.
• 52 percent say his comments on tape aren't the brand of "locker room talk" that he and his supporters have routinely claimed. Just 40 percent say they are.
• Related to that, 68 percent say they believe Trump has made unwanted sexual advances toward women, while just 14 percent say he has not. So, clearly, people think his actual behavior at least somewhat matched the words he claims were bluster. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/16/donald-trump-is-failing-at-basically-everything-right-now-this-poll-proves-it/379609776/?tid=hybrid_content_2_na)
Marco Rubio: using the WikiLeaks emails against Hillary Clinton would set a dangerous precedent (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13332504/marco-rubio-wikileaks-emails-dangerous-precedent)
So, Karl, do you think this is the most important story of the campaign? More important than substantive policy questions? If we're discussing the "character" issue, do you think Hillary Clinton has any flaws?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 10:25:17 AM
Marco Rubio: using the WikiLeaks emails against Hillary Clinton would set a dangerous precedent (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13332504/marco-rubio-wikileaks-emails-dangerous-precedent)
Sure, it would expose how the sausage of insider policiticking is made. Pretty ugly stuff.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 10:20:20 AM
As I read it, this isn't mere titillation:
• 57 percent of likely voters say his response to the "Access Hollywood" video of him making lewd and sexually aggressive comments about women was insincere. Just 40 percent say it was sincere.
• 52 percent say his comments on tape aren't the brand of "locker room talk" that he and his supporters have routinely claimed. Just 40 percent say they are.
• Related to that, 68 percent say they believe Trump has made unwanted sexual advances toward women, while just 14 percent say he has not. So, clearly, people think his actual behavior at least somewhat matched the words he claims were bluster. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/16/donald-trump-is-failing-at-basically-everything-right-now-this-poll-proves-it/379609776/?tid=hybrid_content_2_na)
Quote from: Aaron BlakeSo why hasn't he lost much ground — at least in this poll (other polls last week showed him losing much more and down double digits)? Part of it is rank partisanship. About 4 in 10 likely voters appear willing to give him a pass on most of the things described above.
Ayyup.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 10:19:06 AM
No, you're right, it is a matter of distraction.
I do not find it a matter of distraction. He has exhibited a pattern of failing to respect the rights and human dignity of people who have less wealth or less power than he has. Be it women he wants to sexually abuse, small business owners he refuses to pay, projects he allows to collapse, causing the ruin of his partners while extracting his. He has no honor or morality. This is not the sort of person who I want to see hold the most powerful office in the land.
I don't see Hilary as perfect, but I don't see her as responsible for Husband's behavior because she "enabled" him. Are Ivana, Marla and Melanie responsible for "enabling" Trump? The suggestion that Clinton giving disingenuous answers when asked why she kept her email on a private server is equivalent to the utter lack of morality, honor and honesty that Trump exhibits doesn't ring true to me.
How weird is 2016? Texas is closer than Pennsylvania. Arizona is closer than Florida.[El Tupé] needs a miracle (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/how-weird-is-2016-texas-is-closer-than-pennsylvania-arizona-is-closer-than-florida/)
Quote from: Philip BumpIn the four-way average, meaning polls that include the two third-party candidates, Clinton leads in Arizona thanks to a poll released on Wednesday that shows her up by 5.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 19, 2016, 10:34:15 AM
I do not find it a matter of distraction. He has exhibited a pattern of failing to respect the rights and human dignity of people who have less wealth or less power than he has. Be it women he wants to sexually abuse, small business owners he refuses to pay, projects he allows to collapse, causing the ruin of his partners while extracting his. He has no honor or morality. This is not the sort of person who I want to see hold the most powerful office in the land.
I don't see Hilary as perfect, but I don't see her as responsible for Husband's behavior because she "enabled" him. Are Ivana, Marla and Melanie responsible for "enabling" Trump? The suggestion that Clinton giving disingenuous answers when asked why she kept her email on a private server is equivalent to the utter lack of morality, honor and honesty that Trump exhibits doesn't ring true to me.
Her lies about the server are bad, but not the entire issue. For me, it is how the security of the US was compromised by her "mistake" of using a private unsecured server for storing and transmitting confidential government documents. Wikileaking of the documents shows just how easy it was for foreign actors to gain access to this supposedly secret information.
Contrary to you, I see this as more troubling for a presidential candidate than Trump's ungentlemanly actions.
The irony is that despite her doing everything humanly possible to destroy the emails, they still found their way to other systems and are slowly being released.
Heck, Pence tried that in the Veep debate, so why not?
Kellyanne Conway isn't even trying to defend [El Tupé] anymore. She's pretending he's someone else. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/13/kellyanne-conway-is-defending-a-donald-trump-that-doesnt-exist/)Quote from: Aaron BlakeThe funny thing is, he doesn't need to do it. It's totally valid to argue that many Americans think Clinton got off easy. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in July showed that 56 percent disagreed with the FBI's decision not to recommend charges against her. This is fruitful territory for the Trump campaign.
But as with most things involving Trump, he insists upon taking it two steps further. He isn't just calling for a special prosecutor — a move that in and of itself would perhaps reek of politicizing the legal process after the FBI has already investigated — he's saying exactly what the conclusion of that process would be. His words are clear; he believes a process should be set up that would lead to Clinton being in jail.
And the only thing left for Conway to do is argue that Trump's words don't actually mean anything, which is a hell of a spot to be in for your top aide.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 10:39:09 AM
Contrary to you, I see this as more troubling for a presidential candidate than Trump's ungentlemanly actions.
You go on whitewashing this as "ungentlemanly."
Quote from: snyprrr on October 18, 2016, 05:19:53 PM
So, no one here has seen the new Project Veritas video?
snypsss, meet
snopes (http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/).
Only an op-ed piece, so feel free to disagree . . .
Trump is headed toward a major loss. The GOP can't say it wasn't warned. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-headed-toward-a-major-loss-the-gop-cant-say-it-wasnt-warned/2016/10/18/b85a719a-9590-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.70afe405a1b3)Quote from: EJ DionneTrump is thus on track to run behind Mitt Romney's already-anemic 27 percent tally among Latinos against President Obama in 2012. Romney's Hispanic showing was, in turn, worse than John McCain's in 2008 and much worse than George W. Bush's in 2004 and 2000.
Now it would be one thing if no one had anticipated what a Trump-like candidate would do to the party's chances, or if the GOP had been united around a go-for-broke strategy among white voters. But some of the most intelligent analysis of why Trumpism would be a disaster for Republicans came from inside the GOP itself.
The March 2013 report for the party's Growth & Opportunity Project (widely known as "the autopsy" of Romney's 2012 defeat) deserves revisiting at this moment. It was unflinching in offering words that — unless Trump has a miraculous recovery by Election Day — will merely have to be cut and pasted into a post-2016 autopsy.
Clinton will want to go high as Trump finishes low
Most campaigns like to finish on a high note on the theory that voters want to feel good about their vote. At this point, Clinton is all too aware that she remains a controversial, untrusted figure. Her ad nevertheless offers an alternative feel-good message: Even if you don't feel good about voting for Hillary Clinton, you can feel good about an America that bears absolutely no resemblance to Trump's vision of the country. That's not a bad closing argument. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/19/clinton-will-want-to-go-high-as-trump-finishes-low/?utm_term=.5f3b31e4ef61)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 10:44:24 AM
You go on whitewashing this as "ungentlemanly."
You go on ignoring Clinton's reckless behavior which potentially compromised US security as you attempt to muddy the waters with allegations of sexual impropriety by Donald Trump.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 10:19:06 AM
No, you're right, it is a matter of distraction.
It is a matter of the abuse of power. Trump's current proposals include: jailing political opponents, torturing terror suspects, killing the families of terrorists (a war crime), condoning the proliferation of nuclear weapons, instituting a religious test for immigration, and healing the racial divide through stop and frisk (ruled unconstitutional). All of these are illegal or unconstitutional abuses of power. That is why a propensity for such abuse is damning.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 10:39:09 AM
Her lies about the server are bad, but not the entire issue. For me, it is how the security of the US was compromised by her "mistake" of using a private unsecured server for storing and transmitting confidential government documents. Wikileaking of the documents shows just how easy it was for foreign actors to gain access to this supposedly secret information.
Contrary to you, I see this as more troubling for a presidential candidate than Trump's ungentlemanly actions.
The irony is that despite her doing everything humanly possible to destroy the emails, they still found their way to other systems and are slowly being released.
You have made two claims here which are at variance with the FBI report.
Her "missing" emails were not leaked by Wikileaks, they were found by the FBI by exhaustively searching the email accounts of the people she traded emails with.
The FBI report said there was no evidence of deliberately concealing emails, only that her lawyers failed to correctly identify some work-related emails in their screening process, and that some emails were lost when technicians failed to keep copies when the server was updated.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 19, 2016, 11:41:23 AM
You have made two claims here which are at variance with the FBI report.
Her "missing" emails were not leaked by Wikileaks, they were found by the FBI by exhaustively searching the email accounts of the people she traded emails with.
The FBI report said there was no evidence of deliberately concealing emails, only that her lawyers failed to correctly identify some work-related emails in their screening process, and that some emails were lost when technicians failed to keep copies when the server was updated.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 18, 2016, 10:48:05 PM
Bleedin' obvious she would have been finished politically if she dumped Billy-boy. Divorce doesn't have the same censure it did decades ago. Instead, she would have been applauded to have freed herself from the jerk. Actually, doing just that would have earned some respect from me.
Meanwhile here's a goggle of the present Veep. If that had been me at 3:40 I would have bitten his hand:
https://www.youtube.com/v/6IL5u5U39Qo
For Brutus is an honourable man...So are they all, all honourable men...
Biden clips are disturbing
I do notice that no one has Posted any viddy type stuff here (except you here). It's all a bunch of ... no one can state Hillary's Greatest Achievement as Secretary of State... no one can produce her list of Great Achievements...
No one has yet brought up those pesky Diebold machines, and who actually counts the ... errrr... "votes"...
We truly live in la-la land when the person who brings up the electronic voting booth fraud possibilities will probably be the one who is called names.
And yes, - in those Project Veritas vids, he says that "bird doggin"- getting an idiot to go incite an idiot on the other side- is a great technique, and yes, for some reason I always take every keystroke with deathly seriousness and aaalways forget that someone could just be trolling, or distracting, or whatever. I'm not even in the argument and yet I get my dungs in a bunch-
I love convincing people, but, lol, I'm really bad at it!! :laugh:
Of course, when i rant about some obscure Composer, most will always research a little and then come back and say, Good show old chap (meaning, you overlook any personality flaws and check it out just in case). In THIS, Political, case, however, I fear that NO VIDEO will ever be watched by the "other side" (in this odd two-sided situation). Hilldawg has already been given the Pass of the Centuries because of the perceived Bigotry of Western Power Structures (re: Christianity in its classic "other" guise).
zb- you may be a woman, which of course drives them nuts that you don't tow the Party line. Buuut, now that you're "with that man", apparently your woman card gets revoked and now you'll be treated the same as Bill's documented victims. LOL, it's the trotsky icepick for you, oy vey- ... I would be more afraid to be a woman under Hitllery- Strong Cities-
I feel for ya
btw- keep the viddy coming. It's always fun to watch
"For me, the moment came when I saw Hillary's toes dragging when they were helping her into the van at the 9/11 event. I literally saw an unconscious, with toes dragging and feet plopping on the street and bouncing like some lifeless thing. And this is where we were at?"
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 11:22:10 AM
You go on ignoring Clinton's reckless behavior which potentially compromised US security as you attempt to muddy the waters with allegations of sexual impropriety by Donald Trump.
:-* :-* :-*
inquiring minds want to know
Quote from: Scarpia on October 19, 2016, 11:41:23 AM
You have made two claims here which are at variance with the FBI report.
Her "missing" emails were not leaked by Wikileaks, they were found by the FBI by exhaustively searching the email accounts of the people she traded emails with.
The FBI report said there was no evidence of deliberately concealing emails, only that her lawyers failed to correctly identify some work-related emails in their screening process, and that some emails were lost when technicians failed to keep copies when the server was updated.
Comey: "we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account."
Comey: "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. "
Comey: "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information"
I think these are damning allegations for someone seeking the highest office in the country.
The Kid Who Ran for President
https://www.youtube.com/v/TBc1JBwH-NA
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 12:10:13 PM
I think these are damning allegations for someone seeking the highest office in the country.
I think so too. Unfortunately, I still think that when you consider everything about everybody, the stuff against Hillary is the 4th-most damning. Only McMullin is better (but he disagrees with many of my views).
Quote from: Brian on October 19, 2016, 12:39:12 PM
I think so too. Unfortunately, I still think that when you consider everything about everybody, the stuff against Hillary is the 4th-most damning.
+ 1
Quote from: snyprrr on October 19, 2016, 12:03:27 PM
Biden clips are disturbing
All right: who pranked
snypsss? It isn't as if he knows that Biden is not running for any office this year.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 12:10:13 PMComey: "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. "
It was "readily apparent to her correspondents," presumably such as the CIA chief, the joint chiefs, the national security advisor, yet they did not instruct her to discontinue the practice or discontinue sending emails to her. Maybe they figured that on her private server the next Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden would not get to them. :)
Quote from: Brian on October 19, 2016, 12:39:12 PM
I think so too. Unfortunately, I still think that when you consider everything about everybody, the stuff against Hillary is the 4th-most damning. Only McMullin is better (but he disagrees with many of my views).
fwiw my ranking
5. generally inexperienced in leadership
4. recklessly handled classified information; lied to cover up that mishandling
3. generally inexperienced in leadership; policy proposals are frivolous, impossible, and insulting; promotes conspiracy theories; distrusts policy experts; exhibits general inability to govern
2. exhibits complete ignorance of world, world leaders, and world affairs; exhibits general inability to govern
1. generally inexperienced in leadership; policy proposals are frivolous, impossible, and insulting; promotes conspiracy theories; distrusts policy experts; exhibits complete ignorance of world, world leaders, and world affairs; exhibits general inability to govern; exhibits no understanding of Constitution or protected freedoms; vows to restrict free speech and free movement; regularly commits sexual assault; racist; sexist; operates fraudulent "charity" as money laundering scheme; solicited donations to "charity" to pay for personal expenses; lies so serially as to undermine the very existence of truth as a philosophical concept
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 12:10:13 PM
Comey: "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. "
I think these are damning allegations for someone seeking the highest office in the country.
I don't think this particular "allegation" means quite what you think it means. At most it means that hostile actors might have found out Clinton's e-mail address by hacking the accounts of other people. If she was using a government account, they would have found out her government e-mail address by hacking the accounts of other people.
So unless you think there has to be a rule that not only that government officials must have secure government accounts, but that
everyone that exchanges messages with a government official must also have a secure government account, this particular "allegation" isn't remotely damning. It's simply a description by Comey of the route taken.
Quote from: Brian on October 19, 2016, 12:39:12 PM
I think so too. Unfortunately, I still think that when you consider everything about everybody, the stuff against Hillary is the 4th-most damning. Only McMullin is better (but he disagrees with many of my views).
That's why we are voting for different candidates. If Hillary wins, let's have a drink in 4 or 8 years and see if you still think the same.
;)
At least if Hillary wins, the bar will still exist.
Trump campaign chief Steve Bannon is registered voter at vacant Florida home (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump)
Donald Trump's campaign manager said she doesn't believe there will be voter fraud (http://www.businessinsider.com/kellyanne-conway-donald-trump-rigged-voter-fraud-2016-10)
Kelleyanne is on the case! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
"It is a rigged, corrupt system, whether you believe it's rigged and corrupt at the polls or whether you believe it's rigged and corrupt in that we have a $19 trillion debt and people who are there for years and years, if not decades," she added.
Thanks for that, Kelleyanne, can we go vote now? Is it OK with you and Steve Bannon? My house even has me in it!
If Trump meant to say the national debt and officeholders there forever is some kind of rigging why didn't he say that? Why did he tell us that the vote would be rigged against him?
Oh, Biden tells a joke to a young girl, she laughs, he's a molester. I'm sure that's how it works. Steve Bannon has a darker sense of humor than Jokin' Joe, though I'm sure it's all in good fun.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 19, 2016, 01:09:18 PM
I don't think this particular "allegation" means quite what you think it means. At most it means that hostile actors might have found out Clinton's e-mail address by hacking the accounts of other people. If she was using a government account, they would have found out her government e-mail address by hacking the accounts of other people.
So unless you think there has to be a rule that not only that government officials must have secure government accounts, but that everyone that exchanges messages with a government official must also have a secure government account, this particular "allegation" isn't remotely damning. It's simply a description by Comey of the route taken.
There are laws restricting the transmission of confidential documents outside of government secured systems. Clinton should not have been sending emails of a sensitive nature to anyone outside of government, or on an unsecured commercial server. The fact that she herself was using one is a violation of the statute, Comey says as much. The question is why he chose not to indict her.
For sure, the FBI and Justice Dept. prosecutors exercise that kind of discretion everyday, but as a former FBI investigator said to Comey, "you had five immunity agreements and got no indictments. That is not how the FBI I used to work for operated."
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 01:16:26 PM
There are laws restricting the transmission of confidential documents outside of government secured systems. Clinton should not have been sending emails of a sensitive nature to anyone outside of government, or on an unsecured commercial server. The fact that she herself was using one is a violation of the statute, Comey says as much. The question is why he chose not to indict her.
For sure, the FBI and Justice Dept. prosecutors exercise that kind of discretion everyday, but as a former FBI investigator said to Comey, "you had five immunity agreements and got no indictments. That is not how the FBI I used to work for operated."
Let's just say I'm not going over this with you again. There is no point.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 19, 2016, 01:24:05 PM
Let's just say I'm not going over this with you again. There is no point.
Comey: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
That statement has been contested by more than one former prosecutor.
Comey: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are
often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
Hillary Clinton is a candidate for the most powerful office in the US. According to Comey she should have at the very least been downgraded with her security clearance. Instead she will be overseeing the entire government.
The question is "why?"
Oh fine, if you want to carry on, answer me this:
What, precisely, is different between Clinton's use of email and Colin Powell's use of email?
EDIT: As to "why?", the answer is "because there are 2 candidates for the job in question and the other one is a complete and utter loon". If the GOP had chosen a candidate who was a plausible option, these conversations would be very different.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 01:09:20 PM
That's why we are voting for different candidates. If Hillary wins, let's have a drink in 4 or 8 years and see if you still think the same.
;)
Hey, that sounds fair enough!
Quote from: ørfeo on October 19, 2016, 01:37:13 PM
What, precisely, is different between Clinton's use of email and Colin Powell's use of email?
My guess: Powell's use was earlier in the history of email & email programs, when the government had no clear understanding of how to treat email security, or what cyber warfare would look like?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 01:09:20 PM
That's why we are voting for different candidates. If Hillary wins, let's have a drink in 4 or 8 years and see if you still think the same.
;)
Wait, if Hillary wins, you're going to wait four years before standing us a drink? You aren't sore, are you?
Quote from: Brian on October 19, 2016, 01:40:32 PM
My guess: Powell's use was earlier in the history of email & email programs, when the government had no clear understanding of how to treat email security, or what cyber warfare would look like?
I thought the government was supposed to have experts, with expertise. Are you saying the NSA hadn't figured this stuff out in the early 2000s. Are you saying a
former national security adviser himself hadn't figured this out?**
And we're talking about a law that has been on the books for many years.
**I hadn't even known until now that Powell had held that job, but it's almost too perfect. Thanks, Wikipedia.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 19, 2016, 01:37:13 PM
Oh fine, if you want to carry on, answer me this:
What, precisely, is different between Clinton's use of email and Colin Powell's use of email?
EDIT: As to "why?", the answer is "because there are 2 candidates for the job in question and the other one is a complete and utter loon". If the GOP had chosen a candidate who was a plausible option, these conversations would be very different.
Colin Powell has stated that he only used his private email for non government use. There is no comparison, and he was quite adamant about that when the Clinton campaign tried to imply what you suggest.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 19, 2016, 01:41:07 PM
Wait, if Hillary wins, you're going to wait four years before standing us a drink? You aren't sore, are you?
No, I was implying that her past behavior which indicates a belief by her of being above the law will be made evident as president and all those who voted for her will feel like those who voted for Nixon.
It will be you who will be buying me a drink.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 01:47:12 PM
No, I was implying that her past behavior which indicates a belief by her of being above the law will be made evident as president and all those who voted for her will feel like those who voted for Nixon.
It will be you who will be buying me a drink.
;)
I like that sunny optimism of yours! Such a sharp contrast to your preferred candidate 8)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 01:45:00 PM
Colin Powell has stated that he only used his private email for non government use. There is no comparison, and he was quite adamant about that when the Clinton campaign tried to imply what you suggest.
Hmm. Well, the first thing that's different is that you take Powell's statement as good enough. What, no investigation required? Maybe, out of his thousands and thousands of emails, we can find about 3 that are classified?
What he actually said, from the sources I can find, is that he didn't use it for
classified information. Note, not "non-government", but "non-classified".
I also note that the rules during Powell's tenure appear to have been significantly different, making it less likely that he would breach any government rules on the subject. But if you keep insisting that it's the criminal law that is the issue, rather than the Department of State rules and administrative sanction, then maybe we should go check whether each and every one of Powell's emails was okay.
I actually accept that there ARE differences, but I asked you to identify them precisely, and you managed to pick something unconvincing.
I leap to the conclusion that the vote is rigged Comey is corrupt, because I can. The vast quantities of virgin blood Hillary consumes to maintain a near normal appearance will not sway me. The issues are separate.
I doubt even Clinton can be blamed for Trump's seeming inability to deal properly with any human being who isn't a white alpha-male buddy of his.
Quote from: Brian on October 19, 2016, 01:09:04 PM
fwiw my ranking
5. generally inexperienced in leadership
4. recklessly handled classified information; lied to cover up that mishandling
3. generally inexperienced in leadership; policy proposals are frivolous, impossible, and insulting; promotes conspiracy theories; distrusts policy experts; exhibits general inability to govern
2. exhibits complete ignorance of world, world leaders, and world affairs; exhibits general inability to govern
1. generally inexperienced in leadership; policy proposals are frivolous, impossible, and insulting; promotes conspiracy theories; distrusts policy experts; exhibits complete ignorance of world, world leaders, and world affairs; exhibits general inability to govern; exhibits no understanding of Constitution or protected freedoms; vows to restrict free speech and free movement; regularly commits sexual assault; racist; sexist; operates fraudulent "charity" as money laundering scheme; solicited donations to "charity" to pay for personal expenses; lies so serially as to undermine the very existence of truth as a philosophical concept
I'd say that sums it up. You didn't mention the fraudulent university, or that he seems to regard anyone who indulges in self-sacrifice for the benefit others as loser or object of ridicule (Kahn family, John McCain, etc).
Sean Hannity: 'I could see Marco being president one day' (http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-hannity-marco-rubio-president-2016-10)
Sean, you are the best.....oh, I forgot, there is only one. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/evil.gif)
(http://content.maltatoday.com.mt/ui_frontend/thumbnail/684/0/pazuzu_the_exorcist.png)
Quote from: drogulus on October 19, 2016, 03:46:00 PM
Sean Hannity: 'I could see Marco being president one day' (http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-hannity-marco-rubio-president-2016-10)
Sean, you are the best.....oh, I forgot, there is only one. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/evil.gif)
(http://content.maltatoday.com.mt/ui_frontend/thumbnail/684/0/pazuzu_the_exorcist.png)
Who? LITTLE Marco?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 19, 2016, 01:32:23 PM
The question is "why?"
No, the question is why you continue to scratch this same itch. The matter has put to rest, and no charges were brought. It is of no importance that the outcome does not meet with your satisfaction.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 19, 2016, 02:41:48 PM
I'd say that sums it up. You didn't mention the fraudulent university, or that he seems to regard anyone who indulges in self-sacrifice for the benefit others as loser or object of ridicule (Kahn family, John McCain, etc).
Or ridicules those with physical disabilities or who exhibit physical weakness. Or pretends the Bible is his favorite book (remember that from a few months ago?) when he couldn't even cite a favorite passage. (Real Bible-thumpers love to cite their favorite passages.) Etc.
Trump seems like a G E B man to me. He's pretty loopy. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
How gullible are you? Is your gullibility located in some "gullibility center" in your brain? Could a neurosurgeon reach in and perform some delicate operation to lower your gullibility, otherwise leaving you alone? If you believe this, you are pretty gullible, and should perhaps consider such an operation.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 19, 2016, 04:03:36 PM
Or ridicules those with physical disabilities or who exhibit physical weakness. Or pretends the Bible is his favorite book (remember that from a few months ago?) when he couldn't even cite a favorite passage. (Real Bible-thumpers love to cite their favorite passages.) Etc.
Unless the Bible is the last book they read a passage of, 50 years ago... Come on, be kind: there's a limit to what the ol' memory can store ::)
The world does not need a Putin puppet !!!
Clinton mopped the floor with El Tupe tonight and I loved every minute of it. He's a tyrant, a complete bigot, and, most of all, absolutely not presidential material.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 19, 2016, 06:43:51 PM
Clinton mopped the floor with El Tupe tonight and I loved every minute of it. He's a tyrant, a complete bigot, and, most of all, absolutely not presidential material.
Three moments stood out:
"I will keep you in suspense."
"She's a nasty woman."
Refusing to shake hands.
He's done for. Excerpts from Andrew Sullivan:
Quote10:36 p.m. In my view, this was easily the most decisive debate. She devastated him. He melted down. His refusal to accept the results of this election disqualifies him automatically from any office in the United States. There were several areas where he was utterly incoherent, grasping at "facts", without any understanding of policy. His personal foulness emerged.
It seems to me he also has internalized that he has lost this election. May God save this democracy from him.
10:28 p.m. Her point about Trump complaining about Ronald Reagan was a stunner. She has been superb tonight – and got better as she continued.
10:20 p.m. He's now free associating and falling apart. He just doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. And surely viewers will see that. That was a completely unhinged rant. And "good luck with that, Hillary," implies that he already thinks she will be president. He's now in full collapse.
10:04 p.m. Trump will not say in advance that he will respect the results of the election. This is the first time ever that a candidate for the presidency has refused to abide by the result. He is a threat to our entire democratic system.
9:58 p.m. She is masterful tonight on his core character. Her answer to the last question destroyed him. I suspect he knows he's finished. Surely the country sees who this monster is by now.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 19, 2016, 06:50:25 PM
Three moments stood out:
"I will keep you in suspense."
"She's a nasty woman."
Refusing to shake hands.
He's done for. Excerpts from Andrew Sullivan:
Yep, I think he put the final nail in that gold-plated coffin he called a campaign tonight.
I thought that debate was watchable, unlike the second one. I thought both candidates presented themselves relatively well.
But Hillary really pulled away from Donald on several occasions. She demonstrated repeatedly that she's intelligent enough to discuss the issues, even if not every one of her answers was convincing. She also was quite skilled at politely lobbing bombs over onto Donald.
Donald, on the other hand, always reminds me of some half-drunk bigmouth at a bar, who is convinced he knows how to solve all the world's problems. No substance, just puff. And he won't shut up or go away, no matter how many hints you drop.
Like "I'm gonna grow the economy at 6% annually." Oh really? What a great idea. Funny no one else has ever thought of that before. But why not 7%?
But at least he wasn't constantly making his Zoolander "presidential" look and wandering the stage like a stalker.
I also found it interesting that Donald hedged on his Roe-v-Wade answer. It makes me think he is "pro-life" purely for political reasons, but doesn't really believe it. That or he doesn't want to upset his daughter Ivanka, who might cut him off if he actually bans abortion.
What I posted on a political blog/forum
.This is the only debate I watched.
If I was a LIV, I would probably think she would be a better POTUS.
–She had wonky policy details, he had slogans and vague promises about how he would make great deals.
–I wouldn't know what he was talking about when he referred to the Project Veritas videos, and Haiti, and wouldn't know enough to understand Wallace's references to the Wikileaks emails. And if it was left to Trump, we would have no references to them. In fact, she made better use of them than he did as a point of attack.
–She looked calm and collected, like a polite hostess. He looked stressed and petulant.
—And final point: he looked like he had health problems, but not her. For one thing, he looked flushed and orange skinned. Maybe the make-up was rigged?
Of course, I know about the videos, etc and know how corrupt she is, so I won't vote for her. But LIVs....
On several occasions I thought El Tupe was going to blow his top. I mean he looked like a volcano. Hats off are in order to moderator Chris Wallace who I thought did a good job tonight. He certainly controlled it much better than his predecessors.
Sit down and watch this if you think politics is more corrupt today!! It's Capra-Korn ... but it has some unpleasant realities at its cheesy core:
https://archive.org/details/MrSmithGoesToWashington1939480x360
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 19, 2016, 07:33:07 PM
What I posted on a political blog/forum
.This is the only debate I watched.
If I was a LIV, I would probably think she would be a better POTUS.
–She had wonky policy details, he had slogans and vague promises about how he would make great deals.
–I wouldn't know what he was talking about when he referred to the Project Veritas videos, and Haiti, and wouldn't know enough to understand Wallace's references to the Wikileaks emails. And if it was left to Trump, we would have no references to them. In fact, she made better use of them than he did as a point of attack.
–She looked calm and collected, like a polite hostess. He looked stressed and petulant.
—And final point: he looked like he had health problems, but not her. For one thing, he looked flushed and orange skinned. Maybe the make-up was rigged?
Of course, I know about the videos, etc and know how corrupt she is, so I won't vote for her. But LIVs....
I appreciate the view from the Loyal Opposition,
Jeffrey.
Quote from: Tritone on October 19, 2016, 09:23:26 PM
Sit down and watch this if you think politics is more corrupt today!! It's Capra-Korn ... but it has some unpleasant realities at its cheesy core:
https://archive.org/details/MrSmithGoesToWashington1939480x360
Exactly, a system might be basically good or sound but can be abused. If it can be abused, then it almost always is. It was astonishing to hear that criticism of possible rigging (that already has been admitted by busing people out en masse of their neighborhoods and not checking ID's) is anti-democratic. Its implications are incredible - challenging the premise that a system is perfect (no "systems" are anyway) and that unscrupulous people can work it to their own advantage, which actually happened many times over! This accusation should have been answered much better, calmly and rationally.
It took about a hundred years from the abolition of slavery in the US for African Americans to get full voting rights. In certain states there were poll taxes, arbitrary literacy tests, and all manner of intimidation to prevent them from voting.
I thought it was incredible that both Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton acted like it was unheard of to question the results of a presidential election. I mean, really, Gore vs. Bush?
Get real.
::)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 02:56:04 AM
I thought it was incredible that both Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton acted like it was unheard of to question the results of a presidential election. I mean, really, Gore vs. Bush?
Get real.
::)
Amen brother. He's not perfect but I've been rooting for Trump for awhile now. He ain't cookie cutter and speaks his mind ..
Hilary is more of the same. Satan in disguise.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 02:56:04 AM
I thought it was incredible that both Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton acted like it was unheard of to question the results of a presidential election. I mean, really, Gore vs. Bush?
Get real.
::)
Gore vs Bush had nothing to do with alleging voter fraud. It had to do with alleging problems with the way the system was set up so that votes were not correctly counted.
The
basis of challenging the results matters. A hell of a lot. YOU get real.
During the debates, Clinton's weakness has been defending her positions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/10/20/22b3527c-960a-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_clinton-1255am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)Quote from: Jn WagnerTaken cumulatively, the debates have revealed real weaknesses on the part of the Democratic nominee that could nag at her in the campaign's final days and, if she wins, hamper her ability to pull the country together and govern effectively following a long and bitter race.
Before Wednesday, her performances did little to turn around the public's largely negative impression of her — a handicap that would loom larger in the race if not for the many controversies surrounding Trump. Heading into the final debate, just 36 percent of likely voters said they found her to be "honest and trustworthy," according to last week's Washington Post-ABC poll.
Clinton's often-lawyerly and halting answers during all three debates could foreshadow challenges ahead should she win the election and face the task of reassuring a skeptical American public and courting a potentially hostile Republican-led Congress.
Moreover, a failure to put to rest the controversies that have damaged her standing would only fuel the rationale for congressional investigations and outright hostility from Republicans. When the campaign ends, it will not matter that Trump was just as untrustworthy — the burden will be on Clinton to overcome her weaknesses.
To me, the fact that Trump refuses to accept the possibility that the whole country might not think he's utterly marvelous is reason enough to show that he's not Presidential material. Well, that and his consistent reaction to anyone who individually indicates their dislike for them, which is to call them names, threaten to sue or dare them to sue.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: he has the emotional make-up of a 12-year-old boy in the playground. How the blazes can people think that he's capable of making difficult, complex decisions about running a large country? I strongly suspect a lot of his supporters don't even consider that question. They want to send him to "shake up" Washington without any thought to what happens next after that. They want to throw a brick through the window without thinking about whether there'll be anyone available to repair it when the house gets drafty in the winter.
The man is living in a bubble of his own fragile ego. And he's bloody dangerous because somehow he's ended up with millions of people hanging on his words without regard to facts, feeding their delusion while they feed his. He's promised a whole bunch of disaffected white male Americans that they can have "their" country back - that this shrinking demographic doesn't have to settle for having a seat at the table, they can go back to owning the whole goddamn table.
The prospect that he will tell them come November to keep on with the delusion, that they still have the majority and the power and that there's no way they could really lose, is frankly terrifying. Because more than once it's felt as if he's preparing the ground to have them move from the first stage of grieving to the second, from denial to anger. More than once, it's felt as if he's deliberately preparing the ground for his supporters to take violent action.
He's said he wants to put his political opponent in jail. He's also somehow managed to hint at an assassination attempt being a good idea. For fuck's sake.
Meanwhile, I've heard a suggestion that Republicans might continue trying to block a Supreme Court judge being appointed by Clinton? For how many years?
This is not a party running for government. This is a party talking about how to achieve a coup.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 20, 2016, 03:08:25 AM
Gore vs Bush had nothing to do with alleging voter fraud. It had to do with alleging problems with the way the system was set up so that votes were not correctly counted.
The basis of challenging the results matters. A hell of a lot. YOU get real.
Aye, Trump apologetics:
If it were not for the false equivalencies, how should we try to justify anything?Trump's breathtaking repudiation of American democracy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-breathtaking-repudiation-of-american-democracy/2016/10/19/3a7e69c2-966f-11e6-9b7c-57290af48a49_story.html?utm_term=.9c1ac20d236d)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 02:56:04 AM
I thought it was incredible that both Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton acted like it was unheard of to question the results of a presidential election. I mean, really, Gore vs. Bush? Get real.
Interesting reading:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/12/elec-d13.html
Florida Supreme Court's decision that election officials in the 64 counties should set the standards for determining voter intent was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of "equal protection of the law." With unparalleled cynicism, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, invariably hostile to "equal protection" arguments when made by plaintiffs who were black, Hispanic, female, poor or otherwise politically disadvantaged, embraced the argument on behalf of the millionaire son of a former president.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent for the minority, wrote: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
...the same 5-4 majority handed down its final ruling, declaring, in a perfect Catch-22, that the delay in the recount—caused by its own order—had made it impossible to complete a recount in time to meet the December 12 deadline for certifying electors. Accordingly, the decision of the Republican-controlled state government, awarding the electors to Bush, was upheld.Just imagine if Gore had won, most probably no Iraq quagmire. Things would have turned out much differently.
As I cited in previous posts, the Bushes were/are the most insidious denizens on this planet with connections across party lines.
Plus, it's not just Democrats he accuses of rigging. He threw the same tantrum against his own party any time he wasn't being sufficiently loved by the electorate:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-18/since-iowa-donald-trump-has-cried-rigged-when-he-s-losing
The man just cannot cope with not being beloved. The prospect of how he would behave when dealing with leaders of other countries... the mind boggles.
EDIT: And just now, I've seen Clinton's detailed response. He couldn't even cope with not winning an Emmy, for heaven's sake.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 20, 2016, 03:08:25 AM
Gore vs Bush had nothing to do with alleging voter fraud. It had to do with alleging problems with the way the system was set up so that votes were not correctly counted.
The basis of challenging the results matters. A hell of a lot. YOU get real.
Exactly. And neither Bush nor Gore contested or protested the potential results
prior to the election.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 20, 2016, 03:44:25 AM
Plus, it's not just Democrats he accuses of rigging. He threw the same tantrum against his own party any time he wasn't being sufficiently loved by the electorate:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-18/since-iowa-donald-trump-has-cried-rigged-when-he-s-losing
The man just cannot cope with not being beloved. The prospect of how he would behave when dealing with leaders of other countries... the mind boggles.
EDIT: And just now, I've seen Clinton's detailed response. He couldn't even cope with not winning an Emmy, for heaven's sake.
The immaturity and lack of self-control are amazing. When he's on his own turf, in his endless rallies, knowing every word will be cheered on by the enraptured faithful, he's king. Put him face-to-face against a strong opponent and (as with every debate) he starts off reasonably measured, but then the mania sets in and we're off to the races. If he has so little self-control in a political debate, how is he going to handle the endless confrontations with congressmen, governors, cabinet members, foreign heads of state? Forget all the sexual morass on either side. Hillary if nothing else can stand her own against challenge.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 20, 2016, 04:09:07 AM
Exactly. And neither Bush nor Gore contested or protested the potential results prior to the election.
Post factum, it is something to be concerned about, isn't it?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 20, 2016, 04:17:49 AM
Post factum, it is something to be concerned about, isn't it?
Not if the argument comes down to, "I lost, therefore there is proof of widespread voter fraud."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 20, 2016, 04:35:00 AM
Not if the argument comes down to, "I lost, therefore there is proof of widespread voter fraud."
I do agree with your proposition but there are still many variables ahead. In other words, it didn't happen yet.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 20, 2016, 03:08:25 AM
Gore vs Bush had nothing to do with alleging voter fraud. It had to do with alleging problems with the way the system was set up so that votes were not correctly counted.
The basis of challenging the results matters. A hell of a lot. YOU get real.
Because they were not happy with the outcome of the 2000 election, despite Al Gore exhausting his legal options, Democrats loudly questioned the legitimacy of Bush's victory throughout his first term, and even into his second. Democrats are attempting to preempt Trump from exercising his legal right to investigate voting irregularities or fraud in this election, no different that what Al Gore did. And they have the audacity to claim that it is somehow "un-American" if he doesn't announce, no matter what kind of fraud may occur, that he will not question the outcome.
Trump is not suggesting an armed revolt in the wake of a Clinton victory (that's liberal press scare tactics to inflame public opinion), he is holding open his legal options in case there is evidence of fraud or voting irregularities.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 04:50:56 AM
Because they were not happy with the outcome of the 2000 election, despite Al Gore exhausting his legal options, Democrats loudly questioned the legitimacy of Bush's victory throughout his first term, and even into his second.
Which "Democrats" are these, exactly? A bunch of supporters on social media?
Not Al Gore, presumably. You know, the guy who actually ran for President.
You can't stop every single "Democrat" or "Republican" saying stupid shit. Right now, though, you have the actual Presidential candidate talking about things being rigged (including Republican primaries) and the supporters being the ones trying to hose it down and say that the Presidential candidate doesn't really mean it.
Just like all the other things he didn't really mean. I'm actually more than willing to give people the benefit of the doubt about how they've been interpreted, but some of the things that Trump has said have been extraordinary. With the the best will in the world, the "2nd Amendment people" one came across very badly and really did sound like a suggestion that a gun was the solution. Then there's the one about blood coming out of a female journalist. Or the call to look at a woman who accused him of sexually inappropriate behaviour. Or the whole thing about a judge being biased because of a Mexican heritage.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 04:50:56 AM
Trump is not suggesting an armed revolt in the wake of a Clinton victory (that's liberal press scare tactics to inflame public opinion)
No, that is wondering what to make of your preferred candidate's own dodgy words about "second amendment people" and what they can about things, if they don't get their desired electoral result.
I marvel at your logical gymnastics, to make everything that El Tupé says or does, into some kind of "normal." Really, you should take over for Kellyanne Conway, who seems to have given up trying to explain away the candidate's blather.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 20, 2016, 04:55:59 AM
Not Al Gore, presumably. You know, the guy who actually ran for President.
Right: that gracious concession, and El Tupé's "I'm gonna leave you in suspense" . . . pretty much the same thing . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 20, 2016, 04:59:26 AM
No, that is wondering what to make of your preferred candidate's own dodgy words about "second amendment people" and what they can about things, if they don't get their desired electoral result.
I marvel at your logical gymnastics, to make everything that El Tupé says or does, into some kind of "normal." Really, you should take over for Kellyanne Conway, who seems to have given up trying to explain away the candidate's blather.
Right: that gracious concession, and El Tupé's "I'm gonna leave you in suspense" . . . pretty much the same thing . . . .
"Second amendment people" are those who care about having judges on the Supreme Court that will uphold the 2nd amendment. They are not assassins. "I'm gonna leave you in suspense" is Trump saying he won't rule out a legal challenge until he is satisfied that no fraud or irregularities occurred.
You skew his words to mean something "dangerous" instead of accepting his second amendment phrase was Trump getting his voters out in order to help him win, since after the election it was too late to avoid her putting judges on the Supreme Court that will undermine gun rights.
This has been the Clinton's MO, with help from the press and her supporters, to use innuendo and a whisper campaign to imply Trump is "dangerous" or un-American by reading into his statements something that is not there.
Disgusting.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 20, 2016, 04:55:59 AM
Which "Democrats" are these, exactly? A bunch of supporters on social media?
All the way from people with a bumper sticker that said "selected, not elected" to Democrat talking heads on the Sunday talk shows and even some elected officials saying Bush had no mandate, because of how he was elected.
But I forget, Democrats rely on a double standard and selective memory.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 05:19:35 AM
All the way from people with a bumper sticker that said "selected, not elected" to Democrat talking heads on the Sunday talk shows and even some elected officials saying Bush had no mandate, because of how he was elected.
But I forget, Democrats rely on a double standard and selective memory.
You certainly do forget if you think I'm a Democrat.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 05:15:55 AM
"Second amendment people" are those who care about having judges on the Supreme Court that will uphold the 2nd amendment.
Do you really think the issue here was identifying the people?
It wasn't. It was identifying what action the people could take. What, precisely, do you think was the "something" these people could do
if Clinton gets to pick her judges?
Okay? The context is that the judges have been picked. To say it's about picking judges is to quite deliberately ignore the context that was actually used, which conveyed not a way to PREVENT Clinton picking her judges, but a RESPONSE to Clinton picking her judges.
But then, I have little faith in your analytical abilities. Not just here, your little spat about Schoenberg in Hollywood was entirely consistent with the couple of times you decided to argue against yourself when I agreed with you. Because apparently I'm a "Democrat" and therefore everything I say is automatically wrong even when I'm agreeing with something you previously said. A medal in mental gymnastics lies in your future.
Did Trump's responding to the accusations of sexual misconduct against him with "I haven't even apologized to Melania, because I didn't do anything wrong" strike others as absolutely bizarre?
If you haven't done anything wrong, why bring up not apologizing as if it's any indicator of anything? It's not as if Trump apologizes when he has done something wrong, but just imagine the following discussion:
WIFE: Are these allegations true?
MAN: No. And I'm not gonna apologize either. They're not true.
...??
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 20, 2016, 05:36:02 AM
Did Trump's responding to the accusations of sexual misconduct against him with "I haven't even apologized to Melania, because I didn't do anything wrong" strike others as absolutely bizarre?
If you haven't done anything wrong, why bring up not apologizing as if it's any indicator of anything? It's not as if Trump apologizes when he has done something wrong, but just imagine the following discussion:
WIFE: Are these allegations true?
MAN: No. And I'm not gonna apologize either. They're not true.
...??
Did you expect anything less from Tump? I sure as hell didn't. He's a scumbag.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 20, 2016, 05:59:35 AM
Did you expect anything less from Tump? I sure as hell didn't. He's a scumbag.
Somehow, he manages to keep lowering the bar. Either that or I'm overly optimistic about the humanity of a narcissist and likely sociopath.
Gore did not claim in advance that the election he was about to contest would be rigged.
The Florida recount was not initiated by actions of either the Gore or Bush campaigns. Once the battle had moved to courts and recounts both campaigns fought the battle there.
QuoteTrump is not suggesting an armed revolt in the wake of a Clinton victory (that's liberal press scare tactics to inflame public opinion), he is holding open his legal options in case there is evidence of fraud or voting irregularities.
Trump has no more need to hold options open than Gore did. Why would he? The point is he is telling everyone the election will be rigged against him. That is not at all like holding your options open to respond to apparent irregularities that might turn out to be real and potentially decisive.
He's a bad hombre, that's fer sure.
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 20, 2016, 05:36:02 AM
Did Trump's responding to the accusations of sexual misconduct against him with "I haven't even apologized to Melania, because I didn't do anything wrong" strike others as absolutely bizarre?
Ayyup.
Yawn:
"I will keep you in suspense": Trump knows he's in trouble, so he crafted his own reality show cliffhanger (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/20/13343094/trump-concede-election-third-debate)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 20, 2016, 06:26:58 AM
Yawn:
"I will keep you in suspense": Trump knows he's in trouble, so he crafted his own reality show cliffhanger (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/20/13343094/trump-concede-election-third-debate)
There were much better ways to answer the Hildebeest, so many missed opportunities!
That was Hillary's finest performance of the year - she actually managed to give clear, eloquent, mature adult answers while Trump melted down into a puddle next to her. Her Roe v. Wade answer (seeing governments in China and Romania regulate women) was a high point for her campaign, in terms of her ability to defend a controversial position in an appealing fashion. If only she were as eloquently defending TPP!
This is the first debate that Hillary legitimately won on merit, rather than simply because Trump was a disaster. It was also far more civilized, substantive, and interesting than the hellish second debate. Credit to Chris Wallace for much of that, but also to Hillary for her best performance.
Trump made a few massive mistakes - like the now-infamous "I'll keep you in suspense" - and they overshadowed a few minor details which ordinarily would be considered mistakes, like once again agreeing that he paid no taxes (fewer taxes than illegal immigrants, Hillary added, for icing on the cake), or like confusingly standing up to praise Barack Obama's immigration policy.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 20, 2016, 06:36:08 AM
There were much better ways to answer the Hildebeest, so many missed opportunities!
He missed a TON of opportunities - he brought up emails once, but otherwise his attacks were lame and weak. Bringing up the Clinton Foundation was really foolishly walking into a trap, given that his own foundation is fraudulent. He had to know the 6-foot portrait retort was coming. Had to.
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 20, 2016, 06:20:59 AM
He's a bad hombre, that's fer sure.
Or is he a (paricularly) nasty woman?
Since Trump is so filled with conspiracy theories, do you mind if I spout off one of my own and please indulge me for a second: it is quite possible Trump was a Democratic plant and he knew he was going to throw in the towel last night as part of a plan to tear the Republican Party down from top to bottom. Fair-fetched? I'm quite sure, but I've just never seen someone do so badly unless we look back at John McCain's massive failure of a campaign, which his biggest misstep was bringing that batshit crazy Alaskan governor, Sarah "I Kill Many Moose And Smile About It" Palin.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 05:19:35 AMBut I forget, Democrats rely on a double standard and selective memory.
And Republicans rely on their own self-righteousness, holier-than-thou opinions and talking points to make themselves appear to be the epitome of political rightness. I've been really enjoying watching their party self-destruct these last couple of elections. If anything, it makes for good popcorn-munching.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 20, 2016, 06:52:24 AM
Since Trump is so filled with conspiracy theories, do you mind if I spout off one of my own and please indulge me for a second: it is quite possible Trump was a Democratic plant and he knew he was going to throw in the towel last night as part of a plan to tear the Republican Party down from top to bottom. Fair-fetched? I'm quite sure, but I've just never seen someone do so badly unless we look back at John McCain's massive failure of a campaign, which his biggest misstep was bringing that batshit crazy Alaskan governor, Sarah "I Kill Many Moose And Smile About It" Palin.
Not too far off really. I think he is actually good friends with Bill and Hillary. The entire thing might be an act.
Anyway pretty sickening what he said about aborting babies 4 days from birth. Again prone to sensations and not reality: go around the country and see whether you see women lining up at clinics to abort their children 4 days before they are due. Gimme a break.
And if he doesn't know Putin (he is likely telling the truth there) how does he know what Putin thinks of Hillary?
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2016, 06:38:25 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 20, 2016, 06:36:08 AM
There were much better ways to answer the Hildebeest, so many missed opportunities!
He missed a TON of opportunities - he brought up emails once, but otherwise his attacks were lame and weak. Bringing up the Clinton Foundation was really foolishly walking into a trap, given that his own foundation is fraudulent. He had to know the 6-foot portrait retort was coming. Had to.
Indeed. His lack of mental focus, discipline, and preparation told in all three debates. Thank God, he was himself.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 20, 2016, 06:52:24 AM
Since Trump is so filled with conspiracy theories, do you mind if I spout off one of my own and please indulge me for a second: it is quite possible Trump was a Democratic plant and he knew he was going to throw in the towel last night as part of a plan to tear the Republican Party down from top to bottom. Fair-fetched? I'm quite sure, but I've just never seen someone do so badly unless we look back at John McCain's massive failure of a campaign, which his biggest misstep was bringing that batshit crazy Alaskan governor, Sarah "I Kill Many Moose And Smile About It" Palin.
I wondered the same thing about a year ago...but I think there is very little for Trump in that scenario. He would never be a fall-guy - he sees himself a winner in the Game of Life. He is obsessed with his brand and would not willingly do anything to detract from its "allure". His rise does reveal the intellectual poverty - and desperation - of the GOP.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 05:19:35 AM
But I forget, Democrats rely on a double standard and selective memory.
I like your sense of irony!
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 20, 2016, 07:06:59 AM
And if he doesn't know Putin (he is likely telling the truth there) how does he know what Putin thinks of Hillary?
Probably read it in the New York Times.
People say that, I don't know, it's on the internet somewhere.
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2016, 06:37:19 AM
Her Roe v. Wade answer (seeing governments in China and Romania regulate women)
Good to know she got in something for our dear Florestan.
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2016, 06:37:19 AM
Her Roe v. Wade answer (seeing governments in China and Romania regulate women)
Huh?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 20, 2016, 07:06:59 AM
Not too far off really. I think he is actually good friends with Bill and Hillary. The entire thing might be an act.
Anyway pretty sickening what he said about aborting babies 4 days from birth. Again prone to sensations and not reality: go around the country and see whether you see women lining up at clinics to abort their children 4 days before they are due. Gimme a break.
And if he doesn't know Putin (he is likely telling the truth there) how does he know what Putin thinks of Hillary?
Yes, he's such a wart on many people's side. I just hope Americans choose to have laser surgery to have this wart removed. :)
Quote from: North Star on October 20, 2016, 07:26:06 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
Ah, that one! I thought she referred to contemporary Romania, hence my reaction. :D
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 20, 2016, 07:12:00 AM
I wondered the same thing about a year ago...but I think there is very little for Trump in that scenario. He would never be a fall-guy - he sees himself a winner in the Game of Life. He is obsessed with his brand and would not willingly do anything to detract from its "allure". His rise does reveal the intellectual poverty - and desperation - of the GOP.
You very well could be on the mark here and I agree that Trump is someone whose ego would never let him take a hit for anything. I think the fact that the GOP is distancing themselves from him speaks volumes. Anyone know if Paul Ryan has said anything since last night's debate? How about Mitch McConnell?
For entertainment purposes only:
Trump won the third debate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/10/19/trump-won-tonights-debate/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ef773f0446e9)
What 20,000 pages of hacked WikiLeaks emails teach us about Hillary Clinton (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/20/13308108/wikileaks-podesta-hillary-clinton)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 20, 2016, 07:31:32 AM
For entertainment purposes only:
Trump won the third debate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/10/19/trump-won-tonights-debate/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ef773f0446e9)
Oh jeez....someone wrote 'delusional' in response to that article and I'm right behind them. I read the first two paragraphs and then rolled my eyes.
Quote from: Ezra KleinThe dominant narrative of this election goes something like this. Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate who is winning because she is facing a yet weaker candidate. Her unfavorables are high, her vulnerabilities are obvious, and if she were running against a Marco Rubio or a Paul Ryan, she would be getting crushed. Lucky for her, she's running against a hot orange mess with higher unfavorables, clearer vulnerabilities, and a tape where he brags about grabbing women "by the pussy."
There's truth to this narrative, but it also reflects our tendency to underestimate Clinton's political effectiveness. Trump's meltdown wasn't an accident. The Clinton campaign coolly analyzed his weaknesses and then sprung trap after trap to take advantage of them.
So, there it is. The GOP sowed the seeds of its own destruction by the elites' cynical misuse of its base. Rubio or Ryan would have run a much stronger campaign against Clinton, but the disaffected masses roundly rejected the "respectable" candidates in favor of El Tupé; and El Tupé had a ceiling which he was never going to crack, without becoming some other person. Or anything human. Yes, merely human would have been good.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 20, 2016, 07:35:20 AM
Oh jeez....someone wrote 'delusional' in response to that article and I'm right behind them. I read the first two paragraphs and then rolled my eyes.
At first I thought it was a satire.
But, no . . . .
In fairness, maybe he wrote it before the debate, and then just didn't bother watching.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 20, 2016, 07:46:03 AM
At first I thought it was a satire.
But, no . . . .
In fairness, maybe he wrote it before the debate, and then just didn't bother watching.
QFT: "He didn't implode, he didn't blither, he didn't continually interrupt Hillary Clinton and he didn't even sniff much."
I don't know about the blither part, but he didn't sniff much. That should mean a win.
Lest sanantonio claim again that Trump is pulling an Al Gore, here's Al Gore's concession speech:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/12/14/us/43rd-president-his-remarks-gore-says-he-will-help-bush-bring-american-together.html
"Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."
From the photo album:
(translation of the 1st: Forum America and the Islamic World 13-18 February 2010)
(http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/16ec5bdd55ee432164cf4f876a7f7c13.jpg)
(http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/f57b1948e3687e396d17135bc9a190fd.jpg)
(http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/e01b10ade8d9b65e29d309c807dc1520.jpg)
(http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/656d85b56937c465405c51bc1bd4feba.jpg)
courtesy of: http://detonate.com/pictures-that-hillary-clinton-wishes-would-go-away/
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 20, 2016, 08:11:23 AM
From the photo album:
You mean the president of the US actually met the president of Russia? And the secretary of state sat next to an Arab in a headdress? Shocking!
I imagine DJT wishes picture 3 would go away too . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 20, 2016, 08:19:52 AM
I imagine DJT wishes picture 3 would go away too . . . .
Let alone...
In an 2008 interview with NY1, Trump praised Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for their time in elected office.
Asked about Hillary Clinton's legacy, Trump said, "Well, I think her history is far from being over. I'd like to answer that question in another 15 years from now. I think she is going to go down at a minimum as a great senator. I think she is a great wife to a president. And I think Bill Clinton was a great president."
"You know you look at the country then," he continued. "The economy was doing great. Look at what happened during the Clinton years. I mean, we had no war, the economy was doing great, everybody was happy. A lot of people hated him because they were jealous as hell. You know people get jealous and they hate you."
"Bill Clinton was a great president. Hillary Clinton is a great woman and a good woman," he said in the interview.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/trump-ny1-clintons/
After reflecting on last night's debate, I have just one thing to say....
Thank you Hillary !!!
ah, so where are we this morning? How did the Russians do last night... errr... I mean...
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 20, 2016, 08:38:16 AM
After reflecting on last night's debate, I have just one thing to say....
Thank you Hillary !!!
Yes, it takes a mean bitch to slap down El Groper and I thank her for it also.
If he thinks she will be cowed by him then he is sadly mistaken. She is a rabid dog, she smells blood. The presidency and immense power is less than 3 weeks away. It's like Sauron smelling, feeling the Master Ring. Nothing is going to stop her now.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 05:15:55 AM
"Second amendment people" are those who care about having judges on the Supreme Court that will uphold the 2nd amendment. They are not assassins. "I'm gonna leave you in suspense" is Trump saying he won't rule out a legal challenge until he is satisfied that no fraud or irregularities occurred.
You skew his words to mean something "dangerous" instead of accepting his second amendment phrase was Trump getting his voters out in order to help him win, since after the election it was too late to avoid her putting judges on the Supreme Court that will undermine gun rights.
This has been the Clinton's MO, with help from the press and her supporters, to use innuendo and a whisper campaign to imply Trump is "dangerous" or un-American by reading into his statements something that is not there.
Disgusting.
No, there are some Second Amendment people who talk as if they think Hillary's election will be just and reasonable cause to take up arms against a tyrannical government.
Trump's statement in the debate could mean anything.
It is Trump's staff and TV surrogates who are talking reasonably. Not Trump.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 20, 2016, 09:08:21 AM
It is Trump's staff and TV surrogates who are talking reasonably. Not Trump.
Some of the surrogates, yes. The key surrogates are as a rule scarcely less unhinged than the candidate.
Quote from: snyprrr on October 20, 2016, 09:00:24 AM
ah, so where are we this morning? How did the Russians do last night... errr... I mean...
Better to hibernate for the next two weeks. Wake me up when Spring comes.
Zamyra Bear
Does anyone remember that video Bill Clinton made at the end of his two terms in the White House? The one where he was so bored he's playing Battleship. At one point he even goes chasing after Hillary with her lunch?
Well, here it is...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB5BfT1_PYQ
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 20, 2016, 07:45:38 AM
So, there it is. The GOP sowed the seeds of its own destruction by the elites' cynical misuse of its base. Rubio or Ryan would have run a much stronger campaign against Clinton, but the disaffected masses roundly rejected the "respectable" candidates in favor of El Tupé; and El Tupé had a ceiling which he was never going to crack, without becoming some other person. Or anything human. Yes, merely human would have been good.
Sadly I agree. Looking back, Rubio would have been a stronger candidate, but even with 17 candidates, I was not impressed with who the Republicans put forward. Btw, Ryan was not even running.
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 20, 2016, 09:19:19 AM
Does anyone remember that video Bill Clinton made at the end of his two terms in the White House? The one where he was so bored he's playing Battleship. At one point he even goes chasing after Hillary with her lunch?
Well, here it is...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB5BfT1_PYQ
Talk about "puppet" when the woman was clearly pulling the strings. If she wins, it will be her 9th year.
Funny to consider conspiracy theories of Obama taking a 3rd term...
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 09:20:10 AM
Sadly I agree. Looking back, Rubio would have been a stronger candidate, but even with 17 candidates, I was not impressed with who the Republicans put forward. Btw, Ryan was not even running.
Still, I don't think any of them would have had a chance against her.
Look at Romney. Nice guys finish last...
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 09:20:10 AM
Sadly I agree. Looking back, Rubio would have been a stronger candidate, but even with 17 candidates, I was not impressed with who the Republicans put forward. Btw, Ryan was not even running.
Of course (both Mr Klein and I knew that 8) )
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 20, 2016, 09:25:32 AM
Look at Romney. Nice guys finish last...
He was careless, believed the Fox News bubble. Again, it was entirely his race to lose, and in the middle of the debate cycle, he was in not merely a strong position, but IIRC had the advantage. He didn't lose because he was nice (though I think that a reasonable adjective to apply to the former Governor of the Commonwealth); it was a combination of his believing the favorably-hued reports, and being out-generalled.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 09:20:10 AM
Sadly I agree. Looking back, Rubio would have been a stronger candidate, but even with 17 candidates, I was not impressed with who the Republicans put forward. Btw, Ryan was not even running.
That's funny. Rubio was one of the most pathetic primary candidates. The only thing he had going for him was his looks.
You seem to have forgotten his robotic, stammering reiterations of the same canned lines.
Or maybe you think that's all it takes.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 20, 2016, 09:25:32 AM
Still, I don't think any of them would have had a chance against her.
Look at Romney. Nice guys finish last...
I disagree.
The Republicans had the advantage in an election after a two-term Democrat. Historically the party that has not had the presidency after a two-term president has won more often than not. Also, Hillary Clinton represents essentially a status quo presidency, which highlights another historical trend which shifts the advantage to the candidate offering change.
It was the Republicans election to lose. A more disciplined candidate would have won walking away.
Quote from: Herman on October 20, 2016, 09:41:22 AM
That's funny. Rubio was one of the most pathetic primary candidates. The only thing he had going for him was his looks.
You seem to have forgotten his robotic, stammering reiterations of the same canned lines.
Or maybe you think that's all it takes.
As I said, I didn't like any of them. But a robotic candidate who could deliver a disciplined message would have been enough against the second most flawed candidate running this year.
Quote from: Herman on October 20, 2016, 09:41:22 AM
That's funny. Rubio was one of the most pathetic primary candidates. The only thing he had going for him was his looks.
You seem to have forgotten his robotic, stammering reiterations of the same canned lines.
Or maybe you think that's all it takes.
I don't think this at all unfair. Ideally, a good candidate learns to perform better. It is certainly a more reasonable speculation, to suppose that Rubio could have become a credible candidate. If El Tupé could morph into a president, I can morph into a porpoise.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 09:42:15 AM
I disagree.
The Republicans had the advantage in an election after a two-term Democrat. Historically the party that has not had the presidency after a two-term president has won more often than not. Also, Hillary Clinton represents essentially a status quo presidency, which highlights another historical trend which shifts the advantage to the candidate offering change.
It was the Republicans election to lose. A more disciplined candidate would have won walking away.
Obama was perhaps the most vulnerable incumbent candidate in my memory.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 20, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
He was careless, believed the Fox News bubble. Again, it was entirely his race to lose, and in the middle of the debate cycle, he was in not merely a strong position, but IIRC had the advantage. He didn't lose because he was nice (though I think that a reasonable adjective to apply to the former Governor of the Commonwealth); it was a combination of his believing the favorably-hued reports, and being out-generalled.
he lost because he said "He's not worried about the 40%, they will take care of themselves". Well those 40% said: if you don't care why the heck should we vote for you? You MASS HOLE !
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 20, 2016, 09:47:01 AM
he lost because he said "He's not worried about the 40%, they will take care of themselves". Well those 40% said: if you don't care why the heck should we vote for you? You MASS HOLE !
I see your point, but in every cycle there are incidents like this which wind up recoverable for a flexible (in the best sense) candidate.
No, no real difference between El Tupé and Gore.
"[ I ] pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election if I win."
[...]
Trump is trolling the press. But at least some supporters are taking him seriously. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/20/13347478/trump-concede-election)
Media Seems to Have Forgotten Gore's 2000 Challenge John Hinderaker, PowerLine (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/on-accepting-election-results.php)
Laws are for the Little People (http://www.steynonline.com/7564/laws-are-for-the-little-people)
by Mark Steyn
Not for her ...
(http://www.steynonline.com/pics/large/1827.jpg)
8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen Or Rigged (http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/19/8-times-liberals-claimed-election-stolen-rigged/)
The Clinton-Obama E-mail Scandal (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441187/wikileaks-podesta-emails-obama-administration-clinton-email-scandal)
John Podesta's e-mails, which we now have courtesy of WikiLeaks, confirm what we already knew: The Justice Department's decision not to indict Hillary Clinton was a politicized travesty.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 10:09:13 AM
Media Seems to Have Forgotten Gore's 2000 Challenge John Hinderaker, PowerLine (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/on-accepting-election-results.php)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 10:15:36 AM
8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen Or Rigged (http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/19/8-times-liberals-claimed-election-stolen-rigged/)
Beat ya to it:
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2016, 08:05:15 AM
Lest sanantonio claim again that Trump is pulling an Al Gore, here's Al Gore's concession speech:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2000/12/14/us/43rd-president-his-remarks-gore-says-he-will-help-bush-bring-american-together.html
"Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."
One of the pieces that David linked to includes some shady right-wing boilerplate viz. "voter fraud."
Trump's rigged election talk is reaping what Republican leaders have sowed
In Texas, for example, a gun permit counts as a valid form of identification, but a student ID does not. The reason, obviously, is that gun owners are usually Republicans while college students are usually Democrats. Best practices for writing voter ID laws that will help Republicans win election are provided by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and other business groups who like it when Republicans win because Republicans tend to favor lower taxes and more business-friendly regulatory regimes.
The problem with this is that you can't say the purpose of your voter ID regime is to tilt the partisan balance of power in elections. And you really can't say that the purpose is specifically to reduce the number of black and Latino people who vote, because that will get your law struck down as unconstitutional. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/20/13345006/trump-voter-id)
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2016, 10:36:32 AM
Beat ya to it:
Well, to be fair, Gore's concession only came after he lost at the Supreme Court - and you know what, the American democracy survived. :o
You should at least wait until Trump exhausts all his legal options before crying foul.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 10:15:36 AM
8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen Or Rigged (http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/19/8-times-liberals-claimed-election-stolen-rigged/)
Note that almost all of these claims were made after the election, and never by the candidate. In fact, it even cites one candidate (Kerry) who noted that he should not be the person making the claim.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 20, 2016, 11:14:15 AM
Note that almost all of these claims were made after the election, and never by the candidate. In fact, it even cites one candidate (Kerry) who noted that he should not be the person making the claim.
The point is that it does not challenge the American democracy, the exaggerated claim by the press, for anyone - candidate or otherwise - to call allege election fraud or voting irregularities. Nor does it matter if it occurs before or after the voting has taken place. It would be a problem if Trump were to still not accept the results after a legal challenge proved Clinton won fair and square.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 11:20:34 AM
It would be a problem if Trump were to still not accept the results after a legal challenge proved Clinton won fair and square.
I don't know why it is important nor relevant that he accepts it or not. If he goes through all the legal challenges and Grandma won fair and square it doesn't matter what he thinks, this country is going to move on. No one is seriously entertaining the notion that he is going to incite some kind of rebellion right?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 10:56:58 AM
Well, to be fair, Gore's concession only came after he lost at the Supreme Court - and you know what, the American democracy survived. :o
You should at least wait until Trump exhausts all his legal options before crying foul.
;)
But Gore was making a legal challenge to a known event, the recount, and he was not "crying foul" over fraud, only demanding a recount. Trump has no legal standing, has no specific grievance, and has not even had an election.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 11:20:34 AM
It would be a problem if Trump were to still not accept the results after a legal challenge proved Clinton won fair and square.
And also:
"It would be a problem if Trump were to still not accept the results after Clinton won fair and square
and no legal challenge was necessary."
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2016, 11:24:43 AM
But Gore was making a legal challenge to a known event, the recount, and he was not "crying foul" over fraud, only demanding a recount. Trump has no legal standing, has no specific grievance, and has not even had an election.
And all he has done was say that he has suspicions about the possibility. But what I think he really means is something like this: the press is working to sink his campaign, the FBI gave her a pass, and insiders in his own party are undermining his candidacy. IOW, elites are rigging the outcome through dirty tricks.
QuoteAnd also:
"It would be a problem if Trump were to still not accept the results after Clinton won fair and square and no legal challenge was necessary."
Yes, of course - and I doubt it will be close anyway.
Suspicious about the possibility. Ha.
He's deliberately throwing ideas out there with no evidence at all. As is typical.
Maybe he's an alien lizard. I don't know. Some people are saying that on the Internet, but I don't know. Maybe we'll find out one day. Lizards shouldn't be allowed to run. Sad.
And maybe people are undermining his candidacy because his candidacy is shit. There's that false idea of balance again, that you have to treat 2 sides of something as equal even if you can plainly see they're not equal.
Can you imagine if sports reporters couldn't say a team was losing because they'd be accused of undermining the team?
Oh, those Leftists misconstruing El Tupé's innocent, jokey remarks!
'One member of Republican nominee Donald Trump’s inner circle, Roger Stone, has “predicted” (which is to say, encouraged) “widespread civil disobedience” if Trump loses the election — a situation that he once described, somewhat nonsensically, as a “bloodbath” without violence. Another ally, Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County — a sworn law enforcement officer himself — has adopted the slogan, “It’s pitchforks and torches time.”'
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Make America like 1860 again.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 11:52:02 AM
And all he has done was say that he has suspicions about the possibility. But what I think he really means is something like this: the press is working to sink his campaign, the FBI gave her a pass, and insiders in his own party are undermining his candidacy. IOW, elites are rigging the outcome through dirty tricks.
Point taken,
if your point is that the election is not rigged but he just feels like everyone in the intelligentsia & power circles hates him.
Quote from: Brian on October 20, 2016, 01:43:54 PM
Point taken, if your point is that the election is not rigged but he just feels like everyone in the intelligentsia & power circles hates him.
Yeah, that's what I mean. I have come to believe that Trump makes rhetorical gestures on a grand scale that have little to do with objective facts. You know, going for the "larger truth".
;)
Elections ARE rigged. Period. Feel good that your vote matters... just believe it does...maybe it really does?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 11:52:02 AM
And all he has done was say that he has suspicions about the possibility. But what I think he really means is something like this: the press is working to sink his campaign, the FBI gave her a pass, and insiders in his own party are undermining his candidacy. IOW, elites are rigging the outcome through dirty tricks.
Yes, of course - and I doubt it will be close anyway.
have you been on the common sense side the whole time? Weren't we arguing about something earlier?... was it about gunz? Anyhow, glad to see there's actually some blowback in this Thread.
I'm at the "I think we need to see some traitors hanging from lampposts" stage of this republic.
I've also been implementing my new "Hillary Rules" in my life. That's where i use her type of bullshit in response to anyone who has a problem with anything I do or say. I can turn the tables pretty quick and make it your fault all of a sudden. I might have you considering suicide if you give me enough time.
Hurt People for Hillary
"I will give you a blow job if you vote for Hillary. I'm not a douche. I'm not a tool. I'm really good at it. I make lots of eye contact, and I do swallow."
Madonna, pop singer
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 02:20:49 PM
Yeah, that's what I mean. I have come to believe that Trump makes rhetorical gestures on a grand scale that have little to do with objective facts. You know, going for the "larger truth".
;)
Trumps hurt feelings don't justify telling the public that the the election and their vote is a sham and a fraud unless he wins. It's not a larger truth, it's a very big lie regardless of "what he really meant" interpretations.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 11:20:34 AM
The point is that it does not challenge the American democracy, the exaggerated claim by the press, for anyone - candidate or otherwise - to call allege election fraud or voting irregularities. Nor does it matter if it occurs before or after the voting has taken place. It would be a problem if Trump were to still not accept the results after a legal challenge proved Clinton won fair and square.
Do you think the reputation of the United States is of no practical value? We have a major candidate for president telling the world that the U.S. federal election "is rigged." You think it is just fine to hand this propaganda point to Russia, China, and other countries that would like to see the legitimacy of the United States undermined?
Quote from: snyprrr on October 20, 2016, 03:45:37 PM
She will most likely be thrown out of a balcony window and eaten by dogs.
Rather fall out one.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 20, 2016, 07:27:10 PM
Do you think the reputation of the United States is of no practical value? We have a major candidate for president telling the world that the U.S. federal election "is rigged." You think it is just fine to hand this propaganda point to Russia, China, and other countries that would like to see the legitimacy of the United States undermined?
Wow, did you just copy that from Pravda? A better reputation is served by exercising the right to criticize. It's human nature that is flawed. Taking advantage of or working the system is nothing new. It's just being done at such a massive scale. Outlets like NHK News (Japan) that knows beans about US politics are fed the direct party line that CNN gets. NHK for instance prioritizes on the level of the carnage in Syria and Iraq, unsubstantiated accusations of a political candidate in the US groping women 11 years ago and oh my gawd, that same person, Donald Trump, saying he would wait and see before accepting the results of the election as some kind of desecration.
The media is not rigged? Whom should favoritism benefit? Those who concocted the Manchurian Candidate, Barack Obama, bestowed on him a Nobel Prize within days of his inauguration are the same ones pushing Hillary. Does George Soros ring a bell? There are plenty more behind the scenes unnamed. Who's a puppet when you get this kind of money?
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/alatheia-nielsen/2016/10/20/soros-gives-61-million-media-groups-promoting-clintons
(http://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-60/s3/images/soros_donations_-_media_orgs_pushing_clinton.jpg?itok=dvhza3Ch)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 11:52:02 AM
And all he has done was say that he has suspicions about the possibility. But what I think he really means is something like this: the press is working to sink his campaign
You can bend the facts in so many ways it's funny. Only too recently Trump was bragging that he had gotten three billion worth of free publicity because the media loved him. There was that time that Clinton was giving a speech somewhere, which wasn't run on tv because the cameras were trained on an empty stage where "Mr Trump" was about to appear, when he felt like it.
And now it's all the fault of the media.
I bet it's great gymnasistics to bend all those different ways to reproduce the Trump shtick.
Quoteelites are rigging the outcome through dirty tricks.
Same story. The GOP establishment (that is, people who weren't Democrats only a couple of years ago, like Trump) has sought many ways to accommodate Trump, among which was putting up Pence as the guy who would actually do the work. But Trump is basically an Independent trying to use the GOP apparatus, so how can you expet the GOP to support him when it's not working?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 20, 2016, 02:20:49 PM
Yeah, that's what I mean. I have come to believe that Trump makes rhetorical gestures on a grand scale that have little to do with objective facts. You know, going for the "larger truth".
;)
Thanks for conceding that he's just a bullshitter ;)
In this regard, certainly, El Tupé outdoes even any GOP candidate I've yet run across:
Trump's Views on Science Are Shockingly Ignorant (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on-science-are-shockingly-ignorant/)
(I know that especially in this, snypsss gives him a BIIIIIG pass.)
Since the message of so many of El Tupé's supporters is "Not Hillary" and/or "Not Political Business As Usual," it is fair at this point to ask if the GOP would not have done better nominating an actual gorilla, rather than the present gorilla-in-human-guise. The gorilla would not have had a ceiling as low as El Tupé's.
Krauthammer:
A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it's a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I've explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.
The only question is whose name I'm going to write in. With Albert Schweitzer doubly unavailable (noncitizen, dead), I'm down to Paul Ryan or Ben Sasse. Two weeks to decide. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-vote-explained/2016/10/20/b61442a4-96f2-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e9d94dc276f7)
Quote from: Herman on October 21, 2016, 12:48:11 AM
Only too recently Trump was bragging that he had gotten three billion worth of free publicity because the media loved him. And now it's all the fault of the media.
Both are true: Trump did benefit from media coverage in the primary but once he was the nominee against Clinton the media decided (and this is on record) to depart from the pretense of being balanced and actively seek to sink his campaign. According to the public editor of the NYT, for the sake of the US democracy ... blah, blah, blah.
QuoteThe GOP establishment (that is, people who weren't Democrats only a couple of years ago, like Trump) has sought many ways to accommodate Trump, among which was putting up Pence as the guy who would actually do the work. But Trump is basically an Independent trying to use the GOP apparatus, so how can you expet the GOP to support him when it's not working?
The GOP found itself in a bind: supporting their candidate despite his outsider status and huge flaws and, for many, questionable conservative principles. As in all cases where someone tries to split the difference - no one is happy.
There may still be enough angry voters who have been underestimated by the polls and Trump may be a 21st century Truman.
It ain't over till it's over.
;)
More of the same Career Politician vs. Highly Successful Private Sector Billionaire Businessman
I often ask myself why would someone in Trump's position in life want to go thru all of this aggravation .. he's already got it all. He's living the dream.
Paul Krugman in today's New York Times, quoted complete. Ezra Klein said something similar on MSNBC last night, pointing out "over-prepared" Hillary's mastery in pushing Trump's buttons to get him to make a total fool of himself on all three occasions. And before the usual suspects start the usual knee-jerking, they might try actually reading what Krugman says:
QuoteHillary Clinton is a terrible candidate. Hey, that's what pundits have been saying ever since this endless campaign began. You have to go back to Al Gore in 2000 to find a politician who faced as much jeering from the news media, over everything from claims of dishonesty (which usually turn out to be based on nothing) to matters of personal style.
Strange to say, however, Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic nomination fairly easily, and now, having pummeled her opponent in three successive debates, is an overwhelming favorite to win in November, probably by a wide margin. How is that possible?
The usual suspects are already coalescing around an answer — namely, that she just got lucky. If only the Republicans hadn't nominated Donald Trump, the story goes, she'd be losing badly.
But here's a contrarian thought: Maybe Mrs. Clinton is winning because she possesses some fundamental political strengths — strengths that fall into many pundits' blind spots.
First of all, who was this other, stronger candidate that the G.O.P. might have chosen? Remember, Mr. Trump won the nomination because he gave his party's base what it wanted, channeling the racial antagonism that has been the driving force for Republican electoral success for decades. All he did was say out loud what his rivals were trying to convey with dog whistles, which explains why they were so ineffective in opposing him.
And those establishment candidates were much more Trumpian than those fantasizing about a different history — say, one in which the G.O.P. nominated Marco Rubio — acknowledge. Many people remember Mr. Rubio's brain glitch: the canned lines about "let's dispel with this fiction" that he kept repeating in a disastrous debate performance. Fewer seem aware that those lines actually enunciated a crazy conspiracy theory, essentially accusing President Obama of deliberately weakening America. Is that really much better than the things Mr. Trump says? Only if you imagine that Mr. Rubio didn't believe what he was saying — yet his insincerity, the obvious way he was trying to play a part, was surely part of his weakness.
That is, in fact, a general problem for establishment Republicans. How many of them really believe that tax cuts have magical powers, that climate change is a giant hoax, that saying the words "Islamic terrorism" will somehow defeat ISIS? Yet pretending to believe these things is the price of admission to the club — and the falsity of that pretense shines through.
And one more point about Mr. Rubio: why imagine that a man who collapsed in the face of childish needling from Mr. Trump would have triumphed over the woman who kept her cool during 11 hours of grilling over Benghazi, and made her interrogators look like fools? Which brings us to the question of Mrs. Clinton's strengths.
When political commentators praise political talent, what they seem to have in mind is the ability of a candidate to match one of a very limited set of archetypes: the heroic leader, the back-slapping regular guy you'd like to have a beer with, the soaring orator. Mrs. Clinton is none of these things: too wonky, not to mention too female, to be a regular guy, a fairly mediocre speechifier; her prepared zingers tend to fall flat.
Yet the person tens of millions of viewers saw in this fall's debates was hugely impressive all the same: self-possessed, almost preternaturally calm under pressure, deeply prepared, clearly in command of policy issues. And she was also working to a strategic plan: Each debate victory looked much bigger after a couple of days, once the implications had time to sink in, than it may have seemed on the night.
Oh, and the strengths she showed in the debates are also strengths that would serve her well as president. Just thought I should mention that. And maybe ordinary citizens noticed the same thing; maybe obvious competence and poise in stressful situations can add up to a kind of star quality, even if it doesn't fit conventional notions of charisma.
Furthermore, there's one thing Mrs. Clinton brought to this campaign that no establishment Republican could have matched: She truly cares about her signature issues, and believes in the solutions she's pushing.
I know, we're supposed to see her as coldly ambitious and calculating, and on some issues — like macroeconomics — she does sound a bit bloodless, even when she clearly understands the subject and is talking good sense. But when she's talking about women's rights, or racial injustice, or support for families, her commitment, even passion, are obvious. She's genuine, in a way nobody in the other party can be.
So let's dispel with this fiction that Hillary Clinton is only where she is through a random stroke of good luck. She's a formidable figure, and has been all along.
Quote from: KrugmanFirst of all, who was this other, stronger candidate that the G.O.P. might have chosen?
Quote from: KrugmanAnd one more point about Mr. Rubio: why imagine that a man who collapsed in the face of childish needling from Mr. Trump would have triumphed over the woman who kept her cool during 11 hours of grilling over Benghazi, and made her interrogators look like fools?
Bingo.
If the argument is that El Tupé is an entertainer rather than a politician — a weak argument at best IMO — he is extraordinarily tone-deaf, and has no sense whatever of time and place, for an "entertainer":
[El Tupé] Manages to Get Booed at the Al Smith Dinner
The crowd booed some more. Someone shouted, "You're not so funny."
"Thank you," [El Tupé] replied. (http://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2016/10/trump-and-clinton-enter-the-homestretch-the-latest-updates/504641/10094/)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 04:36:28 AM
Delusional Liberal.
;)
Thank you for your insightful analysis.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 21, 2016, 04:43:47 AM
Thank you for your insightful analysis.
I could have continued: It is my belief that Liberals will experience buyers remorse from a Hillary Clinton presidency. Which is why I think this kind of laudatory commentary is delusional.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 04:36:28 AM
Delusional Liberal.
"And one more point about Mr. Rubio: why imagine that a man who collapsed in the face of childish needling from Mr. Trump would have triumphed over the woman who kept her cool during 11 hours of grilling over Benghazi, and made her interrogators look like fools? Which brings us to the question of Mrs. Clinton's strengths."
A perverse strength for sure, a dyed-in-the-wool dissembler.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 04:53:35 AM
I could have continued: It is my belief that Liberals will experience buyers remorse from a Hillary Clinton presidency. Which is why I think this kind of laudatory commentary is delusional.
Pot kettle black.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 21, 2016, 04:56:28 AM
Pot kettle black.
If you are able to resist a moment from your knee-jerk reaction of putting everything through a Trump prism, you might consider that everyone who put their trust into either Clinton has ended up feeling betrayed, if they are lucky, or in jail or dead.
"Everyone". That's a big call.
I tend to agree with Krugman, first about the unseemly willful ignorance behind several of the GOP policy positions, and second about Hillary's strengths. I would add that Hillary is obviously a team player, whereas Donald is a grenade thrower. Look no further than Hillary's effective working relationship with Bernie Sanders, versus Donald's toxic attacks on Paul Ryan and his fellow primary candidates. Donald has been burning bridges throughout the campaign; Hillary has been building bridges.
A few of the posters above have parroted Donald's claim that the press is against him. This is another example of 'you will reap what you sow'. Donald has been antagonizing the press throughout the campaign, banning various news organizations, blaming the press for any bad coverage he gets, etc. The press which covered Donald's rallies were threatened on many occasions. No wonder the press turned on Donald. Who wouldn't?
Finally, I want to offer a little push-back on this claim that Hillary somehow should be in jail because of her handling of her email server. I tend to agree that she showed some carelessness, but nothing deserving more than a reprimand.
Here are a few points, as far as I understand them:
1) Hillary was using an email configuration which is (or was) typical for Senators. Her negligence was failing to upgrade to stricter state department standards when she joined the Obama administration.
2) Although Hillary is nominally responsible, this really should have been taken care of by her staff or by State Department staff. Is Obama responsible for keeping his phone secure? No. Would we want him to be? No. He should be focused on other, bigger issues. The same goes for the Secretary of State. No one expects her to be an email server guru. Blame it on Hillary if you want, but someone should have taken care of this for her.
3) I'm not too concerned about "classified" documents sitting on her home server. The US government generates millions (billions?) of paper files a month, and the process of classifying those documents is not exactly water-tight. Many documents, email threads, etc, get classified weeks after-the-fact, often on the basis of the most cursory analysis. I seriously doubt that Hillary had anything like the "Bruce-Partington Plans" on her home server.
In short, this is a minor issue, not a felony offense. The fact that this is the best dirt that the anti-Hillary squads could find speaks volumes to me.
Every time the GOP takes a minor issue and tries to magnify it up into a colossal scandal, they lose credibility (e.g. Benghazi). To say nothing of completely fabricated stories (e.g. birtherism). Cry wolf too many times and people just stop listening to you.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 21, 2016, 05:06:50 AM
"Everyone". That's a big call.
You can look it up; the list of ruined careers and worse is long and filled with their most loyal supporters. Democrats are cursed with short memories.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 05:09:40 AM
You can look it up; the list of ruined careers and worse is long and filled with their most loyal supporters. Democrats are cursed with short memories.
I'm not a Democrat (your memory is so short you can't remember me telling you this mere hours ago, and indeed you appear to have forgotten where I live).
And what I'm "cursed" with is an understanding of the word everyone, which first requires a list of everyone who put their trust in either Clinton before a demonstration how each one was affected.
Not a list of people who've been affected by the Clintons. Which you haven't provided, just told me to look it up. Well, I'm not the one making the assertion. You are. You do the work. You can at the very LEAST provide a list of people affected by the Clintons. It won't remotely prove that
everyone who put their trust in a Clinton was badly affected, but heck, it would at least show you putting some effort into showing that
someone who put their trust in a Clinton was badly affected.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 21, 2016, 05:18:50 AM
I'm not a Democrat (your memory is so short you can't remember me telling you this mere hours ago, and indeed you appear to have forgotten where I live).
I wasn't really speaking to you - my point was directed at those who will cast their vote for Hillary Clinton - hence my "buyers remorse" comment.
Try to keep up.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 05:22:20 AM
I wasn't really speaking to you
Then don't
**** quote me
*****.
You've said the same thing twice AND BOTH TIMES YOU WERE QUOTING ME. Dear God, could you be any more transparently false? Could you, in fact, be any more like Trump who just makes shit up and denies the public record?
I don't care which side of politics you're on, I cannot tolerate this disingenuous shit where you try and deny what you've done with a wink and a smile. You were speaking to me. A blind man could see you were directly responding to me, telling to me to look something up. But you just can't bear to be wrong.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 04:53:35 AM
I could have continued: It is my belief that Liberals will experience buyers remorse from a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Well, and you believe that El Tupé will . . . become presidential. You'll forgive my feeling that you may not be the reliable employer of the adjective
delusional 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 05:24:07 AM
Well, and you believe that El Tupé will . . . become presidential. You'll forgive my feeling that you may not be the reliable employer of the adjective delusional 8)
I know it is a stretch. :-\ But hope springs eternal. But if I were to put my faith in one of them, I'd sooner choose Trump rather than her.
;)
Mike Pence Is Winning the Ryan-Trump Cold War (https://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2016/10/trump-and-clinton-enter-the-homestretch-the-latest-updates/504641/10046/)
If this holds true, then it really is the GOP which is determinedly pursuing extinction, with an institutional incapacity to learn the lessons from its own post-Romney "autopsy."
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 05:28:16 AM
I know it is a stretch. :-\ But hope springs eternal. But if I were to put my faith in one of them, I'd sooner choose Trump rather than her.
;)
Well, fair enough, though we (not to state the obvious) disagree.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 05:29:30 AM
Well, fair enough, though we (not to state the obvious) disagree.
Yes, and at least we do it politely. I would hate to see this silly thread spoil otherwise good online relationships which are mostly about a shared interest in music.
;)
Quote from: ørfeo on October 21, 2016, 05:06:50 AM
"Everyone". That's a big call.
We don't want to appear too nuanced here.
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 21, 2016, 05:08:22 AM
Every time the GOP takes a minor issue and tries to magnify it up into a colossal scandal, they lose credibility (e.g. Benghazi). To say nothing of completely fabricated stories (e.g. birtherism). Cry wolf too many times and people just stop listening to you.
This is why I take no Republican criticisms of Obama very seriously any more. From another classical website:
QuoteMickey Mouse would be better than that doofus now in the White House and his "Prisoner in the White House" wife who wears a
dress to the inaugural ball that looks like it was made out of toilet paper and worse.
And:
Quote"There's no way, I don't think, any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday. I mean, you have the world watching," said [Pete] King [unfortunately my congressman] on right-wing internet TV today. "For him to walk out — I'm not trying to be trivial here — in a light suit, a light tan suit."
"The president stands squarely behind the decision he made yesterday to wear his summer suit," the White House press secretary said today —"
Nothing like focusing on what's essential.
I took a look at redstate.com for the first time to see what the other side was thinking/saying. Boy was I shocked to see the level of vitriol directed against Trump!
Here's a sample of an article on why Trump couldn't be trusted to appoint a conservative SCOTUS justice. The essence is that he wouldn't honor his pledge, but instead would pick a justice comfortable with his planned level of executive over-reach.
While it's true that Hillary would nominate liberal justices, the claim that Trump would fight against Democrats in Congress to nominate conservative justices flies in the face of everything we know about Trump from his entire life history.
First of all, he doesn't keep his word on anything, just ask the banks he refused to pay back loans to when his businesses went bankrupt, or the workers at those same businesses, who he refused to pay overtime to, or in some cases refused to pay at all. His word isn't worth the paper it's written on, and that's literally all we have when it comes to his promise about appointing good judges.
Secondly, he hasn't fought for a single conservative principle, policy, or person his entire life, and isn't about to start at age seventy. That's just not how the brain works. By that age, you are who you are. Either you've been humbled and changed into a better person by your life experiences, or you haven't, and clearly the latter is true with Trump because he's never experienced tragedy or intense suffering his entire life. That's not an exaggeration either, just read his biographies if you don't believe me.
He's been a liberal his entire life, and in fact still is, he's just pretending to be a conservative to win the votes he needs in this election. He only cares about himself, not ideas and policies that conservatives have fought for for decades. He certainly doesn't care about the Constitution, which tells me he would actually appoint a judge who wasn't an originalist, because only that kind of judge would be willing to allow him to pass his executive orders.
A true originalist justice in the mold of Thomas or Alito would vote to strike down and block his executive overreach, and Trump's ego couldn't handle that. If he has the power to nominate a judge who will act as a rubber stamp for his big gov't, isolationists, nationalist, agenda, why wouldn't he? It's simply illogical to suggest that he'd use up what little political capital he would have to fight the Democrats over a conservative justice who would be likely to end up opposing some of his pet projects anyway. He'd be much more likely to cut a deal with them, as I'll explain shortly.
Wow! Those redstate guys are mean! You don't see anything this vicious in the mainstream "liberal" media. Trump is under fire from all sides!
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 05:32:35 AM
Yes, and at least we do it politely. I would hate to see this silly thread spoil otherwise good online relationships which are mostly about a shared interest in music.
Couldn't agree more. At any rate, it will be all over in a little more than two weeks, if there is no need for a recount.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 04:36:28 AM
Delusional Liberal.
;)
Oh really, have you checked the credential of this guy. This is not just some journalist, this guy won a Nobel Prize and taught at some of the most prestigious universities in the US. IF anyone knows what he/she is talking about he does.
He is right on the money: Hillary is as tough as nails and on issues like abortion she truly believes in what she talks. You can see it in her eyes. Compare that to Trump who just gives some bullshit fear-monguling about how women are going to be lining up at free clinics waiting to abort their full term fetus.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 21, 2016, 06:03:52 AM
Couldn't agree more. At any rate, it will be all over in a little more than two weeks, if there is no need for a recount.
Hear, hear.
Quote from: James on October 21, 2016, 03:03:49 AM
More of the same Career Politician vs. Highly Successful Private Sector Billionaire Businessman
I often ask myself why would someone in Trump's position in life want to go thru all of this aggravation .. he's already got it all. He's living the dream.
Not MY dream... ::)
8)
Quote from: Judge Fish on October 21, 2016, 05:55:35 AM
I took a look at redstate.com for the first time to see what the other side was thinking/saying. Boy was I shocked to see the level of vitriol directed against Trump!
redstate.com has always been strongly anti-Trump - it's run by Erick Erickson, who actually received death threats for his anti-Trumpism. He also had creepy strangers visit his house, and when the Erickson family went to the grocery store, somebody told Erick's son, "Your father is killing America," or something similar.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 21, 2016, 06:10:12 AM
Not MY dream... ::)
8)
What, you don't dream of a penthouse with a living room big enough to put your old house in, a 50-foot dining table, secretly limited cashflow, endless litigation, and unlimited license to molest supermodels?
Anyone seen snypsss? As whatever-it-was wears off, and he awakes to the likelihood of a Clinton presidency . . . well, I just worry a little about him, is all.
This video is a collection of Trump statements compiled by a conservative PAC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu8VippicnA
Just a few years ago he was far more liberal than Hillary.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 21, 2016, 06:12:24 AM
This video is a collection of Trump statements compiled by a conservative PAC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu8VippicnA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu8VippicnA)
Just a few years ago he was far more liberal than Hillary.
Well, that's sort of
The El Tupé Story, really. About 50% of the time, he rambles incoherently, and 25% of the time he says stuff which contradicts what he said the remaining 25% of the time.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 06:16:00 AM
Well, that's sort of The El Tupé Story, really. About 50% of the time, he rambles incoherently, and 25% of the time he says stuff which contradicts what he said the remaining 25% of the time.
That's "balance" for you.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 06:16:00 AM
Well, that's sort of The El Tupé Story, really. About 50% of the time, he rambles incoherently, and 25% of the time he says stuff which contradicts what he said the remaining 25% of the time.
Actually, that was part of his appeal, to me at least. He was not one of the Republican social issue dinosaurs. His pandering to the evangelicals was a mistake, imo. I keep hoping for a new Conservative coalition to emerge based on individual liberties (including the right to choose an abortion) small government, low taxes, economic strength and reduced global footprint for the US. And nothing about the religious right's agenda.
Quote from: Brian on October 21, 2016, 06:10:50 AM
redstate.com has always been strongly anti-Trump - it's run by Erick Erickson, who actually received death threats for his anti-Trumpism. He also had creepy strangers visit his house, and when the Erickson family went to the grocery store, somebody told Erick's son, "Your father is killing America," or something similar.
Thanks. I remember reading something about Erick Erickson recently. You've helped me connect the dots.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 06:19:52 AM
Actually, that was part of his appeal, to me at least. He was not one of the Republican social issue dinosaurs. His pandering to the evangelicals was a mistake, imo. I keep hoping for a new Conservative coalition to emerge based on individual liberties (including the right to choose an abortion) small government, low taxes, economic strength and reduced global footprint for the US. And nothing about the religious right's agenda.
All well taken; there has to be a better political party of the right.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 06:19:52 AM
Actually, that was part of his appeal, to me at least. He was not one of the Republican social issue dinosaurs. His pandering to the evangelicals was a mistake, imo. I keep hoping for a new Conservative coalition to emerge based on individual liberties (including the right to choose an abortion) small government, low taxes, economic strength and reduced global footprint for the US. And nothing about the religious right's agenda.
In the video, mostly compiled from his previous bid for president, he gives strong support for stronger gun control, universal single-payer health care, a large tax increase that will raise 5 trillion dollars of revenue, Obama's economic stimulus and a nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Hillary. He calls the Republican economic policy advocated by conservative Republicans "too crazy." If you support Trump you must have loved Bernie Sanders! :)
Quote from: Scarpia on October 21, 2016, 06:29:32 AM
In the video, mostly compiled from his previous bid for president, he gives strong support for stronger gun control, universal single-payer health care, a large tax increase that will raise 5 trillion dollars of revenue, Obama's economic stimulus and a nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Hillary. He calls the Republican economic policy advocated by conservative Republicans "too crazy." If you support Trump you must have loved Bernie Sanders! :)
I didn't watch the video and didn't know he had a previous bid for president. There was some agreement with Trump and Sanders on some issues, e.g. trade deals and corporate influence.
I've seen videos of Hillary Clinton where she advocated using nuclear weapons, not taking that option off the table - something she has said now is one of Trump's reckless policies. It happens, people say different things at different moments depending on what they think will play well.
As I said, the fact that Trump's conservatism was tempered by his being a New York moderate was a plus in his column.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 06:35:54 AMI've seen videos of Hillary Clinton where she advocated using nuclear weapons, not taking that option off the table - something she has said now is one of Trump's reckless policies. It happens, people say different things at different moments depending on what they think will play well.
