LawTalkers
Page 95 of 126 « First 45859394 95 9697105 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=875)

Sidd Finch 03-03-2016 07:22 PM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499305)
This is exactly what it's like to talk to so many Republicans these days. They just say the most absurd, stupid shit. I honestly used to think that it was a facade they had to keep up in order to vote their pocketbook. And maybe this guy actually believes what he's saying. Maybe he doesn't. But at a certain point, it just doesn't matter, does it?*

And we are so very clearly at that point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUIs5K2Snpk

TM

*And that's the danger of the Sebby argument about Trump "really being a moderate" or the voters who support him really supporting him because of a fear of globalization (for fuck's sake, man). His supporters beat people. He whips them up into a frenzy and I wouldn't be surprised if a protestor at one of his rallies gets stomped to death. This shit is not a game. Stop making excuses for this asshole and his asshole supporters. Stop trying to rationalize their behavior and their support. Just fucking stop.

Thurgreed, when will you stop trying to divide people by race?

SEC_Chick 03-03-2016 08:16 PM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499305)
This is exactly what it's like to talk to so many Republicans these days. They just say the most absurd, stupid shit. I honestly used to think that it was a facade they had to keep up in order to vote their pocketbook. And maybe this guy actually believes what he's saying. Maybe he doesn't. But at a certain point, it just doesn't matter, does it?*

And we are so very clearly at that point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUIs5K2Snpk

TM

*And that's the danger of the Sebby argument about Trump "really being a moderate" or the voters who support him really supporting him because of a fear of globalization (for fuck's sake, man). His supporters beat people. He whips them up into a frenzy and I wouldn't be surprised if a protestor at one of his rallies gets stomped to death. This shit is not a game. Stop making excuses for this asshole and his asshole supporters. Stop trying to rationalize their behavior and their support. Just fucking stop.
Van Jones is generally not at the top of my list of people with whom I agree, but I agree with him 1000%. And another clip of him from the night of the SC results when he talked about Trump as well. And believe it or not, a LOT people on conservative social media are in agreement. Trump is openly courting the votes of white supremacists, and it makes me sick.

I was not a huge fan of Dole or McCain and in 2012 I was in the 'Anybody but Romney' camp, but I could get onboard to support them in the general election. I could possibly get past his kind of crappy policy ideas, but I cannot get past his horrible racism or misogyny, or his treatment of the disabled or veterans.

I am in mourning and am working through the stages of grief for the cause I have supported my entire adult life and given no small amount of time or money. As you have seen today, I am still working through the stage of denial. I cannot support Trump. And I find him so offensive that if the race is close and he looks like he may win, I will not only get super drunk and vote for Hillary, I would actively campaign for her.

I don't think it will come to that, thankfully. I was already fully onboard with the #NeverTrump movement within the party, and are a number of us who are horrified at what has become of the GOP. I like to think we are the Silent Majority, but that is probably just the Denial talking. Mr. Chick and I are supporting the Senate candidates likely to be harmed by a Trump nomination.

I would rather be in exile than be complicit in the nomination or election of Donald Trump. Clips like this just make me incredibly sad.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-03-2016 08:25 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499285)
I don't think the details matter that much, but that the general story holds is an important lesson about how wealth works and why we should be wary of assigning it merit.

Anyway, here's Bloomberg:
Fred Trump died in 1999, not 1974.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-03-2016 08:29 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499295)
I tend to agree that he never expected to do well and can't back down now. He just wanted his name recognition to go up, which has a great effect on people who buy gold-plated plastic condos.

But now he thinks he can win. And his ego has taken over completely.

TM
2. He's in too deep to jump out now. I disagree that it's all his ego telling him he can win. I think that may be part of it, but the bigger part is he's got no choice but to win.

This will be the ugliest campaign imaginable.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-03-2016 08:38 PM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499305)
This is exactly what it's like to talk to so many Republicans these days. They just say the most absurd, stupid shit. I honestly used to think that it was a facade they had to keep up in order to vote their pocketbook. And maybe this guy actually believes what he's saying. Maybe he doesn't. But at a certain point, it just doesn't matter, does it?*

And we are so very clearly at that point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUIs5K2Snpk

TM

*And that's the danger of the Sebby argument about Trump "really being a moderate" or the voters who support him really supporting him because of a fear of globalization (for fuck's sake, man). His supporters beat people. He whips them up into a frenzy and I wouldn't be surprised if a protestor at one of his rallies gets stomped to death. This shit is not a game. Stop making excuses for this asshole and his asshole supporters. Stop trying to rationalize their behavior and their support. Just fucking stop.
I get the emotion, but I'm entitled to disagree with you. Yes, Trump is a favorite of racists. But the protectionists are his bread and butter. The xenophobes necessarily come with that.

And let's face it. Whoever's running on the GOP ticket always gets the racist vote.

