Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Okay, so here's this: I tried to talk about a Flint water issue with my ultra lib uncle Sunday. It did not go well.

My point was this- fry anyone who ignored or hid a problem- fine. If the legion's deaths can be tied to the water switch, and the decisions otherwise meet the requirements of a crime- pros-EY-cute!!!

But for decades people drank water from those lead pipes, not just in Flint but everywhere and not everyone is brain damaged- (adder is the exception that proves the rule and sidd's anger could be from some other cause).

I explained to my unk that it bothered me that the hype keeps saying kids have been brain damaged when that is not true. Of course there are lead levels that have been set that were ignored. I'm not trying to excuse that, but to say the children are now brain damaged seems too sad.

Roger and Me came out a long while ago. It accurately shows how fucked up it is to be born in Flint- decades ago. Those kids have challenges that will prove too much for most. Why write stories saying they have been brain damaged when that is simple hype.

Again, the standards for lead were set- any one that tried to hide the levels were not met" Fry them, but don't further discourage kids that have this impossible road anyway.

Any hints on how I can make this point w/o getting attacked for defending the cover up?

Here's the thing.

I only know a few people from Michigan.

I'm not sure they all haven't been brain damaged.

Pipes? Genetics? Something else?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here are my predictions:

Slave: Cruz, is there a bigger ass to vote for?
TaxWonk: Bernie, of course
Ty: Hill, with reluctance, because she's not perfect
TM: Hill, but in a close call
Sidd: O'Malley, for the win!
Sebbie: Christie, for the brawling
Hank: Bush, unless a duller candidate comes along
RT: Hill, I mean, who da biggest policy wonk in the field!?
Dtb: Hill, regardless of the boys.
Les: Bernie, now that Paul has dropped
Atticus: Trump - the man just discussed land-use regulation in a debate!

So I'm betting at least a couple of votes for Bern here.

I am not allowed to vote in either primary as I am an independent, but Kasich is the best of a bad lot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Sure Bernie earned most of the delegates in NH, but I just think he needs to realize someone who earned so much needs to give it to someone else who needs more.

[Replaced_Texan]

How to change someone's mind, according to science

After five rounds of back-and-forth comments between the original poster and the challenger, the challenger has virtually no chance of receiving a delta, they write. “Perhaps while some engagement signals the interest of the [original poster], too much engagement can indicate futile insistence.
. . .

The researchers find that the factor most linked with successfully persuading someone is using different words than the original posts do – a sign that commentators are bringing in new points of view. They find that longer replies tend to be more convincing, as do arguments that use calmer language.

The research suggests that using specific examples is a big help. Definite articles (“the” rather than “a”) are more present in persuasive arguments, suggesting that it helps to speak in specifics. Successful arguments use the phrases “for example,” “for instance,” and “e.g.” more often. Quotations and question marks don’t appear to help the argument, but including links to supporting material does.

Surprisingly, they find that hedging – using language like “it could be the case” – is actually associated with more persuasive arguments. While hedging can signal a weaker point of view, the researchers say that it can also make an argument easier to accept by softening its tone.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Sure Bernie earned most of the delegates in NH, but I just think he needs to realize someone who earned so much needs to give it to someone else who needs more.

I am crossing my fingers to see Bernie win the popular vote and Hillary pull it out at the convention on Superdelegates. After NH, combined with what appears to be some voter fraud in Iowa (but I thought that never happens!), it appears the Democrats are having difficulty with the actual democracy aspect of the primaries.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I am not allowed to vote in either primary as I am an independent, but Kasich is the best of a bad lot.

OMG. Les going for a hardcore statist in his old age.

The universe cries.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

How to change someone's mind, according to science

I like to just tell people who are wrong to just suck it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am crossing my fingers to see Bernie win the popular vote and Hillary pull it out at the convention on Superdelegates. After NH, combined with what appears to be some voter fraud in Iowa (but I thought that never happens!), it appears the Democrats are having difficulty with the actual democracy aspect of the primaries.

Suck it.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am crossing my fingers to see Bernie win the popular vote and Hillary pull it out at the convention on Superdelegates. After NH, combined with what appears to be some voter fraud in Iowa (but I thought that never happens!), it appears the Democrats are having difficulty with the actual democracy aspect of the primaries.

You know I love you like a niece who made the inexplicable decision to go to Podunville State instead of Podunkville University - I'm always glad to see you, even if your RW politics just make me shake my head.

Anyhoo, I could be wrong, but I don't think Bernie wins the "popular vote" (in quotes because the caucus rules are just so fucked up) in the run up to the convention. And if he does, he will get the nomination.

Why? The Democratic Party's delegate selection rules were seriously reformed after the 1968 disaster of a convention (by the McGovern Commission, interestingly, and which new rules enabled George to get the nomination despite the opposition of the Democratic Establishment) (back when there was such a thing - George Meany of the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the remaining New Deal machers like Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran, the bosses like Daley and the O'Connells et al.) and it's hard (though I suppose Not Impossible) to win the "vote" and not get the delegates under those rules. No more winner take all primaries (which I think the GOP kept for a while), for example.