Every President, including Obama, has supported a defense policy in which the U.S. does not rule out a nuclear "first strike." There is nothing remotely controversial or hypocritical about it.
From the New York Times:
Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear WeaponsPresident Obama, who has weighed ruling out a first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict, appears likely to abandon the proposal after top national security advisers argued that it could undermine allies and embolden Russia and China, according to several senior administration officials....
Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/science/obama-unlikely-to-vow-no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons.html?_r=0
The issue with Trump was that national security advisors who briefed Trump after his nomination said that they were shocked that he seemed willing to use Nuclear Weapons in contexts that would conventionally be considered unthinkable. He said, for instance, that he might attack ISIS with nuclear weapons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/world/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons.html
Quote from: James on October 21, 2016, 03:03:49 AMI often ask myself why would someone in Trump's position in life want to go thru all of this aggravation .. he's already got it all. He's living the dream.
A quote from a book I've read recently (https://www.amazon.com/Submergence-J-M-Ledgard/dp/0224091379/) comes to mind.
"James, there is never a moment in a life when a selfish heart is satisfied."
It might be unwise as a POTUS to announce, "We will never use nuclear weapons." (It would also invite the follow-up query, Why don't you dismantle your stockpile, then?)
But, face it, talk of "nuking ISIS" is roughly equal parts ridiculous and reckless.
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 21, 2016, 06:54:01 AM
A quote from a book I've read recently (https://www.amazon.com/Submergence-J-M-Ledgard/dp/0224091379/) comes to mind.
"James, there is never a moment in a life when a selfish heart is satisfied."
Sadly true.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 06:56:01 AM
It might be unwise as a POTUS to announce, "We will never use nuclear weapons." (It would also invite the follow-up query, Why don't you dismantle your stockpile, then?)
But, face it, talk of "nuking ISIS" is roughly equal parts ridiculous and reckless.
It is also disingenuous for Clinton to call him reckless in the debates for having a less nuanced position than hers.
Not sure I agree. Lack of nuance is so often sheer recklessness.
I know: nuance is easy to scoff at these days.
The one thing that might have saved El Tupé in the third debate could be: Auto-tune.
http://www.youtube.com/v/FdBF6h7oH5I
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 07:30:45 AM
Not sure I agree. Lack of nuance is so often sheer recklessness.
I know: nuance is easy to scoff at these days.
I am not sure that Donald understands the concept of nuance.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 21, 2016, 07:48:09 AM
I am not sure that Donald understands the concept of nuance.
Hyperbole is more his style. I bet he is often surprised that the press takes him so literally.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 06:58:44 AM
It is also disingenuous for Clinton to call him reckless in the debates for having a less nuanced position than hers.
Nuking ISIS? Apparently there is a fine line between less-nuanced and bat-shit crazy. :)
Has anyone seen a newspaper so outright against a presidential candidate?
http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/ (http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 21, 2016, 08:01:20 AM
Has anyone seen a newspaper so outright against a presidential candidate?
http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/ (http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/)
Has anyone seen such a terrible candidate?
"Should we anticipate a Trump shake-up of the nuclear establishment, one that could significantly alter the likelihood of the use of such weapons? If Trump's public pronouncements and interview comments to date are any indication, it does not seem likely. Practically all of them conform to mainstream views and indicate basic support for his predecessor's strategy. Trump does complain that the United States gave away the store in the Iran deal, postponing the day of reckoning with a nuclear-armed Iran. But otherwise there are few if any obvious disagreements with conventional wisdom and practice."
From Politico (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 21, 2016, 06:10:12 AM
Not MY dream... ::)
8)
Oh I'm sure you'd enjoy his earnings & lifestyle. I'm sure you'd be proud to have built such a successful organization.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 21, 2016, 08:01:20 AM
Has anyone seen a newspaper so outright against a presidential candidate?
http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/ (http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/)
Wow! That was pretty comprehensive.
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 21, 2016, 06:54:01 AM
A quote from a book I've read recently (https://www.amazon.com/Submergence-J-M-Ledgard/dp/0224091379/) comes to mind.
"James, there is never a moment in a life when a selfish heart is satisfied."
He finances his own campaign with those deep pockets and is putting up with a lot of aggravation .. for a greater cause ... doesn't sound selfish to me.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 06:35:54 AM
I didn't watch the video and didn't know he had a previous bid for president.
Yeah, why know anything?
Republicans are not taking El Tupé's blather as "just the same as Gore":
"The campaign is over," said Steve Schmidt, a Trump critic and former senior strategist on George W. Bush's and John McCain's presidential campaigns.
Calling a refusal to accept the election results "disqualifying," Schmidt added: "The question is, how close will Clinton get to 400 electoral votes? She'll be north of 350, and she's trending towards 400 — and the trend line is taking place in very red states like Georgia, Texas and Arizona." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-braces-for-trump-loss-roiled-by-refusal-to-accept-election-results/2016/10/20/6e1de6aa-96dc-11e6-9b7c-57290af48a49_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_campaign-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
(I point this out to indicate how arrant a red herring the "Well, and Liberals stole the election eight times!" gambit is.)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 21, 2016, 08:01:20 AM
Has anyone seen a newspaper so outright against a presidential candidate?
http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/ (http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/10/daily-news-editorial-bury-trump-in-landslide/)
Thanks, Perfect, well worth reading. The Atlantic this month is similarly exlicit: "Don't Vote for Trump" : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/ If this keeps up, sanantonio may be casting Trump's only vote (other than his own, naturally, and I would wager some Trumpeters in his family have had more than enough of the "limelight." And anyway, the Don really is too wonderful to be POTUS : http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/donald-trump-jr-my-dad-too-good-you
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 09:54:18 AM
Thanks, Perfect, well worth reading. The Atlantic this month is similarly exlicit: "Don't Vote for Trump" : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/ If this keeps up, sanantonio may be casting Trump's only vote (other than his own, naturally, and I would wager some Trumpeters in his family have had more than enough of the "limelight." And anyway, the Don really is too wonderful to be POTUS : http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/donald-trump-jr-my-dad-too-good-you
Nah. Liberals are the only ones paying attention to their shills in the media like The Atlantic. As Dan Quayle famously said, "I wear your scorn as a badge of honor."
:D
Just gonna leave this out here.
Melania Trump's demand for a retraction by People magazine is simply amazing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/14/melania-trumps-demand-for-a-retraction-by-people-magazine-is-simply-amazing/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_3_na)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 10:03:43 AM
Nah. Liberals are the only ones paying attention to their shills in the media like The Atlantic. As Dan Quayle famously said, "I wear your scorn as a badge of honor."
:D
Well, he doesn't know any better.
And: more business "genius."
This wasn't the ideal time for a presidential campaign to lose its political director (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/21/this-wasnt-the-ideal-time-for-a-presidential-campaign-to-lose-its-political-director/)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 10:03:43 AM
Nah. Liberals are the only ones paying attention to their shills in the media like The Atlantic. As Dan Quayle famously said, "I wear your scorn as a badge of honor."
:D
For the record, the Atlantic is neither right nor left, but "moderate" : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_magazines
Actually, the reverse endorsements by NY Daily News and The Atlantic are a good sign for Trumpniks. Despite their concerted effort to sink Trump, the Liberal mudslingers must be wary of believing their own press and feel that they have to do more to try to sink the Trump juggernaut. Otherwise, why bother if he has really already lost the election?
Hmm ... something to consider.
;)
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 10:12:55 AM
For the record, the Atlantic is neither right nor left, but "moderate" : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_magazines
Very funny. Their editorial is hardly "moderate".
;)
Trumpniks...sounds suspiciously Russian... ??? :laugh:
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 10:18:39 AM
Very funny. Their editorial is hardly "moderate".
;)
Indeed; see what Trump has driven moderates to write?
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 10:18:47 AM
Trumpniks...sounds suspiciously Russian... ??? :laugh:
Coincidence? There's something going on there.
Considering what an extreme candidate El Tupé is, I do not see why an editorial which advises voting for the other candidate, is at all intrinsically immoderate.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 10:29:00 AM
Considering what an extreme candidate El Tupé is, I do not see why an editorial which advises voting for the other candidate, is at all intrinsically immoderate.
I think a major magazine telling its readers who not to vote for is silly. A bit of protesting too much if you ask me.
By the way, has the "moderate" Atlantic ever endorsed a Republican other than Lincoln? The answer is no. Their other endorsements were LBJ and Clinton.
Just sayin' ...
;)
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on October 21, 2016, 09:54:18 AM
Thanks, Perfect, well worth reading. The Atlantic this month is similarly exlicit: "Don't Vote for Trump" : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/ If this keeps up, sanantonio may be casting Trump's only vote (other than his own, naturally, and I would wager some Trumpeters in his family have had more than enough of the "limelight." And anyway, the Don really is too wonderful to be POTUS : http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/donald-trump-jr-my-dad-too-good-you
Just as scathing but not as comprehensively presented as the NYDailyNews but essentially the same conclusion:
If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 21, 2016, 10:40:22 AM
Just as scathing but not as comprehensively presented as the NYDailyNews but essentially the same conclusion:
But Trump is not a man of ideas..
A man of id is more like it.
Always look on the bright side of life
I wonder what could be the positive aspects of either result.
If Trump wins:
Congress rediscovers its backbone and puts more limits and scrutiny on executive power. The "Imperial Presidency" finally gets cut down to size. The endless scandals and larger-than-life antics of the Prez provide a bonanza for investigative journalists and comedians. Fewer foreigners will want to move here, which eases overcrowding and makes real estate more affordable.
If Clinton wins:
She sleeps 14 hours a day. She is too jaded and detached to force through her favorite initiatives, such as more wars. The return of Bill to the White House as First Gentleman will provide endless entertainment. It will also highlight how diseased our system has become through dynastic politics.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 01:47:23 AM
In this regard, certainly, El Tupé outdoes even any GOP candidate I've yet run across:
Trump's Views on Science Are Shockingly Ignorant (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on-science-are-shockingly-ignorant/)
One of the benefits of living in Massachusetts, perhaps? From my perspective the only one of those that is unusual for a Republican is the one about wind farms.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 04:53:35 AM
I could have continued: It is my belief that Liberals will experience buyers remorse from a Hillary Clinton presidency. Which is why I think this kind of laudatory commentary is delusional.
Krugman's column was not a prediction about her presidency. It simply explained that she has run a strong campaign, and maybe we should think about possibly including that somewhere in the list of reasons she's doing well.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 01:47:23 AM
In this regard, certainly, El Tupé outdoes even any GOP candidate I've yet run across:
Trump's Views on Science Are Shockingly Ignorant (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on-science-are-shockingly-ignorant/)
(I know that especially in this, snypsss gives him a BIIIIIG pass.)
May I point out that several of those tidbits relate to questions of public policy, but bear no relevance to determining his level of scientific knowledge. For instance the two listed under "Health Care".
OTOH, labelling AGW as a Chinese conspiracy is outre by all but Breitbart standards.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 21, 2016, 11:58:47 AM
May I point out that several of those tidbits relate to questions of public policy, but bear no relevance to determining his level of scientific knowledge. For instance the two listed under "Health Care".
Perfectly fair.
"Oh, and here is another foot of mine to shoot!"
Congress member defends Trump: "sometimes a lady needs to be told when she's being nasty" (http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/21/13361420/trump-clinton-nasty-woman-lady-congressman-brian-babin)
I'm proud to cast my vote for the first lesbian vampire President of this nation (that we know of). We need to pull together, all of us, living, dead and undecided, for a stronger America.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/akyhne/blank.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/akyhne/blank.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/akyhne/blank.gif) *
* Cabinet of the undead
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 05:28:16 AM
I know it is a stretch. :-\ But hope springs eternal. But if I were to put my faith in one of them, I'd sooner choose Trump rather than her.
;)
You would rather put your faith in the man who stiffed contractors and vendors who built his casinos, casinos which proved to be the come-ons for his bankruptcy-scams? You know, the ones executed through his well oiled-business model of selling junk bonds to gullible investors while loading the attendant corporations with suicide bomb debt loads? The one who paid himself millions of dollars from the proceeds of such sale and drew further millions as a salary from these corporations while all the said investors (and the cities who had given him tax incentives to run his scams on their turf) ended up holding a festering bag of shit and urban decay? You would rather trust the man who used an alleged charity he set up as a money laundering outfit, as Trump did when he took other people's money and donated it to a police organization on the condition that they pay it back to Trump in the form of an exorbitant rental fee for the use of one of his own facilities, thus laundering charity Monday into his bank account? The man who used charity money to pay his own debts and to buy items for his own use? You mean the man who used charity funds to bribe the Florida attorney general so that all of the Trump University graduates lining up to sue him for fraud in that state had no hope of just compensation? You mean trust him as did all of those TU graduates in New York who are going to sue him for fraud unless he becomes dictator and issues an executive order quashing the judicial action ;)? Apparently there are a hundred born every minute.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 12:12:38 PM
"Oh, and here is another foot of mine to shoot!"
Congress member defends Trump: "sometimes a lady needs to be told when she's being nasty" (http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/21/13361420/trump-clinton-nasty-woman-lady-congressman-brian-babin)
Since Babin doesn't accept emails from outside his district, I wrote my own worthless congressman to tell him: "Re Babin: sometimes an asshole needs to be told when he's being an asshole."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 21, 2016, 12:12:38 PM
"Oh, and here is another foot of mine to shoot!"
Congress member defends Trump: "sometimes a lady needs to be told when she's being nasty" (http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/21/13361420/trump-clinton-nasty-woman-lady-congressman-brian-babin)
First thought:. He is from the same state as that paragon of Presidential language, LBJ.
Second thought:. He did imply Hillary is a "lady", which is more than Trump seems able to do.
Quote from: BasilValentine on October 21, 2016, 12:22:39 PM
You would rather put your faith in the man who stiffed contractors and vendors who built his casinos, casinos which proved to be the come-ons for his bankruptcy-scams? You know, the ones executed through his well oiled-business model of selling junk bonds to gullible investors while loading the attendant corporations with suicide bomb debt loads? The one who paid himself millions of dollars from the proceeds of such sale and drew further millions as a salary from these corporations while all the said investors (and the cities who had given him tax incentives to run his scams on their turf) ended up holding a festering bag of shit and urban decay? You would rather trust the man who used an alleged charity he set up as a money laundering outfit, as Trump did when he took other people's money and donated it to a police organization on the condition that they pay it back to Trump in the form of an exorbitant rental fee for the use of one of his own facilities, thus laundering charity Monday into his bank account? You mean the man who used charity funds to bribe the Florida attorney general so that all of the Trump University graduates lining up to sue him for fraud in that state had no hope of just compensation? You mean trust him as did all of those TU graduates in New York who are going to sue him for fraud unless he becomes dictator and issues an executive order quashing the judicial action ;)? Apparently there are a hundred born every minute.
One cannot reason with faith.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 10:33:37 AM
I think a major magazine telling its readers who not to vote for is silly. A bit of protesting too much if you ask me.
Pot kettle black. Major magazines and newspapers have expressed political endorsements since time immemorial. Why, Maddow offered a graphic of how many newspapers have endorsed Clinton and how many Trump. Dozens and dozens for Clinton, three teeny weeny ones for Trump. But now he's got the KKK.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/21/donald-trump-finally-wins-newspaper-endorsement-kkk.html
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 21, 2016, 12:24:50 PM
Since Babin doesn't accept emails from outside his district, I wrote my own worthless congressman to tell him: "Re Babin: sometimes an asshole needs to be told when he's being an asshole."
His campaign website seems happy to accept donations from outside his district.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/20/what-if-liberty-is-attached-to-humanity
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 06:19:52 AM
Actually, that was part of his appeal, to me at least. He was not one of the Republican social issue dinosaurs. His pandering to the evangelicals was a mistake, imo. I keep hoping for a new Conservative coalition to emerge based on individual liberties (including the right to choose an abortion) small government, low taxes, economic strength and reduced global footprint for the US. And nothing about the religious right's agenda.
This already exists. It's called the Libertarian Party. I used to hope it would become a bigger factor in right-wing politics, either as a 3rd party or as a faction of the GOP, but the way I see things now is that if the Republicans move in that direction, they will lose more votes than they will gain.
A write-in vote is only counted for candidates who are properly registered. There is only one, Laurence Kotlikoff. He can legally win in every state, and a vote for him is counted in every state. He is thus one of only 5 people who can actually be elected by the Electoral College.
I am not a voter but if I were I would not vote for Trump or for Clinton. I can sympathize with both those who fear Trump enough to vote for Clinton, and those who fear Clinton enough to vote for Trump. But I would not accept either. Rejecting such a choice requires actually rejecting both choices. I do. I would write-in Laurence Kotlikoff and Ed Leamer. After Watergate Massachusetts drivers could proudly sport a bumper-sticker "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts." I want at least a bumper-sticker in my future if I cannot have a decent president.
https://kotlikoff2016.com/ (https://kotlikoff2016.com/)
No love for McMullin?
How Evan McMullin Could Win Utah And The Presidency (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/)
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 21, 2016, 02:50:47 PM
No love for McMullin?
How Evan McMullin Could Win Utah And The Presidency (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/)
Some. ;) But he cannot win in the EC. It takes some fantasy of the incumbents in congress favouring an anti-party insurgent rather than making a corrupt deal. Kotlikoff can win outright. Plus he's just plain better than McMullin. But, with the polls in Utah showing him hollowing out Trump, if I lived there and voted I would give him serious thought.
Kotlikoff can still be elected if he wins 49 other states. :laugh:
Kotlikoff thinks we can owe a gazillion unfunded liability dollars (we can't, unless they are funded), that therefore you can have liabilities without assets, no more true than dollars will exist as assets with no liabilities. No, we won't half create dollars, we'll create only as many liabilities as assets. There is no more reason to be scared of today's fantasy projection of horrors tomorrow than there was yesterday when we tried to imagine the "horror" of today. Our grandparents didn't just leave us with vast debt alone, they had no choice but to leave the vast assets, too.
Now guys like Kotlikoff think we should look out for the grandkiddies by not creating the asset/liability dollars to grow the economy now and in the future. He thinks dollars are something a money system can run out of. You can run out, I can, Missouri can, IBM can, a money system can't. It can and does furnish as many dollars as needed, so just as a football scoreboard can create as many touchdowns as it needs to record who wins the game the currency issuer too has no means or reason to run out of its "thin air" touchdowns.
Quote from: drogulus on October 21, 2016, 03:39:58 PM
Kotlikoff thinks we can owe a gazillion unfunded liability dollars (we can't, unless they are funded), that therefore you can have liabilities without assets, no more true than dollars will exist as assets with no liabilities. No, we won't half create dollars, we'll create only as many liabilities as assets. There is no more reason to be scared of today's fantasy projection of horrors tomorrow than there was yesterday when we tried to imagine the "horror" of today. Our grandparents didn't just leave us with vast debt alone, they had no choice but to leave the vast assets, too.
Now guys like Kotlikoff think we should look out for the grandkiddies by not creating the asset/liability dollars to grow the economy now and in the future. He thinks dollars are something a money system can run out of. You can run out, I can, Missouri can, IBM can, a money system can't. It can and does furnish as many dollars as needed, so just as a football scoreboard can create as many touchdowns as it needs to to record who wins the game the currency issuer too has no means or reason to run out of its "thin air" touchdowns.
This is a misunderstanding of what he argues. I am not going going to debate here, so I will just point out that he is talking about generational transfers, not rejecting the "we owe it to ourselves" argument. And just as a matter of logic, unfunded liabilities are quite possible. That is, for a flamboyant example, what German reparations were after WWI. And they too represented transfers.
That's what I'm talking about, too, as I thought I made clear. I made other points, too, but I make the same generational transfer argument from the present to the future as I make for the past to the present, which Kotlikoff can't do without revealing his parade of horrors is empty.
From reporting here today:
QuoteA new Reuters/Ipsos poll showed only half of Republicans would accept Mrs Clinton as their president, and nearly 70 per cent of them said a Democratic Party victory would be because of illegal voting or vote rigging.
Oh, awesome. Just wonderful. No, there couldn't possibly be people out there in the rest of the country outside our bubble who prefer
her.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 21, 2016, 10:03:43 AM
Nah. Liberals are the only ones paying attention to their shills in the media like The Atlantic. As Dan Quayle famously said, "I wear your scorn as a badge of honor."
Time to point out once more that the GOP has moved so far to the right, that they're calling Obama and Clinton 'far left' - even though they could have been moderate Republicans a generation ago.
The Affordable Care Act was largely adopted from a Republican model, for instance. As soon as a black Dem. president touched it, it became a socialist takeover.
.[asin]B01GS017IY[/asin]
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 21, 2016, 12:48:19 PM
http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/20/what-if-liberty-is-attached-to-humanity (http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/20/what-if-liberty-is-attached-to-humanity)
<only a wry joke, truly>
What if I wrote an opinion piece that consisted entirely of rhetorical questions?
</only a wry joke, truly>
Of course, I actually enjoyed both that aspect of the piece, and reading through it.
The distrust of Business-As-Usual (hereinafter BAU) government is real, and can be most sensible; and of course, that was part of the fuel behind Bernie's campaign, too.
If only there were not so thoroughly tainted, despicable, and untrustworthy (yes, I understand that the Loyal Opposition apply the same adjectives to Clinton) nominee on the GOP side bearing the
À Bas BAU! banner.
One family member of mine explains his intention to vote for El Tupé by saying he wonders if, before things can get better (viz. BAU guvmint), "maybe we need to reach bottom first." My reply was, "That
looks like the bottom from up here; but what if, when we sink to that point, we see that in fact the bottom is yet lower, and now we may not be able to overcome gravity?"
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 21, 2016, 02:50:47 PM
No love for McMullin?
How Evan McMullin Could Win Utah And The Presidency (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/)
Quote from: Ken B on October 21, 2016, 02:59:03 PM
Some. ;) But he cannot win in the EC. It takes some fantasy of the incumbents in congress favouring an anti-party insurgent rather than making a corrupt deal. Kotlikoff can win outright. Plus he's just plain better than McMullin. But, with the polls in Utah showing him hollowing out Trump, if I lived there and voted I would give him serious thought.
Kotlikoff can still be elected if he wins 49 other states. :laugh:
The theoretical model that a McMullin win in Utah (if all the other states shake out
just so) would deny either of the major-party nominees an Electoral College majority, that as a result the election would be decided by the House of Representatives, who would then make a rational and responsible decision, is a series of improbably idealistic hopes, the least realistic of which is that the House of Representatives is somehow suddenly capable of just that for which they have proved (over a decade and more) that they have no talent: rational and adult governance.
Ernie's and Ken's exchange exemplifies the challenge for any presidential candidate for any other than the present two major parties. There's the need to distinguish yourself from BAU; but the risk there is in doing so by promoting improbabilities (Johnson/Weld party want to do away with the Federal income tax, e.g. . . or maybe that is eminently practical, and I just haven't seen the diagram). There is the need to get your face, voice and ideas out in the public gaze/ear/consideration; but there is also a learning curve which, given the Season of Silly campaign we have been enduring, was not Gary Johnson's friend. My thinking is that Bernie's insurgency-within-a-major-party was brilliance and a substantial success (without saying that Bernie was not himself something shy of The Perfect Candidate); and it might just have succeeded if his opposition had been anything less than the practiced Clinton Machine.
What, is he in the third grade? "It's their fault!"
[El Tupé ] likes to blame others for starting his more controversial lines of attack — even blaming Hillary Clinton for starting the birther conspiracy theory. But yet again, he's using very scant evidence and making a strained argument to avert the gaze from his own bare knuckles. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/21/trumps-new-justification-for-attacking-the-clintons-michelle-obama-started-it/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpmood-630pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: ørfeo on October 21, 2016, 08:36:43 PM
From reporting here today:
Oh, awesome. Just wonderful. No, there couldn't possibly be people out there in the rest of the country outside our bubble who prefer her.
To be fair there was a lot of that crap when Bush was elected (the refusal to accept him as legitimate).
Let me point out this is an argument for supporting Kotlikoff. His main appeal will be to disaffected republicans and independents. If Trump is hollowed out by Kotlikoff (or McMullin) then the election will not be close. There is no debate about rigging if it's not close.
I am amazed in general by the shocked shocked reaction that anyone could suspect rigging or election theft. Examples of stolen elections abound in American history. Why the hell else did the Voting Rights Act matter for example. There has been a string of convictions over the years for organized vote fraud? And examples of complaints by both parties abound. Anyone remember all the stuff about Diebold? It's a legitimate concern. Trump's problem is that he conflates stuff like press bias or embarrassing old tapes with rigging.
What kind of elections are the abundant examples of stolen elections, though?
Quote from: Ken B on October 22, 2016, 05:27:03 AM
To be fair there was a lot of that crap when Bush was elected (the refusal to accept him as legitimate).
Let me point out this is an argument for supporting Kotlikoff. His main appeal will be to disaffected republicans and independents. If Trump is hollowed out by Kotlikoff (or McMullin) then the election will not be close. There is no debate about rigging if it's not close.
Yes. (Wouldn't stop El Tupé from making the whackadoodle assertion, but no, there would be no debate.)
Quote from: ørfeo on October 22, 2016, 05:57:57 AM
What kind of elections are the abundant examples of stolen elections, though?
Senate, house, local, state. And a not insignificant number of presidential ones might have been. The most cited examples are 1960, 1876, and 1824, but also 1916 according to some. I have heard Democrats complain about 2000.
And not just in the US of course. Recently elections were reversed by courts in the UK.
Elections are valuable things; people try to steal valuable things.
It seems to me incompatible to say both that you cannot raise doubts about an election AND that you cannot demand scrutiny of the process.
Again to try to forestall the misquoters. Trump calls a lot of stuff rigging that is not rigging. Even if the moderators were unfair in the debate that would not be rigging, even if every major paper is against (as they are) that is not rigging. But if there is vote fraud say, that would be rigging.
Correction. Kotlikoff can only win 43 states. 7 states will not allow write-ins.
All the more reason to help him in your state! ;) :laugh:
Just a reminder: the election won't be rigged as long as Trump wins! :P
https://www.youtube.com/v/OsKxjQ67GKU
He has got to be one of the biggest losers I've ever seen running for president. I thought Perot, McCain, Dole, both Bushes, Romney and Kerry were bad enough, but this guy really takes the cake.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 22, 2016, 05:57:57 AM
What kind of elections are the abundant examples of stolen elections, though?
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-19/trump-or-no-trump-elections-have-been-stolen
Throughout the 19th century, everyone seemed to think that election fraud was widespread. Democrats insisted that Rutherford B. Hayes stole the 1876 presidential race. Republicans said the same about Grover Cleveland in 1884. ...the accusations continued. In 1916, the presidential contest between Charles Evans Hughes and incumbent Woodrow Wilson went unresolved for several days. California, the last state to report, was counting and counting, and Hughes's Republican supporters fretted publicly about the possibility that the election would be stolen.
Sometimes the accusers were right. Once the votes were counted in that disputed 1876 election, it appeared that Democrat Samuel J. Tilden had won a majority in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Hayes would not admit defeat, and his backers argued that the vote had been unfair because of massive vote fraud. Black voters had been beaten and intimidated throughout the South. In particular, the Republicans challenged the balloting in Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana.
Recounts were ordered. In South Carolina, the board of canvassers was threatened, and troops dispatched to protect them. The Tilden forces were furious. One Democratic newspaper lamented: "The character of the state government of South Carolina is so notorious that the integrity of this board will be considered absurd." Congress finally appointed a committee to adjudicate the matter. When Hayes supporters said the nation should abide by the outcome, whatever it was, the pro-Tilden Cincinnati Enquirer replied angrily that this argument betrayed "ignorance of the law and the Constitution."
In the end, the committee awarded all the disputed states to Hayes, giving him the presidency by a single electoral vote, and allowing him to go down in history as the man who ended Reconstruction and left the freed slaves to the untender mercies of their former owners. The Democrats cried foul, and there is ample reason to think they were right. In fact, the battle produced a dismaying symmetry: first Tilden won by intimidation and then Hayes won by fraud.
The President thus inherited an embarrassing moniker:
Rutherfraud Hayes.
These are old posts of mine linked here for drogulus. I think you will find we agree on the basics here.
http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-war-on-public-debt-and-paul-krugman.html (http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-war-on-public-debt-and-paul-krugman.html)
And
http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/writing-landsburg.html (http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/writing-landsburg.html)
And
http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/my-latest-salvo-in-ongoing-war-at-free.html (http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/my-latest-salvo-in-ongoing-war-at-free.html)
Transfer effects do matter though.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 22, 2016, 06:46:03 AM
Just a reminder: the election won't be rigged as long as Trump wins! :P
https://www.youtube.com/v/OsKxjQ67GKU
He has got to be one of the biggest losers I've ever seen running for president. I thought Perot, McCain, Dole, both Bushes, Romney and Kerry were bad enough, but this guy really takes the cake.
I don't know what his beef is(yet). Stolen implies the election is somewhat close. Right now by all accounts he is getting creamed in every swing state so Grandma would have to "steal" or "rig" 5 or 6 states. She is conniving and all but even that is beyond her abilities I would think.
Quote from: Ken B on October 22, 2016, 07:01:33 AM
These are old posts of mine linked here for drogulus. I think you will find we agree on the basics here.
http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-war-on-public-debt-and-paul-krugman.html (http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-war-on-public-debt-and-paul-krugman.html)
And
http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/writing-landsburg.html (http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/writing-landsburg.html)
And
http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/my-latest-salvo-in-ongoing-war-at-free.html (http://kenblogic.blogspot.com/2012/11/my-latest-salvo-in-ongoing-war-at-free.html)
Transfer effects do matter though.
I'm not an a priorist like Bob Murphy interested in the mathematical possibility that balance sheet phenomena today reduce real production, consumption and investment tomorrow. Instead I find it more plausible that real production, consumption and investment today will affect the level of these tomorrow. It's a question, for me, of how it has worked, although I do have Bob-like objections to the logical status of a money system net owing money. But that's not my focus.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 22, 2016, 07:22:22 AM
I don't know what his beef is(yet). Stolen implies the election is somewhat close. Right now by all accounts he is getting creamed in every swing state so Grandma would have to "steal" or "rig" 5 or 6 states. She is conniving and all but even that is beyond her abilities I would think.
I think it is naive to think Trump's statements about stolen elections — or anything else — necessarily have anything to do with his beliefs or his view of reality. Had he acknowledged the essential fairness of the election process at the end of the third debate he would have been relinquishing a prime talking point he needs to inflame the passions of his base. For sociopaths, words are primarily tools for the manipulation of other people.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 22, 2016, 07:22:22 AM
I don't know what his beef is(yet). Stolen implies the election is somewhat close. Right now by all accounts he is getting creamed in every swing state so Grandma would have to "steal" or "rig" 5 or 6 states. She is conniving and all but even that is beyond her abilities I would think.
His complaint is that the media (through unfair coverage) and the rest of the elites are systematically and knowingly working against him to ensure that Hillary is elected. That the entire process is unfair.
This of course harmonizes very well with the reasons his supporters support him. That through his various idiocies he is actively helping the hostile press, etc. is apparently not something he (and they) understand.
The republican media is well up to supporting Trumpf is he is worth supporting. As they don't, Donald should draw his own conclusions.
The press jumped all over Romney for the 47% remark and disowning his health care plan. On the whole Romney was considered to be a credible candidate, and of higher quality than the party that had nominated him and ultimately dragged him to defeat.
Trump really blew it (again) today.
Pretend for a moment I'm a Trump fan. Here are the headlines I see this morning...
Trump to Lay Out a Vision for First 100 Days as President
In Gettysburg, no less. How symbolic. What a great opportunity to outline his vision for his presidency. To rise above the he-said she-said mudslinging and really focus on detailed policy proposals addressing the problems our country faces. Like a modern-day Lincoln. Without any distractions or interruptions from that nasty woman. What a great way to turn the whole campaign around, and finish in style. Maybe even win!?
So how does Donald take advantage of this golden opportunity? How high does Donald soar?
- he arrives more than an hour late
- he declares the system is rigged
- he insists the recent accusations of sexual assault against him are fiction
- he promises to sue all the women who have accused him
- he blames the media some more
- he eventually gets around to reading off several points he's made in the past
What a wasted opportunity. This guy is broken. Election over.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 22, 2016, 09:19:17 AM
His complaint is that the media (through unfair coverage) and the rest of the elites are systematically and knowingly working against him to ensure that Hillary is elected. That the entire process is unfair.
This even though, for instance, the unabashedly liberal MSNBC regularly broadcasts all his speeches and rallies, giving viewers ample opportunity to hear and see him for themselves.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 22, 2016, 10:29:30 AM
This even though, for instance, the unabashedly liberal MSNBC regularly broadcasts all his speeches and rallies, giving viewers ample opportunity to hear and see him for themselves.
That's because they hate him. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
None of the networks really wants to fully cover Hildabitch. She is a terrible speechmaker.
Kurt Eichenwald has apparently published a brief business biography of Donald Trump in Newsweek. If anyone still had any illusions about Trump's "success," this should help to wake them up. The interview starts around 8:40:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zzEB9X29D4
Oh yeah. Number eleven. For anyone keeping track, this one was grabbed above the waist.
Seth Rich is suspected to have leaked info to this McFayden(?) reporter. Seth was killed in an odd 3am alley shooting. Now this McFayden is dead of being sick.
Nothing to see here, just a coincidence?
Quote from: snyprrr on October 22, 2016, 10:20:48 PM
Seth Rich is suspected to have leaked info to this McFayden(?) reporter. Seth was killed in an odd 3am alley shooting. Now this McFayden is dead of being sick.
Nothing to see here, just a coincidence?
When you have capital, you don't get punishment.Covering up a sickness in progress however is more difficult than disposing of dead bodies:
https://www.youtube.com/v/vzKIM1SR_Po
Go to any video of the the debate, where the two of them are on a split screen. T on left, H on right. Behind them both is a blue(?) background with what I think is the Constitution superimposed/written on it. Right?
So, look at the H side. Right behind her head it says something like "...and their Rights shall be to bla bla it...", just typical Constitution speak, BUT
BUT
BUT, when her head leans just a little to her right, and you freeze frame it, it says
Rig
It
WOW!- You can see it for yourself. I'm not saying nuthin other that it IS THERE.
HILARIOUS!! :laugh:
Let's just move on to the moon landing or the grassy knoll, shall we? ::)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 22, 2016, 10:35:37 PM
Covering up a sickness in progress however is more difficult than disposing of dead bodies:
One says that, until one has a body that needs disposal.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 22, 2016, 10:35:37 PM
When you have capital, you don't get punishment.
Covering up a sickness in progress however is more difficult than disposing of dead bodies:
The smoking gun:
"Clinton is now rumored to be suffering from a plethora of medical ailments, including: dementia, post-concussion syndrome, Parkinson's Disease, brain tumor, brain injury, complex partial seizures, and many more alleged ailments."
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-just-dropped-bombshell-hillarys-health-truth-revealed/#ixzz4NuM86Guw
And you all thought I never posted anything negative about Hill!
Dang, the smoking gun is a string of medical rumor! (And all the rumors about Clinton are true, none of the rumors about El Tupé are of any consequence!)
Separately, you cannot say that they don't get ample assists from El Tupé:
Clinton, Kaine criticize Trump's Gettysburg pledge to sue his accusers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/22/clinton-kaine-criticize-trumps-gettysburg-pledge-to-sue-his-accusers/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trump-910pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)Quote from: Bugs BunnyWhat a maroon!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 23, 2016, 03:42:08 AM
The smoking gun:
"Clinton is now rumored to be suffering from a plethora of medical ailments, including: dementia, post-concussion syndrome, Parkinson's Disease, brain tumor, brain injury, complex partial seizures, and many more alleged ailments."
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-just-dropped-bombshell-hillarys-health-truth-revealed/#ixzz4NuM86Guw
And you all thought I never posted anything negative about Hill!
There is something deeply hilarious about this. At the same time as it being deeply stupid.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 23, 2016, 03:48:33 AM
There is something deeply hilarious about this. At the same time as it being deeply stupid.
Are you telling me this isn't true? I found it on the Internet.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 23, 2016, 03:51:28 AM
Are you telling me this isn't true? I found it on the Internet.
Which "this" are we talking about? The e-mail, or the conclusions and commentary surrounding it?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 23, 2016, 03:46:18 AM
Clinton, Kaine criticize Trump's Gettysburg pledge to sue his accusers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/22/clinton-kaine-criticize-trumps-gettysburg-pledge-to-sue-his-accusers/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trump-910pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
He has laid out about eight years of work to be completed in his first 100 days, including a new constitutional amendment for term limits which we all know will go through Congress and be ratified by the required 38 states in, oh, no more than the three days it will take to put up the wall. And for a break he'll have ample time to depose at 10-12 trials to refute those accusing him of sexual misconduct. (That is, unless another 10-12 women come forward in the next two weeks.)
Quote from: ørfeo on October 23, 2016, 03:55:11 AM
Which "this" are we talking about? The e-mail, or the conclusions and commentary surrounding it?
You wrote: There is something deeply hilarious about
this.
I wrote: Are you telling me
this isn't true?
Therefore, your
this is as vague as my
this, and vice versa. Hope
this clears up the matter.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 23, 2016, 04:01:09 AM
You wrote: There is something deeply hilarious about this.
I wrote: Are you telling me this isn't true?
Therefore, your this is as vague as my this, and vice versa. Hope this clears up the matter.
Well
this is all true.
The experts might be surprised, there is still a chance Trump could win. However, William Kristol advises a more pragmatic strategy for Republican voters:
Quote... voting for the down-ticket Republicans would be a service not just to conservatism but to the country. The last thing America needs is President Hillary Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer riding roughshod for two years over free markets, individual liberties, and civil society.
The task of the next two weeks is simple: Save every salvageable Republican candidate for the Senate and the House from being dragged under by the dead weight of a sinking Trump.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-loser/article/2004996
The idea that Clinton is supposed to be bad for free markets, individual liberties and civil society is just too funny.
Pragmatic. And yet, deeply melodramatic.
A few minutes ago I read and enjoyed this thought:
QuoteThere is literally nothing more ironic than a white, straight, billionaire thinking the system is rigged against him.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 23, 2016, 05:04:40 AM
A few minutes ago I read and enjoyed this thought:
Actually there is something more idiotic. That is rejecting ideas only because of someone's race, sex, or wealth.
Quote from: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 05:35:06 AM
Actually there is something more idiotic. That is rejecting ideas only because of someone's race, sex, or wealth.
Um, you clearly do not understand what you're reading.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 23, 2016, 06:23:38 AM
Um, you clearly do not understand what you're reading.
Yes that was a problem in grad school too. I blame my grade 2 teacher.
It's not a statement that the idea is to be rejected or is idiotic, a word that you came up that wasn't in my post. It's a statement that the claim is ironic. I'm not going to spell it out for you any further right now because typing on an iPhone is laborious.
Quote from: Herman on October 23, 2016, 05:01:50 AM
The idea that Clinton is supposed to be bad for free markets, individual liberties and civil society is just too funny.
Not funny at all.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 23, 2016, 06:30:19 AM
It's not a statement that the idea is to be rejected or is idiotic, a word that you came up that wasn't in my post. It's a statement that the claim is ironic. I'm not going to spell it out for you any further right now because typing on an iPhone is laborious.
Ah yes, I see. I did read it as idiotic.
(https://next-geebee.ft.com/image/v1/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fd823a614-9e82-11e5-b45d-4812f209f861?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=600)
The progress of the chart above gives you an idea of how status quo liberal/conservative politics and politicians have become unpopular. If you want a nice illustration of supply side tax burden shifting, just watch.
The big thing about taxes is the growth of after tax income. It's therefore important what a tax scheme does to support or undercut aggregate demand. The chart above doesn't tell all but what it tells is important.
I propose that all tax schemes should be viewed as deliberate efforts to get what results from them, not because it's true but as an epistemic tool. Suppose you want to use taxes to reinforce and amplify the gulf between the highest income earners and everyone else. Here's what I'd do, I'd learn from the chart above and try to do more of what was done to get there. I'd punish demand by shifting the tax balance down and keep it there.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 23, 2016, 04:04:13 AM
The experts might be surprised, there is still a chance Trump could win.
No denying that.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Donald is turning the tide:
Trump Finally Gets a Newspaper Endorsement
October 23, 2016 By Taegan Goddard
The Las Vegas Review Journal, owned by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, is the first major newspaper to endorse Donald Trump for president....
I have to say I am less alarmed by a Trump win than my friends, or most GMGers. Not because I think he has merit as a president, but because I don't think he'll be effective. He won't be able to do a fraction of what he says he'll do. A lot of his critics (rightly) mock his declaration "believe me, I'll do it" when he is challenged. Yet many critics seem to implicitly believe he can. I do not. Now I admit if the issue is having pink sheets in all the rooms of his hotel I believe he could do it and I would believe him, because he really is the boss, there is no other locus of authority. But government isn't like that. For the great majority of things he needs to build a coalition. He needs people to agree. Does he really strike you as being good at getting agreement from congress and governors? Nor will he be able to bully them, as he will have no coat-tails, no mandate. He will be unpopular from day 1, and less popular as time goes by. Most of his party and nearly all its leadership loathe him. The press will not sweep his behavior or gaffes or twists and turns under the carpet. And finally he will be impeachable in a way Clinton will never be. These are not arguments for Trump. They are arguments that the very shortcomings that make him a crappy pick will probably make him a futile president. Bad but not end of the republic bad as some fear. Most of us distrust most of what he says. Why trust his boasts?
Quote from: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 09:38:37 AM
I have to say I am less alarmed by a Trump win than my friends, or most GMGers. Not because I think he has merit as a president, but because I don't think he'll be effective. He won't be able to do a fraction of what he says he'll do. A lot of his critics (rightly) mock his declaration "believe me, I'll do it" when he is challenged. Yet many critics seem to implicitly believe he can. I do not. Now I admit if the issue is having pink sheets in all the rooms of his hotel I believe he could do it and I would believe him, because he really is the boss, there is no other locus of authority. But government isn't like that. For the great majority of things he needs to build a coalition. He needs people to agree. Does he really strike you as being good at getting agreement from congress and governors? Nor will he be able to bully them, as he will have no coat-tails, no mandate. He will be unpopular from day 1, and less popular as time goes by. Most of his party and nearly all its leadership loathe him. The press will not sweep his behavior or gaffes or twists and turns under the carpet. And finally he will be impeachable in a way Clinton will never be. These are not arguments for Trump. They are arguments that the very shortcomings that make him a crappy pick will probably make him a futile president. Bad but not end of the republic bad as some fear. Most of us distrust most of what he says. Why trust his boasts?
I see all that. Yet I wonder to what irreparable degree the esteem of the United States takes a deep hit. I almost think that one need be impractically isolationist not to take that into consideration. That the American people should elect...THAT. We'll be a punchline for a century. "You thought a Roman emperor making his horse a senator was bad ...."
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: ørfeo on October 23, 2016, 05:04:40 AM
A few minutes ago I read and enjoyed this thought: There is literally nothing more ironic than a white, straight, billionaire thinking the system is rigged against him.
Kellyanne C. changed the phrasing. It's rigged alright. Against "the little guy".
You know. The little guy with a Boeing 737 in his backyard.
The billionaire little guy.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 23, 2016, 09:55:16 AM
I see all that. Yet I wonder to what irreparable degree the esteem of the United States takes a deep hit. I almost think that one need be impractically isolationist not to take that into consideration. That the American people should elect...THAT. We'll be a punchline for a century. "You thought a Roman emperor making his horse a senator was bad ...."
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Oh yeah, for sure. Gore Vidal said a brilliant thing. It isn't true in the sense he meant but in the sense he didn't it's the deepest observation on American politics I know. "Presidents are the men we hire to do the commercials." Trump is a dreadful commercial.
Joseph Stiglitz addresses the very real issue of the electorate's frustration with its declining real income over the past decades. Interesting article.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-candidacy-message-to-political-leaders-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-10 (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-candidacy-message-to-political-leaders-by-joseph-e--stiglitz-2016-10)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 23, 2016, 07:48:24 AM
No denying that.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
They put the chance at around an NFL kicker muffing a 30 yard fg.
Nate Silver currently puts Trump's chances at around 15%. However, things aren't looking great right now:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-trump-may-depress-republican-turnout-spelling-disaster-for-the-gop/
Quote from: ørfeo on October 23, 2016, 02:52:15 PM
Nate Silver currently puts Trump's chances at around 15%. However, things aren't looking great right now:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-trump-may-depress-republican-turnout-spelling-disaster-for-the-gop/
They say 538 is the more conservative estimate. Others have Hil above 90.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 23, 2016, 03:19:54 PM
They say 538 is the more conservative estimate. Others have Hil above 90.
There's a lot of bad stuff in the wikileaks, but none of it is in emails directly from her -- so far. Unless something like that turns up she's a safe bet. But anyone who really believes they can meaningfully estimate 85% versus 90% is kidding themselves.
Again, there are other options, especially for quondam republican voters.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 23, 2016, 09:55:16 AM
I see all that. Yet I wonder to what irreparable degree the esteem of the United States takes a deep hit. I almost think that one need be impractically isolationist not to take that into consideration. That the American people should elect...THAT. We'll be a punchline for a century. "You thought a Roman emperor making his horse a senator was bad ...."
Widespread resentment and actual hatred of the US began from the invasion of Iraq - the big guy on the block flexing his muscle again. When it ended in a quagmire, there was only sniggering. Now they can only say, "We told you so". More and more I have come to believe that the conspiracy to keep certain people in power crosses party lines. Maybe Gore should have won the election in 2000.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 23, 2016, 09:55:16 AM
I see all that. Yet I wonder to what irreparable degree the esteem of the United States takes a deep hit. I almost think that one need be impractically isolationist not to take that into consideration. That the American people should elect...THAT. We'll be a punchline for a century.
I think the reputation has suffered considerably by having Trump as a candidate... Although as someone pointed out already the reputation has suffered for obvious (and "harder") reasons since 2003 or so.
For me, the scary thing is that someone like Trump can become candidate against all predictions. And that in addition to her hawkish foreign policy Hilary seems to have an extremely polarizing effect on the US population and will mean 4 or maybe 8 years of "business as usual" so that the structures, internal chasms and grievances among the US populace that led to the Trump candidacy will hardly improve at all.
It seems that all bets are off what kind of worse-than-Trump-demagogue or extremist could take Trump's place in 2020 or 2024...
I am not sure I buy the "US prestige is already so compromised, that El Presidente Tupé will be nothing worse" argument. My brother's voting that way because he feels the system needs to be razed right down before it can improve. I think he's mistaken on a couple of points, but I respect that he understands that a vote for El Tupé is a race to the bottom.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Ken B on October 23, 2016, 09:38:37 AMHe won't be able to do a fraction of what he says he'll do.
You're right. That's the pattern. All prior candidates say more than what they can realistically achieve. It's all part of the game & rhetoric, say anything to get in. Look at Obama, change this, change that, change, change, change; he got in .. he changed nothing. He did inherit a large giant mess. Now why would anyone want this job? Who knows .. look at Obama, he entered so youthful looking, now he's all gray & haggered. Trump? Guys got billions, a great lifestyle .. why would he want to spend all this time, energy & money trying to fix the biggest mess of all. He's shaving years off of his life! It's a huge step down for him.
If a president, within the 4 years .. can accomplish at least one of the promises than that would be realistic. Everything promised? Impossible. Especially when we're talking the US .. which is a HUGE, HUGE mess. No thanks to EITHER political "gang".
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa264/oddryd/presidentvalg.png)
*chortle*
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 24, 2016, 12:06:19 AM
Widespread resentment and actual hatred of the US began from the invasion of Iraq - the big guy on the block flexing his muscle again. When it ended in a quagmire, there was only sniggering.
It should have been a quagmire. I was in favor of the quagmire, not in favor of trying to get out of it. I didn't think that would be a good idea for us. I thought it would be bad for Iraqis and Syrians. When Obama came in he wanted at first to end the quagmire, pretty much what you'd expect considering his opposition to the Iraq invasion. Something changed, probably that he realized that Iraq was not a war but a battle in a larger war. We could win or lose the battle, it could be a stalemate, and the war would go on. Russians and Turks could fill the "red line" vacuum we left in Syria and the war would go a different way. Maybe that's OK with us, maybe that's the smart move. I don't think so, Hillary doesn't think so. Her "dishonesty" requires that her real position not conform to her publicly expressed views, on the model of "Dishonest Abe" and FDR.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on October 23, 2016, 02:46:15 PM
They put the chance at around an NFL kicker muffing a 30 yard fg.
Ooops, I guess I spoke too soon. Did anyone see the Cardinals-SeaHawks game last night? In overtime there were not ONE but TWO field goals under 30 yards (one 24 and the other 28) that were missed !
(I didn't say it was a good streak!) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/23/donald-trump-just-keeps-having-the-worst-week-in-washington-2/)
THis is pretty cool:
(http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/71ec95d0d93d7342d48387806d1eb9f5.jpg)
(http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/73e0531d0ff2d9b34d57f0db29f12efb.jpg)
(http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/58a14f259f9c0bb4635dacc6ad3b5b55.jpg)
(http://cdn.detonate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/4234e209f94d4fa291cd6a64c7dbcff7.jpg)
Cruz has the Napoleon thing going! Cool.
Everywhere you look, El Tupé is underperforming. Sad. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/donald-trumps-chances-of-winning-are-approaching-zero/)
(Title of the piece: "[El Tupé's] chances of winning are approaching zero")
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 24, 2016, 09:24:19 AM
Everywhere you look, El Tupé is underperforming. Sad. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/24/donald-trumps-chances-of-winning-are-approaching-zero/)
(Title of the piece: "[El Tupé's] chances of winning are approaching zero")
I have had a running debate with (Canadian) friends. I tell them most polls from America are juiced. Pollsters are very good at their job. They know how to remove bias and skew. That means they know how to introduce bias and skew. Most polls are used to grab attention. So there is a big market for juiced polls. The reliable polls are the ones you never see: party internals. You can only infer what they show from behavior. When Trump and the GOP stop spending in Va it means they have a lock or they have no hope as an example. I keep seeing polls showing Trump ahead or close. Those are polls I distrust. I see signs of the GOP giving up on Trump. I see Hillary making a push ion states she would normally never have a chance in. They are acting on internal polls. Those polls that I cannot see I trust. Trump is holed beneath the water.
BTW I launched a mini war against Zogby polls some years ago as he seemed particularly suspicious. He was always an eye-catching outlier until suddenly, just at the last moment, he would show dramatic movement in the numbers. Back towards what was possible. I was pleased to see a paper a couple years ago proving that his published methods could not produce the movement in his polls he claimed unless essentially everyone in the country changed their mind overnight. Don't hear so much of Zogby any more.
I think this is the year my friends will have to concede!
Quote from: Ken B on October 24, 2016, 09:50:38 AM
I have had a running debate with (Canadian) friends. I tell them most polls from America are juiced. Pollsters are very good at their job. They know how to remove bias and skew. That means they know how to introduce bias and skew. Most polls are used to grab attention. So there is a big market for juiced polls. The reliable polls are the ones you never see: party internals. You can only infer what they show from behavior. When Trump and the GOP stop spending in Va it means they have a lock or they have no hope as an example. I keep seeing polls showing Trump ahead or close. Those are polls I distrust. I see signs of the GOP giving up on Trump. I see Hillary making a push ion states she would normally never have a chance in. They are acting on internal polls. Those polls that I cannot see I trust. Trump is holed beneath the water.
BTW I launched a mini war against Zogby polls some years ago as he seemed particularly suspicious. He was always an eye-catching outlier until suddenly, just at the last moment, he would show dramatic movement in the numbers. Back towards what was possible. I was pleased to see a paper a couple years ago proving that his published methods could not produce the movement in his polls he claimed unless essentially everyone in the country changed their mind overnight. Don't hear so much of Zogby any more.
I think this is the year my friends will have to concede!
Most polling experts (for instance, Silver, Enten, and the FiveThirtyEight crew) share your view of John Zogby and his dubious habit of putting the thumb on the scale...
Hillary just sunk a million bucks into Missouri and Indiana, by the way.
The most interesting polling situation right now has gotta be Utah, where Clinton, Trump, and the local hero McMullin are (portrayed) in a three-way tie with around 28-30% each of the vote. That's a fascinating situation. If Mitt Romney steps in, the tide may turn pretty decisively there. I'd love to see McMullin steal Utah.
This was at Gettysburg. To steal Hillary Clinton's line from the debate, "I mean, who does that?"
[...] "Trump is no longer even pretending to try to win more votes or not offend most Republicans. Rather, he is solidifying the 5%-10% of Americans who will run with a hyper-nationalist, white-supremacist agenda." He added: "That is not enough for a viable political party in the U.S., but it is probably enough for a profitable website — loyal chums feeding at whatever click bait Trump wants to put on the line." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/24/republicans-for-beating-trump-by-as-much-as-possible/?utm_term=.6a992e28dfa3)
Quote from: Brian on October 24, 2016, 10:11:57 AM
Most polling experts (for instance, Silver, Enten, and the FiveThirtyEight crew) share your view of John Zogby and his dubious habit of putting the thumb on the scale...
Hillary just sunk a million bucks into Missouri and Indiana, by the way.
The most interesting polling situation right now has gotta be Utah, where Clinton, Trump, and the local hero McMullin are (portrayed) in a three-way tie with around 28-30% each of the vote. That's a fascinating situation. If Mitt Romney steps in, the tide may turn pretty decisively there. I'd love to see McMullin steal Utah.
I would love to see him win too.He's running pretty explicitly against Trump isn't he?
Do you mean a Romney endorsement or Romney get the EC votes if McMullin wins? My understanding -- might be out of date -- is that electors in Utah are bound. So McMullin can win the state but Romney cannot. This would mean the House could consider Frick, Frack, and McMullin and (unless Kotlikoff gets more EC votes than McMullin, in which case he's a possibility and McMullin isn't) no-one else. The idea that the House full of party hack incumbents would pick an outsider is silly. But it sure would be nice if they had to put their shit on full display after a McMullin win in Utah!
Remember that Kotlikoff CAN win in the electoral college! https://kotlikoff2016.com/
(PS I was down on Zogby when he was still the big name.)
"Boo-hoo: he just talks mean!"
The NY Times published a list of people Trump has insulted on Twitter. It's quite long. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/24/13387170/trump-insults-twitter)
Quote from: Ken B on October 24, 2016, 10:21:30 AM
(PS I was down on Zogby when he was still the big name.)
You were likely ahead of me, there, but I remember in the distant past the Disenchantment . . . .)
Fact-free conservative media is a symptom of GOP troubles, not a cause
(http://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-gop-trump-2016-10)
Quote from: Ken B on October 24, 2016, 09:50:38 AMI tell them most polls from America are juiced
Absolutely. I can't wait for the circus to be all over, it goes on for way too long - it's really a joke. The 2 party dictatorship and all ..
October solved Hillary Clinton's millennial problem (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/25/13382964/hillary-clinton-millennial)Quote from: Jeff Stein
Why young voters shifted back toward Hillary Clinton
It's going to take time for experts to pinpoint just what's driving this trend. But a big part of the shift seemed to come during the debates.
"From my interviews, it was clear that a fairly significant number of young people hadn't really seen [Clinton] perform in a long format until then," Della Volpe says. "An overwhelming majority of millennials saw her with fresh eyes — and, generally speaking, they liked what they saw."
Beyond that, young voters who were undecided or gettable never really fell in love with Johnson or Stein. "Young people were looking for an opportunity to connect with a third-party candidate," Della Volpe says.
It never happened. Both Della Volpe and Cohen said that Gary Johnson really was wounded in young voters' eyes by his "Aleppo moment," in which he failed to be able to name the Syrian city. Young voters were also turned off by his positions on climate change, Cohen says. And during the presidential debate, which was viewed by millions, many of them saw a stark contrast between the two major party candidates.
"They're beginning to think about this in a more practical way," Della Volpe says. "They're seeing a big difference between Clinton and Trump."
Now, Clinton has opened up as big a lead over Trump with young voters as Obama had over Mitt Romney — about 23 percent. "She has definitely shored up her position with young voters," said Reuters's Jackson.
Still, while young voters are prepared to back Clinton to stop Trump, the polling suggests they'll do so far more begrudgingly — and with far less enthusiasm — than they supported Obama. And that suggests while the weakness of the third parties and the menace posed by Trump allowed the Democrats to cement their hold on youth voters this time, it may be harder to do so during the next election.
Quote from: drogulus on October 24, 2016, 06:16:47 PM
Fact-free conservative media is a symptom of GOP troubles, not a cause
(http://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-gop-trump-2016-10)
Yes I cannot agree with that more. I listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and Mark Levin all the time. Mark Levin is a bit crazy and arrogant but at least he knows his history and can get his fact straight. Others are just plain batty. Hannity for example is so bad he perpetrated the greeting "you are a great American". What the heck is that ? Hannity says months ago he has over 1000 pages of "facts" regarding the dishonesty of Hillary. But everyday you listen to him he has NOTHING beyond what the latest WIKILEAK is coming out with. Completely agree that all their policies are on the fringe and effectiveness not supported by facts.
Glad that someone called them out on it !
Why the pollster who has Trump and Clinton tied says he isn't worried about his results (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/25/why-the-pollster-who-has-trump-and-clinton-tied-says-he-isnt-worried-about-his-results/)
Quote from: Ken B on October 24, 2016, 10:21:30 AM
I would love to see him win too.He's running pretty explicitly against Trump isn't he?
Do you mean a Romney endorsement or Romney get the EC votes if McMullin wins? My understanding -- might be out of date -- is that electors in Utah are bound. So McMullin can win the state but Romney cannot. This would mean the House could consider Frick, Frack, and McMullin and (unless Kotlikoff gets more EC votes than McMullin, in which case he's a possibility and McMullin isn't) no-one else. The idea that the House full of party hack incumbents would pick an outsider is silly. But it sure would be nice if they had to put their shit on full display after a McMullin win in Utah!
Remember that Kotlikoff CAN win in the electoral college! https://kotlikoff2016.com/
(PS I was down on Zogby when he was still the big name.)
Sorry I was unclear - I did mean Romney endorsing McMullin, not running. Far too late to run.
I voted!
(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wabe/files/201210/georgia-peach.jpg)
Donald who?
I'm outta here!!
Trump Tower - the tenants: billionaire lifestyle and a lot of people with criminal records, gambling habits etc.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-trump-tower/
Quote from: Brian on October 25, 2016, 06:55:26 AM
Sorry I was unclear - I did mean Romney endorsing McMullin, not running. Far too late to run.
That might be a step too far for him, party loyalty and all, or he might actually support Hillary. But I hope he does. He has been forthright in rejecting Trump from early on, unambiguously. There was a lot of weird stuff before the civil war, with parties and leaders changing faster than John's avatar, and there was TR, but can anyone think of a case where not just the previous nominee (Romney) but the one before that (McCain) and a prior party president (Bush I) dis-endorsed the nominee? And it's clear Bush II does though he hasn't said so. Bob Dole's dead. That's every living republican nominee of the past 28 years disavowing the current one.
. . . some advisers have simply bailed out or distanced themselves from the candidate. Others have learned the rules: Repeat what Mr. Trump wants you to say, both to the public and to his face, and you're good. Both Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani were known as stubborn, irascible politicians before this year; both of them have shown impressive adaptability in parroting the Trump line, whatever that line may be.
Like many things about the Trump campaign, this tendency has gotten increasingly comical as Trump continues to sink in the polls. But unlike some things that make for badly run presidential campaigns, Trump's sycophant problem is also a sign that he'd make a bad president. Arguably, it's an even bigger one. (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/25/13405270/trump-ego-thin-skinned)
Quote from: Brian on October 25, 2016, 10:29:44 AM
hahahahahaha ouch ??? ??? ;D ;D
Hey. I gotta deal with the one counter example somehow! ;) Dole is the only one supporting Trump!
Obama Was Right About Republican Extremism All Along (https://newrepublic.com/article/138114/obama-right-republican-extremism-along)
It should be alarming to Republican strategists that the outgoing Democratic president has a better handle on what's happened to their party than GOP politicians and conservative intellectuals—many of whom blame Trump's rise on the media, or liberal dirty tricks.
"When I was watching the president," the conservative radio host John Ziegler told Business Insider, referring to the above remarks, "I was struck by how he seemed to understand the problems with conservative media more than any Republican does. It was frustrating to see him be the voice of reason."
What is striking about Obama's grand-unified theory of Trump is that a number of related forces have interwoven to make a somewhat complicated story seem simple and obvious. Obama's popularity, and the end of his presidency, give him a degree of moral authority to make this critique that he wouldn't enjoy if he were unpopular or fighting for his own reelection. Likewise, if Trump didn't fit the theory so perfectly, it would not seem so intuitively correct to Ziegler and others today.
I don't think liberals would impose Trump on the Repubs if they could, because it wouldn't occur to them that Repubs would let them. And while liberals can be nasty and Machiavellian they are not nihilists and won't enable one for an advantage, something as unthinkable for them as it was for Republicans not so long ago.
Republicans have complained endlessly over the past seven years about Obama's tendency to lecture them about their internal politics and strategic incentives. Conservatives in general have been hostile to similar critiques, whether they came from Obama or other liberals, rejecting them reflexively as bad-faith concern trolling by people who sought to defeat, not help them. The validity of the liberal critique, and the sincerity of Obama's desire to govern in concert with a loyal opposition, did not pierce the conservative cocoon until Trump exploited the same false grievances Obama warned them about to terrifying effect.
If Media Did It's Job, We Wouldn't Need WikiLeaks (http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/25/media-investigated-hillary-like-watergate-wouldnt-need-wikileaks/)
Liberals Didn't Create the Black Middle Class (https://www.google.com/search?q=Liberals+Didn%E2%80%99t+Create+the+Black+Middle+Class&rlz=1CAACAG_enUS716US716&oq=Liberals+Didn%E2%80%99t+Create+the+Black+Middle+Class&aqs=chrome..69i57.142j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Liberals+Didn%E2%80%99t+Creat)
Nixon Could Only Wish He Got Clinton's FBI Treatment (http://nypost.com/2016/10/25/richard-nixon-could-only-wish-he-got-hillarys-fbi-treatment/)
Dishonest Media 101: "Your Bias Is Showing" (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/members/column-dishonest-media-your-bias-is-showing/article_87c1c224-9895-11e6-be9a-ffefc56d2eab.html?mode=jqm)
Conservatives have increasingly gone to news sources that are beyond biased to the point that they must cover up the dishonesty of their sources. They gave up on selecting which truths to report, which all biased media do, in favor of abandoning truth criteria. Now the Repubs find themselves powerless to resist Trump when he uses their own lack of truth criteria against them. If mainstream Repubs oppose Trump, they are biased, they are liars, they are conspirators. It's late in the game to invoke standards of objectivity and evidence based arguments. Trump plays their game better than they do.
The ABA wouldn't run a piece calling Trump a "libel bully." Here it is. (http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/26/13408060/aba-libel-law-trump-abuse-times)
(That's the American Bar Association, y'all.)
Mr "Law & Order" . . .
Some of the Hispanic workers who helped build the 5-star hotel told the Post they had entered the U.S. illegally. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/26/clinton-slams-trump-for-using-undocumented-labor-to-build-d-c-hotel/)
(Dang! There's the media doing their job again!)
Trump booster Alex Jones: I'm not anti-Semitic, but Jews run an evil conspiracy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418304/alex-jones-jewish-mafia)
The mainstreaming of racism on Fox News (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/26/the-mainstreaming-of-racism-on-fox-news/?utm_term=.94c2fd13b526)Quote from: Jennifer RubinWe've made the distinction before, but it bears repeating: There are professional, fair and conscientious news people on Fox News. No one could watch the final debate and deny that Chris Wallace is among the best in the business. Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly have earned their place among top debate moderators and interviewers. What we are about to discuss does not apply to them, but it threatens to diminish the news legitimacy of their employer and depress their own ratings as the Fox News label becomes tarnished.
The degree to which Fox fake-news programming (e.g. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, "Fox and Friends") has mainstreamed and defended blatant racism is shocking. Overshadowed by Newt Gingrich's outburst on Megyn Kelly's show last night was Sean Hannity's birther dog-whistle. He directed his rant to President Obama:
You want to go to Canada? I'll pay for you to go to Canada. You want to go to Kenya? I'll pay for you to go to Kenya. Jakarta, where you went to school back in the day, you can go back there. Anywhere you want to go. I'll put the finest food — caviar, champagne, you name it. I have one stipulation: You can't come back.
Now, do we think it's coincidental that he picked Kenya, folks? Do we think Hannity is not ringing the birther bell, suggesting (affirming, actually) for the benefit of his alt-right audience that, in his mind, Obama is a foreigner, probably Muslim and definitely not "one of us"?
We've noted before that Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric is an extension of the crackpot right-wing media, his appearance paved by years of conspiracy theories, dog-whistles, paranoia and, yes, appeals to racism and ridicule of women. In the final days of the Trump campaign, we are reminded where the toxic brew that Trump spouts originated.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 26, 2016, 09:31:31 AM
The ABA wouldn't run a piece calling Trump a "libel bully." Here it is. (http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/26/13408060/aba-libel-law-trump-abuse-times)
(That's the American Bar Association, y'all.)
Trump was even more unreliable in his testimony about his net worth:
Q: Now Mr. Trump, have you always been completely truthful in your public statements about your net worth of properties?
A: I try.
Q: Have you ever been not truthful?
A: My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and feelings, even my own feelings but I try.
Q: Let me just understand that a little bit. Let's talk about that for a second. You said that the net worth goes up and down based on your own feelings?
A: Yes....
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 26, 2016, 10:33:45 AM
Trump was even more unreliable in his testimony about his net worth:
Q: Now Mr. Trump, have you always been completely truthful in your public statements about your net worth of properties?
A: I try.
Q: Have you ever been not truthful?
A: My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and feelings, even my own feelings but I try.
Q: Let me just understand that a little bit. Let's talk about that for a second. You said that the net worth goes up and down based on your own feelings?
A: Yes....
A good piece, and indeed that bit especially was pure gold.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 26, 2016, 10:16:40 AM
Mr "Law & Order" . . .
Some of the Hispanic workers who helped build the 5-star hotel told the Post they had entered the U.S. illegally. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/26/clinton-slams-trump-for-using-undocumented-labor-to-build-d-c-hotel/)
(Dang! There's the media doing their job again!)
You don't get it. The media are biased. Look at all those biased words in the headline alone. When you find one, let me know.
Quote from: drogulus on October 26, 2016, 10:18:14 AM
Trump booster Alex Jones: I'm not anti-Semitic, but Jews run an evil conspiracy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418304/alex-jones-jewish-mafia)
Wow. I always suspected Alex Jones was a crank (I've never read his stuff and my only exposure has been from others touting him), but I never spent any time looking for proof. Thanks.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 26, 2016, 12:22:23 PM
You don't get it. The media are biased. Look at all those biased words in the headline alone. When you find one, let me know.
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/members/column-dishonest-media-your-bias-is-showing/article_87c1c224-9895-11e6-be9a-ffefc56d2eab.html?mode=jqm
Quote from: sanantonio on October 26, 2016, 08:06:27 AM
If Media Did It's Job, We Wouldn't Need WikiLeaks (http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/25/media-investigated-hillary-like-watergate-wouldnt-need-wikileaks/)
Anyone who equates all examples of erasure gets an analysis fail from me.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 26, 2016, 01:40:51 PM
Anyone who equates erasing one's own emails with breaking into a hotel to erase someone else's material gets an analysis fail from me.
They aren't one's own emails. My work emails are not mine, they are my employer's, and there are rules and laws about them. And doubly so in government. And we aren't talking about simply hitting the delete button either. And "equates" is a squish word. I don't equate mugging and raping but they're both pretty bad.
Quote from: Ken B on October 26, 2016, 01:35:42 PM
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/members/column-dishonest-media-your-bias-is-showing/article_87c1c224-9895-11e6-be9a-ffefc56d2eab.html?mode=jqm
Aw, come on. Find something original at least. SanAntonio already posted that link hours ago.
Right-wing activists want to impeach Hillary Clinton even before she becomes president (https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138165/right-wing-activists-want-impeach-hillary-clinton-even-becomes-president)
Repubs seem to be trapped in their roles.
Quote from: Ken B on October 26, 2016, 01:46:19 PM
My work emails are not mine, they are my employer's, and there are rules and laws about them.
Well if we're going to be picky, "rules" and "laws" can be quite different things.
I don't think anyone has a problem with the proposition that Clinton broke
rules. But the policies of the State Department are not
laws. And I've seen a few commentaries that obscure that in a general "she did something wrong" cloud as if that's sufficient.
And I don't know about you, but I delete emails at work all the time. I delete the ones that tell me morning tea is on. I delete the ones that don't add anything to a conversation. I delete the ones that tell me about some meeting I'm not going to or conference I'm not interested in.
The IT people can see me doing this. No-one has ever come storming into my office telling me that I can't delete these emails just because they're not "mine".
The only person(s) that have the authority to delete State Dept. emails are the Secretary and the President. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on October 26, 2016, 10:18:14 AM
Trump booster Alex Jones: I'm not anti-Semitic, but Jews run an evil conspiracy (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418304/alex-jones-jewish-mafia)
I opened the link. Jones' yelling, irate figure and clenched fists jumped at me. I swallowed and read some. Couldn't take the aggression for more than the first parafraphs. Closed the web page. Thank you :(.
Quote from: drogulus on October 26, 2016, 02:44:37 PM
The only person(s) that have the authority to delete State Dept. emails are the Secretary and the President. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Reading all the emails where people organise lunch or who is going to pick up the kids must be riveting.
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
[asin]B0026IUP2C[/asin]
"The allegation of liberal bias in the media is not a new one. However, in this book the allegation is made not by a conservative but by a reporter for CBS News—an oldfashioned liberal who has seen the bias firsthand. Bernard Goldberg has written a courageous book and told a story that needed to be told." -- William J. Bennett
Bernard Richard Goldberg (born May 31, 1945), also known as Bernie Goldberg, is an American writer, journalist, and political pundit. Goldberg has won twelve Emmy Awards during his career.
In 2001, his first book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News was published and became a number one New York Times bestseller.
Goldberg followed Bias with two books – Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite in 2003 and 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America in 2005. Boston Globe journalist Cathy Young—praised by Goldberg in 100 People—criticized the book for listing mostly liberal or liberal-leaning individuals and only "a Few Token Right-Wingers". There were also many favorable comments about the book including one from Jonah Goldberg (no relation) who said, "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles on the path of our nation's return to glory" and Brent Bozell, who commented: "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is out, and it's a wonderful read for anyone not on that list."
Well, that's easy.
It's also not relevant to specific stories.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 26, 2016, 03:15:01 PM
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
[asin]B0026IUP2C[/asin]
Bernard Richard Goldberg (born May 31, 1945), also known as Bernie Goldberg, is an American writer, journalist, and political pundit. Goldberg has won twelve Emmy Awards during his career.
In 2001, his first book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News was published and became a number one New York Times bestseller.
Goldberg followed Bias with two books – Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite in 2003 and 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America in 2005. Boston Globe journalist Cathy Young—praised by Goldberg in 100 People—criticized the book for listing mostly liberal or liberal-leaning individuals and only "a Few Token Right-Wingers". There were also many favorable comments about the book including one from Jonah Goldberg (no relation) who said, "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles on the path of our nation's return to glory" and Brent Bozell, who commented: "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is out, and it's a wonderful read for anyone not on that list."
Could someone please bring up that 'Propaganda Law' that was repealed in 2013... the one where the feds couldn't use propaganda against it's own people...
At this point, they are crafting narratives, then executing these stories during "drills", and then calling it Real News. ABC Poll has Hillary 540%... cuz, y'know, like, she's a gaziiiiiillion times better than bla bla bla...
I am just a little concerned about the next two weeks, and what kind of crafted narrative might have been put in play for the final stretch. And it's not the Trump/N***** Tape, no,nothing directly with him, but just a big big thing that might be called for to put a final spin of confusion perhaps. If Hillary's really in trouble and knows it, and she really does have Leviathan in her corner... I don't see these next two weeks being totally event free (again, not including standard parade of Trump civil misdemeanors)
maybe an implosion somewhere?
Or maybe the fireworks begin as soon as the results are tallied- if we truly are that divided...
Either way, it sure is going to be hard to believe everything I hear from the mainstream media, on any topic, since it is pretty clear about that bias thingy. Pesky little thingy
Quote from: ørfeo on October 26, 2016, 03:35:29 PM
Well, that's easy.
It's also not relevant to specific stories.
You have been reading the WikiLeaks Emails where the "I'm now a hack" reporter tells Podesta he can censor anything he doesn't like? Anyhow, but, and, beyond that, it (the current state of media bias) is in EVERY story. Bernie wrote that some bunches of years ago, before Propaganda was allowed to be foisted on the American People by their own Government. Could someone please Post that law being repealed in 2013?
Thanks, cause I know you all just want to get to the bottom of it, just like anyone would
Quote from: snyprrr on October 26, 2016, 03:41:08 PM
Either way, it sure is going to be hard to believe everything I hear from the mainstream media, on any topic, since ...
... if it isn't a conspiracy theory, it probably isn't for you?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
QuoteCould someone please bring up that 'Propaganda Law' that was repealed in 2013
Debunked: 2013 NDAA Thornberry amendment, domestic propaganda, disinformation (https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-2013-ndaa-thornberry-amendment-domestic-propaganda-disinformation.t592/)
Note that such information could have the effect of influencing public opinion, though no funds are to be appropriated for that purpose. In the age of the internet the whole business of walling off Americans from our own propaganda seems to be outdated. Anyone who wants to listen to VOA here can if they want. It's not against the law. I read the relevant piece in
Foreign Policy, ground zero for the world wide Zionist conspiracy to make snypppr have a nervous breakdown. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: ørfeo on October 26, 2016, 02:18:23 PM
And I don't know about you, but I delete emails at work all the time. I delete the ones that tell me morning tea is on. I delete the ones that don't add anything to a conversation. I delete the ones that tell me about some meeting I'm not going to or conference I'm not interested in.
The IT people can see me doing this. No-one has ever come storming into my office telling me that I can't delete these emails just because they're not "mine".
And as I said we are not talking about the delete button in your mailer. If you don't know the difference you really shouldn't opine on the issue. No one is complaining about her clicking delete in her inbox.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 26, 2016, 03:15:01 PM
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
[asin]B0026IUP2C[/asin]
"The allegation of liberal bias in the media is not a new one. However, in this book the allegation is made not by a conservative but by a reporter for CBS News—an oldfashioned liberal who has seen the bias firsthand. Bernard Goldberg has written a courageous book and told a story that needed to be told." -- William J. Bennett
Bernard Richard Goldberg (born May 31, 1945), also known as Bernie Goldberg, is an American writer, journalist, and political pundit. Goldberg has won twelve Emmy Awards during his career.
In 2001, his first book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News was published and became a number one New York Times bestseller.
Goldberg followed Bias with two books – Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite in 2003 and 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America in 2005. Boston Globe journalist Cathy Young—praised by Goldberg in 100 People—criticized the book for listing mostly liberal or liberal-leaning individuals and only "a Few Token Right-Wingers". There were also many favorable comments about the book including one from Jonah Goldberg (no relation) who said, "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles on the path of our nation's return to glory" and Brent Bozell, who commented: "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is out, and it's a wonderful read for anyone not on that list."
One question is all:
"... a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles
on the path of our nation's return to glory" ... this didn't set off your BS detector?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 26, 2016, 01:56:04 PM
Aw, come on. Find something original at least. SanAntonio already posted that link hours ago.
I confess i dont read all this thread. Not even posters I respect, like David, as opposed to the petty ones.
Or petty one actually.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 26, 2016, 04:32:23 PM
One question is all:
"... a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles on the path of our nation's return to glory" ... this didn't set off your BS detector?
Actually Karl don't you think dismissing a whole book and all the claims in it on the basis of a few words in a blurb shows a certain confirmation bias?
I read one of Goldberg's books. He had a lot of good examples but oversold his thesis. But if you want an analysis based on sophisticated statistics try the book by Tim Groseclose.
Quote from: Ken B on October 26, 2016, 04:37:21 PM
Actually Karl don't you think dismissing a whole book and all the claims in it on the basis of a few words in a blurb shows a certain confirmation bias?
I read one of Goldberg's books. He had a lot of good examples but oversold his thesis. But if you want an analysis based on sophisticated statistics try the book by Tim Groseclose.
I asked a question about our esteemed friend's response to a specific statement; I call that distinct from your suggestion.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 26, 2016, 04:45:15 PM
I asked a question about our esteemed friend's response to a specific statement; I call that distinct from your suggestion.
Fair enough.
What strikes me about Trump and press bias is
1 yes they are largely biased against him now. BUT
2 they gave him wall to wall coverage which helped him enormously to get the nomination AND BUT
3 without his history in the tabloids and reality TV he wouldn't have been able to mount a campaign for mayor of Poughkeepsie ( where the great composers are)
All in in all it's like a lotto winner complaining about the long odds of a second win.
Quote from: Ken B on October 26, 2016, 05:00:17 PM
Fair enough.
What strikes me about Trump and press bias is
1 yes they are largely biased against him now. BUT
2 they gave him wall to wall coverage which helped him enormously to get the nomination AND BUT
3 without his history in the tabloids and reality TV he wouldn't have been able to mount a campaign for mayor of Poughkeepsie ( where the great composers are)
All in in all it's like a lotto winner complaining about the long odds of a second win.
Indeed!
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 26, 2016, 04:45:15 PM
I asked a question about our esteemed friend's response to a specific statement; I call that distinct from your suggestion.
Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question.
That quote went by me, but Jonah Goldberg could have been trying to damn the book with his odd praise. Don't know. The book
Bias is the only one I was posting about, and should have snipped that extra blurb about the other books. I don't know anything about the other books, but
Bias makes a fairly strong case and Bernard Goldberg is not a right wing hack.
Quote from: Ken B on October 26, 2016, 05:00:17 PM
Fair enough.
What strikes me about Trump and press bias is
1 yes they are largely biased against him now. BUT
2 they gave him wall to wall coverage which helped him enormously to get the nomination AND BUT
3 without his history in the tabloids and reality TV he wouldn't have been able to mount a campaign for mayor of Poughkeepsie ( where the great composers are)
All in in all it's like a lotto winner complaining about the long odds of a second win.
He who lives by the press dies by the press.
I'm concerned about dishonesty and not very much about bias, or even some level of dishonesty about being biased. For liberals bias is supposed to be something you lack introspection about. It's a fault you resist admitting. For conservatives also bias is something liberals resist admitting.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/evil.gif)
Quote from: Ken B on October 26, 2016, 04:28:59 PM
And as I said we are not talking about the delete button in your mailer. If you don't know the difference you really shouldn't opine on the issue. No one is complaining about her clicking delete in her inbox.
Assuming that "mailer" is a US term for an email program such as Outlook, what exactly do you think they at complaining about then?
I'm not sure exactly what you know about the relationship between various parts of a computer system, but I can assure you that when I press delete in my inbox at work, it does considerably more than remove the email from my Inbox screen.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 26, 2016, 05:31:08 PM
Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question.
It may have been that, too. You are at liberty.
Quote from: drogulus on October 26, 2016, 07:14:29 PM
I'm concerned about dishonesty and not very much about bias, or even some level of dishonesty about being biased. For liberals bias is supposed to be something you lack introspection about. It's a fault you resist admitting. For conservatives also bias is something liberals resist admitting.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/evil.gif)
Some good insights here.
Take
snypsss.
(Please!) There are obvious flaws—obvious to anyone who is not in a bubble—to the viewpoint that
I am the only one qualified to determine what is a credible news source.
Does the practice of journalism benefit from watchdogs? Certainly. Is the Fox News branding of "Everyone is biased, we're just honest about it" next door to a con? If not often closer.
Quote from: Ken B on October 26, 2016, 04:37:21 PM
. . . But if you want an analysis based on sophisticated statistics try the book by Tim Groseclose.
I meant to thank you.
Donald Trump may find a place in history — by losing just that badly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-may-find-a-place-in-history--by-losing-just-that-badly/2016/10/26/77d15d8e-9ae8-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.14af900415ca)Quote from: Geo. WillWhen told that the New England transcendentalist Margaret Fuller had grandly declared "I accept the universe," the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle dryly remarked: "She'd better." Much ink and indignation has been spilled concerning whether Donald ("I am much more humble than you would understand") Trump will "accept" the election's outcome. The nation, like the universe of which it is the nicest part, will persevere even without the election result being accepted by the fellow who probably will be the first major-party presidential nominee in 20 years to receive less — probably a lot less — than 45 percent of the vote.
When the Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale ticket lost 44 states in 1980, Mondale used his elegant concession remarks to herald "a chance to rejoice": "Today, all across this nation — in high school cafeterias, in town halls, and churches, and synagogues — the American people quietly wielded their staggering power. . . . Tonight we celebrate above all the process we call American freedom." Today, such political grace notes are rare as the nation slouches toward its first dyspeptic landslide — an electoral-vote avalanche for a candidate regretted by a majority of the electorate.
I wanted briefly to highlight the last sentence.
While I express appreciation for all the Loyal Opposition's oppo research on the Clinton flaws (and, by all means, keep 'em coming), nothing in the past month or year has been much of a surprise to anyone;
c'est-à-dire, it's already baked in to this season's electoral expectations and model. If Clinton wins, as we all have most every expectation of happening, it is a victory which the nomination of the present GOP candidate made possible.
Quote from: Ken B on October 26, 2016, 04:34:01 PM
I confess i dont read all this thread. Not even posters I respect, like David, as opposed to the petty ones.
Or petty one actually.
Aw, thanks. You're such a sweet guy.
Countdown to Impeachment: World Series Edition
Is Clinton a true Cubs fan? GOP accuses Hillary of jumping on World Series bandwagon (https://www.yahoo.com/news/is-hillary-clinton-a-cubs-fan-193713565.html)
The GOP isn't buying the authenticity of Clinton's enthusiasm. On Tuesday, the Republican National Committee published an extensive opposition-research file accusing Clinton of being a "bandwagon" Cubs fan.
"With the Cubs headed to their first World Series since 1945, Hillary Clinton is jumping on Chicago's bandwagon," the RNC said. "But like with every other matter, Hillary Clinton switches allegiance with sports teams like positions on issues."
Repubs keep trying to convince us they are insane, and almost effortlessly they succeed. Perhaps they are revealing our introspective blind spots.
I followed the link to the GOP website:
Yankees? Cubs? Mets? Bandwagon Fan Hillary Clinton Literally Has A Public And Private Favorite Baseball Team
(https://gop.com/bandwagon-hillary/)
Either I have nothing better to do, or the Repubs have nothing better, or both. Therefore, what could be better than this? No, really, we want to know. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on October 27, 2016, 05:28:41 AM
Countdown to Impeachment
My confidence is extremely low that our
snypsss will see this at all, but here goes.
Quote from: Jennifer RubinWith voters trying to decide if they should ticket split and voters generally wondering if the GOP has lost its sanity, this is an idiotic thing to say for multiple reasons.
First, the Benghazi, Libya, investigation turned out to be a bust and an embarrassment. Recall how Hillary Clinton flicked lint off her jacket, an apt metaphor for her triumph over ham-handed inquisitors. Oh yes, let's repeat that!
Second, announcing before a president even takes office that you plan on immediately conducting one inquest after another smacks of bad faith and irresponsible partisanship. Perhaps Republicans do not understand that one of the things voters hate about Washington pols is their insistence on criminalizing politics. The vindictive tit-for-tat is likely once again to make Republicans look obstructionist and unserious.
Emphasis up there
mine.
Jason Chaffetz blows it
Gosh, and it isn't like regular citizens jump on a World Series bandwagon!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 27, 2016, 05:33:47 AM
Jason Chaffetz blows it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/27/jason-chaffetz-blows-it/?utm_term=.d0bcf1c3ce2e)
Oh, aye, indeed:
Quote from: Jennifer RubinFinally, Chaffetz's timing stinks. Republicans are desperately trying to argue they aren't like the unhinged Trump who calls his opponent "Crooked Hillary" and threatens to "lock her up." Here comes Chaffetz to announce, nope, the Republicans pretty much want to do the same thing.
Chaffetz may have pulled his endorsement from Trump but he has not shed the Trump mind-set that is leading the GOP into the political wilderness.
Chaffetz makes the 6th member of congress to un-endorse and un-support Trump after the "Grab her by the pussy" video, then turn around a few weeks later and re-endorse/re-support him.
Quote from: Brian on October 27, 2016, 06:28:39 AM
Chaffetz makes the 6th member of congress to un-endorse and un-support Trump after the "Grab her by the pussy" video, then turn around a few weeks later and re-endorse/re-support him.
There has got to be a revolving door ad in there . . . .
My feeling is that these Republicans who did not endorse or un-endorsed Trump undermined his candidacy and the Repbulican party's chances down ticket and created a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it is not limited to elected officials, but includes Mitt Romney, George Will, William Kristol and the Bush family among others.
Had they either simply kept quiet or said something like "I will support the nominee of my party" they would have focused Trump's campaign against the true opposition, Clinton and the Democratic machine. Instead they offered him another target, the elites within the Repbulican party, which watered down his message and caused disunity within the ranks and electorate.
Short-sighted and tactically-challenged on their parts.
... With all that said, Trump's chances of winning the election haven't improved very much in our forecast. His odds are 15 percent in our polls-only forecast, not appreciably changed from 13 percent a week ago, and 16 percent in our polls-plus forecast, as compared with 15 percent last week. That's because the modest gains Trump has made are partly offset by time running off the clock, and the number of undecided voters declining.
So then: Democrats have nothing to worry about, right? Nope, we wouldn't say that, either. The race could easily tighten further. And our forecast gives Trump better odds than most other models because it accounts for the possibility of a systemic polling error, a greater risk than people may assume. A 16 percent chance of a Trump presidency isn't nothing — as we've pointed out before, it's about the same as the chances of losing a "game" of Russian roulette. And 15 percent is about the same chance we gave the San Antonio Spurs of beating the Golden State Warriors last night — the Spurs won by 29 points. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-the-presidential-race-tightening/)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 06:37:21 AM
My feeling is that these Republicans who did not endorse or un-endorsed Trump undermined his candidacy and the Republican party's chances down ticket and created a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it is not limited to elected officials, but includes Mitt Romney, George Will, William Kristol and the Bush family among others.
Had they either simply kept quiet or said something like "I will support the nominee of my party" they would have focused Trump's campaign against the true opposition, Clinton and the Democratic machine. Instead they offered him another target, the elites within the Republican party, which watered down his message and caused disunity within the ranks and electorate.
Short-sighted and tactically-challenged on their parts.
You may be right. And to be sure, Romney, the Bush family, and many conservatives had undermining El Tupé's candidacy plainly in view. But your suggestion that it would all have somehow been all right if they had fallen in line (which was the strong-arm tack taken in Cleveland) might well have worked for a normal candidate, and not for El Tupé, who ain't a normal candidate (which, we agree, is why so many of his following believe in him).
It is quaint now to reflect, isn't it, how the idea behind having all the candidates pledge that they would support the eventual GOP nominee, was an effort to make El Tupé one of the pack, and make him somehow governable. And even then, his schtick was, "I assure you that I will support the nominee 100%. If I'm the nominee."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 27, 2016, 06:53:07 AM
You may be right. And to be sure, Romney, the Bush family, and many conservatives had undermining El Tupé's candidacy plainly in view. But your suggestion that it would all have somehow been all right if they had fallen in line (which was the strong-arm tack taken in Cleveland) might well have worked for a normal candidate, and not for El Tupé, who ain't a normal candidate (which, we agree, is why so many of his following believe in him).
It is quaint now to reflect, isn't it, how the idea behind having all the candidates pledge that they would support the eventual GOP nominee, was an effort to make El Tupé one of the pack, and make him somehow governable. And even then, his schtick was, "I assure you that I will support the nominee 100%. If I'm the nominee."
You're right Trump is not a normal candidate. And that is why he was so popular among those voters who have felt under-represented and betrayed by the "powers-that-be", both Democrats and Republicans. Those Republicans who felt they just had to repudiate Trump added their names to those who the voters identified as part of the problem. These Dump Trump Republicans were seen as attempting to protect their stature among the elite political establishment while ignoring the message the voters, not just Republican voters either, were sending them.
They wasted an opportunity to re-brand the Repbulican party (which it desparately needs) and to broaden its base by their ego-driven opposition.
An article which highlights what I was pointing out (which I did not even see before posting previously):
GOP Rode Waves of Populism Until They Crashed the Party (http://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-rode-waves-of-populism-until-it-crashed-the-party-1477492356)QuoteWhy did so many other supposedly smart politicians not see Mr. Trump's soldiers gathering?
"It really is the elitism," says Tom Davis, a former Republican congressman from Virginia. The attitude of many in the party was "we're smart, and they're stupid, and we'll just feed them abortion and guns," he says. "It didn't have to be this way."
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 06:37:21 AM
My feeling is that these Republicans who did not endorse or un-endorsed Trump undermined his candidacy and the Repbulican party's chances down ticket and created a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it is not limited to elected officials, but includes Mitt Romney, George Will, William Kristol and the Bush family among others.
Had they either simply kept quiet or said something like "I will support the nominee of my party" they would have focused Trump's campaign against the true opposition, Clinton and the Democratic machine. Instead they offered him another target, the elites within the Repbulican party, which watered down his message and caused disunity within the ranks and electorate.
Short-sighted and tactically-challenged on their parts.
This would be a good point if political tactics and Machiavellian study of the accumulation of power was everything. But not supporting Trump, for Romney, Kasich, etc. (not Cruz or Chaffetz), was a moral decision, borne of the belief that he is a menace, and that his overt racism, sexism, authoritarianism, disregard for rule of law, disregard for policymakers, history of serial sexual assault, etc., was not just bad for the party's image, but also just bad in general.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 07:01:52 AM
They wasted an opportunity to re-brand the Repbulican party (which it desparately needs) and to broaden its base by their ego-driven opposition.
I think an attempt to re-brand the party along Trumpian lines - ie, overtly hostile to the needs of women and racial minorities, and hostile to educated people - would inevitably
shrink the party rather than grow it. Look at how Trump has worked out for the party; instead of pulling in 47-49% of the vote, as in 2008-2016, Trump is now sitting at around 38-40%.
If the Republican Party is to re-brand successfully, it will involve:
1. rescinding its "big government" interventionist views on social issues
2. emphasizing financial responsibility on the part of the government, including the need for higher overall tax revenue and tough judgments on entitlements
3. restructuring priorities and developing serious plans in education to create the "equality of opportunity" Irving Kristol defined as American
4. embracing a pro-business and pro-innovation approach to addressing climate and infrastructure problems
5. addressing immigration issues in a way that does not restrict the party's appeal to old white people
In its 144-year history, The Yale Record has never endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. In fact, we have never endorsed any candidate for president. This is, in part, due to our strong commitment to being a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization, which mandates that we are "absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."
This year's presidential election is highly unusual, but ultimately no different: The Yale Record believes both candidates to be equally un-endorsable, due to our faithful compliance with the tax code.
In particular, we do not endorse Hillary Clinton's exemplary leadership during her 30 years in the public eye. We do not support her impressive commitment to serving and improving this country—a commitment to which she has dedicated her entire professional career. Because of unambiguous tax law, we do not encourage you to support the most qualified presidential candidate in modern American history, nor do we encourage all citizens to shatter the glass ceiling once and for all by electing Secretary Clinton on November 8.
http://yalerecord.org/2016/10/26/the-yale-record-does-not-endorse-hillary-clinton/ (http://yalerecord.org/2016/10/26/the-yale-record-does-not-endorse-hillary-clinton/)
Vote Forgainst Trump/Pence 2016!
Quote from: Brian on October 27, 2016, 07:37:22 AM
This would be a good point if political tactics and Machiavellian study of the accumulation of power was everything. But not supporting Trump, for Romney, Kasich, etc. (not Cruz or Chaffetz), was a moral decision, borne of the belief that he is a menace, and that his overt racism, sexism, authoritarianism, disregard for rule of law, disregard for policymakers, history of serial sexual assault, etc., was not just bad for the party's image, but also just bad in general.
I think an attempt to re-brand the party along Trumpian lines - ie, overtly hostile to the needs of women and racial minorities, and hostile to educated people - would inevitably shrink the party rather than grow it. Look at how Trump has worked out for the party; instead of pulling in 47-49% of the vote, as in 2008-2016, Trump is now sitting at around 38-40%.
If the Republican Party is to re-brand successfully, it will involve:
1. rescinding its "big government" interventionist views on social issues
2. emphasizing financial responsibility on the part of the government, including the need for higher overall tax revenue and tough judgments on entitlements
3. restructuring priorities and developing serious plans in education to create the "equality of opportunity" Irving Kristol defined as American
4. embracing a pro-business and pro-innovation approach to addressing climate and infrastructure problems
5. addressing immigration issues in a way that does not restrict the party's appeal to old white people
Well, I would agree with you if I did not think you and those you cite entirely misunderstand what the Trump candidacy represents. You are confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign, which were:
* Securing the border by enforcing existing laws and building some kind of border barrier and dealing justly with immigrants both legal and illegal (which does not mean rewarding those who jumped the line).
* Lowering business taxes and removing regulatory obstacles which would allow US companies to become more profitable which translates into more and better jobs.
* Addressing defects in exisiting trade deals by exercising withdrawal clauses if necessary and re-negotiating them, which also will grow jobs.
* Appeal to a broad swath of voters on issues concerning individual liberties, as well as, how the political system deals ineffectively with problems stemming from racial inequality (starting with bringing jobs to inner cities), expensive education (establishing alternatives to the 4-year college degree), social issues (stop trying to enforce some idea of morality through government), health care (not just insurance, but the actual delivery of care).
And a whole host of other issues which have been swept under the carpet for years by the political class in Washington who are happy to raise funds and get reelected without ever doing any thing really for the good of the country.
Quote from: drogulus on October 27, 2016, 05:28:41 AM
Countdown to Impeachment: World Series Edition
Is Clinton a true Cubs fan? GOP accuses Hillary of jumping on World Series bandwagon (https://www.yahoo.com/news/is-hillary-clinton-a-cubs-fan-193713565.html)
The GOP isn't buying the authenticity of Clinton's enthusiasm. On Tuesday, the Republican National Committee published an extensive opposition-research file accusing Clinton of being a "bandwagon" Cubs fan.
"With the Cubs headed to their first World Series since 1945, Hillary Clinton is jumping on Chicago's bandwagon," the RNC said. "But like with every other matter, Hillary Clinton switches allegiance with sports teams like positions on issues."
Repubs keep trying to convince us they are insane, and almost effortlessly they succeed. Perhaps they are revealing our introspective blind spots.
I followed the link to the GOP website:
Yankees? Cubs? Mets? Bandwagon Fan Hillary Clinton Literally Has A Public And Private Favorite Baseball Team
(https://gop.com/bandwagon-hillary/)
Either I have nothing better to do, or the Repubs have nothing better, or both. Therefore, what could be better than this? No, really, we want to know. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
This reads like an Onion article....
