Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

ETA: I initially read "real jobs" to mean "jobs like ours," but perhaps that's not what you meant. If you meant actual real jobs - i.e., not white collar professional ones - then yeah, people with real jobs get fired for refusing to work when assigned.

Bingo. I meant the exact opposite of jobs like ours. I meant the people who most need workplace protection.

There are a hell of a lot of battles that I'd rather see fought, and won, for people in those kinds of jobs before mandating a level of time off for religious observances.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

1. Try to reserve your dickish outbursts for discussions with TM.

Hey!



TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

...I routinely assign the shitty tasks to black lawyers, while giving white lawyers only the really cool and interesting tasks that junior lawyers do

Hey!



TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Hey!



TM

That sort of editing really undermines your credibility. And that, my friend, is why I would only give you the shitty tasks.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Hillary Clinton isn't exciting anyone, and has a calculated centrist appeal that would serve here better in the general election but doesn't seem to be helping her with the party faithful. Donald Trump has a remarkable appeal to the GOP base, but it's hard to imagine him winning the middle in a general election. If the country were ever to elect as president a Socialist from Vermont, wouldn't it have to be in circumstances where he were running against a candidate like Clinton in the primary and a candidate like Trump in the general?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hillary Clinton isn't exciting anyone, and has a calculated centrist appeal that would serve here better in the general election but doesn't seem to be helping her with the party faithful. Donald Trump has a remarkable appeal to the GOP base, but it's hard to imagine him winning the middle in a general election. If the country were ever to elect as president a Socialist from Vermont, wouldn't it have to be in circumstances where he were running against a candidate like Clinton in the primary and a candidate like Trump in the general?

Seems more likely that the socialist from Vermont running as a third candidate would cause a GOP nominee like Trump to actually get elected.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

“I’d love to have Mike involved in some capacity. Why? Because Mike knows how to win and our politicians don’t,” Trump said about Hall of Fame coach Mike Ditka “Nobody messed with Mike.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...e-ditka-213453

Uh...I...um...

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Seems more likely that the socialist from Vermont running as a third candidate would cause a GOP nominee like Trump to actually get elected.

If that were to happen, perhaps the Democrats would finally learn a lesson and find someone who can (a) win and (b) will actually try to accomplish something dramatic if elected. And that socialist from Vermont might actually attract enough talent and like-minded people willing to run for office to make that third party viable. Probably not, but quite frankly I'm willing to vote for anything that disrupts the status quo.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Seems more likely that the socialist from Vermont running as a third candidate would cause a GOP nominee like Trump to actually get elected.

I think there is zero chance that Sanders will run as an independent in the general -- did I miss something?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

If that were to happen, perhaps the Democrats would finally learn a lesson and find someone who can (a) win and (b) will actually try to accomplish something dramatic if elected. And that socialist from Vermont might actually attract enough talent and like-minded people willing to run for office to make that third party viable. Probably not, but quite frankly I'm willing to vote for anything that disrupts the status quo.

If Democrats want to accomplish something dramatic (by which I gather you mean something even more dramatic than health-care reform), they need to change the composition of Congress. If you cloned Elizabeth Warren and infused her with the DNA of Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein and Lionel Messi, she would still be unable to get bills passed without 218 Representatives and 50 or 60 Senators.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

If that were to happen, perhaps the Democrats would finally learn a lesson and find someone who can (a) win and (b) will actually try to accomplish something dramatic if elected. And that socialist from Vermont might actually attract enough talent and like-minded people willing to run for office to make that third party viable. Probably not, but quite frankly I'm willing to vote for anything that disrupts the status quo.

I'm not sure what this means. Is it even possible to disrupt the status quo without a supermajority of votes on every single possible piece of legislation?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Democrats want to accomplish something dramatic (by which I gather you mean something even more dramatic than health-care reform), they need to change the composition of Congress. If you cloned Elizabeth Warren and infused her with the DNA of Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein and Lionel Messi, she would still be unable to get bills passed without 218 Representatives and 50 or 60 Senators.

Exactly.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

If that were to happen, perhaps the Democrats would finally learn a lesson and find someone who can (a) win and (b) will actually try to accomplish something dramatic if elected.

You mean like a significant expansion of publicly subsidized health care? An overhaul of the regulatory regime for private health insurance? "Ending" two wars? Passing a significant (if still too small) stimulus package in the face of the worst economic conditions since the 1930s? ETA: Or significantly expanding green energy?

And that socialist from Vermont might actually attract enough talent and like-minded people willing to run for office to make that third party viable. Probably not, but quite frankly I'm willing to vote for anything that disrupts the status quo.

I hear you, but I don't think we're going to get a viable third party on the left. On the right, maybe.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think there is zero chance that Sanders will run as an independent in the general -- did I miss something?

You missed that I cannot read.

Yeah, I don't think either Sanders or Trump can really get their party's nomination (to sort of respond to what you actually said).*

*insert appropriate oral sex-based insult here.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I cannot read.

TM