I'm not stopping. I respect your point, but I'm holding mine. And I'm not rationalizing the Trump voters in aggregate. Nor should anyone. Different people support him for various reasons. It isn't all racist dog whistling. Not by a long shot.

Pretty Little Flower 03-03-2016 09:34 PM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499311)
It isn't all racist dog whistling.
When this is your strongest card, it is time to fold.

Hank Chinaski 03-03-2016 10:27 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 499302)
Like what happened to Palin?
Palin was nothing before the election. Trump had a name, and one that seems very important to him.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-03-2016 10:50 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499260)
Sanders is nuts, but he's addressing the root problems in the country.
He is addressing the issue of money in politics, but isn't he kinda focused on that one? Seems like there's a lot of stuff he isn't addressing. Seems like he is a protest candidate who didn't expect to be in this position.

Quote:
And his followers, however naive they might be, saw hope in the guy.
Lots of his followers want someone who is going to try for more fundamental change than the incrementalism that Hillary offers. Martin O'Malley didn't move them.

Why were there so few good candidates on both sides this year? HRC scared some Dems off, certainly.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-03-2016 10:51 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499266)
Massachusetts was probably crossover from some blue collar and union types to whom the populism and protectionism may have some appeal. I know it was NY and not MA, but Hillary can't even fill a rally when unions make attendance mandatory and pay comp time for people to attend.

Vermont elected Bernie Sanders. They are both reliably blue states, and Vermont, kind of like NH, doesn't have a reputation for picking winners on the R side. While any R would rather have the delegates than not, I would just assume that no one is going to spend time or money there and that it's a state where someone like Kasich would outperform, and thus no one else would even try. Bottom of the barrel for Super Tuesday.
Primaries are awesome because Alabama Democrats and Vermont Republicans actually get to cast a vote that might matter.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-03-2016 10:58 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Tyler Cowen has a post titled, What Are The Core Differences Between Republicans And Democrats? I like it so much that I'm going to quote it here in full. His version has a bunch of links I haven't reproduced.

Quote:
Paul Krugman has a long post on this question, here is part of his bottom line:

Quote:
…the Democratic Party…[is] a coalition of teachers’ unions, trial lawyers, birth control advocates, wonkish (not, not “monkish” — down, spell check, down!) economists, etc., often finding common ground but by no means guaranteed to fall in line. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has generally been monolithic, with an orthodoxy nobody dares question. Or at least nobody until you-know-who…
My view is not so far from that, but I would put it a little differently and then push harder on some other dimensions of the distinction (btw Brad DeLong comments). The Republican Party is held together by the core premise that the status of some traditionally important groups be supported and indeed extended. That would include “white male producers,” but not only. You could add soldiers, Christians (many but not all kinds), married mothers, gun owners, and other groups to that list.

(The success of Trump by the way is that he appeals to that revaluation of values directly, and bypasses or revises or ignores a lot of the associated policy positions. That is why the Republican Party finds it so hard to counter him and also fears it will lose its privileged position, were Trump to win. The older Republican policy positions haven’t delivered much to people for quite some time.)

Democrats are a looser coalition of interest groups. They agree less on exactly which groups should rise in status, or why, but they share a skepticism about the Republican program for status allocation, leading many Democrats to dislike the Republicans themselves and to feel superior to them. In any case, that underlying diversity does mean fewer litmus tests and potentially a much broader political base, as we observe in higher turnout Presidential elections, which Democrats are more likely to win these days. That also means more room for intellectual flexibility, although in some historical eras this operates as a negative.

Right off the bat, this distinction between the two parties puts most blacks, single women, and most but not all Hispanics in the Democratic camp. Not-yet-assimilated immigrants have a hard time going Republican, even though a lot of high-achieving Asians might seem like natural conservatives. No matter how much Republicans talk about broadening their message, the core point is still “we want to raise the status of groups which you don’t belong to!” That’s a tough sell, and furthermore the Republicans can fall all too readily into the roles of being oppressors, or at least talking like oppressors.

Republicans, who are focused on the status of some core groups at the exclusion of others, are more likely to lack empathy. Democrats, who oppose some of the previously existing status relations, and who deeply oppose the Republican ideology, are more likely to exhibit neuroticism.

It is easy for Republicans to see the higher neuroticism of Democrats, and easier for Democrats to see the lesser empathy of Republicans. It is harder for each side to see its own flaws, or to see how the other side recognizes its flaws so accurately.

Academics are one of the interest groups courted by Democrats. Academics want to appear high status and reasonable, and Democrats offer academics some of those features in the affiliation, including the option to feel they are better than Republicans. So on issues such as evolution vs. creationism (but not only), Democrats truly are more reasonable and more scientific. Academics consume those status goods, plus the academics already had some natural tendencies toward neuroticism.