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 26, 2016, 03:50:52 PM
... if it isn't a conspiracy theory, it probably isn't for you?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, yea, I know...
Quote from: drogulus on October 27, 2016, 07:50:03 AM
Vote Forgainst Trump/Pence 2016!
If T gets in, WWIII starts in three years; if H gets in, it starts in three days
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 27, 2016, 06:36:35 AM
There has got to be a revolving door ad in there . . . .
sore lips and knees contingent- lol- "Republicans",... just LOL... what a bunch of controlled opposition... let the whole GOP vote for Cankles, PLEASE!!!! Gingrich... oh, just pleeeeeeeez... I'm just sorry you folks can't say the same about the others, who are just the same, sad. :( :'( :laugh:
(can we get that Charlton Heston PlanetoftheApes laugh gif here????)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 07:54:04 AM
Well, I would agree with you if I did not think you and those you cite entirely misunderstand what the Trump candidacy represents. You are confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign, which were:
* Securing the border by enforcing existing laws and building some kind of border barrier and dealing justly with immigrants both legal and illegal (which does not mean rewarding those who jumped the line).
* Lowering business taxes and removing regulatory obstacles which would allow US companies to become more profitable which translates into more and better jobs.
* Addressing defects in existing trade deals by exercising withdrawal clauses if necessary and re-negotiating them, which also will grow jobs.
* Appeal to a broad swath of voters on issues concerning individual liberties, as well as, how the political system deals ineffectively with problems stemming from racial inequality (starting with bringing jobs to inner cities), expensive education (establishing alternatives to the 4-year college degree), social issues (stop trying to enforce some idea of morality through government), health care (not just insurance, but the actual delivery of care).
And a whole host of other issues which have been swept under the carpet for years by the political class in Washington who are happy to raise funds and get reelected without ever doing any thing really for the good of the country.
You can write of "confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign," but
he is the campaign, so his worst rhetoric is the campaign. You've created a fantasy campaign by unrealistically sanitizing it of the toxin. But, the nominee is the toxin.
You raise good points, and we disagree or agree to a varying extent on this or that point. But El Tupé's candidacy was never about ideas or policy; and how could it have been, when one minute he says one thing, and he may not even have reached the period of that sentence before he contradicts it.
Any of the real candidates might have made this a campaign of those policies and ideas; but then, you don't have much respect for any of the real candidates (and I am not saying you are wrong, there).
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 07:23:36 AM
An article which highlights what I was pointing out (which I did not even see before posting previously):
GOP Rode Waves of Populism Until They Crashed the Party (http://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-rode-waves-of-populism-until-it-crashed-the-party-1477492356)
This is an important theme, and we've touched on it more than once before.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 27, 2016, 08:10:27 AM
You can write of "confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign," but he is the campaign, so his worst rhetoric is the campaign. You've created a fantasy campaign by unrealistically sanitizing it of the toxin. But, the nominee is the toxin.
You raise good points, and we disagree or agree to a varying extent on this or that point. But El Tupé's candidacy was never about ideas or policy; and how could it have been, when one minute he says one thing, and he may not even have reached the period of that sentence before he contradicts it.
Any of the real candidates might have made this a campaign of those policies and ideas; but then, you don't have much respect for any of the real candidates (and I am not saying you are wrong, there).
However, in the weeks just after his convention, and when he was not chopping off his legs with senseless personal attacks, he made five policy speechs which were largely about the issues I outlined.
His campaign did have a policy side - but it was grossly overshawdowed by his ugly rhetoric and past which the press took and ran with at the expense of anything else. I might add, the press's obession with Trump's rhetoric and past also allowed Clinton to spend her the last 18 months campaigning without really specifiying what she would do as president other than offering up a collection of slogans and platitudes.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 07:54:04 AM
Well, I would agree with you if I did not think you and those you cite entirely misunderstand what the Trump candidacy represents. You are confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign, which were:
* Securing the border by enforcing existing laws and building some kind of border barrier and dealing justly with immigrants both legal and illegal (which does not mean rewarding those who jumped the line).
* Lowering business taxes and removing regulatory obstacles which would allow US companies to become more profitable which translates into more and better jobs.
* Addressing defects in exisiting trade deals by exercising withdrawal clauses if necessary and re-negotiating them, which also will grow jobs.
* Appeal to a broad swath of voters on issues concerning individual liberties, as well as, how the political system deals ineffectively with problems stemming from racial inequality (starting with bringing jobs to inner cities), expensive education (establishing alternatives to the 4-year college degree), social issues (stop trying to enforce some idea of morality through government), health care (not just insurance, but the actual delivery of care).
And a whole host of other issues which have been swept under the carpet for years by the political class in Washington who are happy to raise funds and get reelected without ever doing any thing really for the good of the country.
You previously admitted you did not know that Trump has run for President before. If you had been aware of his existence for longer than the last six months you might have a different view of him. I lived in New York City metropolitan area and have been watching his doings since the 1980's. He is a con artist, pure and simple. He has espoused every political view and its opposite depending on what he thinks will be to his personal advantage at the moment. The only constants are his narcissism and amorality.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 27, 2016, 08:32:15 AM
You previously admitted you did not know that Trump has run for President before. If you had been aware of his existence for longer than the last six months you might have a different view of him. I lived in New York City metropolitan area and have been watching his doings since the 1980's. He is a con artist, pure and simple. He has espoused every political view and its opposite depending on what he thinks will be to his personal advantage at the moment. The only constants are his narcissism and amorality.
You act as if that is any different from other politicians.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 08:40:04 AM
You act as if that is any different from other politicians.
Telling that this is the best defense you can mount for Trump.
President Obama has done or tried to do everything he said he would. The stimulus saved the country from an even deeper economic crisis. The health care bill is basically what was promised during the debates I listened to at the time. Of course it is not true that absolutely
everyone could keep their existing health care plan, but that was not by design. Even before Obamacare was passed it was not uncommon for health care insurance offered by private employers to change, be canceled, or become more expensive. I consider it an overall success, despite the efforts of Congress and Republican Governers to hobble it. He didn't close Guantanamo, but no new prisoners were put in, many were removed, and Congress put up barriers to ultimately closing it. His foreign policy has protected the U.S. from large scale terror attacks, led to the elimination of bin Laden, and kept U.S. forces out of mass military intervention. I find Obama to be a man of integrity, even if there were areas where he was not successful. I expect history will judge him favorably.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 27, 2016, 08:51:49 AM
Telling that this is the best defense you can mount for Trump.
President Obama has done or tried to do everything he said he would. The stimulus saved the country from an even deeper economic crisis. The health care bill is basically what was promised during the debates I listened to at the time. Of course it is not true that absolutely everyone could keep their existing health care plan, but that was not by design. Even before Obamacare was passed it was not uncommon for health care insurance offered by private employers to change, be canceled, or become more expensive. I consider it an overall success, despite the efforts of Congress and Republican Governers to hobble it. He didn't close Guantanamo, but no new prisoners were put in, many were removed, and Congress put up barriers to ultimately closing it. His foreign policy has protected the U.S. from large scale terror attacks, led to the elimination of bin Laden, and kept U.S. forces out of mass military intervention. I find Obama to be a man of integrity, even if there were areas where he was not successful. I expect history will judge him favorably.
I get tired repeating everything I've offered as a "defense" of Trump. You can find plenty I've posted previsouly in this thread.
Obama promised plenty about Obamacare which mostly turned out to be a rosy scenario, to put it kindly. You can blame its failures on Replublican opposition - but the manner in which it was passed is one of his faliures and he is being held accountable for pushing it through before he had convinced the opposition of the law's efficacy.
Hillary crowns herself Unholy Roman Empress
Gulag will be established in Kansas for GOP "malignants"
McConnell castigates policy as "unnecessarily partisan"
Quote from: drogulus on October 27, 2016, 09:00:46 AM
Hillary crowns herself Unholy Roman Empress
Gulag will be established in Kansas for GOP "malignants"
McConnell castigates policy as "unnecessarily partisan"
snypsss, stop hacking Ernie's account!
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 08:19:32 AM
However, in the weeks just after his convention, and when he was not chopping off his legs with senseless personal attacks, he made five policy speechs which were largely about the issues I outlined.
His campaign did have a policy side - but it was grossly overshawdowed by his ugly rhetoric and past which the press took and ran with at the expense of anything else. I might add, the press's obession with Trump's rhetoric and past also allowed Clinton to spend her the last 18 months campaigning without really specifiying what she would do as president other than offering up a collection of slogans and platitudes.
I certainly agree that Clinton is a flawed candidate.
Any candidate who says "grab them by the pussy" must expect the press to have a field day with it. The fixation on that sentence, if anything, underplays the awfulness of the total conversation.
Trump is easily the least disciplined candidate I have ever seen. That is not the press's fault. Earlier you quoted someone complaining about the Rs' tendency to "just feed them abortion and guns," but that sounds a lot like Trump's performance in the 3rd debate.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 08:40:04 AM
You act as if that is any different from other politicians.
I thought the whole point of Trump was that he allegedly isn't a politician.
Just gonna put this out here.
Quote from: Pat B on October 27, 2016, 09:04:46 AM
I certainly agree that Clinton is a flawed candidate.
Any candidate who says "grab them by the pussy" must expect the press to have a field day with it. The fixation on that sentence, if anything, underplays the awfulness of the total conversation.
You're right Trump has been his own worst enemy. And he gave the press plenty of ammunition to cover those stories which was their job to do. But that still does not excuse them from also covering Clinton in a manner that would force her to spell out specifics about her policies and ask tough follow-up questions and challenge her superficial explanations of servergate and foundation stories.
In my opinion this has been the worst covered presidential race in my lifetime.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 08:57:15 AM
I get tired repeating everything I've offered as a "defense" of Trump. You can find plenty I've posted previsouly in this thread.
Obama promised plenty about Obamacare which mostly turned out to be a rosy scenario, to put it kindly. You can blame its failures on Replublican opposition - but the manner in which it was passed is one of his faliures and he is being held accountable for pushing it through before he had convinced the opposition of the law's efficacy.
I had a friend who had a PhD in physics and worked as a junior researcher at a major U.S. university in a Biophysics institute. He got an National Institutes of Health fellowship, which meant he was off the university payroll and essentially self-employed. He was denied health insurance because his wife was pregnant at the time and that was considered a disqualifying pre-existing condition by the health insurer. The irony of a National Institutes of Health researcher being denied health insurance notwithstanding, that was perfectly allowable under the previous regime of health insurance. The university had mercy on him and allowed him to enroll in their student health insurance plan, which was grossly inadequate, but at least it was something. Under Obamacare he would have had no problem, and at the very least he would have been able to select insurance from the state exchange and maybe gotten a subsidy. Obamacare may not be perfect (partly because any fixes to it are unthinkable in the context of a Congress which has monthly votes to repeal it) and it may have caused difficulties for some people, put it has helped a huge number of people.
Why haven't Clinton WikiLeaks emails caused more uproar?
People seem to be seeing what they want to see in the latest batch of emails, making the net effect of their release relatively minor. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/1018/Why-haven-t-Clinton-WikiLeaks-emails-caused-more-uproar)
Quote from: Scarpia on October 27, 2016, 08:51:49 AM
Telling that this is the best defense you can mount for Trump.
President Obama has done or tried to do everything he said he would. The stimulus saved the country from an even deeper economic crisis. The health care bill is basically what was promised during the debates I listened to at the time. Of course it is not true that absolutely everyone could keep their existing health care plan, but that was not by design. Even before Obamacare was passed it was not uncommon for health care insurance offered by private employers to change, be canceled, or become more expensive. I consider it an overall success, despite the efforts of Congress and Republican Governers to hobble it. He didn't close Guantanamo, but no new prisoners were put in, many were removed, and Congress put up barriers to ultimately closing it. His foreign policy has protected the U.S. from large scale terror attacks, led to the elimination of bin Laden, and kept U.S. forces out of mass military intervention. I find Obama to be a man of integrity, even if there were areas where he was not successful. I expect history will judge him favorably.
I feel similarly - regardless of Obama's shortcomings and failures, he is a man of integrity, a basically good, moral person, and someone who clearly always acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the country. He is, on the whole, honest and earnest in a way that most people presume politicians cannot be. We need more Obamas, and it's sad to me that so many people cannot even see (or acknowledge) this about him.
Quote from: Brian on October 27, 2016, 10:38:29 AM
I feel similarly - regardless of Obama's shortcomings and failures, he is a man of integrity, a basically good, moral person, and someone who clearly always acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the country. He is, on the whole, honest and earnest in a way that most people presume politicians cannot be. We need more Obamas, and it's sad to me that so many people cannot even see (or acknowledge) this about him.
His popularity remains relatively high, especially in terms of perceived likability, even though he failed to accomplish his stated goal of bipartisan action (well, it takes two sides to do that, you know). Republicans' insistence that Obama's presidency was a huge failure makes them look foolish.
I think that in large part his administration will be judged, rightly or wrongly, on the basis of how the situation with ISIS eventually turns out.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 07:54:04 AM
Well, I would agree with you if I did not think you and those you cite entirely misunderstand what the Trump candidacy represents. You are confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign, which were:
* Securing the border by enforcing existing laws and building some kind of border barrier and dealing justly with immigrants both legal and illegal (which does not mean rewarding those who jumped the line).
This is actually a passing thought in a piece whose theme is the lesson which the GOP oughta be taught:
. . . if there is any place that should be anxious about illegal immigration, it is Texas. Come to think of it, Arizona is another border state. And yet Trump is struggling in both places. Trump's build-the-wall and mass deportation proposals don't sell in Arizona and Texas. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/27/texas-and-arizona-can-teach-the-gop-a-lesson/?utm_term=.6f6f5b865c4a)
WickiLeaks about campaign insider stuff could hardy be expected to move voters.
Podesta: HRC really shouldn't have killed Vince Foster. People will think she's such a nasty woman. Don't we have to respond?
Not Podesta: I don't know, it's a close call, don't you think? It doesn't show up in the focus groups. Maybe we just ignore it.
Yes, that's what I think. "Vince who?" (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: Mahlerian on October 27, 2016, 10:45:51 AM
I think that in large part his administration will be judged, rightly or wrongly, on the basis of how the situation with ISIS eventually turns out.
There are a lot of long-term gambles affecting Obama's legacy - not just ISIS, but the Iran nuclear deal, the constitutionality of his climate change policies, whether or not his successor(s) can create a public health care option with bargaining power...
Quote from: Pat B on October 27, 2016, 09:06:48 AM
I thought the whole point of Trump was that he allegedly isn't a politician.
Indeed, on the last page we were told that his appeal was based on being different. But when he's criticised, the defence is that we should expect him to be just as bad as other politicians.
Might as well stick with those that know and understand the political system, then.
Quote...which would allow US companies to become more profitable which translates into more and better jobs.
I am amazed that anyone continues to believe in this correlation.
Seriously, why on earth do you think that profits lead to jobs? Profits aren't for making jobs. Sure, from time to time a company will use profits to expand in a way that creates more jobs, but the notion that there's a direct correlation between these two things has been one of the biggest lies sold by the big end of town, and you're apparently still buying even though the destruction of jobs in small town America has been largely driven by the big end of town figuring out that bigger profits can be created by having fewer jobs. Or moving jobs to countries where labor is cheaper.
There is a cartoon that illustrates neatly what happens. Trickle-down economics is based on the idea of a champagne tower where filling the top glass leads to overflow into the glasses lower down. But the analogy doesn't work because what happens instead is that the top glass
grows. Okay? The people running a large company, and the
SHAREHOLDERS (the ones that profits are made for) don't think "great, we got more money, let's spread it around to employees". They think "great, we got more money!".
And then they think "how can we make even more money?", and if the answer involves employing more people, that's incidental. It's not the goal. Employing more people means greater costs, and their whole goal is to minimise costs relative to profit. A company only spends more money on more employees if they figure out they'll still be getting more out of the deal than the new employees will be.
It's only service industries that are stuck with having to employ more people in the US in order to expand, because they need people on the ground where the customers are. Note, this applies to things like restaurants. Not to all the companies where "customer service" consists of having someone at the other end of a phone line or sitting behind a website. Those kinds of service centres can be, and frequently are, anywhere.
So the only jobs you can guarantee are created are the crappy jobs where people are paid to wait on customers in some way. And the goal is still to create
as few of these jobs as possible, because the goal is to make the service as cheap as possible.
Companies aren't civic-minded co-operative societies designed to create a happy, smiling community of participants. They're sociopaths designed to make as much money as possible while expending as little as possible. The entity you're looking for - the one that's purpose is supposed to be your welfare rather than its own - is called "government". And you're asking it to give away some of its money to the sociopaths by cutting taxes.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 27, 2016, 01:10:55 PM
Companies aren't civic-minded co-operative societies designed to create a happy, smiling community of participants. They're sociopaths designed to make as much money as possible while expending as little as possible. The entity you're looking for - the one that's purpose is supposed to be your welfare rather than its own - is called "government". And you're asking it to give away some of its money to the sociopaths by cutting taxes.
+1! Americans in particular have trouble grasping this, I believe because of a residual, albeit fading, memory of the boomy 40s, 50s, and 60s when a manufacturing job was given to anyone who wanted one and patriarchal hometown industries were equated with home, income, family and a life. "Capitalism in action." "The American Way!" Business was virtually synonymous with public spirit (
What's good for General Motors is good for the country) when actually it was just a happy economic coincidence, post WWII, of us being strong and them weak). Technology and overseas competition have altered that dreamy scene. And where is patriotism, let alone civic mindedness, when these companies can hire overseas for less than half what they pay Americans?
Non-existent, except where it serves their own self-interest. These issues and more are going to have to be resolved if we are to move forward as a nation. Republicans, I've observed, have problems with the inclusive notion of nation, esp: don't expect a job from the company (er, country) you should be willing to die for.
IOW jobs lead to profits. The difference IMV comes down to the efficiency of demand versus supply side economic measures to recycle savings into investment. Do you boost savings directly or do you boost incomes and investment directly? Put another way, the government usually runs deficits. What, in economic terms, are deficits for? What does government spending more than it taxes do? One answer is it does the opposite of what surpluses do, when the government takes out more dollars from the private sector than it adds. What's a surplus for? It's to reduce economic activity, to control inflation by reducing income and investment to allow prices to stabilize by reducing consumption. Since we want the economy to grow we accept an amount of inflation that fosters robust growth, but not more than that. On the other side the deficits counter what savings subtract from income. Deficit financing is usually considered the best way for government to invest in future growth.
Keynes noted that an economy does not balance optimally and will tend to spiral down if savings are allowed to go uninvested, which he called the "paradox of thrift". If everyone saves, everyone gets poorer. Whose liabilities are the assets everyone saves? The government has them, true even when we aren't intentionally stimulating the economy. Keynes then was describing before he was prescribing. They way I like to put it is this: what we do, we can do, and what we can do, we should do under the appropriate conditions.
Since the government will act as a swing spender, we have no alternative but to swing spend correctly. That means that in addition to the cyclical deficit swings we'll see, our efforts will be to meet our program and investment needs within the deficit window the state of the economy tells us is open. As we modify the cycle we observe how larger gap closing deficits lead not only to higher GDP but more rapid return of tax dollars to the thin air they came from. Another saying I have is "the tax always comes back", with a lag that varies, unless we want net savings in the private sector. Right now we are wanting about $19T of dollar savings among all the users, what an economy of this size needs. And that, dear reader, is also known as the national debt. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
The Cold Clinton Reality (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cold-clinton-reality-1477608696)
Why isn't the IRS investigating the Clinton Foundation?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 05:44:26 PM
The Cold Clinton Reality (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cold-clinton-reality-1477608696)
Why isn't the IRS investigating the Clinton Foundation?
Because it is a charity with an A rating from an independent charity auditor? I'm guessing that's not the answer cited in the article.
Serious, not sarcastic, not stirring-things-up question: Is the IRS investigating the Trump Foundation? I genuinely don't remember.
There's pretty ample evidence of illegality, there. I know the NY Attorney General is investigating.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 05:44:26 PM
The Cold Clinton Reality (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cold-clinton-reality-1477608696)
Why isn't the IRS investigating the Clinton Foundation?
They probably don't have a tax problem. In politics and philanthropy it's really amazing what you can get away with. They are both built on cronyism. So long as you steer clear of using the foundation to enrich yourself you and the foundation can feed from the same trough. And this is as true for a genuine foundation as for that thing Trump has.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 27, 2016, 01:10:55 PM
I am amazed that anyone continues to believe in this correlation.
Seriously, why on earth do you think that profits lead to jobs? Profits aren't for making jobs.
Robert Reich, Clinton's labor secretary said it succinctly, rich people don't create jobs, customers create jobs. Businesses hire when there are customers to serve. The best way to create jobs is to put money in people's pockets.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 27, 2016, 07:57:18 PM
Robert Reich, Clinton's labor secretary said it succinctly, rich people don't create jobs, customers create jobs. Businesses hire when there are customers to serve. The best way to create jobs is to put money in people's pockets.
Yep. In lots of people's pockets. Not in the pockets of a few already-rather-rich people in the hope that they'll then spend even more.
I'm not by any means against businesses making a profit, but what's unfathomable to me is the idea that ever-bigger profits are an ever-greater good. No, a good business is one that is viable and can make money. Making even more money doesn't make it even more viable.
I think there's a lot to be said for small, local businesses because they are more likely to be genuinely engaged with a community and form part of the social fabric. But small, local businesses aren't the ones that get the ear of Republican politicians to whisper "give us even more money than we already have, and we promise to make America great again".
Quote from: Scarpia on October 27, 2016, 08:51:49 AM
President Obama has done or tried to do everything he said he would. The stimulus saved the country from an even deeper economic crisis. The health care bill is basically what was promised during the debates I listened to at the time. Of course it is not true that absolutely everyone could keep their existing health care plan, but that was not by design. Even before Obamacare was passed it was not uncommon for health care insurance offered by private employers to change, be canceled, or become more expensive. I consider it an overall success, despite the efforts of Congress and Republican Governors to hobble it. He didn't close Guantanamo, but no new prisoners were put in, many were removed, and Congress put up barriers to ultimately closing it. His foreign policy has protected the U.S. from large scale terror attacks, led to the elimination of bin Laden, and kept U.S. forces out of mass military intervention. I find Obama to be a man of integrity, even if there were areas where he was not successful. I expect history will judge him favorably.
Obama's true legacy is expressed by porous borders and fundamental anti-American exceptionalism. The internationalists whose policy he serves crowned him with the Nobel Peace Prize even before he did anything. The only intelligent conclusion one can draw is that he is a puppet of the New World Order. His ignorance and bungling destabilized the Middle East while turning a blind eye to Iran's nuclear ambitions. History will see this as the global unraveling towards WWIII.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 27, 2016, 08:19:32 AM
However, in the weeks just after his convention, and when he was not chopping off his legs with senseless personal attacks, he made five policy speechs which were largely about the issues I outlined.
His campaign did have a policy side - but it was grossly overshawdowed by his ugly rhetoric and past which the press took and ran with at the expense of anything else. I might add, the press's obession with Trump's rhetoric and past also allowed Clinton to spend her the last 18 months campaigning without really specifiying what she would do as president other than offering up a collection of slogans and platitudes.
I have been rethinking my own reactions to Trump's outbursts. At first I thought they were self-destructive but after what they brought to the surface, in particular, the far worse behavior of Billy-boy aided and abetted by his wife and the last issue, rigging the elections, well, heck, most of that would have remained dormant if Hillary didn't bring up "Miss Piggy" in the first debate. That was low and typically undignified of her.
The dust has already settled. There is far more evidence that Shillery Rotten is a foul mouthed harridan equal or worse than anything that might come out of "locker room talk". Project Veritas and Wikileaks came at the right time, a month or so earlier might have been better but the subject is hot right now.
Trump is not a politician, instead "what you see is what you get". Voters recognize it as a refreshing change. Politicians in order to survive have to tamp down their own individual consciences (as what happened to Pence in his trying to defend religious liberties in his state) and develop a public persona sometimes in direct opposition to their private. But the mask does become the man, eventually or the woman.
If Hillary gets elected she will not be able to conceal a most probable neurological disorder. The mask will come off one way or the other. I think there is a strong possibility for President Kaine somewhere down the road.
Zamyrabyrd, you are one of those delusional people I can only meet on the internet. I'd like to say it's been fun, but that would be a lie. And we know how much you hate lying.
And foul language, too. Though you appear to have no problem with saying absolutely horrible things about people, just so long as swear words aren't used. So long as the form is right, the substance can be just as vile as you please.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 28, 2016, 12:00:43 AM
Zamyrabyrd, you are one of those delusional people I can only meet on the internet. I'd like to say it's been fun, but that would be a lie. And we know how much you hate lying.
And foul language, too. Though you appear to have no problem with saying absolutely horrible things about people, just so long as swear words aren't used. So long as the form is right, the substance can be just as vile as you please.
We'll see who is delusional in the end. Actions speak louder than words.
Rigging the elections? Really?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 28, 2016, 01:39:18 AM
We'll see who is delusional in the end. Actions speak louder than words.
I'm confused about which action you have in mind. Obama's introduction of the New World Order (absolutely
love the capitals by the way, it makes your conspiracy sound so important!), Iran's nuclear weapons (blind eye? oh yeah, that's what all the sanctions and inspection requirements were, a blind eye), the start of World War III, your porous borders (let me tell you, lady, the guards with guns at LAX sure didn't feel porous to me), Bill Clinton luring more innocent young women, rigging elections (and apparently all the POLLS as well), or the bit where Hillary collapses due to a neurological disorder you've somehow managed to diagnose.
Which actions should I be looking out for, exactly? And have you forgotten, in your quest to condemn all disability, that you've previously had a President in a wheelchair?
EDIT: And possibly one with Marfan syndrome. Guy called Lincoln. No doubt you'd declare him not up to the job these days.
More than seven-in-10 GOP insiders, 71 percent, say the polls understate Trump's support because voters don't want to admit to pollsters that they are backing the controversial Republican nominee.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-shy-voters-polls-gop-insiders-230411#ixzz4ONawrXPq
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 01:59:39 AM
Rigging the elections? Really?
Don't you get it? If Trump wins the elections are fair and square. If Hillary wins the elections are rigged.
http://tinyurl.com/hr3fsyx
"We may have people vote 10 times. . . . Why not? If you don't have voter ID, you can just keep voting and voting and voting."
Now I just can't wait to do this myself in two weeks. I think I'll drive around to ten local towns and keep voting and voting and voting. (That's only three times, but so what if I'm waiting two hours in line to vote? Counting ten minutes driving between towns, I should be able to vote at least six times. Five if I stop for lunch. Four-and-a-half if I just get pizza.)
Obviously I can't speak for everywhere, but let's just see what actually happens in my small Long Island town. Mind you, NY does not have voter ID, so the potential for fraud is YUGE. Be that as it may, the NY voter rolls have me registered to vote at a junior high school two miles from me. I drive down and park. I sign a book where a copy of my signature is already on file. I fill out the card with my choices. (I really miss the old-style lever voting machines, but that's something else.) I insert the card into the reader. I leave. I am at loss to know how I can repeat the same thing anywhere else in my state, but the likelihood for fraud is YUGE.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 03:47:35 AM
More than seven-in-10 GOP insiders, 71 percent, say the polls understate Trump's support because voters don't want to admit to pollsters that they are backing the controversial Republican nominee.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-shy-voters-polls-gop-insiders-230411#ixzz4ONawrXPq
Nothing like having the courage of your convictions.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 28, 2016, 03:50:25 AM
Nothing like having the courage of your convictions.
Nor like the reliability of anecdote.
Agony of ObamaCare's Collapse Has Just Begun (http://nypost.com/2016/10/27/the-agony-of-obamacares-collapse-has-just-begun/)
Grifters-in-Chief (http://www.wsj.com/articles/grifters-in-chief-1477610771)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 27, 2016, 11:23:23 PM
But the mask does become the man, eventually or the woman.
The mask will come off one way or the other.
Which is it?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 03:54:15 AM
Agony of ObamaCare's Collapse Has Just Begun (http://nypost.com/2016/10/27/the-agony-of-obamacares-collapse-has-just-begun/)
Grifters-in-Chief (http://www.wsj.com/articles/grifters-in-chief-1477610771)
http://tinyurl.com/jlwmjqg
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 28, 2016, 03:54:37 AM
Which is it?
No contradiction there.
Some people already have seen behind Hillary's fakey mask, like Secret Service and Bubba's victims.
If she becomes president, the circus so far will be nothing compared to what's ahead.
She will NOT be able to conceal her true self because she will not be in control as she barely is now.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 28, 2016, 02:36:34 AM
I'm confused about which action you have in mind...or the bit where Hillary collapses due to a neurological disorder you've somehow managed to diagnose. Which actions should I be looking out for, exactly? And have you forgotten, in your quest to condemn all disability, that you've previously had a President in a wheelchair?
Why don't you just go and make Wombat Stew?
https://www.youtube.com/v/vzKIM1SR_Po
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 28, 2016, 04:02:52 AM
No contradiction there.
Some people already have seen behind Hillary's fakey mask, like Secret Service and Bubba's victims.
If she becomes president, the circus so far will be nothing compared to what's ahead.
She will NOT be able to conceal her true self because she will not be in control as she barely is now.
Ah.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 28, 2016, 04:07:48 AM
Why don't you just go and make Wombat Stew?
https://www.youtube.com/v/vzKIM1SR_Po
Can't. No wombats at my grocery. Guess I'll have to exercise my second amendment rights and shoot a few.
And who is this expert in your video? I mean, I can't get through more than a minute of it, h e s p e a k s s o o o o s l o o o o o o w.
One of his advisers was quoted just yesterday saying that he will be "cooked" if he cannot prevail in the Keystone State. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/10/28/daily-202-trump-getting-blown-out-in-the-philadelphia-suburbs-as-pennsylvania-drifts-out-of-reach/58129aace9b69b640f54c6be/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_daily202-815a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
And, I mean: how could El Tupé not win Pennsylvania, if the election is not RIGGED?
The Polls Disagree, and That's OK (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-polls-disagree-and-thats-ok/)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 28, 2016, 04:26:10 AM
Can't. No wombats at my grocery.
Nor mine. What the hell? Who on earth thinks we eat wombats around here? Wombats are adorable.
Koalas. Now koalas I'd consider eating. Nasty little things. Everyone thinks they're SO cute but they are bad-tempered as hell.
Oh okay, so I do eat cute things. I hear lambs are cute.
But back on topic... I'm supposed to be convinced by that Youtube video? ROFL!
I note that the guy has uploaded video after video on the same topic. I noticed that one of them has a tagline saying how we shouldn't believe "optical illusions". In other words, he's one of those conspiracy theorists where any piece of evidence that doesn't fit the conspiracy is treated as not being real, lest it puncture the conspiracy theory.
What is it about the USA that makes it seem so especially fertile for people who are immune to outside facts? Something about the emphasis on individualism and independence creates people who are so utterly convinced of their own rightness and righteousness that they can weave entire narratives out of some weird idea that came to them one day. And these days they can broadcast that to the world.
There are plenty of medical professionals who participate in the media. Instead we get Youtube - no editorial standards, no fact-checking, just a guy with a video camera who couldn't stick to cat videos.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 28, 2016, 06:46:10 AM
There are plenty of medical professionals who participate in the media. Instead we get Youtube - no editorial standards, no fact-checking, just a guy with a video camera who couldn't stick to cat videos.
Only I can judge whether a news source is reliable!
Washington Post reporting that Donald Trump says he won a golf tournament in 1999 - at a club which opened in 2000.
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING
Donald Trump has run the worst campaign in modern history (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-has-won-the-worst-campaign-in-modern-history/2016/10/27/5c870118-9c7e-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?utm_term=.13d41562b5fd)By Fareed Zakaria
QuoteAs this presidential election draws to its close, I keep wondering: Why has Donald Trump run such an ineffective campaign? Trump began with three big advantages. The Democrats were seeking a third consecutive term in the White House, something that a political party has achieved only twice in the past 80 years . In addition, economic growth and income gains remain sluggish. Plus, the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, a politician from the past with high unfavorable ratings, couldn't easily represent the desire for change. For these reasons, many models based on "fundamentals" that predict election results favored a generic Republican candidate this year.
But Trump is not a generic Republican. And his campaign has been even more atypical. Start with strategy. It was obvious that Trump needed to pivot to the center to grow his base from his core group of supporters to a majority or plurality of Americans. That meant reaching out to Hispanics, Asians, women and college-educated whites. Trump once said that his core supporters would stick with him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight. So he had ample scope in which to woo new supporters. Many Republican-minded voters were desperately waiting for the pivot and would have lapped up any small words or gestures. Instead, Trump alienated potential supporters from these new groups even more than he had during the primaries.
It's true, and one wonders what Trump was thinking. Or maybe, there's the theory that he was never serious about winning and only wanted to identify a potential angry right wing audience for a website or network. If the latter is true, he will amount to the worst scoundrel second only to Bernie Madoff, imo.
:(
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 07:20:45 AM
It's true, and one wonders what Trump was thinking. Or maybe, there's the theory that he was never serious about winning and only wanted to identify a potential angry right wing audience for a website or network. If the latter is true, he will amount to the worst scoundrel second only to Bernie Madoff, imo.
I don't think Trump wanted or wants to lose but as an astute businessman, did make allowances for that possibility.
If he really wanted to hand it to Hillary, he should sit back and just watch the show.
But he is not doing that, on the contrary. These are his main positions some of which you yourself cited:
Repeal and replace Obama Care.
The 2nd amendment as absolute and no to gun control legislation.
If elected he will nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.
If elected he will overturn all of Obama's illegal executive orders.
If elected he would defund Planned Parenthood.
He would cut personal income and corporate taxes.
He would return educational control to the local school districts.
He would block Common Core.
He would fight for energy independence.
He would bar refugees from terrorist nations.We should really keep our eyes on the ball, that is, the actual policy of the candidates and not speculations or getting too deeply into character foibles.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 28, 2016, 08:02:56 AM
I don't think Trump wanted or wants to lose but as an astute businessman, did make allowances for that possibility.
If he really wanted to hand it to Hillary, he should sit back and just watch the show.
But he is not doing that, on the contrary. These are his main positions some of which you yourself cited:
Repeal and replace Obama Care.
The 2nd amendment as absolute and no to gun control legislation.
If elected he will nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.
If elected he will overturn all of Obama's illegal executive orders.
If elected he would defund Planned Parenthood.
He would cut personal income and corporate taxes.
He would return educational control to the local school districts.
He would block Common Core.
He would fight for energy independence.
He would bar refugees from terrorist nations.
We should really keep our eyes on the ball, that is, the actual policy of the candidates and not speculations or getting too deeply into character foibles.
All correct. Still, he has inexplicably done things to sabotage his own campaign to an extent I cannot explain other than he is such a self-destructive narcissist that he cannot help but make an ass of himself when certain of his buttons are pushed.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 08:17:28 AM
All correct. Still, he has inexplicably done things to sabotage his own campaign to an extent I cannot explain other than he is such a self-destructive narcissist that he cannot help but make an ass of himself when certain of his buttons are pushed.
And, with respect to you both, I think it is overstating his capacity to call him
an astute businessman.
Donald Trump really is building a wall. But his supporters are going to pay for it.
"I want to show you something very special," the candidate says in a video out Thursday. "I am dedicating this wall right here in Trump Tower to a select group. . . . They chipped in whenever and however they can."
In a QVC-worthy pitch, Trump continues: "The wall has only space for 2,000 more supporters. Contribute today . . ."
It was an undignified position for a presidential candidate 12 days before the election, selling off naming rights to a Trump Tower wall for contributions of $49 or more. And the symbolism was unhelpful: Such walls of names bring to mind the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and others that honor the fallen. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/newt-gingrich-alex-jones-and-the-other-bricks-in-trumps-wall-of-shame/2016/10/28/bb652aee-9d09-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.8a52559ccafc)
Trump's attempt to cast doubt on the sanctity of democratic elections and sow doubt about their integrity (something his pal Vladimir Putin likes to do) backfired in a big way. Politicians of both parties rushed forward to insist elections cannot be rigged and the actual instances of voter impersonation are extraordinarily rare. So, wait, is the hysteria about voting fraud that supposedly requires elaborate voter ID measures unwarranted? Sure seems that way. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/28/the-just-desserts-of-2016/?utm_term=.df6040f6254e)
(emphasis mine)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 08:39:00 AM
And, with respect to you both, I think it is overstating his capacity to call him an astute businessman.
He has certainly enriched himself. I suspect his presidential run has the same goal. One of his specialties is siphoning money from failing projects (like Atlantic City). I suspect he viewed his presidential run as a win-win. If he actually wins he goes along with the far right agenda and engineers huge tax cuts on himself, and if he looses he becomes an alt-right media personality. The only way he personally comes out behind is if he looses his audience by acting sensible like the Republican establishment wants him to and then looses the election anyway. He's willing to sacrifice the Republican party to preserve his media ambitions.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 08:47:24 AM
Trump's attempt to cast doubt on the sanctity of democratic elections and sow doubt about their integrity (something his pal Vladimir Putin likes to do) backfired in a big way. Politicians of both parties rushed forward to insist elections cannot be rigged and the actual instances of voter impersonation are extraordinarily rare. So, wait, is the hysteria about voting fraud that supposedly requires elaborate voter ID measures unwarranted? Sure seems that way. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/28/the-just-desserts-of-2016/?utm_term=.df6040f6254e)
(emphasis mine)
There is nothing wrong with advocating for aggressive oversight of elections and enforcement of voting requirements in order to preserve the integrity of an election. I am surprised that my Democrat friends seem willing to believe the elective system requires no safeguards. But then again, dead people always seem to vote for Democrats.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 28, 2016, 08:50:43 AM
He has certainly enriched himself.
Sure, but not by business acumen; by cheating on contracts and counting on his resources to intimidate the little guy out of seeking his rights.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 08:52:48 AM
There is nothing wrong with advocating for aggressive oversight of elections and enforcement of voting requirements in order to preserve the integrity of an election. I am surprised that my Democrat friends seem willing to believe the elective system requires no safeguards. But then again, dead people always seem to vote for Democrats.
That, sir, is what one calls a strawman.
And sending your rally crowd "over to the other place" to be ad hoc vigilantes . . . well, that is
aggressive oversight, but entirely the wrong kind.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 08:54:05 AM
Sure, but not by business acumen; by cheating on contracts and counting on his resources to intimidate the little guy out of seeking his rights.
And you know this because ... oh, yeah, it is the narrative created by the media in this election year.
Dealing with frivilous lawsuits is the cost of doing business in the US, especially at the stratum Donald Trump has operated at for 40 years. But, then again, you and the Democrat media machine seem to believe that a lawsuit filed by anyone is proof of wrong doing by the defendant.
My gosh, I have had the temerity myself of holding back payment for slipshod work done on my house by a contractor who did not live up to his side of the contract. Shame on me.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 09:01:09 AM
And you know this because ... oh, yeah, it is the narrative created by the media in this election year.
Dealing with frivilous lawsuits is the cost of doing business in the US, especially at the stratum Donald Trump has operated at for 40 years. But, then again, you and the Democrat media machine seem to believe that a lawsuit filed by anyone is proof of wrong doing by the defendant.
My gosh, I have had the temerity myself of holding back payment for slipshod work done on my house by a contractor who did not live up to his side of the contract. Shame on me.
I guess if you were right to do so, El Tupé was always right, too.
We have had to hold contractors responsible for doing the job they were contracted to do, as they were contracted to do it.
You're right: El Tupé cannot have been in the wrong!
Good heavens, and you really said "Democrat media machine."
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 08:52:48 AM
I am surprised that my Democrat friends seem willing to believe the elective system requires no safeguards. But then again, dead people always seem to vote for Democrats.
And how do you account for the fact that the writer of the piece above is not a Democrat?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 06:48:04 AM
Only I can judge whether a news source is reliable!
Golly, and it's still true!
Curse you, "Democrat media machine," for suppressing Democrat-unfriendly news!
FBI to conduct new investigation of emails from Clinton's private server (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-breaking-news%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews)
A number of polls in recent days have actually shown that Trump's image remains very poor but actually largely static. It hasn't really declined. Clinton's numbers, in contrast, have meaningfully improved with likely voters.
To be clear: Clinton's numbers are still not very good and generally underwater — i.e., more people dislike her than like her — but they are improved. And that at least partially explains her improved standing. It also, by the way, gives her hope for having somewhat of a mandate if she's elected president. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/hillary-clintons-resurgence-isnt-just-about-donald-trump/)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 09:23:14 AM
Curse you, "Democrat media machine," for suppressing Democrat-unfriendly news!
FBI to conduct new investigation of emails from Clinton's private server (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-breaking-news%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews)
This reminds me - I read yesterday that in the primary campaign coverage of Hillary was more negative than of Trump (something like 60% of her news mentions were negative).
Quote from: Brian on October 28, 2016, 09:31:24 AM
This reminds me - I read yesterday that in the primary campaign coverage of Hillary was more negative than of Trump (something like 60% of her news mentions were negative).
Bet you didn't read that on Fox News.
After losing the 2012 presidential election, the Republican Party wrote an autopsy report, the key premise of which was that the GOP had to demonstrate a greater level of interest in Latino concerns. Donald Trump's key premise from the moment he announced his candidacy was just the opposite — it was time to stop being PC and start getting tough; stop sympathizing with the motives of the undocumented and start calling them murderers and rapists; stop worrying about the practical and humanitarian aspects of mass deportation and start promising it; stop worrying about making nice with Mexico and start talking about coercing Mexico into paying for the wall. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/28/13441552/verdict-whedon-save-the-day)
More adventures of the astute businessman:
Donald Trump negotiates Donald Trump down to 66 cents on the dollar
... If Trump did wire the check, he's probably still not going to hit the $100 million mark in the next 11 days. But he's always got a good way to spin it: As always, Donald Trump managed to negotiate his opponent (in this case, Donald Trump) down. This Trump guy wanted Trump to put up $100 million; Trump got the job done for only $66 million. He's a dealmaker, it's what he does.
The alternative is that Trump's big-spending promises were mostly bluster, and that certainly couldn't be the case. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/donald-trump-negotiates-donald-trump-down-to-66-cents-on-the-dollar/)
Quote from: Brian on October 28, 2016, 09:31:24 AM
This reminds me - I read yesterday that in the primary campaign coverage of Hillary was more negative than of Trump (something like 60% of her news mentions were negative).
True, but that reversed after the conventions. The negative coverage during the pormary was mainly about her refusal to meet with the press and of course all the stuff Bernie Sanders was saying, and that's when the email server story was getting the most coverage with the IG report.
Once the general election began and it was between Clinton and Trump, well, of those two Trump has gotten the brunt of negative coverage. Most of it because of his own junk and all the press had to do was report what he did or said. However, the press has not given Clinton the kind of investigative coverage one would like tohave seen for a potential president.
Like I've said before, I think Democrats will experience acute buyers remorse.
;)
"Let's make it happen" "The election is in your hands." Versus, "it's all rigged, they're going to steal it in the cities, you know what I'm talking about."
McCain and Kerry, both fighting hard, both destined to lose. Both aware even as they gave those speeches (though McCain more than Kerry) that they might lose. But still talking up rather than down to the voters, as citizens. Both offering ultimate respect to the process by which a democracy chooses its leaders and transfers power from one to the next.
We have heard so much of the other sort of talk from Trump that many people have grown inured to it. It shouldn't be taken for granted. Of all the norms Trump has broken, including notably the expectation that nominees will provide tax information, his contempt for the democratic process may be the most dangerous. (https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/trump-time-capsule-149-cancel-the-election/505475/)
Quote from: ørfeo on October 27, 2016, 08:54:02 PM
Yep. In lots of people's pockets. Not in the pockets of a few already-rather-rich people in the hope that they'll then spend even more.
I'm not by any means against businesses making a profit, but what's unfathomable to me is the idea that ever-bigger profits are an ever-greater good. No, a good business is one that is viable and can make money. Making even more money doesn't make it even more viable.
I think there's a lot to be said for small, local businesses because they are more likely to be genuinely engaged with a community and form part of the social fabric. But small, local businesses aren't the ones that get the ear of Republican politicians to whisper "give us even more money than we already have, and we promise to make America great again".
There is an other very interesting article by Andy Groves, a founder of Intel, about what is going wrong with the U.S. He argues that the idea that the free market optimizes everything has not served the U.S. well, and that the practice of moving manufacturing of high-tech products from Silicon Valley to Asia has eviscerated Silicon Valley and the U.S. economy. Most of the job gains and technical expertise comes from the ramp-up phase, rather than the start-up phase of a tech company. The ramp-up phase now takes place in Asia, and as a result Silicon Valley no longer produces many good jobs in the U.S., and the U.S. has now lost the ability to produce technology products on a large scale.
Here is a retrospective the NY Times published upon the death of Andy Groves:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/opinion/andy-groves-warning-to-silicon-valley.html
And the original article
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-07-01/andy-grove-how-america-can-create-jobs
I could support an astute businessman for president, if it was someone like Andy Groves, who created an entirely new sector of the economy, rather than Donald Trump, who strike me as a parasite.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 10:01:09 AM
"Let's make it happen" "The election is in your hands." Versus, "it's all rigged, they're going to steal it in the cities, you know what I'm talking about."
McCain and Kerry, both fighting hard, both destined to lose. Both aware even as they gave those speeches (though McCain more than Kerry) that they might lose. But still talking up rather than down to the voters, as citizens. Both offering ultimate respect to the process by which a democracy chooses its leaders and transfers power from one to the next.
We have heard so much of the other sort of talk from Trump that many people have grown inured to it. It shouldn't be taken for granted. Of all the norms Trump has broken, including notably the expectation that nominees will provide tax information, his contempt for the democratic process may be the most dangerous. (https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/trump-time-capsule-149-cancel-the-election/505475/)
What I have gotten inured to is the media outrage over Trump's statements over the "rigged election" comments and every other thing they've branded as "disqualifiying". Pretty tedious. To the extent a vote for Trump is a repudiation of the media, I know many people who will leap at the opportunity to stick their thumb in the eye of the mainstream press.
;)
So, yah, this guy was once in the race, too.
Chris Christie Is OverTrump's greatest gift to the GOP may be the distraction he's provided from other party meltdowns. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/chris-christie-is-over/505241/)
Quote from: Alex Wagner"Sobbing mother of four" plus "thrown water bottle" is light years away from the Chris Christie that America thought it knew, way back in 2012 when he was the blue state Republican who rolled up his sleeves and hugged a Democratic president in the wake of a devastating hurricane. Back then, Christie was a straight talker with a heart of gold: screaming curse words at a single mother of four and throwing objects at her was not part of the profile. Now it is.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 10:08:54 AM
So, yah, this guy was once in the race, too.
Chris Christie Is Over
Trump's greatest gift to the GOP may be the distraction he's provided from other party meltdowns. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/chris-christie-is-over/505241/)
Pretty disgusting. Btw, have you seen the allegations against Clinton by her former secret service agent?
Ex-Secret Service Agent: "People Need to Know The Real Hillary Clinton And How Dangerous She Is" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/28/ex-secret_service_agent_people_need_to_know_the_real_hillary_clinton_and_how_dangerous_she_is.html)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 09:23:14 AM
Curse you, "Democrat media machine," for suppressing Democrat-unfriendly news!
FBI to conduct new investigation of emails from Clinton's private server (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-breaking-news%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews)
Just got an e-mail alert on this from the
Boston Globe. Can't these people stay focused on The Narrative?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 28, 2016, 10:19:33 AM
Just got an e-mail alert on this from the Boston Globe. Can't these people stay focused on The Narrative?
Oh yeah ... I am sure that any damning evidence will only come out after the election, you know, you can't rush these investigations - even if the voters do not have the information they need in order to make an informed choice. The same thing happend with Bill. The NBC interview with Juanita Crawford was not run until a month after the election, although it was ready to go when it would have made a difference.
QuoteOf all the norms Trump has broken, including notably the expectation that nominees will provide tax information, his contempt for the democratic process may be the most dangerous.
Considering the damning spin the media and the Clinton campaign made of his entirely
legal business loss deduction I am not surprised Trump does not wish to volunteer any information to the Clinton campaign. Information that they will twist and distort and with a willing press use to inflame public opinion against his
ordinary tax practices.
Yeah, no mystery there - but of course
The Atlantic wishes to spin that as yet another "disqualifying" attibute of Trump's candidacy. Blah, blah, blah.
::)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 08:52:48 AM
There is nothing wrong with advocating for aggressive oversight of elections and enforcement of voting requirements in order to preserve the integrity of an election. I am surprised that my Democrat friends seem willing to believe the elective system requires no safeguards. But then again, dead people always seem to vote for Democrats.
The elective system is guarded on all sides by safeguards. Try it yourself. Try voting at different places in a row.
The "election fraud" your friends are always talking about is black people voting.
It's comparable to 'black guy running' or 'black guy driving a car at night' etc ad inf
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 09:42:46 AM
True, but that reversed after the conventions. The negative coverage during the pormary was mainly about her refusal to meet with the press and of course all the stuff Bernie Sanders was saying, and that's when the email server story was getting the most coverage with the IG report.
What may have changed things, too, for people was the tone and the (absent) substance of the GOP convention. Trump's endless screaming speech; the "Lock Her Up" chants; the constant threat of violence.
There are people who do not like to be reminded of Weimar all the time. Some people in the media have a sense of history.
Democrats aren't perfect, but at least they tried to present an optimist, forward-looking picture at their convention; the speeches made sense; some of 'em even had humor and / or uplift.
There comes a point when the press has to face the facts. The media have always (and I mean 25 years) been hard on Hillary Clinton, but what can you say about a GOP convention that says We Need to Get Back to 1950, Now?
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 10:25:10 AM
I am sure that any damning evidence will only come out after the election, you know, you can't rush these investigations - even if the voters do not have the information they need in order to make an informed choice.
Everyone knows FBI investigations only take 6 business days!
BTW this new FBI thing is very confusing - FBI is now saying that the emails they've discovered 1. were not on Clinton's server, and 2. were not from Clinton, so it's quite unclear what the angle is. May be something entirely new. Or maybe it's aides talking about Clinton's server.
Quote from: Brian on October 28, 2016, 11:06:14 AM
Everyone knows FBI investigations only take 6 business days!
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Herman on October 28, 2016, 11:03:39 AM
The media have always (and I mean 25 years) been hard on Hillary Clinton [....]
And this has both been the mainstream press doing its job, and the alt-right-ish anti-Clinton industry which has flourished for decades.
But the media aren't being fair to El Tupé!
"Democrat media machine!"
NYT reports the new emails being investigated were discovered while they investigated Anthony Weiner. Huma's phone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
I just want to point out how smoothly it trippeth over the tongue: the FBI's October surprise . . .
The FBI's October surprise just made Hillary Clinton's awful week even worse (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/the-fbis-october-surprise-just-made-hillary-clintons-awful-week-even-worse/)
Well, and when even Bill O'Reilly thinks you've crossed a line . . .
Bill O'Reilly thinks media coverage of Donald Trump is often unfair and agrees that there are "severe problems" with the political and justice systems. But O'Reilly is clearly uncomfortable with the Republican presidential nominee's warning that the Nov. 8 election could be "rigged." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/bill-oreilly-is-getting-uncomfortable-with-donald-trump/)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 28, 2016, 08:02:56 AM
We should really keep our eyes on the ball, that is, the actual policy of the candidates and not speculations or getting too deeply into character foibles.
Further evidence if needed of Zamarabyrd's highly principled keeping her eyes on the ball and not getting too deeply into character foibles:
QuoteSome people already have seen behind Hillary's fakey mask, like Secret Service and Bubba's victims.
If she becomes president, the circus so far will be nothing compared to what's ahead.
She will NOT be able to conceal her true self because she will not be in control as she barely is now.
The dust has already settled. There is far more evidence that Shillery Rotten is a foul mouthed harridan equal or worse than anything that might come out of "locker room talk". Project Veritas and Wikileaks came at the right time, a month or so earlier might have been better but the subject is hot right now.
Bleedin' obvious she would have been finished politically if she dumped Billy-boy. Divorce doesn't have the same censure it did decades ago. Instead, she would have been applauded to have freed herself from the jerk. Actually, doing just that would have earned some respect from me.
You missed the part of a "champion of women" harassing his victims. Maybe it's too complex for you to understand the meaning of "enabling" an addict. If sexual acting out (including Lolita parties at his friend Epstein's island) was going on for decades, it shows a wife is not just standing by her man but is complicit, like supplying dope to a druggie. Without knowing anything else about the person (like she has quite a sewer mouth), this is not only a serious character flaw but psychologically unsound. It's a heightened form of lying to herself and everyone else so should not be trusted AT ALL!!! She is Lady Macbeth and Jezebel put together and it confounds me why you don't see it.
Hee.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 10:51:37 AM
Considering the damning spin the media and the Clinton campaign made of his entirely legal business loss deduction I am not surprised Trump does not wish to volunteer any information to the Clinton campaign. Information that they will twist and distort and with a willing press use to inflame public opinion against his ordinary tax practices.
Yeah, no mystery there - but of course The Atlantic wishes to spin that as yet another "disqualifying" attibute of Trump's candidacy. Blah, blah, blah.
::)
Now of course there's no sign of bias in any of the above.
But the
legality of Trump's deductions is not in dispute. What the poster overlooks is that these tax laws - for net operating loss carryforwards, depreciation, capital loss carryforwards, and the like - were made by the rich to benefit the rich. They sure don't help you or me. And for Trump to blame Hillary - as he has done - for not doing anything about these tax provisions is either disingenuous or just plain ignorant, as if a single senator can on her own change the tax code which requires full votes in both houses of Congress.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 28, 2016, 12:04:09 PM
Now of course there's no sign of bias in any of the above.
But the legality of Trump's deductions is not in dispute. What the poster overlooks is that these tax laws - for net operating loss carryforwards, depreciation, capital loss carryforwards, and the like - were made by the rich to benefit the rich. They sure don't help you or me. And for Trump to blame Hillary - as he has done - for not doing anything about these tax provisions is either disingenuous or just plain ignorant, as if a single senator can on her own change the tax code which requires full votes in both houses of Congress.
Exactly. I cannot blame Trump for taking advantage of the tax code. But a tax code which allows someone to boast of accumulating a net worth of $10 billion and simultaneously report no income has clearly been "rigged" to favor the wealthy. We can depend on Trump to "fix" this?
Seems to summarize today´s series of breaking news (which had lots of echoes over here in Europe too):
"Jon Favreau @jonfavs
After a DEFCON 1 freakout, we now know the emails in question were:
1) Not from Hillary
2) Not from her server
3) Not from her investigation"
https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/792080910464065536
http://defconwarningsystem.com/
Quote from: Turner on October 28, 2016, 12:37:42 PM
Seems to summarize today´s series of breaking news (which had lots of echoes over here in Europe too):
"Jon Favreau @jonfavs
After a DEFCON 1 freakout, we now know the emails in question were:
1) Not from Hillary
2) Not from her server
3) Not from her investigation"
https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/792080910464065536
http://defconwarningsystem.com/
Lock 'er up!!!!!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 28, 2016, 12:04:09 PM
Now of course there's no sign of bias in any of the above.
But the legality of Trump's deductions is not in dispute. What the poster overlooks is that these tax laws - for net operating loss carryforwards, depreciation, capital loss carryforwards, and the like - were made by the rich to benefit the rich. They sure don't help you or me. And for Trump to blame Hillary - as he has done - for not doing anything about these tax provisions is either disingenuous or just plain ignorant, as if a single senator can on her own change the tax code which requires full votes in both houses of Congress.
And I would point out that she was not a senator for "30 years", as has been said, but for 1 six-year term, during which the only topics open for discussion were '9/11' and 'Hurricane Katrina'. And messing with GW Bush, of course. ::)
8)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 10:51:37 AM
Considering the damning spin the media and the Clinton campaign made of his entirely legal business loss deduction I am not surprised Trump does not wish to volunteer any information to the Clinton campaign. Information that they will twist and distort and with a willing press use to inflame public opinion against his ordinary tax practices.
Yeah, no mystery there - but of course The Atlantic wishes to spin that as yet another "disqualifying" attibute of Trump's candidacy. Blah, blah, blah.
::)
As poco sforzando has observed, legality isn't at issue with respect to the deduction. The issues are:
1) Trump's business acumen. Trump made it an issue with exaggerated claims about his personal fortune and his alleged business success, touting these attributes as qualifications for office. Even a cursory examination of his dealings in Atlantic City shows him to be a fool. He dumped a billion dollars into a casino that would compete with his other casinos and drove himself out of business.
2) Trump's character. Selling junk bonds to investors, extracting the assets from the corporation through an exorbitant salary, and loading it with debt he knew others would have to eat was the work of a class A scumbag. Then there is the hypocrisy of criticizing his fellow Americans for not paying their fair share of taxes, a complaint he has made in several interviews and speeches.
Are ineptitude, stupidity, rapacious greed, sleaziness, and hypocrisy disqualifying attributes of his candidacy? That's a judgment call. But I don't think it would be unreasonable to answer yes.
Hey, BasilValentine. You're biting my style, with the Malevitch painting as your avatar. I was here first, you know! :laugh:
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 28, 2016, 11:50:28 AM
Further evidence if needed of Zamarabyrd's highly principled keeping her eyes on the ball and not getting too deeply into character foibles: Hee.
In the back of my mind I knew someone would seize upon that point. Hillary started these low swipes. Tit for tat.
But really, they can be put aside in the spirit of truce and concentrate on the important issues.
She will just continue another 4 years of spend and tax like there's no tomorrow Obama.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 28, 2016, 01:19:31 PM
In the back of my mind I knew someone would seize upon that point. Hillary started these low swipes. Tit for tat.
But really, they can be put aside in the spirit of truce and concentrate on the important issues.
She will just continue another 4 years of spend and tax like there's no tomorrow Obama.
"Hillary started it?" What are you, three years old?
You dig your own hole, don't blame others for burying you in it.
Quote from: Scarpia on October 28, 2016, 12:13:25 PM
Exactly. I cannot blame Trump for taking advantage of the tax code. But a tax code which allows someone to boast of accumulating a net worth of $10 billion and simultaneously report no income has clearly been "rigged" to favor the wealthy. We can depend on Trump to "fix" this?
The section of the tax code that allows for business deductions is designed to benefit businesses, which used to be seen as also good for everyone. It is a wacky world view in which businesses are called "the wealthy", and that therm used as a pejorative.
The tax code has been called progressive for two reasons 1) it is indexed so that lower income citizens pay a lower percentage (often zero) of their income than higher wage earners and 2) it often allows for deductions in order to encourage behavior. E.g. charitable deductions to encourage giving, home mortgage interest deductions to encourage home ownership, and yes, business deductions to encourage businesses to be profitable which allows them to hire more people and provide services to the public.
The top 1% (income of over $400,000 not really that "rich", imo, since family businesses are counted as well) of the population pays about half of all tax revenues and the bottom 60% pays less than 6% in tax revenues.
The corporate tax rate in the US is 35%; which is one of the highest in the world, e.g. in Ireland it is around 12.5% for active income and 25% for passive income.
Liberals like to cry foul and point their finger at the top 1% - I dunno, seems like the 1% are paying more than their share.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 01:45:14 PM
Liberals like to cry foul and point their finger at the top 1% - I dunno, seems like the 1% are paying more than their share.
...when, on a percent basis, they often pay less than their subordinates? When Trump's effective rate is probably zero? When many derive their income off investments and therefore enjoy a smaller rate than me?
Your "more than their share" is based on
total share of tax revenue, rather than
tax rate per individual.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 01:45:14 PM
The corporate tax rate in the US is 35%; which is one of the highest in the world, e.g. in Ireland it is around 12.5% for active income and 25% for passive income.
Liberals like to cry foul and point their finger at the top 1% - I dunno, seems like the 1% are paying more than their share.
That is the top marginal rate, not the effective tax rate. Big difference. Thanks to all kinds of tax loopholes and breaks, many large corporations are in fact paying no federal tax at all. Ever hear about Apple over in Ireland? And don't forget Warren Buffett and his secretary. How about those 1% who derive much of their income from capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income? Damn straight we liberals are calling foul.
http://tinyurl.com/h9t2wpr
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 10:51:37 AM
Considering the damning spin the media and the Clinton campaign made of his entirely legal business loss deduction I am not surprised Trump does not wish to volunteer any information to the Clinton campaign. Information that they will twist and distort and with a willing press use to inflame public opinion against his ordinary tax practices.
Yeah, no mystery there - but of course The Atlantic wishes to spin that as yet another "disqualifying" attibute of Trump's candidacy. Blah, blah, blah.
::)
I just love these irregular verbs. Spin, twist, distort... These are only things that "other people", over there, are capable of doing. Whereas "I" and "we" only ever tell it like it is.
Oh, and well done for recently raising the dead voting Democrat yet again, and yet again managing to direct it at a non-Democrat. You seem incapable of grasping that the entire world does not fall into two neat boxes.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 28, 2016, 02:06:20 PM
I just love these irregular verbs. Spin, twist, distort... These are only things that "other people", over there, are capable of doing. Whereas "I" and "we" only ever tell it like it is.
Don't you get it? This is the guy who's ever ready to call foul at biased reporting. Bias, of course, only applies when his guy is being attacked; when the other side is involved, anything goes.
Also I'd very interested to know what is a fair share for the top 1% of people to pay.
Perhaps we can at least start by establishing what percent of the MONEY they have, which is actually far more relevant than how many names or birth dates they possess.
Similarly, whether 60% of people paying 6% of the tax is okay has nothing to do with them being 60% of the population. And a lot more to do with what percent of the money they have.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 28, 2016, 02:09:59 PM
Perhaps we can at least start by establishing what percent of the MONEY they have, which is actually far more relevant than how many names or birth dates they possess.
As a commenter noted in the evil New York Times: "The richest 62 billionaires now own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world's population (i.e. 3.7 BILLION people). In 2010, the 388 richest people owned the same wealth as the poorest 50%...now it's down to just 62 Richie Rich's."
Part of the problem is that the debate has been phrased in terms of income inequality, as if Warren Buffett's secretary should earn as much as Warren Buffett. I don't believe even the secretary would agree to that .The real issue is parity of growth, in that the Richie Rich's have seen a massive explosion of their income in terms of percentages, while the rest of us have seen little or no growth at all (especially when adjusted for inflation). Seen in that way, raising the minimum federal wage to $15 an hour is - well, minimal.
Yes to all that. I've previously seen commentary on the widening gap.
What I can find right this second is this: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90
But I've definitely seen, a year or two ago, a quite detailed discussion of how the wealth distribution is far MORE skewed now than it was a few decades ago.
I'm actually finding it quite amusing that sanantonio could throw out " the bottom 60% pays less than 6% in tax revenues" as if it's some kind of horrible revelation or injustice that needs to be fixed by bringing the 6 closer to 60. When there's plenty of data to suggest the 6 might be too high.
I should of course note that the last article referred to wealth inequality. So perhaps we should focus on income inequality.
In which case I offer this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States and note that, like other things I've read, it indicates that the US scores fairly poorly on a variety of measures to do with income.
I particularly like this bit:
QuoteThere is a direct relationship between actual income inequality and the public's views about the need to address the issue in most developed countries, but not in the U.S., where income inequality is worse but the concern is lower.
And there's several references pointing to how the US tax system actually creates the problem, such as this:
QuoteOne 2013 study indicated that U.S. income inequality is comparable to other developed countries before taxes and transfers, but rated last (worst) among 22 developed countries after taxes and transfers. This means that public policy choices, rather than market factors, drive U.S. income inequality disparities relative to comparable wealthy nations.
Of course, in Europe/Canada/Australia/New Zealand we're all just a bunch of commies. ::)
Quote from: ørfeo on October 28, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
I should of course note that the last article referred to wealth inequality. So perhaps we should focus on income inequality.
In which case I offer this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States and note that, like other things I've read, it indicates that the US scores fairly poorly on a variety of measures to do with income.
I particularly like this bit:
QuoteThere is a direct relationship between actual income inequality and the public's views about the need to address the issue in most developed countries, but not in the U.S., where income inequality is worse but the concern is lower.
And there's several references pointing to how the US tax system actually creates the problem, such as this:
And compare it with this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/QPKKQnijnsM
http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-in-the-us-is-much-more-extreme-than-you-think-2015-6
Quote from: North Star on October 28, 2016, 02:33:38 PM
And there's several references pointing to how the US tax system actually creates the problem, such as this:
And compare it with this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/QPKKQnijnsM
http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-in-the-us-is-much-more-extreme-than-you-think-2015-6
THANK YOU! That is one of the things I was looking for, but couldn't remember where I'd seen it.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 28, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
I should of course note that the last article referred to wealth inequality. So perhaps we should focus on income inequality.
They are related. Everyone has both a personal balance sheet (your assets, monetary and otherwise, and your liabilities) and a personal income statement (your income and outgo). Say your balance sheet includes long-term liabilities such as a mortgage and/or student loan debt, and a portion of your income goes to paying off those loans. Your disposable income, quite likely including the amount you have left over for savings and investments or the percentage you contribute to retirement, necessarily suffers as a result.
QuoteOverall, real average incomes per family in 2014 grew by a substantial 4.8 percent. For the bottom 99 percent of income earners, this marks the first year of real recovery from the income losses sparked by the Great Recession of 2007-2009. After a large decline of 11.6 percent from 2007 to 2009, those families saw a negligible 1.1 percent in real income gains from 2009 to 2013. But a full recovery in income growth for the bottom 99 percent is still not in sight. In 2014, these families recovered slightly less than 40 percent of their income losses due to the Great Recession.
Those at or near the top of the income ladder did substantially better in 2014. The share of income going to the top 10 percent of income earners—individuals making an average of $300,000 a year—increased to 49.9 percent in 2014 from 48.9 percent in 2013, the highest ever except for 2012. The share of income going to the top 1 percent of families—those earning on average about $1.3 million a year—increased to 21.2 percent in 2014 from 20.1 percent in 2013. Income inequality, then, remains extremely high, particularly at the very top of the income ladder. (See Figure 2.)
More broadly, the top 1 percent of families captured 58 percent of total real income growth per family from 2009 to 2014, with the bottom 99 percent of families reaping only 42 percent.
http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/u-s-income-inequality-persists-amid-overall-growth-2014/
(http://cdn.equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/26173725/Saez2_6262015.jpg)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 28, 2016, 02:36:28 PM
They are related. Everyone has both a personal balance sheet (your assets, monetary and otherwise, and your liabilities) and a personal income statement (your income and outgo). Say your balance sheet includes long-term liabilities such as a mortgage and/or student loan debt, and a portion of your income goes to paying off those loans. Your disposable income, quite likely including the amount you have left over for savings and investments or the percentage you contribute to retirement, necessarily suffers as a result.
Preaching to the choir. But, you know, income, income tax. Let's not make it too complicated for the students at the back of the class who believe the top 1% are paying more than their fair share.
Except, of course, for those in the top 1% who managed to post massive tax losses. Who should be congratulated for not paying anything at all, apparently at the SAME TIME as their cohort receives sympathy for paying too much.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 28, 2016, 02:44:58 PM
Who should be congratulated for not paying anything at all, apparently at the SAME TIME as their cohort receives sympathy for paying too much.
And at the same time those famous 47% earning poverty level wages are pilloried for not paying anything at all (which refers only to federal income tax, as if these people are not paying payroll taxes, sales tax, gas tax, etc.).
While we are on this topic, it's also true that those who are well off rarely see themselves as well off.
This is an Australian report and tool. There may well be an American equivalent out there somewhere***:
2015 edition http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/tool-that-compares-your-income-shows-most-australians-are-out-of-touch-20150512-ggznib.html##incomecalculator
2016 edition http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/income-distribution-australias-highest-earners-think-they-are-battlers-20160212-gmt62w.html
But I've seen similar things before. People regularly underestimate their own position in society. And I did it too - not to the point of delusionally thinking my income is average, but I still underestimated a little. I won't tell you the actual percentiles involved, but while I knew I was quite well off**, it turns out I'm even more well off than I believed. I'm not a one-per center, but I've got enough to keep a classical CD habit going...
**And have no gripe with the taxes that I pay.
EDIT: *** A google for "income percentiles US" appears to offer quite a few percentile calculators.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 01:45:14 PM
(income of over $400,000 not really that "rich", imo, since family businesses are counted as well)
If that's a household income of $400,000.... Yeah. Top 2% according to the CNN calculator. As an individual income it would be top 1%.
Let's forget about "in your opinion" and try some facts. That's pretty much the whole point of the debate I've generated in response. Facts. Actual data about income. Not opinions pulled out of thin air.
Re: Trump's tax morals. Perhaps it's legal to arrange your income in such a fashion so that you don't pay any income taxes and keep boasting you're making billions.
But in that case you demonstrate you're not a bona fide part of civic life. As He's done too by conducting a phoney charity organisation, using other people's money to pay off his law suits.
If that's the way you conduct yourself you shouldn't run for public office.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 28, 2016, 09:36:10 PM
If that's a household income of $400,000.... Yeah. Top 2% according to the CNN calculator. As an individual income it would be top 1%.
Let's forget about "in your opinion" and try some facts. That's pretty much the whole point of the debate I've generated in response. Facts. Actual data about income. Not opinions pulled out of thin air.
Depends on whether you're talking gross income or taxable income. Taxable income excludes business expenses (and other deductions). If a household has $400,000 in
taxable income then they are really that rich. $400,000 in gross income may or may not be rich.
Quote from: Pat B on October 28, 2016, 10:54:43 PM
Depends on whether you're talking gross income or taxable income. Taxable income excludes business expenses (and other deductions). If a household has $400,000 in taxable income then they are really that rich. $400,000 in gross income may or may not be rich.
I'll leave it to the sites that have calculators to tell you which kind of income they each ask you to enter.
EDIT: I note, however, that I've already referred to the Wikipedia article that mentions it's the system of tax that makes the US more inequitable than comparable countries, by allowing wealthy people lots of deductions.
To get onto the newly revived email topic...
I just read this from an Australian report on the subject:
Quote[Huma Abedin] said it was difficult to print from the State Department's email system so she routinely forwarded documents to her private accounts when she needed to print them out.
Seriously?!??!?! The leaders of the free world can't manage an email system
with a print function?!!??!Okay, the FBI can investigate Clinton as much as they want, but this has got to the point where I think the bigger investigation should be into why the hell a department of the United States Government in the 21st century couldn't muster the IT to make printing emails a simple task. That's appalling.
Perhaps they weren't allowed to print from it (ie printing was disabled)? I can imagine reasons for that.
Quote from: Pat B on October 28, 2016, 10:54:43 PM
Depends on whether you're talking gross income or taxable income. Taxable income excludes business expenses (and other deductions). If a household has $400,000 in taxable income then they are really that rich. $400,000 in gross income may or may not be rich.
$400,000 in gross income is rich. Period.
https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/02jesse-klein-relative-wealth16
I remember reading actor Alec Baldwin, with a net worth of about $70 million, saying that he didn't feel rich. So I can not feel rich either, I will gladly exchange my net worth for his.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 29, 2016, 03:17:04 AM
I remember reading actor Alec Baldwin, with a net worth of about $70 million, saying that he didn't feel rich. So I can not feel rich either, I will gladly exchange my net worth for his.
Billionaires don't feel richer than millionaires. Just shows how meaningless money is for happiness. From my point of view $70 million is a surrealistic amount of money. Even $7 million is. That's how much you can win on a Finnish Lottery. Last year I made about 25.000 euros (less than $30.000)
before taxes and even I belong to the richest 10 % in the world!
Alec Baldwin should feel filthy rich, because that's what he is. Normal people living in the rich western countries can barely reach 1 % of his net worth in their life.
Someone who feels no material want, not "feeling rich" is . . . well, you guys sort out the adjective.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 29, 2016, 08:07:09 AM
Someone who feels no material want, not "feeling rich" is . . . well, you guys sort out the adjective.
Whatever the adjective, the solution is surely pouring more money on them!
Quote from: North Star on October 29, 2016, 08:19:02 AM
Whatever the adjective, the solution is surely pouring more money on them!
Truly! It is not fair, that they don't
feel rich yet!
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2016, 04:16:53 AM
Alec Baldwin should feel filthy rich, because that's what he is. Normal people living in the rich western countries can barely reach 1 % of his net worth in their life.
I agree with this. My impression is, that in the US, a self-characterization as "rich" is generally and traditionally measured from a starting point that is higher than in Europe, though. Maybe just a prejudice, however, or based on outdated stereotypes.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 29, 2016, 03:17:04 AM
$400,000 in gross income is rich. Period.
Not for a small business owner with $350,000 in business expenses.
Comey was confronted with an unprecedented situation and two very bad decisions, and he chose short-term pain over the prospect of a long-term scandal. Nobody should envy him right now. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/29/james-comeys-inherently-horrible-decision/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fix-comey-1156am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 28, 2016, 09:42:46 AM
Like I've said before, I think Democrats will experience acute buyers remorse.
I think both parties will regret their nominations. I doubt Ds will regret not voting for Trump.
Trump supporters have discovered a foolproof way (http://iowapublicradio.org/post/des-moines-woman-says-she-voted-twice-trump-because-polls-are-rigged) to prove that some people are actually trying to commit retail vote fraud.
Quote from: Pat B on October 29, 2016, 10:43:09 AM
Trump supporters have discovered a foolproof way (http://iowapublicradio.org/post/des-moines-woman-says-she-voted-twice-trump-because-polls-are-rigged) to prove that some people are actually trying to commit retail vote fraud.
... ??? :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Pat B on October 29, 2016, 09:17:11 AM
Not for a small business owner with $350,000 in business expenses.
That's not HIS income, it is the business's income. If he has an ounce of intelligence, he should view it that way. His income, in this simplistic scenario, is $50,000 gross.
8)
Quote from: Pat B on October 29, 2016, 10:43:09 AM
Trump supporters have discovered a foolproof way (http://iowapublicradio.org/post/des-moines-woman-says-she-voted-twice-trump-because-polls-are-rigged) to prove that some people are actually trying to commit retail vote fraud.
Well, it's also a nice way of showing that such attempts fail.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 29, 2016, 12:12:18 PM
That's not HIS income, it is the business's income. If he has an ounce of intelligence, he should view it that way. His income, in this simplistic scenario, is $50,000 gross.
I am not a tax professional, but my understanding is that if the business is not incorporated (e.g. an LLC) then that distinction does not necessarily exist and would not necessarily be worthwhile. I know people who own LLCs and can ask whether they file separate returns.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-llcs-are-taxed-29675.html (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-llcs-are-taxed-29675.html)
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p334/ch08.html (https://www.irs.gov/publications/p334/ch08.html)
Quote from: Pat B on October 29, 2016, 01:22:47 PM
I am not a tax professional, but my understanding is that if the business is not incorporated (e.g. an LLC) then that distinction does not necessarily exist and would not necessarily be worthwhile. I know people who own LLCs and can ask whether they file separate returns.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-llcs-are-taxed-29675.html (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-llcs-are-taxed-29675.html)
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p334/ch08.html (https://www.irs.gov/publications/p334/ch08.html)
I am certainly not an American tax professional. The first of those links strongly suggests that the owners of the LLC have to report 50k of personal income, not 400k.
This is the vilest thing I can recall seeing in an American election since I was a child. I don't know if you will be able to watch it, it has been blocked in some places. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/video-beating-homeless-trump-supporter-now-blocked-can-viewed/
A homeless woman whose possessions fit in a small cart was physically attacked and then mocked as she lay on the sidewalk, for trying to protect Trump's star in the pavement from vandals. Some of her few belongings were destroyed. As she lay there, possibly hurt, not much moving, silent, she was taunted by the crowd, and all the taunts, every one, were about Trump. Trump who won't help her now, Trump this, Trump that, Trump the other. Those taunting her were all convinced they have the moral high ground. They were proud of what they were doing. She was just one of the deplorables.
Yuck.
Quote from: Ken B on October 29, 2016, 02:08:49 PM
This is the vilest thing I can recall seeing in an American election since I was a child. I don't know if you will be able to watch it, it has been blocked in some places. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/video-beating-homeless-trump-supporter-now-blocked-can-viewed/
A homeless woman whose possessions fit in a small cart was physically attacked and then mocked as she lay on the sidewalk, for trying to protect Trump's star in the pavement from vandals. Some of her few belongings were destroyed. As she lay there, possibly hurt, not much moving, silent, she was taunted by the crowd, and all the taunts, every one, were about Trump. Trump who won't help her now, Trump this, Trump that, Trump the other. Those taunting her were all convinced they have the moral high ground. They were proud of what they were doing. She was just one of the deplorables.
Other than Drudge, Gateway Pundit and RT, where is the coverage? Note that this incident is occurring next to a Telemundo news truck, and in addition to the guy making the video there are what look like news cameras and crew in the picture, a crowd of watchers that seem to be curious but unconcerned and the protagonists in the foreground playing the "Hillary supporters".
So, we'll see, won't we? News coverage would take an interest in these people. Who are they, why are they acting like this in front of several cameras?
Later: Breitbart and Infowars have picked it up. So far it's Putin and the alt right.
Quote from: Ken B on October 29, 2016, 02:08:49 PM
This is the vilest thing I can recall seeing in an American election since I was a child. I don't know if you will be able to watch it, it has been blocked in some places. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/video-beating-homeless-trump-supporter-now-blocked-can-viewed/
A homeless woman whose possessions fit in a small cart was physically attacked and then mocked as she lay on the sidewalk, for trying to protect Trump's star in the pavement from vandals. Some of her few belongings were destroyed. As she lay there, possibly hurt, not much moving, silent, she was taunted by the crowd, and all the taunts, every one, were about Trump. Trump who won't help her now, Trump this, Trump that, Trump the other. Those taunting her were all convinced they have the moral high ground. They were proud of what they were doing. She was just one of the deplorables.
Liberalism Is A Mental Illness
Hillary Campaign Rockkked by Re-Opened FBI Investigation
Hillary In Deep Hole Over Weiner
DNC Could Only Afford 2 Weeks of 24/7 Anti-Trump Coverage, Reneged On Bill, Media Furious
FBI Reopens Hillary Case
Michael Moore: "I hope Hillary DID kill Vince Foster. That would be badass!"
Bill Maher: "I don't care if they find Jon Benet ramsey in Hillary's closet, I'm not voting for Trump."
someone close to me: "I'm old. I don't care what she did. Yes, fine, so she's a criminal, I don't care."
"pay to play" = BRIBERY
"-ism" Is Mental Illness
"Liberalism" is one of those things that gets redefined a hundred different ways.
In Australia, the "Liberals" are the more right-wing of our two main political parties.
Quote from: snyprrr on October 29, 2016, 03:52:31 PM
Liberalism Is A Mental Illness
Does that make Trump now a liberal?
Quote from: ørfeo on October 29, 2016, 05:17:48 PM
"Liberalism" is one of those things that gets redefined a hundred different ways.
In Australia, the "Liberals" are the more right-wing of our two main political parties.
It's the same way in Japan, where the Liberal Democratic Party represent the status quo.
Quote from: Ken B on October 29, 2016, 02:08:49 PM
This is the vilest thing I can recall seeing in an American election since I was a child. I don't know if you will be able to watch it, it has been blocked in some places. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/video-beating-homeless-trump-supporter-now-blocked-can-viewed/
A homeless woman whose possessions fit in a small cart was physically attacked and then mocked as she lay on the sidewalk, for trying to protect Trump's star in the pavement from vandals. Some of her few belongings were destroyed. As she lay there, possibly hurt, not much moving, silent, she was taunted by the crowd, and all the taunts, every one, were about Trump. Trump who won't help her now, Trump this, Trump that, Trump the other. Those taunting her were all convinced they have the moral high ground. They were proud of what they were doing. She was just one of the deplorables.
It is a despicable attack, but violent attacks on the homeless are a regular occurace in the U.S, where contempt for the poor can be openly displayed. The fact that this ugly mob seems to have mocked the victim for being a Trump supporter does not make the Clinton campaign responsible for it. Neither is Trump responsible for violence committed by people who describe themselves as his supporters, except to the extent that he seems to encourage or condone it at his rallies.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 29, 2016, 01:44:38 PM
I am certainly not an American tax professional. The first of those links strongly suggests that the owners of the LLC have to report 50k of personal income, not 400k.
I looked at the relevant IRS forms (1040, which is the main form for U.S. federal income tax, and Schedule C, which is for business income and expenses) and you are correct. The terminology on 1040 is ambiguous, but Schedule C makes it very clear.
I'd take anything The Gateway Pundit writes with a truckload of salt. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit)
Quote from: Scarpia on October 29, 2016, 07:54:26 PM
It is a despicable attack, but violent attacks on the homeless are a regular occurace in the U.S, where contempt for the poor can be openly displayed. The fact that this ugly mob seems to have mocked the victim for being a Trump supporter does not make the Clinton campaign responsible for it. Neither is Trump responsible for violence committed by people who describe themselves as his supporters, except to the extent that he seems to encourage or condone it at his rallies.
I don't think
Ken was impugning the Clinton campaign or supporters.
If genuine, absolutely despicable.
Quote from: Rinaldo on October 30, 2016, 12:23:53 AM
I'd take anything The Gateway Pundit writes with a truckload of salt. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit)
If staged, absolutely despicable in other ways.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 29, 2016, 04:16:53 AM
Billionaires don't feel richer than millionaires. Just shows how meaningless money is for happiness.
Oh, you bet your bottom dollar they do feel richer. In the sense that a single digit millionaire is just a middle-class person with some money in the bank now; a double digit millionaire (like Baldwin or former protest singer Bob Dylan) is comfortable, nothing more.
The rise of the hedgefund billionaire and the mineral rich oligarchs has compeletely redrawn the map of plutocracy.
You can tell by the Trump circus. The really rich (such as Bloomberg in his brilliantly cool funny speech at the Dem Convention) are fully onto Trump's con. He's not really rich; he's just says he is one of them. But they wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. Still, he's worth at least close to 1 billion. And on the other hand you notice Trump is talking about 'a small loan' he got from his dad, when he's really talking about millions of dollars. This champion of the common man only starts noticing amounts when they're over ten million dollar.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 30, 2016, 03:32:12 AM
If genuine, absolutely despicable.
If staged, absolutely despicable in other ways.
This is why I stuck with "yuck".
Quote from: ørfeo on October 30, 2016, 03:53:22 AM
This is why I stuck with "yuck".
I admired the elegant understatement.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Herman on October 30, 2016, 03:42:24 AM
Oh, you bet your bottom dollar they do feel richer.
Well they know they are richer, but how much happier is a person who is 1000 times richer than you? Definitely not 1000 times or even 10 times. Maybe log
10 1000 = 3? Or maybe he is just as happy as you are? It's kind of crazy how all the money in the world wouldn't be enough for the billionaires.
ld
lol- my whole Post just vanished!! :laugh:
I'm sure you know I meant "bleeding heart liberal"... yes, I understand th
(wow, AGAIN!!!!)
I feel like I'm on a coke high just waiting for Obama to be implicated.
Quote from: snyprrr on October 30, 2016, 10:21:23 AM
I feel like I'm on a coke high just waiting for Obama to be implicated.
"Feel like"?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 30, 2016, 10:23:41 AM
"Feel like"?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Let me be perfectly clear- they should all most likely be hanging from the gallows in the public square for their High Crimes. Treasonous Pack ofRats- and go ahead and throw the GOP (Grabbers Of Pussy) leadership in there too...
THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE WATERED with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
WHAT? karl- you think I can afford an 8Ball???
Quote from: snyprrr on October 30, 2016, 10:20:08 AM
ld
lol- my whole Post just vanished!! :laugh:
I'm sure you know I meant "bleeding heart liberal"... yes, I understand th
(wow, AGAIN!!!!)
Which post, exactly? Seems your paranoia is getting the better of you. ... ;)
Q
As someone twittered, Best proof the Clintons never killed anyone is that Anthony Weiner is still alive. >:D
Oh, and some more evidence of the plight of 1% in the recent history:
Growth in Real After-Tax Income from 1979 to 2007, Congressional Budget Office (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42537)
(https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/new/Growth%20in%20Real%20After-Tax%20Income%20from%201979%20to%202007.png)
Quote from: snyprrr on October 30, 2016, 10:20:08 AM
lol- my whole Post just vanished!! :laugh:
Definitely a left-wing conspiracy.
Quote from: Herman on October 30, 2016, 12:35:14 PM
As someone twittered, Best proof the Clintons never killed anyone is that Anthony Weiner is still alive. >:D
That really did make me laugh out loud.
A President Clinton would be out of control (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/30/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-trump-president-glenn-reynolds/93006320/)
Downfall (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/hillary-clinotn-democrats-downfall/)
Hillary only has herself to blame for the mess she's in (http://nypost.com/2016/10/29/hillary-only-has-herself-to-blame-for-the-mess-shes-in/)
James Comey's decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886942/Resignation-letters-piling-disaffected-FBI-agents-wife-urging-admit-wrong-Director-Comey-jumped-chance-reopen-Hillary-investigation.html)
There's other reports about people being angry with Comey for taking this action.
So which anonymous inside source are we supposed to believe?
Anyway, it's completely unclear what is going on. We have emails that somehow might relate to Clinton despite apparently not being Clinton emails.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 30, 2016, 05:47:13 PM
There's other reports about people being angry with Comey for taking this action.
So which anonymous inside source are we supposed to believe?
Anyway, it's completely unclear what is going on. We have emails that somehow might relate to Clinton despite apparently not being Clinton emails.
It's a bunch of crap. How many times does the woman have to apologize for this error of judgement?
Anyway, November 8th will tell the tale. Everything up to that point is just a bunch of hot air and we wait...
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 30, 2016, 06:10:30 PM
It's a bunch of crap. How many times does the woman have to apologize for this error of judgement?
An apology is not what some people want. They want her downfall.
Quote from: ørfeo on October 30, 2016, 06:16:17 PM
An apology is not what some people want. They want her downfall.
Well, her downfall will be losing this election to one of the most corrupt, egomaniacal, big-mouthed charlatans of a presidential candidate as I've ever witnessed.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 30, 2016, 04:57:10 PM
James Comey's decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886942/Resignation-letters-piling-disaffected-FBI-agents-wife-urging-admit-wrong-Director-Comey-jumped-chance-reopen-Hillary-investigation.html)
[/size]
"I can resist no more" is a line from Puccini's Turandot (Liu in her death aria in Act III).
Frankly I'd expect more from the FBI chief. Do his "top deputies" stand taller than his 6'6" ?
Quote from: Herman on October 30, 2016, 12:35:14 PM
As someone twittered, Best proof the Clintons never killed anyone is that Anthony Weiner is still alive. >:D
good chance you're gonna eat that one Hermie ??? yikes!! (why even go there??lol)
Quote from: Que on October 30, 2016, 11:00:26 AM
Which post, exactly? Seems your paranoia is getting the better of you. ... ;)
Q
oh lordy Q
It was THAT Post- I simply, surely, accidentally did one of those ninja finger flubs that puts the cursor in some idiot place, or deletes, or whatever... and yes, then I added the rest for the lulz... I know, I'm so naughty (don't worry, the T@vist0ck program didn't glitch on you ;))
Hope all is well in Oz
btw- know anyone casting ashes in orchestra pits???? hmmm????? (you know, paranoia!! 0:))
Take two Finzi and call me in the morning ;)
Quote from: ørfeo on October 30, 2016, 05:47:13 PM
There's other reports about people being angry with Comey for taking this action.
So which anonymous inside source are we supposed to believe?
Anyway, it's completely unclear what is going on. We have emails that somehow might relate to Clinton despite apparently not being Clinton emails.
Duuude, nothing less the the Government of the USA is at war with itself: DOJ+WH vs FBI
EPIC!!
Seriously, and you people think some of 2016's greatest characters aren't going to end up dead in the next 18 months under laughable conditions (Weiner chokes whilst autofellating, and so on...)...
I Pity the Fool
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 30, 2016, 06:10:30 PM
How many times does the woman have to apologize for this error of judgement?
JOHN, she has likely committed cold blooded treason against this country by knowingly and willingly SOLD INFLUENCE to paying nations. JOHN, THAT'S CALLED BRIBERY.
BRIBERY.
She's a plain racketeer. Please look up the RICO- you've got some 'splainin' to do, Rooocy!!!
AND IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER IF IT WAS A MISTAKE: "sorry, officer, it was a mistake driving 100" ISN'T GOING TO WORK FOR HILLARY BECAUSE OF
INTENT
INTENT
INTENT
is NOT at work in the law here. SHE LIED LIED LIED under oath, on TV,... Huma... all of them...
Can you forget about your Orange Haired Nightmare for just one moment, and take a look at this thing as if Hillary were awash in a sea of Good Candidates. If you had your fav 5 running, or whatever.
How does she not look like shit when compared to a... a... a... (come on, someone help me out)... surely there's a nice boring politician WE CAN ALL point to?
(crickets)
OK, let's get back to that one.- BUT PLEEEZ JOHN- just because your favorite news source has just finally broken this story doesn't mean that it hasn't been going on for 18 months. Please don't act so shocked. Her being indicted has been a part of certain narratives from the beginning.- it's just that the MSM just WILL NOT report ANYTHING-
and now we know WHY- because these emails reveal the COLLUSION between Hill's team and practically the godheads of all modern journalism.
"Communists in the government. Oh, that's poppycock. There's just no way that could ever happen here."
Who are YOU?: are you the person who said
something like this, or the person who rolled their eyes when they heard it?
John, I do believe you're the kind of person who won't blindly follow this woman into perdition IF you are shown sure and ample proof of her crimes. Be patient, I believe you will see or hear something that will make your neck hairs stand and ears tingle.
And it's not the Trump N***** Video, lol.
Look, I'm going to have to get a good night's sleep if I'm going to get up bright and early and troll this Thread for eight hours, so, you guys cut me some slack now, y'hear?! ;)
I never claimed that Clinton was a perfect candidate and I'm well aware of her lies and deceitfulness, but compared to Donald Trump, she's an angel. 0:) The guy won't even release his tax returns, which is something every candidate has done for years. Politics is a dirty game, yes, and there's plenty of corruption to go around, but, at the end of the day, I'm not sure I want Trump to know the nuclear codes. I suppose if I had to choose the lesser of two evils: I'm with Clinton.
Quote from: snyprrr on October 30, 2016, 08:08:05 PM
Look, I'm going to have to get a good night's sleep
Yes, and high time, I think.
Quote from: Mirror Image on October 30, 2016, 06:10:30 PM
It's a bunch of crap. How many times does the woman have to apologize for this error of judgement?
Well, whaddyathink? She's still supposed to be guilty of Bill's bad stuff from the eighties, so I'm guessing their going to keep her clinically alive for yet another hundred years (at least) to investigate the email scandal.
Quote from: snyprrr on October 30, 2016, 10:21:23 AM
I feel like I'm on a coke high just waiting for Obama to be implicated.
Just remember if we get President Kaine in the next four years, you heard it from me first.
Then again, Obummer could declare Martial Law in the next two months...
But anyone experienced in politics, as Comey obviously is, would have known for dead certain that his intrusion would change the process in a way that cannot be undone. This is apparently what other officials in the FBI and Justice Department were telling Comey before he took this step. Two former deputy attorneys general—Jamie Gorelick, who served under Bill Clinton, and Larry Thompson, who served under George W. Bush—made that point in a new Washington Post essay that lambastes Comey for his self-indulgent decision .... (https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/trump-time-capsule-james-comey/505904/)
The George W. Bush White House 'Lost' 22 Million Emails (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html)
This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America's recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.
Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails.
Quote from: drogulus on October 31, 2016, 05:20:37 AM
The George W. Bush White House 'Lost' 22 Million Emails (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html)
Drain the swamp, they are all in collusion!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 31, 2016, 05:45:52 AM
Drain the swamp, they are all in collusion!
How true.....but not important to me. I want a well governed swamp. Bush and Clinton will be judged on what they accomplished in domestic and foreign policy during their terms in office. I favor HRC because she leads the Dems and will govern more or less like a Dem is expected to, with expansionary economic policy, and on the foreign policy side she is well positioned to steer the country based on both what Obama did right and what he did wrong.
Trump will bring his own swamp all by his horrible self. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Immigrants Are Keeping America Young — And The Economy Growing (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/immigrants-are-keeping-america-young-and-the-economy-growing/)
Don't Blame Comey (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/30/opinions/dont-blame-comey-for-this-mess-opinion-pate/index.html)
James Comey is not primarily responsible for the political mess caused by the recent discovery of more emails that may be relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. These newly uncovered emails were not written, sent or received by Comey. He didn't store them on his computer, and it wasn't his fault that they were not reviewed many months ago during the initial investigation. In fact, Comey never even knew these emails existed until now.
July: Comey has exonerated me! October: Comey is undermining our republic! (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441593/fbi-email-scandal-hillary-clintons-fault-not-james-comeys)
How rich of Hillary Clinton to complain now that FBI director James Comey is threatening the democratic process by commenting publicly about a criminal investigation on the eve of an election. Put aside that Comey did not say a single thing last week that implicates Clinton in a crime. The biggest coup for Clinton in the waning months of the campaign has been Comey's decision not to prosecute her — a decision outside the responsibilities of the FBI director and publicly announced in a manner that contradicts law-enforcement protocols. There has been nothing more irregular, nothing that put law enforcement more in the service of politics, than that announcement. Yet, far from condemning it, Mrs. Clinton has worn it like a badge of honor since July. Indeed, she has contorted it into a wholesale exoneration, which it most certainly was not.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 31, 2016, 05:45:52 AM
Drain the swamp, they are all in collusion!
And of course...
Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html)Over the course of decades, Donald Trump's companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders.
[skipping ahead in the article to a recent case]
Despite knowing back in 2001 that Trump might want to file a lawsuit, his companies had deleted emails and other records without checking if they might be evidence in his case. Beginning around 2003, the company wiped clear the data from everyone's computers every year. Lawyers for Trump Hotels had never sent out the usual communication issued during litigation instructing employees to stop destroying records that might be related to this case. The deletions continued, and backup tapes were reused—thus erasing the data they held. Power Plant lawyers also discovered that after the lawsuit was filed, Trump Hotels disposed of a key witness's computer without preserving the data on it.
In subsequent filings, Power Plant maintained that Trump Hotels had intentionally deceived the court in its March 2006 filing when it claimed it had located no emails relevant to the case because, at that point, it had not yet conducted any searches of its computer system. Trump Hotels executives did not instruct their IT department to examine backup computer tapes until 2007, and even then the job wasn't done, depositions show. And when computer specialists finally attempted to electronically locate any relevant documents that had survived the flurry of deletions, the procedures were absurdly inadequate. While looking for relevant documents, the technology team was told to use only two search terms—the name of the tribe and the last name of the former Trump associate. So even if there was an email that stated, "Donald Trump learned the full details of the Hard Rock casino deal in Florida in 1999," it would not have been found by this search.