And I think that the idea that the pledged super delegates she currently has will stay with her if Gospoden Sanders rolls up the numbers on the regular delegates is questionable. By the end in 2008, the super delegates didn't stick to Hilary.

Anyway, I also think that the Hilary/Bernie contest is ultimately a good thing for the party. I don't agree with either one of them on everything, but they are engaged in a substantive discussion about what happens next for the party, and how it wants to try to implement those goals. One may not like the policies that the two are kicking around, but I think that they way they are treating each other is (for the most part) on the merits and with honesty and respectful disagreement. Reagan Bush in 1980 was somewhat similar, as was Bush Dole in 1988. Maybe even (until South Carolina) W vs. McCain in 2000 had that. I don't think the GOP has had that since.

Carry on.

ETA: Jesus, I overuse parentheticals. Hope you can read this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

You know I love you like a niece who made the inexplicable decision to go to Podunville State instead of Podunkville University - I'm always glad to see you, even if your RW politics just make me shake my head.

Anyhoo, I could be wrong, but I don't think Bernie wins the "popular vote" (in quotes because the caucus rules are just so fucked up) in the run up to the convention. And if he does, he will get the nomination.

Why? The Democratic Party's delegate selection rules were seriously reformed after the 1968 disaster of a convention (by the McGovern Commission, interestingly, and which new rules enabled George to get the nomination despite the opposition of the Democratic Establishment) (back when there was such a thing - George Meany of the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the remaining New Deal machers like Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran, the bosses like Daley and the O'Connells et al.) and it's hard (though I suppose Not Impossible) to win the "vote" and not get the delegates under those rules. No more winner take all primaries (which I think the GOP kept for a while), for example.

And I think that the idea that the pledged super delegates she currently has will stay with her if Gospoden Sanders rolls up the numbers on the regular delegates is questionable. By the end in 2008, the super delegates didn't stick to Hilary.

Anyway, I also think that the Hilary/Bernie contest is ultimately a good thing for the party. I don't agree with either one of them on everything, but they are engaged in a substantive discussion about what happens next for the party, and how it wants to try to implement those goals. One may not like the policies that the two are kicking around, but I think that they way they are treating each other is (for the most part) on the merits and with honesty and respectful disagreement. Reagan Bush in 1980 was somewhat similar, as was Bush Dole in 1988. Maybe even (until South Carolina) W vs. McCain in 2000 had that. I don't think the GOP has had that since.

Carry on.

ETA: Jesus, I overuse parentheticals. Hope you can read this.

It's like you're Antonin Nino to her Ruth Bader. What a lovely Valentine pair you are!

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's like you're Antonin Nino to her Ruth Bader. What a lovely Valentine pair you are!

What can I say? SEC_Chick is one of my favorite Imaginary Friends.

Speaking of Justice Scalia, I think that the GOP has made a mistake in making a categorical statement that they will not let a nomination go through before a name is even floated. I understand why the presidential candidates say that; they're all playing to the base to get nominated. But McConnell et al should know better. I think it plays into the Democratic Party's hands for the general election - there's quite a few senate seats in play, and this issue might hurt the GOP in swing states.

I've got no problem with the idea that the GOP-lead Senate can reject a nominee on any grounds they see fit. I just think it plays better when you say something like "we'll wait to see who is nominated and will perform our constitutional duty to advise and consent," and then pick the gal/guy apart during the hearings to show the country why the guy/gal is not fit to serve. (Credit this idea to @dick_nixon on Twitter. Dude is brilliant.)

I've also got no objection to a filibuster of a nominee, although as Slave and I agreed (I think) several years ago, the senate should require a *real* filibuster a la Strom Thurmond and Harry Byrd trying to stop the the Voting Rights Act, not the modern "oh dear, we didn't get 63 votes on this - too bad" version.

Go hard or go home.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

What can I say? SEC_Chick is one of my favorite Imaginary Friends.

Speaking of Justice Scalia, I think that the GOP has made a mistake in making a categorical statement that they will not let a nomination go through before a name is even floated. I understand why the presidential candidates say that; they're all playing to the base to get nominated. But McConnell et al should know better. I think it plays into the Democratic Party's hands for the general election - there's quite a few senate seats in play, and this issue might hurt the GOP in swing states.

I've got no problem with the idea that the GOP-lead Senate can reject a nominee on any grounds they see fit. I just think it plays better when you say something like "we'll wait to see who is nominated and will perform our constitutional duty to advise and consent," and then pick the gal/guy apart during the hearings to show the country why the guy/gal is not fit to serve. (Credit this idea to @dick_nixon on Twitter. Dude is brilliant.)