Academics shouldn’t feel too good about this bargain. They are being “used” as all party interest groups are, and how much reasonableness they can consume in the Democratic coalition will ebb and flow with objective conditions. In the 1970s and 1980s, for instance, it was common for Democrats to be more delusional than Republicans, and those days may someday return, though not this year.

Next, we must move beyond the federal level to understand the two parties, and that is also a good litmus test for whether a discussion of the two parties is probing as opposed to self-comforting.

At the state and local level, the governments controlled by Republicans tend to be better run, sometimes much better run, than those controlled by the Democrats (oops). And a big piece of how American people actually experience government comes at the state and local level.

This superior performance stems from at least two factors. First, Republican delusions often matter less at the state and local level, and furthermore what the core Republican status groups want from state and local government is actually pretty conducive to decent outcomes. The Democrats in contrast keep on doling out favors and goodies to their multitude of interest groups, and that often harms outcomes. The Democrats find it harder to “get tough,” even when that is what is called for, and they have less of a values program to cohere around, for better or worse.

Second, the states with a lot of Democrats are probably on average harder to govern well (with some notable Southern exceptions). That may excuse the quality of Democratic leadership to some degree, but it is not an entirely favorable truth for the broader Democratic ethos. Republicans, of course, recognize this reality. Even a lot of independent voters realize they might prefer local Republican governance, and so in the current equilibrium a strong majority of governors, state legislatures, and the like are Republican.
Think on those facts — or on the state of Illinois — the next time you hear the Democrats described as the reality-oriented community. That self-description is “the opium of the Democrats.”

If you wish to try to understand Republicans, think of them as seeing a bunch of states, full of Republicans, and ruled by Republicans, and functioning pretty well. (Go visit Utah!) They think the rest of America should be much more like those places. They also find that core intuition stronger than the potential list of views where Democrats are more reasonable or more correct, and that is why they are not much budged by the intellectual Democratic commentary. Too often the Democrats cannot readily fathom this.

At some level the Republicans might know the Democrats have valid substantive points, but they sooner think “Let’s first put status relations in line, then our debates might get somewhere. In the meantime, I’m not going to cotton well to a debate designed to lower the status of the really important groups and their values.” And so the dialogue doesn’t get very far.

Again, both the Democrats and the Republicans have their ready made, mostly true, and repeatedly self-confirming stories about the defects of the other. They need only read the news to feel better about themselves, and the academic contingent of the Democrats is better at this than are most ordinary citizens. There is thus a rather large cottage industry of intellectuals interpreting and channeling these stories to Democratic voters and sympathizers. On the right, you will find an equally large cottage industry, sometimes reeking of intolerance or at least imperfect tolerance, peddling mostly true stories about the failures of Democratic governance, absurd political correctness, tribal loyalties, and so on. That industry has a smaller role for the intellectuals and a larger role for preachers and talk radio.

It is easier for intelligent foreigners to buy more heavily into the Democratic stories. They feel more comfortable with the associated status relations, and furthermore foreigners are less likely to be connected to American state and local government, so they don’t have much sense of how the Republicans actually are more sensible in many circumstances.

It would be wrong to conclude that the two parties both ought to be despised. This is human life, and it is also politics, and politics cannot be avoided. These are what motivations look like. Overall these motivations have helped create and support a lot of wonderful lives and a lot of what is noble in the human spirit. We should honor that side of American life, while being truly and yet critically patriotic.
That said, I see no reason to fall for any of these narratives. The goal is to stand above these biases as much as possible, and communicate some kind of higher synthesis, in the hope of making it all a bit better.

This year, I’m just hoping it doesn’t get too much worse. In the last few years I have seen some nascent signs that Democrats are becoming less reasonable at the national level, for instance their embrace of the $15 national minimum wage. I also am seeing signs that the Republicans are becoming less fit to govern at the local level, probably because national-level ideology is shaping too many smaller scale, ostensibly pragmatic decisions. The Trump fixation also could end up hurting the quality of Republican state and local government. So this portrait could end up changing fairly rapidly and maybe not for the better.

ThurgreedMarshall 03-04-2016 10:06 AM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499311)
I get the emotion, but I'm entitled to disagree with you. Yes, Trump is a favorite of racists. But the protectionists are his bread and butter. The xenophobes necessarily come with that.

And let's face it. Whoever's running on the GOP ticket always gets the racist vote.

I'm not stopping. I respect your point, but I'm holding mine. And I'm not rationalizing the Trump voters in aggregate. Nor should anyone. Different people support him for various reasons. It isn't all racist dog whistling. Not by a long shot.
I have not been exposed to one rational person who would vote for Trump. I suspect you haven't either. If that's the case, you're pulling shit straight out of your ass for why people are voting for him, because all evidence we have seen points to support strictly from small-minded bigots who hate Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, women, LGBT, and losers (somehow defined as anyone but them). Your globalization argument is just ridiculous.