With all this proof that Trump Hotels had ignored every court order and filed false documents, Power Plant asked the judge either to impose sanctions or allow its own expert to search for relevant digital records. Trump Hotels argued it had done nothing improper, although its lawyers acknowledged having made some mistakes. Still, Streitfeld ordered Trump Hotels to make its servers and computer systems available for inspection by a computer forensics consulting firm. That review showed there was no digital data in the computers, servers or backup tapes prior to January 2001—the very month Trump claimed to have learned of the Florida casino deal.
Pay and play - ka-ching!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3876506/Hillary-Clinton-headlined-fundraiser-campaign-group-gave-500-000-wife-FBI-boss-investigated-emails-s-closely-linked-bid-power.html
Hillary Clinton headlined a major fundraiser for a political action committee shortly before the group steered nearly $500,000 to the wife of the FBI official who oversaw the Clinton email investigation...
Clinton's ties to the Common Good VA - a Virginia state PAC run by Clinton's long-time friend and advisor Terry McAuliffe, its governor - came under scrutiny this week after the Wall Street Journal reported that the group donated heavily to the state senate campaign of Jill McCabe. Her husband Andrew McCabe led the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails.
Quote from: sanantonio on October 31, 2016, 07:16:50 AM
James Comey is not primarily responsible for the political mess caused by the recent discovery of more emails that may be relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. These newly uncovered emails were not written, sent or received by Comey. He didn't store them on his computer, and it wasn't his fault that they were not reviewed many months ago during the initial investigation. In fact, Comey never even knew these emails existed until now.
Hillary Clinton is not primarily responsible for the political mess caused by the recent discovery of more emails that may be relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. These newly uncovered emails were not written, sent or received by Clinton. She didn't store them on her computer, and it wasn't her fault that they were not reviewed many months ago during the initial investigation. In fact, Clinton never even knew these emails existed until now.Just to set the record straight... :)
8)
HRC is the top of the ticket, trying to support Dems, including those with FBI husbands. As a Clinton adviser I would tell her to help raise money for state level Dems everywhere. It's Trump who hates the party that nominated him, and who is hated by that party in turn.
Is McCabe also corrupt? Did he want HRC prosecuted? Are we entitled to know? Is the FBI required to have an opinion on what's done with the results of their investigation, or just entitled to have one?
Probably not, probably not, no, no, and yes......
I have followed all this election stuff, sitting up into the wee hours to watch the debates and face offs over the past few months. I always do with UK and US elections. Damned interesting. I knew Trump was an asshole after he came to Scotland looking to open a Golf Course, and his treatment of Aberdeenshire residents who were 'in the way' of said bloody golf course. However, I was also horrified to discover Hillary had got rid of all the emails I sent her...even Dukakas was eminently more electable than what you've now got to choose from. Good Luck America, whatever happens. And God have mercy on your souls after Novemebr 8, etc... ;)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 31, 2016, 08:09:08 AM
Hillary Clinton is not primarily responsible for the political mess caused by the recent discovery of more emails that may be relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. These newly uncovered emails were not written, sent or received by Clinton. She didn't store them on her computer, and it wasn't her fault that they were not reviewed many months ago during the initial investigation. In fact, Clinton never even knew these emails existed until now.
Just to set the record straight... :)
8)
You are assuming a lot. There is a good chance that Clinton did know of these emails since the laptop was used by both Weiner and Abeidin. Apparently there are thousands of emails sent to and from Abeidin, and possibly some sent to her by Hillary Clinton. The FBI was not told by anyone from Clinton's team about the existence of this laptop and accidently discovered the emails related to Clinton when examining the laptop in their investigation into Weiner's sexting to a minor.
Comey pledged to Congress to inform them of any new developments during his testimony in the aftermath of his decision not to indict her. He was caught between a rock and a hard place since had he not told them, he would have been accused of hiding them until after the election, and now that he did inform Congress in a timely manner he is being accused (unfairly, imo) of bad faith, or worse.
Why you would assume to know the contents of the emails is a mystery since the FBI just got a warrent to inspect the emails and only have right now a general idea of what is there.
::)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 31, 2016, 08:25:52 AM
Comey pledged to Congress to inform them of any new developments during his testimony in the aftermath of his decision not to indict her. He was caught between a rock and a hard place since had he not told them, he would have been accused of hiding them until after the election, and now that he did inform Congress in a timely manner he is being accused (unfairly, imo) of bad faith, or worse.
I agree with you in general - I think that his letter could have been much more clearly worded, but no matter what he wrote or did, a lot of the news media would be misrepresenting it, attacking it, confusing it, misunderstanding it, or thinking it means things it doesn't.
Quote from: Scots John on October 31, 2016, 08:22:33 AM
I have followed all this election stuff, sitting up into the wee hours to watch the debates and face offs over the past few months. I always do with UK and US elections. Damned interesting. I knew Trump was an asshole after he came to Scotland looking to open a Golf Course, and his treatment of Aberdeenshire residents who were 'in the way' of said bloody golf course. However, I was also horrified to discover Hillary had got rid of all the emails I sent her...even Dukakas was eminently more electable than what you've now got to choose from. Good Luck America, whatever happens. And God have mercy on your souls after Novemebr 8, etc... ;)
Hoy, there,
Johnny! Good to see you! And thank you for your prayers for mercy . . . .
. . . according to news reports, [Comey's] been smarting under brutal fire from Republicans since deciding not to recommend a prosecution back in July. Well, to that we say: Tough. It's not his job to try to silence outrage. It's certainly not his job to do a "make good" for one side by overcompensating in its direction when a new issue comes up. That's politics, not justice. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/31/comey-was-not-defending-the-justice-system/?utm_term=.dfaffdc25c65)
(Again: note that the author is a Conservative.)
... Trump's whining boiled down to: "McMullin is going from voter to voter listening to their problems!" Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence stupidly insisted that "nobody's heard of him." Well, Trump and Pence lashing out gave him more valuable free media to make his case.
McMullin seized the chance to blast Trump-Pence on Twitter: "Yes you've never heard of me because while you were harassing women at beauty pageants, I was fighting terrorists abroad." He went on to tell Trump that he's an "authoritarian, life-long liberal who disrespects life, liberty, & equality." He added, "We can't trust you on justices."
On Meet the Press on Sunday, McMullin used his time to boost his name recognition, give out his website and tell voters: "We're on the ballot . . . in 11 states. We're registered as a write-in in a number of others, bringing the total number of states that we have ballot access to 43."
He was candid that he's interested in helping lead a major shakeup on the right. "I'm not sure I want to remake the Republican Party. I think we need a new conservative movement in this country that rededicates itself to the cause of liberty and to equality, the, the truth that all men and women are created equal," he said. "That's what this country needs. That's the kind of leadership it needs. The Republican Party has drifted away both from the cause of individual liberty and equality. And so we need something new." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/31/evan-mcmullins-moment/?utm_term=.5ab797291dcd)
(Wonder if he's registered as a write-in in Massachusetts?...)
Quote from: Scots John on October 31, 2016, 08:22:33 AM
And God have mercy on your souls after Novemebr 8, etc... ;)
That is the most credible statement on this entire thread.
ALERT! Corrupt Hillary prayed for Weiner, Abedin!
Supreme Being inundates Scottish golf course with "hoax" sea level rise.
S. Being on Trump: "Not a fan"
Independent candidate Evan McMullin, who might win Utah, says that his mother is married to another woman.
Man, the entire system is rigged.
Where's my 6.5 Mannlicher–Carcano?
>:D
Quote from: Brian on October 31, 2016, 09:37:21 AM
Independent candidate Evan McMullin, who might win Utah, says that his mother is married to another woman.
This is like the real-life, non-comedic parallel to Isaac in
Manhattan, one of whose earlier wives "left me for another woman."
Only if she wins, but ...
Get ready for four more years of Clinton scandals (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/get-ready-for-four-more-years-of-clinton-scandals/2016/10/31/6cd1f3e2-9f6d-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?utm_term=.c038a4927b0b)
And not limited to just her emails, which of course will drag on -
the Wall Street Journal reported this weekend that, according to sources, the Obama Justice Department limited efforts by FBI agents to investigate whether the Clinton State Department gave special access and favors to Clinton Foundation donors. Congress will certainly investigate whether there was improper interference in those FBI efforts. And there will almost certainly be investigations into ABC News' recent revelations that State Department officials gave special treatment to Clinton Foundation donors after the Haiti quake, asking for them to be identified as "FOBs" (friends of Bill Clinton) or "WJC VIPs" (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) while sending others to a government website.
There will also be investigations into the Wall Street Journal's revelations that the political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (a Democrat who is a longtime "FOB"), and the state Democratic Party he controls, steered some $675,000 into the campaign of Virginia Senate candidate Jill McCabe, whose husband, Andrew, later helped oversee the Clinton email investigation as deputy director of the FBI. The Post reports that the FBI is also investigating whether McAuliffe, who was an unpaid director of the Clinton Foundation, violated a statute regarding U.S. citizens' lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.
It is a mighty big swamp to drain ...
Donald Trump is refusing to pay his campaign pollster three-quarters of a million dollars
Donald Trump's hiring of pollster Tony Fabrizio in May was viewed as a sign that the real estate mogul was finally bringing seasoned operatives into his insurgent operation.
But the Republican presidential nominee appears to have taken issue with some of the services provided by the veteran GOP strategist, who has advised candidates from 1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole to Florida Gov. Rick Scott. The Trump campaign's latest Federal Election Commission report shows that it is disputing nearly $767,000 that Fabrizio's firm says it is still owed for polling.
Trump campaign officials declined to provide details about the reason the campaign has declined to pay the sum to Fabrizio Lee, the pollster's Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based firm. "This is an administrative issue that we're resolving internally," said senior communications adviser Jason Miller. Fabrizio did not immediately respond to requests for comment.... (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/31/donald-trump-is-refusing-to-pay-his-campaign-pollster-nearly-three-quarters-of-a-million-dollars/)
Quote from: sanantonio on October 31, 2016, 09:42:53 AM
Only if she wins, but ...
Don't be glum: even if El Tupé wins, we can have criminal investigation of a president!
Two experts say Donald Trump should be investigated for criminal tax evasion (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/31/13474280/trump-foundation-criminal-charges)
Hacked emails suggest Trump was right after all: Clinton got previews of some debate questions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/31/hacked-emails-suggest-trump-was-right-after-all-clinton-got-previews-of-some-debate-questions/)
Quote from: Paul WaldmanWhile we may get another scandal later this week (and why not), it would be fitting if this was how the 2016 presidential election ended: with the media in an utter frenzy and Republicans carried aloft on a wave of joyous outrage over a story about Hillary Clinton that has literally zero substance to it, but consists only of speculation about hypothetical crimes that someone might have committed.
This is what happens when a party nominates Donald Trump to represent it. The Republican reaction to the James Comey mess highlights the moral and psychological compromises the GOP has made in order to justify its choice, and this will poison our politics for years to come.
Right now there are basically two kinds of Republicans, if we set aside that small number who have decided that they simply cannot support Trump. There are the enthusiastic Trump supporters, and then there are the reluctant ones, who find him repellent but nonetheless prefer him to the alternative. Both these groups have convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton is not merely wrong on the issues or even unethical, but positively evil, a figure of such transcendent malevolence that American politics has never seen anything like her before.
Consider this poll out today from Politico and Morning Consult, which asked whether respondents agreed with Donald Trump's assertion that, as the poll read, "the issues around Clinton's emails are worse than Watergate." Eighty-two percent of Republicans said they agreed. Eighty-two percent.
So that's become an almost universal belief among Republicans: Clinton's use of a private server for her emails is worse than the worst political scandal in American history, in which an entire panoply of crimes was committed by dozens of people, including break-ins and money-laundering and document-forging and obstruction of justice, in which those who went to prison included the attorney general, the White House chief of staff, and the president's chief domestic policy adviser, in which the president of the United States resigned after his own party informed him he was about to be impeached and would surely be convicted. The email story is worse than that.
This is not merely wrong or ahistorical. It's lunacy. It's like saying, "This paper cut I got on my finger? Worse than pancreatic cancer."
I'm ready for Clinton scandals. What impact will they have on government is something else. I haven't a clue. It could be bad, but I don't see how Repubs will behave much differently impeachment-wise. They need to have something to fill the void from not governing and they have plenty to choose from even if nothing else pops up.
Good Sense Dept: Hillary can count on Congressional Repubs to make a hideous mess out of any opportunity they are handed. Any legitimate complaints against Hillary will continue to be buried in a mountain of Breitbartian sludge. The voters Repubs court and fear will demand no less.
The idiocy that the campaigns have been sent into Chaos because that reptile Weiner's computer had some emails from a Clinton aide that might contain some emails from Clinton that might not have already been collected. They couldn't actually look at the emails before making announcements? Lord, this feels like the end of days.
Leading senator claims the FBI has hidden proof of the Trump campaign coordinating with the Russian government:
http://www.unian.info/world/1599667-senator-claims-coordination-between-donald-trump-russia.html
ARE YOU SAYING 'E-MAIL' TO THAT OLD WOMAN?
Um.... yes.
OH, WHAT SAD TIMES ARE THESE WHEN PASSING AGENTS CAN SAY 'E-MAIL' AT WILL TO OLD LADIES.
THERE IS A PESTILENCE UPON THIS LAND... NOTHING IS SACRED.
'What Trump represents isn't crazy and it's not going away.' Peter Thiel defends support for Donald Trump. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/10/31/what-trump-represents-isnt-crazy-and-its-not-going-away-peter-thiel-defends-support-for-donald-trump/)
Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel reiterated his support for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump Monday morning, telling a room of journalists that a Washington outsider in the White House would recalibrate lawmakers who have lost touch with the struggles of most Americans.
Thiel said it was "both insane and somehow inevitable" that political leaders would expect this presidential election to be a contest between "political dynasties" that have shepherded the country into two major financial crises: the tech bubble burst in the early 2000s, and the housing crisis and economic recession later that decade.
The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov. 8, he said.
Absolutely. A narcissistic pseudo-billionaire, obsessed with the young ladies, would definitely restore DC feeling 'for the struggles of most Americans'.
As frigging if
Quote from: sanantonio on October 31, 2016, 08:25:52 AM
You are assuming a lot. There is a good chance that Clinton did know of these emails since the laptop was used by both Weiner and Abeidin.
That is also assuming a lot.
They're only allegations against El Tupé (presumption of innocence!), but Lock Her Up!
(* munches popcorn *)
I've been following 538's election coverage as per usual, and man, it increasingly seems like they're almost as sick of this election year as I am.
Kind of hard to blame them. Pretty sure the Republican Party could have literally chosen Adolf Hitler as their nominee and the race would still be within a few percentage points. All the year's revealed is the extent to which American society is still driven by misogyny, classism, racism and xenophobia, and how those things are probably never going to change no matter how many likely outsiders challenge party elites for leadership.
I guess I'm glad Clinton's probably going to win because at least she'll keep the status quo instead of actively making things worse, but as 2016 has shown, the status quo is already pretty shit, honestly.
Quote from: amw on November 01, 2016, 05:04:34 AM
All the year's revealed is the extent to which American society is still driven by misogyny, classism, racism and xenophobia, and how those things are probably never going to change no matter how many likely outsiders challenge party elites for leadership.
The economic situation has made the divide between Red and Blue America worse. While the Blues may face the headwinds of slow growth with optimism about future improvements, the Reds see more pain. When policy makers set growth this low it's going to be uneven, not as bad as Greece/Germany because we have a fiscal union, but bad enough to enable populist extremism in the hardest hit areas.
Quote from: amw on November 01, 2016, 05:04:34 AM
. . . Pretty sure the Republican Party could have literally chosen Adolf Hitler as their nominee and the race would still be within a few percentage points.
Yes, although my preferred counterexample has been Gaddafi.
Tracking Polls: ABC/WP: Trump +1 | LA Times: Trump +4 | IBD/TIPP: Clinton +1
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 07:07:54 AM
Tracking Polls: ABC/WP: Trump +1 | LA Times: Trump +4 | IBD/TIPP: Clinton +1
Did that LA Times poll include the teen black Trump voter (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html)?
Quote from: Brian on November 01, 2016, 07:35:18 AM
Did that LA Times poll include the teen black Trump voter (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html)?
I don't know why, but the LA Times poll has consistently had Trump higher than others. But now other polls are showing him up.
Takeaway: polls are tightening, with momentum shifting to Trump.
Post-ABC Tracking Poll: Trump 46, Clinton 45, as Democratic enthusiasm dips (Washington Post) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/post-abc-tracking-poll-clinton-falls-behind-trump-in-enthusiasm-but-has-edge-in-early-voting/)
Turn out is crucial, and if Clinton's disclosures about unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders during primary (the Donna Brazile story), as well as Wikileaks about TPP, Wall Street and other issues that compromise her credibility with the leftwing of the Democratic party, her turnout numbers will suffer. Good news for Trump.
Trump Closes on Clinton as Election Day Nears (http://www.wsj.com/video/trump-closes-on-clinton-as-election-day-nears/07ADCC48-7175-45E8-AA89-733187B84B8C.html)
Donald Trump is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton after new revelations about the FBI's investigation of the Democratic candidate's private email server have come to light. WSJ's Gerald F. Seib discusses the new dynamic and if Trump has a chance on Nov. 8.
More good news for Trump.
Those who deny the rough accuracy of either of these pictures — and there are plenty of Americans who would — are partisans. They not only hold a set of political opinions, they also are determined to live in their own version of reality, from which inconvenient facts are banished by edict. They have already made up their minds, perhaps already voted.
But how about the rest of us? It does not help to point out that there has been a massive failure of the presidential nomination process in both parties; one candidate stale and tainted, the other vapid and vile. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-election-a-vote-for-bad-could-defeat-dreadful/2016/10/31/98bfef86-9f90-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2908e53dcf8e)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 08:03:01 AM
Post-ABC Tracking Poll: Trump 46, Clinton 45, as Democratic enthusiasm dips (Washington Post) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/post-abc-tracking-poll-clinton-falls-behind-trump-in-enthusiasm-but-has-edge-in-early-voting/)
Turn out is crucial, and if Clinton's disclosures about unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders during primary (the Donna Brazile story), as well as Wikileaks about TPP, Wall Street and other issues that compromise her credibility with the leftwing of the Democratic party, her turnout numbers will suffer. Good news for Trump.
Trump Closes on Clinton as Election Day Nears (http://www.wsj.com/video/trump-closes-on-clinton-as-election-day-nears/07ADCC48-7175-45E8-AA89-733187B84B8C.html)
Donald Trump is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton after new revelations about the FBI's investigation of the Democratic candidate's private email server have come to light. WSJ's Gerald F. Seib discusses the new dynamic and if Trump has a chance on Nov. 8.
More good news for Trump.
Yes, although, the electoral college challenge remains fairly robustly bad news for El Tupé.
Meanwhile, a CBS poll taken after the news came out found that in 13 battleground states, 71 percent of respondents either say the news won't change their vote or that they've already voted. And CBS also found: "Most of those who say they're less likely to vote for Clinton are Republicans, who are not supporting her anyway." This finding also came up in Post/ABC tracking released yesterday: Only one-third of voters say the news will impact their vote, but the vast majority of those are Republicans and GOP-leaning independents. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/31/despite-emails-republicans-still-think-trump-will-lose-heres-why/?utm_term=.3807427ce11e)(Greg Sargent is a frankly leftist blogger, so factor that in, as you wish.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 01, 2016, 08:17:20 AM
Those who deny the rough accuracy of either of these pictures — and there are plenty of Americans who would — are partisans. They not only hold a set of political opinions, they also are determined to live in their own version of reality, from which inconvenient facts are banished by edict. They have already made up their minds, perhaps already voted.
But how about the rest of us? It does not help to point out that there has been a massive failure of the presidential nomination process in both parties; one candidate stale and tainted, the other vapid and vile. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-election-a-vote-for-bad-could-defeat-dreadful/2016/10/31/98bfef86-9f90-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2908e53dcf8e)
Agree with this 100%.
I guess we need another debate, to break the approaching tie.
Not that a Clinton victory requires it, but El Tupé is due for his next periodic meltdown tomorrow or Thursday.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 01, 2016, 08:38:55 AM
Not that a Clinton victory requires it, but El Tupé is due for his next periodic meltdown tomorrow or Thursday.
except Kellyanne is holding a pillow over his face to keep him quiet - I mean, "on message".
Ivanka is there, too. "Dad, you shut the f*ck up, or else..."
In Canada, blue is the color of the conservatives and red is that of the liberals. Both parties are generally centre-oriented, sometimes to the point of being labeled "extreme-centrists". The 10-year long Harper governement was an exception (definitely leaning to the right). A lot of its heritage has been debunked or repealed in the first 12 months of the Liberal government. The centrist Liberals currently enjoy a 64% approval rating. In the end, the right is always on the losing end of History.
Forget conspiracy theories. This is why Trump's Russian connection is actually a problem.
[...]
There used to be some doubt as to whether Russia was behind the hacking of various people and organizations close to Hillary Clinton and the dump of their private emails to WikiLeaks.
No longer. The evidence that Russia is behind the two most significant hacks, of the Democratic National Committee and top Clinton aide John Podesta, is beyond any reasonable doubt.
The hacker who claims to be behind the DNC hack, Guccifer 2.0, is quite clearly a Russian cutout. His name is a reference to Marcel Lazăr Lehel — a now-jailed Romanian hacker who famously claimed to have hacked Hillary Clinton's private email server. Lehel's nom de plume was, you guessed it, Guccifer.
So what's the evidence he's a Russian cutout? For one thing, Guccifer 2.0 doesn't actually appear to speak Romanian. Vice's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai interviewed him, mostly in English but with a few Romanian questions peppered in. Guccifer tried to dodge chatting in his allegedly native language, and, per Franceschi-Bicchierai, "the few short sentences he sent in Romanian were filled with mistakes."
For another, three cybersecurity firms investigated the hack and found direct evidence that two Russian-linked hacking groups, Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, did the DNC hack.
Perhaps most compellingly, they found that the malware infecting the DNC used an IP address that had previously been used in a hack targeting the German parliament. The German hack was — you guessed it — linked to Russian intelligence. It's very unlikely that some other hacking group would use such similar code.
"The forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations is very strong," Thomas Rid, a professor at King's College who studies cybersecurity, wrote at Vice. "The forensic evidence that links network breaches to known groups is solid: used and reused tools, methods, infrastructure, even unique encryption keys."
There's similarly strong evidence linking Russian operatives to the Podesta hack.
The attack that got Podesta is something called "phishing." In a phishing campaign, hackers send emails that are dressed up to look like something from a trustworthy source — in Podesta's case, Gmail security. The emails tell the recipient to click on a link or attachment, which seems authentic but actually contains some nasty code that gives the hacker access to the target's email account. Podesta fell for the phishing scam, hook, line, and sinker (if you'll pardon the pun).
Generally, these attacks are highly effective, because they rely on human gullibility: our willingness to trust things that basically look legit. They're also hard to trace, because there's usually nothing in the email to give away the source.
But the Russian hackers messed up. The link they got Podesta to click on used an account from a public link-shortening service, Bitly, which the cybersecurity firm SecureWorks had been tracking. That Bitly account, according to SecureWorks, belonged to Fancy Bear.
The hackers' laziness, or lack of caution, exposed their operation, negating one of the core advantages of a phishing attack.
"Unless you screw up and make your phishing campaign linkable like this group apparently did, it is very hard to attribute to any given actor," Nicholas Weaver, a senior researcher at UC Berkeley's International Computer Science Institute, wrote to me via email in October.
In short: Russian operatives were sloppy enough to link themselves to two different hacks of Democrats. The idea that they're not interfering in the US election is, at this point, just not credible. (http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/1/13487322/donald-trump-russia-agent-hack)
Most interesting information in that blurp is that John Podesta was gullible enough to be the victim if a phishing scam. This is who is Clinton's lead adviser?
More good news for Trump.
;)
http://www.youtube.com/v/Oy8HRdlLGCQ
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 01, 2016, 09:48:52 AM
Forget conspiracy theories. This is why Trump's Russian connection is actually a problem.
[...]
There used to be some doubt as to whether Russia was behind the hacking of various people and organizations close to Hillary Clinton and the dump of their private emails to WikiLeaks.
No longer. The evidence that Russia is behind the two most significant hacks, of the Democratic National Committee and top Clinton aide John Podesta, is beyond any reasonable doubt.
The hacker who claims to be behind the DNC hack, Guccifer 2.0, is quite clearly a Russian cutout. His name is a reference to Marcel Lazăr Lehel — a now-jailed Romanian hacker who famously claimed to have hacked Hillary Clinton's private email server. Lehel's nom de plume was, you guessed it, Guccifer.
So what's the evidence he's a Russian cutout? For one thing, Guccifer 2.0 doesn't actually appear to speak Romanian. Vice's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai interviewed him, mostly in English but with a few Romanian questions peppered in. Guccifer tried to dodge chatting in his allegedly native language, and, per Franceschi-Bicchierai, "the few short sentences he sent in Romanian were filled with mistakes."
For another, three cybersecurity firms investigated the hack and found direct evidence that two Russian-linked hacking groups, Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, did the DNC hack.
Perhaps most compellingly, they found that the malware infecting the DNC used an IP address that had previously been used in a hack targeting the German parliament. The German hack was — you guessed it — linked to Russian intelligence. It's very unlikely that some other hacking group would use such similar code.
"The forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations is very strong," Thomas Rid, a professor at King's College who studies cybersecurity, wrote at Vice. "The forensic evidence that links network breaches to known groups is solid: used and reused tools, methods, infrastructure, even unique encryption keys."
There's similarly strong evidence linking Russian operatives to the Podesta hack.
The attack that got Podesta is something called "phishing." In a phishing campaign, hackers send emails that are dressed up to look like something from a trustworthy source — in Podesta's case, Gmail security. The emails tell the recipient to click on a link or attachment, which seems authentic but actually contains some nasty code that gives the hacker access to the target's email account. Podesta fell for the phishing scam, hook, line, and sinker (if you'll pardon the pun).
Generally, these attacks are highly effective, because they rely on human gullibility: our willingness to trust things that basically look legit. They're also hard to trace, because there's usually nothing in the email to give away the source.
But the Russian hackers messed up. The link they got Podesta to click on used an account from a public link-shortening service, Bitly, which the cybersecurity firm SecureWorks had been tracking. That Bitly account, according to SecureWorks, belonged to Fancy Bear.
The hackers' laziness, or lack of caution, exposed their operation, negating one of the core advantages of a phishing attack.
"Unless you screw up and make your phishing campaign linkable like this group apparently did, it is very hard to attribute to any given actor," Nicholas Weaver, a senior researcher at UC Berkeley's International Computer Science Institute, wrote to me via email in October.
In short: Russian operatives were sloppy enough to link themselves to two different hacks of Democrats. The idea that they're not interfering in the US election is, at this point, just not credible. (http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/1/13487322/donald-trump-russia-agent-hack)
The above presumes the Russian "mistakes" are not red herrings purposefy placed to direct suspicion at Russia and away from the true miscreant.
Of course, then one would need to suggest who the true miscreant is, and at this point, I can't think of any.
BTW, I did my early voting last Friday. As I like to say, I voted for the actual Republican in the race, Gov. Johnson. (In Florida, a write in for McMullin is effectively a vote thrown away, since he's not registered for the ballot here.)
The Russians can't hide their activities, partly because they need to use the cutouts they have, not ideal ones that don't exist. The good news for them is they don't need to deflect suspicions from Trumpists, who are too addled by their hatreds to properly see the larger context.
The question should be who would point the finger at Russia, and do it so effectively, with the evidence so unambiguous, that no credible alternative has been proposed. There are too many zombie Repubs who remember what it was like to be human, and they can't make themselves into witting Russian agents.......yet. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 01, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
BTW, I did my early voting last Friday. As I like to say, I voted for the actual Republican in the race, Gov. Johnson. (In Florida, a write in for McMullin is effectively a vote thrown away, since he's not registered for the ballot here.)
I applaud you, sir.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 01, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
BTW, I did my early voting last Friday. As I like to say, I voted for the actual Republican in the race, Gov. Johnson. (In Florida, a write in for McMullin is effectively a vote thrown away, since he's not registered for the ballot here.)
Gary Johnson seemed ignorant of foreign policy issues ("Aleppo? What exactly do you mean?"). I am hoping Bernie's lefties will do as you do and vote for Jill Stein, or stay home.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 11:33:08 AM
Gary Johnson seemed ignorant of foreign policy issues ("Aleppo? What exactly do you mean?").
Still compares favorably to El Tupé, in the view of some friends of mine who are voting Johnson/Weld.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 01, 2016, 11:37:09 AM
Still compares favorably to El Tupé, in the view of some friends of mine who are voting Johnson/Weld.
Of course people are free to vote for the candidate of their choice. However, the next president will be either Clinton or Trump.
I just read this in the Snopes book I have been reading and it is relevant, imo, to this thread - and something I also believe.
"They'll always be wrong. They think they are fighting Clarence Snopes. They're not. They're not faced with an individual nor even a situation: they are beating their brains out against one of the foundation rocks of our national character itself. Which is the premise that politics and political office are not and never have been the method and means by which we can govern ourselves in peace and dignity and honor and security, but instead are our national refuge for our incompetents who have failed at every other occupation"
William Faulkner, The Mansion
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 11:44:24 AM
Of course people are free to vote for the candidate of their choice. However, the next president will be either Clinton or Trump.
Yes.
Apropos of this question:
New poll numbers from Gallup highlight what I think remains the central question for [El Tupé] with just one week to go until Election Day. And that's this: Will enough voters who don't think he's got what it takes to be a good president decide they would still like to make him president? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/the-brutal-poll-number-that-shows-why-its-still-so-hard-to-see-donald-trump-winning/)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 11:57:37 AM
I just read this in the Snopes book I have been reading and it is relevant, imo, to this thread - and something I also believe.
"They'll always be wrong. They think they are fighting Clarence Snopes. They're not. They're not faced with an individual nor even a situation: they are beating their brains out against one of the foundation rocks of our national character itself. Which is the premise that politics and political office are not and never have been the method and means by which we can govern ourselves in peace and dignity and honor and security, but instead are our national refuge for our incompetents who have failed at every other occupation"
William Faulkner, The Mansion
We're talking some 60 years ago here. Are you saying nothing has changed in US politics since those days ?
Quote from: André on November 01, 2016, 12:22:55 PM
We're talking some 60 years ago here. Are you saying nothing has changed in US politics since those days ?
No, things have changed, it has gotten much worse. The politicians have gotten more venal, more corrupt and more shamelessly unethical since and are no longer merely harmless incompetents. Don't fool yourself that it is any different in other countries.
True. Your description of Trump is right on the money.
Quote from: André on November 01, 2016, 12:32:24 PM
True. Your description of Trump is right on the money.
Trump more closely resembles Faulkner's description of a harmless incompetent, which I prefer to the danger of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 11:33:08 AM
Gary Johnson seemed ignorant of foreign policy issues ("Aleppo? What exactly do you mean?"). I am hoping Bernie's lefties will do as you do and vote for Jill Stein, or stay home.
And Trump claimed that Russia would not invade Ukraine, which in fact has already happened. Nobody even remembers that statement, long since buried under a flood of other Trumpiness.
If "what is Aleppo?" had been asked by Trump, it wouldn't even make the top 10 most ridiculous things he said in this campaign.
The Repubs insist that their representatives do no useful work, so they rise or fall on the voters tolerance for their "investigative" substitutes. The party that offers economic, scientific and educational progress will have an advantage, one might even say an ethical advantage, but my beef is with the ordinary American slobs who think a leader must follow them, cater to their ignorance, appeal to their fears and tell them it's OK to hate America and everyone who is happier than they are.
It's been said here, even by me, that the Red zone citizens are facing hopeless odds, and some understanding is called for, but for the life of me I can't see how leveling down to their misery makes America strong. The Blues will be resented, but we can't stop evolving into whatever we'll become because part of the country can't keep up. We'll help with money, and escape for the talented and ambitious, and that's all we can do.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 01, 2016, 11:37:09 AM
Still compares favorably to El Tupé, in the view of some friends of mine who are voting Johnson/Weld.
Exactly. Johnson has a pair of virtues: he knows he doesn't know, and he restrains himself accordingly.
Take it from people who know Trump from way back, the New York Daily News.
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14938174_10153847519426604_1296376832559596310_n.jpg?oh=44e3ccbccc5fe06a8fa30bdf2697fbb6&oe=5898F55B)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 03:23:21 PM
Trump more closely resembles Faulkner's description of a harmless incompetent [...]
We disagree on this, but El Tupé is no Uncle Billy in
It's a Wonderful Life 8)
But, his White House would never want for . . . "entertainment":
Latest from the Trump conspiracy factory: Bill Clinton's black son (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/latest-from-the-trump-conspiracy-factory-bill-clintons-black-son/2016/11/01/d05e321e-a070-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d316ca9112ae)
Quote from: Scarpia on November 01, 2016, 08:04:25 PM
Take it from people who know Trump from way back, the New York Daily News.
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14938174_10153847519426604_1296376832559596310_n.jpg?oh=44e3ccbccc5fe06a8fa30bdf2697fbb6&oe=5898F55B)
Sorry, I think for myself. We live in an age where critical thinking is an endangered species.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 01, 2016, 08:00:36 PM
Exactly. Johnson has a pair of virtues: he knows he doesn't know, and he restrains himself accordingly.
Sure. Libertarians for Clinton.
Libertarian vice presidential nominee Bill Weld admitted Tuesday night that his ticket's shot of winning the White House went out the window when it failed to qualify for the presidential debates, and as such, he went on TV in a new role: surrogate for Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Weld, running alongside former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket, said the former secretary of state is "a person of high moral character, a reliable person. And an honest person
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bill-weld-vouching-for-clinton-230622#ixzz4OqsPhTkg
That last bit is especially rich.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 03:59:10 AM
Sure. Libertarians for Clinton.
Libertarian vice presidential nominee Bill Weld admitted Tuesday night that his ticket's shot of winning the White House went out the window when it failed to qualify for the presidential debates, and as such, he went on TV in a new role: surrogate for Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Weld, running alongside former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket, said the former secretary of state is "a person of high moral character, a reliable person. And an honest person
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bill-weld-vouching-for-clinton-230622#ixzz4OqsPhTkg
That last bit is especially rich.
;)
And you entirely discount the possibility that he
does know her well and does know admire her character? Every liable about Clinton is taken as gospel truth and any praise is discounted. That's the pattern.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2016, 04:19:46 AM
And you entirely discount the possibility that he does know her well and does know admire her character? Every liable about Clinton is taken as gospel truth and any praise is discounted. That's the pattern.
LOL
I am old enough to remember the 1990s when they were first in the White House, my family is also from North Louisiana and my sister moved to Little Rock in the 1960s, lived in Arkansas for over 40 years, was a prosecutor in his Arkansas AG's office, and knows first hand about their record of lying, and worse. Honest is the last thing either one of them is.
Those who are not so ambitious to as to attempt parlay a connection to the Clintons into personal enrichment or political advancement (that is until their loyalty is rewarded by being asked to fall on their sword, as Huma Abedin is experiencing) know who and what they are and want nothing to do with them.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 03:54:44 AM
Sorry, I think for myself.
In recent days, your contributions to this thread have consisted almost entirely of links and headings. Other people's words.
You are by no means the only person to be doing this. But you're the one claiming right now to think for yourself.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 04:56:49 AM
LOL
I am old enough to remember the 1990s when they were first in the White House, my family is also from North Louisiana and my sister moved to Little Rock in the 1960s, lived in Arkansas for over 40 years, was a prosecutor in his Arkansas AG's office, and knows first hand about their record of lying, and worse. Honest is the last thing either one of them is.
Those who are not so ambitious to as to attempt parlay a connection to the Clintons into personal enrichment or political advancement (that is until their loyalty is rewarded by being asked to fall on their sword, as Huma Abedin is experiencing) know who and what they are and want nothing to do with them.
Well, thinking for myself, I do not find Clinton's dishonesty any match for El "bigly" Tupé.
And since Weiner is clearly Abedin's cross to bear, how interesting of you to spin that as Clinton asking that she "fall on her sword."
Imagining that El Tupé is harmlessly incompetent, well, I give you credit for thinking for yourself on that one. But you forgive me for not thinking much of the quality of thought, there.
Hillary Clinton Becomes the Unsafe Hand (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-becomes-the-unsafe-hand-1478042102)
It's hard to generalize about Hillary Clinton's email situation except that she tried to afford herself an extraordinary privilege as a high-ranking official, and then caused for herself exactly the problems (and worse) that she presumably was trying to avoid.
It's the White House Travel Office, the Rose Law Firm billing records, the Seth Ward option (don't ask), the health-care task force, etc., all over again.
Mrs. Clinton is a screw-up. And when a trait takes such trouble to announce itself, note must be taken.
If Dems Will Rig a Debate for Clinton, What Won't They Do? (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/303748-after-dnc-clinton-campaign-collusion-is-it-any)
No matter what the election outcome next week, the media will be big losers. This campaign season has seen much of the media rip off their veneer of objectivity, too often acting instead as an unofficial campaign arm working to elect Hillary Clinton.
The latest revelation — that the town hall moderator overseeing a Democratic primary debate gave CNN contributor Donna Brazile a peak at expected questions, and Brazile then fed Hillary Clinton's campaign staff a question expected to come up in the primary debate against Bernie Sanders — confirms the too cozy relationships between the politicians and the so-called journalists and officials who are supposed to be helping Americans get unbiased information about candidates.
Bernie Sanders supporters should be outraged: We've seen time and again how the DNC was never going to allow their guy a fair shot at the nomination.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 05:04:51 AM
Hillary Clinton Becomes the Unsafe Hand (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-becomes-the-unsafe-hand-1478042102)
It's hard to generalize about Hillary Clinton's email situation except that she tried to afford herself an extraordinary privilege as a high-ranking official, and then caused for herself exactly the problems (and worse) that she presumably was trying to avoid.
It's the White House Travel Office, the Rose Law Firm billing records, the Seth Ward option (don't ask), the health-care task force, etc., all over again.
Mrs. Clinton is a screw-up. And when a trait takes such trouble to announce itself, note must be taken.
If Dems Will Rig a Debate for Clinton, What Won't They Do? (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/303748-after-dnc-clinton-campaign-collusion-is-it-any)
No matter what the election outcome next week, the media will be big losers. This campaign season has seen much of the media rip off their veneer of objectivity, too often acting instead as an unofficial campaign arm working to elect Hillary Clinton.
The latest revelation — that the town hall moderator overseeing a Democratic primary debate gave CNN contributor Donna Brazile a peak at expected questions, and Brazile then fed Hillary Clinton's campaign staff a question expected to come up in the primary debate against Bernie Sanders — confirms the too cozy relationships between the politicians and the so-called journalists and officials who are supposed to be helping Americans get unbiased information about candidates.
Bernie Sanders supporters should be outraged: We've seen time and again how the DNC was never going to allow their guy a fair shot at the nomination.
More thinking for yourself.
And, on the lighter side (I have no independent opinion on the question . . . I mean, I probably prefer the traditional geographically-correct map, but is that independent thought, or custom? My thinking is that this was a rhetorical question.):
This "bad" election map? It's not so bad. (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11828628/election-maps-hard)
http://www.youtube.com/v/7I4Fkiu2nak
Republicans and Russian hackers have made Hillary Clinton the most transparent candidate in history (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13496614/clinton-transparent-trump)
There's an irony to Clinton's relationship with the press, Aftergood observes. "She tries to keep things secret, and that leads to their ultimate disclosure. People make accusations against her, and the effort to refute them leads to more disclosure." The result is someone who seems secretive — who perhaps is secretive — but who has ended up divulging more information about her personal life, her political operation, her policy process, her daily schedule, and her financial dealings than any candidate in memory. Yet we react less to the information we get than to her reluctance to release it and her demeanor when she does — we prize the performance of openness more than the openness itself.
We are in the odd place of knowing more about Clinton than we can process but somehow feeling like we know nothing at all. We simultaneously have vast gaps in our knowledge of Trump even as we wonder why he can't hold anything back. It's a strange election.
The Six-Foot Portrait of Himself Trump Bought With Charity Money, Revealed
The fabled portrait of Donald Trump that he reportedly used $20,000 in charity money to buy was finally revealed Tuesday.
And it's very orange.
Don't Let the FBI Decide the Election
There are several reasons why law enforcement agencies should not make sensitive political disclosures in close proximity to an election. The first is that investigations are not convictions, and such revelations necessarily create a presumption of guilt around the target of the disclosures. Another is that the FBI is given immense power to scrutinize the lives of American citizens, but that power is meant to help punish or prevent crimes, not to empower the Bureau to pursue its own political interests. Otherwise intelligence services would become a constituency elevated above the citizenry itself––with politicians currying their favor in order to ensure those agencies used their powers to their benefit and against their opponents. FBI agents are granted extraordinary authority to defend the Constitution, not to use investigations to manipulate American politics as they see fit.
Yet it should be no surprise that some at the FBI feel empowered to do just that. Fifteen years of war have eroded America's civic culture, its incomplete commitment to religious and racial pluralism, and its concern for civil liberties. The Central Intelligence Agency tortured terrorism suspects, and not one official of any rank was held accountable, and not one court decision has determined their behavior was illegal. When the Senate investigated its actions, the CIA spied on Senate aides and then lied about doing so. The National Security Agency was revealed to have engaged in a massive warrantless spying operation that included surveillance on American citizens. But changes to NSA surveillance powers have been meager. Unarmed black men are killed in disproportionate numbers by police officers who are shielded by a legal standard that exonerates police officers who say they feared for their lives, no matter how absurd the circumstances. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-let-the-fbi-decide-the-election/506174/)
Just saw that a sample of 600 people was used for the latest Blomberg pool
Quelle farce !
The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gamble-on-trump/506207/)
[...]
Yes, I fear Clinton's grudge-holding. Should I fear it so much that I rally to a candidate who has already explicitly promised to deploy antitrust and libel law against his critics and opponents? Who incited violence at his rallies? Who ejects reporters from his events if he objects to their coverage? Who told a huge audience in Australia that his top life advice was: "Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it"? Who idealizes Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, and the butchers of Tiananmen as strong leaders to be admired and emulated?
Should I be so appalled by the Clinton family's access-selling that I prefer instead a president who boasts of a lifetime of bribing politicians to further his business career? Who defaults on debts and contracts as an ordinary business method, and who avoids taxes by deducting the losses he inflicted on others as if he had suffered them himself? Who cheated the illegal laborers he employed at Trump Tower out of their humble hourly wage? Who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to the Bank of China? Who refuses to disclose his tax returns, perhaps to conceal his business dealings with Vladimir Putin's inner circle?
To demonstrate my distaste for people whose bodies contain mean bones, it's proposed that I give my franchise to a man who boasts of his delight in sexual assault? Who mocks the disabled, who denounces immigrant parents whose son laid down his life for this country, who endorses religious bigotry, and who denies the Americanism of everyone from the judge hearing the fraud case against Trump University to the 44th president of the United States?
I'm invited to recoil from supposedly fawning media (media, in fact, which have devoted more minutes of network television airtime to Clinton's email misjudgment than to all policy topics combined) and instead empower a bizarre new online coalition of antisemites, misogyists, cranks, and conspiracists with allegedly ominous connections to Russian state spy agencies?
Is this real life?
To vote for Trump as a protest against Clinton's faults would be like amputating a leg because of a sliver in the toe; cutting one's throat to lower one's blood pressure.
[...]
We don't have to analogize Donald Trump to any of the lurid tyrants of world history to recognize in him the most anti-constitutional personality ever to gain a major-party nomination for the U.S. presidency. I cannot predict whether Trump would succeed in elevating himself "on the ruins of public liberty." The outcome would greatly depend on the resolve, integrity, and courage of other leaders and other institutions, especially the Republican leaders in Congress. To date, their record has not been reassuring, but who knows: Maybe they would discover more courage and independence after they bestowed the awesome powers of the presidency than they did while Trump was merely a party nominee. Or maybe not.
What we should all foresee is that a President Trump will certainly try to realize Washington's nightmare. He must not be allowed to try.
That Donald Trump has approached so near the White House is a bitter reproach to everybody who had the power to stop him. I include myself in this reproach. Early on, I welcomed Trump's up-ending of some outdated Republican Party dogmas—taking it for granted that of course such a ridiculous and obnoxious fraud could never win a major party's nomination. But Trump did win. Now, he stands within a percentage point or two or at most four of the presidency of the United States.
Having failed to act promptly at the outset, it's all the more important to act decisively before it's too late. The lesson Trump has taught is not only that certain Republican dogmas have passed out of date, but that American democracy itself is much more vulnerable than anyone would have believed only 24 months ago.
[...]
I appreciate that Donald Trump is too slovenly and incompetent to qualify as a true dictator. This country is not so broken as to allow a President Trump to arrest opponents or silence the media. Trump is a man without political ideas. Trump's main interest has been and will continue to be self-enrichment by any means, no matter how crooked. His next interest after that is never to be criticized by anybody for any reason, no matter how justified—maybe most especially when justified. Yet Trump does not need to achieve a dictatorship to subvert democracy.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2016, 09:46:00 AM
The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-gamble-on-trump/506207/)
Not convinced of anything other than the author's complete lack of understanding what is motivating most Trump voters in this election. David Frum, who is a card carrying member of the elite brigade, appears to be blinded by Inside-the-Beltway-Thinking.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2016, 09:13:03 AM
Don't Let the FBI Decide the Election (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/dont-let-the-fbi-decide-the-election/506174/)
No one is. What the FBI is doing is providing information for voters to use in their decision making process. This kind of headine/article is the product of the hubris and political class mindset (elites actually think they are able to influence regular people, those whom they actually look down on and think are too stupid to think for themselves) that is fueling Trump's candidacy.
Good take on what is driving Trump's numbers (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/hillary-clinton-doubling-down-broken-washington/)
Although the words "status quo" will not appear on any ballots this election cycle, voters will nonetheless be forced to make the binary decision between doubling down on the status quo by voting for Hillary Clinton, or pivoting toward meaningful change and a course correction for the country by voting for Donald Trump.
There is a foundational disconnect between Washington, DC and the rest of America. Washington, DC operates on a different plain - with its own special rules and carve-outs and exemptions and backroom deals. Many in Washington believe that the rules and laws crafted in DC ought not apply to the people who occupy the well-connected inner circles of the Washington Establishment. This pervasive mindset - it's a pathology, really - in Washington, DC is what accounts for the fact that everyday Americans are struggling to live under Obamacare and comply with its oppressive rules and regulations while Congress enjoys a special exemption from the law. It also explains the years-long IRS scandal, in which government employees engaged in an insidious and unconstitutional targeting of American citizens based on their political beliefs. And, to date, no one has been held accountable for the IRS's extraordinary abuse of power.
Washington, DC is a city, after all, that sees nothing amiss about the fact that lying under oath, committing perjury, and tampering with evidence in criminal investigations are serious offenses in the rest of the country, but are so commonplace in DC, they hardly warrant a slap on the wrist.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 10:04:22 AM
Not convinced of anything other than the author's complete lack of understanding what is motivating most Trump voters in this election. David Frum, who is a card carrying member of the elite brigade, appears to be blinded by Inside-the-Beltway-Thinking.
I'm not convinced that anything will convince you; if you really believe El Tupé is harmless, God bless you.
"The message cannot be true, because I think poorly of the messenger" isn't an actual argument, either.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 10:08:53 AM
No one is. What the FBI is doing is providing information for voters to use in their decision making pricess.
That's right: providing half-information to stir the political stew the week before an election. I guess you're okay with it, if you believe that it works to your candidate's advantage.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2016, 10:24:19 AM
That's right: providing half-information to stir the political stew the week before an election. I guess you're okay with it, if you believe that it works to your candidate's advantage.
You were fine when the FBI gave Clinton a pass for her reckless behavior and private server (many of his high ranking agents were not OK with his decision). Back then Comey was your hero. Now that he has followed-up to Congress with the latest develoment, he is your enemy.
We have chosen to vote for different candidates, true - and you are equally immune from changing your vote for Clinton - whom I consider more dangerous than Trump.
Clinton being called to account for her Benghazi debacle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 10:31:07 AM
You were fine when the FBI gave Clinton a pass for her reckless behavior and private server (many of his high ranking agents were not OK with his decision). Back then Comey was your hero.
Would you care to re-phrase that?
That inaccurate irrelevancy aside, you are eliding my point, which is the timing, the politicizing of the bureau. Your elision of the point is a concession.
The map still looks like bad news for El Tupé:
We've also seen a series of new polls of Pennsylvania, another hugely important firewall state for Clinton — and they all show her ahead. CNN/ORC shows her up 4, Susquehanna shows her up 2, Monmouth shows her up 4, and Franklin & Marshall shows her up 11.
Trump hasn't led a single poll of Wisconsin all year, and he hasn't led any Pennsylvania polls since July.
New polling has been more mixed for Clinton in states like Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada — but those states aren't part of her firewall. If she's still on track to win Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, then she's still likely on track to win the election.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 10:08:53 AM
What the FBI is doing is providing information for voters to use in their decision making process.
The only information we got is that Abedin and Weiner Boy shared a laptop and its contents, which is hard to believe, and I would fire Abedin on the spot for this. Who is she? Amanda Knox?
Grownups, at least the ones I know, don't share "electronic devices". After all, there are plenty of those for sale.
However, the FBI, or rather Mr Comey has not offered any information whatsoever about what's in those emails on that laptop, probably because it's still in Carlos Danger Quarantine.
"Concern" about Clinton's email scandal basically disappeared after a day (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13500124/poll-clinton-emails-trump)
Because Clinton's use of a private email server has been an ongoing news story (and other stories involving email and Clinton allies have gotten lumped in under the heading of "Clinton email scandal"), Marquette's pollsters were asking voters how concerned they were about it even before the letter from FBI director James Comey was released — and about half of likely voters agreed they were "very concerned."
The day of Comey's letter, that spiked to 60 percent. But in the days following that, only 48 percent of voters said they were "very concerned" about Clinton's emails — if anything, fewer voters than were bothered before the new emails were revealed. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13500124/poll-clinton-emails-trump)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2016, 10:43:57 AM
Would you care to re-phrase that?
That inaccurate irrelevancy aside, you are eliding my point, which is the timing, the politicizing of the bureau. Your elision of the point is a concession.
The timing was unavoidable. You would have preferred that Comey waited until after the election to inform Congress (when he risked being accused of suppressing information for political purposes). I am glad he resisted those pressures and simply acted when he had the information.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2016, 10:44:58 AM
The map still looks like bad news for El Tupé:
We've also seen a series of new polls of Pennsylvania, another hugely important firewall state for Clinton — and they all show her ahead. CNN/ORC shows her up 4, Susquehanna shows her up 2, Monmouth shows her up 4, and Franklin & Marshall shows her up 11.
Trump hasn't led a single poll of Wisconsin all year, and he hasn't led any Pennsylvania polls since July.
New polling has been more mixed for Clinton in states like Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada — but those states aren't part of her firewall. If she's still on track to win Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, then she's still likely on track to win the election.
The polls are tightening, if you wish to turn a blind eye to that, so be it. Btw, Wisconsin has been a solid Democrat state for a long time (Obama won it easliy in 2012, 52 - 45, that with Paul Ryan a popular Wisconsin official on the ticket), the fact that Trump is making it a race is newsworthy.
The only poll that means anything is the one that will be held on Nov. 8th.
Speaking of lovely stories. How about the thi Monday's WaPo revelation that Trump showed up, uninvited, at a benefit for Children with Aids, and sat on the stage, on a benefactor's chair, without giving any money to that charity?
He just wanted to appear as someone who sponsored Children with Aids, but didn't give a flying f*ck, wiping his ass not just with those children, but also with people who did give money to help.
The man is a pariah in circles of people who give - admittedly the elite, but that's the elite of people with moral standards and a conscience.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 02, 2016, 10:46:47 AM
"Concern" about Clinton's email scandal basically disappeared after a day (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13500124/poll-clinton-emails-trump)
Because Clinton's use of a private email server has been an ongoing news story (and other stories involving email and Clinton allies have gotten lumped in under the heading of "Clinton email scandal"), Marquette's pollsters were asking voters how concerned they were about it even before the letter from FBI director James Comey was released — and about half of likely voters agreed they were "very concerned."
The day of Comey's letter, that spiked to 60 percent. But in the days following that, only 48 percent of voters said they were "very concerned" about Clinton's emails — if anything, fewer voters than were bothered before the new emails were revealed. (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13500124/poll-clinton-emails-trump)
Good news for you. So, the tightening polls cannot be attrributed to this "red herring" story. I am happy to learn our democracy is not in jeopardy.
;)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 01, 2016, 11:57:37 AM
I just read this in the Snopes book I have been reading and it is relevant, imo, to this thread - and something I also believe.
"They'll always be wrong. They think they are fighting Clarence Snopes. They're not. They're not faced with an individual nor even a situation: they are beating their brains out against one of the foundation rocks of our national character itself. Which is the premise that politics and political office are not and never have been the method and means by which we can govern ourselves in peace and dignity and honor and security, but instead are our national refuge for our incompetents who have failed at every other occupation"
William Faulkner, The Mansion
If you knew more about Donald Trump you would realize that he is essentially Flem Snopes, transposed from Frenchman's Bend to Queens, New York.
'How Do I Change My Vote?' Searches Skyrocket as Donald Trump Urges Early Clinton Voters to Switch (http://www.christianpost.com/news/how-do-i-change-my-vote-searches-donald-trump-early-clinton-voters-switch-171277/)
In Michigan, Fred Woodhams, a spokesman for the Michigan Department of State said: "A Michigan voter who has cast an absentee ballot can get a new absentee ballot if they visit their local clerk's office in person on or before 4 p.m., Monday, Nov. 7. The previous ballot will be spoiled."
Other states where voters can change their ballot are, Minnesota, Connecticut, New York and Mississippi, said CNN.
Google Trends says searches for "how do I change my vote?" reached an all-time high since 2004 when queries for the search term increased 600 percent in the last week and the leading states for these searches are: Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Tennessee.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
If you knew more about Donald Trump you would realize that he is essentially Flem Snopes, transposed from Frenchman's Bend to Queens, New York.
I know enough about Trump, i.e. he is not a liberal Democrat, in order to cast my vote. I also know enough about Hillary Clinton to know that if elected she will make Richard Nixon blush.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 12:10:02 PM
I know enough about Trump, i.e. he is not a liberal Democrat,
he used to be, until he saw a better opportunity in the GOP primaries.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 12:10:02 PM
I know enough about Trump, i.e. he is not a liberal Democrat.
If he actually wins, people who voted for Trump for what he is
not will be shocked to find out that he
is something.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2016, 12:30:32 PM
If he actually wins, people who voted for Trump for what he is not will be shocked to find out that he is something.
He will be the Republican president working with Paul Ryan, who will probably still be Speaker of the House, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Leader. Ryan and McConnell have both said that theiy could work much more effectively with a President Trump as opposed to a President Clinton.
I take them at their word. You should too.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 12:34:17 PM
He will be the Republican president working with Paul Ryan, who will probably still be Speaker of the House, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Leader. Ryan and McConnell have both said that theiy could work much more effectively with a President Trump as opposed to a President Clinton.
I take them at their word. You should too.
I do take them at their word, which is a strong reason for voting Clinton, in my view.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 10:04:22 AM
Not convinced of anything other than the author's complete lack of understanding what is motivating most Trump voters in this election. David Frum, who is a card carrying member of the elite brigade, appears to be blinded by Inside-the-Beltway-Thinking.
Perhaps he understands what they want and doesn't think they should have it, for reasons that are widely shared with Outside-the-Beltway-Thinkers.
Russian search-engine Yandex passed information to FSB (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-13274443)
Well, well, well......I got a phishing email today from a Yandex email account, from "Edger Hoover", something about Urgent information, with an attachment which I somehow forgot to open before I deleted the message.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 10:33:42 AM
Clinton being called to account for her Benghazi debacle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE)
Oh I see. So all the official reports concluding that there was nothing to pin on Clinton are trumped by a Youtube video.
You think the committees that wrote the reports weren't at their own hearings, or something?
The argument to vote for Trump seems to be fundamentally driven by the proposition that Clinton will bring more of the same.
The proposition is, I think, largely correct. It's the conclusion drawn from that that is the problem. The conclusion fails to recognise who, to the extent that things are bad, has created that situation and who benefits from it. It's people like Trump.
The hens are kicking the rooster out for failing to protect them and choosing the fox as their leader.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 02, 2016, 01:24:27 PM
Oh I see. So all the official reports concluding that there was nothing to pin on Clinton are trumped by a Youtube video.
You think the committees that wrote the reports weren't at their own hearings, or something?
And oddly enough, the committees were stacked with Clinton's bitterest enemies. Now you understand why the U.S. is tumbling into the abyss.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 02, 2016, 01:38:29 PM
And oddly enough, the committees were stacked with Clinton's bitterest enemies. Now you understand why the U.S. is tumbling into the abyss.
Well, the "somebody died, therefore somebody must be at fault" syndrome is certainly not unique to the United States. I can think of several clear examples of it in Australia.** Sometimes it's lawsuits, sometimes it's political, but the general pattern is the same - a belief that such things should never happen and therefore they can only happen because someone MUST have done something wrong.
It's a pet peeve of mine, not least because it involves a belief that we control everything. It refuses to acknowledge that either other people (in this case) or the natural world (in a couple of the Australian cases) are beyond our control and not completely predictable.
**For example, when a first inquiry concluded that no-one could have prevented the devastation of the town of Grantham in Queensland in 2011, there was pressure to have a second inquiry, which found the same thing. There's been at least a couple of investigations of the associated Brisbane floods, again finding that the dam managers were not to blame. When an "inland tsunami" hits, the water has to go somewhere.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 12:34:17 PM
He will be the Republican president working with Paul Ryan, who will probably still be Speaker of the House, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Leader. Ryan and McConnell have both said that theiy could work much more effectively with a President Trump as opposed to a President Clinton.
I take them at their word. You should too.
Weren't you recently telling us that the Washington establishment hates Trump, and that was a good thing? And now you're touting his support from political elites like Ryan and McConnell?
Quote from: Pat B on November 02, 2016, 04:50:45 PM
Weren't you recently telling us that the Washington establishment hates Trump, and that was a good thing? And now you're touting his support from political elites like Ryan and McConnell?
Both Ryan and McConnell have been reluctant Trump endorsers. But their point is of the two candidates, the one who they will have a better working relationship with would be the Republican president, i.e. Trump.
As I've said more than once, this is a binary choice: Trump or Clinton. Voters and most politicians are calculating which of the two is closer to their positions and choosing accordingly. Trump is not the 1st, 2nd, or 16th choice for most Republican officials. But between him and Clinton it is a straight-forward decision.
Now I hear that Jill Stein has made a de facto endorsement of Trump.
This campaign is full of surprises.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 02, 2016, 05:05:41 AM
More thinking for yourself.
Few of us think entirely for ourselves, either in regards to musical tastes or politics. We are all conglomerations of what we've read and heard, and whether we are swayed to one side or another, it should behoove us to humbly admit that it's a rare person who has a truly original thought.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 12:10:02 PM
I know enough about Trump, i.e. he is not a liberal Democrat, in order to cast my vote. I also know enough about Hillary Clinton to know that if elected she will make Richard Nixon blush.
Is this supposed to be an example of critical thinking?
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 05:04:11 PM
Both Ryan and McConnell have been reluctant Trump endorsers. But their point is of the two candidates, the one who they will have a better working relationship with would be the Republican president, i.e. Trump.
As I've said more than once, this is a binary choice: Trump or Clinton. Voters and most politicians are calculating which of the two is closer to their positions and choosing accordingly. Trump is not the 1st, 2nd, or 16th choice for most Republican officials. But between him and Clinton it is a straight-forward decision.
Now I hear that Jill Stein has made a de facto endorsement of Trump.
This campaign is full of surprises.
David Duke gave Trump his endorsement, too. He's just raking in all of the good guys. ::)
FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html)
1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.
2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.
3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.
4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.
5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 05:04:11 PM
Both Ryan and McConnell have been reluctant Trump endorsers. But their point is of the two candidates, the one who they will have a better working relationship with would be the Republican president, i.e. Trump.
I'm just trying to figure out whether you like him because you think he's going to bust up the establishment, or because you think he'll cooperate with them.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 02, 2016, 12:10:02 PM
I know enough about Trump, i.e. he is not a liberal Democrat, in order to cast my vote. I also know enough about Hillary Clinton to know that if elected she will make Richard Nixon blush.
In a sermon on Sunday during which Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was prominently mentioned, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan scolded Hillary Clinton in connection with the 1994 crime bill.
During the campaign season, there have been tensions between the Democrat presidential nominee and the Black Lives Matter movement in part because of a speech Hillary Clinton gave, calling for at-risk youth whom she described as "super predators" needing to be brought "to heel." In context, Clinton was then expressing support for the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, a.k.a. the crime bill, that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, signed into law.
"In April, Hillary Clinton said she was sorry for what she described as the unintended consequences of the landmark 1994 crime bill signed into law by her husband. Clinton's past support for the law has come under fire from some African-Americans who say that it has contributed to mass incarceration of young blacks," Fox News explained.
In his sermon in Chicago, Farrakhan also slammed Republican nominee Donald Trump for being a liar, but also praised him for turning the tables on the media who sought to destroy him.
"Now I want to look at Mrs. Clinton for a minute. My dear brothers and sisters, this is serious. Her husband and Joe Biden were the authors of the crime bill that put tens of thousands of black brothers and sisters in prison. So while we were organizing for the Million Man March, they were organizing to put black men and women in jail. Mrs. Clinton backed the crime bill and then called our young people super predators. Of course she apologized, but just a minute. See, Hitler could've said to the Jews after Auschwitz, 'I'm so sorry.' Would that be enough to satisfy you? You couldn't satisfy any Jewish person with an apology. Reparations was demanded for the evil of Adolph Hitler to the Jewish people. What will we demand for the evil that has been done to us as a people for 461 years.
The Clinton's raised hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions for Haiti but no one knows where the money went. I've been to Haiti since then. Haiti has never been rebuilt. Who benefited from the billions? The Haitian people are still in shambles. Their places, their homes, their capital city have not been rebuilt. And now they got hit with a natural disaster, a hurricane and none of that donated money is available for them to use. Mr. Trump said he visited Little Haiti. He said the Haitians do not like the Clinton's at all. I know that to be a fact. Enlightened Haitians are very angry at the way the Clinton's handled the Haitian people..."
Hillary Clinton's support for alleged racially motivated abortion also came up in the sermon.
"In 2009, Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. It was Mrs. Sanger who advocated population control of black and poor people. In a 1939 letter, Sanger wrote about getting black preachers to help with her efforts. She said, 'we don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population'... And when Mrs. Clinton received the award, she says 'Now I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage. Her tenacity. Her vision'..."
http://www.inquisitr.com/3670744/nation-of-islam-leader-louis-farrakhan-compares-hillary-clinton-to-hitler-video/#73LUC8lgStx0DI4K.99
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 02, 2016, 07:00:42 PM
Few of us think entirely for ourselves, either in regards to musical tastes or politics. We are all conglomerations of what we've read and heard, and whether we are swayed to one side or another, it should behoove us to humbly admit that it's a rare person who has a truly original thought.
No argument there. What I'm commenting on is the juxtaposition of a person CLAIMING superior levels of originality and the same person churning out post after post that isn't even in his own words.
Neither of those things on its own would be worthy of comment.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 02, 2016, 11:48:06 PM
No argument there. What I'm commenting on is the juxtaposition of a person CLAIMING superior levels of originality and the same person churning out post after post that isn't even in his own words.
Moi aussi.
QuoteHillary Clinton's support for alleged racially motivated abortion also came up in the sermon.
It's really tiresome the way you try to tar Clinton as the racist motivated candidate.
It's why politics is so divisive. You can't blame an obviously racist candidate as Trump to try to deflect criticism, but it's painful to see parts of the population copying these cynical tactis and really internalizing them, so that some people truly believe this cant.
Clinton is for women's choice. She's also for better race relations.
Trump used to be for choice and has cynically opted to switch sides on this issue. No big deal, because he couldn't care less, really. Trump would also be a two-generation step backwards in terms of race relations.
The KKK are counting on a three-generation backstep.
Sucker!
Dear Donald Trump: I want my $49 back (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dear-donald-trump-i-want-my-49-back/2016/11/02/173579a8-a11c-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html)Quote from: Dana MilbankWhen The Post's Matea Gold reported this week that the Trump campaign is contesting $767,000 that its pollster Tony Fabrizio says he is owed, I could feel the Republican consultant's pain.
Fabrizio was just the latest on a long list of people stiffed by Donald Trump. And now you can add one more to that list: me. I want my $49 back.
I know, I know. We had all been warned that Trump doesn't make good on his commitments. Scores of times as businessman and candidate he has refused to pay, or deliver, what he owes. Heck, he's even being sued for stiffing USA Freedom Kids, the three preteen girls who danced before one of his rallies in patriotic costumes.
So I should have had my eyes wide open when I saw Trump's video last week offering to put my name on a brass plaque on a wall in Trump Tower, for a contribution of only $49. "The wall has only space for 2,000 more supporters. Contribute today," he said, showing the "very special" wall.
As one of the loudest Trump critics, I thought it would be exquisite to have my name engraved as part of the "select group" on Trump's wall. I clicked through and authorized the $49 charge to my credit card.
And then, nothing. No acknowledgment. No response. No word about any wall with my name on it. I checked my spam filter: nothing. I checked my Visa statement: The charge had gone through.
Stiffed! And at great personal risk. Post employees aren't supposed to donate to campaigns, and in 16 years I hadn't — until the lure of Trump's wall got me. We don't want a contribution to create the appearance that we're in the tank for a candidate, even if, in the case of Trump and me, the probability of creating such an impression is fairly low. My editors gave me the proverbial 40 lashes for my $49.
But those welts are nothing compared with the injuries Trump has done as a mogul and candidate to those who have done business with him.
An investigation by USA Today earlier this year found 60 lawsuits and hundreds of liens, judgments and other government filings involving people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them. The aggrieved include 48 waiters, dozens of bartenders and hourly workers, real estate brokers, a glass company, a carpet company, painters — even law firms that defended him against charges that he stiffed those he owed. The paper found 24 violations of labor law for failing to pay overtime or the minimum wage, and liens filed by more than 200 contractors and employees who provided plumbing, electrical and HVAC work and the like.
At the first debate, Hillary Clinton singled out in the audience an architect Trump had stiffed and said she'd met "dishwashers, painters, architects, glass installers, marble installers, drapery installers . . . who you refused to pay when they finished the work that you asked them to do."
Trump responded that "maybe he didn't do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work, which our country should do, too."
Apparently Trump's belief that he can't get good help these days extends to the campaign, which is disputing the $767,000 that Fabrizio, the pollster, says he's owed. (The campaign says it doesn't dispute the entire amount.) Federal Election Commission records also indicate the Trump campaign has yet to pay Michael Caputo, a former communications adviser who publicly celebrated the dismissal of Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. Caputo said Wednesday that he still hadn't been paid.
Fabrizio and Caputo are big boys. But what about the three little girls who danced at a Trump rally in January, becoming a viral sensation? The father of one of them filed suit against the Trump campaign two months ago, saying the campaign didn't make good on its promise to let them sell CDs at a Trump event and then had them travel, at their own expense, from Florida to a Trump event in Iowa before canceling their appearance.
"I'm not looking to do battle with the Trump campaign," the dad, Jeff Popick, told The Post's Philip Bump, "but I have to show my girls that this is the right thing."
And now I stand with Popick, Fabrizio and hundreds of others in demanding from Trump what is ours. I wrote to Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks on Wednesday and asked whether she could tell me where I could find my name on the Trump Tower donor wall, or refund my $49. She indicated she was looking into it, but nothing happened.
I bet Trump isn't even building that wall — and I paid for it!
Okay, here's my Original Contribution to that:
A significant accretion of fact and likelihood leads probably any reader to expect little in the way of El Tupé keeping his word; he is a practiced con man, and cannot do otherwise than con. Those who are voting for him must understand that, but are determined to vote for him for other reasons, and in the kinda hope that this time he'll keep his word, which of course is careless folly, particularly in the matter of electing a POTUS.
Quote from: Herman on November 03, 2016, 01:07:18 AM
It's really tiresome the way you try to tar Clinton as the racist motivated candidate.
It's why politics is so divisive. You can't blame an obviously racist candidate as Trump to try to deflect criticism, but it's painful to see parts of the population copying these cynical tactis and really internalizing them, so that some people truly believe this cant.
Clinton is for women's choice. She's also for better race relations.
Trump used to be for choice and has cynically opted to switch sides on this issue. No big deal, because he couldn't care less, really. Trump would also be a two-generation step backwards in terms of race relations.
Farrakhan is no vessel of sweetness and light but when he comes out against Hillary, there is something to it. He said it, not me. Planned Parenthood was founded by that arch-racist Sanger who wanted to restrict the growth of the black community. That is just a fact. I don't know how it is possible to whitewash her known endorsement of sterilization and euthanasia. From the horse's (Sanger's) mouth:
"Eugenists emphasize the mating of healthy couples for the conscious purpose of producing healthy children, the sterilization of the unfit to prevent their populating the world with their kind and they may, perhaps, agree with us that contraception is a necessary measure among the masses of the workers, where wages do not keep pace with the growth of the family and its necessities in the way of food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education and the like."It is a really slippery slope from "saving the life of a mother" which is such a minuscule proportion of abortions these days to the sale of baby parts. PP gets a half-billion $'s from taxpayers but it is less and less about women's health as it is marching into the the new world order:
"We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. The eugenist also believes that a woman should bear as many healthy children as possible as a duty to the state. We hold that the world is already over-populated. Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state."And by the way, all of the above was implemented in National Socialism and to a varying extents, in Communist countries. Those who take Hillary's platitudes at face value are missing the absolutely frightening larger picture.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 02:18:47 AMAnd by the way, all of the above was implemented in National Socialism and to a varying extents, in Communist countries. Those who take [...] platitudes at face value are missing the absolutely frightening larger picture.
Hitler also started the first anti-smoking campaign in modern history. You really should start smoking five packs a day to show just how much you are against National Socialism.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 02:18:47 AM
And by the way, all of the above was implemented in National Socialism
The Nazis actually borrowed the practices form the US, where they had been implemented long before the advent of National Socialism in Germany, so let's give credit where it is due. ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States)
Eugenics was also a state policy in Sweden until long after WWII. ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden)
Quote from: North Star on November 03, 2016, 02:59:44 AM
Hitler also started the first anti-smoking campaign in modern history. You really should start smoking five packs a day to show just how much you are against National Socialism.
But he didn't mind burning human bodies, just a little hypocritical?
The same goes for his support for animal rights.
It seems to me priorities were and continue to be upside-down.
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2016, 03:46:32 AM
The Nazis actually borrowed the practices form the US, where they had been implemented long before the advent of National Socialism in Germany, so let's give credit where it is due.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States)
Eugenics was also a state policy in Sweden until long after WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden)
It doesn't really matter who started social policies to limit or control human reproduction, but who and what countries and/or ideologies implemented them. They have been a slippery slope leading to disaster every time. In order to have true power over a populace, the nuclear family has always been a target. Break that up and you have isolated, modular human beings bereft of tribal identity.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 03:52:42 AM
It doesn't really matter who started social policies to limit or control human reproduction, but who and what countries and/or ideologies implemented them.
That was precisely my point: the US of A were the dedicated pioneers of eugenics as state policy and before Sweden and Nazi Germany (in this order) followed in their steps they were the only "civilized" country that practiced it on a large scale.
Quote from: Pat B on November 02, 2016, 10:06:17 PM
I'm just trying to figure out whether you like him because you think he's going to bust up the establishment, or because you think he'll cooperate with them.
First, I don't like Trump. He was never my preferred candidate. But compared to Clinton, he gets my vote. Second, Trump, also of the two, represents someone who does not have a stake in the power establishment and based his campaign on rocking the boat of bought influence and corruption. Clinton is the poster child of pay-to-play corruption. Third, Trump, although he has a checkered past regarding conservative positions, is the only Republican candidate and as such will be more in line with Paul Ryan's legislative agenda. Except for trade and social security, Trump and Ryan have broad agreement. Much more so than Ryan and Clinton. Again, in a binary choice, Trump gets my vote despite his many flaws.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 03, 2016, 04:26:15 AM
based his campaign on rocking the boat
While promising phantom life rafts.
EDIT: I remain fascinated by the extent to which Trump's support is based on overturning an existing order, and yet people have little clue as to what new order will replace it. It reminds me rather a lot of Tony Abbott, who was superb as Australian Leader of the Opposition, and a bit of a disaster as Australian Prime Minister. Once he had repealed all the things he promised to repeal, he had little idea of what he was actually going to
DO.
SECOND EDIT: One cannot "make America great again" simply by wishing America would revert back to what it was 50 years ago. It simply can't happen. You have to find a way forward.
America: It's our moment to get our groove back
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/america-must-get-her-groove-back/)
As Thomas Jefferson once said, "Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights."
The Founders vested the people with the power to change our government and the direction of the nation because they feared that one day, the system would be corrupted.
That day has arrived: The presidency is held by a radical redistributionist and is sought by another statist even more crooked, an independent, impartial and fair Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and press no longer exist, Congress cannot stop itself from spending us into oblivion, and the courts are legislating when they are prohibited from doing so.
All of the fundamental institutions of our system have been warped beyond all recognition. And all are engaged in social engineering in every part of American life, in violation of the essential freedoms the Founders risked everything to give to us.
It is now up to the Founders' quiet fourth branch to stop it.The FBI Agents Who Stood Up for Rule of Law Make Me Proud to be an American (https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/10/31/the-fbi-agents-who-stood-up-for-rule-of-law-make-me-proud-to-be-an-american/?singlepage=true)
One hears a lot of talk about America turning into a Third World kleptocracy. I've worked in a lot of Third World kleptocracies, back in the days when the Reagan Revolution was fresh and the Reaganauts thought we could export free markets and democracy to the rest of the world. We didn't, of course. But I had the opportunity to see first-hand what separates a banana republic from the land of the free and the home of the brave. It comes down to the grit of a few people willing to do their job come hell or high water--not look the other way, not accept the stuffed envelope or its equivalent in post-government employment, but to treat a job as a sacred trust given by the people.
Somewhere there are a handful of FBI agents who decided to do their jobs--to end the coverup of the Clinton private email server which was there to let Hillary turn high office into a cash cow. I don't know who they are or just how it happened, but some men and women told FBI Director James Comey that if he didn't step forward, they would--and they clearly had enough evidence to put Comey in a vise. We know this from Devlin Barrett's reporting at the Wall Street Journal. As Barrett wrote:
QuoteThe new investigative effort, disclosed by FBI Director James Comey on Friday, shows a bureau at times in sharp internal disagreement over matters related to the Clintons, and how to handle those matters fairly and carefully in the middle of a national election campaign. Even as the probe of Mrs. Clinton's email use wound down in July, internal disagreements within the bureau and the Justice Department surrounding the Clintons' family philanthropy heated up, according to people familiar with the matter.
The unsung heroes of the FBI put everything on the line. They knew that they risked their careers, perhaps even their pensions. Their downside is that their kids may go to community college instead of a private university, and they rent an apartment rather than buy a house. Those are the stakes for mid-level officials who go up against the system. But they did it, because they had their jobs to do. It was their job and no-one else's; if they didn't do it, it wouldn't get done, and they wouldn't stand for someone telling them not to do their job to protect the public.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 03, 2016, 04:39:41 AM
SECOND EDIT: One cannot "make America great again" simply by wishing America would revert back to what it was 50 years ago. It simply can't happen. You have to find a way forward.
That's one reason the Millennials aren't feeling part of El Tupé's party:
The GOP's relationship with young voters was lukewarm before the candidate's nomination—and it has only deteriorated since. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trump-alienates-millennials/506345/)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 03, 2016, 04:26:15 AM
First, I don't like Trump. He was never my preferred candidate. But compared to Clinton, he gets my vote. Second, Trump, also of the two, represents someone who does not have a stake in the power establishment and based his campaign on rocking the boat of bought influence and corruption.
Where do you even get this notion? Trump himself, when asked - and later unasked - has explained over and over again, proudly, that he has spent a lot of money buying influence and greasing the wheels for his businesses.
He is the embodiment of "bought influence and corruption"
Quote from: Herman on November 03, 2016, 05:24:13 AM
Where do you even get this notion? Trump himself, when asked - and later unasked - has explained over and over again, proudly, that he has spent a lot of money buying influence and greasing the wheels for his businesses.
He is the embodiment of "bought influence and corruption"
Yes. Severe cognitive dissonance at work, here.
Quote from: not actually sanantonio on November 03, 2016, 05:13:25 AM
The presidency is held by a radical redistributionist
You never seem able to quite make up your mind whether rich people shafting average people is something to be abhorred or celebrated. (EDIT: cognitive dissonance, indeed)
I suspect, like many Americans, you aspire to be one of the people who does the shafting, and have this belief that your skills and talent would get you into that exalted position if only the damn government would get out of your way.
And American Christianity has somehow managed to turn the Gospel completely on its head so that wealth is a sign of God's blessing and poverty is the result of moral failings.
There is nothing "radical" about whatever redistributionist tendencies Obama might have as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Only Americans appear to believe that "every man looks after himself" is a viable strategy for lifting society as a whole. You have higher income inequality than comparable countries, but ignore that because you focus on what an amazing lifestyle the rich have (the best health care money can buy... which is GREAT so long as you actually have the money to buy it) and buy into the "American dream" that that is what you can have.
Personally, I can't see that there's anything to be proud of in having an abominably low minimum wage and forcing people to work multiple jobs to pay the rent. But hey, we can't fix that, it would be
redistributionist.
This is America, where even a misogynistic, bigoted, billionaire narcissist can just about become President.
(Oh....)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2016, 05:17:35 AM
The GOP's relationship with young voters was lukewarm before the candidate's nomination—and it has only deteriorated since. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trump-alienates-millennials/506345/)
Quote from: Ronald BrownsteinThe problem for Republicans is that even if Trump succeeds in the near-term, his insular appeal to his preponderantly white coalition has exposed the party to a clear long-term risk. Win or lose, all evidence suggests Trump is further alienating a Millennial generation that is already cool to the GOP—and is poised to become the electorate's largest cohort in 2020. "Its not like they came into 2016 with a great brand, and with Trump it's just gotten exponentially worse," says Andrew Baumann, a Democratic pollster who has extensively studied Millennials this year. Sepulveda agrees. After Trump, he said, for Republicans "there will definitely be a hole to dig out of with young people."
So, one way to look at it is, El Tupé has shaken things up no matter if he loses (and we all know he'll lose 8) ) Conservative columnists have observed for months that if the GOP do not distance themselves from the nominee, his stain will linger on their faces. So san anton' and I may both have occasion to rejoice: Clinton will be in the White House, and the present nominee will be the death-knell for the Republican establishment.
El Tupé is by a yuuuge margin the more scandalous of the two nominees, BUT CLINTON!!!! (http://www.vox.com/2016/11/3/13507626/seth-meyers-trump-clinton-scandals)
Well, just after espousing my thoughts on American attitudes towards wealth and the "evils" of redistribution, I came across this quite interesting article from The Atlantic.
"How sociopathic capitalism came to rule the world"
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/sociopathic-capitalism/506240/
Very much of a piece with seeing "redistributionism" as evil. It's all about winners and losers - and Trump lets everybody know in very clear terms that this is his way of thinking. He's a winner! He wins! Let's start winning again! Losing is for losers!
Kansas is still bleeding, thanks to tea party economics (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-kansas-economy-20161031-story.html)
Brownback signs spectacularly punitive Kansas welfare bill (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-brownback-signs-spectacularly-punitive-kansas-welfare-bill-20150416-column.html)
What Brownback has done is give conservative economics a fair chance by cutting taxes on high incomes and raising taxes on low to middle income households. He has shown that regressive taxation slows the economy. What he thought it would show is that supply side taxation creates incentives to create jobs, what it did show is that high income and business tax cuts are disincentives to job creation, especially when combined with tax increases on the majority of the population that spends all or nearly all of its income.
Businesses create jobs when they must. If you send them tax cut dollars they have less need to create them, and on the other side of the tax balance, where the customers are, the tax burden is raised. Poorer customers and richer businesses is a recipe for job noncreation, a double disincentive.
Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2016, 04:00:35 AM
That was precisely my point: the US of A were the dedicated pioneers of eugenics as state policy and before Sweden and Nazi Germany (in this order) followed in their steps they were the only "civilized" country that practiced it on a large scale.
With all due respect, the theory of modern eugenics first came from across the pond. It makes for interesting reading:
Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the
evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his half-cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest;* and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity", a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean".[12]
Galton first sketched out his theory in the 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", then elaborated further in his 1869 book
Hereditary Genius.** He began by studying the way in which human intellectual, moral, and personality traits tended to run in families. Galton's basic argument was "genius" and "talent" were hereditary traits in humans (although neither he nor Darwin yet had a working model of this type of heredity). He concluded since one could use artificial selection to exaggerate traits in other animals, one could expect similar results when applying such models to humans. As he wrote in the introduction to Hereditary Genius:
"I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations."Galton claimed that the less intelligent were more fertile than the more intelligent of his time. Galton did not propose any selection methods; rather, he hoped a solution would be found if social mores changed in a way that encouraged people to see the importance of breeding. He first used the word eugenic in his 1883 Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, a book in which he meant "to touch on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of race, or, as we might call it, with 'eugenic' questions". He included a footnote to the word "eugenic" which read:
"That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditary endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viriculture which I once ventured to use."*Pre-Christian societies practiced infanticide (Post-Christian as well, one supposes). Protection of slaves, women and the weak did not exist. From the same article:
Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State", and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta for its selective infanticide policy.**As for "Hereditary Genius", what happened to WA Mozart's progeny, and the children of other brilliant people? This alone is the best case for nurture rather than nature. Intelligent people can be scoundrels as well. Christianity would say the worth of a human being is a God given soul. The inescapable conclusion is that eugenics and religion do not mix AT ALL!!!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 06:14:13 AM
With all due respect, the theory of modern eugenics first came from across the pond. It makes for interesting reading:
Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his half-cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest;* and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity", a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean".[12]
Galton first sketched out his theory in the 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", then elaborated further in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius.** He began by studying the way in which human intellectual, moral, and personality traits tended to run in families. Galton's basic argument was "genius" and "talent" were hereditary traits in humans (although neither he nor Darwin yet had a working model of this type of heredity). He concluded since one could use artificial selection to exaggerate traits in other animals, one could expect similar results when applying such models to humans. As he wrote in the introduction to Hereditary Genius:
"I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations."
Galton claimed that the less intelligent were more fertile than the more intelligent of his time. Galton did not propose any selection methods; rather, he hoped a solution would be found if social mores changed in a way that encouraged people to see the importance of breeding. He first used the word eugenic in his 1883 Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, a book in which he meant "to touch on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of race, or, as we might call it, with 'eugenic' questions". He included a footnote to the word "eugenic" which read:
"That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditary endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viriculture which I once ventured to use."
*Pre-Christian societies practiced infanticide (Post-Christian as well, one supposes). Protection of slaves, women and the weak did not exist. From the same article: Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State", and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta for its selective infanticide policy.
**As for "Hereditary Genius", what happened to WA Mozart's progeny, and the children of other brilliant people? This alone is the best case for nurture rather than nature. Intelligent people can be scoundrels as well. Christianity would say the worth of a human being is a God given soul. The inescapable conclusion is that eugenics and religion do not mix AT ALL!!!
My, but you are good at shifting the goalposts. You went and said that it didn't matter who had the ideas, it mattered who IMPLEMENTED them. Now, when someone points out to you that it was the USA who implemented those ideas, your response is to say "ah, but the ideas came from elsewhere!".
Seriously, make up your mind. Alternatively, try reading your previous posts before contradicting yourself in an attempt to refute others.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2016, 05:55:12 AM
El Tupé is by a yuuuge margin the more scandalous of the two nominees, BUT CLINTON!!!! (http://www.vox.com/2016/11/3/13507626/seth-meyers-trump-clinton-scandals)
At least DT doesn't have a body count trailing him made up of alleged suicides plus actual rape allegations, that she not only enabled but persecuted the victims.
Whatever the case, what the Clinton Foundation did in Haiti was despicable.
She already has a BAD political record.
She slept through the Benghazi massacre when the detail begging for back up.
She's backed by Saudi Arabia.
There is so much wrong with her record and the fact that she is tied to the rest of the corrupt cabal means she should just disappear into thin air and we would be all better off.
Actions speak much louder than words.
Okay, after this I'm retiring for the night...
...but I found this truly fascinating. A conversation with someone who found Trump appealing for the reasons that people like sanantonio seem to find Trump appealing: he's an outsider, not part of the political class.
And then a series of very succinct points as to why that someone realised supporting Trump was a bad idea.
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/mark-cuban/
Quote from: ørfeo on November 03, 2016, 06:16:48 AM
My, but you are good at shifting the goalposts. You went and said that it didn't matter who had the ideas, it mattered who IMPLEMENTED them. Now, when someone points out to you that it was the USA who implemented those ideas, your response is to say "ah, but the ideas came from elsewhere!".
Seriously, make up your mind. Alternatively, try reading your previous posts before contradicting yourself in an attempt to refute others.
I didn't contradict myself, my learned friend. I might not have a law degree but I remember what I say.
Like Hillary Clinton, all I said was "What's the difference?"
Those ideas are the bastard children of Western Civ, not from Christianity but further back as I pointed out.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 06:26:00 AM
I didn't contradict myself, my learned friend. I might not have a law degree but I remember what I say.
What you WRITE is visible to all of us.
Goodnight.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 03, 2016, 06:29:55 AM
What you WRITE is visible to all of us.
Goodnight.
You must be tired, mate! I wrote that it is not as important who conjured up those ideas but who implemented them. If it were Sir Whatsis or Mr. Joe Blow, it still doesn't matter.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2016, 05:52:19 AM
So, one way to look at it is, El Tupé has shaken things up no matter if he loses (and we all know he'll lose 8) ) Conservative columnists have observed for months that if the GOP do not distance themselves from the nominee, his stain will linger on their faces. So san anton' and I may both have occasion to rejoice: Clinton will be in the White House, and the present nominee will be the death-knell for the Republican establishment.
Bernie Sanders also represents a challenge to the business-as-usual corporate influence on legislation and legislators from the Democratic side. No matter how much you try to obfuscate the point, Clinton represents the past corrupt practices and Trump and Sanders represent an alternatvie path for the future of both parties. Hopefully, that is.
However, like a cornered rabid dog the despicable elements within our political system will fight with unrelenting energy and attempt to visciously protect their hold on power.
Hillary Clinton is their candidate.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 06:48:54 AM
I wrote that it is not as important who conjured up those ideas but who implemented them. If it were Sir Whatsis or Mr. Joe Blow, it still doesn't matter.
You then provided us with a detailed description of Sir Francis Galton's work. Why? So you could waste all of our time a little more? If it doesn't matter, why did you write seven paragraphs?
Here's a flip-side of the coin (in contrast to past claims by the El Tupé campaign that there were many people voting for him, but afraid to own up in public):
Why Won't More Republicans Privately Voting for Clinton Say So in Public? (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/why-wont-more-republicans-privately-voting-for-clinton-say-so-in-public/506378/)
Both presidential candidates gave speeches in swing states yesterday, and the contrast was familiar. One delivered a blistering attack on the opposing candidate's personal character and later responded to a heckler's interruption with a furious rant. (Clinton)
The other gave a solid, substantive policy address, prompting a puff piece from the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, who described the candidate as "a disciplined and effective messenger giving a speech that, to my ear, was one of [this candidate's] best." (Trump)
Read the entire article HERE (http://www.wsj.com/articles/love-trumps-htrae-1478110013)
Quote from: ørfeo on November 03, 2016, 07:07:44 AM
You then provided us with a detailed description of Sir Francis Galton's work. Why? So you could waste all of our time a little more? If it doesn't matter, why did you write seven paragraphs?
Beddy-bye!!! Again, it doesn't matter what countries started implementing eugenics as a government policy. No one is forcing you to read through but it is pertinent in light of its bastard daughter Margaret Sanger (admired by Hillary Clinton) and her so-called Planned Parenthood. Without a knowledge of some history, PP might seem like a benign organization helping women. In fact, its overt and covert policies outpace any health issues. These will clash with any residual morals or restraints. They will prevail because they have the backing of the state. This in itself is a quiet revolution but no less sinister.
Nighty-night!!!
Quote from: ørfeo on November 03, 2016, 05:26:28 AM
And American Christianity has somehow managed to turn the Gospel completely on its head so that wealth is a sign of God's blessing and poverty is the result of moral failings.
Blame it on Calvin, actually.
Elizabeth Warren is the best we have in the fight against corporate corrupt practices. Her influence among Dems is going to grow with HRC in the WH. Sanders could not have received the level of support he did if Warren had been in the race.
The 'World's Wrongest Man' at it again – when does credibility evaporate? (http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=34664#more-34664)
The article isn't just a takedown of Michael Boskin as a prognoticator, it serves as an introduction to the post-Keynesian critique of the 'shrink to grow" economics of supply side taxation and public disinvestment:
The claim is that the capacity of a currency-issuing government to net spend, that is, run fiscal deficits, is dependent on its current fiscal situation (the size and sign of the fiscal balance), and its fiscal history (embodied in its public debt).
That claim is clearly false and with it all the rest of the suppositions that are inferred from it.
The reality is that a currency-issuing government can purchase whatever is for sale in that currency whenever it so chooses, which is not the same thing as saying that it should.
The current public debt ratio and the current and previous fiscal balances (in absolute terms or relative terms) do not constrain or enhance the capacity of such a government to spend its own currency.
Such a government is never in danger of defaulting on any outstanding liabilities which remain in the non-government sector until maturity and presentation for repayment.
Such a government, through its central bank, can buy any debt that the government issues (either directly from the Treasury or indirectly in the secondary markets from the non-government sector), and, if it chooses, can keystroke that debt into oblivion.
Such a government never has to issue debt in the first place.
Such a government does not need to raise taxes in the future to 'pay back the deficit'. The deficit yesterday – an outcome of two flows (spending and taxation) is gone and does not need to be paid back.
There is one qualification that might be made. If a government has been running large deficits to support growth in the past then it might have to introduce discretionary measures to reduce net spending as the economy approaches full employment to avoid invoking an inflationary spiral.
But that point is far removed from the sort of nonsense that claims that past government deficits drain the amount of 'money' the government has to spend in the future.
There is no candidate that supports this analysis. Warren does not, nor does Sanders.
Bill Mitchell isn't promulgating a radical theory, he's describing operational realities with falsehoods stripped out. Liberals and conservatives may either believe the falsehoods or not and it's often hard to tell, as evidence for disbelief is fairly strong in times of emergency when operational reality overcomes orthodoxy and the government net spends out of the crisis, until it becomes safe enough to revert to Boskinism.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 07:30:05 AM
Beddy-bye!!! Again, it doesn't matter what countries started implementing eugenics as a government policy. No one is forcing you to read through but it is pertinent in light of its bastard daughter Margaret Sanger (admired by Hillary Clinton) and her so-called Planned Parenthood. Without a knowledge of some history, PP might seem like a benign organization helping women. In fact, its overt and covert policies outpace any health issues. These will clash with any residual morals or restraints. They will prevail because they have the backing of the state. This in itself is a quiet revolution but no less sinister.
Nighty-night!!!
You reverse your position again (now implementation doesn't matter, what matters is smearing Clinton), and you continue to be f**king rude while doing it.
Elizabeth Warren, the Prisoner of 'Powerful Interests' (http://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-the-prisoner-of-powerful-interests-1478126566)
The choice in this year's presidential election is tying many voters in knots—it's unethical versus unthinkable, as a friend of mine put it. But Massachusetts citizens are facing a decision that's not nearly as difficult. It's a no-brainer: Whether to allow the state's high-performing, immensely popular, mission-driven, public charter schools—now capped at 120 statewide—to replicate and expand. That's the issue in the state's second ballot measure, and the obvious answer is yes.
Yet here we are, less than a week from the election, with Question 2 slated to affect the fates of 30,000 low-income children who desperately want the education that Massachusetts charter schools have to offer, and we observe the new liberal lion of the Senate, Elizabeth Warren, conspicuously siding with its opponents.
"Many charter schools in Massachusetts are producing extraordinary results for our students and we should celebrate the hard work of those teachers and spread what's working to other schools," Sen. Warren noted in a September statement. But then she announced that she's "very concerned about what this specific proposal means for hundreds of thousands of children across our Commonwealth, especially those living in districts with tight budgets where every dime matters. Education is about creating opportunity for all our children, not about leaving many behind."
This despite Ms. Warren's longstanding support for school choice as a means to keep a child's ZIP Code from limiting opportunity.
So what happened? Why did she flip? We might apply the reasoning of Ms. Warren herself. In 2004 she talked to Bill Moyers on TV about the impact of campaign donations on (then-Senator) Hillary Clinton's decision to vote for a major bankruptcy reform bill even though Mrs. Clinton had opposed a similar bill as first lady. Mr. Moyers asked why she thought Sen. Clinton voted for it.
Ms. Warren: "As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit-card companies have been giving money, and they have influence."
Mr. Moyers: "And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as senator."
Ms. Warren: "She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency."
Mr. Moyers: "But what does this mean, though, to these people, these millions of people out there whom the politicians cavort in front of as favoring the middle class, and then are beholden to the powerful interests that undermine the middle class? What does this say about politics today?"
Ms. Warren: "You know, this is the scary part about democracy today. . . . We're talking again about the impact of money. The credit industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying. . . ."
This raises an obvious question: Does Sen. Warren regard the wealthy teachers unions as her own "constituency?" One that counts more than the middle-class and low-income families who are desperate for the high-quality education that Massachusetts charter schools offer?
Quote from: ørfeo on November 03, 2016, 07:50:59 AM
You reverse your position again (now implementation doesn't matter, what matters is smearing Clinton), and you continue to be f**king rude while doing it.
No you are rude and twisting what I am saying. The primary reason for discussing Planned Parenthood and eugenics is their connection to Clinton. She received the Margaret Sanger (unashamed racist) award in 2009. Population control is a central feature of totalitarianism.
QuoteMs. Warren: "You know, this is the scary part about democracy today. . . . We're talking again about the impact of money. The credit industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying. . . ."
This raises an obvious question: Does Sen. Warren regard the wealthy teachers unions as her own "constituency?" One that counts more than the middle-class and low-income families who are desperate for the high-quality education that Massachusetts charter schools offer?
It's not fair to suggest that only charter school choosers care about quality. Sen. Warren faces the same constituency imprisonment dilemmas as any politician would face. And sometimes she will buckle to a powerful interest that has a weak argument. In Massachusetts tuition costs between public and charter schools are supposed to be equalized, but funding has lagged for the public side. Warren is entitled and I would argue obligated to take into account the funding situation and the constituents who may be harmed by it, even if it also benefits the teachers in the public system whose support she also seeks. But yes, she will tend to support the teachers all else being equal, though I think it isn't.