I've also got no objection to a filibuster of a nominee, although as Slave and I agreed (I think) several years ago, the senate should require a *real* filibuster a la Strom Thurmond and Harry Byrd trying to stop the the Voting Rights Act, not the modern "oh dear, we didn't get 63 votes on this - too bad" version.

Go hard or go home.

But this results in the delightful prospect of several months of talking about President Tyler, Henry Clay, and the last time a major American Party committed political suicide, in part by holding up the Supreme Court nominations of the guy it made President. Anything that results in a discussion of obscure antebellum history can't be all bad. Or in which the Republicans take as their hero a sectionalist faction of a doomed political party.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But this results in the delightful prospect of several months of talking about President Tyler, Henry Clay, and the last time a major American Party committed political suicide, in part by holding up the Supreme Court nominations of the guy it made President. Anything that results in a discussion of obscure antebellum history can't be all bad. Or in which the Republicans take as their hero a sectionalist faction of a doomed political party.

Apro ... uh, speaking of the antebellum era, I just read (finally) The Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson upon the recommendation of Ta-Nehisi Coates in one of his articles or Tweets or something. Good read on the lead-up to the war and the war itself.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

You know I love you like a niece who made the inexplicable decision to go to Podunville State instead of Podunkville University - I'm always glad to see you, even if your RW politics just make me shake my head.

Anyhoo, I could be wrong, but I don't think Bernie wins the "popular vote" (in quotes because the caucus rules are just so fucked up) in the run up to the convention. And if he does, he will get the nomination.

Why? The Democratic Party's delegate selection rules were seriously reformed after the 1968 disaster of a convention (by the McGovern Commission, interestingly, and which new rules enabled George to get the nomination despite the opposition of the Democratic Establishment) (back when there was such a thing - George Meany of the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the remaining New Deal machers like Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran, the bosses like Daley and the O'Connells et al.) and it's hard (though I suppose Not Impossible) to win the "vote" and not get the delegates under those rules. No more winner take all primaries (which I think the GOP kept for a while), for example.

And I think that the idea that the pledged super delegates she currently has will stay with her if Gospoden Sanders rolls up the numbers on the regular delegates is questionable. By the end in 2008, the super delegates didn't stick to Hilary.

Anyway, I also think that the Hilary/Bernie contest is ultimately a good thing for the party. I don't agree with either one of them on everything, but they are engaged in a substantive discussion about what happens next for the party, and how it wants to try to implement those goals. One may not like the policies that the two are kicking around, but I think that they way they are treating each other is (for the most part) on the merits and with honesty and respectful disagreement. Reagan Bush in 1980 was somewhat similar, as was Bush Dole in 1988. Maybe even (until South Carolina) W vs. McCain in 2000 had that. I don't think the GOP has had that since.

Carry on.

ETA: Jesus, I overuse parentheticals. Hope you can read this.

I am aware of the events surrounding the McGovern nomination (and to a lesser extent Jimmy Carter) and how those events figured into the calculus of adding Superdelegates. I also know that a Sanders winning the popular vote/Hillary on SDs is not the most likely, or even a reasonably likely outcome (hence my mention of 'crossing my fingers' to indicate my wishful thinking).

It is possible, but I agree it in large measure would depend on the unlikely scenario of committed SDs sticking with Hillary if she looks like a loser. The thing is that the entire concept of Superdelegates is pretty elitist and undemocratic in itself, such that getting SDs onboard is a viable strategy for an otherwise mediocre candidate.


As to Scalia, I think Chuck Schumer would agree that any Obama nominee should be opposed. And it's not like Obama himself would ever vote against an SC nominee with whom he disagreed, or filibuster, or anything like that.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am aware of the events surrounding the McGovern nomination (and to a lesser extent Jimmy Carter) and how those events figured into the calculus of adding Superdelegates. I also know that a Sanders winning the popular vote/Hillary on SDs is not the most likely, or even a reasonably likely outcome (hence my mention of 'crossing my fingers' to indicate my wishful thinking).

I hate that I have a tendency towards mansplaining. I apologize.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

It is possible, but I agree it in large measure would depend on the unlikely scenario of committed SDs sticking with Hillary if she looks like a loser. The thing is that the entire concept of Superdelegates is pretty elitist and undemocratic in itself, such that getting SDs onboard is a viable strategy for an otherwise mediocre candidate.

Agreed on the concept of super delegates being a bit anti-democratic.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

As to Scalia, I think Chuck Schumer would agree that any Obama nominee should be opposed. And it's not like Obama himself would ever vote against an SC nominee with whom he disagreed, or filibuster, or anything like that.

No arguments - let them filibuster away. I just think the idea that Obama is somehow required to refrain from nominating someone because he only has 330 days left in his presidency is a transparent piece of disingenuous bullshit. Elections have consequences - in 2012, he won a second term. And in 2014 the GOP gained (or maintained - I forget) majority control of the Senate.

They each have a role to play under the Constitution. They should each play their roles as they see fit. I think if the GOP stands on the preemptive "no" it will hurt them in November, but what do I know?