TM

Adder 03-04-2016 10:27 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499316)
Tyler Cowen has a post titled, What Are The Core Differences Between Republicans And Democrats? I like it so much that I'm going to quote it here in full. His version has a bunch of links I haven't reproduced.
Not sure I buy his state and local level analysis. For one thing, I don't think a key difference between New York, for example, and Utah is which party runs things locally (and go visit Minnesota!). But even more importantly, I think the better observation is that local political issues are simply far less "partisan" at least as to the things that municipalities actually do. States more so, but still not to the degree of the federal government. The parties do their darnedest to try to make thing partisan, and there's partisanship around the edges, but ultimately everyone agrees we need roads and schools.

Also, the minimum wage is a funny issue to use to show Dems being unreasonable. For some reason, it's such an article of faith among right-leaning economists that minimum wages are bad that the significant evidence that any harm is small, if it exists at all, must be ignored. (Not saying the question is settled, just saying it's not "unreasonable" to consider what the empirical work suggests.)

Sidd Finch 03-04-2016 11:15 AM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499308)
Van Jones is generally not at the top of my list of people with whom I agree, but I agree with him 1000%. And another clip of him from the night of the SC results when he talked about Trump as well. And believe it or not, a LOT people on conservative social media are in agreement. Trump is openly courting the votes of white supremacists, and it makes me sick.

I was not a huge fan of Dole or McCain and in 2012 I was in the 'Anybody but Romney' camp, but I could get onboard to support them in the general election. I could possibly get past his kind of crappy policy ideas, but I cannot get past his horrible racism or misogyny, or his treatment of the disabled or veterans.

I am in mourning and am working through the stages of grief for the cause I have supported my entire adult life and given no small amount of time or money. As you have seen today, I am still working through the stage of denial. I cannot support Trump. And I find him so offensive that if the race is close and he looks like he may win, I will not only get super drunk and vote for Hillary, I would actively campaign for her.

I don't think it will come to that, thankfully. I was already fully onboard with the #NeverTrump movement within the party, and are a number of us who are horrified at what has become of the GOP. I like to think we are the Silent Majority, but that is probably just the Denial talking. Mr. Chick and I are supporting the Senate candidates likely to be harmed by a Trump nomination.

I would rather be in exile than be complicit in the nomination or election of Donald Trump. Clips like this just make me incredibly sad.
I have found your posts in the last few days to be very interesting, and in many ways encouraging about the state of our nation.

Also, I'd be interested in working with you on the "Drunk Republican Texas Chicks For Hillary" program, if it comes to that. Might as well enjoy the ride, no?

Sidd Finch 03-04-2016 11:18 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499313)
Palin was nothing before the election. Trump had a name, and one that seems very important to him.
She wasn't nothing in Alaska, and losing didn't hurt here there. Nor did looking crazy.

There is a yuge audience of dittoheads and nutjobs looking for a preacher. Do you think Trump can't turn a second-place run into a reality TV show? (Fuck, he'd probably do a reality show if he got a first-place run. "So You Wanna Be SCOTUS Justice?")

Sidd Finch 03-04-2016 11:21 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499314)
He is addressing the issue of money in politics, but isn't he kinda focused on that one? Seems like there's a lot of stuff he isn't addressing. Seems like he is a protest candidate who didn't expect to be in this position.
He's also addressing the need to tear down Obama's biggest accomplishment, healthcare, and replace it with a wet dream about pink bunnies and rainbows.

Quote:
Why were there so few good candidates on both sides this year? HRC scared some Dems off, certainly.
Anyone with a realistic shot at the core party + independents, that's needed to win the general election, was scared of competing with Hillary. Sanders saw a moment -- not to win, but to pull the party left.

Sidd Finch 03-04-2016 11:22 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499315)
Primaries are awesome because Alabama Democrats and Vermont Republicans actually get to cast a vote that might matter.
As a Californian, my first thought on reading this is "fuck you." But I get your point.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-04-2016 11:29 AM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499317)
I have not been exposed to one rational person who would vote for Trump. I suspect you haven't either. If that's the case, you're pulling shit straight out of your ass for why people are voting for him, because all evidence we have seen points to support strictly from small-minded bigots who hate Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, women, LGBT, and losers (somehow defined as anyone but them). Your globalization argument is just ridiculous.

TM
We have a guy who comes for a day a week and does all the stuff around the place I can't really do anymore, and he's Brazilian, only recently a citizen, going to vote in the US for the first time this year, and he told us about a month ago that he liked Trump. Perfectly rational guy, but doesn't focus much on politics. My wife and I both said almost at the same time "have you listened to what he says about immigrants".