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Don't be surprised if Free Speech takes a hit in an El Tupé administration:
I bought the website Trump.org. Then Donald Trump came after me. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/03/i-bought-the-website-trump-org-then-donald-trump-came-after-me/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
I know some are hoping that McConnell and Ryan can "work with" El Tupé.
Oops. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/11/03/mcconnell-lets-the-cat-out-of-the-bag-he-cant-restrain-trump/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Now, McConnell confesses Trump is far more powerful than they. It's frightening because it is true.
[...]
At least we've dispensed with the fiction that a party unwilling to stop Trump before his election would act as a brake if he got to the Oval Office. McConnell is right in the sense that any president is the most powerful politician in the country. And that's the problem. Once elected, Trump's already humongous ego would know no limits.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 03, 2016, 09:29:43 AM
I know some are hoping that McConnell and Ryan can "work with" El Tupé.
Oops. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/11/03/mcconnell-lets-the-cat-out-of-the-bag-he-cant-restrain-trump/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
Now, McConnell confesses Trump is far more powerful than they. It's frightening because it is true.
[...]
At least we've dispensed with the fiction that a party unwilling to stop Trump before his election would act as a brake if he got to the Oval Office. McConnell is right in the sense that any president is the most powerful politician in the country. And that's the problem. Once elected, Trump's already humongous ego would know no limits.
Well, bloggers say a lot of things.
I'm a Republican. And I'm voting for Trump. Mind you, I know he's an incapable dud doubled with a money, pussy grabber neanderthalian, but I'm still voting Trump Republican.
I couldn't care less about the POTUS. It's the next SCOTUS Justice and Majority Leader that count. Everybody with a brain knows a Trump vote is a vote for the next right-wing SCOTUS and control of both Houses. I mean, who ever voted for a POTUS ? Might as well abolish the position. Forget about the brain dead orange orang-utan. Think of the future and vote for a return to the glorious past !
Brought to you by the True Republicans.
Quote from: André on November 03, 2016, 09:58:53 AM
I couldn't care less about the POTUS. It's the next SCOTUS Justice and Majority Leader that count. Everybody with a brain knows a Trump vote is a vote for the next right-wing SCOTUS and control of both Houses. I mean, who ever voted for a POTUS ? Might as well abolish the position. Forget about the brain dead orange orang-utan. Think of the future and vote for a return to the glorious past !
Brought to you by the True Republicans.
Bravo!!!
... this early lie presaged a campaign built on lies. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-only-way-trump-can-win/2016/11/02/1512d15c-a07c-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
My goodness, they dragged out poor Melania one more time, put her in some Princess Diana-era clothes, and let her read out some painfully bizarre speech about what she will do when she'd be First Lady.
She will focus on combatting bullying and uncivil behavior.
It's straight out of Orwell's 1984.
Donald Trump has never been closer to the presidency than he is at this moment
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/03/donald-trump-has-never-been-closer-to-the-presidency-than-he-is-at-this-moment/)
If the polls closed right at this moment (which they won't) and if the results in each state perfectly mirrored the current RealClearPolitics average of polls in each state (which they won't), Hillary Clinton would be elected president by an electoral college margin of 8 votes. From her high in the polls a week or two ago, Clinton's leads in a number of critical battleground states have collapsed or evaporated entirely. The election could come down to one state with four electoral college votes that flips from Clinton to Donald Trump and, boom: A 269-269 electoral college tie, and a vote by the House of Representatives to decide on the next president -- who, given the composition of the House, would almost certainly be Donald Trump.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 03, 2016, 12:29:41 PM
boom: A 269-269 electoral college tie, and a vote by the House of Representatives to decide on the next president -- who, given the composition of the House, would almost certainly be Donald Trump.[/i]
well, wouldn't that be your wet dream?
Quote from: sanantonio on November 03, 2016, 12:29:41 PM
boom: A 269-269 electoral college tie, and a vote by the House of Representatives to decide on the next president -- who, given the composition of the House, would almost certainly be Donald Trump.
The House can consider the top 3 vote getters, not the top 2, and I would imagine that the Democrats + a rogue contingent of Never Trump and Ryanist Republicans might then cut some kind of back-room deal to elect Johnson or McMullin.
It would be sheer madness nationally, of course - but at this point, there will be chaos if Trump wins, chaos if Trump loses, so what's a little added chaos?
Quote from: André on November 03, 2016, 09:58:53 AM
I'm a Republican. And I'm voting for Trump. Mind you, I know he's an incapable dud doubled with a money, pussy grabber neanderthalian, but I'm still voting Trump Republican.
I couldn't care less about the POTUS. It's the next SCOTUS Justice and Majority Leader that count. Everybody with a brain knows a Trump vote is a vote for the next right-wing SCOTUS and control of both Houses. I mean, who ever voted for a POTUS ? Might as well abolish the position. Forget about the brain dead orange orang-utan. Think of the future and vote for a return to the glorious past !
Brought to you by the True Republicans.
There is so much awful in this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Trump or which side of politics a person is on.
I can understand why badly educated unemployed rednecks with an IQ less than 90 will vote Trump. Of course they do! Trump says what they want to hear. Trump plays with their fears and fears is the best way to manipulate people. Trump's campaign has been a overwhelming masterpiece of populism and controversy.
I can't understand how anyone on this board would vote Trump. Yes, I am a Finn and I don't know everything about these candidates, but from my European point of view Hillary Clinton could become one of the best presidents in the history of USA.
This election is going to be a thriller for the whole world! ???
Quote from: snyprrr on October 30, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
Let me be perfectly clear- they should all most likely be hanging from the gallows in the public square for their High Crimes. Treasonous Pack ofRats- and go ahead and throw the GOP (Grabbers Of Pussy) leadership in there too...
THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE WATERED with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
WHAT? karl- you think I can afford an 8Ball???
If you going to quote please get the quote right:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.But Jefferson was not advocating violence and bloodshed as that quote was (is) often taken out of context.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 03, 2016, 01:29:15 PM
I can understand why badly educated unemployed rednecks with an IQ less than 90 will vote Trump. Of course they do! Trump says what they want to hear. Trump plays with their fears and fears is the best way to manipulate people. Trump's campaign has been a overwhelming masterpiece of populism and controversy.
Exactly. I don't like Grandma. But in the end I ask myself do I associate more with Trump (born with a silver spoon in his mouth, pampered as child, got everything he ever wanted, pompous, racist, sexist, a bigot) or with Grandma (smart, highly educated, made a name for herself in a tough field, serve this nation for decades). In the end the choice is easy.
Quote from: ørfeo link=topic= 24159.msg1013592#msg1013592 date=1478206560
There is so much awful in this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Trump or which side of politics a person is on.
I hope you didn't miss the "second degree" irony of my post... ::) Please don't mistake me for one of them. I don't think I deserve that :laugh:
................................................................
That being said, I don's think the US deserves Trump either.
................................................................
I understand the conservative sentiment. We ALL wish there was more order, more respect, more compassion in today's society. Amen to that.
OTOH the White first, retrograde, anti immigrants, homophobic, gun-toting, punishing, unforgiving, pussy-grabbing, I-can-yell-louder-than-you-can, overbearing kind of America that Trump and the Right promotes is a the kind of puke, puke, puke kind of society that revulses me.
The U.S.A. deserves the best, and so does the world.
I'm A Woman, I'm Voting For Trump, And It Wasn't Even A Close Call (http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/03/im-woman-im-voting-trump-wasnt-even-close-call/)
The Hillary Clinton campaigners have gone after my white, suburban, college-educated mom group hard this election season. She needs us to win the White House. This is especially true since I live in the swing state of North Carolina. With Donald Trump leading among men in battleground states, Clinton needs women like me to turn out in big numbers.
Historically, women like me have voted Republican, but that's not a forgone conclusion. We are open to change, and all of a sudden, the late GenXer/millennial mom is now a coveted swing group that can alter the course of a national election. Clinton has exploited this opportunity by repeatedly declaring how misogynistic Trump is and how we need to "be with her" and make history together by voting for the first woman president.
While I would have loved to make history by voting in the first president of my gender, that's not going to happen this time. I'm voting for Trump. It's not because I'm blind to his many faults; I see them perfectly. But they pale in comparison to Clinton's, not only her lack of trustworthiness and political corruption but her deeply flawed policies.
What matters to me are not appeals to identity politics and making history, but the platforms on which each candidate stands. Trump's policies and proposals are more in line with what's good for my family and country, while Clinton's pose a threat to our individual liberty and welfare in just about every sphere, particularly health care.
Smart.
ObamaCare's Chickens Come Home to Roost (http://observer.com/2016/11/obamacares-chickens-come-home-to-roost/)
Lies passed ObamaCare legislation, lies supported its implementation. As its death spiral begins, angry and panicked lies by Democratic apologists attempt to deflect accountability for its economic devastation.
ObamaCare's economic wreckage will insure President Barack Obama's now classic promises regarding ObamaCare will eventually scar his legacy. History is written usually by the victors. In the case of ObamaCare, the economic losers are so numerous their bitter complaints will write the titles, fill the chapters and pack the footnotes.
Here are two examples of his great falsehoods:
"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." President Obama, June 15, 2009 (http://michellemalkin.com/2013/11/04/obama-if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it-was-a-lie-and-thats-why-ive-kept-that-promise/)
He repeated the "keep your doctor lie" the next day, in a speech to the American Medical Association.
"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period." President Barack Obama, June 16, 2009
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-annual-conference-american-medical-association)
The last link leads to the White House website.
Obama has managed to escape accountability for a deception that has damaged many middle class families. When he skated through the 2012 presidential campaign America had yet to feel the full extent of ObamaCare's policy disaster. Presidential debate moderators didn't press him on the point. Obama could sell himself as hope.
It's November 2016. The empirical evidence is in. His "Keep you doctor" and "keep your policy" statements were blatant falsehoods.
(http://obamacarefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/gallup-healthways-2nd-quarter-2015-aca-uninusred.png)
I understand that insurance companies are capable of "Obama lies" changes in your insurance policy that are not in the ACA itself. Those of us who favored single payer were aware these companies didn't feel any obligation to keep promises they didn't make.
Now, I don't think ObamaCare fails unless people who now have coverage are forced off. There will never be a Repub plan that keeps everyone and expands on that. They can't "replace", they won't, they don't want to. It's Repub bullshittery, not truthful enough to be a lie.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 03, 2016, 04:03:15 PMIt's November 2016. The empirical evidence is in. His "Keep you doctor" and "keep your policy" statements were blatant falsehoods.[/i]
I kept my doctor and kept my policy. Just about everyone I know who remained in the same job did. It appears to me that the pronouncements of the failure of the affordable care act are greatly exaggerated. Yes, cost continues to rise, as it has for a generation or more.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 03, 2016, 05:52:52 PM
I kept my doctor and kept my policy. Just about everyone I know who remained in the same job did. It appears to me that the pronouncements of the failure of the affordable care act are greatly exaggerated. Yes, cost continues to rise, as it has for a generation or more.
Sadly other people could not. In a dozen or more states insurance companies left the market leaving sometimes only one choice. Some doctors have opted out and yes, premiums have risen dramatically.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/that-supreme-court-stonewall-may-not-crumble-anytime-soon.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/that-supreme-court-stonewall-may-not-crumble-anytime-soon.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)
No new SCOTUS for the next 4 years ?
Only in the U.S. of A. :laugh: (note the choice of emoticon. Nothing else would be more appropriate).
And to think this is supposed to be the greatest democracy on the planet. What a joke !
Quote from: André on November 03, 2016, 02:58:47 PMI understand the conservative sentiment. We ALL wish there was more order, more respect, more compassion in today's society. Amen to that.
OTOH the White first, retrograde, anti immigrants, homophobic, gun-toting, punishing, unforgiving, pussy-grabbing, I-can-yell-louder-than-you-can, overbearing kind of America that Trump and the Right promotes is a the kind of puke, puke, puke kind of society that revulses me.
The U.S.A. deserves the best, and so does the world.
Amen to this post! If Trump gets into office, is there room in Laval, Quebec for an American who wants out of his country? :)
An American friend shared this thought on Facebook, and I thought it was good enough to share:
QuoteIt's funny that the party that wants to privatize every public service and sell it to a private contractor is scandalized that a woman decides she'd rather privatize her email server than trust the government one.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 03, 2016, 11:29:57 PM
An American friend shared this thought on Facebook, and I thought it was good enough to share:
"It's funny that the party that wants to privatize every public service and sell it to a private contractor is scandalized that a woman decides she'd rather privatize her email server than trust the government one."
HRC broke the law and she will pay for it.
Privatization in business is always better than a bureaucracy-laden governmental "service".
It's as if you can't see the inherent problem in reconciling those two sentences. Despite the quote explicitly pointing it out to you.
If you'd said "it's better if it's within the law", you might have had something. But you just glide right over that, as usual. You spit out sentences as completely independent ideas and never attempt to connect them. Your posts consist of a bunch of thoughts that you compartmentalise.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 03, 2016, 11:46:10 PM
It's as if you can't see the inherent problem in reconciling those two sentences. Despite the quote explicitly pointing it out to you. If you'd said "it's better if it's within the law", you might have had something. But you just glide right over that, as usual. You spit out sentences as completely independent ideas and never attempt to connect them. Your posts consist of a bunch of thoughts that you compartmentalise.
I don't accept any of your talking down to me. It's as though you are just waiting for a "gotcha" moment.
HRC breaking the law big time, leaving privileged information open to the public and privatization of business are two different subjects. You're the one who incorrectly linked them.
FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information has been taken from it. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html)
#lockherup (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23lockherup)
That's bad, but this is worse
The Classified Emails Are "Shiny Object" To Distract From Clinton Foundation Corruption (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/monica_crowley_the_classified_emails_are_shiny_object_to_distract_from_clinton_foundation_corruption.html)
#draintheswamp (https://twitter.com/hashtag/draintheswamp?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Ehashtag)
Quote from: André on November 03, 2016, 02:58:47 PM
I hope you didn't miss the "second degree" irony of my post... ::) Please don't mistake me for one of them. I don't think I deserve that :laugh:
I thought it quite clear that you were in jest :)
We voted yesterday.
What if the polls are wrong? (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-trump-2016-polls-what-if-wrong-230712)
And more: What if Clinton's vaunted data operation and ground game don't deliver? What if there is, in fact, a "silent majority" of Trump fans? What if Clinton's banked stash of early-votes is insufficient? What if, as President Obama's former campaign manager David Plouffe not so affectionately describes nervous Democrats, the "bed-wetters" are right?
"The trend lines are clearly going in our direction," Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said this week on MSNBC.
Tony Fabrizio, one of Trump's pollsters, tweeted a provocative question this week about that. "What if the turnout models are wrong and turnout looks more like 2014 than it does 2012?" Fabrizio asked. For instance, Fabrizio floated the impact if "African-American turnout is down 1 or 2 points (which early vote suggests)?"
Pollsters are dubious a big hidden shift is underway, especially as more than 30 million have voted early, giving a snapshot of the electorate. "I don't see evidence that turnout is going to be at an all-time low in terms of key Democratic groups turning out," Murray said.
But every day that the words "FBI," "email," and Clinton" continue to be splashed across front pages of websites, newspapers and cable chyrons is another day of concern for Democrats that Trump could somehow be sneaking up on Clinton.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 04, 2016, 01:29:34 AM
We voted yesterday.
Me and my daughter are getting party hats, for Wednesday.
Not because I feel 100% sure, but it's the best I can do.
Good luck to all.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 11:34:38 PM
Privatization in business is always better than a bureaucracy-laden governmental "service".
This is not true. It depends on the business what kind of model works best. For example, natural monopolies should be public services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_health_care (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_health_care)
Many countries are seeking the right balance of public and private insurance, public subsidies, and out-of-pocket payments.
Many OECD countries have implemented reforms to achieve policy goals of ensuring access to health-care, improving the quality of health care and health outcomes, allocating an appropriate level of public sector other resources to healthcare but at the same time ensuring that services are provided in a cost-efficient and cost-effective manner (microeconomic efficiency). A range of measures, such as better payment methods, have improved the microeconomic incentives facing providers. However, introducing improved incentives through a more competitive environment among providers and insurers has proved difficult.
A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States because of Americans' lacking health insurance, equivalent to one excess death every 12 min. More broadly, the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care was estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 04, 2016, 02:36:05 AM
This is not true. It depends on the business what kind of model works best. For example, natural monopolies should be public services.
The Privatization is Best has become a matter of faith and ideology.
Free Market fundamentalism is killing the planet.
Quote from: Herman on November 04, 2016, 01:53:17 AM
Me and my daughter are getting party hats, for Wednesday.
Not because I feel 100% sure, but it's the best I can do.
We're hoping you have the happiest occasion to wear them!
Quote from: 71 dB on November 03, 2016, 01:29:15 PM
I can understand why badly educated unemployed rednecks with an IQ less than 90 will vote Trump. Of course they do! Trump says what they want to hear. Trump plays with their fears and fears is the best way to manipulate people. Trump's campaign has been a overwhelming masterpiece of populism and controversy.
I can't understand how anyone on this board would vote Trump.
That's what truly scares me.
Now it is all about turn out. Everyone knows the issues, the accusations, the character flaws, and alleged crimes of each of these candidates. If there are still undecided voters out there, they can't be many. The candidate who gets more of his/her voters to the polling station will win.
When a few European members of GMG cast aspersions against me or others, nearly half of the US electorate, who will vote for Donald Trump - I can't help but laugh to myself. Liberals, especially foreign Liberals, appalled by Trump's popularity is one bright spot in this otherwise dreary election.
;)
Quote from: Herman on November 04, 2016, 03:09:14 AM
The Privatization is Best has become a matter of faith and ideology.
Free Market fundamentalism is killing the planet.
Pure sosialism does not work, we know it from history, althou sosialism never got a good chance to show it's virtues. Pure capitalism doesn't work either, because the class differencies become too large. The social problems prevent a fully functional society.
My own idealogy is that an optimized combination of capitalism and socialism is the best solution. I call it 75/25 system. About 75 % capitalism and 25 % socialism. The optimal figured can be 85/15 or 60/40 and vary from country to country, but 75/25 is a good starting point I think.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 04:33:05 AM
When a few European members of GMG cast aspersions against me or others, nearly half of the US electorate, who will vote for Donald Trump - I can't help but laugh to myself. Liberals, especially foreign Liberals, appalled by Trump's popularity is one bright spot in this otherwise dreary election.
;)
Nations can learn from each other. Americans (and us Europeans for that matter) are only a small fraction of the population on this planet.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 11:34:38 PM
HRC broke the law and she will pay for it.
Ah yes, lock 'er up. You Hillary-haters seem always to forget such things as due process and trial by jury. Ah, that inconvenient Constitution again . . . .
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 03, 2016, 11:34:38 PM
Privatization in business is always better than a bureaucracy-laden governmental "service".
The favorite right-wing shibboleth, which assumes among other things that government is always a failure and that there is no bureaucracy or inefficiency within the private sector. And yet within the US federal government there are any number of "services" that work extremely well - mail delivery, passport issuance, Social Security, Medicare, to name a few. (And stop that knee from jerking: we all know there are problems within the SS system that need resolution, but as presently administered it is remarkably efficient, and has done an excellent job of keeping seniors out of poverty - a genuine problem when the system was created in the 1930s.)
Quote from: 71 dB on November 04, 2016, 04:56:47 AM
Nations can learn from each other.
Indeed, though a characteristic of Americans is a general unwillingness to learn from others. (We're Number One, you know.) I heard a radio program last month about how much more successfully German prisons handle teenage inmates than American ones, yet I'm sure we will never learn.
Because furriners!
Michael Gerson:
I own up to being even more emotionally entangled in the result of the 2016 election — not because of any change in policy or ideology, but because of Donald Trump's proposed shift in the very purpose of the presidency. His political theory, such as it is, is "us" vs. "them." The "them" may be Republican elites, or liberal elites, or migrants or Mexicans or Muslims. Trump would be elected on the promise of fighting, rounding up, jailing or humbling any number of personal and political opponents. Take away this appeal, and there is nothing left but grasping, pathetic vanity. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/one-final-election-plea-on-the-behalf-of-us-ideals/2016/11/03/4975a1c4-a1dd-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)
The piece is titled, One final election plea, on the behalf of U.S. ideals.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 04, 2016, 05:04:48 AM
Michael Gerson:
The piece is titled, One final election plea, on the behalf of U.S. ideals.
As effective, I imagine, as a similar plea from the opposing side of the partisan gulf.
;)
Apologies, but the word is there in the headline:
The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 04, 2016, 05:24:25 AM
Apologies, but the word is there in the headline:
The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit)
Oh sure, FBI agents are just full of bullshit. Try again.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 05:32:44 AM
Oh sure, FBI agents are just full of bullshit. Try again.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/03/meet-donald-trump-s-top-fbi-fanboy.html
Touché.
Comey was a hero when he gave Clinton a pass. Now not so much. Funny, how his reputation rises or falls depending on if he is acting favorably toward Clinton or not.
One of the biggest problems of this election is the Clinton smear machine targeting the FBI because Clinton acted in a manner which drew an investigation.
Shame on Comey. He had the temerity to do his job.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 03, 2016, 06:58:29 AMClinton represents the past corrupt practices and Trump and Sanders represent an alternatvie path for the future of both parties. Hopefully, that is.
Sanders turned out to be a democrat after all, fully supporting Clinton. Your right about Clinton, she's been in govt most of her life. At least Trump isn't that, I still don't understand why he's even bothering, seems like an unselfish act, lots of aggravation and he's taking the abuse. There is very little difference between either party, or gang though. Both are responsible for having ruined your country which is trillions of dollars in debt and very disliked abroad globally. Both parties are responsible. And the system is set up in such a way that other true alternatives (to these 2 longstanding gangs) can't get into the game, not even debates, viewed by millions. Manufacturing consent indeed. Politicians (employees, public servants) hired & paid by 'the people' (the supposed employers), don't care about working for what's best for 'their employers' at all when we look at the mess. They care more about working on what's best for their political party first. It is truly a 2 party dictatorship. The presidential election has been a joke and an embarrassment for the world to see.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 05:32:44 AM
Oh sure, FBI agents are just full of bullshit. Try again.
You expect me to mistake that for an argument? Try again 8)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 05:44:00 AM
Comey was a hero when he gave Clinton a pass.
You keep alleging this. I wonder whom you're speaking to.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 05:32:44 AM
Oh sure, FBI agents are just full of bullshit. Try again.
The FBI is not the problem here. The reaction to the FBI is.
And frankly that goes both ways.
'The Antichrist personified': 'Open warfare' and antipathy toward Clinton is reportedly fueling the FBI leaks (http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-fbi-trump-2016-11)
PIERS MORGAN: Get off your high horse, Hillary. Only ONE candidate is up to her neck in FBI probes and her name isn't Donald (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3902876/PIERS-MORGAN-high-horse-Hillary-one-candidate-neck-FBI-probes-isn-t-Donald.html#ixzz4P3GAEII0)
I watched President Obama tear into Trump, branding him a small-brained, star-f***ing, Ku Klux Klan tolerating 'loser' born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
It was an astonishingly personal and nasty attack from a man whose own wife Michelle recently declared from atop her lofty moral plinth: 'When they go low, we go high.'
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton showed she didn't get the 'rise above the monster' memo either, shrieking herself hoarse as she once again laid into Trump supporters she recently described as 'The Deplorables'.
'I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and the anger of people who support Donald Trump,' she raged.
The problem for Mrs Clinton as she gallops across the fields of America like a crusading white knight trying to single-handedly save the nation from imminent Armageddon at the hands of Mr Evil is that she's the Trace Adkins of this battle.
In other words, she ain't no saint herself.
Her supporters don't accept this of course. To them, Hillary is a vestal political virgin of unimpeachable integrity.
'Why would I want to criticise her?' a female Clinton-ite actress indignantly asked me on Twitter yesterday. 'She's up against a mad man. Compared to him, she's bathed in golden light.'
It was the kind of thing I'd expect Tom Cruise to say in defence of his beloved basket case Scientologists.
Bahahahahaahahaha when Piers Morgan is on your side that means it's time to join the other side.
Quote from: drogulus on November 04, 2016, 06:44:44 AM
'The Antichrist personified': 'Open warfare' and antipathy toward Clinton is reportedly fueling the FBI leaks (http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-fbi-trump-2016-11)
Most important word in that headline is "reportedly". Cinton-nites see partisan enemies everywhere (not the only trait she and her supporters share with Nixon and his). For them. there is no possiblity that their candidate might have a character problem.
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2016, 06:51:12 AM
Bahahahahaahahaha when Piers Morgan is on your side that means it's time to join the other side.
Hah! We have a saying in the South, "Even a blind pig will find an acorn now and then."
;)
Quote from: ørfeo on November 03, 2016, 11:46:10 PM
It's as if you can't see the inherent problem in reconciling those two sentences. Despite the quote explicitly pointing it out to you.
If you'd said "it's better if it's within the law", you might have had something. But you just glide right over that, as usual. You spit out sentences as completely independent ideas and never attempt to connect them. Your posts consist of a bunch of thoughts that you compartmentalise.
No need in arguing with a Republican. They're right and you're wrong. It doesn't matter what the issue is either. They always feel the need to have the last word on everything.
I can't wait for the thread to die, frankly.
A True November Surprise: The Clinton Campaign at Obama Justice: Emails on WikiLeaks Show a Top Federal Lawyer Giving Hillary a Quiet Heads Up (http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/11/04/true-november-surprise-clinton-campaign-obama-justice-emails-wikileaks-show-top-federal) (WSJ)
The 'leftover people' may deliver a win for Trump (http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/02/the-leftover-people-may-deliver-win-for-trump/9aRgDcwCw8AaBPCyf4WXmM/story.html) (Boston Globe)
Election Update: Why Clinton's Position Is Worse Than Obama's (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-clintons-position-is-worse-than-obamas/) (FiveThirtyEight)
The case against Hillary Clinton (http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/11/op-ed-case-against-hillary-clinton/) (NY Daily News)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 04:33:05 AM
When a few European members of GMG cast aspersions against me or others, nearly half of the US electorate, who will vote for Donald Trump - I can't help but laugh to myself. Liberals, especially foreign Liberals, appalled by Trump's popularity is one bright spot in this otherwise dreary election.
Europeans should certainly be able to understand the rise of Trump, since populism and nationalism are on the rise over there too: see Brexit, and the gathering strength of nationalist parties on the Continent. Were the 52% of Britons who voted for Brexit all gun-totin' rednecks with an IQ of 90?
"Trumpism" is a global phenomenon with local variations.
One of the reasons I'm looking forward to the thread dying is that several of the most frequent contributors seem to be unaware that creation of news feeds was automated quite some time ago. There are apps for that.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 04, 2016, 07:14:48 AM
Were the 52% of Britons who voted for Brexit all gun-totin' rednecks with an IQ of 90?
One thing Brexiters and Trumpies have in common: they're older.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cls7vB7WkAATVNI.jpg)
Meanwhile, among voters aged 18-39, Clinton leads by 24 points; among those over 40, Trump has a small lead.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/the-demographic-groups-fueling-the-election/
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2016, 07:23:24 AM
One thing Brexiters and Trumpies have in common: they're older.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cls7vB7WkAATVNI.jpg)
Meanwhile, among voters aged 18-39, Clinton leads by 24 points; among those over 40, Trump has a small lead.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/the-demographic-groups-fueling-the-election/
Which is not really surprising. A slogan like "Make America Great Again" (or heck, make the UK great again) is going to resonate more with those that essentially miss the America of their youth. He's selling the (in my view misleading) idea that they can go back.
The young, on the other hand, are more likely to be interested in further change. Not reversion.
A recent New York Times headline: "Peter Thiel Defends His Most Contrarian Move Yet: Supporting Trump." Isn't it time people started defending their support for Hillary Clinton?
Why aren't Hillary's backers made to explain how they can vote for a candidate who promised not to trade access for money while she served as Secretary of State, but then did it anyway?
Who vowed to reveal all monies collected by the Clinton Foundation from foreign entities while she was in office but failed to do so?
Who has lied innumerable times to the American people and who has time and again revealed herself as lacking a moral compass?
Whose campaign has engaged in dirty tricks, colluding with the DNC and with the media?
Shouldn't we question those who are putting their money behind Hilary Clinton, the first person to run for the presidency while subject of a criminal investigation? Whose natural instincts are to lie, about matters serious and inconsequential? Whose greed outweighs incandescent ambition?
Who offers voters nothing but enraged disparagement of her opponent?
It's a reasonable question that should be asked: how can anyone with good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton?
RTRH (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/04/its-time-to-ask-hillarys-supporters-how-could.html)
Quote from: ørfeo on November 04, 2016, 07:05:15 AM
I can't wait for the thread to die, frankly.
Me too.
Sanantonio, your contribution to this thread has devolved into saying:
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
In the frankly deluded belief that this will make a difference. Or constitutes discussion.
Trump Will Ignite an American Economic Boom (http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2016/11/04/trump_will_ignite_an_american_economic_boom.html)
After the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981, the U.S. Economy experienced one of its greatest booms in history. The growth rate averaged nearly 4 percent for seven years 1982–89. And the stock market rose from less than 1,000 on the Dow to more than 10,000 over the next two decades. This was a period of wealth and job creation that the nation and middle class had seldom seen before. All the liberal critics wrongly said it could not and would not happen.
Now the question is: Could it happen again in this era of massive government debt, meager growth, and flatlined incomes for the middle class? The answer is "yes." With the right set of policy fixes, we can see a return to wage gains, higher profits (which means a bull run on stocks), and rapid growth in output.
Since the end of the recession, economic growth has averaged an anemic 2 percent, producing the weakest "recovery" since the Great Depression. Over the past year, growth has slowed to an even more anemic 1.5 percent. This is barely staying out of recession. America can do much better.
One thing is sure: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have almost diametrically opposite economic plans. Clinton will raise taxes. Trump will cut them. Clinton has vowed to defend President Obama's "legacy" and double down on job-killers such as Obamacare.
Trump is offering big changes, and I believe they could accelerate the economic growth rate from 1.5 percent to 4 percent for the next five years. That is the equivalent of adding another Texas to the U.S economy. How would he accomplish this?
RTRH (http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2016/11/04/trump_will_ignite_an_american_economic_boom.html)
Quote from: ørfeo on November 04, 2016, 07:30:19 AM
Sanantonio, your contribution to this thread has devolved into saying:
In the frankly deluded belief that this will make a difference. Or constitutes discussion.
He's one of those who lives in a world with a different set of facts from our world. Persuading him that some of those views are specious, unsound, or extremely unlikely at best (e.g. the "Economic Boom" post directly above, a view contradicted by ~400 major economists in a recent open letter) would take years of full-time effort. Simply not worth it.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 04, 2016, 07:30:19 AM
Sanantonio, your contribution to this thread has devolved into saying:
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
In the frankly deluded belief that this will make a difference. Or constitutes discussion.
LOL! :P That's really what David's posts look like at this juncture.
I am honored to be the bête noire of this thread. :D
Actually, I see myself offering merely the other POV among Karl's postings and others of like mind. You guys have me out numbered by probably ten to one. And yet you whine about the one nay-sayer.
;)
Quote from: ørfeo on November 04, 2016, 07:18:21 AM
One of the reasons I'm looking forward to the thread dying is that several of the most frequent contributors seem to be unaware that creation of news feeds was automated quite some time ago. There are apps for that.
I crave your pardon.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 07:42:08 AM
I am honored to be the bête noire of this thread. :D
;)
I mean, I feel like we all have to be the contrarian voice at least once, if we are to think of ourselves with any dignity. It's just that in my case on GMG, that means defending Johann Strauss ;D
Just found an interesting piece, How the Swing Voter Went Extinct.
Link available on request 8)
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2016, 07:45:20 AM
I mean, I feel like we all have to be the contrarian voice at least once, if we are to think of ourselves with any dignity. It's just that in my case on GMG, that means defending Johann Strauss ;D
A most worthy contrarian activity!
;)
Charles Krauthammer acknowledges that WikiLeaks is a sleeve of Putin's propaganda. So if any of y'all think of WikiLeaks as a "hero," Счастливо!
Does Krauthammer still count as "a real Republican" and/or "a real Conservative"? Asking for a friend . . . .
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2016, 07:23:24 AM
One thing Brexiters and Trumpies have in common: they're older.
Fortunately I consider myself young at heart.
But my 91-year-old father has said he would be "nauseated" at the thought of a Donald Trump presidency.
I would only fear for the future of this country as I never have in all my 68 years. If Trump wins, a buffoon and lecher who has no knowledge of or respect for the Constitution, and who will disappoint his followers the most as soon as he abandons them. If Clinton wins, an experienced and knowledgeable if flawed candidate whom Republicans will hound with threat of indictments and impeachment from day one. At this point I can only see the inevitable and irrevocable decline of a once-promising and often great nation.
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2016, 07:45:20 AM
I mean, I feel like we all have to be the contrarian voice at least once, if we are to think of ourselves with any dignity. It's just that in my case on GMG, that means defending Johann Strauss ;D
Now, now, zamarabyrd is every bit as contrarian as the city in Texas. It's ten to two, not ten to one.
And Brahms also defended Johann Strauss, so there. So does a musicologist friend of mine who calls him the greatest composer who ever lived. Moi, I am as nauseated by his waltzes as my father is by the prospect of a Trump presidency.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 07:42:08 AM
I am honored to be the bête noire of this thread. :D
Actually, I seemyself offering merely the other POV among Karl's postings and others of like mind. You guys have me out numbered by probably ten to one. And yet you whine about the one nay-sayer.
;)
Actually, I'm nearly as annoyed with Karl as I am with you. A fact that Karl has, unlike you, picked up on quickly, and is apologising for. Not BLOODY GLOATING about.
Seriously, you think this is funny? Or praiseworthy? You think endless spewing of links does you some kind of credit? You think that being disliked, bordering on being a troll, is a great place to be?
Is your head swimming with some kind of notion of "blessed are you if they persecute you"? That only applies if they "persecute" you for your faith. Not for being a jerk.
I participate in internet message boards because I'm interested in discussion. I am, in fact, particularly interested in discussion with people who have views different to mine and who are capable of standing up for those views and making me think.
But what do you offer? You couldn't stand up for your views. I'm going to remind you again, I actually agreed with your views on a particular issue related to corporations, whereupon you (TWICE) performed the reflex action of opposing me, just because you had thrown me in the category of "Democrat" ::) and therefore anything I said must be wrong. Even when it was the same thing you'd said a few posts earlier.
That's not standing up for your views. That's a kind of mindless tribal allegiance that I despise, including when I witness it in people whose views are similar to my own.
The world is going to pot precisely because it is filled with people like you, on both sides, who think the whole thing is a fucking game with a fucking scoreboard. Instead of being interested in analysis and solutions, all you're interested in is "winning". And because you felt that you were "losing", you decided to resort to peppering your "opponents" with links to show just how big and strong your team is.
It doesn't seem to occur to you that there could be any possible reason for you being outnumbered. Because, hey, it's all about teams. It's not about people trying to actually figure out the right answer to anything, and maybe the majority of people agreeing on a particular point because they're right.
It is of course possible for the majority to be
wrong on something. There are certainly examples of that floating around. But you're not trying to convince us your a prophet crying in the wilderness, begging us to correct course. No, your tactic is to disengage from actual discussion altogether and try spamming us.
Frankly it's pathetic. And if you think that it's worthy of cheerful little winks and smiles (which you've attempted to use as some kind of defusing tactic quite a few times over the course of the thread), then my estimation of you just took a few more hits. This is not some amusing little joke. This is about the leadership of one of the most influential countries in the world. Fucking take it seriously.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 07:42:08 AM
I am honored to be the bête noire of this thread. :D
Actually, I see myself offering merely the other POV among Karl's postings and others of like mind. You guys have me out numbered by probably ten to one. And yet you whine about the one nay-sayer.
;)
Good point.
About your laughing at "European Liberals". I have lived in the US quite a while, and as a consequence I can't help but care about what happens in the US. I'm not looking forward to large portions of the US population getting shafted by a con man with a track record as crooked as the Pisa Tower. That will make them only angrier.
The other thing is, Trump is saying he's going to cancel everything Obama did to slow climate change, get out of NATO and 'renegotiate' tread deals. That is going to affect every single person on the planet, even though only a fraction of the entire US population is going to vote for Trump.
Third point, all the populist and nativist movements internationally are interconnected. Trump is taking a leaf out of several EU continental populist movements, and of course he is encouraging voters to do the Brexit thing. Politics isn't local anymore - if that has ever been the case.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2016, 07:57:15 AM
Fortunately I consider myself young at heart.
But my 91-year-old father has said he would be "nauseated" at the thought of a Donald Trump presidency.
I would only fear for the future of this country as I never have in all my 68 years. If Trump wins, a buffoon and lecher who has no knowledge of or respect for the Constitution, and who will disappoint his followers the most as soon as he abandons them. If Clinton wins, an experienced and knowledgeable if flawed candidate whom Republicans will hound with threat of indictments and impeachment from day one. At this point I can only see the inevitable and irrevocable decline of a once-promising and often great nation.
The questions Hillary and Paul Ryan will need to address are:
1. How do we de-escalate this crisis of delegitimizing the basic processes of government?
2. How do we re-integrate poor whites as educated, opportunity-getting members of society?
No doubt Hillary will be diving into nerdy policy goals like community college retraining, job skills programs, big hires from big infrastructure spending (which Republicans will oppose), etc. But the bigger problem is #1, and that will only come when everyone in Washington agrees to do their jobs and exhibit basic respect for the need to get along and cooperate and collaborate. Hillary has said she plans to reach out to Republicans; indeed, her election strategy was predicated on this. But based on comments from Ted Cruz, John McCain, and of course You-Know-Who, the Republicans may be more willing to burn the whole national rule of law down than concede even one Supreme Court seat.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2016, 08:01:18 AM
And Brahms also defended Johann Strauss, so there. So does a musicologist friend of mine who calls him the greatest composer who ever lived. Moi, I am as nauseated by his waltzes as my father is by the prospect of a Trump presidency.
Since this thread needs a bit of levity, I think I'll just post my current listening:
(http://cdn.naxosmusiclibrary.com/sharedfiles/images/cds/hires/00028941770622.jpg)
Now, it is also true that occasionally I will be a bad boy and get full on dessert, or just pour out a little bowl of chocolate chips and eat them as if that's a snack. Johann Strauss may be similar! But - let me try to bridge the gap between your musicologist friend and reality - at what he intended to do, and at his chosen vocation, he's the best there ever was. The way melodies spill out of him fills me with jealousy. And boy, Anton Karas bringing his
Third Man sound to "Tales from the Vienna Woods," sounds so great to these ears ;D
Trump has latched onto a real problem in the U.S. which is present in the rest of the developed world. A "globalized" economy which has led to stagnating or dwindling wages and salaries for the great majority, with direction of wealth to a tiny investor class. I find it astonishing that anyone believes that Donald Trump has any desire to change this, or to do anything but to increase his own wealth and/or prestige.
Fox News has now apologized for the inaccurate "Hillary indictment" story from yesterday.
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2016, 08:51:59 AM
Fox News has now apologized for the inaccurate "Hillary indictment" story from yesterday.
Zowie.
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2016, 08:51:59 AM
Fox News has now apologized for the inaccurate "Hillary indictment" story from yesterday.
But that's equivalent to the lawyer who makes an obviously tendentious statement about the opposing side, and is forced to withdraw after the judge sustains the objection. The intent is still to plant a seed in the jury's mind.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 06:51:41 AM
Most important word in that headline is "reportedly". Cinton-nites see partisan enemies everywhere (not the only trait she and her supporters share with Nixon and his). For them. there is no possiblity that their candidate might have a character problem.
Yes, it's reported. Hillary has been the subject of reports and leaks to the extent that one might conclude she has partisan enemies in Trumpland, Russia and the alt-right media that merged with the Trump campaign operation. Is the FBI an outpost of, let's say not quite conspirators, but conspiracy sympathizers? Where do you draw the line? It may be that the FBI and Russo-Trolls, the Ryan-McConnell Repubs and the Breitbartians are acting in an uncoordinated way that produces the appearance of an anti-democratic conspiracy larger than it actually is. That leaves questions that will probably remain unanswered for years.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 04, 2016, 08:24:59 AM
A "globalized" economy which has led to stagnating or dwindling wages and salaries for the great majority, with direction of wealth to a tiny investor class.
I belong to a big class of tiny investors, not a tiny class of big investors. I could throw my lot in either direction. I've chosen to go with the side my bread is buttered on. Just as with Trump it's all about
meeeeeeee. Where we differ is about how self interest is defined, not only how I can thrive but what kind of world I want to thrive in, given the available choices about the path forward.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 04, 2016, 07:30:19 AM
Sanantonio, your contribution to this thread has devolved into saying:
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
"See?!"
In the frankly deluded belief that this will make a difference. Or constitutes discussion.
And yours are:
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 06:51:41 AM
Most important word in that headline is "reportedly". [Clinton]-nites see partisan enemies everywhere (not the only trait she and her supporters share with Nixon and his). For them. there is no [possibility] that their candidate might have a character problem.
This is in large part a strawman, as you blithely fail to acknowledge any number of times when not I alone have acknowledged that Clinton is a flawed candidate.
In an opinion piece headed "The GOP must decide whether to be sane," Jennifer Rubin uses the phrase "lunacy in a prom dress."
I don't know if she qualifies as a Clinton-nite. Maybe anyone who opposes El Tupé is to be disregarded as a partisan enemy.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 04, 2016, 09:42:19 AM
This is in large part a strawman, as you blithely fail to acknowledge any number of times when not I alone have acknowledged that Clinton is a flawed candidate.
I don't know, Karl, but here's one of your posts with a link to an article alleging that the FBI investigation was "bullshit"
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 04, 2016, 05:24:25 AM
Apologies, but the word is there in the headline:
The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit)
I guess that is you not seeing partisan enemies everywhere, or at least at the FBI.
868 polling places in southern states have been closed for the 2016 election. It is believed that these closures disproportionately affect minority voters.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 07:42:08 AM
I am honored to be the bête noire of this thread. :D
Actually, I see myself offering merely the other POV among Karl's postings and others of like mind. You guys have me out numbered by probably ten to one. And yet you whine about the one nay-sayer.
I hear ya, man, you're not alone.
Did ya ever hear the saying "Don't bother us with facts"?
Or the Stockholm Syndrome?
Or the uselessness of convincing cult members?
I actually thought it over the top when reading about the Clinton occult connection but it has just come out in Wikileaks that John Podesta was interested in Spirit Cooking with Marina Abramovic!!!
http://www.dailywire.com/news/10501/wikileaks-podesta-may-have-attended-occultic-pardes-seleh
I also remember back in the Clinton's presidency reports of a weird Christmas tree in the White House that had all manner of occult and weird symbols on it. This can be searched up.
If it croaks like a witch, it is probably someone who does travel on a broom.
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2016, 08:14:48 AM
Since this thread needs a bit of levity, I think I'll just post my current listening:
Now, it is also true that occasionally I will be a bad boy and get full on dessert, or just pour out a little bowl of chocolate chips and eat them as if that's a snack. Johann Strauss may be similar! But - let me try to bridge the gap between your musicologist friend and reality - at what he intended to do, and at his chosen vocation, he's the best there ever was. The way melodies spill out of him fills me with jealousy. And boy, Anton Karas bringing his Third Man sound to "Tales from the Vienna Woods," sounds so great to these ears ;D
I think this thread has had ample levity, but more of a bitter and not a confectionary nature.
But since you are now digressing and I love digressions as much as life itself (cf. Swift: "A Digression in Praise of Digressions," or the passage in "Catcher in the Rye" where Holden tells us his favorite parts in speech class were where the speaker gets completely off topic), I admit my friend is also an expert on such composers as Verdi and Boulez, and so his bizarre remark has often struck me as more than a trifle bizarre - though I know he does love "Fledermaus." But truly, is JS such a great melodist? That Blue Danube theme, rhythmically so stiff and symmetrical? and so many others like it? I would be far more jealous of Chopin, Tchaikovsky, or even Puccini as melodists.
I do, however, like to freeze a couple of squares from a 70% Ghirardelli bar and have them as a snack. Much preferable in my mind to semisweet.
(Back to part 1 of your post later, but I wanted to address the more significant paragraph first.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 04, 2016, 09:47:13 AM
In an opinion piece headed "The GOP must decide whether to be sane," Jennifer Rubin uses the phrase "lunacy in a prom dress."
I don't know if she qualifies as a Clinton-nite. Maybe anyone who opposes El Tupé is to be disregarded as a partisan enemy.
Of course there are real reasons to oppose Donald Trump, although I don't find in Rubin's posts the best arguments. There are also real reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton. But when Clinton supporters allege that the email story is "bullshit" or that the foundation corruption is non-existent, or irrelevant, or attempt to distract attention away from it by pointing to WikiLeaks and Putin - it begins to look like Democratic partisans blaming it all on something like a vast rightwing conspiracy.
And you're all full up with conspiracies from the El Tupé side, I can see that ;)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 04, 2016, 09:39:18 AM
And yours are:
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
"Yawn!"
Thank you for elevating the level of discourse.
Clinton supporters would have more credibility if they said something like, "Yes, Clinton was reckless and possibly criminal with her unsecured server, and there are many troubling aspects to the nexus between the Clinton Foundation and her tenure at the State Dept. but I agree with her views on most policies and vastly prefer her to Trump."
As opposed to minimizing the emails and lying and foundation corruption and DNC conniving against Sanders, etc. while they maximize every flaw in Trump.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 10:03:02 AM
. . . while they maximize every flaw in Trump.
Lading sugar atop the Froot Loops, to be sure.
Fine. I'll return to posting links since an honest discussion appears to be impossible. Just don't coming whining to me about it.
;)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2016, 10:01:37 AM
Thank you for elevating the level of discourse.
You can thank Orfeo, whose repetition of the word "See" might be construed as musical if there were pitches attached to them. "Yawn" is what singing teachers tell their students to do.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 10:08:21 AM
Fine. I'll return to posting links since an honest discussion appears to be impossible. Just don't coming whining to me about it. ;)
If you have really interesting links, you can PM me.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 10:03:02 AM
Clinton supporters would have more credibility if they said something like, "Yes, Clinton was reckless and possibly criminal with her unsecured server, and there are many troubling aspects to the nexus between the Clinton Foundation and her tenure at the State Dept. but I agree with her views on most policies and vastly prefer her to Trump."
I think that is what I have said.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 04, 2016, 09:52:11 AM
I also remember back in the Clinton's presidency reports of a weird Christmas tree in the White House that had all manner of occult and weird symbols on it. This can be searched up.
Indeed. This is ample reason to disqualify Hillary right there. It can be "searched up" (or better, searched down) on a site such as
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/disturbing_truths.htm,
where other headlines include:
Bestiality (U.S. President Barack Obama signs NDAA into law 12-31-11 permitting military to have sex with animals)
Godless Teenage student sells her virginity online for £20,000 (Godless winning bidder pays £45,000.)
Eating Horse Rectums
George W. Bush and the Satanic Knights of Columbus
Cannibal Eats Internet Friend (and turns down 5 more volunteers!)
Orangutan with a Dream House
I want to be sure we're only consulting the finest sources.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2016, 10:11:26 AM
Indeed. This is ample reason to disqualify Hillary right there. It can be "searched up" (or better, searched down) on a site such as
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/disturbing_truths.htm,
where other headlines include:
Bestiality (U.S. President Barack Obama signs NDAA into law 12-31-11 permitting military to have sex with animals)
Godless Teenage student sells her virginity online for £20,000 (Godless winning bidder pays £45,000.)
Eating Horse Rectums
George W. Bush and the Satanic Knights of Columbus
Cannibal Eats Internet Friend (and turns down 5 more volunteers!)
Orangutan with a Dream House
I want to be sure we're only consulting the finest sources.
Quote from: El TupéI read it on the Internet somewhere.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2016, 10:11:26 AM
Indeed. This is ample reason to disqualify Hillary right there. It can be "searched up" (or better, searched down) on a site such as
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/disturbing_truths.htm,
where other headlines include:
Bestiality (U.S. President Barack Obama signs NDAA into law 12-31-11 permitting military to have sex with animals)
Godless Teenage student sells her virginity online for £20,000 (Godless winning bidder pays £45,000.)
Eating Horse Rectums
George W. Bush and the Satanic Knights of Columbus
Cannibal Eats Internet Friend (and turns down 5 more volunteers!)
Orangutan with a Dream House
I want to be sure we're only consulting the finest sources.
I've been reading the New York Times for years and they've been concealing all of that! "Orangutan with a Dream House," are they referring to Trump? :)
This is a Classical Music forum?
Quote from: Scarpia on November 04, 2016, 10:10:57 AM
I think that is what I have said.
Along with things like "if you really knew Trump ... you wouldn't vote for him" That kind of argumentation doesn't advance the discussion, imo. It basically is saying there is no rational reason to support Trump instead of Clinton. Which insults all those who will vote for him.
This election is between two very flawed candidates. So, basically, it looks like everyone is voting for the lesser of two evils. There is something very wrong with our nominating process if these are the best candidates we are offered by the two major parties.
But there will be an election, and one of these people will be the next president. America will survive no matter who it is.
:)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 10:03:02 AM
Clinton supporters would have more credibility if they said something like, "Yes, Clinton was reckless and possibly criminal with her unsecured server, and there are many troubling aspects to the nexus between the Clinton Foundation and her tenure at the State Dept. but I agree with her views on most policies and vastly prefer her to Trump."
As opposed to minimizing the emails and lying and foundation corruption and DNC conniving against Sanders, etc. while they maximize every flaw in Trump.
Why "as opposed"? I do think Clinton should have severed links to the foundation more completely than she did. As everyone knows business, politics and philanthropy is a dense nexus even without the complexity of Clinton family version of it. They are masters without equal for "the appearance of wrongdoing", so much so that the wrongdoing is "pre-proven". I can only wonder in my best internetese "How they do that?". How can either the "perps" or accusers so completely underperform their appointed roles? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
Quote from: Scots John on November 04, 2016, 10:20:27 AM
This is a Classical Music forum?
Classical Music is extinct! 8)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2016, 09:52:26 AM
I think this thread has had ample levity, but more of a bitter and not a confectionary nature.
But since you are now digressing and I love digressions as much as life itself (cf. Swift: "A Digression in Praise of Digressions," or the passage in "Catcher in the Rye" where Holden tells us his favorite parts in speech class were where the speaker gets completely off topic), I admit my friend is also an expert on such composers as Verdi and Boulez, and so his bizarre remark has often struck me as more than a trifle bizarre - though I know he does love "Fledermaus." But truly, is JS such a great melodist? That Blue Danube theme, rhythmically so stiff and symmetrical? and so many others like it? I would be far more jealous of Chopin, Tchaikovsky, or even Puccini as melodists.
I do, however, like to freeze a couple of squares from a 70% Ghirardelli bar and have them as a snack. Much preferable in my mind to semisweet.
(Back to part 1 of your post later, but I wanted to address the more significant paragraph first.)
So his remark was entirely sincere, then? That still surprises me! Surely you asked on what grounds?
Will have to try freezing chocolates. And, also, on a next visit to NYC, will have to visit one of the specialty chocolate shops Pete Wells availed himself of for a recent dark chocolate tasting. There is a local blogger here in Dallas (Scott DFW, who achieved improbable national repute after his investigative reporting revealed that Brooklyn's Mast Brothers are melting down other companies' chocolate bars and rebranding them) who tries a different bar of chocolate with every meal and diarizes with his notes. We should all be so lucky...or metabolically sound...
Quote from: sanantonio on November 04, 2016, 10:21:13 AM
Along with things like "if you really knew Trump ... you wouldn't vote for him" That kind of argumentation doesn't advance the discussion, imo. It basically is saying there is no rational reason to support Trump instead of Clinton. Which insults all those who will vote for him.
I am suggesting you should research Donald Trump's very public past behavior and see if it is at all consistent with what he has been saying recently. The "policy" positions that are attributed to him were drafted for the Republican platform by party operatives, and I don't think he has any buy-in to them.
You may not like Hillary Clinton's policy positions, but they have been pretty consistent over her career in politics. Economically she is a center-left candidate and internationally she advocates a more aggressive military policy than I am comfortable with. To say she is criminally responsible for the death of the American Ambassador in Bengazi is unsupportable (even the extremely partisan congressional committees couldn't pin that on her) but the policy which deposed Kadaffi and left Libya a mess was extremely ill advised, and arguable she bears responsibility for that.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2016, 10:11:26 AM
Indeed. This is ample reason to disqualify Hillary right there.
The account of the blue room weird Christmas tree 1994 is simply all over the place. If it were untrue then the story should have been recanted and the person reporting it should have by now been charged with slander.
It's strange that when Hillary manages to slip through the legal nets, it is considered a proof of innocence.
Weird double standards, if you ask me.
Apparently, a sort of competition was held for the Twelve Days of Christmas for art students to send their "interpretations". Well, the ones over the top were not rejected but incorporated into the festivities.
Again, if this were untrue, there should be a retraction somewhere. I mean, who would think of desecrating such a holy holiday?
http://libertynews.com/2015/06/flashback-flotus-hillarys-x-rated-white-house-christmas-tree/
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2016, 10:28:45 AM
So his remark was entirely sincere, then? That still surprises me! Surely you asked on what grounds?
I was afraid to. But please be sure to look me up if you return to NYC! (I may be having a new play staged of mine on March 6 and 12.)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 04, 2016, 10:35:06 AM
I mean, who would think of desecrating such a holy holiday?
You'd think they were eating bacon and eggs on Yom Kippur!
Quote:
I was disgusted, but some of it was actually pretty funny.
"Gary, come here, look at this!" It was a mobile of twelve lords a-leaping. They were leaping all right. The ornament consisted of tiny clay male figurines. Each was naked and had a large erection. My friend said, "Whoops!" and he dropped it on the floor. Then, "Oh, no," as he stomped on it. He joked, "Man, I hope I don't get in trouble with Hillary for that!"
Some of the ornaments were silly and some were dangerous, like the crack pipes hung on a string. We couldn't figure out what crack pipes had to do with Christmas no matter how hard we tried, so threw them back in the box. Some ornaments were constructed of various drug paraphernalia, like syringes, heroin spoons, or roach clips, which are colorful devices sometimes adorned with bird feather and used to hold marijuana joints.
Two turtle doves became two figurines that had the shells of turtles but the heads of birds; there were many of these. Four calling birds were—you guessed it—birds with a telephone, and there were at two miniature phone booths with four birds inside using the telephone. There was a partridge in a pear, without the tree—a clay pear with a partridge head sticking out of it. Three French hens were French kissing in a menage a trois. So many of the ornaments didn't celebrate Christmas as much at they celebrated sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Several of the birds had dark glasses and were blowing saxophones...
I went over to one of the tables I hadn't looked at yet. What's this? Of course. Two turtle doves, but they didn't have shells this time—they were joined together in an act of bird fornication.
I picked up another ornament that was supposed to illustrate five golden rings. One of the male florist volunteers grabbed my arm and laughed and laughed...
I was holding were sex toys known as "cock rings"—and they had nothing to do with chickens.
Another mystery ornament was the gingerbread man. How did he fit into The Twelve Days of Christmas? Then I got it. There were five small, gold rings I hadn't seen at first: one in his ear, one in his nose, one through his nipple, one through his belly button, and, of course, the ever-popular cock ring.
I couldn't believe the disrespect that these ornaments represented. Many of the artists invited to make and send something to hang on the tree must have had nothing but disgust, hatred, and disrespect for the White House and the citizens of this country, a disgust obviously encouraged by the first lady in the name of artistic freedom...
LOCK HER UP!!!!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2016, 07:57:15 AM
I would only fear for the future of this country as I never have in all my 68 years. If Trump wins, a buffoon and lecher who has no knowledge of or respect for the Constitution, and who will disappoint his followers the most as soon as he abandons them. If Clinton wins, an experienced and knowledgeable if flawed candidate whom Republicans will hound with threat of indictments and impeachment from day one. At this point I can only see the inevitable and irrevocable decline of a once-promising and often great nation.
He will disappoint them, yes, but he will always have someone else to blame.
I am starting to think that regardless of the outcome of this election, we will not be able to start addressing our actual problems until the entire nation has gone full Kansas. (Even then, a significant number of people will remain convinced that the Brownback agenda is the solution.) The silver lining to a Trump presidency would be that we will get there quicker.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 04, 2016, 10:31:12 AM
I am suggesting you should research Donald Trump's very public past behavior and see if it is at all consistent with what he has been saying recently. The "policy" positions that are attributed to him were drafted for the Republican platform by party operatives, and I don't think he has any buy-in to them.
You may not like Hillary Clinton's policy positions, but they have been pretty consistent over her career in politics. Economically she is a center-left candidate and internationally she advocates a more aggressive military policy than I am comfortable with. To say she is criminally responsible for the death of the American Ambassador in Bengazi is unsupportable (even the extremely partisan congressional committees couldn't pin that on her) but the policy which deposed Kadaffi and left Libya a mess was extremely ill advised, and arguable she bears responsibility for that.
You act as if I don't already know that Trump's policy positions are of recent vintage and been cobbled together from various sources. I can live with that, if it means that a Republican will be nominating the next Supreme Court judge(s) and having a less confrontational relationship with Congress and enacting a more Conservative legislative agenda.
The bottomline is that I would never vote for Hillary Clinton. Not because she is a Democrat (I could and have voted for Democrats in the past), but because I view her as dishonest and corrupt on a scale I cannot overlook. More so than Trump, more so than even her husband.
As I said earlier one of these flawed candidates will be the next president and the supporters for the loser will go through the 5 stages of grief and we'll all come out the other side of this nightmare and move on.
At least I hope so.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2016, 10:45:16 AM
You'd think they were eating bacon and eggs on Yom Kippur!
Quote:
I was disgusted, but some of it was actually pretty funny.
"Gary, come here, look at this!" It was a mobile of twelve lords a-leaping. They were leaping all right. The ornament consisted of tiny clay male figurines. Each was naked and had a large erection. My friend said, "Whoops!" and he dropped it on the floor. Then, "Oh, no," as he stomped on it. He joked, "Man, I hope I don't get in trouble with Hillary for that!"
Some of the ornaments were silly and some were dangerous, like the crack pipes hung on a string. We couldn't figure out what crack pipes had to do with Christmas no matter how hard we tried, so threw them back in the box. Some ornaments were constructed of various drug paraphernalia, like syringes, heroin spoons, or roach clips, which are colorful devices sometimes adorned with bird feather and used to hold marijuana joints.
Two turtle doves became two figurines that had the shells of turtles but the heads of birds; there were many of these. Four calling birds were—you guessed it—birds with a telephone, and there were at two miniature phone booths with four birds inside using the telephone. There was a partridge in a pear, without the tree—a clay pear with a partridge head sticking out of it. Three French hens were French kissing in a menage a trois. So many of the ornaments didn't celebrate Christmas as much at they celebrated sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Several of the birds had dark glasses and were blowing saxophones...
I went over to one of the tables I hadn't looked at yet. What's this? Of course. Two turtle doves, but they didn't have shells this time—they were joined together in an act of bird fornication.
I picked up another ornament that was supposed to illustrate five golden rings. One of the male florist volunteers grabbed my arm and laughed and laughed...
I was holding were sex toys known as "cock rings"—and they had nothing to do with chickens.
Another mystery ornament was the gingerbread man. How did he fit into The Twelve Days of Christmas? Then I got it. There were five small, gold rings I hadn't seen at first: one in his ear, one in his nose, one through his nipple, one through his belly button, and, of course, the ever-popular cock ring.
I couldn't believe the disrespect that these ornaments represented. Many of the artists invited to make and send something to hang on the tree must have had nothing but disgust, hatred, and disrespect for the White House and the citizens of this country, a disgust obviously encouraged by the first lady in the name of artistic freedom...
LOCK HER UP!!!!
Executive summary:
Hillary Clinton thought it would be a good idea to invite art students to send in Christmas decorations and when the box arrived she told a staff member to put them on the tree. Some of them were a bit weird.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 04, 2016, 10:35:06 AM
The account of the blue room weird Christmas tree 1994 is simply all over the place.
Yes, but the places it has been all over have no credibility. They spread rumors hostile to HRC as though they were facts.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 04, 2016, 10:35:06 AMIf it were untrue then the story should have been recanted and the person reporting it should have by now been charged with slander.
People in the public eye rarely seek prosecution of purveyors of scandalous rumors or the National Enquirer could not exist.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 04, 2016, 10:35:06 AMIt's strange that when Hillary manages to slip through the legal nets, it is considered a proof of innocence.
Weird double standards, if you ask me.
It's not proof of guilt, which unlike innocence
must be proved. And I'll remember not to ask you. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 04, 2016, 10:35:06 AMApparently, a sort of competition was held for the Twelve Days of Christmas for art students to send their "interpretations". Well, the ones over the top were not rejected but incorporated into the festivities.
I hate that! What lesson are we teaching our children if eveyone gets a prize just for participating? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/sad.gif)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 04, 2016, 10:35:06 AMAgain, if this were untrue, there should be a retraction somewhere. I mean, who would think of desecrating such a holy holiday?
(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/evil.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/angel.gif) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/akyhne/blank.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/zaRsw91.jpg)
Canada's leading newspaper, Toronto's Globe and Mail, issued its editorial position on the US election. White-knuckle time for the rest of the world.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/dear-america-please-dont-vote-for-donald-trump/article32655412/
Quote from: Rinaldo on November 04, 2016, 02:27:56 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/zaRsw91.jpg)
Dumb statement. Hate when kids post shit that they think 'sounds' cool while ignoring the stone cold facts.
Hey Canada, you better watch out or somebody's going to make you great again. You only get one warning. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
The American Conservative has an interesting election symposium. Most contributors appear to be voting 3rd party, or not voting at all:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-american-conservative-presidential-symposium/
The closest to my way of thinking is Gene Callahan (not previously familiar to me). Like him, I am currently planning to vote for the female candidate born in Chicago (no, not her).
This election scares me more than any other I've experienced. I don't understand how partisanship has reached such an impasse that people on one side can't even discuss anything with the other, and I'm disturbed by the possibility of a president displaying that same closed-minded tendency.
Good to see that the conservative white strategy for winning the election is proving to be the usual one (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/election-2016-tracking-reports-voting-problems-across-united-states-n673236).
Jumping ship:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/casar-vargas/why-i-can-no-longer-suppo_1_b_12698874.html
"It took me a long time to write this. I had to dig deep into my being to come up with these words. I'm recanting my endorsement of Hillary Clinton for the presidency.
I'm aware of how vindictive Clintonians can be. I'm not speaking about the Clintons themselves, but of those surrounding them. Perhaps the saying is true: dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. Your staff, your donors, your surrogates, and those you surround yourself with are a reflection of who you truly are, no? If not, why not curb any unacceptable behavior? Silence, indifference, or inaction is as incriminatory-at least to me.
There has been no repudiation, let alone denunciation, of what was said in those emails-just denial, finger pointing, and doublespeak. To appoint the very same folks who carried out many malicious behaviors to tip the scales for Hillary is just as unpardonable. Why reward unethical behavior? It's mind-boggling...
Bernie Sanders was treated horribly by the DNC, the Clinton crew, and the Obama administration, and by proxy, many of us were also stung. Without any apologies. In fact, we received nothing but contempt from the Clinton campaign and her surrogates. Then they expected us to fall in formation. Many of us did. I said I would endorse Hillary if she won the primary fair and square. And I did, but that was before I got a hold of all the highly unethical things that happened to get her to win...
I've seen how our heroes, activists, journalists, and celebrities have completely sold their souls to support something no person with an iota of morality would do. I've seen them say and do things to derail candidates who would have been a million times better for those less fortunate around us. It's unfortunate most pretend to fight the establishment, to act like they love the people more than they love the struggle and the relevance that it brings them. I am not one of those and I won't continue to be until the good Lord takes me.
Yes, I am heartbroken, I am angry, I am defeated, but I will rise and continue to advocate for you, for my people, for those that don't have a voice. But I refuse to be a pawn, a conduit of their oppression, of their disenfranchisement, of their brutalization, of their exploitation, of their lives and deaths. That's what a Hillary Clinton endorsement means to me."
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 04, 2016, 11:42:55 PM
Jumping ship:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/casar-vargas/why-i-can-no-longer-suppo_1_b_12698874.html
You cut out a part from that quotation.
Quote"I'm not telling you not to vote for her. I'm aware of what is at stake. The Supreme Court and a petulant man-child that might quicken the apocalypse, I know."
Quote from: North Star on November 05, 2016, 12:46:10 AM
You cut out a part from that quotation.
"I'm not telling you not to vote for her. I'm aware of what is at stake. The Supreme Court and a petulant man-child that might quicken the apocalypse, I know."
I tried to keep the most salient points. It escapes me what the Supreme Court has to do with the apocalypse.
You can have this back however:
"I rebuke with my heart, mind, and soul all the twisted narratives of sexism, misogyny, racism, and classism lay at our feet. Though some of them are legitimate, most were used to derail valid grievances from our communities and completely erase us. Our voices were drowned out by empty accusations, by a nefarious usage of identity politics recommended by one of our own, no less. That is a bamboozling of POC and unsuspecting allies. This is why Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve our vote, among many other reasons.
Many of us have been groundlessly accused of being politically illiterate, of having a conscience, and of being idealistic for expecting fairness. As if caring about our fellow human beings and we was such a bad thing. Without our love for others, without empathy, we are nothing but empty vessels, carcasses without souls, worthy of none of the things we cherish the most. Fairness is ingrained in our brains. If you don't really care much for it then you might just be a psychopath or a made sociopath. There's no going around that. Are you one? I hope not."Latin America has always been the quarry for leaders who take advantage of good nature and poverty. Their corrupt politicians feed the masses platitudes (like what HRC is doing) and give them hope soon to be dashed to the ground. It looks like Vargas "got it".
At a speech, Obama defended an El Tupé protester, reminding everyone that we live in a country of free speech, that the protester is apparently a veteran and his service therefore to be respected, and that he is elderly and ought on that count as well to be respected.
Later El Tupé lied (which, we all know, is what he does) about how the President treated protesters worse than does El Tupé. Not long ago, El Tupé (I remind you) told people to escort a thug out of the rally, and the "thug" turned out to be a black El Tupé supporter (who is still going to support him . . . I think I recall someone here mentioning the Stockholm Syndrome, earlier).
So, all of you who want this champion of the truth and of free speech in the White House, I salute you.
There is a phrase I think of that dates back to the French Revolution that I can only imagine Trump yelling at the top of his lungs: "Off with their heads!!!"
I hope ørfeo will forgive this, but I'll link to a video piece, which I think is of interest and only touches upon the campaign indirectly, in the matter of third-party candidature effect (and so is possibly an item he might otherwise have missed): The Ross Perot Myth (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/).
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 05, 2016, 06:42:58 AM
I hope ørfeo will forgive this, but I'll link to a video piece, which I think is of interest and only touches upon the campaign indirectly, in the matter of third-party candidature effect (and so is possibly an item he might otherwise have missed): The Ross Perot Myth (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/).
Potential applicability to the present election: The Democratic candidate was not the strongest (and had shaky popularity even at the time of that race); the GOP candidate (in this case, an incumbent) had terrible approval ratings (this season, we would say
strong unfavorables) and never led his opponent in any polls throughout the season.
A Republic If You Can Keep It
Caligula If You Can't
OK, I will clean the dried blood and offal from this Thread and promise not to Post until after Tues. 0:) :-*
Quote from: snyprrr on November 05, 2016, 08:11:00 AM
(I know- incoherent ranting)
Unusually cogent, for you 8)
We all know this would not be quite true until Tuesday night; but a Las Vegas journalist-cum-politics-expert has pronounced El Tupé "dead" in Nevada. Which, if true, complicates El Tupé's electoral math.
Nate Silver Is Unskewing Polls — All Of Them — In Trump's Direction (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nate-silver-election-forecast_us_581e1c33e4b0d9ce6fbc6f7f)
Interesting, and of course "unskewing" is how Romney became convinced he was going to win. Maybe Silver unskews better. He has the popular vote as +3% for HRC, but says this is in the margin or error. Huffpo has it more like +4.6%, though I think their argument is that when you aggregate polls only the assumption that all errors go the same way could produce the narrowest margin for Trump. They also say the same methodological flaw applies to the 538 state projections. Silver is processing a kind of trend analysis that Huffpo thinks is disguised punditry. I don't know who's right, though I wonder how Silver manages to arrive at a 35% chance of a Trump victory. It's far from where the other best pollsters are, usually a sign of partisan malignancy (not that there's anything wrong.....(http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif) ).
A guy at a Reno, Nevada Trump rally holds up a sign 'Republicans Against Trump' to (silenty) protest the way this campaign has evolved, and ghets beaten up by the crowd, yelling he wants to kill Trump with a gun.
After the situation has cleared up Trump people keep talking about the media having whipped up violent animus against their candidate, and that things could have gone really bad in Reno.
Classic Mussolini stuff.
The US sure has some healing to do, when all this sorry stuff is over. I think a HRC victory will make that easier, if not only because there's more focus on policy issues and less "hate rhetoric" on the Democratic side.
Electoral contest still a close thing, though Clinton has always polled to her advantage.
Quote from: The new erato on November 06, 2016, 02:13:41 AM
The US sure has some healing to do, when all this sorry stuff is over. I think a HRC victory will make that easier, if not only because there's more focus on policy issues and less "hate rhetoric" on the Democratic side.
I don't see it that way. The election will be over, and the warfare will continue in the House and Senate as it has for the last eight years, now with an intensity beyond anything we've seen. High crimes and misdemeanors are now defined as what you impeach HRC for. It can be as content free as the bare preimpeachment accusations.
The charge is "we hate you and want you gone", the evidence is "we hate you and want you gone", and the guilty defendant is nonwhite nonmale nonChristian America. In these binary terms both sides must rule or be subject to the status of inferiors in a Shakespearian way. Bolingbroke must take the crown from Richard just to get his title and property back and keep it.
If you make cooperation impossible you make zero sum political warfare inevitable. McConnell declared zero sum war, set the zero sum rules and cut Repubs off from Obama and practical governing.
Montenegro: Russians behind Election Day coup attempt (https://www.yahoo.com/news/montenegro-russians-behind-election-day-coup-attempt-153252001.html?ref=gs)
I'd like to see some detail. I find dubious the notion that the obviousness of Russian cyberwarfare should count against the claim that Russia is behind it.
Is Donald Trump Losing To A Mastermind Or A Moron? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-donald-trump-losing-to-a-mastermind-or-a-moron_us_581e22e6e4b0d9ce6fbc71de)
If you believe the polls, yes. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/tongue.gif)
No, I think the abnormality is Trump, HildaBeast is not a moron or genius.
Quote from: The new erato on November 06, 2016, 02:13:41 AM
The US sure has some healing to do, when all this sorry stuff is over. I think a HRC victory will make that easier, if not only because there's more focus on policy issues and less "hate rhetoric" on the Democratic side.
Whoever wins on Tuesday, s/he will be in the unenviable position of being regarded as illegitimate by a large portion of the populace. This is a recipe for instability.
Meanwhile, in today's "News of the Weird," fashionable Slovenian Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek has endorsed The Donald:
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/superstar-marxist-professor-just-endorsed-trump-for-president/?mod=sm_fb_post
I guess he's one of those "heighten the contradictions" types. Or maybe he knows Melania from way back, and wants to help her out. Who knows?
Comey's dilemma is over: FBI sends legislators a letter saying the latest round of Hillary emails hysteria proved to be... a non event. http://nypost.com (http://nypost.com)
"Sorry everybody, it was a false alert".
Or an exercise. Or a failed coup. You decide.
Quote from: André on November 06, 2016, 12:13:51 PM
Comey's dilemma is over: FBI sends legislators a letter saying the latest round of Hillary emails hysteria proved to be... a non event. http://nypost.com (http://nypost.com)
"Sorry everybody, it was a false alert".
Or an exercise. Or a failed coup. You decide.
Comey is issuing a makeup call for a makeup call for his original mistake, recommending no prosecution in the email case, instead of making no recommendation because prosecution is up to the Justice Dept. By missing a perfect opportunity to stay out of a political mess he had no business in, he damaged the FBI and fostered a rebellion in the agency that has damaged it further.
If Comey had really been acting on sound political instincts he would have stayed clear of this mess. The reason he didn't is Comey was not astute enough to know what a neutral position required of him. The damage is done now.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about Clinton's email dilemma and now it's a non-issue as I thought it would be. Move along you Republican nutters. Move along.
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 06, 2016, 12:50:49 PM
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about Clinton's email dilemma and now it's a non-issue as I thought it would be. Move along you Republican nutters. Move along.
On a similar note: As I was slipping into my nap this afternoon I heard an interview on NPR with a journalist who had actually bothered to read the original 243 page FBI report on the email "scandal." The plot turns out not to be "conspiracy with sinister international cabal" but "Granny doesn't know how to work a computer."
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 06, 2016, 12:50:49 PM
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about Clinton's email dilemma and now it's a non-issue as I thought it would be. Move along you Republican nutters. Move along.
Do you believe for a minute that they will? After all, the day the Comey (I first typed Comedy) letter came out, my revolting Congressman Pete King of the NY 2nd already was certain that whatever was found in those emails had to be significant.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malcolm-gladwell-us-election-the-national-trump-clinton-1.3838449 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malcolm-gladwell-us-election-the-national-trump-clinton-1.3838449)
According to Gladwell (journalist to The New-Yorker), there is much more that unites republicans and democrats than there is that opposes them. But this year some very specific issues that have come to the fore give this election a special, unprecedented spin. I suggest you listen to the full interview (scroll down). Gladwell is very articulate and interesting to listen to.
Quote from: André on November 06, 2016, 12:13:51 PM
Comey's dilemma is over: FBI sends legislators a letter saying the latest round of Hillary emails hysteria proved to be... a non event. http://nypost.com (http://nypost.com)
"Sorry everybody, it was a false alert".
Or an exercise. Or a failed coup. You decide.
Yea, they went through 650,000 emails in 8 days... that's one email per minute... of course they went through them all, - he told us they did-
(btw- this is not snyprrr, so, their self imposed ban doesn't include me (they're gonna be laughably pissed later, wish you could be here)
Quote from: snyprrr on November 06, 2016, 04:13:06 PM
Yea, they went through 650,000 emails in 8 days... that's one email per minute... of course they went through them all, - he told us they did-
(btw- this is not snyprrr, so, their self imposed ban doesn't include me (they're gonna be laughably pissed later, wish you could be here)
I knew someone was going to come out with this particular piece of lunacy. Computerized comparison of documents is lightning fast. What do you think, they were printing each email individual and comparing them line-to-line by eye? Chances are good they could have compared 8 emails a minute or even many more. Move on already.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 06, 2016, 02:06:52 PM
Do you believe for a minute that they will? After all, the day the Comey (I first typed Comedy) letter came out, my revolting Congressman Pete King of the NY 2nd already was certain that whatever was found in those emails had to be significant.
Nah, I suppose I had a level of optimism for a second for a party that's on the brink of self-annihilation. ;D
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 06, 2016, 12:50:49 PM
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about Clinton's email dilemma and now it's a non-issue as I thought it would be. Move along you Republican nutters. Move along.
Just relax.
We've been through this before.
It's just as huge as Watergate, that's all.
Granny doesn't know how the computer works, and Nixon didn't know how the law works.
I cannot imagine anything getting easier. In the unlikely event that Trump wins all bets seem to be off what will happen because he is so unpredictable. Clearly, he will be hated by most Americans (and the rest of the world will be afraid because of his inexperience, especially in foreign policy). There is a chance that in 4 years Trump will have made such a fool of himself that the voters will be happy to go back to any "establishment" candidate.
If Clinton wins she will also be hated by many Americans, it will be business as usual in many respects, maybe a slightly more hawkish foreign policy but most of the rest of the world will be content with somewhat predictable business as usual. But very little will be done about the tensions in the US populace. Without a "Trump disenchantment" the distrust and hate against the political establishment, the tensions between racial and social groups etc. will very probably only grow, so I wonder what kind of populist might become candidate in 2020...
Of course this assumes that the deeper economic and societal problems and tensions will not be successfully resolved by either president and everything will get tougher and more confrontational. Not the least because many of these problems will probably grow "by themselves", e.g. resource scarcity, off-shoring of US labor, instability in the near/middle East, instability in the EU, rise of China etc.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 06, 2016, 11:29:28 PM
I cannot imagine anything getting easier. In the unlikely event that Trump wins all bets seem to be off what will happen because he is so unpredictable. Clearly, he will be hated by most Americans (and the rest of the world will be afraid because of his inexperience, especially in foreign policy). There is a chance that in 4 years Trump will have made such a fool of himself that the voters will be happy to go back to any "establishment" candidate.
He said exactly what he plans to do, no need to repeat here. As for "most Americans" hating him, why would the majority hate someone they voted for?
Quote from: Jo498 on November 06, 2016, 11:29:28 PM
If Clinton wins she will also be hated by many Americans, it will be business as usual in many respects, maybe a slightly more hawkish foreign policy but most of the rest of the world will be content with somewhat predictable business as usual. But very little will be done about the tensions in the US populace. Without a "Trump disenchantment" the distrust and hate against the political establishment, the tensions between racial and social groups etc. will very probably only grow, so I wonder what kind of populist might become candidate in 2020...
If Hillary wins, there will be President Kaine in the next 4 years, sooner than later, I presume.
But wouldn't Kaine also be business as usual therefore only prolonging any possible resolution of entrenched and hateful conflicts? Or would it help that the hate tied to the very person of HRC would be defused?
(https://images.scribblelive.com/2016/11/6/308274d2-ecc7-44e7-98bf-84954e2e318c_500.jpg)
So this is how low it got. Trump Minnesota rally today.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 06, 2016, 04:18:54 PM
I knew someone was going to come out with this particular piece of lunacy. Computerized comparison of documents is lightning fast. What do you think, they were printing each email individual and comparing them line-to-line by eye? Chances are good they could have compared 8 emails a minute or even many more. Move on already.
Whether it's the El Tupé campaign getting the cues from
snypsss, or vice versa, or both of them sucking on the Moscow misinformation teat, is a question. Not the most interesting question, but a question.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 06, 2016, 11:29:28 PM
I cannot imagine anything getting easier. In the unlikely event that Trump wins all bets seem to be off what will happen because he is so unpredictable.
Oh, I think it
is predictable: the country finally focuses on the Trump University scandal, and El Tupé becomes the first President to be impeached. Unlike Nixon, he won't quit, because he isn't A Loser.
What I would like to know is: if Trump wins, could he singlehandedly withdraw the USA from NATO, or render it ineffective by simply not complying with the Treatise´s articles? Because if he could indeed, then big trouble and dark times are the lot of us all, wherever we may live.
Very probably this is not possible. These are entrenched treaties one cannot simply cancel, I think. (And it would hardly square well with "make America great again"...)
Although I have heard the (ridiculous) rumor that Trump would be assassinated quickly because the real powers in the US military etc. could not allow such a bumbling president into foreign policy.
Quote from: Florestan on November 07, 2016, 01:22:01 AM
What I would like to know is: if Trump wins, could he singlehandedly withdraw the USA from NATO, or render it ineffective by simply not complying with the Treatise´s articles? Because if he could indeed, then big trouble and dark times are the lot of us all, wherever we may live.
No. And, yes, it's kinda goofy when some of his supporters think he could.
Something our
snypsss (and
(poco) sfz will enjoy...I just read a tweet:
"How can a COMPUTER read 650,000 messages in eight days? How can a TOASTER make my bread WARM? How can a CAR move faster than a TEAM OF OXEN?"
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
The upside of Mr. Bigot's campaign is, a motivated Latino turnout.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 06, 2016, 11:29:28 PM
I cannot imagine anything getting easier. In the unlikely event that Trump wins all bets seem to be off what will happen because he is so unpredictable. Clearly, he will be hated by most Americans (and the rest of the world will be afraid because of his inexperience, especially in foreign policy). There is a chance that in 4 years Trump will have made such a fool of himself that the voters will be happy to go back to any "establishment" candidate.
If Clinton wins she will also be hated by many Americans, it will be business as usual in many respects, maybe a slightly more hawkish foreign policy but most of the rest of the world will be content with somewhat predictable business as usual. But very little will be done about the tensions in the US populace. Without a "Trump disenchantment" the distrust and hate against the political establishment, the tensions between racial and social groups etc. will very probably only grow, so I wonder what kind of populist might become candidate in 2020...
Of course this assumes that the deeper economic and societal problems and tensions will not be successfully resolved by either president and everything will get tougher and more confrontational. Not the least because many of these problems will probably grow "by themselves", e.g. resource scarcity, off-shoring of US labor, instability in the near/middle East, instability in the EU, rise of China etc.
I imagine that regardless of who wins, there is going to be cataclysmic fragmentation in the Republican party. If HRC wins, they will take measures to be sure that a candidate like Trump doesn't get the helm again, like super delegate and uncommitted delegate strategies to centrally concentrated power so they can screw over outliers the way the democrats screwed Bernie. Now there are many republican voters who are holding their noses and voting for Trump because the supreme court hangs in the balance. If they had any viable option but Trump they would take it, obviously. Tea party and fellow travelers will see that the fix is in and schism would follow. If Trump wins, his incompetence and ongoing legal problems will make him even more of a disaster than W was, wreaking permanent damage on the party, beginning with loss of control of both houses in 2018. I think they are circling the drain in either case.
The Republican base has apparently responded to the post-Romney "autopsy" with a resounding, "But we LIKE being the angry white guy party!"
Yes, that was the optimistic version. Especially if HRC wins by a narrow margin, then why not launch a similarly extreme candidate as regards public statements, but more manageable in reality, relying on the bonus of four years of further neanderthal anti-HRC hammering during her presidency?
"Hillary Clinton is guilty. She knows it, the FBI knows it, the people know it, and now it's up to the American people to deliver justice at the ballot box on November 8". Donald Trump.
Are these the words of a true democrat?
The horror, the horror... :o
A possible Trump cabinet (for real):
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/gingring-giuliani-priebus-eyed-top-jobs-trump-white-house-sources-n678881?cid=sm_tw
Well, there remains the odd chance that he wins. So, yes, that's exactly the chamber of horrors the American people can expect (and, arguably, which we deserve) 8)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 07, 2016, 04:47:48 AM
Another example of the "when they go low, we go high" of the Clinton Campaign ... not. This time, Barack Obama was out peddling the rumor (http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304588-obama-mocks-trump-after-report-that-aides-blocked-him) that the Trump campaign blocked him from Twitter.
Too bad for you that we can actually read for ourselves. Obama was not "peddling a rumor." He was making fun of a rumor, which is a different thing. You'd think he had called Melania a dog.
The thing is, we can all tell when the POTUS is making a joke, as opposed to El Tupé who needs to pretend that his dog whistles are "humor."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 07, 2016, 05:10:52 AM
The thing is, we can all tell when the POTUS is making a joke, as opposed to El Tupé who needs to pretend that his dog whistles are "humor."
Yes, he "jokes" while the world watches in horror.
Quote from: The new erato on November 07, 2016, 05:17:36 AM
Yes, he "jokes" while the world watches in horror.
Not without reason.
The really amusing thing about the repeated "Comey wuz yer hero" canard is, that is exactly the El Tupé storyline, per a tweet:
"COMEY: nothing illegal
[El Tupé]: FBI is corrupt
COMEY: found more emails
[El Tupé]: doing a great job
COMEY: but it changes nothing
[El Tupé]: rigged"
Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned on Saturday that political debates devoid of facts present a "deadly danger" to democracy. Referring to the upcoming presidential election in the United States, the U.K.'s campaign to leave the EU, as well as an ever more assertive Russia, Steinmeier said the "audacity with which facts are hidden and denied in public, expert knowledge is discredited, and, simply, lies are being told in the West as in the East and beyond the English Channel, leaves one almost speechless."
pressthink.org/2016/11/miss-bigger-missed-story-final-reflections-trump-press-2016/ (http://pressthink.org/2016/11/miss-bigger-missed-story-final-reflections-trump-press-2016/)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 07, 2016, 05:01:23 AM
Too bad for you that we can actually read for ourselves. Obama was not "peddling a rumor." He was making fun of a rumor, which is a different thing. You'd think he had called Melania a dog.
That "rumour" actually comes from this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.html) which at least
appears to be an inside look at his campaign. The public statements from Trump's team have tended to be.... somewhat short on accuracy by comparison.
Quote from: The new erato on November 07, 2016, 05:22:52 AM
Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned on Saturday that political debates devoid of facts present a "deadly danger" to democracy. Referring to the upcoming presidential election in the United States, the U.K.'s campaign to leave the EU, as well as an ever more assertive Russia, Steinmeier said the "audacity with which facts are hidden and denied in public, expert knowledge is discredited, and, simply, lies are being told in the West as in the East and beyond the English Channel, leaves one almost speechless."
pressthink.org/2016/11/miss-bigger-missed-story-final-reflections-trump-press-2016/ (http://pressthink.org/2016/11/miss-bigger-missed-story-final-reflections-trump-press-2016/)
I wish we could only be shocked by El Tupé's being a demonstrated pathological serial liar. I wish we could be shocked only by, that, and by the the fact that so many of his supporters genuinely don't realize that he is conning them. But the real shock is all the Americans who know fully well that that is what he is, but want to send him to the White House regardless, and while protesting that Clinton is "dishonest." Voting for El Tupé because Clinton is "dishonest," is something very distant from honesty.
Quote from: amw on November 07, 2016, 05:27:59 AM
That "rumour" actually comes from this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.html) which at least appears to be an inside look at his campaign. The public statements from Trump's team have tended to be.... somewhat short on accuracy by comparison.
Like the candidate she supports, Kellyanne Conway evades questions.
(But, you know, it's the Democratic campaign which is "dishonest.")
Quote from: The new erato on November 07, 2016, 05:22:52 AM
Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned on Saturday that political debates devoid of facts present a "deadly danger" to democracy. Referring to the upcoming presidential election in the United States, the U.K.'s campaign to leave the EU, as well as an ever more assertive Russia, Steinmeier said the "audacity with which facts are hidden and denied in public, expert knowledge is discredited, and, simply, lies are being told in the West as in the East and beyond the English Channel, leaves one almost speechless."
pressthink.org/2016/11/miss-bigger-missed-story-final-reflections-trump-press-2016/ (http://pressthink.org/2016/11/miss-bigger-missed-story-final-reflections-trump-press-2016/)
Isn´t he the same Frank-Walter Steinmeier who criticized NATO for "sabre-rattling" and "shrilling war cries"? Yes, that´s him all right. Doesn´t seem to me the most qualified person to take a stance against an ever more asserting Russia. ;D
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-russia-germany-idUSKCN0Z40LE (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-russia-germany-idUSKCN0Z40LE)
Quote from: Florestan on November 07, 2016, 05:32:08 AM
Isn´t he the same Frank-Walter Steinmeier who criticized NATO for "sabre-rattling" and "shrilling war cries"? Yes, that´s him all right. Doesn´t seem to me the most qualified person to take a stance against an ever more asserting Russia. ;D
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-russia-germany-idUSKCN0Z40LE (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-russia-germany-idUSKCN0Z40LE)
I would take the other side of that assessment. Over the last few months Trump and Russian meddling in elections (and a possible coup plot in Montenegro) have changed minds on the source of greatest danger. If Steinmeier is "scared straight", that's significant.
I'm watching Duterte in the Phillippines. He asserts the U.S. is losing as he moves towards China, saying he wants to talk to Putin. Once again the '30s template is confirmed as both China and Russia nibble at the edges looking for weak spots.
Trump will not have an exit strategy for any version of what is coming, no more than what's already here. He's a piss poor peacemonger and just as bad a warmonger. Nothing he says gives any indication of thought, no credible Plan A and not even a hint of a Plan B. HRC will follow the basic outline of alliance maintenance for deterrence and response that has evolved since the fall of the Soviet Union. She knows the drill, and will keep the pledges our allies wish to be kept.
In Europe, attitudes towards Russia have changed in the last months, being fed up, and a hardline-strategy. This comprises all aspects, including stronger military attentiveness (today´s newspapers: a 300,000 troops force is being established, also available at shorter notice than the 180 days for the smaller one hitherto), the improving of intelligence cooperation in new units, etc. It´s pretty obvious also from Sweden´s reaction pattern, for example. There are many sources as regards this.
It's worth noting that the Russian economy in terms of GNP is about the same size as Spain's.
Trump has nothing to contribute to NATO rethought. NATO will evolve as it has with the interests of its members.
The most powerful member of the alliance, both economically and militarily, carries a larger share of the burden. I don't have any problem understanding why. American economic support is as much a part of U.S. forward defense as it is defense of Europe.
Too much emphasis is put on the ideological niceties of Soviet versus Russian imperialism, the "different personalities". (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
It's time to call the election. HRC will win the popular vote by 4% and the EC with 300 or a little more.
Trump claims the vote will be rigged. Unless you count vote suppression rigging is just about impossible, with watchers watching the poll watchers watching the polls. The myth of illegals bused in to vote is tissue thin. Who are the illegals, voting as who, at what addresses, appearing on what voter rolls? If they are not ex nihilo Dems, how do they impersonate Repubs, and where did the real voters they impersonate go? Are they all on a jumbo jet on a runway in the Seychelles? Who takes care of their children? Will Hildabeast raise money for them from Saudis, through the Foundation?
I think Trump owes an explanation of these difficulties before this crisis erupts, to head it off. Think of the children!
Hers is not an opinion
sananton' respects, but Jennifer Rubin's piece today discusses the canard of "dismissing" all mainstream media as "unreliable."
QuoteWhen politicians, candidates and pundits berate media coverage of the 2016 campaign, we must ask, "Which media?" Blanket accusations from right-leaning media critics against the entire mainstream media presume that there is a singular standard for coverage. Our collective viewing and reading experiences over the past 18 months tell a different story.
The sheer volume and diversity of outlets should caution against generalization. One doesn't condemn all movies because of, say, "Batman v. Superman." There is good and bad, serious and farcical coverage even within the same outlet.
And:
QuoteFor all the bellyaching from the Trump camp, the negative Clinton stories that it complained were not covered came to its attention via, you guessed it, the mainstream media.
Of course, it is much simpler to wag your finger and assert that all mainstream media is "wrong," "biased," or choose your preferred dismissive adjective.
Former NATO Chief: Expect Russia's aggressive behavior to continue for decades (http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-rasmussen-russias-aggressive-behavior-continue-decades-2016-11)
Yes, I do expect that. Why would Putin stop if he is not stopped?
Quote from: drogulus on November 07, 2016, 10:47:58 AM
Former NATO Chief: Expect Russia's aggressive behavior to continue for decades (http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-rasmussen-russias-aggressive-behavior-continue-decades-2016-11)
Yes, I do expect that. Why would Putin stop if he is not stopped?
And why would Putin stop, if his stooge is in the White House?
Quote from: sanantonio on November 07, 2016, 05:50:01 AM
Trump the pragmatic negotiator would unify Congress (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/07/why_trump_132272.html)
Trump is a smart, tough negotiator, a unique skill he will bring to the Oval Office.
still on the kool aid?
there is little or no indication that Trump as a businessman is a brilliant negotiator. He just had a lot of money to start with, is all. If he hadn't done business by himself and just put his inheritance in stocks, he would have been a lot better off.
Besides, the whole notion that business skills equals political skills has been thoroughly debunked. You wanna hang on to this idea, fine, But it doesn't fly.
Center piece of his foreign policy: unpredictability, would have dire effects.
Center piece of his domestic policy is tax cuts for the rich, and build a wall plus deport 11 million immigrants. You do the math.
If Clinton wins will you accept the outcome?
Quote from: sanantonio on November 07, 2016, 11:03:49 AM
Donald Trump is unique in American history, but there is a president he resembles: Dwight Eisenhower. Trump's caution about foreign military adventures and his revival of economic nationalism echo the five-star general who successfully guided America through equally perilous times.
Everyone knows that Ike warned Americans about a military-industrial complex that had dangerous influence. Less known is that Eisenhower refused to engage the United States in what he regarded as a military sideshow: the communist insurgency in Vietnam against a vestige of French imperialism. As France lurched toward a final defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, President Eisenhower remarked of Southeast Asia: "I say that I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions..."
Read more here (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-trump-could-be-ike-18310).
Donald Trump, I'm afraid, is
no Dwight Eisenhower... ::)
"El Tupé's caution" may be the most wrily amusing phrase I have read all day.
Friends and I are organizing a watch party tomorrow night with take-out pizza and ample alcohol.
Quote from: Brian on November 07, 2016, 01:02:08 PM
Friends and I are organizing a watch party tomorrow night with take-out pizza and ample alcohol.
Wish I might! I'll be in the office early next day.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 07, 2016, 01:02:51 PM
Wish I might! I'll be in the office early next day.
It's easier when you're over in this time zone and the FL & NC polls close at 6pm your time 8)
I'm most interested in Alaska and Utah, but FL, NC, and NH should be the election-deciders; it's more or less impossible to imagine Trump winning without Florida, and the Democrats did an excellent job getting out the Dem/Latino vote there.
Quote from: Brian on November 07, 2016, 01:06:55 PM
It's easier when you're over in this time zone and the FL & NC polls close at 6pm your time 8)
Polls in IL are open 6AM-7PM. Why not just a couple hours longer? I get the impression they are prejudiced against working people. We should hold elections on weekends.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 07, 2016, 01:10:47 PM
We should hold elections on weekends.
I personally think it´s a great idea, but such a secular, practical approach would no doubt meet a bit of opposition. Saturday might be less controversial.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 07, 2016, 01:10:47 PM
Polls in IL are open 6AM-7PM. Why not just a couple hours longer? I get the impression they are prejudiced against working people. We should hold elections on weekends.
Election Day should be a national holiday. I think either Sunday or Monday, but definitely a national holiday.
Quote from: Brian on November 07, 2016, 01:41:02 PM
Election Day should be a national holiday. I think either Sunday or Monday, but definitely a national holiday.
Yes.
Quote from: Turner on November 07, 2016, 01:20:55 PM
Saturday might be less controversial.
Excludes the Jews.
Quote from: Brian on November 07, 2016, 01:02:08 PM
Friends and I are organizing a watch party tomorrow night with take-out pizza and ample alcohol.
Can we all come?
Quote from: Turner on November 07, 2016, 02:23:35 PM
Yes, a matter of importance in some cases.
A matter of importance
period, if it means potentially excluding 2% of the US population. The US has the highest proportion of Jews other than Israel, and yes, NY has the highest proportion in any US state.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 07, 2016, 02:28:57 PM
A matter of importance period, if it means potentially excluding 2% of the US population. The US has the highest proportion of Jews other than Israel, and yes, NY has the highest proportion in any US state.
