Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm actually familiar with all of them without having to Google them. But otherwise that would be a helpful hint, inasmuch as I might have used Bing, Yahoo! Search, Yandev, Duck Duck Go or some other search engine which would not have opened my eyes to the material on the web which one can find through Google.

I knew you were still a Lycos guy as of 2005.

It is clear that you detest the guy, and likely other people who are fat and who thus disappoint you, but setting his physique aside, I'm not sure why, since "the mess we're in today" seems to owe much more to many other people, some of whom were almost certainly fat too.

His carriage is indicative of one who's never done anything but pontificate for a living, or a run a university (pardon the likely redundancy). Summers is clearly very bright. But other than a short stint at DE Shaw, no doubt given so they could slap a big name on the company roster for a few years, the man's never been in a private sector profit driven organization.

At least Rubin worked for a living and was assessed based on the profitability of his suggested business and policy moves.

If we're to judge how Summers would do in business, this gives some decent guidance: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...rd-18-billion/

He'd be a perfect head of the Fed during a Trump administration. He, the Donald, and Christie as Atty General -- a supergroup of boorish, bloated know-it-alls.

ETA: Some more hits from Larry's illustrious career.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I give up. You're just repeating yourself. I'm not interested in doing so anymore.

TM

What exactly do you want me to concede? I've admitted racism and xenophobia are part of what's driving Trump's popularity. I've said also, in significant part, it's wage stagnation and dissatisfaction with the economy by middle and lower middle class voters. Is this is a crazy position? It seems entirely factual and entirely reasonable. What's crazy would be to say the Trump phenomenon accrues exclusively from bigotry or from economic concerns.

I suspect the pundits who bristle at the argument economics have a lot to do with it do so because they feel the need to emphasize the xenophobia/racism element. To look at things with a more circumspect view annoys them because it detracts from the red meat narrative, "it's all racist rednecks."

I get the desire to see it primarily one way. But that doesn't make an incorrect narrative accurate.

[Adder]

This, from a guy from Finland, is pretty good. And different from what we're hearing from Bernie and his online backers in an important way.

I don't think we'll ever sell universal healthcare and freer education and broader income support on being more "socialist." Because no developed country really is "socialist" nor are there any meaningful leftist economics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

2. All those white southerners didn't leave the Democratic party, after the Civil Rights Act and in response to the GOP's southern strategy, because they found its legacy of racism so intolerable.

This is where Penske would post a picture of Robert Byrd, of course.

Any argument either party has a greater history of racism over a 160 year timeline is absurd and pointless. The only thing that matters is the recent history which has an impact on the amount of racism around today. The GOP wins that hands down, by a mile.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Any argument either party has a greater history of racism over a 160 year timeline is absurd and pointless. The only thing that matters is the recent history which has an impact on the amount of racism around today. The GOP wins that hands down, by a mile.

And has for our entire lifetimes. And we're getting old.

But history is never pointless, even if it does always fail to support a pure partisan position. Perhaps moreso because it never does.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What exactly do you want me to concede? I've admitted racism and xenophobia are part of what's driving Trump's popularity. I've said also, in significant part, it's wage stagnation and dissatisfaction with the economy by middle and lower middle class voters. Is this is a crazy position? It seems entirely factual and entirely reasonable. What's crazy would be to say the Trump phenomenon accrues exclusively from bigotry or from economic concerns.

I suspect the pundits who bristle at the argument economics have a lot to do with it do so because they feel the need to emphasize the xenophobia/racism element. To look at things with a more circumspect view annoys them because it detracts from the red meat narrative, "it's all racist rednecks."

I get the desire to see it primarily one way. But that doesn't make an incorrect narrative accurate.

I think we're arguing over what generally drives people to vote for Trump.

Given (among other things) the fact that:

• he outsources jobs to workers in foreign countries all the time
• he brings in a large number of foreign workers to work on his projects
• his supporters are the same people who will tell you that taxes have gone up every year of Obama's Presidency
• he gets a bump in the polls whenever he denigrates Muslims
• his rallies are hate-filled affairs, where actual violence is encouraged and occurs
• there is another candidate who talks the talk re globalization that you dismiss as a viable alternative to the people who vote Trump because of party affiliation (rather than the rest of Trump's hate-driven messages)

I have to disagree with the proposition that globalization is anywhere near the top of the list of reasons why people support Trump.

Feel free to have the last word.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

More evidence of how Trump will choose his advisers and Cabinet members. You should really read the whole thing, but here's a taste:

"Trump started the morning with a trek to the Washington Post for an interview with the editorial board. The first question they asked was about his foreign policy team. Up until now he’s said that he watches “the shows” and would listen to himself because he has “a very good brain.” This time he named some people who are not know to be on the A-list, including a conspiracy theorist and Islamophobe and a former general who was dismissed for covering up Bush administration contracting corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/mr_t...p_frontrunner/

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Feel free to have the last word.

TM

There is no last word. But there is Daily Dose of Funk #5, a two-fer (kind of). New Orleans funk/soul legend Eddie Bo would sometimes release songs in a Part 1/Part 2 format, presumably just different takes of the same song. That's what he did with We're Doing It, and I present to you parts 1 and 2 for your daily funkification. Both great cuts in different ways. The opening drum breakbeat from Part 2 is kicking and was sampled by Gorrilaz in the song "Dirty Harry":

Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooRy7ab3e08

Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C5u9ShBL8w

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

More evidence of how Trump will choose his advisers and Cabinet members. You should really read the whole thing, but here's a taste:

"Trump started the morning with a trek to the Washington Post for an interview with the editorial board. The first question they asked was about his foreign policy team. Up until now he’s said that he watches “the shows” and would listen to himself because he has “a very good brain.” This time he named some people who are not know to be on the A-list, including a conspiracy theorist and Islamophobe and a former general who was dismissed for covering up Bush administration contracting corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/mr_t...p_frontrunner/

TM

Amazing. Hank has a better foreign policy brain trust.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

There is no last word. But there is Daily Dose of Funk #5, a two-fer (kind of). New Orleans funk/soul legend Eddie Bo would sometimes release songs in a Part 1/Part 2 format, presumably just different takes of the same song. That's what he did with We're Doing It, and I present to you parts 1 and 2 for your daily funkification. Both great cuts in different ways. The opening drum breakbeat from Part 2 is kicking and was sampled by Gorrilaz in the song "Dirty Harry":

Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooRy7ab3e08

Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C5u9ShBL8w

Given that I have ties back to George Clinton, don't you think I should be the one doing these doses? I get that if this were a Minnesota only board you might be the best candidate, but c'mon now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Amazing. Hank has a better foreign policy brain trust.

Read the whole article. The man is unhinged.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Read the whole article. The man is unhinged.

TM

Yes, but you created him by failing to understand, or even trying to understand, the current of anti-globalization anger that fuels his voting base, who may or may not be racist, homophobic, xenophobes. Shame on you.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Given that I have ties back to George Clinton, don't you think I should be the one doing these doses? I get that if this were a Minnesota only board you might be the best candidate, but c'mon now.

Have at it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Have at it.

Feet don't fail me now!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Yes, but you created him by failing to understand, or even trying to understand, the current of anti-globalization anger that fuels his voting base, who may or may not be racist, homophobic, xenophobes. Shame on you.

Isn't the dialogue of this sock version of you supposed to be exclusively used in Portlandia?