Two weeks later I was talking to him and he said, you know, I hadn't paid much attention to what he was actually saying, I just liked his tone. But now that I've listened to him more closely, he's crazy.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-04-2016 11:33 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 499321)
Anyone with a realistic shot at the core party + independents, that's needed to win the general election, was scared of competing with Hillary. Sanders saw a moment -- not to win, but to pull the party left.
I was actually surprised more candidates didn't get in on the dem side to build their credentials for next time. Some of that may be that many of our most promising future candidates (I'm thinking Kirsten Gillibrand, for example) are pretty big Hillary supporters, and saw more opportunity in being on the inside of a Hillary run and administration than in building their own electoral base.

Sidd Finch 03-04-2016 11:48 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499324)
I was actually surprised more candidates didn't get in on the dem side to build their credentials for next time. Some of that may be that many of our most promising future candidates (I'm thinking Kirsten Gillibrand, for example) are pretty big Hillary supporters, and saw more opportunity in being on the inside of a Hillary run and administration than in building their own electoral base.

The opportunity to be in the administration is one reason not to run against her. A bigger reason is that supporting her now creates the chance to get her (and Bill's) support later, while opposing her ruins it.

And a candidate needs a reason to run. O'Malley was the perfect example of a candidate who didn't have that reason. He was "not Hillary," that's about it. He wasn't opposed to her on any major policy issues, certainly didn't want to attack her, and so had no base of support from which to draw (either votes or money).

Note that I'm not saying that having such a clear front-runner, so early, is a good thing for the party. In some ways it is, in others it isn't.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-04-2016 11:58 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 499325)
The opportunity to be in the administration is one reason not to run against her. A bigger reason is that supporting her now creates the chance to get her (and Bill's) support later, while opposing her ruins it.

And a candidate needs a reason to run. O'Malley was the perfect example of a candidate who didn't have that reason. He was "not Hillary," that's about it. He wasn't opposed to her on any major policy issues, certainly didn't want to attack her, and so had no base of support from which to draw (either votes or money).

Note that I'm not saying that having such a clear front-runner, so early, is a good thing for the party. In some ways it is, in others it isn't.
I don't think running against her hurts anyone's ability to get her future support, unless they run a totally pitiful campaign like Webb. I would not be surprised to see her find a good portfolio for both O'Malley and Sanders.

Sidd Finch 03-04-2016 12:06 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499326)
I don't think running against her hurts anyone's ability to get her future support, unless they run a totally pitiful campaign like Webb. I would not be surprised to see her find a good portfolio for both O'Malley and Sanders.
O'Malley? Sure. He ran a tepid campaign that did not give any clear reason to vote for him over Hillary, and did not hurt her at all. In my view, that was pointless, and I think many candidates decided it wasn't worth the candle. "I agree with Hillary, I like her, but I'm not her, so vote for me" just wasn't a compelling story. Good enough to avoid being pushed off later, but why bother with the work and risk of a presidential campaign to do that?

Sanders is a completely different story, on every level. He actually does offer a different reason (pink bunnies and rainbows). I highly doubt that he'll be offered, or that he'd accept, a core position in a Clinton administration. I truly don't think he cares -- while I don't like his policies I do admire his integrity. He'll campaign for Clinton and push his supporters to support her.

Hank Chinaski 03-04-2016 12:39 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
I couldn't figure out why Flower hates Trump so much, until I heard Donald explain last night that he is seriously hung. I'd completely forgotten Paigow had told us when she and Flower hooked up she was surprised how under endowed he was:( #jealousloser

SEC_Chick 03-04-2016 12:51 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499315)
Primaries are awesome because Alabama Democrats and Vermont Republicans actually get to cast a vote that might matter.
I get it. I do. And all Rs should have their voices heard and votes counted. And I give any Rs in the Bronx props for fighting the good fight. But under the principle of "One person; one vote" I find it manifestly unfair that the vote of Bronx Rs carries 43 times the influence towards picking a nominee as an R vote in the reddest county of Alabama. But the entire system of delegate distribution is pretty messed up on that count.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...rson-and-cruz/

Adder 03-04-2016 01:38 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 499327)
I highly doubt that he'll be offered, or that he'd accept, a core position in a Clinton administration.
I think he won't accept, thus will not be offered. If he campaigns for her as you predict, and I think he will, I think she'd being willing to offer a cabinet position. I don't think he wants one.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-04-2016 01:51 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499329)
I get it. I do. And all Rs should have their voices heard and votes counted. And I give any Rs in the Bronx props for fighting the good fight. But under the principle of "One person; one vote" I find it manifestly unfair that the vote of Bronx Rs carries 43 times the influence towards picking a nominee as an R vote in the reddest county of Alabama. But the entire system of delegate distribution is pretty messed up on that count.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...rson-and-cruz/
I don't know the Republican party allocation math very well, but on the Democratic side, the way delegates are allocated gives an additional voice to stronger democratic states - we factor in the total Dem. vote in the most recent presidential and gubernatorial elections as a factor, not just population - so Texas has about 7% of the electoral votes but only gets about 5.3% of the delegates to the Democratic Convention, while New York has 5.3% of the electoral votes but gets 6.2% of the Convention delegates.