Sorry, I was thinking also about Europe.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 07, 2016, 01:06:49 AM
Oh, I think it is predictable: the country finally focuses on the Trump University scandal, and El Tupé becomes the first President to be impeached. Unlike Nixon, he won't quit, because he isn't A Loser.
Pedantic correction
Impeached and convicted. He would be the third President to be impeached.
Given a GOP House, I can easily imagine that Hillary will not be merely the first female President, but also the first female President to be impeached.
"we may soon think back of this nasty election campaign as halcyon days of peace and prosperity."
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/alexei-bayer-next-four-years-trumpism.html?utm_content=buffer36660&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 07, 2016, 01:10:47 PM
We should hold elections on weekends.
It´s mindboggling that you don´t, honestly. Looks like in a whole lot of matters, not only elections, the default American position is: avoid the most commonsensical approach at all costs. ;D >:D
Quote from: Florestan on November 07, 2016, 10:54:19 PM
It´s mindboggling that you don´t, honestly.
Is there any nation that does have elections in the weekend?
Best slogan: Love Trumps Hate.
It's really stunning that a first-world nation has a candidate for the presidency with pretty much his entire platform based on Crime and Punishment. Lock up the opponent, build a wall around the border and throw out millions of undocumented immigrants.
There's nothing else.
The GOP has dug itself a hole and it's going to take a lot to undig itself, because it's pretty clear the party establishment would be quite happy with this hate platform if it delivered a winner.
Quote from: Herman on November 07, 2016, 10:57:11 PM
Is there any nation that does have elections in the weekend?
Norway has it in Mondays, but we have a very easy and quick system for "prevoting". No registration either, as long as you are in the National registry (caucus?) you just have to bring some ID + a letter sent to your confirmed mail and can vote for an extended period at a number of places.
Quote from: Herman on November 07, 2016, 10:57:11 PM
Is there any nation that does have elections in the weekend?
We have all of them on Sundays in Finland, and early voting is easy and popular, too. And as in Norway, there is no registration.
Quote from: Herman on November 07, 2016, 10:57:11 PM
Is there any nation that does have elections in the weekend?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_day#Sunday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_day#Sunday)
Germany has all elections on sundays and it has been like that for quite a while I think - apparently since 1918 the elections have been on sundays or holidays.
I am not aware that this was ever seen as conflicting with christian culture; conservative politicians usually make a point to show up to cast their votes right after church service. Early voting is comparably easy but does need some effort, usually one can do it by post but needs to fill in some form to get the voting form to be posted.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 07, 2016, 11:30:07 PM
I am not aware that this was ever seen as conflicting with christian culture;
Quite the contrary: people vote after mass.
And for those who do not go to mass (me) vote after farmers market.
voting on tuesday has always looked to me as an excuse to get to work late or leave work early.
Yes, as I wrote even today conservative politicians are shown at the urn after church. But in the early 20th century fixing election day on sunday apparently had been a demand of the social democrats, not to exclude workers or force them to take a half day off. (As saturday was often a full workday for most workers until the 1950/60s it would not have worked.)
Saturday elections in Australia. For goodness knows how many decades.
Plus no one is excluded so long as early voting is an option.
Edit: 1912. We have been voting on a Saturday since 1912.
Quote from: Herman on November 07, 2016, 10:57:11 PM
Is there any nation that does have elections in the weekend?
Here in New Zealand its always a Saturday.
Supplementing the post by Florestan: election day, by countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_day
Sunday is indeed the most prominent in the statistics.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 07, 2016, 08:42:50 PM
Pedantic correction
Impeached and convicted. He would be the third President to be impeached.
I appreciate the emendation!
Quote from: Herman on November 07, 2016, 11:00:41 PM
Best slogan: Love Trumps Hate.
It's really stunning that a first-world nation has a candidate for the presidency with pretty much his entire platform based on Crime and Punishment. Lock up the opponent, build a wall around the border and throw out millions of undocumented immigrants.
There's nothing else.
Indeed. I stepped over to a taco place for lunch yesterday, and as I sat (entirely enjoying the meal) there was El Tupé doing his shtick in Florida. I listened, why not? It was just hot air, and did not affect the quality of my lunch 8) Vacuous assertions, lies ranging from weaselly half-truths to a practiced con-man's bald improvised rubbish, grammatically and rhetorically the worst public speaking from an apparent adult I have seen broadcast all my life, and a crowd that cheered, apparently not caring about any of these niceties.
Sad.
My fish taco, though, was delicious. Company's own
salsa verde.
Quote from: Spineur on November 07, 2016, 11:48:41 PM
Quite the contrary: people vote after mass.
And for those who do not go to mass (me) vote after farmers market.
voting on tuesday has always looked to me as an excuse to get to work late or leave work early.
It is a day of the week which was set at a pietistic period in US culture. There is still a vestige of that, in the shameless political machinations of the "Evangelical" right. One benefit, at least, which I hope we enjoy from this dismal season, is the removal of any pretense of "moral high ground" from Franklin Graham and his ilk.
Good luck, guys. I'm afraid you're gonna need it even if sanity prevails and Donald gets trumped.
Is there still a prospect of Utah going rogue?
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 02:44:33 AM
Is there still a prospect of Utah going rogue?
Less expectation of Utah going to M
cMullin; will likely be an El Tupé win.
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com (who has estimated El Tupé's overall chances slightly better than other poll aggregates) reckons that Clinton has an advantage beyond polling-error range in Florida (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/), a state whose 29 electoral votes would likely be an irrecoverable loss for El Tupé.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 08, 2016, 01:18:19 AM
It is a day of the week which was set at a pietistic period in US culture. There is still a vestige of that, in the shameless political machinations of the "Evangelical" right. One benefit, at least, which I hope we enjoy from this dismal season, is the removal of any pretense of "moral high ground" from Franklin Graham and his ilk.
The main objection by Christians to Hillary is her abortion stance (haven't we had enough already?) and being the darling of Planned Parenthood, receiving from them the Margaret Sanger award, who herself was a notorious racist. This is evident in Christian and Catholic blogs and websites.
Beyond morals, there is the social engineering aspect that cannot be overlooked. The State is not neutral as long as PP for instance gets millions of tax dollars. Erosion of religious freedom is a direct consequence since objection must bow to the bigger guns. God bless Donald for not being afraid to speak up what late term abortion is really like, on the stage of an internationally televised event.
Death of children (21) didn't faze HRC back when the Branch Davidians in Waco were being gassed and burned. This was a Federal siege of a nutcase group under the direct orders of the Clintons. The excuse was their keeping of firearms. Janet Reno said they wanted to protect the "children". Well, how do you protect them by killing them in the most horrible manner? Ding dong, that witch just died.
Sic semper tyrannis, even if they are women.
The Senate looks like a close thing, which is more of The Gift of El Tupé.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 05:06:05 AM
Who among the political class has the moral high ground?
I take them as individuals, sorted philosophically and by party affiliation. Among them are pragmatists who want the greatest good in a way that's not predefined. They will invariably be seen as lacking the high moral ground. That's OK, I lack the moral high ground myself. I want good things for people, not much
the good for them.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 08, 2016, 04:52:07 AM
The main objection by Christians to Hillary is her abortion stance (haven't we had enough already?) and being the darling of Planned Parenthood, receiving from them the Margaret Sanger award, who herself was a notorious racist. This is evident in Christian and Catholic blogs and websites.
Beyond morals, there is the social engineering aspect that cannot be overlooked. The State is not neutral as long as PP for instance gets millions of tax dollars. Erosion of religious freedom is a direct consequence since objection must bow to the bigger guns. God bless Donald for not being afraid to speak up what late term abortion is really like, on the stage of an internationally televised event.
Death of children (21) didn't faze HRC back when the Branch Davidians in Waco were being gassed and burned. This was a Federal siege of a nutcase group under the direct orders of the Clintons. The excuse was their keeping of firearms. Janet Reno said they wanted to protect the "children". Well, how do you protect them by killing them in the most horrible manner? Ding dong, that witch just died.
Sic semper tyrannis, even if they are women.
Are you just explaining this viewpoint? Or do you actually believe this viewpoint?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 07, 2016, 02:21:29 PM
Can we all come?
Yup!
If/when Hillary starts winning, we will switch to Fox News for sheer schadenfreude. 8)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 05:06:05 AM
Who among the political class has the moral high ground?
Republicans who disavowed Trump and stuck to it - Kasich, Romney, the Bush clan elders.
Although, now that I think about it, they could have done more. A Romney endorsement and Utah campaign stop would have been really important for Egg McMuffin's independent bid there, for example.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 08, 2016, 06:10:45 AM
Are you just explaining this viewpoint? Or do you actually believe this viewpoint?
I already said I am against Hillary as a shill for Planned Parenthood.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 05:06:05 AM
Who among the political class has the moral high ground?
You changed the question. My point is that there are "career Evangelicals" who are not religious leaders, but who are pietistic political lobbyists. They are, if anything, yet more contemptible than El Tupé. "Look at me, I'm a narcissist!" is not so low as "Look at me, don't I look good next to this airbrush portrait of Jesus!"
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 08, 2016, 06:26:39 AM
"Look at me, I'm a narcissist!" is not so low as "Look at me, don't I look good next to this airbrush portrait of Jesus!"
(In fairness, I guess an honest man can disagree on the relative depths, here.)
Activity pretty light at my polling place at 7:00 this morning. But already about 150 had voted. I held my nose and voted for Pete King as my congressman, because much as I despise him I had never even heard of his Democratic opponent - and if a candidate doesn't even mount a campaign he/she can't have much backbone. I voted for Chuck Schumer without holding my nose. I won't say whom I voted for in the top spot, but the person was a New Yorker.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 08, 2016, 06:25:40 AM
I already said I am against Hillary as a shill for Planned Parenthood.
Yes, that is the most critical issue facing the country today. Forget the economy, ISIS, climate change, immigration, race relations, and jobs.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 06:28:15 AM
I won't say whom I voted for in the top spot, but the person was a New Yorker.
There is a delicious ambiguity there.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 06:42:04 AM
Compared to Hillary Clinton, everyone has the moral high ground.
If you repeat that often enough, you might even convince yourself of it. However, that
still won't make it true.
I'll say one thing about this election; it was, at 99%, the most disgustingly
ad hominem election in my lifetime. Which is really a shame, since there are real problems out there that need solving. I hope the winner will get up out of the mud and actually try to do something positive. Not that Congress would allow such a thing... :-\
8)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 06:30:08 AM
Yes, that is the most critical issue facing the country today. Forget the economy, ISIS, climate change, immigration, race relations, and jobs.
Not forgetting the above at all. I happen to agree with Trump: 1) bring jobs back to the US, cut government waste, 2) vet Muslim immigration, 3) stop playing the race card and restore respect for the police and 4) repeat 1)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 08, 2016, 06:25:40 AM
I already said I am against Hillary as a shill for Planned Parenthood.
Planned parenthood is an admirable organization which provides reproductive health care for people who would otherwise not have access to it.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 06:28:15 AM
I won't say whom I voted for in the top spot, but the person was a New Yorker.
Really thought you were a Gary Johnson guy. ;)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 06:42:04 AM
Compared to Hillary Clinton, everyone has the moral high ground.
lol, yes, a tax-cheating, proudly racist, self-proclaimed sex predator who skips out of payments to contractors, jokes about murdering enemies, and walks into dressing rooms to ogle naked teenagers has the moral high ground versus somebody who doesn't store emails properly.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 06:42:04 AM
Compared to Hillary Clinton, everyone has the moral high ground.
With HRC, it is difficult to know where to start! Anyone who did 1/100th of the funny business concerning her private email server would have been in the can already. Then there is Benghazi. The Clinton Foundation is a stinking cesspool of corruption. The Haitians hate her and her husband for screwing them over. Whitewater-gate, setting up Billy Dale in in 1993 Travel-gate, etc. Hey, I don't need to wear out my piano fingers typing all it up again, read about it here:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-brief-guide-to-clinton-scandals-from-travelgate-to-emailgate/article/2562906
Quote from: Scarpia on November 08, 2016, 06:50:34 AM
Planned parenthood is an admirable organization which provides reproductive health care for people who would otherwise not have access to it.
Pardon me while I puke. Actual health care is a small proportion of what they do. Otherwise they are a shill for eventual social engineering, meaning government control of reproduction.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 08, 2016, 07:00:40 AM
Pardon me while I puke. Actual health care is a small proportion of what they do.
False.
Here are actual facts:
- Planned Parenthood provides more than 270,000 Pap tests and more than 360,000 breast exams in a single year, critical services in detecting cancer.
- Planned Parenthood provides more than 4.2 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections each year, including more than 650,000 HIV tests.
- Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 08, 2016, 07:00:40 AM
Pardon me while I puke. Actual health care is a small proportion of what they do. Otherwise they are a shill for eventual social engineering, meaning government control of reproduction.
They are not a shill for anything. They give individual women control over their own reproductive health. Margaret Sanger was not a racist or an advocate of eugenics. She was an advocate for women, especially impoverished women, taking individual control over their reproductive decisions.
Quote from: Brian on November 08, 2016, 07:03:38 AM
False.
Here are actual facts:
- Planned Parenthood provides more than 270,000 Pap tests and more than 360,000 breast exams in a single year, critical services in detecting cancer.
- Planned Parenthood provides more than 4.2 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections each year, including more than 650,000 HIV tests.
- Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.
It depends how the statistics are interpreted. 3% of services doesn't mean 3% of income. In fact, it accounts for about 10-12% by some:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html
Consider this:
"...Say I open a watch store. I sell lots of those cheap plastic digital ones that you can get at discount stores. And I sell some Timex and Casio, and also some nicer designer watches. But then I also keep a few super-expensive Brightlings and Patek Phillipes in stock. And maybe those only make up 3 percent of my sales. But selling only a handful of fancy watches brings in far more than 3 percent of my REVENUES. And so it is with abortion.
It's impossible to know how much money Planned Parenthood brings in for abortion. Because as specific as the annual report is about the number of services it provides, it's far less detailed when talking about where its revenue comes from (They are within their rights, so whatever). But it's easy to calculate, as the Weekly Standard did, that Planned Parenthood gets at least a third of its clinic income—and more than 10 percent of all its revenue, government funding included—from its abortion procedures..."
Quote from: Scarpia on November 08, 2016, 07:09:31 AM
They are not a shill for anything. They give individual women control over their own reproductive health. Margaret Sanger was not a racist or an advocate of eugenics. She was an advocate for women, especially impoverished women, taking individual control over their reproductive decisions.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/7-shocking-quotes-by-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger
1) "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."
2) "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan."
In 1926, Sanger spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, New Jersey. Following the invitation, Sanger describes her elation after receiving multiple speaking requests from white supremacy groups.
3) "They are...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born.
Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease...Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant."
4) "Birth control is nothing more or less than...weeding out the unfit. Sanger famously coined the term "birth control" with the intention of eliminating the reproduction of human beings who were considered "less fit." In her writings from "Morality and Birth Control" and "Birth Control and the New Race," the Planned Parenthood founder noted that the chief aim of the practice of birth control is to produce a 'cleaner race'."
5) "Human beings who never should have been born at all."
from: "Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.
Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.
The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
6) "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world."
In a 1957 interview with journalist Mike Wallace, Sanger advocated that the greatest evil is a family that chooses to bring children into the world. Sanger, who advocated for a system requiring every American family to submit a request to the government to have a child, told America Weekly in 1934 that it has "become necessary to establish a system of birth permits."
7) "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."In a 1947 interview that surfaced via the British Pathe, Sanger described her desire for women in the developed world to cease completely from reproduction. When asked by the reporter whether this would be impractical to ask women who desire children, but would no longer be able to conceive in 10 years, Sanger said, "I should think instead of being impractical, it is really very practical and intelligent and humane."
Of course, Planned Parenthood as an organization is completely unaware of her social engineering ideas that were concurrent with National Socialism in Germany actually carrying them out.
Inflammatory quote taken out of context notwithstanding, the goal of Sanger's work was to allow women to make their own reproductive choices, with the goal of allowing women to avoid conceiving children that they did not have the resources to care for.
The current goal of Planned Parenthood is to give women control over their own reproductive health and decisions. I find that worthy of support.
Quote from: Brian on November 08, 2016, 06:56:29 AM
lol, yes, a tax-cheating, proudly racist, self-proclaimed sex predator who skips out of payments to contractors, jokes about murdering enemies, and walks into dressing rooms to ogle naked teenagers has the moral high ground versus somebody who doesn't store emails properly.
But seriously folks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI
Gloating and cackling about a murder you were involved in is the sort of thing I expect from a Mafia don. Except that Mafia dons usually have the sense not to do such things on TV.
Anyway - I've already gone out today and cast my vote against the plutocracy / corporatocracy.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 07:11:18 AM
My wife and I have been planning for some time on moving to Israel. So I will have another country's bizarre political scene to observe.
;)
Normality seems to comprise an even wider palette there ...
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 08, 2016, 08:05:28 AM
But seriously folks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI
Gloating and cackling about a murder you were involved in is the sort of thing I expect from a Mafia don. Except that Mafia dons usually have the sense not to do such things on TV.
Anyway - I've already gone out today and cast my vote against the plutocracy / corporatocracy.
This is a perfect instance if men want to sneer that women have no business in war, or at least the couch potato variety, she just proved it. Bang, bang, as long as you don't have to see actual blood, what fun! She doesn't understand what it means to support and give back up as in the execrable failure in Benghazi. it is said she has "experience" but not the kind that say, an Eisenhower or Kennedy had.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 08, 2016, 08:22:22 AM
Bang, bang, as long as you don't have to see actual blood, what fun!
Agreed. That makes 2 of them. Remember when Trump joked that he always wanted to get a Purple Heart?
"The Trump campaign is filing a lawsuit against the Clark County Registrar's Office for keeping polls open yesterday for two additional hours beyond their close time (this is being reported by CNN's Jim Sciutto). It's slightly confounding that they are doing so, since voters are allowed to cast ballots past the official poll closing time, as long as they were in line before the end of official voting hours."
-
Also, Eric Trump tweeted a picture of his ballot with the bubble filled next to his dad's name. In New York that's a crime, and if convicted he would face up to a year in jail.
(I think the no pictures laws are stupid and wrong.)
Since El Tupé is probably the most litigious candidate in history, it is no surprise that the lawsuits or threats thereof will fly.
Quote from: Brian on November 08, 2016, 09:15:31 AM
(I think the no pictures laws are stupid and wrong.)
Well there is the scenario where you are paid or coerced into voting.
Quote from: North Star on November 08, 2016, 09:25:30 AM
Well there is the scenario where you are be paid or coerced into voting.
Ah, true.
I can now laugh at Eric Trump with a cleaner conscience.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 08, 2016, 08:22:22 AM
This is a perfect instance if men want to sneer that women have no business in war, or at least the couch potato variety, she just proved it. Bang, bang, as long as you don't have to see actual blood, what fun! She doesn't understand what it means to support and give back up as in the execrable failure in Benghazi. it is said she has "experience" but not the kind that say, an Eisenhower or Kennedy had.
She certainly didn't have the experience of JFK at the Bay of Pigs. Where was the backup? And where was the impeachment?
Clinton gloated over the death of Qaddafi. I don't think that proves anything particularly bad.
I thought it was Bin Laden at first. My mistake.
The Harris bar in Paris organizes the "straw vote" at each US presidential election reserved to US expats...
AND THE WINNER IS....HRC by a 2.5/1 margin 0:)
Quote from: Brian on November 08, 2016, 09:38:36 AM
I can now laugh at Eric Trump with a cleaner conscience.
I have never had any issues laughing at Trump's children, little Barron included.
(God, can you imagine how fucked up that kid is going to be 10 years from now.)
Quote from: Spineur on November 08, 2016, 11:11:03 AM
The Harris bar in Paris organizes the "straw vote" at each US presidential election reserved to US expats...
AND THE WINNER IS....HRC by a 2.5/1 margin 0:)
Rigged, rigged.
Just found this amazing 3rd party candidate.
http://andy2020.net/
His campaign platform includes declaring Bigfoot an endangered species and publicly revealing the presence of ET on earth.
Quote from: Brian on November 08, 2016, 11:33:00 AM
Just found this amazing 3rd party candidate.
http://andy2020.net/
His campaign platform includes declaring Bigfoot an endangered species and publicly revealing the presence of ET on earth.
Damn, if only I'd known earlier about this guy, I wouldn't have wasted my vote ;D
Sarge
So I've voted. Not that voting in Massachusetts is especially important in terms of national elections, but all the same, it's worthwhile to take an interest in what's going on and make one's voice heard.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 06:42:04 AM
Compared to Hillary Clinton, everyone has the moral high ground.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/these-wikileaks-emails-prove-just-what-a-monster-hillary-clinton-is_us_581a1ecce4b08f9841acad73
http://www.christianpost.com/news/im-voting-for-hillary-clinton-emails-opinion-171343/
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 12:05:26 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/these-wikileaks-emails-prove-just-what-a-monster-hillary-clinton-is_us_581a1ecce4b08f9841acad73
http://www.christianpost.com/news/im-voting-for-hillary-clinton-emails-opinion-171343/
Lock 'er up!!! Lock 'er up!!!! Throw away the key!!!!! Impeach her before she takes office!!! (Never mind that that's unconstitutional.) NO, execute her!!! She hung obscene ornaments on the White House Xmas tree - 12 lords a-leaping all with boners!!!! AND SHE MAY DO SO AGAIN!!!!!!!
Even worse, I've just read that she and Abedin discussed splitting a creme brulee between them.
"Should we be bad?", Clinton reportedly wrote.
before the day is done, Trump is starting legal proceedings against the election, starting with Nevada.
Quote from: Herman on November 08, 2016, 12:37:35 PM
before the day is done, Trump is starting legal proceedings against the election, starting with Nevada.
And the Nevada proceeding was immediately thrown out by the judge as being without merit. Surprise!
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 12:34:33 PM
Even worse, I've just read that she and Abedin discussed splitting a creme brulee between them.
"Should we be bad?", Clinton reportedly wrote.
Collusion!
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I have a room in a five star hotel in Beijing, where I can have CNN, to watch the returns.
Like a lot of people, I am looking curiously forward to the concession speech (or lack thereof).
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 12:34:33 PM
Even worse, I've just read that she and Abedin discussed splitting a creme brulee between them.
"Should we be bad?", Clinton reportedly wrote.
My God!
Quote from: springrite on November 08, 2016, 12:45:04 PM
I have a room in a five star hotel in Beijing, where I can have CNN, to watch the returns.
Like a lot of people, I am looking curiously forward to the concession speech (or lack thereof).
Don't hold yer breath.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 12:45:24 PM
My God!
I know, right? Trump would say he wanted both a Creme
and a Brulee.
And someone else to pay for them.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 12:57:40 PM
I know, right? Trump would say he wanted both a Creme and a Brulee.
And someone else to pay for them.
Given Trump's abysmal taste in food, he probably doesn't know what creme brulee is.
Quote from: Brian on November 08, 2016, 01:02:13 PM
Given Trump's abysmal taste in food, he probably doesn't know what creme brulee is.
You quote my joke, and yet...
I'm still scandalised by the print issue.
https://www.youtube.com/v/xhM0Htv39aE
"Hello, I'm Donald Trump, you may remember me from when I ran for President. Now I'm here to tell you about a great opportunity which can change your life! Have you ever considered a reverse mortgage?"
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/donald-melania.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1)
Rigged !!! :D
His son Eric did the very same thing, watching over his wife voting. Immature and disturbing.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 07:11:18 AMMaybe the truly best men/women simply do not wish to subject themsevles to the degrading spectacle of a presidential campaign and prefer to stay in lucrative careers outside of politics (my bet is on that).
There is probably some truth to that.
FUBAR for the next 4 years though. Both political parties really need to be abolished for real change to occur, they are equally responsible for the gigantic mess the country is in. These 2 candidates are more of the same, status-quo, business-as-usual govt. Very little, if anything at all will change.
Playlist for Election Night 2016
Captain Beefheart, "Dachau Blues"
Adrian Belew, "Paint the Road"
Dire Straits, "Heavy Fuel"
Frank Zappa, "Dickie's Such an Asshole"
The Beatles, "Back in the USSR"
R.E.M., "Everybody Hurts"
The Ramones, "I Wanna Be Sedated"
Frank Zappa, "Planet of the Baritone Women"
Bob Dylan, "Watching the River Flow"
Led Zeppelin, "In My Time of Dying"
Heart, "Magic Man"
Jimi Hendrix, "All Along the Watchtower"
Talking Heads, "Burning Down the House"
The Bobs, "Mr Duality"
Captain Beefheart, "Grow Fins"
The Police, "Deathwish"
Steely Dan, "Black Friday"
Bob Dylan, "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right"
The Ramones, "The KKK Took My Baby Away"
Pink Floyd, "Careful With That Axe, Eugene"
Chicago, "Baby, What a Big Surprise"
Cat Stevens, "Wild World"
The Pogues, "The Turkish Song of the Damned"
Queen, "Don't Try Suicide"
King Crimson, "Cat Food"
Styx, "Too Much Time on My Hands"
Led Zeppelin, "Trampled Underfoot"
Jeff Beck, "Loose Cannon"
The Beatles, "Helter Skelter"
Joe Jackson, "You Can't Get What You Want, Till You Know What You Want"
Frank Zappa, "Dumb All Over"
Michael Jackson, "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'"
Jack White & Alicia Keys, "Another Way to Die"
Men Without Hats, "Safety Dance"
Peter Gabriel, "Shock the Monkey"
Paul Simon, "Late in the Evening"
Bob Dylan, "Orange Juice Blues (Blues for Breakfast)"
Tom Waits, "Tango Till They're Sore"
George Harrison, "Woman, Don't You Cry for Me"
Supertramp, "Cannonball"
Dire Straits, "Twisting by the Pool"
Frank Zappa & The Mothers, "America Drinks and Goes Home"
NYT predictor is showing Trump ahead, with Michigan decisive. I remember telling folks here Trump could sell very well in Michigan.
If Trump wins this the underlying reason will be the contempt many voters feel directed at them. I sadly have seen a lot of that here. As I contemplate the very real chance of President The Donald I wonder how many will want to rethink how productive that attitude really is. President Trump, should he really win, may not prove as bad as many of us fear, but it's a sobering prospect.
As much as I hate to admit it: I think Trump's got this election in the bag. He just won Ohio and no president has ever won without this state. Night, night Clinton.
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 06:23:17 PM
NYT predictor is showing Trump ahead, with Michigan decisive. I remember telling folks here Trump could sell very well in Michigan.
If Trump wins this the underlying reason will be the contempt many voters feel directed at them. I sadly have seen a lot of that here. As I contemplate the very real chance of President The Donald I wonder how many will want to rethink how productive that attitude really is. President Trump, should he really win, may not prove as bad as many of us fear, but it's a sobering prospect.
I absolutely understand why voters in certain regions are unhappy. What baffles me is that their chosen saviour of the workers is a billionaire with a reputation for not paying for work.
As I've said before, it's the henhouse expressing its dissatisfaction with roosters by voting for a fox. Bernie Sanders made sense as an outlet for that dissatisfaction. Trump does not.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 06:52:33 PM
I absolutely understand why voters in certain regions are unhappy. What baffles me is that their chosen saviour of the workers is a billionaire with a reputation for not paying for work.
As I've said before, it's the henhouse expressing its dissatisfaction with roosters by voting for a fox. Bernie Sanders made sense as an outlet for that dissatisfaction. Trump does not.
This cartoon sadly hits it on the nose:
:-\
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 06:23:17 PM
NYT predictor is showing Trump ahead, with Michigan decisive. I remember telling folks here Trump could sell very well in Michigan.
If Trump wins this the underlying reason will be the contempt many voters feel directed at them. I sadly have seen a lot of that here. As I contemplate the very real chance of President The Donald I wonder how many will want to rethink how productive that attitude really is. President Trump, should he really win, may not prove as bad as many of us fear, but it's a sobering prospect.
The contempt is not for the voters, but for the person they are voting for. Already markets world-wide are tanking. The Mexican peso is down 12%. Do you think that's a result of contempt for rural white American voters? The world is terrified of this guy. Right now CA is in which makes the vote neck and neck, but either side needs about 100 more.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 06:52:33 PM
I absolutely understand why voters in certain regions are unhappy. What baffles me is that their chosen saviour of the workers is a billionaire with a reputation for not paying for work.
As I've said before, it's the henhouse expressing its dissatisfaction with roosters by voting for a fox. Bernie Sanders made sense as an outlet for that dissatisfaction. Trump does not.
Well I agree Trump is not the right guy. And I am afraid people will learn that in due course. But he won because he tried. Remember when he was roundly mocked for saying he loves the poorly educated? I don't hear any of that mockery now.
Wow - this IS interesting!! One message is loud and clear; the ordinary people are fed up with political correctness, identity politics, gender bifurcation, trigger warnings, safe spaces, "black lives matter". They're telling the elites what they think. Win or lose for Trump things will never be the same again. America doesn't want the inner urbanites telling them what to think, how to live and what to do. The western world is fed up to the back teeth with this mentality.
If Trump wins (and there's a very high probability that he will), then at least he did it on his own and proved many naysayers wrong. I'm not a Trump supporter as many here know, but I'm willing to accept that he won fair and square.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 07:08:02 PM
The contempt is not for the voters, but for the person they are voting for. Already markets world-wide are tanking. The Mexican peso is down 12%. Do you think that's a result of contempt for rural white American voters? The world is terrified of this guy. Right now CA is in which makes the vote neck and neck, but either side needs about 100 more.
What a non sequitur. I am trying to explain why Trump got so many votes. That has bupkis to do with markets today or the peso. Contempt for blue collar whites is endemic in this country. And there was that deplorables speech. People usually resent being contemned.
It looks like it comes down to Michigan and Iowa at this point. And while Michigan is still likely to go Clinton, It looks like Iowa will go Trump. And that would give Trump the win (assuming no more shocks based on current results).
Bravo. Completely agree Ken B. But it's not just contempt; it's moral vanity, climate catastrophizing, explosions in welfare and unchecked immigration.
The people have had an absolute gut-full and what's not to love about that????? Let's worry about Trump later, if he wins.
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 07:10:19 PM
Well I agree Trump is not the right guy. And I am afraid people will learn that in due course. But he won because he tried. Remember when he was roundly mocked for saying he loves the poorly educated? I don't hear any of that mockery now.
I don't believe for a minute he loves the poorly educated, any more than I believed him when he said the Bible was his favorite book. (We haven't heard that one for a while, have we?) I believe he's been able to talk a good con game. And people will learn that in good (golf) course.
That makes Trump no more or less a liar than anybody in the game.
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 07:15:21 PM
What a non sequitur. I am trying to explain why Trump got so many votes. That has bupkis to do with markets today or the peso. Contempt for blue collar whites is endemic in this country. And there was that deplorables speech. People usually resent being contemned.
Not a non-sequitur at all. This election has global repercussions.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 08, 2016, 07:17:59 PM
It looks like it comes down to Michigan and Iowa at this point. And while Michigan is still likely to go Clinton, It looks like Iowa will go Trump. And that would give Trump the win (assuming no more shocks based on current results).
Hmm. NYT gives Trump over 70% chance of winning MI, as of 4 minutes ago.
Hard to know what estimate to believe but he's leading Wisconsin too.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 07:20:46 PM
Not a non-sequitur at all. This election has global repercussions.
Last response to you on this. I suggested a reason why Trump won. You say my theory is wrong and cite as evidence that the election matters. That's a non sequitur.
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 07:23:29 PM
Last response to you on this.
Oh good. The only contempt I sense on this thread is yours for me.
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 07:21:57 PM
Hmm. NYT gives Trump over 70% chance of winning MI, as of 4 minutes ago.
Hard to know what estimate to believe but he's leading Wisconsin too.
All he needs is one of them - doesn't matter which one. I've not seen what counties are still outstanding in Michigan. Last I saw (closer to 55%), it looked like some heavily DEM areas were still to report most of their numbers, but maybe there were some offsetting REP areas I missed.
Everyone keeps talking about the 'implosion' of the Republican Party and they will surely have some interesting problems now that it looks like Trump will win. But I hadn't read one article about the same for Democrats, which made no sense to me. They lost the House. They lost the Senate (is anyone projecting them to win at this point?). They lost the bulk of the Governorships and State Houses some time ago. And now they have likely lost the Presidency. Their 'resurgence' was directly tied to the surge of Obama in 2008. I wonder what they will do to re-orient themselves (if anything). The one positive they have going for them in the coming years is a likely support from minorities, which will only grow over time.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 07:34:15 PM
New York Times gives Trump a greater than 95% chance of winning presidency, with over 300 electoral votes.
While Hillary wins the popular vote, for all that matters. I hope those of you who wanted this outcome will be happy. Now your guy actually has to govern and deliver on all his big promises. Good luck with that.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 07:35:51 PM
While Hillary wins the popular vote, for all that matters. I hope those of you who wanted this outcome will be happy. Now your guy actually has to govern and deliver on all his big promises. Good luck with that.
Yep, get your popcorn ready. It's going to be a wild ride. Remember all of the Republicans that were against Trump? Let's see if they're still against him once he slithers his way into the White House.
Who will be the winners ? Vladimir Putin.
Who will be the loosers ? Everyone else as far as I can tell.
Possible next reality show stop - President Elect Trump on the witness stand for Trump University.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 07:40:14 PM
If the projections are accurate and Trump does amass over 300 electoral votes, despite the strong head winds he faced, he will become president with a decent mandate to govern.
It's one thing to have a mandate. It's another to get the job done. Write back in a year when the wall hasn't been finished and Mexico isn't paying for it.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 07:46:35 PM
I can't help but wonder if the outcome would have been different had Bernie Sanders been the one running against Trump.
I doubt it.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 07:46:35 PM
I can't help but wonder if the outcome would have been different had Bernie Sanders been the one running against Trump.
Seems unlikely to me that Sanders could have carved out a niche in the center. Surely, he had better character. So who knows...
I don't think Trump will deliver on any of his promises and we'll have more illegals in this country than we've ever had before. The flood gates will be fully open and operational under a Trump presidency.
I saw some interesting graphics about the polling data vs actuals. It seems the polls were about right for Clinton in the ones I saw, but that the turnout for Trump was a notch higher than expected. So that would appear to be the main difference.
Krugman:
"We still don't know who will win the electoral college, although as I write this it looks — incredibly, horribly — as if the odds now favor Donald J. Trump. What we do know is that people like me, and probably like most readers of The New York Times, truly didn't understand the country we live in. We thought that our fellow citizens would not, in the end, vote for a candidate so manifestly unqualified for high office, so temperamentally unsound, so scary yet ludicrous.
"We thought that the nation, while far from having transcended racial prejudice and misogyny, had become vastly more open and tolerant over time.
"We thought that the great majority of Americans valued democratic norms and the rule of law.
"It turns out that we were wrong. There turn out to be a huge number of people — white people, living mainly in rural areas — who don't share at all our idea of what America is about. For them, it is about blood and soil, about traditional patriarchy and racial hierarchy. And there were many other people who might not share those anti-democratic values, but who nonetheless were willing to vote for anyone bearing the Republican label.
"I don't know how we go forward from here. Is America a failed state and society? It looks truly possible. I guess we have to pick ourselves up and try to find a way forward, but this has been a night of terrible revelations, and I don't think it's self-indulgent to feel quite a lot of despair."
Every major power in history has eventually collapsed - the Roman Empire, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, the Netherlands, the British Empire. Don't think it can't happen here.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 07:47:18 PM
It's one thing to have a mandate. It's another to get the job done. Write back in a year when the wall hasn't been finished and Mexico isn't paying for it.
I'm not sure that stuff really matters. Ultimately, the steel workers want the factory to re-open and the coal miners want the coal mine to re-open. That is what he has to accomplish.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 07:34:15 PM
New York Times gives Trump a greater than 95% chance of winning presidency, with over 300 electoral votes.
Congratulations. I hope you were right for all our sake.
EDIT: I do not hope he is right about Trump winning. I hope he is right about Trump being the better choice in this election.
We're royally f*****!!! Arm the troops, get the military tanks ready, we're going to war. It's over, folks.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 08, 2016, 07:30:59 PM
Everyone keeps talking about the 'implosion' of the Republican Party and they will surely have some interesting problems now that it looks like Trump will win. But I hadn't read one article about the same for Democrats, which made no sense to me. They lost the House. They lost the Senate (is anyone projecting them to win at this point?). They lost the bulk of the Governorships and State Houses some time ago. And now they have likely lost the Presidency. Their 'resurgence' was directly tied to the surge of Obama in 2008. I wonder what they will do to re-orient themselves (if anything). The one positive they have going for them in the coming years is a likely support from minorities, which will only grow over time.
If they win the popular vote, it seems unlikely that will be a trigger for soul searching.
When it comes to Congress, there isn't enough talk about the insane gerrymanders (which both sides engage in, but I think it's more common in Republican controlled states). Letting the politicians in power decide electoral boundaries is a thoroughly corrupt practice.
Quote from: Pat B on November 08, 2016, 07:54:00 PM
I'm not sure that stuff really matters. Ultimately, the steel workers want the factory to re-open and the coal miners want the coal mine to re-open. That is what he has to accomplish.
A distinction without a difference. It's all been big talk so far, and now he has to make good. The wall is just one example out of many. And we can't pretend that something like coal necessarily has a future. Industries die as more efficient industries take their place. What was one of the biggest American industries in the mid-19th century? Whaling.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 07:46:35 PM
I can't help but wonder if the outcome would have been different had Bernie Sanders been the one running against Trump.
Maybe. I personally like him far more than Clinton. But even if he could overcome the S-word, I'm not sure that "let's be more like Denmark" would really play well in the general.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 07:59:39 PM
A distinction without a difference. It's all been big talk so far, and now he has to make good. The wall is just one example out of many. And we can't pretend that something like coal necessarily has a future. Industries die as more efficient industries take their place. What was one of the biggest American industries in the mid-19th century? Whaling.
Implicit in my comment was that re-opening the steel factories and coal mines is
more difficult than building a wall. I will not be shocked if he accomplishes the wall, but even if he does I do not think it will create very much happiness.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 07:47:18 PM
It's one thing to have a mandate. It's another to get the job done. Write back in a year when the wall hasn't been finished and Mexico isn't paying for it.
Net immigration from Mexico is negative, more people immigrating from the U.S. to Mexico than vice versa. These days immigration to the U.S. is mostly from places like Costa Rica and Guatemala . Maybe Mexico will build a wall to keep Americans out if Trump is the disaster some people expect him to be.
Quote from: Pat B on November 08, 2016, 08:08:10 PM
Implicit in my comment was that re-opening the steel factories and coal mines is more difficult than building a wall. I will not be shocked if he accomplishes the wall, but even if he does I do not think it will create very much happiness.
You're just making my point. From day one he has promised that everything will be easy for him to accomplish - whether it's defeating ISIS, creating jobs, replacing Obamacare, deporting illegals, closing the borders, you name it. We'll just strike a few deals and get the best people on it, then it's just a matter of weeks if not days. Those who've supported him, purely on the basis of the snake oil he's been selling them, are likely to find he's unable to deliver with anywhere near the alacrity and success he's promised. But those on your side got what you wanted, and I sure hope he does better than I fear he will.
The biggest google search: moving to Canada. This looks awfully like the brexit affair.
Will Donald Trump vanish in thin air like Nigel Farage ?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 08:16:19 PM
You're just making my point. From day one he has promised that everything will be easy for him to accomplish - whether it's defeating ISIS, creating jobs, replacing Obamacare, deporting illegals, closing the borders, you name it. We'll just strike a few deals and get the best people on it, then it's just a matter of weeks if not days. Those who've supported him, purely on the basis of the snake oil he's been selling them, are likely to find he's unable to deliver with anywhere near the alacrity and success he's promised. But those on your side got what you wanted, and I sure hope he does better than I fear he will.
If you think I am a Trump supporter (ETA: or a Republican of any sort) then you are wildly mistaken.
I agree with your point, I just think that using the border wall as the example is setting the bar too low for him.
Quote from: Pat B on November 08, 2016, 08:18:39 PM
If you think I am a Trump supporter (ETA: or a Republican of any sort) then you are wildly mistaken.
When santonio writes: "New York Times gives Trump a greater than 95% chance of winning presidency, with over 300 electoral votes," and you reply, "Congratulations. I hope you were right for all our sake," you sure sound like a Trump supporter. I can't read your mind if you meant otherwise.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 08:24:03 PM
When santonio writes: "New York Times gives Trump a greater than 95% chance of winning presidency, with over 300 electoral votes," and you reply, "Congratulations. I hope you were right for all our sake," you sure sound like a Trump supporter. I can't read your mind if you meant otherwise.
sanantonio is a Trump supporter. I am doing my best to be a gracious loser. I'm not sure how else you read that exchange.
And: my grace in losing does not mean I plan to let the Republicans make excuses for whatever happens over the next 2 years.
ETA: oh, you thought I meant right about the NYT probability. Sorry, I meant I hope he's right about Trump being the better choice.
The thread title is turning to be a real prophecy...
Looking at what's happening in America, Europe, Asia, etc...
Why on earth will our sons have to face new wars because of our short sight and stupidity?
Perhaps a glimpse of hope away from real policy extremism in this one. He deliberately went for less educated or less well-off parts of the white population, as the biggest voting potential.
https://twitter.com/jennjacquelynm/status/796228572012748800
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 07:46:35 PM
I can't help but wonder if the outcome would have been different had Bernie Sanders been the one running against Trump.
Stop wondering.
Against Trump, Sanders would have had a better chance than Clinton.
Both Trump and Sanders are representatives of the strong worldwide resentment movement against the so-called 'elite'.
And Sanders had many more young, involved and enthousiastic followers.
He didn't need millionaire rockstars to proof his points.
Sanders would have cannibalised some of the working class white vote, where trump had the biggest support, but not done that well with minorities, so.... who knows.
I'm so sorry, guys.
My country had two terrible, terrible presidents in a row. Especially the second one, who's still in power - nobody really believed he could make it, such a crass, vulgar drunk. We thought his campaign was a joke, until it wasn't. I remember the disbelief right after the election and it's that same feeling all over again. Ugh.
I'm so sorry. I've just read his VP advocates "conversion therapy" for LGBT people. Fuck.
Quote from: amw on November 08, 2016, 10:03:27 PM
Sanders would have cannibalised some of the working class white vote, where trump had the biggest support, but not done that well with minorities, so.... who knows.
Of course, it's still a guess.
Sanders was maybe too much of a lefty, too.
We'll never know.
The world has to prepare itself for president Trump.
I vote for Ivanka as official White House Spokeswoman. :P
Quote from: Chronochromie on November 08, 2016, 10:23:52 PM
I'm so sorry. I've just read his VP advocates "conversion therapy" for LGBT people. Fuck.
well, that's the irony of this thing.
Trump joined the primaries because he wasn't doing too well, business wise, and wanted to boost his brand.
Pence was at a dead end as Indiana governor.
Now they're going to have responsibilities neither is suited for.
And obviously, all those Republicans who talked about getting back to conservatism, will now embrace Trump as their savior.
Well, my favourite singer, Tori Amos, saw all this happening a couple of years ago - the phenomenon of one part of the country not paying attention to the existence of the other. She reposted certain lyrics from this song today: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/toriamos/america.html
QuoteThe other America
Might show up on Tuesday
At your kitchen door
She will ask politely
"Is anybody home?"
Quote from: sanantonio on November 08, 2016, 10:34:15 PM
The AP/PBS just called Wisconsin putting Trump over 270.
There are reports Clinton has conceded to Trump on the phone.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 10:48:39 PM
There are reports Clinton has conceded to Trump on the phone.
I´m watching CNN right now: Trump 276, Clinton 218. Hillary did indeed call Trump and congratulated him on winning. Trump is President Elect of the USA.
Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2016, 10:51:00 PM
I´m watching CNN right now: Trump 276, Clinton 218. Hillary did indeed call Trump and congratulated him on winning. Trump is President Elect of the USA.
Do you think the other way would ever have happened?
Todd has already suggested Chris Christie for Secretary of Transportation. How about Ben Carson for Agriculture?
Quote from: GioCar on November 08, 2016, 10:53:58 PM
Do you think the other way would ever have happened?
I have no idea, but I think that in the end it would.
His speech was unusually civil and coirteous.
Congratulations to the USA for having a wonderful, vigorous, peaceful democracy!!! :)
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 06:23:17 PM
If Trump wins this the underlying reason will be the contempt many voters feel directed at them. I sadly have seen a lot of that here. As I contemplate the very real chance of President The Donald I wonder how many will want to rethink how productive that attitude really is. President Trump, should he really win, may not prove as bad as many of us fear, but it's a sobering prospect.
Quote from: Tritone on November 08, 2016, 07:14:16 PM
Wow - this IS interesting!! One message is loud and clear; the ordinary people are fed up with political correctness, identity politics, gender bifurcation, trigger warnings, safe spaces, "black lives matter". They're telling the elites what they think. Win or lose for Trump things will never be the same again. America doesn't want the inner urbanites telling them what to think, how to live and what to do. The western world is fed up to the back teeth with this mentality.
That pretty much sums it up, but only time will tell if Trump is really the guy to change things or just another big (and foul) mouth demagogue.
For instance, I am curious about how he will make good of his promise to bring back jobs in the US. That, I think, will be the greatest challenge.
Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2016, 11:09:28 PMHis speech was unusually civil and coirteous.
I can imagine him being super scared right now.
My biggest concern is related to the USA policy regarding Europe and especially Eastern Europe.
Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2016, 11:21:20 PMMy biggest concern is related to the USA policy regarding Europe and especially Eastern Europe.
Exactly. Chalk up another win for the Kremlin.
He was elected in order to:
Have the wall built
Ban Muslims
Rebuild the steel industry
Lock Hilary up
I don't think any of those things will happen....but plenty will. Christy, Guilini, Pence.....what a bunch.
Mike
Quote from: Rinaldo on November 08, 2016, 11:22:31 PM
Exactly. Chalk up another win for the Kremlin.
Brexit. Turkey. Trump. What next, I wonder?
That apart, it is the democratically expressed will of the majority of the American people and it must be understood and respected. And irrespective of our personal political opinions and feelings, we should acknowledge that his winning against all odds and against the overwhelming majority of the media and the political establishment is a stunning, unprecedented achievement.
Let´s hope he won´t be as bad and irresponsible a POTUS as he is supposed to be. That´s all we can do at the moment.
Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2016, 11:21:20 PM
My biggest concern is related to the USA policy regarding Europe and especially Eastern Europe.
Indeed, especially for Ukraine and Eastern Europe, this is very worrying. And further, it shows a populist, authoritarian style generally prevailing, Le Pen might becoming one of the next winners.
This is a bad time to be a liberal.
Quote from: Tritone on November 08, 2016, 11:10:18 PM
Congratulations to the USA for having a wonderful, vigorous, peaceful democracy!!! :)
That's the spirit! :)
FUCK :'(
Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2016, 11:09:28 PM
His speech was unusually civil and coirteous.
It's the fact that being civil and courteous is unusual for him that speaks volumes.
Does anyone think he'll be able to consistently act like a Statesman, after spending at least a year mocking women, Mexicans, Muslims, the disabled, prisoners of war and basically anyone who didn't fall on the right side of his schoolyard rhetoric? And apparently succeeding because his base lapped up his lack of "political correctness" (which is the term used for when people aren't inclined to give respect to those unlike themselves)?
Count me among the skeptics. I don't think this is a man capable of governing for "all Americans" because everything he's shown about his mindset consistently shows that he believes you win by making someone else lose. You don't get what you want by negotiation, you get what you want by humiliating your opponent and then saying "Ha! Ha!" like Nelson on
The Simpsons.
His appeal isn't built on "all Americans", his appeal is built on promising traditional white Christian America it can have its country back.
Quote from: Tritone on November 08, 2016, 07:14:16 PM
Wow - this IS interesting!! One message is loud and clear; the ordinary people are fed up with political correctness, identity politics, gender bifurcation, trigger warnings, safe spaces, "black lives matter".
I take it your 'ordinary people' means 'white people'?
You seem to be unaware that white identity politics (which Trump's campaign overwhelmingly was about, 'escorting' the occasional black person out of his rallies because he or she did not belong there) is identity politics too.
and when your candidate talks about women the way Trump does, as 'a piece of ass' and nothing else, I don't think he's qualified to end 'gender bifurcation'.
I'm not surprised by this result at all. It is Brexit all over again: people are scared, fed up with the ruling elite and want to get back to the "good old days". Trump won because he told people what they wanted to hear and because he was an outsider. The Democrats should have picked another candidate....
Q
Quote from: Que on November 09, 2016, 12:17:24 AM
I'm not surprised by this result at all. It is Brexit all over again: people are scared, fed up with the ruling elite and want to get back to the "good old days". Trump won because he told people what they wanted to hear and because he was an outsider. The Democrats should have picked another candidate....
Q
+1
Quote from: Que on November 09, 2016, 12:17:24 AM
I'm not surprised by this result at all. It is Brexit all over again: people are scared, fed up with the ruling elite and want to get back to the "good old days". Trump won because he told people what they wanted to hear and because he was an outsider. The Democrats should have picked another candidate....
Q
+2
marvin
Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2016, 11:21:20 PM
My biggest concern is related to the USA policy regarding Europe and especially Eastern Europe.
Yes, except for the fact that Putin may be the biggest winner here, I consider Trump mostly a problem for the American People.
Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2016, 11:21:20 PM
My biggest concern is related to the USA policy regarding Europe and especially Eastern Europe.
Who congratulates Trump: Marine Le Pen, Vladimir Putin
"Qui se ressemble s'assemble"
Quote from: knight66 on November 08, 2016, 11:27:20 PM
He was elected in order to:
Have the wall built
Ban Muslims
Rebuild the steel industry
Lock Hilary up
I don't think any of those things will happen....but plenty will. Christy, Guilini, Pence.....what a bunch.
Mike
Well, if the wall is build of steel... ;)
Kesha on instagram:
"breathe in. breathe out. I'm freaking out too but. together we are gonna be ok. we got each other, animals. spread love✨spread hope"✨
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 12:12:09 AM
His appeal isn't built on "all Americans", his appeal is built on promising traditional white Christian America it can have its country back.
And with this appeal he won, which logically implies two things: (1) traditional white Christian Americans are a majority and (2) they feel their country has been taken away from them.
Quote from: Que on November 09, 2016, 12:17:24 AM
people are scared, fed up with the ruling elite and want to get back to the "good old days".
We can´t really blame them, can we? The biggest problem is that instead of understanding, compassion and sincere efforts to redress their economic and social problems, what they get from the political establishment and the intellectual elites is neglect and lies from the former and contempt and mockery from the latter. No wonder they strike back in anger.
Quote
Trump won because he told people what they wanted to hear
That´s precisely how elections are won, but I have a minor correction: he told
a majority of people what they wanted to hear. I´m sure that Hillary´s voters too heard from her exactly what they wanted to hear.
Quote from: Spineur on November 09, 2016, 12:52:02 AM
Who congratulates Trump: Marine Le Pen, Vladimir Putin
"Qui se ressemble s'assemble"
Well, the first to congratulate him was Hillary Clinton. Romanian President Klaus Johannis congratulated him as well.
Congratulations means nothing, it´s just diplomatic standard. It´s not they that I am really worried about.
A propos: what about next year´s French presidential elections? Does Marine Le Pen have any chance of winning? I imagine she is now hoping big, high and bold.
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 12:56:47 AM
That´s precisely how elections are won, but I have a minor correction: he told a majority of people what they wanted to hear.
Are you sure? I believe Hillary got more votes.
Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2016, 11:34:24 PM
Brexit. Turkey. Trump. What next, I wonder?
That apart, it is the democratically expressed will of the majority of the American people and it must be understood and respected. And irrespective of our personal political opinions and feelings, we should acknowledge that his winning against all odds and against the overwhelming majority of the media and the political establishment is a stunning, unprecedented achievement.
Despite his occasional complaints when the media dared to report things he actually did or said, I think the media helped him a lot more than hurt him.
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 12:56:47 AM
And with this appeal he won, which logically implies two things: (1) traditional white Christian Americans are a majority and (2) they feel their country has been taken away from them.
As has been pointed out, it doesn't logically imply they are a majority. Trump won the electoral college, not necessarily the popular vote (although the figures seem to be changing on that from where they were earlier). And millions simply don't vote at all. I will happily accept that they remain a powerful demographic, although over time that is less and less likely to be true.
As to what they feel, I agree. We could explore the logical problems with the reality of that feeling at some length. It gets back to something I think I referred to earlier: people who don't want to accept a mere seat at the table because they believe that somehow they own the table. That America is "their" country, that they own it, and that all the non-Christians, coloured people, gays etc. are some kind of inconvenient lodgers.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 09, 2016, 01:06:49 AM
Are you sure? I believe Hillary got more votes.
she didn't.
Quote from: Wendell_E on November 09, 2016, 01:25:11 AM
Despite his occasional complaints when the media dared to report things he actually did or said, I think the media helped him a lot more than hurt him.
Considering that this for many was a vote against the mainstream, I think that actuelly is true.
I hadn't realised Trump is the oldest ever newly elected President.
Not that Clinton is much younger, and with ever increasing life expectancy I don't see it as that big a deal. I just wasn't aware.
Reagan was almost 70 as well (less than a year younger than Trump will be) and this was 35 years ago and he was fit enough for two terms... I do not expect Trump to last two terms although this may be wishful thinking.
I am quite surprised. I wondered how most polls could be so inaccurate.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 01:27:01 AM
As has been pointed out, it doesn't logically imply they are a majority. Trump won the electoral college, not necessarily the popular vote
According to CNN he won the popular vote as well.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 09, 2016, 01:39:50 AM
I am quite surprised. I wondered how most polls could be so inaccurate.
In the 2014 Romanian presidential elections all polls predicted that the then prime-minister would be at least 10 % ahead of his opponent. What happened actually? He was
behind him more than 10%. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 01:41:07 AM
According to CNN he won the popular vote as well.
As I've observed, the figures on that have been changing. I take it that the count is not complete as there are still several states not yet declared. My point was that you said this was LOGICALLY IMPLIED from him winning the Presidency, and it isn't. It's perfectly possible to become President without winning a majority of the votes, and it has happened several times.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 01:49:53 AM
It's perfectly possible to become President without winning a majority of the votes, and it has happened several times.
I know but it doesn´t seem to be the case in these elections. We´ll see.
Latest on CNN: Trump 47.7%, Clinton 47.5%, some 150,000 votes ahead.
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 01:47:33 AM
In the 2014 Romanian presidential elections all polls predicted that the then prime-minister would be at least 10 % ahead of his opponent. What happened actually? He was behind him more than 10%. ;D
The pollsters didn't predict Brexit either. I didn't say it was without precedent. Still, it is interesting how far they can be off sometimes when they are generally fairly accurate.
I have the dim hope that Trump might serve as a wake-up call and could lead to reform of the US Democrats (and the Republicans as well). As I said above, I prefer a loud-mouthed demagogue who will very probably lose a lot of his "magic" once in office to a smart, young, capable demagogue (like we see in some European countries, e.g. FPÖ in Austria and maybe Marine Le Pen would also qualify) who might be far more dangerous in the middle/long run.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 09, 2016, 01:58:43 AM
The pollsters didn't predict Brexit either.
Precisely. They seem to regularly miss the most important events. ;D
Quote
I have the dim hope that Trump might serve as a wake-up call and could lead to reform of the US Democrats (and the Republicans as well).
It is also a wake-up call, maybe the last one, for the EU political establishment.
So Trump won .. good for him. He's inherited a big disaster. Let's see what happens within the next 4 years.
What "big disaster" has he inherited?
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 12:56:47 AM
And with this appeal he won, which logically implies two things: (1) traditional white Christian Americans are a majority and (2) they feel their country has been taken away from them.
We can´t really blame them, can we? The biggest problem is that instead of understanding, compassion and sincere efforts to redress their economic and social problems, what they get from the political establishment and the intellectual elites is neglect and lies from the former and contempt and mockery from the latter. No wonder they strike back in anger.
That´s precisely how elections are won, but I have a minor correction: he told a majority of people what they wanted to hear. I´m sure that Hillary´s voters too heard from her exactly what they wanted to hear.
He won with a very slim popular majority, and because the structure of the Electoral College and years of gerrymandering allowed him to win. A majority is a majority, but this was no landslide.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 09, 2016, 01:06:49 AM
Are you sure? I believe Hillary got more votes.
Actually in the end she narrowly lost the popular vote too. But just narrowly.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 09, 2016, 02:24:38 AM
He won with a very slim popular majority, and because the structure of the Electoral College and years of gerrymandering allowed him to win. A majority is a majority, but this was no landslide.
Weren´t the structure of the Electoral College and the gerrymandering exactly the same when Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama won the presidency? Just asking, I´m no Trump fan.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 09, 2016, 02:24:38 AM
He won with a very slim popular majority, and because the structure of the Electoral College and years of gerrymandering allowed him to win. A majority is a majority, but this was no landslide.
I agree, it's no landslide. However, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, electors are chosen on a "winner take all" basis for each state, so gerrymandering really has nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 02:30:02 AM
Weren´t the structure of the Electoral College and the gerrymandering exactly the same when Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama won the presidency? Just asking, I´m no Trump fan.
The EC, of course. But the gerrymandering has been subtly but relentlessly advancing since Clinton's time. My district was restructured midway through Obama's first term.
Quote from: Wendell_E on November 09, 2016, 02:34:17 AM
I agree, it's no landslide. However, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, electors are chosen on a "winner take all" basis for each state, so gerrymandering really has nothing to do with it.
Agreed, but it affects down-ballet races.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 09, 2016, 02:35:15 AM
the gerrymandering has been subtly but relentlessly advancing since Clinton's time. My district was restructured midway through Obama's first term.
I see. Who is in charge of designing / restructuring the districts? The Congress?
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 01:01:14 AM
A propos: what about next year´s French presidential elections? Does Marine Le Pen have any chance of winning? I imagine she is now hoping big, high and bold.
Making projections has become pretty hazardous these days. However, Juppé is doing very well in the primaries and his rivals (Sarkozy excepted) are now courting him as they want to be in his government. Juppé is a center/right guy and most of the socialists will vote fo him. What cant easily be measured is the tailwind all this world populism will give to Marine Le Pen. In the recent regional elections, people thought the National Front would get 4 regions, and they got none. But Brussels detestation is pretty high all over Europe, so who really knows.
Quote from: Spineur on November 09, 2016, 02:43:10 AM
Making projections has become pretty hazardous these days. However, Juppé is doing very well in the primaries and his rivals (Sarkozy excepted) are now courting him as they want to be in his government. Juppé is a center/right guy and most of the socialists will vote fo him. What cant easily be measured is the tailwind all this world populism will give to Marine Le Pen. In the recent regional elections, people thought the National Front would get 4 regions, and they got none. But Brussels detestation is pretty high all over Europe, so who really knows.
I see. I guess we´ll have to wait and see while keepings the fingers crossed.
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 02:40:27 AM
I see. Who is in charge of designing / restructuring the districts? The Congress?
Nope. In most States it's the State legislature.
Which is appalling. It's appalling in both directions, though I understand more often the gerrymandering is in favour of Republicans. But the fact that so few of the States have an independent electoral commission determining the boundaries of districts is ridiculous for a modern democracy. The conflict of interest is obvious.
I mean, take a look at these electoral maps. Ridiculous.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 02:04:26 AMIt is also a wake-up call, maybe the last one, for the EU political establishment.
It might well be, at least to the extent that it is likely to give succour and encouragement to extremist factions in France, Germany and the Netherlands in advance of their respective elections next year; that said, if last night's outcome and any electoral successes for those extremists in those EU member states eventually lead to the break-up of EU, UK will end up with a large quantity of very expensive egg on its face for having spent vast amounts of time, energy and money in trying to leave an EU that no longer exists.
I've yet to hear the President's views on last night. President Putin, that is. Who's to say that Trump decides to abandon the Mexico wall nonsense in favour of building the Bering bridge?...
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 02:48:32 AM
I mean, take a look at these electoral maps. Ridiculous.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/
That´s very confusing for me as a non-American. I understood almost nothing. To begin with, why on Earth should an electoral district be redesigned every number of years?
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 02:53:51 AM
That´s very confusing for me as a non-American. I understood almost nothing. To begin with, why on Earth should an electoral district be redesigned every number of years?
To organize the mix of voters so that the right candidate wins.
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 02:53:51 AM
That´s very confusing for me as a non-American. I understood almost nothing. To begin with, why on Earth should an electoral district be redesigned every number of years?
Redesign is necessary if the population shifts, to ensure that each electorate is roughly equal in population. In Australia we have rules that enable the (politically independent) electoral commissions to have a regular review of boundaries for this purpose.
However, in America they don't simply do it for that reason. They do it for the express purpose of ensuring that their own party gets more seats for less of the vote.
This'll help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States
There's also a general article on gerrymandering, but no other country seems to have mastered it to the same degree.
I don't understand US gerrymandering either but in Germany the districts have to be (not often, I think) slightly redesigned because each has to contain a roughly (not sure about the margin) similar number of voters so representation is fair. (A friend of mine wrote a 300p legal dissertation on the topic... so it is apparently somewhat important in Germany despite an entirely different voting system.)
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 02:53:51 AM
That´s very confusing for me as a non-American. I understood almost nothing. To begin with, why on Earth should an electoral district be redesigned every number of years?
Most Americans feel the same way.
Japan's prime minister has congratulated Trump, but the entire country over there seems on edge.
The complications and dangers of the first-past-the-post system. Imo a proportional system is both fairer and easier to manage.
Quote from: The new erato on November 09, 2016, 03:01:23 AM
To organinize the mix of voters so that the right candidate wins.
They've just effected that self-same cynical ploy in UK, so it's by no means confined to US.
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 03:07:50 AM
The complications and dangers of the first-past-the-post system. Imo a proportional system is both fairer and easier to manage.
Well, no, it's not
simply a function of a first-past-the-post system, although that is one factor in designing crazy-looking electorates. Other countries have first-past-the-post voting, but can't have electoral boundaries of this kind because it's not the politicians who decide the boundaries.
Quote from: ahinton on November 09, 2016, 03:10:51 AM
They've just effected that self-same cynical ploy in UK.
How? The UK has boundary commissions.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 03:13:20 AM
How? The UK has boundary commissions.
...and has used that facility to effect boundary changes; I believe that these include expanding numerous electoral constituencies in order to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons from 650 to 600. The idea, though, was quite transparently to acquire electoral advantage for the party of government, as is always the case when such reorganisations are implemented.
Quote from: ahinton on November 09, 2016, 03:17:02 AM
...and has used that facility to effect boundary changes; I believe that these include expanding numerous electoral constituencies in order to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons from 650 to 600. The idea, though, was quite transparently to acquire electoral advantage for the party of government, as is always the case when such reorganisations are implemented.
But changing the overall size of a parliament has absolutely nothing to do with gerrymandering.
Nor is it "always the case", having been through ones in Australia that haven't had any such effect.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 06:52:33 PM
I absolutely understand why voters in certain regions are unhappy. What baffles me is that their chosen saviour of the workers is a billionaire with a reputation for not paying for work.
As I've said before, it's the henhouse expressing its dissatisfaction with roosters by voting for a fox. Bernie Sanders made sense as an outlet for that dissatisfaction. Trump does not.
The better con man won.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 03:18:28 AM
But changing the overall size of a parliament has absolutely nothing to do with gerrymandering.
Indeed it doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that playing around with electoral constituency boundaries in order to achieve electoral advantage for the party that implements them is in principle (or rather lack thereof!) a cynically self-interested ploy.
Quote from: Ken B on November 08, 2016, 07:10:19 PM
Well I agree Trump is not the right guy. And I am afraid people will learn that in due course. But he won because he tried. Remember when he was roundly mocked for saying he loves the poorly educated? I don't hear any of that mockery now.
I don't read that as mockery of the poorly educated. What was being mocked was El viejo naranja's naked cynicism.
Per
this (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,24159.msg1015251.html#msg1015251).
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 03:18:28 AMNor is it "always the case", having been through ones in Australia that haven't had any such effect.
I didn't suggest that it always works in the way that the govenment that implements such changes might hope and wish, for there are no guarantees in political life; the mere fact of an action and the intent behind it having its roots in a cynical self-interested ploy does not necessarily mean that it will succeed as hoped.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 08, 2016, 07:19:18 PM
I don't believe for a minute he loves the poorly educated, any more than I believed him when he said the Bible was his favorite book. (We haven't heard that one for a while, have we?) I believe he's been able to talk a good con game. And people will learn that in good (golf) course.
"I'm religious. The Evangelicals like me."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 09, 2016, 02:25:14 AM
Actually in the end she narrowly lost the popular vote too. But just narrowly.
I read she got 1.3 % more votes, but those figures must have been too early. Doesn't make a difference.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 09, 2016, 02:25:14 AM
Actually in the end she narrowly lost the popular vote too. But just narrowly.
In the numbers I am looking at, she is still ahead in the total vote by 0.1%, but perhaps you are seeing an updated number? In any case, it doesn't change anything.
Quote from: Pat B on November 08, 2016, 07:55:35 PM
Congratulations. I hope you were right for all our sake.
EDIT: I do not hope he is right about Trump winning. I hope he is right about Trump being the better choice in this election.
That's how I read you. We have no reason to doubt El viejo naranja's word.
Quote from: ahinton on November 09, 2016, 03:20:09 AM
Indeed it doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that playing around with electoral constituency boundaires in order to achieve electoral advantage for the party that implements them is a cynically self-interesed ploy.
Yes, and that doesn't change the facts that (1) you can't equate changing the size of a parliament with "playing around with electoral consistuency boundaries" in a gerrymander, and (2) the very notion of "the party that implements them" presupposes that the current government has control of such a process. The entire point of independent commissions is that this isn't true.
Quote from: Pat B on November 08, 2016, 08:02:46 PM
Maybe. I personally like him far more than Clinton. But even if he could overcome the S-word, I'm not sure that "let's be more like Denmark" would really play well in the general.
That's the now-imponderable. He did not suffer at all from the "unfavorable" ratings of either Clinton or El viejo naranja; but we also haven't had the stress-test of hearing the Fox commentators bandy the S-word about for months' worth of a general election.
Input "US election" into Google and the first thing that you see is
Search Results
2016 US election results
Updated 09-Nov-2016 12:30 GMT
Live
Donald Trump won the presidency
Clinton
218
Trump
276
59,088,437 votes58,955,617 votes
270 to win
Won
Leads
97% reporting
Votes
Donald Trump
Republican Party
48%
58,955,617
Hillary Clinton
Democratic Party
48%
59,088,437
Gary Johnson
Libertarian Party
3%
3,998,147
Jill Stein
Green Party
1%
1,190,169
Other candidates
0.7%
788,306
Republicans won the US Senate
Democrats
47
Republicans
51
51 to win majority
Republicans won the US House
Democrats
191
Republicans
236
218 to win majority
Sources: AP
According to this, Clinton did have more votes than Trump.
Quote from: GioCar on November 08, 2016, 10:53:58 PM
Do you think the other way would ever have happened?
No; short of an electoral college blowout against him, he would have whined and smeared and dug his heels in.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 03:28:53 AM
Yes, and that doesn't change the facts that (1) you can't equate changing the size of a parliament with "playing around with electoral consistuency boundaries" in a gerrymander
I know; I didn't!
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 03:28:53 AMand (2) the very notion of "the party that implements them" presupposes that the current government has control of such a process. The entire point of independent commissions is that this isn't true.
That depends upon the extent to which you believe in such "independence" in practice; the Boundaries Commission cannot implement boundary changes on its own - only government can do that.
Quote from: Florestan on November 09, 2016, 03:37:53 AM
Why not El Tupe anymore? :D
Thought I'd mix it up 8) A tweet by a Spanish speaker which I read early today used
El viejo naranja, and I like it ;)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 09, 2016, 03:27:58 AM
In the numbers I am looking at, she is still ahead in the total vote by 0.1%, but perhaps you are seeing an updated number? In any case, it doesn't change anything.
No, actually the numbers I saw about an hour ago gave him the popular, but the latest numbers give it to her. So much for a "mandate."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 09, 2016, 03:40:19 AM
No, actually the numbers I saw about an hour ago gave him the popular, but the latest numbers give it to her. So much for a "mandate."
The facts may not matter. Why would he not claim a mandate? Wouldn't be the craziest claim he's made.
Quote from: ahinton on November 09, 2016, 03:32:42 AM
Input "US election" into Google and the first thing that you see is
Search Results
2016 US election results
Updated 09-Nov-2016 12:30 GMT
Live
Donald Trump won the presidency
Clinton
218
Trump
276
59,088,437 votes58,955,617 votes
270 to win
Won
Leads
97% reporting
Votes
Donald Trump
Republican Party
58,955,617
48%
Hillary Clinton
Democratic Party
48%
59,088,437
Gary Johnson
Libertarian Party
3%
3,998,147
Jill Stein
Green Party
1%
1,190,169
Other candidates
0.7%
788,306
Republicans won the US Senate
Democrats
47
Republicans
51
51 to win majority
Republicans won the US House
Democrats
191
Republicans
236
218 to win majority
Sources: AP
According to this, Clinton did have more votes than Trump.
Actually, according to Google (and what you posted), Clinton is ahead 59,088,437 to 58,955,617 (although the numbers keep updating).
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 09, 2016, 03:42:18 AM
Actually, according to Google (and what you posted), Clinton is ahead 59,088,437 to 58,955,617 (although the numbers keep updating).
Aye, the live feed at the online
Washington Post likewise shows Clinton at a slender 0.1% advantage in the popular vote.
There will be an american tourists boom to Russia and China.
I wonder where is Brian. I could use a cold strong beer, or two. :laugh:
I stopped at one drink last night; I knew the evening would not be improved by even a second drink 8)
Quote from: ahinton on November 09, 2016, 03:34:40 AM
I know; I didn't!
Then I simply don't understand why you chose to chime in in the first place. We were discussing gerrymandering. You started talking about the UK. You're now telling me that you agree that reducing the number of constituencies in the UK is not gerrymandering, having originally said that it was all about advantaging the ruling party.
It feels as if you decided that "general electoral complaints" was a sufficient basis for comparison.
Anyway I'm going to bed.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 06:52:33 PM
I absolutely understand why voters in certain regions are unhappy. What baffles me is that their chosen saviour of the workers is a billionaire with a reputation for not paying for work.
As I've said before, it's the henhouse expressing its dissatisfaction with roosters by voting for a fox. Bernie Sanders made sense as an outlet for that dissatisfaction. Trump does not.
To be fair it wasn't the "workers" who voted for him—Clinton won among voters making less than $50k a year, whereas Trump won those making more than $50k. He was elected by the foxes. (see also http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-trump-brexit which more or less backs up your argument with numbers and science, lol)
All I can say is that it's going to be a long four years; a lot of people are going to suffer, and quite a few will die, but hopefully we'll keep fighting in whatever ways we can, as we always have. By "we"—women, people of colour, immigrants, LGBT people, the disabled, the non-Christian, the poor, etc. All of us have survived a combined few thousand years of oppression and violence. I guess the important thing is just to have solidarity with each other and lift each other up as much as possible. (With a particular thought at the moment for those of us who are survivors of sexual violence, faced with the election of a US President who is almost certainly guilty of the rape of a child and the sexual assault and harassment of numerous other women.)
Ohio was expected to lean to El Tupé, but the result was a rout. North Carolina going for El Tupé so strong, is a bit rough. Florida was going to be close, but Pennsylvania was a real flip. (Per a tweet earlier, "Polling as we know it is dead.") All that basically gave it away, so that even the slender margins in Michigan and New Hampshire would not affect the outcome.
With the GOP in control of both the Executive and Legislative branches, I wonder how soon they'll start dismantling Obamacare. Goodness knows, there is no check, now, which would compel them to actually come up with a viable alternative.
Did Johnson/Weld torpedo Clinton in PA, MI & NH? Those collective 40 electoral votes would have mattered, might have made The Difference.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2016, 03:54:09 AM
With the GOP in control of both the Executive and Legislative branches, I wonder how soon they'll start dismantling Obamacare. Goodness knows, there is no check, now, which would compel them to actually come up with a viable alternative.
There will be no alternative. You can forget that. If you recall, the R's thought our health care system, was the best in the world already. They will be clambering over each other to be the first to sponsor a bill which will leave people who can't afford health care to rot on the sidewalks.
8)
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 03:48:58 AM
Then I simply don't understand why you chose to chime in in the first place. We were discussing gerrymandering. You started talking about the UK. You're now telling me that you agree that reducing the number of constituencies in the UK is not gerrymandering, having originally said that it was all about advantaging the ruling party.
I made no statement one way or the other as to whether amending electoral consituency boundaries in UK constitutes gerrymandering, since I did not use that term; what I did state was that it cannot be done other than by the government of the day and that, when it is so done, it represents a cynical self-interested ploy in the hope that said government achieves electoral advantage for itself thereby. For the avoidance of doubt, I am neither claiming nor denying that such action represents gerrymandering.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 03:48:58 AMIt feels as if you decided that "general electoral complaints" was a sufficient basis for comparison.
I'm not sure in this context what might or might not fall within the remit of "general electoral complaints", since merely stating a view as I have done on such boundary changes and the intentions and motivations behind their implementation is not necessarily synonymous with issuing such a complaint; were I to believe that it did so, it would be up to me to write to my MP with a request that such a complaint be looked into responded to in due course but, for the record, I have not done this and, frankly, see no obvious reason to do so in the area where I am located (and, again for the record, my MP is a member of the government rather than of an opposition party).
Again, to be clear, such boundary changes do not necessarily involve amending the number of constituencies; indeed, it usually doesn't. That fact does not, however, affect the cynical self-interest of the government of the day in proposing and effeting such changes.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 09, 2016, 04:33:31 AM
There will be no alternative. You can forget that. If you recall, the R's thought our health care system, was the best in the world already. They will be clambering over each other to be the first to sponsor a bill which will leave people who can't afford health care to rot on the sidewalks.
At their own expense, of course!...
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2016, 04:03:07 AM
Did Johnson/Weld torpedo Clinton in PA, MI & NH? Those collective 40 electoral votes would have mattered, might have made The Difference.
This was a very tight race and the outcome could have been different
https://media.giphy.com/media/CfoiRXkfHSEEg/giphy-downsized-large.gif
The election results look like a backlash against the liberal elites and Barack Obama, and I'd argue the Repub leadership that has sacrificed the economic welfare of it own constituents. The earth that was scorched to fight the Kenyan Socialist was poorer, rural and small town heartland America.
Trump supporters have taken the gamble of electing a renegade liberal elitist. I see the sense in this. What do NeverTrump Repub elites offer you? They are the near enemy, Hillary is the far enemy. Trump is what you have, and not only does he satisfy the desire to get back at the whole system that's rigged against you, there's a chance that he might do something to help.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 09, 2016, 04:33:31 AM
There will be no alternative. You can forget that. If you recall, the R's thought our health care system, was the best in the world already. They will be clambering over each other to be the first to sponsor a bill which will leave people who can't afford health care to rot on the sidewalks.
8)
Equally bad, they will be itching at the bit to "overhaul" or "dismantle" Medicare and Social Security, leaving millions of the elderly at their mercy all in service of a "balanced budget" or "curbs on runaway spending." What fun!
Quote from: Spineur on November 08, 2016, 08:17:51 PM
The biggest google search: moving to Canada. This looks awfully like the brexit affair.
Will Donald Trump vanish in thin air like Nigel Farage ?
Brexit
Trump
next on the list
Quebec secession.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 09, 2016, 05:10:28 AM
Brexit
Trump
next on the list
Quebec secession.
Possibly, but they' been near there so many times I doubt tha anything would shift them. Anyway, isn't the reason why Trump barracked (sorry!) about getting the Mexicans to pay to build a wall between their country and US that someone had had a quiet word in his ear to let him know that doing so betgween US and Canada would be much more expensive, much longer and require building of two separate sites? I suppose Trump would find it far cheaper merely to annexe Canada, although perhaps building the Bering Bridge might strike him as the more attractive proposition.
Am very, very depressed right now and feeling successive waves of revulsion at my "fellow Americans." This wasn't just a vote against "Hellery" as my neighbor calls her; it was anti-African-American, anti-Hispanic, anti-female. In sum, anti-. And the odd part of it is, those groups did not show-up at the polls as hoped for. They don't feel they belong.
I am a reformed dittohead. I am an old Christian Goldwater conservative. I am sixty-nine years old. Prior to my fiftieth birthday I voted for a Democrat only two or three times. In my fifties I discovered problems with a significant part of the tenants of the conservative movement. (Do not ask me what they are. Anyone with a lick of common sense can figure it out for themselves. I will give you one hint. If Goldwater was alive today he could not win the Republican primary for the senate in Arizona.) If five years ago someone came up to me and told me I would become an agnostic socialist I would have wacked him over the head with a baseball bat. If I live another ten years I will probably die a Marxist atheist. If any conservative starts trying to convince me that I am in league with the devil it might take only five years.
From 2001 thru 2007 the Republican party controlled the house, the senate and the presidency. During that time our country suffered the worst attack against it since Pearl Harbor, we had a surplus and ended up with one of the worse deficits in our countries history, we became involved with two unwinnable wars which had killed over 5,000 Americans and wounded over 50,000 more and we had a financial crises that almost destroyed our economy.
Now these same geniuses are in charge again and the current ones may be worst. :'(
I have given up on the common sense of the American People.
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on November 09, 2016, 05:26:16 AMAnd the odd part of it is, those groups did not show-up at the polls as hoped for. They don't feel they belong.
In 2013 the Supreme Court gutted pretty significant portions of the Voting Rights Act. Almost immediately, Republican controlled state legislators closed hundreds of polling places, enacted stricter voter ID laws, reduced early voting times and places, and purged electoral rolls (some of these changes were later deemed illegal, but the states more or less ignored these rulings as much as possible). These changes mostly targeted (with "surgical precision" as one NC judge put it) black, Latino and other minority dominated areas. The result: mile-long lines in these areas, voters turned away for not having proper ID (even in states where voter ID laws were formally struck down), last-minute court battles to restore purged voters who may or may not have ever learned they were allowed to vote once more, etc. Plus obviously people staying away from the polls because of fear of intimidation by Trump supporters, even if reports of that intimidation were quite sporadic in reality. (https://projects.propublica.org/electionland/national/what-we-dont-know-the-full-effects-of-voter-suppression/ (https://projects.propublica.org/electionland/national/what-we-dont-know-the-full-effects-of-voter-suppression/))
Obviously there was always going to be an enthusiasm gap, but the reduced turnout was no accident (that could have been remedied had it been a less unpopular candidate or whatever). It was an intentional barrier.
Clinton did carry women overall, but I'm not sure why so many white women voted for Trump. I guess white irredentism is gender-neutral.
Quote from: arpeggio on November 09, 2016, 05:26:33 AM
Now these same geniuses are in charge again and the current ones may be worst. :'(
I have given up on the common sense of the American People.
Are they in charge? It could turn out that way. I'm not ready to say it will be that way. Today neither party is conventionally conservative and it's likely that the Dems will reject business as usual defensive liberalism for something with more appeal in the burnt over districts of the Rust Belt. It's time for Dems to have their own crisis. The path for Warren is now open.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 02:19:06 AM
What "big disaster" has he inherited?
"The country" is in a mess. Wake up Aussie!
Quote from: ørfeo on November 08, 2016, 01:06:52 PM
You quote my joke, and yet...
oh man I really missed that one, huh.
What I find surprising is that voter turnout was rather low, considering how important the election was supposed to be. Probably one reason is that so many people had the impression of voting for the "lesser evil" at best, so they could not be bothered to vote at all.
edit: no idea how the measures mentioned above would contribute. That this is even possible is something I cannot understand. Unless you are homeless or not properly registered (and unless you have moved recently you usually would be) in Germany you receive an invitation to vote per mail. Admittedly, I have only lived in small or medium sized towns but I have never waited for more than a few minutes to vote. Having to register in advance (I realize that this is partly due to the fact that otherwise people are not registered at all? in the US) and wait in line for an hour or more looks really strange for a First World Country.
Quote from: James on November 09, 2016, 06:05:03 AM
"The country" is in a mess. Wake up Aussie!
I'm not afraid of an America that is "great" again. I'm afraid of a president that messes its foreign relations up, and of an US electorate that discovers that the problems are far more complex and ingrained into the system than they have dreamt of, and that people like Donald are part of the problem far more than they are part of the solution.
The good news is, we probably won't get World War III, at least not any time soon.
The bad news is, we're probably on the road to Civil War II.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 09, 2016, 06:45:35 AM
The good news is, we probably won't get World War III, at least not any time soon.
The bad news is, we're probably on the road to Civil War II.
While not wishing the latter upon you, as a European I'd prefer it to the first option.
(And while I was too young most of the time to realize it, I lived my childhood in the 1970s and 80s really underneath the shadow of WW III. I lived only about an hour or two by car from the "Fulda gap" and the East German border, so in case of a war it would have been either Russian tanks within a few hours or (more probable and more devastating) NATO nuclear strikes to stop these tanks.)
Quote from: The new erato on November 09, 2016, 06:29:16 AM
I'm not afraid of an America that is "great" again. I'm afraid of a president that messes its foreign relations up, and of an US electorate that discovers that the problems are far more complex and ingrained into the system than they have dreamt of, and that people like Donald are part of the problem far more than they are part of the solution.
That nicely encapsulates my own POV. Simple IS better, except when the problems are complex. If they were simple, George W would have solved them.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 09, 2016, 06:45:35 AM
The good news is, we probably won't get World War III, at least not any time soon.
The bad news is, we're probably on the road to Civil War II.
Yup. I hate good news/bad news. :-\ OTOH, we have been heading to Civil War II for quite a long time. We are so painfully divided in this country, between the haves and have nots, the colored and the pink, the Xtian and the non-Xtian (of whatever stripe), and all the other dichotomous differences you can list, that a sorting out seems to be inevitable. :-\
8)
One of the most poignant things is the way he concluded his last rally as a candidate, in Grand Rapids, Mich, past midnight, Monday.
He leaned into the mike, as he sometimes does, to act if it's just him and you, and thanked the people, thanked them again, advising them to "go to bed now".
You could hear, the way he spoke, he thought it was all over now. He could go back to his former, easier life. And Hillary would do whatever they're doing in the White House.
I have a hard time imaging he'll do the full four years.
And Pence in control is not going to be a whole lot better....
Quote from: Herman on November 09, 2016, 07:27:07 AM
One of the most poignant things is the way he concluded his last rally as a candidate, in Grand Rapids, Mich, past midnight, Monday.
He leaned into the mike, as he sometimes does, to act if it's just him and you, and thanked the people, thanked them again, advising them to "go to bed now".
You could hear, the way he spoke, he thought it was all over now. He could go back to his former, easier life. And Hillary would do whatever they're doing in the White House.
I have a hard time imaging he'll do the full four years.
And Pence in control is not going to be a whole lot better....
Pence don't buy much.
By the way, has it occurred to anyone on the other side of the pond that the result was declared on 9/11?
I'm not surprised by this outcome, because the "enthusiasm gap" was so palpable. Trump rallies were like rock concerts; Hillary rallies were like being lectured by a high school principal. HRC published a book just before the election, but almost nobody bought it.
A big tell for me was HRC's rally at Temple University in Philadelphia. Temple is a big university in a very Democratic city, but they couldn't get enough people to fill an auditorium the size of a high school gym. You'd think thousands of Democrats would come out to see their next President, but it didn't happen.
Bernie's rallies by contrast were full of enthusiasm, totally unlike Hillary's. You'd think that would have told the DNC something, but no, it was "her turn."
The mainstream media and the pollsters have enough egg on their face to make a good-sized omelet. They totally failed in their duty of prognostication and analysis.
The most accurate forecaster I'm aware of is Scott "Dilbert" Adams. Many Clintonites dismissed him as a stealth Trump propagandist, but his predictions were scarily accurate, throughout the campaign. Here's his summing up this morning:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152955248046/i-answer-your-questions-about-predicting-president
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 08:08:07 AM
I thought Clinton's concession was gracious and the right thing to say:
"I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future," said Clinton, at times choking back emotion. "Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."
subtext:
"Don't prosecute me".
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 09, 2016, 08:20:39 AM
I'm not surprised by this outcome, because the "enthusiasm gap" was so palpable. Trump rallies were like rock concerts; Hillary rallies were like being lectured by a high school principal. HRC published a book just before the election, but almost nobody bought it.
A big tell for me was HRC's rally at Temple University in Philadelphia. Temple is a big university in a very Democratic city, but they couldn't get enough people to fill an auditorium the size of a high school gym. You'd think thousands of Democrats would come out to see their next President, but it didn't happen.
Bernie's rallies by contrast were full of enthusiasm, totally unlike Hillary's. You'd think that would have told the DNC something, but no, it was "her turn."
Exactly, what she did to Bernie was nasty, getting the questions in advance of their own debate and unethical, too. Against Trump he would have had more than a chance and could have won. Unfortunately, The Democrats have to eat now what they cooked.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 08:08:07 AM
I thought Clinton's concession was gracious and the right thing to say:
"I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future," said Clinton, at times choking back emotion. "Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."
I suppose that there wasn't a whole lot else that she could say but it provides yet another curious parallel to the aftermath of the UK/EU in/out referendum omnishambles of a few months ago; the principal difference there is that there are several legal challenges in the pipeline.
Another prognosticator who got everything right was Prof. Allan Lichtman. He has accurately predicted every presidential election since 1984, using his "keys" system of analysis. Details here:
https://pollyvote.com/en/components/index-models/keys-to-the-white-house/
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 09, 2016, 08:24:27 AM
Exactly, what she did to Bernie was nasty, getting the questions in advance of their own debate and unethical, too. Against Trump he would have had more than a chance and could have won. Unfortunately, The Democrats have to eat now what they cooked.
And are you ever going to let go of this? She lost. Be happy. Now your guy has to deliver the goods, and whatever crooked Hillary did or did not do doesn't matter squat.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 09, 2016, 08:37:23 AM
Another prognosticator who got everything right was Prof. Allan Lichtman. He has accurately predicted every presidential election since 1984, using his "keys" system of analysis. Details here:
https://pollyvote.com/en/components/index-models/keys-to-the-white-house/
Actually, Andrew Sullivan was calling it for Trump already with the third debate, and when I saw him on Chris Hayes/MSNBC about ten days ago, he predicted Trump again.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 09, 2016, 08:21:32 AM
subtext: "Don't prosecute me".
Yes, nothing beats graciousness.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 08:24:59 AM
Also, the stock market's collapse based on overnight futures predictions never happened. Currently the DOW is at 18,505.76 +173.02. Of course this could change, but I am glad the markets seem to be keeping their collective head.
There is a strong correlation between the president color and market performance. The gist of the argument is that the imminence of a recession favors republican whereas economic expansion favors democrats. This was a close race so there is probably plenty of time. Anyway, the lame duck period until january is a good one to sell...
The markets don't like uncertainty, and the election result was a great surprise.
Quote from: The new erato on November 09, 2016, 06:29:16 AMI'm not afraid of an America that is "great" again. I'm afraid of a president that messes its foreign relations up, and of an US electorate that discovers that the problems are far more complex and ingrained into the system than they have dreamt of, and that people like Donald are part of the problem far more than they are part of the solution.
He's not a career politician, so he never created the problems, he's a private sector man .. and things were way messed up before Trump got elected. He signed up for this though and now he and his cohorts have A LOT of work to do. And he's only got 4 years. Not an easy job. We'll have to see what happens ..
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/youve-gotta-go-back-to-1945-find-donald-trumps-father-2693957.png)
This is quite funny
The Simpsons predicted President Trump 16 years ago as 'a warning to America'
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/1440497573575-cached.jpg?w=748&h=498&crop=1)
http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/09/the-simpsons-predicted-president-trump-16-years-ago-as-a-warning-to-america-6245205/#ixzz4PXIOOMnx
(http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/09/the-simpsons-predicted-president-trump-16-years-ago-as-a-warning-to-america-6245205/#ixzz4PXIOOMnx)
Quote from: James on November 09, 2016, 09:00:48 AM
He's not a career politician, so he never created the problems, he's a private sector man .. and things were way messed up before Trump got elected. He signed up for this though and now he and his cohorts have A LOT of work to do. And he's only got 4 years. Not an easy job. We'll have to see what happens.
Ditto.
Not a career politician, but a career con man.
He may have no talent for governance. I hear he's hot stuff on Twitter, though.
Quote from: Philip BumpIn Michigan, Clinton got 13 percent fewer votes than Obama. Trump got 7 percent more than Romney.
In Pennsylvania, Clinton got 5 percent fewer votes than Obama. Trump got 9 percent more than Romney.
In Wisconsin, Clinton got 15 percent fewer votes than Obama. Trump did slightly worse than Romney -- in a state that was home to Romney's running mate.
Whether it was a failing of the get-out-the-vote efforts outside of urban areas, or dampened enthusiasm for Clinton (who, as we all have always acknowledged, was a historically unpopular Democratic Party nominee), that reduction in turnout was the killer.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 08:24:59 AM
Also, the stock market's collapse based on overnight futures predictions never happened. Currently the DOW is at 18,505.76 +173.02. Of course this could change, but I am glad the markets seem to be keeping their collective head.
The Nikkei is down nearly 5.5% .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2016, 09:18:46 AM
Whether it was a failing of the get-out-the-vote efforts outside of urban areas, or dampened enthusiasm for Clinton (who, as we all have always acknowledged, was a historically unpopular Democratic Party nominee), that reduction in turnout was the killer.
You left out increased difficulty of voting for poor/Democratic people. There are many explanations, and I believe many of them will prove true in combination.
Quote from: Brian on November 09, 2016, 09:21:28 AM
You left out increased difficulty of voting for poor/Democratic people. There are many explanations, and I believe many of them will prove true in combination.
And it is worth remembering that the President-elect made voter intimidation one of his consistent talking-points.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2016, 09:26:46 AM
And it is worth remembering that the President-elect made voter intimidation one of his consistent talking-points.
correct, which is why the early voting was so enthusiastic.
So now he talks about "bringing us together"? When he spent 16 months dividing and, now, conquering?
-- Positive thoughts. Think positive thoughts, jochanaan. 8)
Government by corporation. Why and how should Trump, a product of the same Wall Street he supposedly derides, rein it in, especially since he seems to have promised to remove all those "environmental regulations" other administrations and Congresses have upheld? And more violence and police brutality, not from Trump necessarily but from some of his supporters. These possibilities raise my anxiety level...
Quote from: jochanaan on November 09, 2016, 09:39:48 AM
So now he talks about "bringing us together"? When he spent 16 months dividing and, now, conquering?
Typically when a politician talks about bringing us together, he (obviously not she) means bringing everybody together who was with him in the first place, and ignoring the other 50% of the country that fears and despises him.
As the shock wears off, the cooling down begins. I found this on Rod Dreher's blog at The American Conservative:
By the way, I just ran into a working-class Hispanic immigrant friend. He's not worried. He said, "A lot of Latino people, we know that Trump was really just saying that the immigration should be done the right way. We know he's not really against us. Who hired all the Latinos to build his buildings? Trump. It's not such a bad thing that he wants immigration by the rules." For what that's worth.
BTW, Trump got more Hispanic votes than Romney did.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 09, 2016, 10:45:51 AM
As the shock wears off, the cooling down begins. I found this on Rod Dreher's blog at The American Conservative:
By the way, I just ran into a working-class Hispanic immigrant friend. He's not worried. He said, "A lot of Latino people, we know that Trump was really just saying that the immigration should be done the right way. We know he's not really against us. Who hired all the Latinos to build his buildings? Trump. It's not such a bad thing that he wants immigration by the rules." For what that's worth.
BTW, Trump got more Hispanic votes than Romney did.
Not sure he hired undocumented Latinos for building projects. But he sure did not pay them.
I presume you have names and addresses to support that assertion.
Even as I write this a re-run of Clinton's 'concession' is on in the background; she's still banging on about "the glass ceiling". Still that privileged, middle class aspiration and nothing to do with the working men and women who just want something decent by way of a living standard for their children. She just has NO IDEA.
And I hope Trump can stop the march of pc, Thought Police and repression through America's institutions. It's the most insidious aspect of our modern age. And this from self-described 'liberals' who wouldn't know real 'liberalism' if they fell over it. I remember going to a lecture from Niall Ferguson, who works in a major American university. He said he was 'at the coalface' but seemed to think the pc/safe spaces/trigger warning/thought police would be self-limiting but I never shared his optimism.
If it takes a revolution of Trump to free them of the shackles of repression then so be it. In the past, wars have been fought to free people!!
Quote from: James on November 09, 2016, 06:05:03 AM
"The country" is in a mess. Wake up Aussie!
All the economic data says that you're wrong. That while various people have been convincing the populace that things are getting worse, things have actually been getting better.
Well, apart from the part where Americans kill each other in ever greater numbers and the police pitch in with the killing, but good luck with Republicans fixing THAT mess.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 12:28:37 PM
All the economic data says that you're wrong. That while various people have been convincing the populace that things are getting worse, things have actually been getting better.
Well, apart from the part where Americans kill each other in ever greater numbers and the police pitch in with the killing, but good luck with Republicans fixing THAT mess.
Or indeed the financial inequality.
Quote from: Tritone on November 09, 2016, 11:14:13 AM
And I hope Trump can stop the march of pc, Thought Police and repression through America's institutions. It's the most insidious aspect of our modern age.
While I actually agree that there are times, particularly in the USA, that the campaign for taking offence at things goes too far, there is something fundamentally wrong with choosing to respond to that by electing someone who finds it okay to mock the "other". Especially when the "other" includes fully half of the population in the form of women.
amw already provided the link that explains how this is all driven by resentment.
Yeah, okay, so you don't want to be told how you have to respect people who aren't like you. It's so
tiring having to think about the feelings of others, right? Life was so much better when you could just "tell like it is" and admit that you don't like people who don't resemble yourself, that you didn't want to understand them, and you certainly didn't want to share jobs and positions of power with them. Behaving like a civilised member of a global society is so much
work, and you don't want that. You want to be able to kick back, relax, and just spout whatever sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, disabled-mocking shit bubbles out of your subconscious.
Quote from: James on November 09, 2016, 09:00:48 AM
He's not a career politician, so he never created the problems, he's a private sector man .. and things were way messed up before Trump got elected.
I find it vastly amusing that anyone would think the private sector has no role in creating problems.
Who the hell do you think lobbies politicians to create the laws that they do?
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 12:37:38 PM
While I actually agree that there are times, particularly in the USA, that the campaign for taking offence at things goes too far, there is something fundamentally wrong with choosing to respond to that by electing someone who finds it okay to mock the "other". Especially when the "other" includes fully half of the population in the form of women.
amw already provided the link that explains how this is all driven by resentment.
Yeah, okay, so you don't want to be told how you have to respect people who aren't like you. It's so tiring having to think about the feelings of others, right? Life was so much better when you could just "tell like it is" and admit that you don't like people who don't resemble yourself, that you didn't want to understand them, and you certainly didn't want to share jobs and positions of power with them. Behaving like a civilised member of a global society is so much work, and you don't want that. You want to be able to kick back, relax, and just spout whatever sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, disabled-mocking shit bubbles out of your subconscious.
Imposed doctrine from the State will never make people better human beings. I'm sure, if I scratched beneath the surface, I'd find you don't think institutionalized religion could do that either - indeed, that they've failed miserably!! And you obviously have, like Clinton and her "deplorables" a frightful opinion of human beings. I've always believed them to be better and far more generous that you obviously do - not at all needing the State to tell them what to do, think and how to behave. So, I can see why you're aligned with Clinton. Poor little snowflake.
Tritone, I write laws for a living. So yeah, I spend a large part of my life telling "people" (often companies, not actual human beings) what to do, and it's usually because what they've been doing of their own accord was being selfish arseholes.
But political correctness has little to do with law. It mostly has to do with all those non-traditional groups having a voice and saying they'd quite like to stop being put down all the time.
My own minority status is not immediately visible from just looking at me, so I don't face much trouble. But I sure as hell would prefer to live in a world where people in positions of authority explicitly say that it is NOT okay to make fun of me, to discriminate against me, to threaten me, to bash me or to kill me. Rather than a world where people in positions of authority either endorse the verbal steps or engage in it themselves.
This "little snowflake" is here standing in for all the other snowflakes who didn't make it. The ones who were killed or who were driven to kill themselves. The ones who are too scared to speak.
I don't have a frightful opinion of all human beings. Just the ones who think that they can treat other human beings as a little less human.
Quote from: Tritone on November 09, 2016, 01:03:42 PM
Poor little snowflake.
Is that an example of how "human beings are better and far more generous, etc., etc."?
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 12:28:37 PMAll the economic data says that you're wrong.
The country has an enormous debt.
Typical of most Americans, when things don't go their way they look for a savior, instead of thinking about how they are going to better themselves and set their own life straight. And these are the same clowns who think less govt, yet look for the govt to fix their lives. Sad.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 12:37:38 PM
While I actually agree that there are times, particularly in the USA, that the campaign for taking offence at things goes too far, there is something fundamentally wrong with choosing to respond to that by electing someone who finds it okay to mock the "other". Especially when the "other" includes fully half of the population in the form of women.
How do you account for the fact that Trump got 42% of the female vote?
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 12:39:29 PM
I find it vastly amusing that anyone would think the private sector has no role in creating problems.
Who the hell do you think lobbies politicians to create the laws that they do?
Both parties have corrupted the system which is based on bribery, I realize that. So yes, insider politicians (both parties) are influenced by this. Both parties dictate what goes on .. resulting in the debt, the perpetual wars etc.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 09, 2016, 02:24:37 PM
Typical of most Americans, when things don't go their way they look for a savior, instead of thinking about how they are going to better themselves and set their own life straight. And these are the same clowns who think less govt, yet look for the govt to fix their lives. Sad.
Well, people do pay a lot of taxes. They are probably wanting to see a much better usage of those hard earned dollars by public servants. Not the endless BS that has been going on.
Quote from: James on November 09, 2016, 02:25:15 PM
Both parties have corrupted the system which is based on bribery, I realize that. So yes, insider politicians (both parties) are influenced by this. Both parties dictate what goes on .. resulting in the debt, the perpetual wars etc.
But electing a billionaire makes no sense whatever as a solution to that problem.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 09, 2016, 02:25:02 PM
How do you account for the fact that Trump got 42% of the female vote?
There are plenty of women who believe that women ought to be subservient.
Not to mention the white supremacy thing, which again, not exactly gender-neutral but fairly close: Exit polls suggest Trump won 52 percent of white women, but generally less than 10 percent of women who weren't white. He also performed much better among white women without college degrees whilst losing (not by much) well-educated white women.
Essentially race and access to education were the deciding factors in the election, more so than gender, although that did play a role in the highly negative views of Clinton held by many voters (male candidates with similar traits, qualities and policy positions, such as her husband, have much higher approval ratings.... both men and women seem to view ambitious and powerful women negatively on balance).
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 02:40:35 PM
But electing a billionaire makes no sense whatever as a solution to that problem.
He has deep pockets and wanted the job bad enough and got it. 18 months of slugging it out in the campaign arena. The actual job he got will pay much less than what it cost him to get it. Anyway, we shouldn't jump to judgement yet. It's too early. We will have to wait and see what he can do with the giant mess he's inherited in the 4 years he's got. That's not a lot of time.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 02:41:28 PM
There are plenty of women who believe that women ought to be subservient.
I take it simpler than that: 42% of the women who voted are just stupid.
Well I'm glad he only wants to cancel the unconstitutional ones. Who is going to decide they were unconstitutional? And why do they need cancelling if they were never valid?
And has anyone ordered him a copy of "Rule of Law for Dummies?"
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 01:22:11 PM
Tritone, I write laws for a living. So yeah, I spend a large part of my life telling "people" (often companies, not actual human beings) what to do, and it's usually because what they've been doing of their own accord was being selfish arseholes.
But political correctness has little to do with law. It mostly has to do with all those non-traditional groups having a voice and saying they'd quite like to stop being put down all the time.
My own minority status is not immediately visible from just looking at me, so I don't face much trouble. But I sure as hell would prefer to live in a world where people in positions of authority explicitly say that it is NOT okay to make fun of me, to discriminate against me, to threaten me, to bash me or to kill me. Rather than a world where people in positions of authority either endorse the verbal steps or engage in it themselves.
This "little snowflake" is here standing in for all the other snowflakes who didn't make it. The ones who were killed or who were driven to kill themselves. The ones who are too scared to speak.
I don't have a frightful opinion of all human beings. Just the ones who think that they can treat other human beings as a little less human.
One of the "deplorables", presumably.
I'm a supporter of another 'minority' - the gay, conservative Milo Yiannopoulos, who is sick to the death of hearing about victims and the control of the Thought Police. This is NEVER the way to change community sentiment, particularly if they feel the tail is wagging the dog. Now, man up and start thinking of the millions of people in America who have families and no job.
I do think of them. The idea that Trump getting rid of political correctness will help them is absurd.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 03:08:46 PM
Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days (http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days)
My favorites:
propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
Already opposed by McConnell.
This is your guy, I remind you.
Quote from: André on November 09, 2016, 09:02:38 AM
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/youve-gotta-go-back-to-1945-find-donald-trumps-father-2693957.png)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
But overall, :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 04:17:21 PM
McConnell can oppose, however, constitutional amendments can be passed by a two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. And then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.
Thanks. I already understand the amendment process. McConnell is refusing to bring it up in the Senate. But he is promising to make repealing Obamacare a pretty "hah" (high) item on his agenda (you could see him licking his chops in gleeful anticipation), thus enjoying the irresistible fun of depriving 20 millions of their health insurance.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 09, 2016, 04:53:39 PM
Thanks. I already understand the amendment process. McConnell is refusing to bring it up in the Senate. But he is promising to make repealing Obamacare a pretty "hah" (high) item on his agenda (you could see him licking his chops in gleeful anticipation), thus enjoying the irresistible fun of depriving 20 millions of their health insurance.
What a total idiot that McConnell. Guys like him, Harry Reid, Lindsey Graham, McCain, Schumer, and all thos who have basically been lifers in the Senate are what is wrong with this country.
On a related note I can't believe if you go here the predictions are still intact as if adding insult to injury:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 05:20:31 PM
Looks like some Democrats (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-trump-hotel-protest-chicago-20161109-story.html) do not approve of the peaceful transfer of power, a hallmark of the democratic system of government in the United States.
My, my.
My, my, yourself. Freedom of assembly, a hallmark of the democratic system of government in the United States. There's no transfer of power yet. That will happen next January 20. Those people protesting in several cities across the United States are exercising their Constitutional rights under the First Amendment. You gotta hand it to The Donald however: he's really bringing people together.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 05:08:10 PM
Regarding Obamacare, the phrase is repeal and replace it; which is not depriving 20 millions of their health insurance.
Huffington Post:
Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan Say Obamacare Repeal Is A High Priority. What happens to the millions who would lose coverage? No one seems to know.
Oh. Sanantonio knows.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 09, 2016, 05:39:03 PM
Huffington Post:
Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan Say Obamacare Repeal Is A High Priority. What happens to the millions who would lose coverage? No one seems to know.
Oh. Sanantonio knows.
All those "right to work" states will become "right to get sick and die" states.
At one point Trump said "we can't have people dying on the street," but he had to take it back after Ryan and his followers took umbrage.
The election being over, and Todd remaining cloudhidden, whereabouts unknown, I have started a thread to cover Trump's first (and G-d willing, only) term.
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=26377.new#new
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 06:03:39 PM
Yeah, it is a beautiful sight to see democracy in action. Oh, and hear it too. Hillary Clinton and President Obama both give speeches advocating precisely the opposite, but their constituents can't be bothered.
What respect you have for these constituents, why it's almost as much respect as liberals are accused of showing conservatives. But it's not as if the constituents are burning down Trump Tower. Surely the populace is under no obligation to "obey the leader" if all they're doing is to exercise their right to peaceful assembly.
I have to say, so many Americans I've heard from lately are fucking terrified. Particularly immigrants, LGBT people, black and latino people, and women. Much more so than in 2000 (and definitely more so than anyone I heard about in 2008). There have been reports of people committing suicide upon learning of the election results.
The fear is partly of Trump (and Pence, for the LGBT people), more of emboldened Trump supporters feeling free to commit hate crimes and harassment, as we saw from emboldened Leave supporters after Brexit. Also notable is the fear of losing access to healthcare, and a massive sense of impending doom regarding climate change. A lot of people are looking to get out of the country, or to get married quickly before it becomes illegal again, or to change documentation for fear it will become more difficult, or to seek a second citizenship if they can, etc.
Meanwhile, educated, straight white people (especially men) who were freaking out yesterday are now going "wait, maybe it's not going to be so bad, it might be tough but we can survive~"
It kind of speaks to the old polarisation. Until now, for a couple of generations, the Democratic coalition has tended to be white blue-collar workers, women and minorities, and the Republican coalition has tended to be educated white-collar workers, the rich and the religious. This time, white blue-collar workers voted, more out of fear and alienation than anything else, against women and minorities and with the rich and religious, and the educated white-collar workers threw their lot in with women and minorities. (Tbf, a direction they've been heading in for a while.) But you can already kind of see the educated white-collar workers sliding back just a little, and the blue-collar workers starting to wonder if maybe they've made the wrong decision.
I suppose the reason there's so much paranoia is because we can already see how fragile support among upper-class whites is for the ideas of social and racial justice, women's liberation, gay rights, etc—already seen as just "political correctness" instead of life and death (i.e. supporting Clinton because they're excited to have a female president, rather than supporting a candidate who will actually be good for women across the country). For them, something like Black Lives Matter is just "politics". They can't understand. That creates this feeling of inevitability, that things are only going to get worse from now on and no one will have sufficient political capital to prevent it.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 09, 2016, 04:03:07 AM
Did Johnson/Weld torpedo Clinton in PA, MI & NH? Those collective 40 electoral votes would have mattered, might have made The Difference.
Not likely. Most Johnson voters would like me have voted for a GOP candidate who at least paid lip service to things like integrity, treating people decently, and who understood they are not the point around which the cosmos revolves. To the extent Johnson exceeded normal Libertarian voting tallies, the extra came from never Trump conservatives, and came often from non battleground states, where the voters assumed Trump would not need their assistance. And given the predictions of 4.5% or more, Johnson may fairly be said to have fallen very flat.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 06:03:39 PM
Yeah, it is a beautiful sight to see democracy in action. Oh, and hear it too. Hillary Clinton and President Obama both give speeches advocating precisely the opposite, but their constituents can't be bothered.
You think they don't approve behind the scenes? Hah!
Quote from: amw on November 09, 2016, 06:21:13 PM
I have to say, so many Americans I've heard from lately are fucking terrified. Particularly immigrants, LGBT people, black and latino people, and women. Much more so than in 2000 (and definitely more so than anyone I heard about in 2008). There have been reports of people committing suicide upon learning of the election results.
Louis Farrakhan, not exactly an icon of sweetness and reconciliation, would not agree with you. I already cited a speech by him about his rejection of Hillary Clinton, precisely because of her connection to Planned Parenthood that was founded to reduce the Black population. Keeping African Americans poor is not helping them. I would have voted for Ben Carson myself if he became a candidate.
I used to think Farrakhan was a crackpot and his association with Gaddafi, more than quaint. However, given the aftermath of having taken him down as per "We came, we saw, he died", I have reconsidered. He has some very interesting things to say about Libya:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kfS3ze7VnI&t=189s
One of the things that amuse me concerning espousal of minorities by intellectuals, they don't consider the most basic mentality that has been played over and over again with new immigrants. This is called the "boat is full". The last wave of immigrants will identify with the entrenched group and spurn the newcomers. This was seen with for instance in the last century, the Irish against the newcomer Italians. Citizen Latinos would not necessarily want illegals even if they do speak Spanish taking jobs and opportunities from them.
As for LGBT, Mike Pence is not against that community but for protecting the religious rights of conscience which are very much endangered in so far as they are not sufficiently defined given the new developments. Not only the State of Indiana but the whole nation was worked into a snit when the bill to do just that came up in the legislature. Unfortunately, he could only sign a very watered down and practically meaningless version of it.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 03:08:46 PM
Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days (http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days)
cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
I just wonder: Is every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by Obama really so bad they need to be canceled? ::)
Quote from: amw on November 09, 2016, 06:21:13 PM
I have to say, so many Americans I've heard from lately are fucking terrified. Particularly immigrants, LGBT people, black and latino people, and women. Much more so than in 2000 (and definitely more so than anyone I heard about in 2008). There have been reports of people committing suicide upon learning of the election results.
The fear is partly of Trump (and Pence, for the LGBT people), more of emboldened Trump supporters feeling free to commit hate crimes and harassment, as we saw from emboldened Leave supporters after Brexit. Also notable is the fear of losing access to healthcare, and a massive sense of impending doom regarding climate change. A lot of people are looking to get out of the country, or to get married quickly before it becomes illegal again, or to change documentation for fear it will become more difficult, or to seek a second citizenship if they can, etc.
Meanwhile, educated, straight white people (especially men) who were freaking out yesterday are now going "wait, maybe it's not going to be so bad, it might be tough but we can survive~"
It kind of speaks to the old polarisation. Until now, for a couple of generations, the Democratic coalition has tended to be white blue-collar workers, women and minorities, and the Republican coalition has tended to be educated white-collar workers, the rich and the religious. This time, white blue-collar workers voted, more out of fear and alienation than anything else, against women and minorities and with the rich and religious, and the educated white-collar workers threw their lot in with women and minorities. (Tbf, a direction they've been heading in for a while.) But you can already kind of see the educated white-collar workers sliding back just a little, and the blue-collar workers starting to wonder if maybe they've made the wrong decision.
I suppose the reason there's so much paranoia is because we can already see how fragile support among upper-class whites is for the ideas of social and racial justice, women's liberation, gay rights, etc—already seen as just "political correctness" instead of life and death (i.e. supporting Clinton because they're excited to have a female president, rather than supporting a candidate who will actually be good for women across the country). For them, something like Black Lives Matter is just "politics". They can't understand. That creates this feeling of inevitability, that things are only going to get worse from now on and no one will have sufficient political capital to prevent it.
As I understand it, Americans are sick and tired of illegal immigration - not immigrants in general, since the USA is primarily an immigrant nation. And they want to feel secure with muslims in their population and I have to agree with them 100% as these people come from totally alien cultures where women are deeply inferior and child brides are the order of the day. Yet you'll never hear a feminist utter a word about any of this!!
It is staggering to me that rallies arae being held in places in the US about The Donald's election and these comprise many illegal immigrants who fear the future. I continually ask myself why it is the Left which becomes so violent and disruptive. The people have spoken. Why in God's name SHOULD illegals feel entitled to come and live in the USA with all the benefits on offer there but, with a rapidly shrinking national pie, taking a chunk of it from people born in the USA? It's the sense of entitlement which knocks my sox off and this was aided and abetted by the enabling mentality of the Democrats. Americans, as I see it, are fed up to the back teeth with this and want change. They're going to get it and before blaming Trump you people need to consider the cultural malaise and inexorable march of political correctness through the institutions which has spawned such a leader.
Yes, time to think and reflect. Entitlement and enabling are damaging concepts. Democrats = enablers.
And before you utter your predictable response that the Republicans 'enable' big business just consider that, alas, these are the people who employ the populace. That's not to whitewash some very obvious problems. The white population - the very ones who built the USA into the nation it became, making their way West in very dangerous circumstances, from the time of the nascent nation - have felt left behind and lost in the fog of identity politics. Suddenly, and thankfully, that all seems so 'YESTERDAY'.
I wish America well and you might be pleasantly surprised how it all goes. Stay optimistic because America is a 'can do' nation with a great capacity to reinvent itself.
Cheers,
A Deplorable
Plenty of "these people who come from totally alien cultures" were actually born in the United States. But please, don't let that stop you from constructing neat categories for people and allocating them white or black hats to wear.
PS If I remember correctly, the Orlando shooter was American born? I vaguely remember some nonsense about how his father shouldn't have been allowed to enter the country, on account of foreseeing the risk presented by his future child.
One wonders how many generations it takes before Americans are prepared to take responsibility for the failings of the American born instead of blaming it on "where they come from".
PPS I'm always fascinated at how bad, evil Muslims are always seen as evidence against Islam, and yet bad, evil Christians - you know, the kind of folks who, say, walk into a black church and commit a massacre in the hope of starting a race war - never seem to be taken as evidence of Christianity generally. Even if they used Christian language in their evil rhetoric.
Somehow, people assure themselves that the Christian terrorists are just terrorists that happen to be Christian, whereas the Muslim terrorists are made terrorists BY being Muslim. It's a neat trick whereby nasty people from Christian backgrounds are made "other", whereas all Muslims are automatically "other" and no further nuance is necessary.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 06:03:39 PM
Yeah, it is a beautiful sight to see democracy in action. Oh, and hear it too. Hillary Clinton and President Obama both give speeches advocating precisely the opposite, but their constituents can't be bothered.
I take it you're talking about these schoolkids in California?
I believe the issue of peaceful transfer of power was prompted by Trump's apparent refusal to accept any other outcome than his win. Not by an outburst of teenage energies.
Quote from: amw on November 09, 2016, 06:21:13 PM
a massive sense of impending doom regarding climate change. A lot of people are looking to get out of the country,
Yeah, the idea that this man who was supposedly independent by means of his wealth is right in the pocket of the energy industry and "look, I've got a snowball right here in my hand: climate change doesn't exist!" is deeply unfortunate.
Addressing climate change can't wait another four years, it's already too late, really.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 09, 2016, 10:05:03 PM
PS If I remember correctly, the Orlando shooter was American born? I vaguely remember some nonsense about how his father shouldn't have been allowed to enter the country, on account of foreseeing the risk presented by his future child. One wonders how many generations it takes before Americans are prepared to take responsibility for the failings of the American born instead of blaming it on "where they come from".
The problem of immigration from fundamentally different cultures to the West is non-assimilation. The hardworking first generation usually doesn't have time for religious and political fundamentalism. The second generation is the more problematic one, not feeling a real identification with the host country or with the values of their parents. This is the breeding ground of born-again radicalists.
My grandparents immigrated from Italy to the US in the 1920's. There was no question of not totally embracing the values of the new country. They had to learn a minimum of English to be able to recite the Allegiance to the Flag before being accepted as citizens. My parents' generation was the problematic one, full of unresolved cultural conflicts but still they served in the WWII. I had many opportunities to speak with third generationers such as myself whose parents came from Russia and other countries who seemed to have had the same cultural conflicts. To be an "immigrant" in the 1930's and 40's was still an unenviable condition, betraying one's origin by opening one's mouth. There were still quotas against Jews in universities and country clubs, etc., into the 50's for instance.
In effect every wave of immigration or minority have had to prove themselves before acceptance. My grandparents and those like them did have not perks or privileges, just the opposite. It is completely goofy for a host country not only to have to accommodate itself to the cultural and religious differences of the guests but be hostages to violence, rape and murder.
Quote from: amw on November 09, 2016, 06:21:13 PM
I have to say, so many Americans I've heard from lately are fucking terrified. Particularly immigrants, LGBT people, black and latino people, and women. Much more so than in 2000 (and definitely more so than anyone I heard about in 2008). There have been reports of people committing suicide upon learning of the election results.
While I understand the disappointment, this sounds almost as if gays or black people were rounded up and lynched in the early 2000s when Bush was president and would be in immediate danger now again after a brief period of safety under Obama. Does anyone really think one president (who does not at all belong to the religious right and does not seem to care personally all that much about LGBT either way) would completely reverse trends that started many decades ago?
I am also baffled by the apparent inability to see the conservative position. Brendan Eich was fired because he (privately) supported conservative politicians and policies. What happened to freedom of speech and plurality of opinion if something that would have been completely mainstream only 20 years ago (that a marriage is only between man and woman) is now considered "hate speech" and equivalent to a KKK membership? One can strongly disagree with Eich's stance but not to understand that it is a viable position (and actually has been the only thinkable position for most of human history almost everywhere - it is simply false to paint it as some religious extremist stance - and even if it was, it should be his private business) but can only be understood as an expression of irrational hate is really disingenious.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 09, 2016, 02:24:37 PM
Typical of most Americans, when things don't go their way they look for a savior, instead of thinking about how they are going to better themselves and set their own life straight. And these are the same clowns who think less govt, yet look for the govt to fix their lives. Sad.
That´s easy talk when your only existential dilemma is "which of my 37,653 recordings of
Siegfried should I listen to today?", as opposed to "how am I going to pay all my debts and mortgages and provide an education for the kids without having either a job or the prospect of getting one in the near future?"
Besides, I don´t remember you scolding "most Americans" when they voted "a savior" who promised to "revive the economy; provide affordable, accessible health care to all; strengthen our public education and social security systems; define a clear path to energy independence and tackle climate change; end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan; and work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 09, 2016, 03:04:27 PM
I take it simpler than that: 42% of the women who voted are just stupid.
This is a typical example of the contempt for "ignorant rednecks with an IQ lower than 90" that
Ken so rightly denounced and which eventually exploded in the face of the intellectual elite.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 10, 2016, 12:46:14 AM
While I understand the disappointment, this sounds almost as if gays or black people were rounded up and lynched in the early 2000s when Bush was president and would be in immediate danger now again after a brief period of safety under Obama. Does anyone really think one president (who does not at all belong to the religious right and does not seem to care personally all that much about LGBT either way) would completely reverse trends that started many decades ago?
I am also baffled by the apparent inability to see the conservative position. Brendan Eich was fired because he supported conservative politicians and policies. What happened to freedom of speech and plurality of opinion if something that would have been completely mainstream only 20 years ago (that a marriage is only between man and woman) is now considered "hate speech"? One can strongly disagree with Eich's stance but not to understand that it is a viable position (and actually has been the only thinkable position for most of human history almost everywhere - it is simply false to paint it as some religious extremist stance) but can only be understood as an expression of irrational hate is really disingenious.
Agreed.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 10, 2016, 12:46:14 AM
While I understand the disappointment, this sounds almost as if gays or black people were rounded up and lynched in the early 2000s when Bush was president and would be in immediate danger now again after a brief period of safety under Obama. Does anyone really think one president (who does not at all belong to the religious right and does not seem to care personally all that much about LGBT either way) would completely reverse trends that started many decades ago?
It's not just the President, it's the Supreme Court (the appointed Justices will be likely to serve and have considerable influence for decades), the President, the Vice President, and the Republican controlled Senate and House.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/11/09/here-is-what-president-trump-means-for-lgbt-rights/
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 09, 2016, 06:25:50 PM
Not likely. Most Johnson voters would like me have voted for a GOP candidate who at least paid lip service to things like integrity, treating people decently, and who understood they are not the point around which the cosmos revolves. To the extent Johnson exceeded normal Libertarian voting tallies, the extra came from never Trump conservatives, and came often from non battleground states, where the voters assumed Trump would not need their assistance. And given the predictions of 4.5% or more, Johnson may fairly be said to have fallen very flat.
Sound thesis.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 09, 2016, 07:40:53 PM
Quote from: sanantonio on November 09, 2016, 06:03:39 PM
Yeah, it is a beautiful sight to see democracy in action. Oh, and hear it too. Hillary Clinton and President Obama both give speeches advocating precisely the opposite, but their constituents can't be bothered.
You think they don't approve behind the scenes? Hah!
Look at the two of you, protesting on the one hand that your being implacable
Tuperos doesn't make you the same as the KKK, but gleefully asserting that all the Democratic constituency are indistinguishably alike.
Everyone here has eyes to read.
Quote from: North Star on November 10, 2016, 01:28:48 AM
It's not just the President, it's the Supreme Court (the appointed Justices will be likely to serve and have considerable influence for decades), the President, the Vice President, and the Republican controlled Senate and House.
Again, we had that in 2000 (or possibly Democrats controlled the Senate, but I know it did flip in 2002). Bush appointed 2 Supreme Court justices, including a new Chief Justice.
But that victory didn't give courage and legitimacy to these people:
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/6366f1b56a37207b6565e721bd3caba8/tumblr_ogeki64I9w1r8lpslo10_r1_540.jpg)
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/d0a5f68dcd619af77b241ef5442d1672/tumblr_ogeki64I9w1r8lpslo9_r1_540.jpg)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/e53164e573889c014cfd082ffbf4fefc/tumblr_ogeki64I9w1r8lpslo7_r1_540.jpg)
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/97c6d7bf75b3d6e7403dfba94089e962/tumblr_ogeki64I9w1r8lpslo6_r1_540.jpg)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/0c9e8b0105fc1c93dc15de03608b9114/tumblr_ogeki64I9w1r8lpslo4_r1_540.jpg)
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/cd63fabb0c0e9a48acf02a136e3b2e07/tumblr_ogeki64I9w1r8lpslo2_500.jpg)
etc.
(And to be fair, though we did get protests from the Gore supporters, I don't recall them actually setting any dumpsters on fire.)
Quote from: amw on November 10, 2016, 02:59:35 AM
Again, we had that in 2000 (or possibly Democrats controlled the Senate, but I know it did flip in 2002). Bush appointed 2 Supreme Court justices, including a new Chief Justice.
But that victory didn't give courage and legitimacy to these people:
(And to be fair, though we did get protests from the Gore supporters, I don't recall them actually setting any dumpsters on fire.)
(Images cut.)
But these are the people we're not supposed to feel contempt for. These are the
real Americans - not the black ones, or the gay ones, or the Muslim ones, or the Latinos, or the Jews. Let's bring the country together and drive all those undesirables out; then peace will reign throughout the land and America can be white again.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 02:34:33 AM
Look at the two of you, protesting on the one hand that your being implacable Tuperos doesn't make you the same as the KKK, but gleefully asserting that all the Democratic constituency are indistinguishably alike.
Everyone here has eyes to read.
So why don't Obama and Hillary call off the dogs?
One of the K's, by the way, is Katholic.
The other is Kike.
So we couldn't join the KKK even if we wanted to.
https://www.youtube.com/v/FiMPZais8nE
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 03:09:53 AM
So why don't Obama and Hillary call off the dogs?
More important, where is the response from the Twitter King? No, here is what he has to say:
"Such a beautiful and important evening! The forgotten man and woman will never be forgotten again. We will all come together as never before"
So warm and fuzzy. No wonder so many are feeling terrorized.
Quote from: amw on November 10, 2016, 02:59:35 AM
Again, we had that in 2000 (or possibly Democrats controlled the Senate, but I know it did flip in 2002). Bush appointed 2 Supreme Court justices, including a new Chief Justice.
But that victory didn't give courage and legitimacy to these people. (And to be fair, though we did get protests from the Gore supporters, I don't recall them actually setting any dumpsters on fire.)
Project Veritas uncovered bird-dogging at Trump rallies a few weeks ago. In the meantime plenty of Trump supporters had their hats knocked off, shirts ripped, of course, insulted, spat at and even beaten on the way to rallies so much they needed hospitalization. Now we have "spontaneous demonstrations".
I never read "Rules for Radicals" that the young HRC admired so much and even wrote an admiring letter to Saul Alinsky, but one presumes he wouldn't rule out such Bolshevik tactics.
Of course, two wrongs don't make a right either.
Lawlessness is just indicative of the low moral level society has sunk to.
And it should stop.
Oh and by the way, Donald Trump will have Dr. Ben Carson on his team helping to advise about Obamacare and what to do with it.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 03:21:42 AM
Oh and by the way, Donald Trump will have Dr. Ben Carson on his team helping to advise about Obamacare and what to do with it.
What a relief.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 03:21:42 AM
Oh and by the way, Donald Trump will have Dr. Ben Carson on his team helping to advise about Obamacare and what to do with it.
I like your sense of humor!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 09, 2016, 11:30:38 PM
It is completely goofy for a host country not only to have to accommodate itself to the cultural and religious differences of the guests but be hostages to violence, rape and murder.
"When Italian immigrants were 'the other'":
- http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/10/opinion/falco-italian-immigrants/
- https://books.google.dk/books?id=_xX2WKoyfZEC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=xenophobia+italians+mafia+new+york&source=bl&ots=XWlB0EJNxN&sig=D2OczvmpiPad6gSX1TEpF9QBLaE&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsspzdm57QAhUFCSwKHYm6AcwQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=xenophobia%20italians%20mafia%20new%20york&f=false
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia
It is completely goofy to attribute the violence, rape and murder glibly to the cultural and religious differences of immigrants.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 04:00:52 AM
It is completely goofy to attribute the violence, rape and murder glibly to the cultural and religious differences of immigrants.
Not when their scriptures clearly say kill the unbeliever.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 04:35:02 AM
Not when their scriptures clearly say kill the unbeliever.
Well...a basic tenet of a civilized society is that people should be judged on their actions, not based on the group they belong to.
As for the scriptutres, there's quite a few things in
our book that would raise some eyebroes, and which if followed litrerally would land you in jail.
Quote from: ritter on November 10, 2016, 04:41:48 AM
Well...a basic tenet of a civilized society is that people should be judged on their actions, not based on the group they belong to. As for the scriptures, there's quite a few things in our book that would raise some eyebroes, and which if followed literally would land you in jail.
I've been through this one before. The raids and killings in the Old Testament were time and place limited.
As for your first statement, the actions of a certain group have a LOT to be desired.
The burden is on them to prove they are peace loving, not to hear excuses from the victims.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 04:47:30 AM
I've been through this one before. The raids and killings in the Old Testament were time and place limited.
As are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the Planned Parenthood attack, for instance. ::)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 04:47:30 AM
As for your first statement, the actions of a certain group have a LOT to be desired.
The burden is on them to prove they are peace loving, not to hear excuses from the victims.
Another tenet of any civilised society is that you are innocent
until proven guilty, not the other way aorund. But it seems to me that the word "civillisation" has become unfashionable...
Quote from: Turner on November 10, 2016, 03:52:20 AM
"When Italian immigrants were 'the other'":
- http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/10/opinion/falco-italian-immigrants/
Also the Sacco-Vanzetti case (1920-21) in which the two were executed for murders they did not commit.
But we don't have chips on our shoulders. I never heard resentment from my extended family or desire for retribution.
My grandfather refused to pay protection money for his barbershop in South Philly soon after he arrived.
As a result he and his family were forced to move and he had to find different work.
Quote from: ritter on November 10, 2016, 04:50:32 AM
Another tenet of any civilised society is that you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way aorund. But it seems to me that the word "civillisation" has become unfashionable...
If you were presented with a bowl of 500 candies and were told that only two have poison, would you eat any of them? The need for vetting is not theoretical after 9/11 and all the other atrocities, that have pockmarked our modern history.
Quote from: North Star on November 10, 2016, 04:49:29 AM
As are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the Planned Parenthood attack, for instance. ::)
Did God tell the US to go to war in Iraq? George Dubya for all practical purposes didn't seem to be a religious man anyway. It was not only a complete waste but caused untold destruction with the detritus of spent uranium that will be lying around for the next 100,000 years or so.
As for an 'attack' on Planned Parenthood, who's killing whom?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 05:04:54 AM
If you were presented with a bowl of 500 candies and were told that only two have poison, would you eat any of them?
I think you´ve made your point very clear now.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 05:04:54 AM
If you were presented with a bowl of 500 candies and were told that only two have poison, would you eat any of them? The need for vetting is not theoretical after 9/11 and all the other atrocities, that have pockmarked our modern history.
Human beings are certainly
not pieces of candy....Just remember that you (whatever your background) may be seen excatly the same way by someone "vetting" in the future. But
that would be wrong, wouldn't it... ::)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 05:04:54 AM
If you were presented with a bowl of 500 candies and were told that only two have poison, would you eat any of them? The need for vetting is not theoretical after 9/11 and all the other atrocities, that have pockmarked our modern history.
We do vet the "candies". We will continue to vet them, we have to. The question is will we accept refugees after we vet them. I think we should. ISIS thinks it should act to keep their victims in place, too scared of the consequences to escape, and they will also try to seed the stream of refugees with terrorists to get our help in closing the escape routes.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 05:07:59 AMDid God tell the US to go to war in Iraq? George Dubya for all practical purposes didn't seem to be a religious man anyway.
How much anything has been influenced by the religion you associate with is apparently determined by how well you approve of the person and their actions.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/20/article-1184546-0501FCB0000005DC-424_468x339.jpg)
QuoteAs for an 'attack' on Planned Parenthood, who's killing whom?
I know nobody is going to convince you on this, and somehow I still am astonished that you approve of terrorism (obviously the people working for a cause you don't agree with are monsters that had it coming), while you call all who voted for
Clinton Bolsheviks.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 05:04:54 AM
If you were presented with a bowl of 500 candies and were told that only two have poison, would you eat any of them? The need for vetting is not theoretical after 9/11 and all the other atrocities, that have pockmarked our modern history.
So what you're saying is that Muslims deserve as much rights as candy?
Quote from: ritter on November 10, 2016, 05:23:48 AM
Human beings are certiinly not pieces of candy....Just remember that you (whatever your background) may be seen excatly the same way by someone "vetting" in the future. But that would be wrong, wouldn't it... ::)
The groups I belong to are not threatening anyone, one of which happens to be "musician".
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 05:32:51 AM
The groups I belong to are not threatening anyone, one of which happens to be "musician".
Once again, you revert to "groups", not to individuals... Who knows, perhaps there are some of rapists among musicians?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 09, 2016, 11:30:38 PM
The problem of immigration from fundamentally different cultures to the West is non-assimilation. The hardworking first generation usually doesn't have time for religious and political fundamentalism. The second generation is the more problematic one, not feeling a real identification with the host country or with the values of their parents. This is the breeding ground of born-again radicalists.
My grandparents immigrated from Italy to the US in the 1920's. There was no question of not totally embracing the values of the new country. They had to learn a minimum of English to be able to recite the Allegiance to the Flag before being accepted as citizens. My parents' generation was the problematic one, full of unresolved cultural conflicts but still they served in the WWII. I had many opportunities to speak with third generationers such as myself whose parents came from Russia and other countries who seemed to have had the same cultural conflicts. To be an "immigrant" in the 1930's and 40's was still an unenviable condition, betraying one's origin by opening one's mouth. There were still quotas against Jews in universities and country clubs, etc., into the 50's for instance.
In effect every wave of immigration or minority have had to prove themselves before acceptance. My grandparents and those like them did have not perks or privileges, just the opposite. It is completely goofy for a host country not only to have to accommodate itself to the cultural and religious differences of the guests but be hostages to violence, rape and murder.
By that line of thinking, Italians should not have been allowed as immigrants because of the existence of the Mafia.
Quote from: Turner on November 10, 2016, 05:12:25 AM
I think you´ve made your point very clear now.
Or, she's repeated an unsavory point which was echoed earlier by Trump Jr in a tweet.
Quote from: North Star on November 10, 2016, 05:31:37 AM
How much anything has been influenced by the religion you associate with is apparently determined by how well you approve of the person and their actions.
I know nobody is going to convince you on this, and somehow I still am astonished that you approve of terrorism (obviously the people working for a cause you don't agree with are monsters that had it coming), while you call all who voted for Clinton Bolsheviks.
So what you're saying is that Muslims deserve as much rights as candy?
Going backwards, what "rights" do people have in countries other than their own?
Where and how can anyone accuse me of condoning terrorism after I just said I am against it?
The Bolshies are out on the streets. Anyone want to claim them?
Saddam Hussein was regarded more as a secular leader. He left Christians and Jews alone for the most part. The Kurds and Iranians whom he didn't mind killing, technically belonged to his religion.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 06:21:57 AM
Going backwards, what "rights" do people have in countries other than their own?
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 10, 2016, 05:58:01 AM
By that line of thinking, Italians should not have been allowed as immigrants because of the existence of the Mafia.
Oh sure, the Mafia went around blowing up buildings, attacking civilians with knives, shooting up places of entertainment with women and children in them. The cruelty perpetrated is on an entirely different level, the last horror happening in Nice with an "ice cream" truck mowing down and killing 80 or so people. There are simply too many atrocities to remember or list. The last one usually obliterates the memory of the one before.
The statistics of rape in places like Germany and Sweden by migrants (supposed to be mainly poor women and children fleeing from war zones) is something incredible.
Quote from: North Star on November 10, 2016, 06:25:01 AM
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
What happens when one person's "rights" conflicts with another's?
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and
security of person.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2)
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of
his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in
his country.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 06:28:36 AM
Oh sure, the Mafia went around blowing up buildings, attacking civilians with knives, shooting up places of entertainment with women and children in them. The cruelty perpetrated is on an entirely different level, the last horror happening in Nice with an "ice cream" truck mowing down and killing 80 or so people. There are simply too many atrocities to remember or list. The last one usually obliterates the memory of the one before.
The statistics of rape in places like Germany and Sweden by migrants (supposed to be mainly poor women and children fleeing from war zones) is something incredible.
Since you like statistics, here's number of deaths of by terrorism in the US and of US citizens in foreign soil, vs deaths by gun violence in the US.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/
The Muslim world has not yet evolved to the point the Christian world has since the Thirty Years War. Millions of Christians died in that war, from massacres, disease and starvation. In England we got a tripartite settlement as a first step towards a secular government, a balancing of the church, king and aristocracy, and a Parliament of the new class of bankers, shopkeepers, merchants and artisans. In America we eventually got formal secularization and the tripartite arrangement was kept as the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.
If it takes as long for the Muslims to reach modernity as it did for Christians they have a couple of centuries to go. While they can be inspired by the example of the West they will have to generate modernism out of their own history. In the meantime we'll help take Mosul and Raqqa, fighting against the worst at the side of the not as bad.
Apart from the sheer fascination of it, you study history to discover the major themes of the civilizations you study and what's common and different in them. I do that, anyway.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 06:28:36 AM
Oh sure, the Mafia went around blowing up buildings, attacking civilians with knives, shooting up places of entertainment with women and children in them. The cruelty perpetrated is on an entirely different level...
Er. Um. They did. And they paid off judges and police and all sorts of people/officials to get away with it too.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on November 10, 2016, 06:53:32 AM
Er. Um. They did. And they paid off judges and police and all sorts of people/officials to get away with it too.
The wilful blindness is staggering.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov contradicts El Tupé, and avers that "there were contacts" with the then-candidate's team.
But, why would El Tupé say anything other than the truth of the matter?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 06:28:36 AM
Oh sure, the Mafia went around blowing up buildings, attacking civilians with knives, shooting up places of entertainment with women and children in them. The cruelty perpetrated is on an entirely different level, the last horror happening in Nice with an "ice cream" truck mowing down and killing 80 or so people. There are simply too many atrocities to remember or list. The last one usually obliterates the memory of the one before.
The statistics of rape in places like Germany and Sweden by migrants (supposed to be mainly poor women and children fleeing from war zones) is something incredible.
The crimes by the Italian Mafia in the US are hardly worth mentioning, that's hilarious..... :D
I would be surprised if the death toll by Italian Mafia in the US alone is even remotely approximated by the number of American deaths caused by terrorist acts by Muslim extremists.
Anyway, I hope you didn't vote for Trump.... ::) because he is probably not going to keep his promise to you:
Quote
Donald Trump's Muslim ban statement removed from website
ASHLEY EDWARDS
Nov 10th 2016 10:30AM
Less than 24 hours after Republican Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, his statement calling for a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the U.S. mysteriously vanished from his campaign website.
In the Dec. 7, 2015, statement Trump, pointed to polling data that suggested 25 percent of Muslims support violence against Americans: "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anyone the hatred is beyond comprehension."
But, without explanation, the signature campaign message is no longer on the president-elect's website, and the page where it once was now redirects to a donation page.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/11/10/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-statement-removed-from-website/21603226/
Q
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 06:56:59 AM
The wilful blindness is staggering.
You say Mafia violence equals the destruction of the World Trade Center with 2996 dead, 6000+ wounded, on the same day a plane flew into the Pentagon killing 184, Ft. Hood, 13 dead, 31 wounded, the Boston Massacre 3 dead, 264 wounded some of whom with horrible injuries, more recently Orlando with 49 dead, San Bernadino 14, and that's only the US? In Europe, 35 killed in Brussels 6 months ago, the Bastille day horror killing 86, 202 wounded two atrocities a year ago in Paris killing 34 altogether, This list doesn't count the potshots, the single stabbings, beheadings or knifings. Russia got their share in 2010 and 2013, not to mention Israel but also Islamic states in which Christians are being routinely persecuted and also killed. It doesn't include the ruination of property, the pain of bereaved families. What's staggering are the numbers that are far beyond the scope of this discussion.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/4291/here-your-complete-list-islamic-terror-attacks-aaron-bandler
I don't get it. Who is blind? Are we speaking the same language or what?
Quote from: sanantonio on November 10, 2016, 08:16:27 AM
Breaking that promise is a good thing, and I expect he will distance himself form some of his more toxic comments - also a good thing.
Scott Adams (who has been almost always right about Trump) thinks so too:
"You can expect him to adjust his tone and language going forward. You can expect foreign leaders to say they can work with him. You can expect him to focus on unifying an exhausted and nervous country. And you can expect him to succeed in doing so. (He's persuasive.) Watch as Trump turns to healing. You're going to be surprised how well he does it."
We can only hope.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 08:21:17 AM
You say Mafia violence equals the destruction of the World Trade Center with 2996 dead, 6000+ wounded, on the same day a plane flew into the Pentagon killing 184, Ft. Hood, 13 dead, 31 wounded, the Boston Massacre 3 dead, 264 wounded some of whom with horrible injuries, more recently Orlando with 49 dead, San Bernadino 14, and that's only the US? In Europe, 35 killed in Brussels 6 months ago, the Bastille day horror killing 86, 202 wounded two atrocities a year ago in Paris killing 34 altogether, This list doesn't count the potshots, the single stabbings, beheadings or knifings. Russia got their share in 2010 and 2013, not to mention Israel but also Islamic states in which Christians are being routinely persecuted and also killed. It doesn't include the ruination of property, the pain of bereaved families. What's staggering are the numbers that are far beyond the scope of this discussion.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/4291/here-your-complete-list-islamic-terror-attacks-aaron-bandler
I don't get it. Who is blind? Are we speaking the same language or what?
What is staggering is that people think that islamic terrorism is unrelated to the fact that the invasion of Iraq resulted in the violent deaths of 600,000 people in Iraq (according to the Lancet). The terrorists acts committed by islamic terrorists are committed by people who have been persuaded that they are fighting the same war.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 10, 2016, 08:33:11 AM
Scott Adams (who has been almost always right about Trump) thinks so too:
"You can expect him to adjust his tone and language going forward. You can expect foreign leaders to say they can work with him. You can expect him to focus on unifying an exhausted and nervous country. And you can expect him to succeed in doing so. (He's persuasive.) Watch as Trump turns to healing. You're going to be surprised how well he does it."
We can only hope.
Ass-kisser in chief Rudy Giuliani is already turning to healing: "the former New York City mayor and a high-profile Trump supporter, said the demonstrators were 'a bunch of spoiled cry-babies.'" I feel so unified. So healed. So surprised.
There's a new thread...we should lock this one up, like Hillary ;)
Quote from: Brian on November 10, 2016, 09:19:26 AM
There's a new thread...we should lock this one up, like Hillary ;)
Hah!
Quote from: sanantonio on November 10, 2016, 08:16:27 AM
Breaking that promise is a good thing, and I expect he will distance himself form some of his more toxic comments - also a good thing.
Then not only is he breaking a promise that presumably got him votes from many of his supporters, but he's doing so after he's made the victims of that promise feel terrorized. And on top of that he's proving himself untrustworthy (which I thought was one of the biggest complaints against Hillary.) Way to go, Donald. Three-way epic failure right off the bat.
Quote from: Brian on November 10, 2016, 09:19:26 AM
There's a new thread...we should lock this one up, like Hillary ;)
But does that mean we should also lock up Hillary?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 09:17:59 AM
Ass-kisser in chief Rudy Giuliani is already turning to healing: "the former New York City mayor and a high-profile Trump supporter, said the demonstrators were 'a bunch of spoiled cry-babies.'" I feel so unified. So healed. So surprised.
Don't throw your toys out of the cot because your side of politics lost the election and now won't respect democracy. You know it makes sense!! This is one and the same group which disrupted the Trump rallies with violence and intimidation; it's such a Left thing to do!!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 09:20:52 AM
Hah!
I'M BAAACK!!!Conveniently, the electric company snapped our cable the other day, leaving the snyprrrOranizationalFront out in the cold for all the festivities. When I turned on the old TV yesterday and saw Trump45, it was truly a surreal moment.
Being as I live in 'New Denmark', any vote other than the StatePrescribedDemocraticPosition was going to be of none effect, so, my Write-In assures me of the street-cred I need to continue the conversation going forward. Thank me later.
I have not scoured the reactions, BUT, the videos of SnowflakesCrying are truly delicious. It also seems obvious that it is the Leftists who are the DeplorableThugs- apparently there's still a little money left over in the Soros fund- what? is Seattle "New Moskva"????
Being as I LOOK like a Trumpster, I am going out to buy me the most badass machete, and I'm going to start taking "what to do if surrounded by a group" classes, just oh dear God- let me have my coffee before we start ranting, forgive me, lol
Karl, I imagine Depends stock has shot through the roof- you're in that blue blob, aren't you? What's the vibe at the grocery store? Sorry, I'm late to the party and I need guidance to catch up and get my allotted fill of lulz.
I DESERVE MY LULZ!! $:)
Quote from: snyprrr on November 10, 2016, 10:56:46 AM
I'M BAAACK!!!
Conveniently, the electric company snapped our cable the other day
Coincidence??!!
Welcome back. Have you met Attorney General Chris Christie? Secretary of State Newt Gingrich? Reichsminister Ann Coulter?
Quote from: Tritone on November 10, 2016, 10:29:06 AM
Don't throw your toys out of the cot because your side of politics lost the election and now won't respect democracy. You know it makes sense!! This is one and the same group which disrupted the Trump rallies with violence and intimidation; it's such a Left thing to do!!
That is such an inane generalization it doesn't bear refutation: Leftie, Rightie, there are assholes on both sides of the fence. That sort of argument carries little weight.
If people are upset now, maybe it is because of the accumulated mass of vituperation that has been heaped on them for the last year and a half. If you aren't a straight white person, you have every right to feel some trepidation over what may be coming your way soon.
I know, the minorities deserve it for being minorities, but still, you can't expect them to sit down and take it quietly.
8)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 04:35:02 AM
Not when their scriptures clearly say kill the unbeliever.
Numbers Chapter 31. Deuteronomy Chapters 13 and 17. I'm struggling to find the bits that prove this is all particular time and place and
contextual whereas the Quran text is absolute and for all time.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 05:04:54 AM
If you were presented with a bowl of 500 candies and were told that only two have poison, would you eat any of them?
If you were presented with 500 Americans and were told that two of them were carrying concealed weapons, would you turf them all out? I know I would.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 10, 2016, 11:15:05 AM
That is such an inane generalization it doesn't bear refutation: Leftie, Rightie, there are assholes on both sides of the fence. That sort of argument carries little weight.
If people are upset now, maybe it is because of the accumulated mass of vituperation that has been heaped on them for the last year and a half. If you aren't a straight white person, you have every right to feel some trepidation over what may be coming your way soon.
I know, the minorities deserve it for being minorities, but still, you can't expect them to sit down and take it quietly.
8)
This is a guy who has posted here 12 times, 10 on this thread, and is as practiced at sneering at liberals as he claims liberals are towards his side.
I just heard an interview with the rep from the 12th in Michigan, where Dearborn is the largest Muslim community in the US. And she says her constituents are terrified. Poor little snowflakes indeed.
Quote from: snyprrr on November 10, 2016, 10:56:46 AM
I'M BAAACK!!!
Conveniently, the electric company snapped our cable the other day, leaving the snyprrrOranizationalFront out in the cold for all the festivities. When I turned on the old TV yesterday and saw Trump45, it was truly a surreal moment.
Being as I live in 'New Denmark', any vote other than the StatePrescribedDemocraticPosition was going to be of none effect, so, my Write-In assures me of the street-cred I need to continue the conversation going forward. Thank me later.
I have not scoured the reactions, BUT, the videos of SnowflakesCrying are truly delicious. It also seems obvious that it is the Leftists who are the DeplorableThugs- apparently there's still a little money left over in the Soros fund- what? is Seattle "New Moskva"????
Being as I LOOK like a Trumpster, I am going out to buy me the most badass machete, and I'm going to start taking "what to do if surrounded by a group" classes, just oh dear God- let me have my coffee before we start ranting, forgive me, lol
Karl, I imagine Depends stock has shot through the roof- you're in that blue blob, aren't you? What's the vibe at the grocery store? Sorry, I'm late to the party and I need guidance to catch up and get my allotted fill of lulz.
I DESERVE MY LULZ!! $:)
Serious question: does GMG have a twit filter?
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 10, 2016, 12:16:26 PM
Serious question: does GMG have a twit filter?
It has an 'ignore' button. I can't give you instructions because I don't get one. However, I'm told they are very popular.
8)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 11:49:30 AM
This is a guy who has posted here 12 times, 10 on this thread, and is as practiced at sneering at liberals as he claims liberals are towards his side.
I just heard an interview with the rep from the 12th in Michigan, where Dearborn is the largest Muslim community in the US. And she says her constituents are terrified. Poor little snowflakes indeed.
Yes, I recognize the symptoms, I have seen them displayed by all comers on the comment threads that news sites foolishly set up. We'll see...
8)
Yup. I've detested Pc (and its innate Tyranny) since it first began to rear its ugly head.
Jonathan Pie tells you the why of Trump winning the election.
https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 10, 2016, 12:21:56 PM
It has an 'ignore' button. I can't give you instructions because I don't get one. However, I'm told they are very popular.
8)
hmm...I'm not seeing it. But then ignore functions only work if the trolls are widely ignored - if I'm still going to read their comments in quotes, and they dictate the direction of the discussion then there's no point. And usually, if they're persistant, the'll be some nonsense that demands a rebuttal from even the most patient members.
Profile > Summary and then Modify Profile > Buddies/Ignore List > Edit Ignore List.
I highly recommend it. I have something like 10-11 people on the list last I checked although I'm thinking of adding more.
It does not hide quotes but for me, at this point, those are easier to skip over.
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 10, 2016, 12:30:57 PM
hmm...I'm not seeing it. But then ignore functions only work if the trolls are widely ignored - if I'm still going to read their comments in quotes, and they dictate the direction of the discussion then there's no point. And usually, if they're persistant, the'll be some nonsense that demands a rebuttal from even the most patient members.
Not sure, but I think you go to their profile and it is an option there. Perhaps someone who has it can advise in a PM.... it may even blank out quotes, I don't know. :-\
8)
Quote from: amw on November 10, 2016, 12:37:01 PM
Profile > Summary and then Modify Profile > Buddies/Ignore List > Edit Ignore List.
I highly recommend it. I have something like 10-11 people on the list last I checked although I'm thinking of adding more.
It does not hide quotes but for me, at this point, those are easier to skip over.
I would never think of using it. How could I resist reading the collected effluvia of snyprrr?
Quote from: amw on November 10, 2016, 12:37:01 PM
Profile > Summary and then Modify Profile > Buddies/Ignore List > Edit Ignore List.
I highly recommend it. I have something like 10-11 people on the list last I checked although I'm thinking of adding more.
It does not hide quotes but for me, at this point, those are easier to skip over.
Thanks for that.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 12:45:18 PM
I would never think of using it. How could I resist reading the collected effluvia of snyprrr?
Would
never cast our
snypsss into the "igg-loo."
I did. Over a year ago, I think.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 10, 2016, 01:17:07 PM
I did. Over a year ago, I think.
Mind you, I'm not saying you've missed much . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 01:18:11 PM
Mind you, I'm not saying you've missed much . . . .
There´s probably an ambiguity here.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 11:03:28 AM
Coincidence??!!
Welcome back. Have you met Attorney General Chris Christie? Secretary of State Newt Gingrich? Reichsminister Ann Coulter?
Oh yes, dearest Saviour... JOHN BOLTON for Sec. of Defence or State!!! :o :o :o :o :o
Yes, the Grande Humour is only now beginning to show itself.
Howard Stern = FCC
Michael Savage = Ministry of Education
Hey, this is fun. Now it's your turn! ;)
Scott Baio = Press Sec.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 01:01:37 PM
Would never cast our snypsss into the "igg-loo."
awww... warm fuzzies and cockles for all :-* :-* :-*
Some lessons of this election:
1.) Don't attack voters. Calling them deplorable and, worse yet, irredeemable may have consequences.
2.) Don't field candidates with an arrogant sense of entitlement and destiny.
3.) Don't rely so heavily on divisive political tactics that alienate the majority. Talk of privilege, etc, may have consequences. (The use of the phrase "whitelash" indicates that some people are slow learners.)
Time for another celebratory drink:
(http://rlv.zcache.com/democrat_tears_republican_color_scheme_flask-rc719f703c4a545428b65f3afdd18ad8d_i9rmb_8byvr_630.jpg?view_padding=%5B285%2C0%2C285%2C0%5D)
Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2016, 05:41:09 PMTime for another celebratory drink:
(http://rlv.zcache.com/democrat_tears_republican_color_scheme_flask-rc719f703c4a545428b65f3afdd18ad8d_i9rmb_8byvr_630.jpg?view_padding=%5B285%2C0%2C285%2C0%5D)
What are you celebrating, I wonder?
Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2016, 05:41:09 PM
Some lessons of this election:
1.) Don't attack voters. Calling them deplorable and, worse yet, irredeemable may have consequences.
2.) Don't field candidates with an arrogant sense of entitlement and destiny.
3.) Don't rely so heavily on divisive political tactics that alienate the majority. Talk of privilege, etc, may have consequences. (The use of the phrase "whitelash" indicates that some people are slow learners.)
Time for another celebratory drink:
(http://rlv.zcache.com/democrat_tears_republican_color_scheme_flask-rc719f703c4a545428b65f3afdd18ad8d_i9rmb_8byvr_630.jpg?view_padding=%5B285%2C0%2C285%2C0%5D)
Absolutely love it!!
Luv,
A Deplorable (with 3 university degrees!)
Quote from: Rinaldo on November 10, 2016, 05:50:05 PM
What are you celebrating, I wonder?
Why, the demise of the Clinton dynasty, of course.
Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2016, 05:41:09 PM
Some lessons of this election:
1.) Don't attack voters. Calling them deplorable and, worse yet, irredeemable may have consequences.
2.) Don't field candidates with an arrogant sense of entitlement and destiny.
3.) Don't rely so heavily on divisive political tactics that alienate the majority. Talk of privilege, etc, may have consequences. (The use of the phrase "whitelash" indicates that some people are slow learners.)
Time for another celebratory drink:
How can anyone look at the two campaigns and speak as though it was Trump who took the high road and Clinton who took the low road?
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 10, 2016, 06:00:09 PMHow can anyone look at the two campaigns and speak as though it was Trump who took the high road and Clinton who took the low road?
Trump is a brawler and waged one of the nastiest campaigns ever, right up there with Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. No, you misunderstood what I wrote. Clinton made the mistake of alienating white voters and attacking some of them. Most Americans are white. She was running a campaign better suited to around 2040. I guess you can say she was ahead of her time.
Quote from: Todd on November 10, 2016, 05:58:38 PM
Why, the demise of the Clinton dynasty, of course.
Whatever one thinks of Trump, the fact that he was able to singlehandedly neutralize both the Bush Dynasty and the Clinton Dynasty in the space of one year is an astounding achievement.
Welcome back, BTW.
I really think people need to get over Trump winning and move on. The future is what's on the horizon not what happened on election night. Speaking of election night, boy did the media miss this one! I never have been a fan of the media and Trump apparently doesn't like them either, so I'm okay with that. I do think that once the tension and unease goes away, it'll be business as usual in Washington, which means we're heading down that slippery slope of wrong decision-making and foolish behavior from our elected baboons. Time to start clinging to your guns.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 10, 2016, 08:50:20 AM
What is staggering is that people think that islamic terrorism is unrelated to the fact that the invasion of Iraq resulted in the violent deaths of 600,000 people in Iraq (according to the Lancet). The terrorists acts committed by islamic terrorists are committed by people who have been persuaded that they are fighting the same war.
The invasion of Iraq 3/20/2003 happened after 9/11/2001. There was plenty of Islamic terrorism before that date. Most notable in 2002 were the Bali bombings (202 dead, 240 wounded), Moscow theatre (170 dead, 700+ wounded) and Mombasa (13 dead, 80 wounded).
Did Clinton alienate the majority? More people voted for her than for Trump.
Against that is a lower turnout. And what matters more than how many people she alienated is WHERE she alienated them. I find the fact that Clinton didn't campaign in Wisconsin interesting.
Re: the media missing this one, Nate Silver wrote a good article about how the degree to which it was missed was about 2 percentage points, translating to 1 in 100 voters changing their minds.
It's not an excuse, more a demonstration of the fine margins involved. That amount of change is enough to flip Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida, and that's enough to make the difference between a strong Trump win in the electoral college and an equally strong Clinton win.
Meanwhile, I see that the joys of "overthrowing political correctness" by making blatant threats to blacks, Latinos, homosexuals and Muslims have already started. Well done, everyone.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 10, 2016, 10:31:32 PM
Meanwhile, I see that the joys of "overthrowing political correctness" by making blatant threats to blacks, Latinos, homosexuals and Muslims have already started. Well done, everyone.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2156907/us-riot-teenagers-beat-donald-trump-voter/
A SICKENING video showing a man being battered by a pair of youths because he voted for Donald Trump has emerged online.
A woman is heard shouting "he voted Trump" as the men mercilessly lay into him. The attacker punches the older man to the floor. The victim, who is white, is repeatedly punched and kicked by a pair of black men as he lies cowering on the floor. He attempts to escape in his car before being dragged along the road as one of the men steals his car.
Twitter users were horrified at the video, said to have been filmed in Chicago. One said: "This is mental. Violence over politics is terrorism." America has seen an explosion of rage since Trump beat Hillary Clinton. Cops fired tear gas at crowds of furious protesters, rioters smashed up and torched cop cars and buildings.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 10, 2016, 10:31:32 PM
Meanwhile, I see that the joys of "overthrowing political correctness" by making blatant threats to blacks, Latinos, homosexuals and Muslims have already started. Well done, everyone.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/why-is-the-lgbtq-community-freaking-out-about-the-most-pro-gay-republican-president-elect-in-history
Donald Trump went as far as to wave the rainbow flag at a rally in Colorado before the election. And not only invited the first openly gay man to speak at the Republican National Convention (on the main stage during primetime, no less), but addressed gay voters directly during his RNC nomination acceptance speech, as he had since the tragedy at the Pulse nightclub a month before. Hell, Trump was first invited to CPAC by a gay conservatives group in 2011.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 10:47:25 PM
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2156907/us-riot-teenagers-beat-donald-trump-voter/
A SICKENING video showing a man being battered by a pair of youths because he voted for Donald Trump has emerged online.
A woman is heard shouting "he voted Trump" as the men mercilessly lay into him. The attacker punches the older man to the floor. The victim, who is white, is repeatedly punched and kicked by a pair of black men as he lies cowering on the floor. He attempts to escape in his car before being dragged along the road as one of the men steals his car.
Twitter users were horrified at the video, said to have been filmed in Chicago. One said: "This is mental. Violence over politics is terrorism." America has seen an explosion of rage since Trump beat Hillary Clinton. Cops fired tear gas at crowds of furious protesters, rioters smashed up and torched cop cars and buildings.
I've noticed that quite a few of your "sources" are the very trashiest of UK tabloids. Why is that?
If you're actually in Britain (possible as I think you're none of the things you say you are) then I suggest taking up the Guardian.
Could you try linking to a Chicago paper reporting that story, or to any credible source? Otherwise I can only assume its either total BS or staged propaganda.
BTW, which of the candidates suggested violence?
Shouldn´t be that hard to remember.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 10, 2016, 07:21:07 PM
Whatever one thinks of Trump, the fact that he was able to singlehandedly neutralize both the Bush Dynasty and the Clinton Dynasty in the space of one year is an astounding achievement.
Welcome back, BTW.
+ 1 on both accounts. ;)
Way to miss the point, Zamyrabyrd. I'm not interested in a game of "which group of supporters did the worst thing", or any kind of argument that makes what's happening to minorities okay because something bad happened to a Trump supporter too.
Seriously? That's your counter? You respond to a mention of bad people by finding other bad people, as if that makes it okay? "They're not the only bad people" is no kind of refutation of being bad people.
You know how everyone keeps telling Muslim leaders they have to condemn Muslim terrorism (and generally ignoring when they actually fulfil that request, but let's leave that aside for a moment)?
This is Trump's first leadership test. People are doing these things invoking his name, using his campaign slogan. He's not personally responsible for their actions. What he IS responsible for is telling them no, this is not acceptable, I don't endorse you, you don't get to invoke my name.
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 10, 2016, 10:56:29 PM
I've noticed that quite a few of your "sources" are the very trashiest of UK tabloids. Why is that?
Because CNN, BBC or any of their good buddies will not take up such a story. They do a media blitz on every time a black teenager is killed by police but not when the converse happens or even when children are attacked by thugs.
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 10, 2016, 10:56:29 PM
If you're actually in Britain (possible as I think you're none of the things you say you are) then I suggest taking up the Guardian.
What did I say I am that you don't believe?
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 10, 2016, 10:56:29 PM
Could you try linking to a Chicago paper reporting that story, or to any credible source? Otherwise I can only assume its either total BS or staged propaganda.
There are at least two google pages carrying that story. Why should anyone be surprised by it?
http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/black-mob-beats-white-trump-voter/
Quote from: ørfeo on November 10, 2016, 11:31:09 PM
Way to miss the point, Zamyrabyrd. I'm not interested in a game of "which group of supporters did the worst thing", or any kind of argument that makes what's happening to minorities okay because something bad happened to a Trump supporter too.
Sorry, playing the "minority" card doesn't mean a thing to me, neither the "racist", "misogynist" or "whatever-phobe" card.
Why, because "minority" is not a synonym for either oppressed or righteous.
Billionaires in the words happen to be a minority, does it make them victims we need to sympathize with?
In fact, vocal minorities as in the Bolshevik Revolution and the overthrow of the Weimar Republic can contaminate whole nations.
https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.phlwh9hkj
It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority...
Imposing Virtue on Others
This idea of one-sidedness can help us debunk a few more misconceptions. How do books get banned? Certainly not because they offend the average person –most persons are passive and don't really care, or don't care enough to request the banning. It looks like, from past episodes, that all it takes is a few (motivated) activists for the banning of some books, or the black-listing of some people. The great philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell lost his job at the City University of New York owing to a letter by an angry –and stubborn –mother who did not wish to have her daughter in the same room as the fellow with dissolute lifestyle and unruly ideas.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 12:25:14 AM
Sorry, playing the "minority" card doesn't mean a thing to me, neither the "racist", "misogynist" or "whatever-phobe" card.
Why, because "minority" is not a synonym for either oppressed or righteous.
Billionaires in the words happen to be a minority, does it make them victims we need to sympathize with?
In fact, vocal minorities as in the Bolshevik Revolution and the overthrow of the Weimar Republic can contaminate whole nations.
https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.phlwh9hkj
It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority...
Imposing Virtue on Others
This idea of one-sidedness can help us debunk a few more misconceptions. How do books get banned? Certainly not because they offend the average person –most persons are passive and don't really care, or don't care enough to request the banning. It looks like, from past episodes, that all it takes is a few (motivated) activists for the banning of some books, or the black-listing of some people. The great philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell lost his job at the City University of New York owing to a letter by an angry –and stubborn –mother who did not wish to have her daughter in the same room as the fellow with dissolute lifestyle and unruly ideas.
You really are determined to miss the point, aren't you? Where the hell did I suggest that minority was a general synonym for oppressed? What it is is a shorthand for the people who have been attacked in Trump's name on the first day after his election.
As for "contamination"... words fail me. I know where I've heard that language before.
But then you only care about minorities when you claim that Planned Parenthood has been targeting them for a century.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 12:43:48 AM
But then you only care about minorities when you claim that Planned Parenthood has been targeting them for a century.
I repeat, I do not "care about minorities". To deprive individuals of equal treatment is more to the point.
Liberals can shed crocodile tears over the poor and oppressed. That last thing they want to do is enfranchise them and recognize their inherent dignity.
What the Clinton Foundation did in Haiti was a case in point. Hopefully, all the rats will be coming out of the woodwork now.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 01:02:40 AM
Hopefully, all the rats will be coming out of the woodwork now.
Oh, I think one of them already has.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 04:35:02 AM
Not when their scriptures clearly say kill the unbeliever.
Thank goodness Jesus never said this:
Quote"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27 KJV)
Oh. Wait.
Quote from: Wendell_E on November 11, 2016, 02:44:36 AM
Thank goodness Jesus never said this:
Oh. Wait.
The quote was part of a parable.
22 He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?' 24 And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.' 25 And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!' 26 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'" Luke 19:11-27 ESV
Thus, this verse has nothing to do with an individual turning the other cheek, nor does it speak to the idea of human governance at all. What it does teach is that all mankind will one day face the judgment of God. Those who have hated and rejected God will be punished.http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23932/what-does-bring-them-here-and-kill-them-in-front-of-me-in-luke-1927-mean
Quote from: ørfeo on November 10, 2016, 10:31:32 PM
Meanwhile, I see that the joys of "overthrowing political correctness" by making blatant threats to blacks, Latinos, homosexuals and Muslims have already started. Well done, everyone.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/11/riot-declared-in-oregon-as-anti-trump-demonstrators-damage-cars-buildings.html
Police in Portland, Ore. declared that a once peaceful protest was a riot after demonstrators were seen attacking drivers and committing acts of vandalism during their march against Donald Trump's election Thursday night. Portland police said at least 29 people were arrested in the riot and that more information would be given on the charges Friday morning.
According to KPTV, one driver had her windshield smashed and someone painted "Capitalism kills" on a nearby convenience store. Police declared the protest a riot at around 8:30 pm. A riot is a Class C felony in Oregon.
Protesters in Portland's Pearl District were breaking windows of several businesses and some were arming themselves with rocks from a construction site, police said.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 03:18:31 AM
Quote from: Wendell_E on November 11, 2016, 02:44:36 AM
Thank goodness Jesus never said this:
Oh. Wait.
The quote was part of a parable.
22 He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?' 24 And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.' 25 And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!' 26 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'" Luke 19:11-27 ESV
Thus, this verse has nothing to do with an individual turning the other cheek, nor does it speak to the idea of human governance at all. What it does teach is that all mankind will one day face the judgment of God. Those who have hated and rejected God will be punished.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23932/what-does-bring-them-here-and-kill-them-in-front-of-me-in-luke-1927-mean
Aye. As with Obama supposedly slavering after "ribs and pussy," the context neutralizes the tendentious misconstrual.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 03:37:24 AM
Aye. As with Obama supposedly slavering after "ribs and pussy," the context neutralizes the tendentious misconstrual.
In plain language, the message and overall context of the Gospel is non-violence but there is also justice.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 03:53:46 AM
In plain language, the message and overall context of the Gospel is non-violence but there is also justice.
The Torah remains part of the Christian Bible. An eye for an eye.
Those who are hostile to a religion do not have the privilege of characterizing it, I shouldn't think.
Else even Christianity . . . well, I have an old schoolmate whose preferred term for all people of faith is superstitionists.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 04:02:34 AM
Those who are hostile to a religion do not have the privilege of characterizing it, I shouldn't think.
Else even Christianity . . . well, I have an old schoolmate whose preferred term for all people of faith is superstitionists.
Right, those who think religion is superstition, shouldn't bother to quote scripture.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 03:56:21 AM
The Torah remains part of the Christian Bible. An eye for an eye.
I don't know how much history you know but plenty of the "Old Testament" does not apply in the New, for instance sacrificing animals and stoning criminals.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 04:02:34 AM
Those who are hostile to a religion do not have the privilege of characterizing it, I shouldn't think.
Else even Christianity . . . well, I have an old schoolmate whose preferred term for all people of faith is superstitionists.
That is like saying that those who are hostile to Wagner or Havergal Brian have no "privilege" of characterizing their music. But then again, you presume hostility where there is none. I am not religious myself, but one of my favorite people in this world is a young friend who is an orthodox Jew (Modern Orthodox, not Hasid), who is one of the most charming, charismatic, good-natured, and accomplished people I know.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 04:43:07 AM
That is like saying that those who are hostile to Wagner or Havergal Brian have no "privilege" of characterizing their music. But then again, you presume hostility where there is none. I am not religious myself, but one of my favorite people in this world is a young friend who is an orthodox Jew (Modern Orthodox, not Hasid), who is one of the most charming, charismatic, good-natured, and accomplished people I know.
Well, I was actually presuming
zb's hostility to Islam. Still, I appreciate your post.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 04:38:44 AM
I don't know how much history you know but plenty of the "Old Testament" does not apply in the New, for instance sacrificing animals and stoning criminals.
Plenty of Old Testament does not apply in the Old either, depending on how Orthodox you are. (And Judaism has as many branches as candles in the menorah, if not more.) Not all Jews take all 613 commandments literally, and many are freely and cheerfully disregarded. Even my young Orthodox friend has a gay roommate. The good ones worth keeping for any and all of us include: to love all who of the convenant, not to harbor hate, not to bear a grudge, to honor your father and mother, and others similar. The idea that the "New" testament is a repudiation of the brutality and crudity of the "Old" is altogether false.
And what does this have to do with Donald Trump?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 04:44:23 AM
Well, I was actually presuming zb's hostility to Islam. Still, I appreciate your post.
Oh gosh, Karl, I have lived around Muslims and taught many of them, also speak their language enough to be able to read some of their scriptures.
Moslems can give the West lessons in respect, family values, hospitality and modesty, Many if not most are very fine people.
Now that is out of way, the problem today is with Islamism and cultural shock around Western so-called values.
A lot of what they are exposed to comes from racy TV and films, so they often have skewed ideas about what to expect when they get to Germany, France or Sweden.
If men are sequestered from the women folk in their home countries, it's understandable they go bizerk around scantily clad women in the West. That is not an excuse but an explanation.
The radicalized ones see a clash of cultures and prefer to go backward rather than forward.
They see the corruption of the West, the dying gasps of Christianity that couldn't save its own culture and look to Islam for salvation.
People who are half educated (including literalists in the Bible Belt or other types of zealots) do not see the larger picture and do take their scriptures literally.
One can be accommodating to actual refugees (not going into who wrecked their countries to begin with) but not suicidal.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 05:00:05 AM
And what does this have to do with Donald Trump?
Why, I recall that it's his favourite book.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 05:00:05 AM
And what does this have to do with Donald Trump?
To sum up, Trump has been smeared with being anti-Islam when he said immigrants from war zones need to be vetted. Modern terrorism is almost always now Islamist. Saying there is no connection to their actual scriptures is incorrect when they admit to that themselves.
There are a few facts that Trumpsters have to realize (and from looking at the above they are oblivious to these).
One, Hellery won the popular vote. Since 1988 Republicans only won one the popular vote in one presidential election, 2004. We gave Bush, Jr. another chance and he blew it.
Two, the Republicans lost two seats in the senate. There is a chance they will lose a third. There will be a run-off for the third in Louisiana but since the Democratic party no longer exists in the South.
Virginia where I live is the weird exception. Virginia is a microcosm of the county. In the urban areas Hellery won big. In Fairfax county she won by over thirty points. She also won big in the University areas like Albemarle Count, the home of the University of Virginia. She won by 25 points there.
And before the people with fourteen degrees brag about voting for Trump you are in a very small universe. The one population base that Trump dominated is uneducated what males. These are people who know what county music is but can not tell the difference between Bach and the Beatles. There are probably a few who do.
Third, the last time the Republicans controlled all of the branches of the government was between 2001 and 2007. Let us look at some for their accomplishments.
One, we suffered the worst attack against us since Pearl Harbor. And like Pearl Harbor it could have been avoided. The Clinton administration tried to warn the Bush but they ignored their warnings.
Two, we got involved with two unwinnable wars that killed over 5,000 and wounded another 50,000 Americans. That is OK but if one ambassador gets killed that is a no, no.
Third, we had a financial crisis that almost destroyed our economy. Ironically, from what I have read, one of Bush, Jr's. few accomplishments is how helped to help to keep the situation from getting worse that it did.
Fourth, under Bush 2 we started with a surplus, and ended up with the worse deficit in our country's history:
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.M84fa3c4c5384536225da7d3b9db3a528o0&w=300&h=219&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0)
The lesson is obvious: Democratic deficits, bad; Republican, good.
For all of our sakes I pray to the invisible man in the sky (and I hope he is real) that Trump is successful. The Republicans have complete control of the government and if they fail they can not blame anybody but themselves. Of course it is still going to be amusing to hear their excuses.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 10, 2016, 09:13:43 PMDid Clinton alienate the majority?
Yes, she alienated a significant enough portion of the white electorate - whites being the ethnic majority in the US - to sway the election. You post indicates part of the problem on the left - and more importantly the American left - in coming to grips with reality. And Clinton did not win a majority of votes, either. She won the narrowest of popular pluralities.
As to turnout, a record number voted in 2016, though the percentage was down slightly. It is worth noting that Clinton still managed to lose between 18 and 33% of Hispanic voters, depending on which analysis one looks at, and the black male vote dropped from around 97% for Obama to somewhere closer to 88% for Clinton. This drop is not attributable to the supposed restriction of the vote. It was the candidate and message. Words have consequences. You don't get to call people deplorables or super-predators without consequence.
Quote from: arpeggio on November 11, 2016, 05:32:08 AM
There are a few facts that Trumpsters have to realize (and from looking at the above they are oblivious to these).
One, Hellery won the popular vote. Since 1988 Republicans only won one the popular vote in one presidential election, 2004. We gave Bush, Jr. another chance and he blew it.
Two, the Republicans lost two seats in the senate. There is a chance they will lose a third. There will be a run-off for the third in Louisiana but since the Democratic party no longer exists in the South.
Hillary won a small plurality of the popular vote, but not the electoral college. She won the wrong election. That's her fault.
For months, the press and the Clinton campaign were talking about taking the Senate. For a brief, giddy period, there was talk of Dems taking the House. The data the Democrats used was bad. They lost the presidency. And as Pat B points out in another thread, 2018 looks very bad for Dems in the Senate.
One can point out these realities and still dislike Trump. I did not vote for him, for instance. I loathed all four national candidates and did not vote for one. Some people, though, see only simple binary choices. If one dislikes Clinton, that means they support Trump. That sort of illogic.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 05:38:44 AM
Words have consequences. You don't get to call people deplorables or super-predators without consequence.
But Trump called people all manner of things. It cuts both ways. Or apparently it doesn't.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 05:50:40 AM
But Trump called people all manner of things. It cuts both ways. Or apparently it doesn't.
Yes, he did. But he didn't attack the racial majority. He courted them. I would think the obvious was obvious by now, but I guess not.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 05:54:19 AM
Yes, he did. But he didn't attack the racial majority. He courted them. I would think the obvious was obvious by now, but I guess not.
You know, for someone who complains about people being condescending, you're being remarkably condescending. And I'm actually trying to engage with you and the points you're making.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 05:55:23 AM
You know, for someone who complains about people being condescending, you're being remarkably condescending. And I'm actually trying to engage with you and the points you're making.
Perhaps you misinterpreted my response to arpeggio as a complaint about condescension. It was a complaint about illogic and false binary choices. I actually find leftist condescension the most enjoyable of all since it offers so much to challenge. In the US, the Democrats must learn some lessons from this debacle. I offered three lessons. There are others. People who run their campaigns will actually consider all of the things I wrote, though not because I wrote them. They want to win, to gain power again. They ought not to repeat what they just did.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 05:55:23 AM
You know, for someone who complains about people being condescending, you're being remarkably condescending. And I'm actually trying to engage with you and the points you're making.
You don't get it, ørfeo: Todd's specialty, his whole raison d'être apparently, is to tell everyone else how stupid and uninformed they are, and how only Todd is in possession of the facts and any proper understanding of them. It's not about the issues, but all about Todd. Having said that, your best move is simply not to engage with him. It's an eternal gotcha game where you can never win.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 06:04:38 AM
You don't get it, ørfeo: Todd's specialty, his whole raison d'être apparently, is to tell everyone else how stupid and uninformed they are, and how only Todd is in possession of the facts and any proper understanding of them. It's not about the issues, but all about Todd. Having said that, your best move is simply not to engage with him. It's an eternal gotcha game where you can never win.
You're an interesting fella. You used to be more self-controlled, but over the course of this election, you've lost your shit, rather like Richard Engel on election night. You're one of the most entertaining of all posters on any forum I frequent. Keep it up!
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 06:10:25 AM
You're an interesting fella. You used to be more self-controlled, but over the course of this election, you've lost your shit, rather like Richard Engel on election night. You're one of the most entertaining of all posters on any forum I frequent. Keep it up!
Like Pooh-Bah, you were born sneering. So predictable . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 06:20:19 AM
Like Pooh-Bah, you were born sneering. So predictable . . . .
It's like watching a cat chase a laser-pointer.
"You pull my trigger then you blame my gun."
- Fiona Apple
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 06:39:35 AM
"You pull my trigger then you blame my gun."
- Fiona Apple
Ms Apple should meet Milo Yiannopoulos.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 06:44:53 AM
Ms Apple should meet Milo Yiannopoulos.
I'm aware of his work. I'm not sure anyone should be required to meet him.
There's an ethical difference between saying something that is annoying and saying it for the pure purpose of being annoying. The emotions of others are not mere playthings for entertainment. Not unless you think other human beings are just here for your amusement.
Quote from: arpeggio on November 11, 2016, 05:32:08 AM
The one population base that Trump dominated is uneducated what males. These are people who know what county music is but can not tell the difference between Bach and the Beatles.
That's completely irrelevant. For one, the worth of a human being does not depend on what kind of music s/he likes or knows about. Secondly, I know people who can tell the difference even between Bach JS and Bach JC and who voted Trump, or would have voted him had they been US citizens.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 06:51:52 AMThere's an ethical difference between saying something that is annoying and saying it for the pure purpose of being annoying. The emotions of others are not mere playthings for entertainment. Not unless you think other human beings are just here for your amusement.
Human beings in general? No. Lefties with no emotional self-control on internet forums? Sometimes, but not always.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 07:04:50 AM
Human beings in general? No. Lefties with no emotional self-control on internet forums? Sometimes, but not always.
You don't seem to have figured out that one of those categories is a subset of the other.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 06:10:25 AM
You're an interesting fella. You used to be more self-controlled, but over the course of this election, you've lost your shit, rather like Richard Engel on election night. You're one of the most entertaining of all posters on any forum I frequent. Keep it up!
I can't tell, is this Thread getting more awesome, or less awesome? So confusing... :laugh:
hup- Que's in the house... is it that bad here???
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 07:17:50 AM
You don't seem to have figured out that one of those categories is a subset of the other.
A rather weak rejoinder, I must say. Of course I understand one is a subset of the other. That's why I made the distinction and used the phrase "in general". Democrat tears are delicious.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 08:09:56 AMDemocrat tears are delicious.
I'll have to take your word for that, never having tasted any; are they supposed to substitute for tonic in a G&T?
Quote from: ahinton on November 11, 2016, 08:45:13 AM
I'll have to take your word for that, never having tasted any; are they supposed to substitute for tonic in a G&T?
Like whiskey, they taste best neat.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 08:09:56 AM
Democrat tears are delicious.
Here's a
yuge helping for you:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/her-loss
I got up on Election Day and burst into tears — not a genteel twin trickle but a great heaving burst, zero to firehose. Tears spattered the inside of my glasses, dripped from my lips, and left mascara-tinged rosettes blooming black in my cereal milk - and on and on, in the same vein
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 08:50:43 AM
Like whiskey, they taste best neat.
I don't drink whiskey; only whisky.
That said, revenge is a drink best served cold, maybe with a splash of Democrat tears...
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 12:12:38 AM
Because CNN, BBC or any of their good buddies will not take up such a story. They do a media blitz on every time a black teenager is killed by police but not when the converse happens or even when children are attacked by thugs.
First, rioting teenagers aren't shooting people, or strangling them in broad daylight. They're just rioting. The recipe is to try and restrain them and after a couple of days they'll go home.
Second, it's sad you don't see the difference between a bunch of kids yelling and being obnoxious, and police officers who have sworn to uphold the law, shooting black folk in the back and planting guns.
I agree with Todd, the most puzzling and frustrating thing is hearing about what a marvellous Ground Game Hillary had going. Trump was a mere amateur compared to her. And hearing her say in her concession speech that her team was the best, well sorry, she couldn't say anything else, but clearly they got a bunch of things very very wrong.
And, yeah I know she won the popular vote. By two hundred thousand. That is not enough.
Throughout the campaign I kept hearing or reading that Trump was making a big mistake. He didn't have a Ground Game; he did big celebrity rallies. Hillary, one kept hearing, didn't do as many public events, but did a lot of fund raising.
I'm the first to say that Hillary is a much nicer person than Trump. You can see it in all the footage. She lingers after a debate, rally or whatever and meets people, smiles at them whole heartedly. Trump clearly hates meeting people, let alone shaking hands; he's out of there immediately. She should've done a lot more hand shaking and talking.
It's unbelievable that these immense teams the Dems had put together were thinking they were at a point were they could do wild and weird stuff and try to take Arizona or Georgia. Start nibbling at the House majority. She should've done MI and WI.
I'm no fan of Michael Moore, but the Dems could've saved millions of dollars in useless work and just read his five point why Tump was going to win.
Again, I like Hillary; I think she's a much maligned person. But hearing that Chelsea is thinking of running for public office drives me nuts. Don't these people understand enough is enough?
Quote from: Herman on November 11, 2016, 10:53:17 AM
First, rioting teenagers aren't shooting people, or strangling them in broad daylight. They're just rioting. The recipe is to try and restrain them and after a couple of days they'll go home.
Second, it's sad you don't see the difference between a bunch of kids yelling and being obnoxious, and police officers who have sworn to uphold the law, shooting black folk in the back and planting guns.
First, the kids are 'only' burning cloth and smashing windows and cars.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/students-american-university-protest-trump/2016/11/10/id/758221/
Hundreds of students at American University gathered on campus to protest Donald Trump's presidential victory and used matches and lighters to torch several American flags.Second, while there may be abuses by police officers, it is no excuse to, again, destroy property and smash windows and cars. This kind of anarchy doesn't benefit anyone except those who would destroy society.
Quote from: Herman on November 11, 2016, 11:18:08 AM
Again, I like Hillary; I think she's a much maligned person. But hearing that Chelsea is thinking of running for public office drives me nuts. Don't these people understand enough is enough?
Chelsea just strikes me as extremely phony, can't see myself voting for her for anything.
It's easy to bash Hil now that she lost. We often don't see it takes a lot of courage to put yourself out there running for highly publicized office. Your entire life is under the microscope, everything you have ever done is under scrutiny. It is so easy for the rest of us who to stand on the side and criticize.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 08:09:56 AM
A rather weak rejoinder, I must say. Of course I understand one is a subset of the other. That's why I made the distinction and used the phrase "in general". Democrat tears are delicious.
I don't really care whether you think my rejoinder is "weak". It's logical. My point is simply that when you claim that "in general" you don't think other human beings are here for your amusement, you are engaging in an exercise of self-justification to mask the true answer that you do in fact think this.
You just want to claim that somehow it makes you a better person that you pick and choose whose emotions you toy with. That you're
discriminating in who you decide to behave like a jerk towards.
I can think of any number of offences, either moral or criminal, where the cry "but I didn't do it to EVERYBODY I met" wouldn't cut the mustard. You do do it. There's really no point to attempting a justification by saying that you don't spend every waking moment doing it. For anyone you choose to troll, the situation is not improved by the knowledge that there are other people you decide not to troll.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 11, 2016, 12:54:54 PMIt is so easy for the rest of us who to stand on the side and criticize.
Sure is, but never forget that people who run for president choose to get in the arena, that they are not wallflowers, and that they are wildly ambitious. Public scrutiny and criticism comes with the territory, and Clinton knew that all along after almost forty years in public life, and longer if you count her youthful work.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 02:46:17 PMFor anyone you choose to troll, the situation is not improved by the knowledge that there are other people you decide not to troll.
Ah, yes, there it is. Trolling. I got it now.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 02:50:46 PM
Ah, yes, there it is. Trolling. I got it now.
Actually I don't think you do. I don't think you have made any attempt to grasp the nuance between the parts of what you've written that I consider completely legitimate commentary, and the bits where you've openly admitted to trying to poke and prod people's emotions because it's fun.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 02:54:32 PM
Actually I don't think you do. I don't think you have made any attempt to grasp the nuance between the parts of what you've written that I consider completely legitimate commentary, and the bits where you've openly admitted to trying to poke and prod people's emotions because it's fun.
Gee whiz, mom.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 03:01:47 PM
Gee whiz, mom.
Accountability's a bitch, isn't it. What was that you said? Oh yeah. "Words have consequences". I agree.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 03:06:02 PM
Accountability's a bitch, isn't it. What was that you said? Oh yeah. "Words have consequences". I agree.
Huh?
Quote from: Herman on November 11, 2016, 10:53:17 AM
First, rioting teenagers aren't shooting people, or strangling them in broad daylight. They're just rioting. The recipe is to try and restrain them and after a couple of days they'll go home.
Second, it's sad you don't see the difference between a bunch of kids yelling and being obnoxious, and police officers who have sworn to uphold the law, shooting black folk in the back and planting guns.
A wonderful cartoon in our national daily today..."groups of protesters carrying placards saying 'peace, love, respect, tolerance and compassion' running after a man holding a "democracy" sign while the crowd screams "kill the fascist".
Personally, I agree with these sentiments expressed today:
The left is sensing that people are no longer meekly following the script as they used to. After the disappointment of Obama, the fetish of minorities has lost its shine. Being black hasn't turned out to be the magic elixir that brings social harmony and eliminates resentment. Now the idea that a woman just for being a woman will also revitalise a nation is just not credible anymore. It's merely another novelty item and the customer is no longer buying.
People have seen a link with Brexit and they are correct in fearing that connection. What we are seeing is the gradual collapse of the progressive project and the complete mental separation between ordinary people and the elites. The function of elites is to articulate the aspirations of the people and give them an intellectually coherent form, that's what the Greeks called a demagogue (he who speaks with the voice of people). But demagogues often become insincere manipulators and eventually they don't even bother hiding their contempt for the common man (the deplorables). The elites PC religion is falling apart and shown for the emotional blackmail that it is. Their cult of environmentalism is increasingly rejected. No one has talked about green issues during the campaign even though this is supposed to be the issue of our times. Multiculturalism and internationalism are not believable as ways to seek social concord anymore. People sense they are attempts of uprooting the individual and denying him his birthright. Finally, the gender madness reveals the sick consequences of treating the human being as a toy of your desires.
The left is panicking and this can only be good; even if Clinton had won, the authority is gone and the legitimacy would have been contested by a people who no longer obey.
Quote from: Tritone on November 11, 2016, 03:08:53 PMWhat we are seeing is the gradual collapse of the progressive project
Beware of triumphalism. The Dems will regroup and come back with a redesigned message and new messengers. (New at the national level.) Rove once talked of permanent majorities and Clinton was thought inevitable. "[T]he dream shall never die", and all that.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 03:21:20 PM
HA!
Looks like you missed the point of my post, or you cannot contextualize. (Actually, your last several posts demonstrate a possible inability to contextualize.) My statement about Democrat tears tasting delicious is a partisan joke - and one that may well offend some delicate sensibilities - but I hold no illusion that the Dems are done for, or that they will not regroup, or that there has been some massive realignment of politics. Triumphalism leads to laziness and sloppiness. Now is the time for Dems to regroup, and it is the time for Republicans to redouble their efforts to defeat Dems in all upcoming elections, with a special focus on holding statehouses under Republican control while gaining new ones for the even more important election coming in 2020.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 03:15:19 PM
Beware of triumphalism. The Dems will regroup and come back with a redesigned message and new messengers. (New at the national level.) Rove once talked of permanent majorities and Clinton was thought inevitable. "[T]he dream shall never die", and all that.
Don't get me wrong: I don't like or admire Trump. But, as a man wrote in today's national paper letters section, "I used to have an ideology once but I couldn't afford it; now I'm working for $20 an hour as a cab driver."
People aren't going to go back to pc propaganda. The game's up.
Quote from: Todd on November 11, 2016, 03:39:04 PM
Looks like you missed the point of my post, or you cannot contextualize. (Actually, your last several posts demonstrate a possible inability to contextualize.) My statement about Democrat tears tasting delicious is a partisan joke - and one that may well offend some delicate sensibilities - but I hold no illusion that the Dems are done for, or that they will not regroup, or that there has been some massive realignment of politics. Triumphalism leads to laziness and sloppiness. Now is the time for Dems to regroup, and it is the time for Republicans to redouble their efforts to defeat Dems in all upcoming elections, with a special focus on holding statehouses under Republican control while gaining new ones for the even more important election coming in 2020.
Well, no argument there. The ability to gerrymander congressional districts is undoubtedly important. And one of the most astonishing things about the American version of democracy.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 10, 2016, 08:16:27 AM
As I posted on the other thread Donald Trump could be the first real post-partisan president we've ever had. He is not beholden to either party and some of his policies cross party lines. He and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren agree on some policies and I am hoping that the Democrats can transcend their own partisanship and work with him to gain passage on policies the Republican leadership currently opposes.
Non-partisan leadership is what most people want. That is why many voters overlooked his rhetoric because they saw him opposing both parties on things that are percieved as better for the country.
I am confident that Sanders and Warren will support any measures that match their goals, but it is difficult for minority-party Senators and Representatives to pass bills that are opposed by the majority leadership. That's just how Congress works.
What we are likely to get over the next 2-4 years are all of the things Trump, McConnell, and Ryan agree on. It may bear little resemblance to Trump's campaign promises.
Quote from: Pat B on November 11, 2016, 05:27:11 PMIt may bear little resemblance to Trump's campaign promises.
The hell you say!
Quote from: Pat B on November 11, 2016, 05:27:11 PMWhat we are likely to get over the next 2-4 years are all of the things Trump, McConnell, and Ryan agree on. It may bear little resemblance to Trump's campaign promises.
Why do you think that Trump's spiteful temperament won't apply to Ryan and McConnell? We may well have bitter personal conflict and gridlock in Washington once more.
Quote from: Tritone on November 11, 2016, 03:57:54 PM
Don't get me wrong: I don't like or admire Trump. But, as a man wrote in today's national paper letters section, "I used to have an ideology once but I couldn't afford it; now I'm working for $20 an hour as a cab driver."
The point is what?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 11, 2016, 06:08:12 PM
The point is what?
That it's mostly the affluent and comfortable middle class which can afford Ideologies like political correctness and identity politics. The rest of us have been just too hard at work supporting our families to worry about peoples' hurt feelings, safe spaces, trigger warnings, minority interests and the rest of that bullshit.
What has really got up my nose in the last decade or so is this notion of so-called "white privilege". We've been told, especially men, to "check your privilege". Well, you know what? This demographic is one and the same who died in its millions in two world wars (and then some more) to preserve the freedoms. That was almost entirely their PRIVILEGE. And the people who've grown up (or have they?) to enjoy those catastrophically hard-won freedoms to then sling accusations of 'white privilege' back in their faces and try to shut them down whenever they tried to express an opinion which wasn't in line with the left wing orthodoxy and its Thought Police is just cheap. And it's rubbish and, of course anti-democratic because it robs people of their freedom to speak.
They're such hypocrites too!! Sarah Palin was never defended against misogyny and sexism when mercilessly ridiculed on TV some years back. The feminists fell silent because they choose their victims very carefully, along partisan lines. And nobody bawled for Hillary that she lost the nomination 8 years ago "because she was a woman". Why? Because a precious minority member became president and Hillary's concerns were sidelined. Not so now: we hear the shrill and cheap cries of "she was robbed because she was a woman". Infantile.
The game's up. You just don't hear this drivel coming from the Right of politics. And before you smirk, Trump is not now nor ever belonged to the traditional political parties.
Quote from: Tritone on November 11, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
Well, you know what? This demographic is one and the same who died in its millions in two world wars (and then some more) to preserve the freedoms. That was almost entirely their PRIVILEGE.
...you think there's something significant in the fact that most of the people who died in wars in Europe were European?
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 07:15:51 PM
...you think there's something significant in the fact that most of the people who died in wars in Europe were European?
Correct. And these 'white' privileged people enlisted and went to war, dying in their many millions, to save your bony hide. Your comments are not only insulting to relatives of mine who died but deeply offensive, arrogant and condescending.
But I can see the extent of your cultural relativist indoctrination that you think there's nothing significant about that. Enter Donald Trump.
Quote from: Tritone on November 11, 2016, 09:32:17 PM
Correct. And these 'white' privileged people enlisted and went to war, dying in their many millions, to save your bony hide. Your comments are not only insulting to relatives of mine who died but deeply offensive, arrogant and condescending.
But I can see the extent of your cultural relativist indoctrination that you think there's nothing significant about that. Enter Donald Trump.
I can't see what's insulting about my question. It's merely trying to get you to think about possible reasons why most of the people who would die in a European war were Europeans. The people they were fighting against, to save "my bony hide", were also Europeans. More on that later.
I don't know why it's all about your relatives and not about mine, or about anyone else's. I also don't know why you're ignoring the reality that the British colonies, for example, supplied plenty of soldiers according to whichever race existed in that particular colony.
But most of all I don't know why you think that what is most important about the many many people who fought is not what they did, but the colour of their skin. Especially not when what many of them were fighting against in WWII was a regime that placed a great deal of importance on skin colour. That freedom you say they were fighting for? To me part of it was the freedom to not be morally classified according to ethnic origin. They weren't fighting for the glory of the Aryan race, they were fighting against it.