There is always a debate within the party as to how much weight to give to the Democratic vote and how much to the total population - the first tilts toward liberal candidates, the second toward moderates. Interestingly, the allocation formula developed this year, contra all the bellyaching, favors Bernie rather than Hillary.

Delegates are then allocated within each state to congressional districts by the state party, and each state party selects from a list of authorized approaches.

From the look of that article, New York Republicans decided they'd allocate evenly among CDs (as most states choose to do) regardless of how much republican vote comes from that CD. So the disparity in vote representation is mainly within the state - if the Bronx is way over the mean, somewhere in Long Island there is a yuge number of Rs who elect the same number of delegates as the little rump caucus in the Bronx. But I expect overall that Texan Rs still elect more delegates than NY Rs, even if the NY distribution is really lumpy.

Replaced_Texan 03-04-2016 02:25 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499318)
Not sure I buy his state and local level analysis. For one thing, I don't think a key difference between New York, for example, and Utah is which party runs things locally (and go visit Minnesota!). But even more importantly, I think the better observation is that local political issues are simply far less "partisan" at least as to the things that municipalities actually do. States more so, but still not to the degree of the federal government. The parties do their darnedest to try to make thing partisan, and there's partisanship around the edges, but ultimately everyone agrees we need roads and schools.

Also, the minimum wage is a funny issue to use to show Dems being unreasonable. For some reason, it's such an article of faith among right-leaning economists that minimum wages are bad that the significant evidence that any harm is small, if it exists at all, must be ignored. (Not saying the question is settled, just saying it's not "unreasonable" to consider what the empirical work suggests.)
I read an article about Houston in Texas Monthly a few years ago that resonated with me about the rising importance of cities in an era where National and State governments can be dysfunctional and out of touch.

Quote:
But what followed was more nuanced and less traditionally optimistic. “Sociologists and historians agree on this concept I’ll call metrolocity, because sovereign governments have simply forfeited their leadership position,” Hobby said. “This is, of course, a sad story you know well, so I will not dwell on it . . . but cities in general, and Houston specifically, must confront the urgency of the day’s events and fashion solutions in real time. Shutdowns and political spin cycles just aren’t a luxury cities can afford.”

A similar sentiment was expressed a few weeks later by Harris County judge Ed Emmett in his annual State of the County address, delivered at the same Hilton Americas ballroom before another crowd of local boosters. Emmett is a pragmatist too, a Republican who knows how to reach across the aisle; he did so particularly well when working with former mayor (and Democrat) Bill White to meet the needs of the region during Hurricane Ike. In his speech, Emmett declared that while the county’s responsibilities to its citizens are expanding exponentially, “it is not at all clear that we can count on the same level of federal and state support that we have enjoyed in the past.” He added, “Harris County—as the largest player in the region—needs to work with all partners, public and private, to make sure that the services and infrastructure necessary for continued regional vitality are developed in a timely fashion. I realize that some will engage in so-called turf battles. Others will try to strangle government growth by imposing arbitrary limits on revenue, not realizing their shortsightedness. And still others will focus only on the short-term politics involved. We must resist all hindrances.”

This kind of talk was not exactly typical fare in Houston. Dark clouds seemed to be gathering on Harris County’s usually sunny horizon—and, by extension, over other places in Texas with megacity potential, like the Dallas–Fort Worth area and the San Antonio–Austin corridor. With contemporary federal and state governments increasingly paralyzed by partisanship or locked into poll-driven economic policies—Governor Rick Perry’s decision last year to turn down Washington’s Medicaid expansion is a glaring example—local governments are finding themselves, increasingly often, with fewer dollars and lots more to do. As Mayor Annise Parker put it, “We have made choices that impact the city, and the city has to take up the slack.”

- See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics....cCBPm6dD.dpuf
In our area, the local elections are nominally non-partisan, though the city has trended Democratic while the county has trended Republican. Either direction, it's pretty moderate. And the problems that cities face are pretty (sometimes literally, as the current pothole initiative shows) concrete rather than ideological.

Not Bob 03-04-2016 02:50 PM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499317)
I have not been exposed to one rational person who would vote for Trump. I suspect you haven't either. If that's the case, you're pulling shit straight out of your ass for why people are voting for him, because all evidence we have seen points to support strictly from small-minded bigots who hate Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, women, LGBT, and losers (somehow defined as anyone but them). Your globalization argument is just ridiculous.

TM
I think you and Sebby are both right for the reasons articulated by Paul Krugman. Here's the part in particular that I mean:

Quote:
Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base. I’m talking about the bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the donor class.