You appear to have a great deal of anger bubbling inside you that anyone should be ungrateful about what white people did. The problem is that you don't emphasise what they did, you emphasise that they were white while doing it.
You also seem to have turned up on this forum for the express purpose of celebrating how great it will be to be free to look down on everyone who is different from you.
By the way, I have a classic English complexion and my family is so pale that it wasn't immediately noticed that my cousin was albino. So I sure as hell don't have any beef with white people. But I also live in one of the most multicultural countries on earth (the proportion of foreign-born people here is over twice the proportion in the United States) and so I'm completely used to living and working amongst a wide variety of people. It's not that I dislike white people, it's that I dislike the idea that Anglo-Saxons such as myself somehow have ownership of the place and everyone else is just a visitor. The precise date that someone's ancestors might have arrived in a location isn't a very good indicator of belonging to a nation, and around here practically everyone's ancestors turned up pretty recently anyway.
As for "cultural relativism", it's simply that I understand enough about how cultures work to know that most things that people treat as having existed since time immemorial don't date much further back than their grandparents' childhoods.
The fact that the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada are all so significantly different to each other makes it very hard for me to believe that there's an inherent white British culture which has been faithfully preserved and which must continue to be passed down unaltered. We've diverged over the space of only a couple of centuries. We will keep developing and changing. There's plenty to discuss about how exactly we will change, but the one thing we won't do is stand still. People born a century after me in Australia won't live like me no matter what happens. On recent evidence, for example, they'll probably all celebrate Halloween which during my childhood was unthinkable.
Quote from: Tritone on November 11, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
That it's mostly the affluent and comfortable middle class which can afford Ideologies like political correctness and identity politics. The rest of us have been just too hard at work supporting our families to worry about peoples' hurt feelings, safe spaces, trigger warnings, minority interests and the rest of that bullshit.
What has really got up my nose in the last decade or so is this notion of so-called "white privilege". We've been told, especially men, to "check your privilege". Well, you know what? This demographic is one and the same who died in its millions in two world wars (and then some more) to preserve the freedoms. That was almost entirely their PRIVILEGE. And the people who've grown up (or have they?) to enjoy those catastrophically hard-won freedoms to then sling accusations of 'white privilege' back in their faces and try to shut them down whenever they tried to express an opinion which wasn't in line with the left wing orthodoxy and its Thought Police is just cheap. And it's rubbish and, of course anti-democratic because it robs people of their freedom to speak.
They're such hypocrites too!! Sarah Palin was never defended against misogyny and sexism when mercilessly ridiculed on TV some years back. The feminists fell silent because they choose their victims very carefully, along partisan lines. And nobody bawled for Hillary that she lost the nomination 8 years ago "because she was a woman". Why? Because a precious minority member became president and Hillary's concerns were sidelined. Not so now: we hear the shrill and cheap cries of "she was robbed because she was a woman". Infantile.
The game's up. You just don't hear this drivel coming from the Right of politics. And before you smirk, Trump is not now nor ever belonged to the traditional political parties.
For some reason (it would be interesting to study this phenomenon in our culture)* the underdog status is very appealing. Larry Nichols pointed out that Hillary's fatal mistake vis-a-vis Obama was she was projecting herself as the "anointed one". Obama of course cashed in his victim class chips to his great advantage twice.
Oddly enough, a billionaire who espoused the voiceless, the true underdogs, those who have been systematically been crushed by the system, who have to die in their wars, who have been rendered unsafe in their own streets and houses, and whose moral and religious values have been bulldozed by political correctness, actually prevailed over contrived and often fake victims.
*David vs. Goliath may have been an archetype.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 10:51:53 PM
Oddly enough, a billionaire who espoused the voiceless, the true underdogs, those who have been systematically been crushed by the system, who have to die in their wars, who have been rendered unsafe in their own streets and houses, and whose moral and religious values have been bulldozed by political correctness, actually prevailed over contrived and often fake victims.
It is exactly because it's a billionaire that I find it odd. I've got no problem with the notion that the voiceless need a voice. What I still can't fathom is that they couldn't find a more suitable mouthpiece.
EDIT: Nor does he make the slightest sense as a conveyor of traditional moral and religious values.
Quote from: Tritone on November 11, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
That it's mostly the affluent and comfortable middle class which can afford Ideologies like political correctness and identity politics. The rest of us have been just too hard at work supporting our families to worry about peoples' hurt feelings, safe spaces, trigger warnings, minority interests and the rest of that bullshit.
you seem to have plenty of time to search for a classical music group and post your alt-right bile all the time.
one of the tiresome things of the alt-right trolls is they always preface their posts with masks like "I have voted D all my life", or: "I'm just a hard-working stiff, but I need to tell you this..."
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 11:11:47 PM
It is exactly because it's a billionaire that I find it odd. I've got no problem with the notion that the voiceless need a voice. What I still can't fathom is that they couldn't find a more suitable mouthpiece.
EDIT: Nor does he make the slightest sense as a conveyor of traditional moral and religious values.
+1
I'd be quite interested to know, actually, which traditional moral and religious values Trump is supposed to embody.
Because I tend to see a guy who would think the Beatitudes are the kind of thing a Loser would say.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/blessed-are-the-poor-wrong-matthew-5-3-5181077.png)
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 11:28:22 PM
I'd be quite interested to know, actually, which traditional moral and religious values Trump is supposed to embody.
Because I tend to see a guy who would think the Beatitudes are the kind of thing a Loser would say.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/blessed-are-the-poor-wrong-matthew-5-3-5181077.png)
Yes, I'd be ashamed to hector people as "privileged white" when millions of them died defending freedoms. But it's the contemptuous tone of 'generation snowflake' and their safe spaces which has created the arrogance to make assumptions about 'the greatest generation' which (and you obviously do not know, so listen up!) is how those who fought and died for your bony hide in WW2 are now regarded.
The sneering and contemptuous Left doesn't care a damn about that. They're too busy being, well, privileged. Their endless little victim groups and cadres of minorities are conveniently herded together to form a flank of sad losers. Trouble is, they're just not intelligent enough to know that not all people in all groups think the same. Just because people are gay doesn't mean they all think the same - politically or otherwise. Ask Milo Yiannopoulous!!
And if you don't get the Trump phenomenon and why people voted the way they did you need to fasten your seatbelts. Perhaps it would be easier for you to go onto the streets, like your fellow jaded Lefties, and burn the flag and effigies. Your progressive project is running out of steam, so stand aside. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.
Quote from: Tritone on November 11, 2016, 11:40:57 PM
Yes, I'd be ashamed to hector people as "privileged white" when millions of them died defending freedoms. But it's the contemptuous tone of 'generation snowflake' and their safe spaces which has created the arrogance to make assumptions about 'the greatest generation' which (and you obviously do not know, so listen up!) is how those who fought and died for your bony hide in WW2 are now regarded.
The sneering and contemptuous Left doesn't care a damn about that. They're too busy being, well, privileged. Their endless little victim groups and cadres of minorities are conveniently herded together to form a flank of sad losers. Trouble is, they're just not intelligent enough to know that not all people in all groups think the same. Just because people are gay doesn't mean they all think the same - politically or otherwise. Ask Milo Yiannopoulous!!
And if you don't get the Trump phenomenon and why people voted the way they did you need to fasten your seatbelts. Perhaps it would be easier for you to go onto the streets, like your fellow jaded Lefties, and burn the flag and effigies. Your progressive project is running out of steam, so stand aside. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution.
None of this tirade responds to what I asked. Bye.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 11, 2016, 11:28:22 PM
I'd be quite interested to know, actually, which traditional moral and religious values Trump is supposed to embody.
A person's rights to the fruits of his or her labor. Not only recently, but in interviews in the 80's, Trump questioned the outsourcing of American jobs and other countries being favored over the US due to non-parity of tariffs.
Chopping away at the overgrown labyrinthine bureaucracy that discourages any business, not matter what its size.
Recognizing the freedom of conscience to opt out of political correctness. He did promise to protect religious freedom which is in grave danger, very much appreciated by the Evangelists. Also not unnoticed by Christian voters was virtually his being the first politician who not only spoke out against late term abortion but presented it in its grisly reality in front of tens of millions at the first debate. If anything the lowest, most unprotected underclass is the preborn.
Traditional American values are self-reliance and independence, not sucking on the teats of a centralized government who "distribute the wealth". The latter was being preached by Sanders, more openly than Clinton, for which I sigh in relief that he dropped out sooner than later.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 12, 2016, 12:03:38 AM
A person's rights to the fruits of his or her labor. Not only recently, but in interviews in the 80's, Trump questioned the outsourcing of American jobs and other countries being favored over the US due to non-parity of tariffs.
Chopping away at the overgrown labyrinthine bureaucracy that discourages any business, not matter what its size.
Recognizing the freedom of conscience to opt out of political correctness. He did promise to protect religious freedom which is in grave danger, very much appreciated by the Evangelists. Also not unnoticed by Christian voters was virtually his being the first politician who not only spoke out against late term abortion but presented it in its grisly reality in front of tens of millions at the first debate. If anything the lowest, most unprotected underclass is the preborn.
Traditional American values are self-reliance and independence, not sucking on the teats of a centralized government who "distribute the wealth". The latter was being preached by Sanders, more openly than Clinton, for which I sigh in relief that he dropped out sooner than later.
Though luck for impoverished Trump supporters living in rural areas and the "Rust Belt", I guess? 8)
If Trump is going to do anything for them, and they are actually the ones that delivered him the presidency, you bet that will result in a certain amount of redistribution of wealth by the State. But of course Republicans in Congress could try to fight him on every step of the way.... and dig their own political graves as a consequence...
And I don't think Trump is going to clamp down on abortion in any way, shape or form....
I would be quite surprised if he would ever mention it again.
Q
Quote from: Tritone on November 11, 2016, 06:39:58 PMWhat has really got up my nose in the last decade or so is this notion of so-called "white privilege". We've been told, especially men, to "check your privilege". Well, you know what? This demographic is one and the same who died in its millions in two world wars (and then some more) to preserve the freedoms. That was almost entirely their PRIVILEGE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_armed_forces_during_World_War_II
There were plenty of blacks (10% of the armed forces) and Hispanics fighting too, only to return back in the United States and not be able to sit in the same parts of the bus or restaurant as the white people, and with their separate entrances to businesses.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 12, 2016, 12:03:38 AMTraditional American values are self-reliance and independence, not sucking on the teats of a centralized government who "distribute the wealth". The latter was being preached by Sanders, more openly than Clinton, for which I sigh in relief that he dropped out sooner than later.
Traditional American values date back to the time before the industrial revolution and CEO's.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 12, 2016, 12:03:38 AM
A person's rights to the fruits of his or her labor.
How can Trump "emboy" that value, when he stiffed contractors every single time and paid them only a fraction of what the original deal was?
I do wonder how many of you, guys, actually have daily relationships and intercourse with "rednecks with an IQ less than 90", ie with people who
(1) do not hold a college degree
(2) cannot tell the difference between Bach and Bartok at the point of a gun
(3) have never heard about Voltaire, Marx or Marcuse, let alone read them
(4) struggle day in, day out to make ends meet
and
(5) adhere to, and agree with, traditional social values.
In other words, gentlemen, I do wonder how many of you have ever lived outside, and experienced, anything else than a "safe space", "closed bubble", "self serving" "liberal" environment.
No offense meant to anyone but based on the posts here my uneducated guess (pun intended) is: very few of you.
;D ;D ;D
Count me in - and in many, various ways.
I disagree with any IQ implications, of course - in fact much of the IQ concept.
Quote from: Turner on November 12, 2016, 09:20:55 AM
I disagree with the IQ implication/concept, of course.
"Ignorant rednecks with an IQ less than 90" is an almost exact quote from a GMG member, approved by another one --- I can dig them up if challenged to the contrary and provided they don´t delete their posts. ;D
Quote from: Tritone on November 11, 2016, 11:40:57 PM
Yes, I'd be ashamed to hector people as "privileged white" when millions of them died defending freedoms. But it's the contemptuous tone of 'generation snowflake' and their safe spaces which has created the arrogance to make assumptions about 'the greatest generation' which (and you obviously do not know, so listen up!) is how those who fought and died for your bony hide in WW2 are now regarded.
You are aware that the vast majority of people who fought and died "defending our freedoms" in the European theater of WWII were citizens of the Soviet Union, right, and that not all of them were white? They suffered easily twenty times the casualties of the U.S. forces.
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 12, 2016, 09:32:05 AM
You are aware that the vast majority of people who fought and died "defending our freedoms" in the European theater of WWII were citizens of the Soviet Union, right, and that not all of them were white? They suffered easily twenty times the casualties of the U.S. forces.
While it is true that the then Soviet Union citizens who fought and died in WWII outnumbered the Western nations ones, it is not true that they died "defending your freedoms". Had Stalin had his way, you´d have counted yourself as just another one of the Worldwide Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 09:37:51 AM
While it is true that the then Soviet Union citizens who fought and died in WWII outnumbered the Western nations ones, it is not true that they died "defending your freedoms". Had Stalin had his way, you´d have counted yourself as just another one of the Worldwide Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. ;D
And the Western Allied leaders considered not stopping at Berlin, but continuing to Russia. In any case, I don't see how US politics should be affected by who fought in which war 70 or 100 years ago.
Quote from: North Star on November 12, 2016, 09:43:46 AM
And the Western Allied leaders considered not stopping at Berlin, but continuing to Russia.
Did they really? Who among them?
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 09:51:41 AM
Did they really? Who among them?
Churchill (Operation Unthinkable) and Patton.
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 09:37:51 AM
While it is true that the then Soviet Union citizens who fought and died in WWII outnumbered the Western nations ones, it is not true that they died "defending your freedoms". Had Stalin had his way, you´d have counted yourself as just another one of the Worldwide Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. ;D
They were our allies and their blood and suffering are the primary reason so few (relatively) of us had to die and suffer throughout the war. When they broke the siege of Stalingrad the outcome of the war was more or less inevitable, and that was more than a year before D-Day. So yes, they died defending our freedoms (whether they knew it or not) — and their homeland and their families. Stalin's wish list doesn't enter into it.
Quote from: Que on November 12, 2016, 03:21:50 AM
Though luck for impoverished Trump supporters living in rural areas and the "Rust Belt", I guess? 8)
If Trump is going to do anything for them, and they are actually the ones that delivered him the presidency...
That's what many people are saying, but I'm not so sure. There just aren't that many rural voters now. The typical Trump voter is suburban and currently earns a decent-to-good income. I suspect they like the
idea of domestic manufacturing more than they actually want to work at a factory. And they aren't really going to care when the manufacturing jobs don't actually materialize.
The biggest problem for Democrats was turnout. Trump actually got fewer votes than McCain or Romney, but Democratic turnout was way down. In hindsight that's not really surprising since Clinton did not have much of a message beyond "did you hear what Trump said?"
Quote from: BasilValentine on November 12, 2016, 10:10:38 AM
They were our allies
Were they your allies when they signed the Hitler-Stalin pact (ideologically misnomed as Ribentropp-Molotov) too?
Were they your allies when they invaded Poland
simultaneously with Hitler too?
Will you Americans ever learn that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is one of the most dangerous falsehoods ever?
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 09:11:11 AM
(1) do not hold a college degree
(2) cannot tell the difference between Bach and Bartok at the point of a gun
(3) have never heard about Voltaire, Marx or Marcuse, let alone read them
(4) struggle day in, day out to make ends meet
and
(5) adhere to, and agree with, traditional social values.
I don't know people's IQs, and I know few rednecks (though one of my neighbors certainly and proudly is one), but I interact with some people meeting these criteria every weekday. And I live in a deep blue part of Oregon.
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 10:21:39 AM
Were they your allies when they signed the Hitler-Stalin pact (ideologically misnomed as Ribentropp-Molotov) too?
Were they your allies when they invaded Poland simultaneously with Hitler too?
Will you Americans ever learn that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is one of the most dangerous falsehoods ever?
Stalin was a fool. He crippled the Soviet armed forces during the purges of 1937 by wiping out the cream of the military elite. And he was stupid enough to misunderstand Hitler's intentions. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union's contribution to the war effort in blood and treasure dwarfs that of the western powers. Obviously, we didn't trust our Soviet allies in the least.
Quote from: Pat B on November 12, 2016, 10:12:23 AMI suspect they like the idea of domestic manufacturing more than they actually want to work at a factory. And they aren't really going to care when the manufacturing jobs don't actually materialize.
Precisely. I am not helping put my son through college, nor my daughter in a few years, so that they can get manufacturing jobs. I don't know anyone else who is, either. There are plentiful manufacturing jobs where I live - Intel has multiple gigantic fabs here - but the work is tedious and mind-numbing, and while the pay and benefits are good, it's not where the action or the money are at. A few decades from now, I suspect my children will speak of an idealized form of manufacturing as some people still do with agricultural work now.
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 10:21:39 AM
Were they your allies when they signed the Hitler-Stalin pact (ideologically misnomed as Ribentropp-Molotov) too?
I am curious why you say this. The actual name of this document is "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (
Nichtangriffsvertrag zwischen Deutschland und der Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken; Договор о ненападении между Германией и Советским Союзом). Calling it "Hitler-Stalin pact" is just as inaccurate as calling it "Molotov-Ribbentrop pact."
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 12, 2016, 12:02:07 PM
I am curious why you say this. The actual name of this document is "Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (Nichtangriffsvertrag zwischen Deutschland und der Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken; Договор о ненападении между Германией и Советским Союзом). Calling it "Hitler-Stalin pact" is just as inaccurate as calling it "Molotov-Ribbentrop pact."
Oh, come on! You know very well that it was an agreement between Hitler and Stalin to partition Eastern Europe in corresponding spheres of influence. The official name is absolutely irrelevant and assigning any importance to it is like taking seriously the "democratic" in "German Democratic Republic" or the "people" in "People´s Republic of China".
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 12:08:40 PM
Oh, come on! You know very well that it was an agreement between Hitler and Stalin to partition Eastern Europe in corresponding spheres of influence.
Well yeah...so what? Hitler and Stalin were the leaders who initiated the process; Molotov and Ribbentrop were the foreign ministers who signed it. Amounts to the same thing.
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 12:08:40 PM
The official name is absolutely irrelevant and assigning any importance to it is like taking seriously the "democratic" in "German Democratic Republic" or the "people" in "People´s Republic of China".
Whether we like it or not, those are/were the names of those countries. "Red China," "Mainland China" or "Communist China" are just colloquialisms.
Well it's nice to see people recognising wars are complicated.
Quote from: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 09:11:11 AM
I do wonder how many of you, guys, actually have daily relationships and intercourse with "rednecks with an IQ less than 90", ie with people who
(1) do not hold a college degree
(2) cannot tell the difference between Bach and Bartok at the point of a gun
(3) have never heard about Voltaire, Marx or Marcuse, let alone read them
(4) struggle day in, day out to make ends meet
and
(5) adhere to, and agree with, traditional social values.
In other words, gentlemen, I do wonder how many of you have ever lived outside, and experienced, anything else than a "safe space", "closed bubble", "self serving" "liberal" environment.
No offense meant to anyone but based on the posts here my uneducated guess (pun intended) is: very few of you.
;D ;D ;D
I've worked at a tire and automotive store for most of my life. I'd say all of my coworkers, and most of my family, me excepted, fit #s 1-4, really don't know about five, some "traditional" values are pretty appalling, in any case. Don't know (or care) about their IQs.
I didn't write this but I wish I did; and there has to be a better response than "troll". That's the bankrupt response:
The left is panicking because they realise Hillary's defeat means people are beginning to break free from the PC prison. This is a victory for those who refuse to feel shame for loving their country and its culture. For those who think that dignity is a person's birthright, not a gift from the benevolence of the elites. For those who refuse to be treated as a herd, incapable of moral autonomy.
But it's also a victory for all the ethnic minorities who refuse to be used as either cultural souvenirs or tools for the moral gratification of the left. And it's also a victory for women who reject the witness protection life that feminism offers them. A life of perpetual fear and resentment towards men.
There was never any consensus about the whole eco-feminist-multicultural-PC concoction; it was always an imposition from above that many people accepted because they found no outlet to challenge the official dogma. As society was made to conform and all political parties dutifully caved in to every demand of the new cleresy, it seemed dissent had been eliminated for good. But it was still there and eventually it has come out. Brexit was the watershed moment and now we have the American rejection of the PC project. A refusal to treat the land, the people, the laws and the economy as the plaything of the self-appointed elites.
The great Stefan Zweig entitled his biography of Erasmus "The right to heresy" and Americans, like Brexiters have exercised their right to heresy and recovered their ancient Saxon yearning for liberty. There is a comprehensive task of demolition ahead: The EU, relativism, multiculturalism, Obamacare and foreign aid.
Neither narcissistic celebrities, nor CNN, BBC nor the rest of Pravda media have been able to persuade people. Activists, intellectuals and other self-proclaimed moral leaders of society have equally failed in their attempts to shame dissenters into compliance. Their vision belongs in the morgue, right next to the cold corpse of Marxism.
No, "troll" is the response to a person who turns up on a forum and posts absolutely nothing else than a series of inflammatory remarks on exactly the same subject, repeatedly.
Your posting history is available for all to see. It does not indicate you want anything else from this community other than to triumphantly declare the end of "political correctness" to your new-found audience. If I think you're a troll, it's because you've shown no sign at all that you want to talk about the main topic of this forum, which is classical music.
Besides, as Clinton won the popular vote, any narrative that suggests a wholesale rejection of the Democrats is quite flawed.
I fully accept that the Electoral College is what matters and, unlike some people, I don't think a simple national first-past-the-post system is necessarily a good idea just because twice in recent years it would have changed the result. But don't kid yourself that Trump swept to a comprehensive victory.
Quote from: Tritone on November 14, 2016, 02:17:02 AM
Their vision belongs in the morgue, right next to the cold corpse of Marxism.
Revolting against the established elite seem very Marxist to me. Otherwise what orfeo said. Now please demonstrate that you are here for the boards purpose, and not only to post inflammatory political posts.
Quote from: The new erato on November 14, 2016, 02:38:14 AM
Revolting against the established elite seem very Marxist to me.
It´s been done countless times in recorded history. Nothing new and nothing Marxist about it, actually. :D
Quote from: Tritone on November 14, 2016, 02:17:02 AM
I didn't write this but I wish I did; and there has to be a better response than "troll". That's the bankrupt response:
The left is panicking because they realise Hillary's defeat means people are beginning to break free from the PC prison. This is a victory for those who refuse to feel shame for loving their country and its culture. For those who think that dignity is a person's birthright, not a gift from the benevolence of the elites. For those who refuse to be treated as a herd, incapable of moral autonomy.
But it's also a victory for all the ethnic minorities who refuse to be used as either cultural souvenirs or tools for the moral gratification of the left. And it's also a victory for women who reject the witness protection life that feminism offers them. A life of perpetual fear and resentment towards men.
There was never any consensus about the whole eco-feminist-multicultural-PC concoction; it was always an imposition from above that many people accepted because they found no outlet to challenge the official dogma. As society was made to conform and all political parties dutifully caved in to every demand of the new cleresy, it seemed dissent had been eliminated for good. But it was still there and eventually it has come out. Brexit was the watershed moment and now we have the American rejection of the PC project. A refusal to treat the land, the people, the laws and the economy as the plaything of the self-appointed elites.
The great Stefan Zweig entitled his biography of Erasmus "The right to heresy" and Americans, like Brexiters have exercised their right to heresy and recovered their ancient Saxon yearning for liberty. There is a comprehensive task of demolition ahead: The EU, relativism, multiculturalism, Obamacare and foreign aid.
Neither narcissistic celebrities, nor CNN, BBC nor the rest of Pravda media have been able to persuade people. Activists, intellectuals and other self-proclaimed moral leaders of society have equally failed in their attempts to shame dissenters into compliance. Their vision belongs in the morgue, right next to the cold corpse of Marxism.
The "right to heresy" is also the right to choose what values you want, not to have to accept an entire prepackaged set. For instance, one can be for equal pay for women but be against abortion as an unquestioned right or that religious orders should pay for contraception for its employees. One can accept non-discrimination of some sexual minorities but not to allow men in girls' bathrooms. It's as though if you accept one premise, you are obliged to take the whole alphabet soup without questioning. No thanks!
I am personally glad that the idea of voting in order to give someone with minority status a chance failed this time around. The subtext reinforced by actual numbers is that it was a dud in 2008 and 2012.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 14, 2016, 02:36:58 AM
Besides, as Clinton won the popular vote, any narrative that suggests a wholesale rejection of the Democrats is quite flawed. I fully accept that the Electoral College is what matters and, unlike some people, I don't think a simple national first-past-the-post system is necessarily a good idea just because twice in recent years it would have changed the result. But don't kid yourself that Trump swept to a comprehensive victory.
If one subtracts the felons who voted (80,000 in Virginia), the aliens who were encouraged by Obama practically the day before and multiple voters bused in an out of cities, then Hillary probably did not have a plurality.
59 million or so votes, coming virtually out of nowhere without the support of the party who nominated him or by the entrenched media, is nothing to sneeze at.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 14, 2016, 02:53:49 AM
If one subtracts the felons who voted (80,000 in Virginia), the aliens who were encouraged by Obama practically the day before and multiple voters bused in an out of cities, then Hillary probably did not have a plurality.
59 million or so votes, coming virtually out of nowhere without the support of the party who nominated him or by the entrenched media, is nothing to sneeze at.
1. I didn't say I was sneezing at them.
2. If one fiddles with the figures, one can prove anything. I do find it bizarrely amusing that people constantly question the integrity of democracy in the country that claims to lead the free world.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 14, 2016, 03:04:22 AM
1. I didn't say I was sneezing at them.
2. If one fiddles with the figures, one can prove anything. I do find it bizarrely amusing that people constantly question the integrity of democracy in the country that claims to lead the free world.
Integrity and democracy are two different animals. Those without the first can work any system to their advantage. When the President openly encourages non-citizens to vote, that is plain sedition.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 14, 2016, 02:53:49 AM
59 million or so votes, coming virtually out of nowhere without the support of the party who nominated him or by the entrenched media, is nothing to sneeze at.
If we sneeze, I suppose his hairpiece will blow off?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 14, 2016, 03:14:06 AM
Integrity and democracy are two different animals. Those without the first can work any system to their advantage. When the President openly encourages non-citizens to vote, that is plain sedition.
As opposed to when a Presidential candidate suggests that he won't accept the vote if he loses. That's just fine and dandy.
I know nothing about your claim that Obama encouraged non-citizens to vote. I certainly don't know whether the American system is sufficiently pathetic to enable non-citizens to vote, though if it does I'd say you have far bigger problems than what Obama might have said. Seriously, WTF is wrong with your electoral rolls?
But I also take anything you say with such a large quantity of salt, it affects my blood pressure. The real world is quite difficult enough to deal with, I simply don't have the time and energy to chase all your scatter-gun assertions that may or may not accord with the real world. Over and out.
Liberal democracy is decomposing into its constitutive parts: Over the next decades, much of the world will face a tragic choice between illiberal democracy, or democracy without rights, and undemocratic liberalism, or rights without democracy.
But if that comes to pass, it is unlikely to be the end point. For when illiberal democrats fall out of favor, they tend not to give up power. What starts as a genuine attempt to channel the voice of the people all too often degenerates into a straightforward dictatorship. A strikingly similar development might well befall undemocratic liberalism: Forced to defend itself against an onslaught of illiberal populists, it may have to resort to increasingly illiberal means to subdue its opponents. In the long run, both illiberal democracy and undemocratic liberalism may thus be headed for a remarkably similar fate: a gradual descent into an unvarnished form of dictatorship.
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/08/the_week_democracy_died_how_brexit_nice_turkey_and_trump_are_all_connected.html)
Excellent, illuminative and rather pessimistic article by Yascha Mounk, a Lecturer on Political Theory at Harvard University's Government Department. Long but well worth a reading.
Thanks Florestan. A good article indeed, albeit rather scary.
I wonder what, if anything, he thinks of Australian politics. We don't get a mention, not even with respect to our refugee policy...
Quote from: ørfeo on November 14, 2016, 03:38:47 AM
Thanks Florestan. A good article indeed, albeit rather scary.
Yes, there are so many scary precedents here. Respect for your opponents, a free press and transparency and no lying seem to be antidotes. Apply those to the US situation at your own liberty.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 14, 2016, 03:17:36 AM
As opposed to when a Presidential candidate suggests that he won't accept the vote if he loses. That's just fine and dandy.
He said he would have to consider it. In view of actual fraud that has already been documented, it is a reasonable assertion.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 14, 2016, 03:17:36 AM
I know nothing about your claim that Obama encouraged non-citizens to vote. I certainly don't know whether the American system is sufficiently pathetic to enable non-citizens to vote, though if it does I'd say you have far bigger problems than what Obama might have said. Seriously, WTF is wrong with your electoral rolls?
This indignant Miss characterized anyone living in the US as bonafide citizens because they "contribute something to the country". Obama went a step further by saying, "When you vote, you are a citizen yourself".
Either of the two criteria, working or voting, do not make a person a citizen in any country. This is reverse reasoning but also a tacit encouragement to go out there and vote for the preferred party.
https://www.youtube.com/v/7R_aT6ucGNQ
Quote from: ørfeo on November 14, 2016, 03:17:36 AM
But I also take anything you say with such a large quantity of salt, it affects my blood pressure. The real world is quite difficult enough to deal with, I simply don't have the time and energy to chase all your scatter-gun assertions that may or may not accord with the real world. Over and out.
Just because you say something doesn't make it right and I don't care if you re really a lawyer or not.
Quote from: The new erato on November 14, 2016, 03:43:41 AM
Respect for your opponents,
This is conspicuously lacking on both Right and Left.
Quote
a free press
If by that you mean freedom from governmental pressure and interference, I´d say that the US press, and the Western press in general, is mostly free.
If you mean freedom from ideological rigidity (both Right and Left), political partisanship (both Right and Left) and economic vested interests (both Right and Left), things get complicated. ;D
Quote
transparency
That´s rather vague. What do you mean by that?
Quote
no lying
To ask a politician (both Right and Left) not to lie is to ask her/him not to try to win elections, besides being akin to asking the Nile to flow southward. ;D
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 14, 2016, 03:54:20 AM
Just because you say something doesn't make it right
Right back at you.
http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
Video editing. By Fox. Who ever would have guessed.
Quote from: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 04:04:28 AM
This is conspicuously lacking on both Right and Left.
If by that you mean freedom from governmental pressure and interference, I´d say that the US press, and the Western press in general, is mostly free.
If you mean freedom from ideological rigidity (both Right and Left), political partisanship (both Right and Left) and economic vested interests (both Right and Left), things get complicated. ;D
That´s rather vague. What do you mean by that?
To ask a politician (both Right and Left) not to lie is to ask her/him not to try to win elections, besides being akin to asking the Nile to flow southward. ;D
Transparency: being clear about vested interests, as in the Clinton Foundation and Trumps alleged business empire and its varied interests, taxes and relations to Russia. Doesn't look to good......
Quote from: The new erato on November 14, 2016, 04:14:04 AM
Transparency: being clear about vested interests, as in the Clinton Foundation and Trumps alleged business empire and its varied interests, taxes and relations to Russia.
One cannot expect it from the politicians sthemselves. The only way to ensure it is to have strict laws and severe penalties* in this respect. Good luck in finding politicians who are willing to make them.
* I know of nothing more severe for a politician than being banned for life from running for, or being nominated to, any political office.
Quote from: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 02:47:34 AM
It´s been done countless times in recorded history. Nothing new and nothing Marxist about it, actually. :D
Indeed. For instance, George Washington was not a Marxist.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on November 14, 2016, 02:53:49 AM
If one subtracts the felons who voted (80,000 in Virginia), the aliens who were encouraged by Obama practically the day before and multiple voters bused in an out of cities, then Hillary probably did not have a plurality.
59 million or so votes, coming virtually out of nowhere without the support of the party who nominated him or by the entrenched media, is nothing to sneeze at.
Why would one wish to subtract felons? They have the same right to vote as anyone else, except in states where there is an attempt at voter suppression on partisan lines. There is no evidence of multiple voting, so far, except that idiot Trump supporter from Indiana. HRC's plurality is over 600,000 votes, which is more than a 1/2 percentage point. It isn't really close.
One of the biggest frauds that has been perpetuated is the idea of a "silent majority".
The fact is this society has always been a collection of minorities. One of the foundations of our Bill of Rights is that no matter who is in charge everyone of us has certain rights that can not be taken away from us.
Problems arise when one of these minorities gets it into their heads that they are the only true voice of America.
Quote from: arpeggio on November 14, 2016, 08:39:04 AMProblems arise when one of these minorities gets it into their heads that they are the only true voice of America.
That's where checks and balances come in. Trump will run into those quickly.
Quote from: arpeggio on November 14, 2016, 08:39:04 AM
One of the biggest frauds that has been perpetuated is the idea of a "silent majority".
The fact is this society has always been a collection of minorities. One of the foundations of our Bill of Rights is that no matter who is in charge everyone of us has certain rights that can not be taken away from us.
Problems arise when one of these minorities gets it into their heads that they are the only true voice of America.
The Russian word
bolshevik means, member of the majority.
The wry irony? Even at the time, they were in the minority. Just a loud minority.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 14, 2016, 08:46:59 AM
The Russian word bolshevik means, member of the majority.
The wry irony? Even at the time, they were in the minority. Just a loud minority.
It was the majority faction of the
Communist party members in a dispute in 1904 the name derives from, mensheviks being the minority faction of the party. The majority position wasn't constant, though.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 14, 2016, 08:46:59 AM
The Russian word bolshevik means, member of the majority.
The wry irony? Even at the time, they were in the minority. Just a loud minority.
This is one issue I do no understand. People are different. We all have our differences in politics, what music we listen to and what books we read. Yet we are always plagued by groups who can not understand this and lash out at anyone who is different than they are.
Quote from: North Star on November 14, 2016, 08:53:31 AM
It was the majority faction of the Communist party members in a dispute in 1904 the name derives from, mensheviks being the minority faction of the party. The majority position wasn't constant, though.
Ah, thanks! Dang my misremembering.
I wanted to find the most extreme, polemical response to Trump's victory I could, and I think I did it. As it happens, it also ties in beautifully with the title of the thread.
Said Noam Chomsky:
"On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand."
The whole interview is available here. (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/38360-trump-in-the-white-house-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky)
Thanks, Noam, you really made my day!
Quote from: Todd on November 14, 2016, 10:02:57 AM
the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Take that, Eichmann!
Quote from: Brian on November 14, 2016, 10:40:55 AM
Take that, Eichmann!
The Nazi's definitely win on evil intentions. However, if the most pessimistic predictions of climate change science are borne out (a big if) an abandonment of greenhouse gas controls could have more dire consequences for human civilization than even fascism.
As for evil intentions the Nazis "only" started with the idea to "make Germany great again", Eichmann's business came much later.
But I agree that exaggerating comparisons are disingenious and distracting from real problems a Trump presidency may bring.
Quote from: Jo498 on November 14, 2016, 11:14:14 PMBut I agree that exaggerating comparisons are disingenious and distracting from real problems a Trump presidency may bring.
Are they exaggerated? So far, Trump's ascend to power ticks all the history boxes. Seeing intelligent folks nonchalantly discuss economy while Trump gives a white supremacist an office in the WH, that gives me chills..
If you know a little about Weimar Germany you should know that they are wildly exaggerated. Do you think they will restitute the "Old South"? Segregation, slavery?
I don't know about that guy but I cannot imagine what he actually could do. Sure, the tensions in society will not improve. But apparently there was a need for "Black lives matter" under the *first black president*. Why and how should it get any worse and what would the central power in DC have to do with local problems/riots etc.? I simply do not know.
But I do not think it helps any side if one can think about the other as "Hitler". If this was remotely true, the "true Americans" (those few who aren't Nazis) would have to go into civil disobedience or civil war immediately because decisive measures are not only allowed but obligatory if the goal is to avoid another Hitler.
No, he's not another Hiler, he's probably another Berlusconi, maybe another Chavez.
Trump's ideological beliefs are certainly comparable to Hitler's—he is, more or less, a fascist. That said, I think the comparison breaks down for a few reasons: first of all, we've already had a Hitler. People are on the lookout for that kind of thing. The Nazis were in their time something totally new; Trump doesn't bring anything new to the table. Second of all, the world has changed massively since 1932, and mostly in ways that prevent authoritarian leaders from rising to power within democratic systems. Third of all, he's kind of... really old, and not in great shape, probably going to die pretty soon tbh. >_> Also I feel like it's a bit harder to just straight up dismiss Congress, ban opposition parties, etc in America 2016 than it was in Germany 1934. Like. Trump does not have a Sturmabteilung. Maybe Breitbart is his modern equivalent but that's a bit of a stretch.
I'm also gonna go with Berlusconi.
Quote from: amw on November 15, 2016, 05:42:54 AM
Trump's ideological beliefs are certainly comparable to Hitler's
Except in that Trump hasn´t any. Where is his
Mein Kampf? ;D
Hitler´s actions were accurately predictable from day one of his rule, precisely because he was a rigid ideologue; Trump is unpredictable precisely because he lacks any ideology. "Make America Great Again!" is a slogan, not a programme.
Quote from: Florestan on November 15, 2016, 05:55:51 AM
Except in that Trump hasn´t any. Where is his Mein Kampf? ;D
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Trump_the_art_of_the_deal.jpg)
Quote from: North Star on November 15, 2016, 05:56:47 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Trump_the_art_of_the_deal.jpg)
Have you read it?
Quote from: Florestan on November 15, 2016, 05:58:32 AM
Have you read it?
No. I haven't read
Mein Kampf either. (I should have put a smiley in the post above, I suppose.)
Quote from: Florestan on November 15, 2016, 05:55:51 AM
Except in that Trump hasn´t any. Where is his Mein Kampf? ;D
Hitler´s actions were accurately predictable from day one of his rule, precisely because he was a rigid ideologue; Trump is unpredictable precisely because he lacks any ideology. "Make America Great Again!" is a slogan, not a programme.
Trump's political views, such as they are, have been pretty consistently expressed: what could be termed "state capitalism" (e.g. protectionism, close ties between government and industry), admiration for authoritarian rule ("strong leaders", law and order), and an ethno-nationalist message, combined with bizarre conspiracy theories. That is not too far off from the NSDAP. That said, yeah, the only things Trump is particularly rigid about are his name, and his love of money and attention. On the rest he'll probably etch-a-sketch. So, another point of difference, lol.
Quote from: North Star on November 15, 2016, 06:03:50 AM
No. I haven't read Mein Kampf either.
Here´s how Wikipedia describes Trump´s book:
The book tells about Trump's childhood in Jamaica Estates, Queens. It then describes his early work in Brooklyn prior to moving to Manhattan, whereupon he engaged in building The Trump Organization out of his studio apartment. It then describes his actions and thoughts in developing the Grand Hyatt Hotel and Trump Tower, in renovating Wollman Rink, and regarding various other projects.[7]
The book also contains an 11-step formula for business success, inspired by Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking.[8] Trump's steps are:
Think big
Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
Maximize your options
Know your market
Use your leverage
Enhance your location
Get the word out
Fight back
Deliver the goods
Contain the costs
Have fun [9]
Nothing even remotely akin to
Mein Kampf, which I have read.
The funny thing is that, also according to Wikipedia, "[Tony] Schwartz, expressing regrets about his involvement, asserted that Trump had played no role in the actual writing of the book; Trump has given conflicting accounts on the question of authorship.[1]"
That is an expression we should get used to in respect with Trump: he gives conflicting accounts of his views. For instance, the wall might actually be a fence and 12 millions might actually be 3.
Quote
(I should have put a smiley in the post above, I suppose.)
:D
Quote from: Florestan on November 15, 2016, 06:11:31 AM
The funny thing is that, also according to Wikipedia, "[Tony] Schwartz, expressing regrets about his involvement, asserted that Trump had played no role in the actual writing of the book; Trump has given conflicting accounts on the question of authorship.[1]"
You'll enjoy reading this (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all). 8)
Quote from: North Star on November 15, 2016, 06:24:43 AM
You'll enjoy reading this (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all). 8)
The funniest thing was picturing George W. Bush looking at a pile of books and asking himself "What should I read next? Kant´s Critique of Pure Reason or Nietzsche´s the Birth of Tragedy? A plague on Rove´s library, I think I´ll eventually take Karl May´s Winnetou." :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Rinaldo on November 15, 2016, 04:41:21 AMAre they exaggerated?
Yep. Very much so. But the comparison fits in very well in an environment where the political left in the US, represented by the not especially left-wing Democratic Party, relied extensively on hyperbole in its anti-Trump messaging. Trump is like Mussolini/Hitler/<
insert your favorite dictator here>; Trump will be a catastrophe; Trump's administration will be apocalyptic - said Hillary: "I'm the Last Thing Standing Between You and the Apocalypse". I find it interesting that Hillary relied on religious imagery and ideas on occasion. She also called Trump's supporters irredeemable. Perhaps she thought she could reach the Evangelicals that way. She didn't.
It should be noted that the Democrats were very purposeful in their approach and the language they used. It was part of their strategy, as was hammering more establishment candidates early in the primaries. Unfortunately, as a few commentators have admitted since the election, the Democrats had been crying wolf for several cycles. They trotted out the Hitler trope against Mitt Romney. Of course, Truman used it against Dewey, too, so it's an old standby at this point. It doesn't mean anything anymore.
It is true that Trump brought nothing new in one sense: he's the latest example of the American right-wing populism and/or conspiracy theorists. (There was also William Jennings Bryan, of course, though he is not as good an analog for a variety of reasons.) There were the 30s rabble rousers like Father Charles Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh. There was the America First Committee and the John Birch Society. There were Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. There was Joe McCarthy. More recently, there was Pat Robertson. But Trump did bring something new: he was able to repackage his form of populism for the modern age of communications (eg, social media), and he was able to deploy his skills as a television entertainer - something he has been honing since the 1980s - in a way that attracted a large, disaffected population of voters. He was aided by the Democrats putting up the very definition of an establishment candidate with widely known shortcomings and a high disapproval rating from day one. That people continue to use Hitler comparisons simply reflects their lack of understanding of American politics and history, and, apparently, the Nazis. The Berlusconi comparison is more apt, though now for a country with immense power.
Quote from: Todd on November 15, 2016, 06:45:14 AM
Yep. Very much so. But the comparison fits in very well in an environment where the political left in the US, represented by the not especially left-wing Democratic Party, relied extensively on hyperbole in its anti-Trump messaging. Trump is like Mussolini/Hitler/<insert your favorite dictator here>; Trump will be a catastrophe; Trump's administration will be apocalyptic - said Hillary: "I'm the Last Thing Standing Between You and the Apocalypse". I find it interesting that Hillary relied on religious imagery and ideas on occasion. She also called Trump's supporters irredeemable. Perhaps she thought she could reach the Evangelicals that way. She didn't.
It should be noted that the Democrats were very purposeful in their approach and the language they used. It was part of their strategy, as was hammering more establishment candidates early in the primaries. Unfortunately, as a few commentators have admitted since the election, the Democrats had been crying wolf for several cycles. They trotted out the Hitler trope against Mitt Romney. Of course, Truman used it against Dewey, too, so it's an old standby at this point. It doesn't mean anything anymore.
It is true that Trump brought nothing new in one sense: he's the latest example of the American right-wing populism and/or conspiracy theorists. (There was also William Jennings Bryan, of course, though he is not as good an analog for a variety of reasons.) There were the 30s rabble rousers like Father Charles Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh. There was the America First Committee and the John Birch Society. There were Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. There was Joe McCarthy. More recently, there was Pat Robertson. But Trump did bring something new: he was able to repackage his form of populism for the modern age of communications (eg, social media), and he was able to deploy his skills as a television entertainer - something he has been honing since the 1980s - in a way that attracted a large, disaffected population of voters. He was aided by the Democrats putting up the very definition of an establishment candidate with widely known shortcomings and a high disapproval rating from day one. That people continue to use Hitler comparisons simply reflects their lack of understanding of American politics and history, and, apparently, the Nazis. The Berlusconi comparison is more apt, though now for a country with immense power.
Fair enough.
While I'm not the one saying Trump equals Hitler, I firmly believe the lesson of Holocaust is to be extra cautious about things like this:
White nationalists see advocate in Steve Bannon who will hold Trump to his campaign promises (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/white-nationalists-on-bannon/)
KKK, American Nazi Party praise Trump's hiring of Bannon (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-american-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon)
..all while swastikas are back in fashion. This is not something you should be sweeping under the Berlusconi rug, guys.
This, I find rather disturbing.
A list of things Trump promises to put into immediate effect. (See the link to the times article for more details).
QuoteExecutive Actions
1 Clean Power Plan Regulations to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants.
2 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Protects undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.
3 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents Intended to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation, but an appeals court ruling blocking the plan remains in place after a 4-to-4 tie in the Supreme Court.
4 Waters of the United States Rule intended to protect waterways and wetlands.
Legislation
5 Affordable Care Act In an interview Friday, Mr. Trump indicated he might keep parts of President Obama's signature legislative achievement.
6 Dodd-Frank Overhauled regulation of the financial industry in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
7 Defense sequester Automatic, across-the-board spending restrictions.
8 Alternative minimum tax Aimed at making it harder for the affluent to take advantage of various tax breaks.
9 Estate tax Currently applies to only about 5,300 of the richest families.
10 Gun-free zones At military bases and at schools.
International Obligations
11 Paris Climate Change Agreement Commits more than 190 countries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
12 North American Free Trade Agreement Trade deal signed by United States, Canada and Mexico more than 20 years ago.
13 Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade deal among the United States and several Asian countries.
14 Payments to United Nations' climate fund
Federal Agencies
15 Education Department It is "massive, and it can largely be eliminated."
16 Environmental Protection Agency "We are going to get rid of it in almost every form."
Other
17 Undocumented immigrants with criminal records
18 Federal funding of so-called sanctuary cities Places where local authorities have stopped cooperating with federal immigration agents.
19 Common Core Learning standards for math and English.
20 Syrian refugees Temporary ban.
Regarding No 20, I thought continues to advocate a more sweeping ban on Muslim immigrants.
No 17 I find confusing, since undocumented immigrants with criminal records are already subject to deportation.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/11/us/politics/what-trump-wants-to-change.html
Quote from: Rinaldo on November 15, 2016, 07:07:10 AMThis is not something you should be sweeping under the Berlusconi rug, guys.
Nor is it something that should be blown out of proportion. The Klan is a boogeyman from another era. Yes, there are still some Klan chapters around, but there are some chapters with only a handful of members. White nationalists/neo-Nazis/skinheads still exist, but they are rare as well. They lack much in the way of money or organizational power. I live in Oregon, a state that had the exclusion of African Americans written into the state constitution, and it was nearly run by the Klan in the 1920s. Even in the deepest red parts of the state - the east and the south - the remnants of these organizations are gone. In their place are evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for whom abortion, gun rights, and a weak federal government are the big issues. There are certainly portions of the country where white supremacists are more widespread, but their numbers are limited. The SPLC lists 892 hate groups and 998 anti-government patriot groups in the US today. That's a lot, to be sure, but these groups are not teeming with thousands or tens of thousands of members. The risk must be put into proper context.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 15, 2016, 07:25:08 AM
Regarding No 20, I thought continues to advocate a more sweeping ban on Muslim immigrants.
That was dropped within a day or two of the election.
As to the legislation, well, it won't be immediate, and it will involve the standard sausage making.
I suspect the Education Department is here to stay. (Obama wanted to get rid of Commerce; instead he appointed a Pritzker to head it.)
And just where is appointing a SCOTUS justice in his list of priorities?
When Hillary used the "deplorables" epithet she committed the "Kinsley gaffe", telling a truth that rebounds back on you. Her goal should have been to win over as many borderline deplorables as possible, particularly in the Rust belt areas of the "Blue Wall" that crumbled and elected Trump, but also throughout the Red zone.
She should have understood that there are people who are not White Panthers, who don't hate immigrants, who see that they and their communities are last in line for help from the elites of both parties. Her message should have been pitched to them. She should have told the neglected working class in both the Red and Blue zones the same thing, that we will now have a recovery for you, that the Repubs betrayed you for their donors, that Repubs only want free trade and supply side tax policy because it benefits their donors in ways that damage your prospects. If these measures didn't move income away from workers they'd be useless for their advocates. The advantage of this approach is that it would be received by an audience that already knows how true it is, and desperately want to hear a politician say it to them in a way that points toward solutions.
Warren is already there, and now she's set free. My view is that liberal elitists need to operate on the FDR model and respond directly to economic dislocations or their elitism goes bad. Their own social solidarity plays as exclusiveness in fly over country, and it doesn't help that it's also condescending. A positive economic policy detoxifies that condescension. People want elites to help. They hate the condescension for how it combines with indifference to their problems. Both parties are seen as collaborating in this indifference, fighting over the allocation of blame.
A positive economic plan has the virtue of reducing ethnic rivalry instead of exacerbating it. More jobs, lower worker taxes and new/repaired infrastructure spreads benefits widely. It's been a terrible blunder to allow the old economy to wither with no path to a new one. Trump voters have sent a message to the zero sum combatants. Soon, they will send it to Trump.
Quote from: drogulus on November 15, 2016, 07:49:53 AMWarren is already there, and now she's set free.
No she's not. She's in the minority party. She is hobbled for at least two years, and probably four.
Baby boomers need to look at this last election, and realize that their generation put up the worst overall slate of presidential candidates since probably 1876. Democrats need to start looking forward, not cling to the aged past. Clinton, Sanders, Warren, they are the gerontocracy. Time to rely on Kamala Harris, Julian Castro, Cory Booker (though he needs to stop partly blaming voters like he did on Meet the Press), Kirsten Gillibrand, and others. Dems need to cultivate new leaders along with a new message.
Quote from: Todd on November 15, 2016, 08:04:14 AM
No she's not. She's in the minority party. She is hobbled for at least two years, and probably four.
Baby boomers need to look at this last election, and realize that their generation put up the worst overall slate of presidential candidates since probably 1876. Democrats need to start looking forward, not cling to the aged past. Clinton, Sanders, Warren, they are the gerontocracy. Time to rely on Kamala Harris, Julian Castro, Cory Booker (though he needs to stop partly blaming voters like he did on Meet the Press), Kirsten Gillibrand, and others. Dems need to cultivate new leaders along with a new message.
Agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle...
Quote from: Ghost Sonata on November 15, 2016, 08:07:07 AM
Agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle...
How is Warren "set free"? I mean, she can give potboiler speeches as is her wont, but she's hobbled legislatively.
Quote from: Todd on November 15, 2016, 08:10:35 AM
How is Warren "set free"? I mean, she can give potboiler speeches as is her wont, but she's hobbled legislatively.
No, I agree with ya', she is hobbled as you say. I think
drogulus meant by "set free" that she no longer has the weight, or 'succession', of more powerful Democrats in front of her. Personally, I am not convinced that Warren in her heart of hearts seeks higher office.
Quote from: drogulus on November 15, 2016, 07:49:53 AM
When Hillary used the "deplorables" epithet she committed the "Kinsley gaffe", telling a truth that rebounds back on you. Her goal should have been to win over as many borderline deplorables as possible, particularly in the Rust belt areas of the "Blue Wall" that crumbled and elected Trump, but also throughout the Red zone.
She should have understood that there are people who are not White Panthers, who don't hate immigrants, who see that they and their communities are last in line for help from the elites of both parties. Her message should have been pitched to them. She should have told the neglected working class in both the Red and Blue zones the same thing, that we will now have a recovery for you, that the Repubs betrayed you for their donors, that Repubs only want free trade and supply side tax policy because it benefits their donors in ways that damage your prospects. If these measures didn't move income away from workers they'd be useless for their advocates. The advantage of this approach is that it would be received by an audience that already knows how true it is, and desperately want to hear a politician say it to them in a way that points toward solutions.
Warren is already there, and now she's set free. My view is that liberal elitists need to operate on the FDR model and respond directly to economic dislocations or their elitism goes bad. Their own social solidarity plays as exclusiveness in fly over country, and it doesn't help that it's also condescending. A positive economic policy detoxifies that condescension. People want elites to help. They hate the condescension for how it combines with indifference to their problems. Both parties are seen as collaborating in this indifference, fighting over the allocation of blame.
A positive economic plan has the virtue of reducing ethnic rivalry instead of exacerbating it. More jobs, lower worker taxes and new/repaired infrastructure spreads benefits widely. It's been a terrible blunder to allow the old economy to wither with no path to a new one. Trump voters have sent a message to the zero sum combatants. Soon, they will send it to Trump.
That´s all very nice but why didn´t you post it
before November 8? AFAIR, you were only too happy that the GOP will explode and did not express the slightest concern about Hillary and the Dems not winning or employing wrong tactics... ;D
Age played very little role for Sanders, no more than for Trump or HRC. If you're a member of the status quo elite, you're too old at 40. I do think Dems would benefit from an infusion of new talent and move them up.
Warren is my age, and she will be 71 in 2020. She's well placed to appeal to working class voters, the "good kind" of liberal elitist.
With Warren as VP candidate HRC would have won. All they would have needed is for Dems to turn out in larger numbers in the battleground states, not record numbers but in line with expectations. Warren would have done it. HRC probably ruled out Warren fairly early for understandable reasons. They don't fit, HRC is as mainstream center left as they come, and Warren is the other thing. "The other thing" is where Dems must go. If all they get is 40 year old triangulaters Dems will have their own extinction to worry about.
Quote from: Todd on November 15, 2016, 08:10:35 AM
How is Warren "set free"? I mean, she can give potboiler speeches as is her wont, but she's hobbled legislatively.
Let me count the ways:
1) She's in the minority party, free to attack in any direction. She doesn't have Obama and HRC millstones to drag around. She's already attacking Obamacare from the left, where it's far more vulnerable than from the "repeal and replace, no really!" right.
2) The status quo Dems have been repudiated.
3) Sanders now looks like a better choice. Even if he lost, the party would have a better message going forward, all they would need is a better candidate to send it.
4) Warren is that better candidate. She is smarter, a much better polemicist, and she knows how to talk to non elite people in a way they can understand and based on their experience, agree with.
Quote from: Florestan on November 15, 2016, 08:32:07 AM
That´s all very nice but why didn´t you post it before November 8? AFAIR, you were only too happy that the GOP will explode and did not express the slightest concern about Hillary and the Dems not winning or employing wrong tactics... ;D
I thought she would win anyway, and I saw Warren as my insurance policy that she wouldn't drift into triangulatory hell. What I think we Dems have learned is we can't coast any more, and the Dem crisis has arrived sooner than I would have guessed. But I've been promoting Warren as the Dem future for some time now, whether that future arrives with her leading it or with a 40 year old political virgin. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on November 15, 2016, 08:42:39 AMAge played very little role for Sanders, no more than for Trump or HRC.
True-ish for Sanders only in that he appealed to the most fickle group of voters.
I know aging people never like to hear that it is their time to go, but as James Carville told Bill Clinton in the 90s, the world is basically run by men in their 50s. One can add women to that truism if they like.
Quote from: drogulus on November 15, 2016, 08:42:39 AM
3) Sanders now looks like a better choice. Even if he lost, the party would have a better message going forward, all they would need is a better candidate to send it.
4) Warren is that better candidate. She is smarter, a much better polemicist, and she knows how to talk to non elite people in a way they can understand and based on their experience, agree with.
A better candidate is needed, that is true. Warren is not that candidate.
Quote from: drogulus on November 15, 2016, 07:49:53 AM
When Hillary used the "deplorables" epithet she committed the "Kinsley gaffe", telling a truth that rebounds back on you. Her goal should have been to win over as many borderline deplorables as possible, particularly in the Rust belt areas of the "Blue Wall" that crumbled and elected Trump, but also throughout the Red zone.
Her saying it was not necessarily a mistake, but what needed to happen for the ploy to work was for people to hear the comment that "half of Trump's supporters are in this basket of deplorables" and want to disassociate themselves from such a group. Instead, people heard, and Trump encouraged them to hear, that they personally were being insulted and accused, and that kind of thing
always backfires.
Quote from: Todd on November 15, 2016, 07:40:06 AM
Nor is it something that should be blown out of proportion. The Klan is a boogeyman from another era. Yes, there are still some Klan chapters around, but there are some chapters with only a handful of members. White nationalists/neo-Nazis/skinheads still exist, but they are rare as well. They lack much in the way of money or organizational power. I live in Oregon, a state that had the exclusion of African Americans written into the state constitution, and it was nearly run by the Klan in the 1920s. Even in the deepest red parts of the state - the east and the south - the remnants of these organizations are gone. In their place are evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for whom abortion, gun rights, and a weak federal government are the big issues. There are certainly portions of the country where white supremacists are more widespread, but their numbers are limited. The SPLC lists 892 hate groups and 998 anti-government patriot groups in the US today. That's a lot, to be sure, but these groups are not teeming with thousands or tens of thousands of members. The risk must be put into proper context.
.
The definition of
patriot in the Merriam-Mebster on line dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriot
Why then are "patriot groups" more often than not made up of white male right wingers ? Are there gay patriot groups? Black patriot groups ? Latino patriot groups ?
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the term has come to describe something quite specific to a certain type of people, slipping away from its original, more inclusive definition. Aren't all Americans patriots ? As in most other countries, I mean.
Quote from: André on November 15, 2016, 09:10:05 AM
Why then are "patriot groups" more often than not made up of white male right wingers ? Are there gay patriot groups? Black patriot groups ? Latino patriot groups ?
I invite you to review the SPLC website. They track everything they deem to be hate groups and patriot groups, which does include some militant minority groups.
Generally, anti-government patriot groups in the US tend to be all white, or overwhelming majority white. That is why I made it a point to include them in my response, and to use the complete phrase anti-government patriot groups, rather than what you purposely decided to bold, because I recognize what they are. I also recognize the limits of their membership and influence.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 15, 2016, 08:58:44 AMInstead, people heard, and Trump encouraged them to hear, that they personally were being insulted and accused, and that kind of thing always backfires.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41a5piVj8eL._SX342_.jpg)
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 15, 2016, 08:58:44 AM
Her saying it was not necessarily a mistake, but what needed to happen for the ploy to work was for people to hear the comment that "half of Trump's supporters are in this basket of deplorables" and want to disassociate themselves from such a group. Instead, people heard, and Trump encouraged them to hear, that they personally were being insulted and accused, and that kind of thing always backfires.
It was an unforced error to attack Trump that way, but in a more general sense HRC was wrong to attack Trump more than she advocated for stronger policies to help workers. Instead she spent too much time disparaging Trump, a fat target to be sure, but she didn't realize that this fight was asymmetric. Trump damaged her by attacking her as an out of touch elitist, it didn't matter what HRC said in response as long as it attacked Trump supporters, too. She needed to go around, over or tunnel under Trump and Repubs to get to the abandoned workers. Insulting them is just stupid, and reinforced the out of touch narrative.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 15, 2016, 10:02:30 AM
Clinton took one segment of Trump supporters (a small segment imo) and used it to describe at least half of Trump voters, over 30 million people. It takes no encouragement to hear it as an insult, since there is no other way to describe calling a large group of people deplorable than as an insult. All she did by saying it was to prove her status as an elitist.
I was not instulted; I was pleased when she outed herself in so dramatic a fashion.
How does it prove that she's an elitist? Are you saying that calling a group of people reprehensible makes one elitist in and of itself? Wouldn't that reflect on Trump, too, for disparaging far larger groups of people than Clinton ever did?
If disparaging others makes one an elitist, why would Trump, who disparaged the most people and the largest groups of people, not be more of an elitist than Clinton was?
The point remains that Trump twisted what she said and used it to rally support to himself on the basis of a fabricated version of it.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 15, 2016, 10:09:45 AMHow does it prove that she's an elitist?
She said it while at a star-studded fundraiser where the top ticket price was $250,000 and over $6 million was raised.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 15, 2016, 10:23:23 AMam optimistic that Republicans will be the majority party for years to come if Dems keep at it.
Rove got ahead of himself and thought something similar. He was wrong. In the post-war era, there has only been one case where the same party held the White House for three consecutive terms - Reagan/Bush. Trump, while underestimated through the election and probably now, is not Reagan, nor is Pence Bush. Triumphalism should be avoided at all costs and Republicans should be merciless in their electoral strategy.
Quote from: Scarpia on November 15, 2016, 07:25:08 AM
This, I find rather disturbing.
A list of things Trump promises to put into immediate effect. (See the link to the times article for more details).
Regarding No 20, I thought continues to advocate a more sweeping ban on Muslim immigrants.
No 17 I find confusing, since undocumented immigrants with criminal records are already subject to deportation.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/11/us/politics/what-trump-wants-to-change.html
It's priceless; Clinton used the huge euphemism "undocumented" to describe
illegal immigrants and "deplorables" to describe her own American nationals!! No wonder she lost.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 15, 2016, 10:23:23 AMNo, he did not twist what she said. There is only one way to understand what she said.
Yes, he did twist what she said. When he went to his rallies and said "She's calling
you deplorable," he was using Hillary Clinton's words that half of his supporters were in a "basket of deplorables" to make
all of his supporters feel that they personally were being attacked, which was neither the intent nor the meaning of what she said.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 15, 2016, 10:23:23 AMI am glad to see that Democrats continue to misread the dynamics of this election. I am optimistic that Republicans will be the majority party for years to come if Dems keep at it.
I'm not a Democrat. I've never been affiliated with any party and my politics are moderate.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 15, 2016, 10:38:36 AM
Have you ever voted for a Republican?
Not in the past few presidential elections, though I have occasionally voted for Republicans for state and local offices. I fail to see how not usually supporting Republican candidates makes me a Democrat.
Quote from: Todd on November 15, 2016, 09:15:46 AM
I invite you to review the SPLC website. They track everything they deem to be hate groups and patriot groups, which does include some militant minority groups.
Generally, anti-government patriot groups in the US tend to be all white, or overwhelming majority white. That is why I made it a point to include them in my response, and to use the complete phrase anti-government patriot groups, rather than what you purposely decided to bold, because I recognize what they are. I also recognize the limits of their membership and influence.
"Anti-government" and "patriot" are two different terms. But here they are cobbled together. I didn't see the word "patriot" mentioned once in the SPLC web page. I had to type it in their search engine to get entries. Pardon me for not being attuned to the intricacies of american lingo.
Quote from: Mahlerian on November 15, 2016, 10:09:45 AM
How does it prove that she's an elitist? Are you saying that calling a group of people reprehensible makes one elitist in and of itself? Wouldn't that reflect on Trump, too, for disparaging far larger groups of people than Clinton ever did?
If disparaging others makes one an elitist, why would Trump, who disparaged the most people and the largest groups of people, not be more of an elitist than Clinton was?
The point remains that Trump twisted what she said and used it to rally support to himself on the basis of a fabricated version of it.
There are plenty o' racists, sexists, homophobes and people like Trump in the U.S. who think it's ok to make sport of the disabled. They resent being asked or told to think otherwise; it's an infringement on their civil liberties (they see it as mind control) and to do so is to risk being branded as elitist, if not worse. I was surprised and disappointed Clinton said the deplorable word, she ought to have known better. I agree they are deplorables, but it's not bright, polite or politic to shame people whose votes you want.
Quote from: sanantonio on November 15, 2016, 10:23:23 AM
I am glad to see that Democrats continue to misread the dynamics of this election. I am optimistic that Republicans will be the majority party for years to come if Dems keep at it.
So who's going to repair the fiscal consequences then?
You know the drill: Reagan - Bush create a giant deficit; Bill Clinton leaves with a big suprlus. Dubya blows a whole in it, which a D prez needs to repair again.
Quote from: André on November 15, 2016, 10:42:37 AM"Anti-government" and "patriot" are two different terms.
Not necessarily. The US has a long history of groups opposing the
federal government, starting with the Anti-Federalists who emerged in the 1780s. Patrick Henry ("Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death") is among the more famous Founding Fathers who opposed the Constitution itself before its adoption. In the US, it is quite common to differentiate between the country and the federal government, and since literally the day the Constitution was ratified, there have been people dedicated to weakening the central government. This peculiar feature of the US is one reason (of many) why even in the 1870s, 1890s, and 1930s, a dictator did not, could not emerge. A good portion of the American far right is dedicated to demolishing the federal government.
I do not dread Trump messing up.
What I do dread is IF he does mess up having to listen to all of the excuses and why it will be everyone else's fault.
Quote from: Herman on November 15, 2016, 10:56:23 AM
So who's going to repair the fiscal consequences then?
You know the drill: Reagan - Bush create a giant deficit; Bill Clinton leaves with a big suprlus. Dubya blows a whole in it, which a D prez needs to repair again.
There are a few things wrong with the Reagan through Clinton statement. First, the 1990 COBRA, which was one of the contributing factors to Bush I's defeat (it raised revenue), set the fiscal tone for a good portion of the 90s. Second, another major contributing factor to the 90s fiscal surpluses was the so-called peace dividend, which was only possible because the Soviet Union collapsed and the US began significantly scaling back its military expenditures. (Now, one can of course argue how much Reagan's staunch anti-communism played in that, but it at least played a minor role in pushing the USSR into the political graveyard.) Also, the easy money policies of the Fed post-1994 helped lead to the dot com bubble, and the Clinton surpluses relied more heavily than normal on capital gains taxation due to the booming stock market. Bush II's tax cuts were not the best, though it is worth noting that none other than Paul Krugman admitted that they served an expansionary function when they were instituted, and that was the proper approach in aggregate. The mortgage meltdown has its earliest roots in the 1970s, with changes to ERISA and the birth of private market securitization, and one of its major legislative causes in GLBA, signed by Clinton, that killed off the Glass-Steagall (1933 Banking Act) separation of commercial and investment banking. The US history of fiscal policy and regulation is a messy one, and both major parties have a lot to answer for.
Trump and the 115th Congress will pass new tax cuts sure to swell the deficits. No one cares about that right now, and it will only become an issue around election time in a weaker economy. As long as buyers keep on snapping up Treasuries - probably the rest of my statistically probable lifetime - it will not be a functional concern.
Quote from: arpeggio on November 15, 2016, 11:13:22 AMWhat I do dread is IF he does mess up having to listen to all of the excuses and why it will be everyone else's fault.
Presidents always blame the other party. The other party always blames the President. Only George Washington escaped this, and then not even completely. (Hamilton, that dastardly Federalist and secret monarchist, had Washington wrapped around his finger, you see.)
Thanks, Todd for the explanation.
Still, it tickles to adjoin a virtuous name and epithet since ancient times to a qualifyer (anti-government) that implies seditiousness. I doubt that's what Lincoln had in mind in his Gettysburg address.
Quote from: André on November 15, 2016, 11:30:31 AM
Still, it tickles to adjoin a virtuous name and epithet since ancient times to a qualifyer (anti-government) that implies seditiousness. I doubt that's what Lincoln had in mind in his Gettysburg address.
Lincoln is not as universally loved as many outside the US may think.
Thanks. I suppose we all fall prey to stereotypes. They are a convenient way to "get the picture" from a far away place and time. But their usefulness (and truthfulness) are made of clay feet, I guess.
Ask me about stereotypes about canadian identity... :D
Quote from: André on November 15, 2016, 11:30:31 AM
it tickles to adjoin a virtuous name and epithet since ancient times to a qualifyer (anti-government) that implies seditiousness.
Nothing tickling about it, actually. The USA was born out of sedition. It´s only natural that some Americans associate anti-government with patriotism. As Todd has pointed out, it´s been a constant of American politics ever since the creation of the USA.
Generally speaking, differentiating between a country and its government is an eminently reasonable thing to do.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/brexit-could-be-followed-by-grexit-departugal-italeave-czechout-oustria-2913530.png)
The revenge of the 'Oxy electorate' helped fuel Trump's election upset (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-vote-results-drug-overdose-deaths-2016-11)
This is about the most intelligent observation I've read about the post-Trump world and the revenge of the intolerant, so-called progressive left/liberals: it deals with the Left's fondness for appalling labels -
The term "white supremacist" must not be understood as having any specific meaning, it is just a marker to designate anyone who does not conform with PC dogma. The same applies to terms like "racist", "homophobic", "sexist" or "climate denier". There is no intellectual substance behind these words and they are not meant to be disputed. They act like emotive adjectives rather than nouns. Like yellow stars on Jews, they are signifiers of moral inferiority and warnings to the populace that these people are undesirables (deplorables).
Once a single and all encompassing ideology becomes hegemonic, debate is over and any deviance is met with horror as it suggests the possibility of doubt. But doubt cannot be entertained as the system has equated its specific ideas with universal truths and righteousness. Anti discrimination or environmentalism are meant to mean good, virtuous and desirable, anyone objecting to these ideas is objecting to good things.
There is an excellent short book by the Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pr... that I urge anyone with an interest in politics to read. It describes how Western democracies have become increasingly like the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union they also had a number of code words to pathologise dissenters and make their views beyond the pale without any previous scrutiny. Words like "capitalist" " burgeoise" or "parasite" fulfilled the same purpose as "racist" or "supremacist"
For somebody like Steve Bannon of Breitbart to try and argue that he is not racist is futile. There was never any intention to describe any specific idea, the word supremacist is purely superstitious, like a voodoo doll, it stains by association not by reasoned conclusions.
This has become a political football for both sides, but here is the story from the source:
A computer science professor specializing in computer security has proposed an audit of ballet counts in some states showing statistical anomalies.
https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.jraxd5u5s
He does not claim that it is likely that tampering occurred, but thinks it would be a prudent action to check.
Quote from: Tritone on November 24, 2016, 11:27:45 AM
This is about the most intelligent observation I've read about the post-Trump world and the revenge of the intolerant, so-called progressive left/liberals: it deals with the Left's fondness for appalling labels -
The term "white supremacist" must not be understood as having any specific meaning, it is just a marker to designate anyone who does not conform with PC dogma. The same applies to terms like "racist", "homophobic", "sexist" or "climate denier". There is no intellectual substance behind these words and they are not meant to be disputed. They act like emotive adjectives rather than nouns.
Are there no climate deniers or white supremacists worthy of the name, but only people incoherently accused of a "non thing"? If, like me, you were critical of the excesses of PC you would not maintain this. I think people shouldn't call others racist without good cause, and the term and others are often thrown around recklessly. They also figure in radical analyses among academics and political activists that I oppose on a variety of grounds.
My objection, quite distinct from yours I see, is that it coarsens debate to make it about what a person "is". It should be about what a person supports. It should be about the relevant arguments. But also I judge it appropriate to identify the nature of some arguments as homophobic and antisemitic to the extent they were intended to be, or that some positions moved on other grounds like religious freedom for example, have that effect.
Quote"Once a single and all encompassing ideology becomes hegemonic, debate is over and any deviance is met with horror as it suggests the possibility of doubt."
This is a fairly coercive argument in itself. Like the worst of the PC-ers you want to move your argument beyond refutation in the manner of theology. Anything so far from challenge is beyond comprehension, your absolute correctness is no longer about anything. No one is a racist because it's ideology all the way down, the PC-ers and you.
He said (or, wrote) thusly!
Because she simply wasn't a good candidate. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/20/the-worst-candidate-of-2016/?utm_term=.ea40fa3c1808)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 20, 2016, 04:41:27 AM
He said (or, wrote) thusly!
Because she simply wasn't a good candidate. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/20/the-worst-candidate-of-2016/?utm_term=.ea40fa3c1808)
I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that article.
Cheers, Simon!
Background is, that Chris Cillizza has a weekly "Who had the worst week in Washington?" piece, so this is somewhat in that tradition, and is probably at least a little tongue in cheek. Also, in a media environment where many (even on this thread) are apt to deride any media source as negatively biased, for the mere reason that they disagree with what is said, I think Cillizza has done a better job than most, of having something good or bad to say of whomever, without front-loading a political filter.
"It's impossible to overstate how big a favorite the former secretary of state was in both her primary fight against Bernie Sanders and the general election matchup against Donald Trump. She was the biggest non-incumbent front-runner for the White House in modern political history."
Yes. She had pretty much smoothed the path before herself before the primary season had begun; that was both an advantage to her, and yet something which rankled a great deal of the electorate — the primaries should be a process, and not a rubber stamp. In a season where anti-BAU(*) sentiment ran high, it was an advantage which came with a heavy discount.
"And yet, from the start, it was clear that Clinton's appeal on paper didn't match her appeal in the real world of political campaigning. She badly underestimated Sanders's appeal from the start and then, because of ongoing doubts about her commitment to liberal causes, found it difficult to attack the senator from Vermont. As a result, a primary that was expected to be a coronation turned into a long-lasting problem — exposing the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton, particularly among young voters."
Fairly early on, it was remarked how both Clinton and El Tupé enjoyed (if that be the right word) "historically high unfavorable ratings." Even among Americans who did not suffer from CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome — e.g., "that woman is pure evil"), there is a high incidence of old-fashioned Clinton Fatigue.
"[El Tupé], for all his talk and inexperience, represented radical change. Clinton represented more of the same politics people hated."
For all his vile talk, for all his blandly ignorant talk, for all his con-manly duplicitous talk, he is other than BAU.
"She lost because she was overly cautious. Because she was slow to adjust to a changed race — in the primary and the general election. Because she never really connected with voters. Because she offered no positive message that resonated with those voters. Because she never grasped the import to her candidacy of the email story. Because she simply wasn't a good candidate."
And in many of these respects, because she could not but be herself.
That paragraph makes it look like she simply wasn't a good candidate is just a sum of the parts, but many of us remember, e.g., her response to Anderson Cooper when he asked her about the handsome speaking fee from Goldman, Sachs & Co., and her undeniably genuine response was, "Well, that's what they offered." Horribly bad candidate.
(*) BAU = Business As Usual
Thanks very much for that.
In August I wrote this:
Quote from: drogulus on August 04, 2016, 01:28:00 PM
I've spent some time in the last few months embedded in the Russo-Trumpese troll-o-sphere. The Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/) website operates as a low-functioning business/economics aggregator/advertorialist, and the low function part shows up in its unmoderated comments on its articles, some of which are for real articles, with many "10 best cities for poor people with fearsome insect life and 103 degree heat", that kind of thing. There are also insanely popular hoodies that are now available!
Anyway, the presence of a distinctively Russian troll operation has been increasingly evident. I note that counter trolls fling the accusation and, interestingly, it's rarely denied. The vile content of the megatrolls that use multiple identities, and the incompetence, obvious copy/pasting and inability to form proper sentences of the bot-like provide clues, but it's the combination of praise for Putin and Trump, and how they are kept separate that also sends a signal. The countertrolls seem freelance (there are more actual people with distinct voices among the anti-Trumps, some of whom make it clear they really dislike Hillary). But here's something I've noticed, neither the megatrolls who are the most vicious and the bot-like lesser ones will praise Putin and Trump in the same comment. Given how undisclined the group is about how lies, bullshit, rumors are intermingled with the truth this does stand out. Trump is wonderful here, Putin is wonderful there, but somehow they'd rather not be seen as wonderful together. OK, I could be wrong but it's a "tell".
Anyway Pt. II, BI is now starting to cover the story, though not yet acknowledging its own involvement. I sent them an email on the subject of how the trolls have "crowded out" normal discussion a few days ago. I've no reason to think this has influenced the decision to publish this article, therefore I claim credit:
It looks like Russia hired internet trolls to pose as pro-Trump Americans (http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7)
From NBC Nightly News tonight:
(http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Video/201701/2017-01-06T23-41-54-566Z--1280x720.jpg)
Would you like to know more?
It would be nice to flesh out the details of the part of the operation I witnessed, how it was done, etc.
Nice filmic reference, btw.....
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/95/95da598af6262bf180d431851496b2b3c4960237ba6630811b9b6889d1ae91f0.jpg)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 21, 2016, 03:54:00 AM
Chris Cillizza
You and Chris... mm mm mm,... the entire editorial staff of the WP was shown colluding with HRC campaign... come on Karl, can't you find someone less compromised? mmkay?
I've been making sure to keep up on their "Russians did it" SOURCES... gosh, they never do come up with actual SOURCES that can be verified by anyone,... gosh...
Cilizza, Milbank, Marcus, Cohen... oh gosh, is it that it would be considered antisemantic(!) to criticize them, even on their obviousness?
Was not the WP totally compromised by the leaks?? Sure seems like it. How can you take anything they say as not just pure politics? Are they really reporters/journalists, or are they apparachnikz???
The Bolshevik Times
Senator Cory Booker will testify against Senator Jeff Sessions in unprecedented publicity stunt/presidential campaign photo-op cum soundbite cum meme generator testimony. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/unprecedented-move-sen-cory-booker-testify-jeff-sessions/story?id=44679221)
2020 or 2024?
(It's too early to start a 2020 thread, right?)
This meeting...
Young Donald didn't listen to Mutti >:D
Maybe I'm a Liberal (probably I'm a Liberal); but I agree with this statement.
Liberals can complain about James Comey all they want, but blame for the investigation that helped sink the Clinton campaign lies squarely with the candidate herself. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447030/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-2016-loss-blame-candidate)
The Real Reason Clinton Lost
"Shattered" is a cliche-clogged slog in itself. The authors made a deal with sources within Clinton's campaign not to write anything until after the election and to treat what they learned as "on background" — meaning the sources would not be named. This leads to a heavy drizzle of the words "source" and "sources" and, after a while, a certain resistance on the part of the reader: Who are these people? Even banalities are privileged: "It was a very hard 10 days," a source says about some very hard days.
The other word that keeps coming at you is "message." Clinton did not have one, and the search for a message preoccupied her staff. Oddly, and fatally, Clinton left it up to them to articulate why she was running. As a mental exercise, I tried to come up with a message myself: "Hillary Clinton — because she's not Trump" is the best I could do. As it turned out, she could do no better. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-reason-hillary-clinton-lost/2017/05/08/d13c82fc-340f-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.bf2d27a6ca64)
Hillary Clinton: the third season of Obama with an all-new cast!
Quote from: amw on May 09, 2017, 01:46:21 AM
Hillary Clinton: the third season of Obama with an all-new cast!
A third season of anything is better than Trump... :-X
I was relieved (we might say) that Richard Cohen frankly disclosed that Hillary's problem, and loss, were her own: no actual message apart from "I'm the adult option." And relieved that he calls out the book for the vague sludge that it must be.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2017, 02:06:56 AM
A third season of anything is better than Trump... :-X
That's what most of the voters thought too! >.>
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 26, 2017, 05:43:10 AM
Maybe I'm a Liberal (probably I'm a Liberal); but I agree with this statement.
Liberals can complain about James Comey all they want, but blame for the investigation that helped sink the Clinton campaign lies squarely with the candidate herself. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447030/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-2016-loss-blame-candidate)
Yes, you can agree, but the statement is meaningless deflection. Comey's leap back onto the scene eleven days out might well have swung the election. We can't really know. He was just another collaborator in the Russian efforts to undermine our democracy, one of many stupidly unwitting ones.
The reason why it is not mere meaningless deflection is, that at several stages, the server, the cover-up, the long period of cagey non-apology, it was a hot festering unforced error on her part. She was a bad candidate. Yes, the whole Russian interference issue is part of the problem; but she'd made herself a fat target.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 09, 2017, 09:19:06 AMShe was a bad candidate.
You are a master of understatement.
You almost make me self-conscious for having repeated myself.
Quote from: BasilValentine on May 09, 2017, 09:10:28 AM
Yes, you can agree, but the statement is meaningless deflection. Comey's leap back onto the scene eleven days out might well have swung the election. We can't really know. He was just another collaborator in the Russian efforts to undermine our democracy, one of many stupidly unwitting ones.
I read an article, perhaps in the NYTimes, that said that the evaporation of Clinton's lead after the last-minute Comey interference actually came from polling that came
before Comey's action.
The problem was Clinton, whose reason for running was unclear, aside from, "it's my turn." And her recent re-emergence with more blame deflection for her loss (Comey, the Russians) makes me even more disgusted. For the good of the Democratic Party, she needs to go away, and to take Bill and Chelsie with her.
More generally, the Democrats have to find a better talking point than "Trump is a disgrace." They need an argument which does not disparage Trump supporters. It is hard to believe that one can't be found, given that Trump's populism has given way to a policy which consists largely of handing out cash to billionaires.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 09, 2017, 09:32:39 AM
[...] For the good of the Democratic Party, she needs to go away, and to take Bill and Chelsie with her.
More generally, the Democrats have to find a better talking point than "Trump is a disgrace."
Absolutely.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 09, 2017, 09:32:39 AM
The problem was Clinton, whose reason for running was unclear, aside from, "it's my turn." And her recent re-emergence with more blame deflection for her loss (Comey, the Russians) makes me even more disgusted. For the good of the Democratic Party, she needs to go away, and to take Bill and Chelsie with her.
In a campaign and election filled with bafflement, one of the most inexplicable choices was the Ds' collective decision to clear the path for Hillary Clinton. Her tenures in the Senate and at State were neither successful nor progressive, she is an adequate but not great orator with no clear message, and though the Benghazi/email investigations were brazenly partisan, they were still an obvious risk. It is as if the Ds thought that the only things that mattered were campaign funding, name recognition, and a clean primary.
Quote from: Pat B on May 09, 2017, 12:20:33 PMIt is as if the Ds thought that the only things that mattered were campaign funding, name recognition, and a clean primary.
That's the same thinking behind the Jeb! campaign.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 09, 2017, 09:19:06 AM
The reason why it is not mere meaningless deflection is, that at several stages, the server, the cover-up, the long period of cagey non-apology, it was a hot festering unforced error on her part. She was a bad candidate. Yes, the whole Russian interference issue is part of the problem; but she'd made herself a fat target.
Of course she was a bad candidate. I don't disagree with any of the disparagement in these last few pages, of Clinton or the dems. But she was a bad candidate who might well have beaten a worse candidate. It is just silly to assume the unwitting complicity of Comey was not a deciding factor. The margin was tiny and we don't know.
It was @GrandeFunne up to the @Honest&FreeElection, and @GoodTrolling for a while after that, but, now, just listen to yourselves whining and moping as if it's 1985. tsk tsk
a) you act as if ANY OTHER LIVING HUMAN ON THE PLANET, much less Hillary, or Jeb, or, oy!, I don't even remember who was running :P,... but, you really think this "deep state" thing would be "having the talk" with them too? Wasn't even Obama given "the talk" (lol, you know, the one where they show each new prez the real zabpruder film)?
Maybe Trump exposes the mechanisms that have been in place, by being such a prick and making everybody scramble to hide their porn and booze and drugs and whatever else it is that @GovernmentWorkers are actually known for.- so that they're making blunders and exposing themselves for the hacks they are.
Everyone wants a gubmint job around here. Everyone. Everyone's trying to get their friend to get them in, for all the goodies. All the goodies.
I'm guessing all the @TrumpHaterz are gov workers afraid their yum yum stick is going to get taken away?
Go watch the video called "8 Teachers Get Hurt in Girl Fight", and ask yourselves what mentality is in someone of such frail, bird-like proportions that makes them think that they can inject themselves into any situation without thought. Well, that's what I liken all this @OldFashionedPoliticalTalk that is trying to make sense of the way the world is here in 2017. You can't seem to do it. You're stuck in the ... 80s most likely.
Left wing, Right wing,... but you never speak of the double headed eagle that those wings are attached to.
You chafe against Trump, but fail to see how YOU got him here. Yea, YOU are the one thing that links the last 30 years of "elections" together into a cohesive whole. YOU. ME. .
How many decades has YOUR @CongressCritter "served"??????
And you chafe against this guy, oy vey, grow up and learn who rules you.
Let me know when you start making $1 less because of him, until then, poppa pleez. I just started making what I was hired at about 13 years ago. I know better than to blame T at this time. STOP.
Fivethirtyeight.com recently discussed the Comey announcement and its effect on the polling and concluded that yes, there was a sufficient effect there to have potentially changed the outcome in the swing states.
Personally no outrage flows from that. I always felt there was a strong element of lose-lose for Comey, whether he spoke or didn't.
Quote from: snyprrr on May 09, 2017, 01:45:35 PM
It was @GrandeFunne up to the @Honest&FreeElection, and @GoodTrolling for a while after that, but, now, just listen to yourselves whining and moping as if it's 1985. tsk tsk
a) you act as if ANY OTHER LIVING HUMAN ON THE PLANET, much less Hillary, or Jeb, or, oy!, I don't even remember who was running :P,... but, you really think this "deep state" thing would be "having the talk" with them too? Wasn't even Obama given "the talk" (lol, you know, the one where they show each new prez the real zabpruder film)?
Maybe Trump exposes the mechanisms that have been in place, by being such a prick and making everybody scramble to hide their porn and booze and drugs and whatever else it is that @GovernmentWorkers are actually known for.- so that they're making blunders and exposing themselves for the hacks they are.
Everyone wants a gubmint job around here. Everyone. Everyone's trying to get their friend to get them in, for all the goodies. All the goodies.
I'm guessing all the @TrumpHaterz are gov workers afraid their yum yum stick is going to get taken away?
Go watch the video called "8 Teachers Get Hurt in Girl Fight", and ask yourselves what mentality is in someone of such frail, bird-like proportions that makes them think that they can inject themselves into any situation without thought. Well, that's what I liken all this @OldFashionedPoliticalTalk that is trying to make sense of the way the world is here in 2017. You can't seem to do it. You're stuck in the ... 80s most likely.
Left wing, Right wing,... but you never speak of the double headed eagle that those wings are attached to.
You chafe against Trump, but fail to see how YOU got him here. Yea, YOU are the one thing that links the last 30 years of "elections" together into a cohesive whole. YOU. ME. .
How many decades has YOUR @CongressCritter "served"??????
And you chafe against this guy, oy vey, grow up and learn who rules you.
Let me know when you start making $1 less because of him, until then, poppa pleez. I just started making what I was hired at about 13 years ago. I know better than to blame T at this time. STOP.
lol, wrong threade
Looks like Trump reads GMG; Comey was canned.
A rare Trump move which I don't take issue with, until I start to imagine who he will pick as a replacement. A former head of the FSB, perhaps?
Based on his track record so far, I would expect a ex-military, former Goldman Sachs employee who is now a Republican House member and has a questionable relationship with women.
It's coming to me, Giuliani! :(
It's a no no for the President to fire the investigator who is investigating him. What will the Repub tools do? Nunes and Chaffetz are gone, the Evil Elf recused his sorry ass, so will Trump run out of flying monkeys? Maybe not, given what Repub has come to mean.
I suppose it's premature to say, once again, "this time he's gone too far". That presupposes Repubs have the same instincts for too far-ness and survival as they did in the Nixon era when he went on his firing binge.
When they are ready Repubs will pull the plug. What will make them ready?
Quote from: Scarpia on May 09, 2017, 03:06:01 PM
A rare Trump move which I don't take issue with, until I start to imagine who he will pick as a replacement. A former head of the FSB, perhaps?
:D I could have written this myself (it is why I came to this thread!). Long, long overdue, although I think using the excuse of how screwed up he was in the Clinton investigation is pretty lame. Nonetheless, he had to go, but like you, I wonder what sort of manic zealot he will put there now? :-\
8)
Just let Ivanka do it! She is as qualified for that, as for anything else she's futzing with.
Supposedly the decision to fire Comey was bottom up and from the Deputy AG through Sessions to Trump, and the justification was the handling of the Clinton matter. That's just about impossible. The IG hasn't issued its report so Rosenstein wouldn't do it and if he did it wouldn't come with a letter filled with Clinton campaign points, it would have legal reasoning based on the results of the IG investigation. This is top down from Trump through Sessions, and the preposterous justification is necessary because the slightest reference to Russia would mean Rosenstein and Sessions could have no part in it. Trump fired the investigator over the Russia investigation and only that. But Sessions and Rosenstein can't do it if it's Russia, so it isn't. Comey was bad to Hillary and bad about Hillary all at the same time. I'm sure the remaining unrecused flying monkeys agree.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 09, 2017, 04:20:56 PM
:D I could have written this myself (it is why I came to this thread!). Long, long overdue, although I think using the excuse of how screwed up he was in the Clinton investigation is pretty lame. Nonetheless, he had to go, but like you, I wonder what sort of manic zealot he will put there now? :-\
8)
No, he didn't have to go. Comey was exactly the right person to be leading the Russia investigation and that is the only reason he was fired — obviously. (I trust no one here is naive enough to believe the ludicrous justifications.) Comey's own redemption and personal pride were on the line, which is why he was especially dangerous to Trump. He didn't want the cloud hanging over his interference in the election to be the lead line in his biography, as it now will be, and he was busy working to forestall this outcome. Pride is Comey's deadly sin, pride in his precious rectitude, which he values above all else. His obsessive concern with his reputation was what motivated his ham-handed blunder in October, and it is what was driving his probe into the Trump campaign's sordid sleazing.
I have no doubt that derailing the Russia investigation was Trump's goal, but Comey politicized the FBI, calling into question its standing as a nonpartisan law enforcement agency, and did great damage.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 10, 2017, 05:54:28 AM
I have no doubt that derailing the Russia investigation was Trump's goal [...]
Then, yet again, he doesn't know what he's doing 8)
Quote from: BasilValentine on May 10, 2017, 04:56:12 AM
No, he didn't have to go. Comey was exactly the right person to be leading the Russia investigation and that is the only reason he was fired — obviously. (I trust no one here is naive enough to believe the ludicrous justifications.) Comey's own redemption and personal pride were on the line, which is why he was especially dangerous to Trump. He didn't want the cloud hanging over his interference in the election to be the lead line in his biography, as it now will be, and he was busy working to forestall this outcome. Pride is Comey's deadly sin, pride in his precious rectitude, which he values above all else. His obsessive concern with his reputation was what motivated his ham-handed blunder in October, and it is what was driving his probe into the Trump campaign's sordid sleazing.
You should be careful throwing around words like "obviously". There are some "obvious" things out there that are just so much bullshit. Of course, Trump is an idiot, can't be helped, but if indeed the 'obvious' thing is just what you believe it to be (and don't bet your life on it) then the backlash from this whole thing will not aid in covering up anything at all, it only makes the curious people more curious. And we all know what curiosity did.
Comey, in fact, is no more dangerous to Trump as an individual than any other person doing that job with any level of assiduity. What will happen now, obviously ( :D ), is that Trump's old and new enemies will insure that there actually IS a Special Prosecutor, so appointing Barron Trump as the new FBI Director won't help a bit. Meantime, Comey was damaged goods. No matter how you interpret his various roles, he has served his purpose and needs to go while the FBI is still a viable entity.
8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 09, 2017, 04:25:02 PM
Just let Ivanka do it! She is as qualified for that, as for anything else she's futzing with.
IMO, the perfect candidate for Special Prosecutor is Preet Bharara. He is brilliant, dedicated, and absolutely not beholden to Trump... :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 10, 2017, 06:09:16 AMAnd we all know what curiosity did.
Yes, it made Mike Pence president.
To be fair, it's totally possible Trump fired Comey for non-Russia-related reasons e.g. Comey publicly contradicted Trump's claims Obama wire tapped him, or Comey was just getting way too much attention on TV and Trump wanted the spotlight back. This is Trump after all. Competence in carrying out a meticulous conspiracy is not really his métier. Trying to protect his brand and image, much more so.
Quote from: Todd on May 10, 2017, 06:27:14 AM
Yes, it made Mike Pence president.
So you're saying "lose::lose"? :-\
8)
Comey could have been fired on day one and not much of a fuss would have been made. And though it's utterly irrelevant to the present situation, just after Comey asked for more resources for his Russia probe, there are good reasons for Comey to go, even recent ones like his preposterous "silence is concealment" testimony. Rosenstein would be justified in writing an honest memo about it on his own! All of that macht nichts and all of everyone knows it.
Quote from: drogulus on May 10, 2017, 04:12:27 PM
Comey could have been fired on day one and not much of a fuss would have been made. And though it's utterly irrelevant to the present situation, just after Comey asked for more resources for his Russia probe, there are good reasons for Comey to go, even recent ones like his preposterous "silence is concealment" testimony. Rosenstein would be justified in writing an honest memo about it on his own! All of that macht nichts and all of everyone knows it.
Comey
should have been fired on Day 1. The Trump Agenda is strongly reliant on doing everything, whether important or not, but especially if it IS important, at the worst possible time so that he ends up almost flaunting what is either gross incompetence or overt criminality. Since you can't really decide (despite what you said) which is which, he gets the least resistance. General bitching isn't resistance, impeachment by his own party is more along the lines I have in mind. That would also satisfy Todd's need for Washington gridlock, so win::win. :)
8)
Now that Hillary had FINALLY made Comey the scapegoat, he gets fired. LOL OF ALL LOLZ :laugh:
I for one will just come out and say THERE WAS NO RUSSIAN NOTHING IN NOTHING- at this point I would go after every organ of the SoreLoserites and fire and prosecute and whatever else.
WHEN IN HISTORY has such Loserism tried to foist itself on a society and try and screw up that society (worse than it is) because they didn't get their way?
SHUT THE GUB"MINT" DOWN AND LET THE PARASITES WORK RETAIL!!!!!
And watch who gets hit the hardest when their government checks stop rolling in – rotund redneck red state Republicans !!!
Good. They deserve it too, for being gullible enough to foist this senile lunatic crybaby swindler on the rest of us.
The left coast should secede. I'd be for it!
PS - Trump definitely paid Russian prostitutes to pee on Obama's bed. You can't make that stuff up!
Quote from: snyprrr on May 10, 2017, 05:12:33 PM
Now that Hillary had FINALLY made Comey the scapegoat, he gets fired.
snypsss, when you're right, you're right.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 10, 2017, 04:48:28 PMimpeachment by his own party
First thing we said here when the baboon got elected.
Fox News retracts controversial story on Seth Rich's death and alleged WikiLeaks contact (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/05/23/fox-news-retracts-controversial-story-on-seth-richs-death-and-alleged-wikileaks-contact/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_fox-445pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.78b80b9088d0)
(This is in the Arts & Entertainment section of the WaPo)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 24, 2017, 05:06:44 AM
Fox News retracts controversial story on Seth Rich's death and alleged WikiLeaks contact (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/05/23/fox-news-retracts-controversial-story-on-seth-richs-death-and-alleged-wikileaks-contact/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_fox-445pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.78b80b9088d0)
(This is in the Arts & Entertainment section of the WaPo)
Quote from: Jennifer RubinThe debasement of conservative debate and dumbing down of the Republican Party cannot be blamed entirely on Fox, talk radio and absence of adult supervision in previously upscale conservative circles, but its role in transforming the party of ideas into the party of "alternative facts" — better known as lies, rumors and crackpottery — cannot be overstated.
Quote from: Christo on May 11, 2017, 10:11:01 PM
First thing we said here when the baboon got elected.
Baboons are quite intelligent animals. Please don't insult them. :-X
we did try to Warn the people............................
With the current POTUS, you cannot tell him anything, because he already knows it all.
With his diehard supporters, warnings base in fact meant far, far less than the disinformation they are so fond of.
I lock this, not because of any impropriety in posting, but because we need to keep whatever remains to be said about T***p focused in one place. Feel free to repost in that thread if you feel like it.
GB 8)