What Donald Trump has done is tell the base that it doesn’t have to accept the whole package. He promises to make America white again — surely everyone knows that’s the real slogan, right? — while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he’s not a real conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters.
Although I am related by blood and marriage to several Trump supporters, I'm not sure I know anyone rational who is planning on voting for Trump. I do know that he speaks to people who have been frustrated with the fact that the GOP keeps promising to [eliminate Obamacare, stop illegal immigration, balance the budget, etc.] and fails to do it despite holding a majority in both houses. I know why, and you know why, and Trump knows why, but these voters don't. And the GOP is to blame by making promises in 2010, 2012, and 2014 that they simply could not keep. Obama will veto any change to Obama care, and the GOP doesn't have the votes to override his veto.

And to Sebby's point about Trump surfing an anti-free trade wave - absolutely. (At least I think he made that point.). Elites in both parties are totally committed to free trade. And it has been an article of faith since Bill Clinton pushed confirmation of NAFTA (negotiated in the GHWB administration) that free trade was a good thing for the US, and if you opposed it, you were a moron. And that it was the natural state of affairs and fighting it would be like Canute ordering the waves not to get his feet wet. (Related: I miss Spanky.)

But one can think that free trade is a net good and still be concerned enough to try to give some sort of a cushion to those whose jobs went to Mexico or China because of it. And one can also think that free trade is wonderful on concept but that the Chinese and Japanese and the EU don't play by the rules explicitly (see Airbus) or as a result of cultural norms (Japan and South Korea) or by gaming their currency (hello, Red China!). Or the complete lack of labor or environmental protections in emerging markets, creating a kind or regulatory arbitrage for business.

All of these things were ignored by the GOP (and, other than by lip service, the Democrats). But working class conservatives could see that as they lost their jobs at Goodyear or GM, the business wing of the party was reaping enormous benefits from free trade. Trump is saying the things that no other GOP leader would say and that no Democratic leader since Gephardt (and maybe Bernie) would say.

Adder 03-04-2016 03:00 PM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499333)
I know why, and you know why, and Trump knows why, but these voters don't. And the GOP is to blame by making promises in 2010, 2012, and 2014 that they simply could not keep. Obama will veto any change to Obama care, and the GOP doesn't have the votes to override his veto.
That and actually doing those things would be objectively, and subjectively to the donor class, terrible.

Not Bob 03-04-2016 03:09 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499329)
I get it. I do. And all Rs should have their voices heard and votes counted. And I give any Rs in the Bronx props for fighting the good fight. But under the principle of "One person; one vote" I find it manifestly unfair that the vote of Bronx Rs carries 43 times the influence towards picking a nominee as an R vote in the reddest county of Alabama. But the entire system of delegate distribution is pretty messed up on that count.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...rson-and-cruz/
Dear Imaginary Niece,

I'm curious about something, and I hope my question doesn't offend - in your view, what makes a Republican a Republican? It seems like there's a stereotype that Jane GOPer is (1) socially conservative (pro-life at a minimum); (2) fiscally conservative (tax cuts and a goal to balance the budget): (3) national security issues (strong military, increases in defense spending seem uniform, but I think post Iraq there might be some variance between neo-cons and traditional pro-military conservatives); and (4) pro-business policies (free trade, reduced regulations, etc.)

Have I missed any core elements? And which would you say are the most important? My brother is registered with the GOP, and national security is his big one. My brother in law is mostly concerned with taxes. And I have a cousin who is all about the social issues - abortion, mostly. I don't think she cares all that much about gay marriage (she opposes it, but with no where near the level a intensity as she has about abortion).

It seems like this primary season is one in which various parts of the GOP are battling over which values are more important. Does it seem that way to you, too?

Kind of like the Democrats from 1968 to 1992. (I maintain that Carter won in 1976 as a reaction to the the cesspool of Nixon Administration scandals that we collectively call "Watergate.")

ThurgreedMarshall 03-04-2016 03:10 PM
Senate Races
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...d=ss_fb-bottom

TM

ThurgreedMarshall 03-04-2016 03:24 PM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499333)
Although I am related by blood and marriage to several Trump supporters, I'm not sure I know anyone rational who is planning on voting for Trump. [And lots of other stuff.]
I think your nuanced and in-depth reading of conservative support of Trump is one that I'm not sure Trump voters would understand.

They surely know his companies export every job they possibly can while he bullshits his way through every stump speech about forcing Apple to build iPhones here. Or maybe they just don't care? I'm struggling to understand (and maybe you can help, given your perspective) just what the difference is between Romney's bullshit about bringing jobs back and Trump's.

You say all this stuff was ignored by the GOP, but EVERY candidate pays lip service to this shit. Is it solely because Trump is considered anti-establishment that, in your opinion at least, they believe him when talks that shit?

As far as I can see, aside from talking about the war as a mistake and being completely crude and disgusting at all times, the only difference between him and the establishment candidates is he's thrown away the dog whistle.

TM

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-04-2016 04:03 PM
Re: Senate Races
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499336)
And let's add Iowa to the list thanks to Mitch McConnell's War on The Supremes.

Edited to add: Reap as ye sow, assholes.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-04-2016 04:06 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499329)
And I give any Rs in the Bronx props for fighting the good fight.
Just an aside, but you may want to check out how many Bronx Republican Party Poo-Bahs have held a seat in Rikers before saying this. That particular party is notably corrupt. Start by looking up Guy Valella and Joseph Savino....

Hank Chinaski 03-04-2016 05:12 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499343)
Just an aside, but you may want to check out how many Bronx Republican Party Poo-Bahs have held a seat in Rikers before saying this. That particular party is notably corrupt. Start by looking up Guy Valella and Joseph Savino....
Maybe they should build a wall to keep I-ties out?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-04-2016 06:21 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499344)
Maybe they should build a wall to keep I-ties out?
If the Spuyten Duyvil can't do it, a wall won't either.

LessinSF 03-05-2016 02:10 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499343)
Just an aside, but you may want to check out how many Bronx Republican Party Poo-Bahs have held a seat in Rikers before saying this. That particular party is notably corrupt. Start by looking up Guy Valella and Joseph Savino....
I was wrong. It turns out I can vote in the CA Dem primary as a decline to state. It likely will be moot by then, but I would vote for Bernie. I don't agree with a lot of his platform, but let's try it out. It's better than the sixth term of Bush/Clinton. And their puppeteers.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-05-2016 10:36 AM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499337)
I think your nuanced and in-depth reading of conservative support of Trump is one that I'm not sure Trump voters would understand.

They surely know his companies export every job they possibly can while he bullshits his way through every stump speech about forcing Apple to build iPhones here. Or maybe they just don't care? I'm struggling to understand (and maybe you can help, given your perspective) just what the difference is between Romney's bullshit about bringing jobs back and Trump's.

You say all this stuff was ignored by the GOP, but EVERY candidate pays lip service to this shit. Is it solely because Trump is considered anti-establishment that, in your opinion at least, they believe him when talks that shit?

As far as I can see, aside from talking about the war as a mistake and being completely crude and disgusting at all times, the only difference between him and the establishment candidates is he's thrown away the dog whistle.

TM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-an...ted-1456448550

If you're paywalled, just google "Rise of the Unprotected."

Not Bob 03-05-2016 10:45 AM
Re: This.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499337)
I think your nuanced and in-depth reading of conservative support of Trump is one that I'm not sure Trump voters would understand.

They surely know his companies export every job they possibly can while he bullshits his way through every stump speech about forcing Apple to build iPhones here. Or maybe they just don't care? I'm struggling to understand (and maybe you can help, given your perspective) just what the difference is between Romney's bullshit about bringing jobs back and Trump's.

You say all this stuff was ignored by the GOP, but EVERY candidate pays lip service to this shit. Is it solely because Trump is considered anti-establishment that, in your opinion at least, they believe him when talks that shit?

As far as I can see, aside from talking about the war as a mistake and being completely crude and disgusting at all times, the only difference between him and the establishment candidates is he's thrown away the dog whistle.

TM
You are absolutely right about the thrown away dog whistle, which is why seeing so many Republican leaders (Ryan, et al) respond to him with some variant of "this racism is unacceptable in the party of Lincoln" is laughable in some ways.

But I think that my point about him (even with all of his past sins of being a pro-choice, off shoring, immigrant hiring, com man) the voice of a lot of disaffected Republicans still stands. Check these quotes out:

Quote:
“We know who Donald Trump is,” he added, “and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.”
Quote:
“There’s nothing short of Trump shooting my daughter in the street and my grandchildren — there is nothing and nobody that’s going to dissuade me from voting for Trump,” Ms. Butler said.
From the NYT today.

Also this shows the divide:

Quote:
As Mr. Romney hopped between television stations on Friday, proclaiming his dismay over Mr. Trump’s crudeness, challenging his decency and questioning his integrity, he declared that his overtures were breaking through — though not necessarily to the audience he intended. In an interview conducted inside the headquarters of Bloomberg News in Manhattan, far from the crucial primary voting states that could decide Mr. Trump’s fate, he observed that Midtown office workers had offered their gratitude as he rode up to the studio.

“Just coming up the escalator, Mr. Romney said, people said, “ ‘Thanks for what you did yesterday.’ ”

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-06-2016 12:27 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 499347)
I was wrong. It turns out I can vote in the CA Dem primary as a decline to state. It likely will be moot by then, but I would vote for Bernie. I don't agree with a lot of his platform, but let's try it out. It's better than the sixth term of Bush/Clinton. And their puppeteers.
Go for it Bro.

I think it will be moot, but at least Bernie's voice is going to be way louder now.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-06-2016 03:37 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
I am impressed. Faced with a plethora of truly bad choices, it appears Republican voters have carefully winnowed the field down to the worst two.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:49 PM.
Page 95 of 126 « First 45859394 95 9697105 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com