PDA

View Full Version : The 2016 US General Election



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

DOR
05 Mar 15,, 02:32
Let the games begin!

I'll kick it off with what will probably be rehashed over and over: Hillary Clinton's e-mails.

Hillary Clinton's Use Of Personal Email At State Department Raises Questions : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/03/390429337/hillary-clinton-s-use-of-personal-email-account-at-state-draws-scrutiny)


Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State ended in February 2013. Here’s what the whistle-blowing New York Times said happened later in the year:

=o= In August of 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration issued guidance stating that email records of some senior officials are permanent federal records.

=o= In September of 2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use.

The NYT also buries this gem: "For some historical context," says deputy spokesperson Marie Harf, "Secretary Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account."

Of course, after Wikileaks, everyone was super confident in the security of official e-mail.
Not.


From the Washington Post—

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement Tuesday: “Like secretaries of state before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained.” Clinton “immediately said yes” when the State Department asked former secretaries last year for help preserving e-mail records, he said.

After noting Colin Powell and Karl Rove didn’t use official e-mail addresses, the story goes on to say, “Clinton was not the first secretary of state to use a private account. The State Department said Clinton’s successor as top diplomat, John F. Kerry, is the first secretary to use a standard government e-mail address ending in “’state.gov.’”

Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-used-private-e-mail-for-government-business-at-state-dept/2015/03/02/275d13d8-c156-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html)


The Daily Banter probes a bit deeper –

“The federal regulations [requiring archiving] went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down.
That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account Isn't as Awful as It Seems - The Daily Banter (http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-account-isnt-awful-seems/)

And, even the Wall St. Journal—
“It is unclear whether Mrs. Clinton’s practice ran afoul of federal laws and regulations governing the retention of official records, which have been changing in recent years.”

zraver
05 Mar 15,, 04:24
As usual you are shilling, "hey, hey look at the that tree and ignore the forest". The use of a private email matters a whole lot less than the fact that she violated federal law by not archiving all the emails she sent/received relating to her duties as sec state. Those emails do not belong to her, and are not for her to decide what gets turned over.

Parihaka
05 Mar 15,, 06:19
Yippee, interneting time.


Source: 74 FR 51014, Oct. 2, 2009, unless otherwise noted.
.................................................. ...
§1236.22 What are the additional requirements for managing electronic mail records?
.................................................. ................
(b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

et cetera et cetera (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=cdfab00fef52c315167e41f5bdcec0e8&node=pt36.3.1236&rgn=div5)

DOR
05 Mar 15,, 11:07
zraver,

You just couldn’t resist opening with an insult, could you? Not a single comment about the sources or whether what we now know is in line with the tone of these articles.

And, surprise, surprise, not a single source of your own.

(By the way, she did archive her e-mails, which you would know if you’d followed the links. She's handed over something like 50,000 pages . . . of archived e-mails!)

Louis
05 Mar 15,, 11:45
They're going to kill that poor woman. [ATTACH]

GVChamp
05 Mar 15,, 15:23
2016 election already? Come on....I still have 6 inches of snow outside and I need to install 1200 square feet of nail down 3/4 inch oak. Give me a couple months!

The Democratic side isn't interesting until someone comes out to challenge Hillary. Right now she's the only game in town. But if the media keeps pounding her, it won't surprise me if major party leaders and donors start reaching out to some other possible contenders. You don't want to go into the 2016 campaign season with voters already exhausted from Clinton exposure.
Personally I'd rather have Hillary than any of the other potentials. I don't like Biden, I HATE the pseudo-Indian Chief, and Mark Warner isn't running.
Doesn't matter to me, though, I'm fully comitted to the R side, unless they run Hitler or Stalin.

Right now the R side has more potential to be interesting, at least for this year. There's a lot of folks lining up to get donors. You've got Cruz, Bush, Walker, Paul...probably some others I'm missing. Interesting bunch. I don't know enough to have a favorite among them, but my impression is that Paul will fizzle out and the more extreme party donors and are going to end up getting Walker the nomination.

zraver
05 Mar 15,, 16:15
zraver,

You just couldn’t resist opening with an insult, could you? Not a single comment about the sources or whether what we now know is in line with the tone of these articles.

And, surprise, surprise, not a single source of your own.

(By the way, she did archive her e-mails, which you would know if you’d followed the links. She's handed over something like 50,000 pages . . . of archived e-mails!)

From your sources

Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private e-mail account for her official government business when she was secretary of state and did not routinely preserve and turn over those e-mails for government records collection, the State Department said Monday.

Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-used-private-e-mail-for-government-business-at-state-dept/2015/03/02/275d13d8-c156-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html)

5) The article confirms that Clinton’s office turned over “55,000 pages of emails” to the State Department. They allegedly didn’t turn over all emails, but 55,000 pages is a lot.

That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account Isn't as Awful as It Seems - The Daily Banter (http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/story-hillary-clintons-private-email-account-isnt-awful-seems/)

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton's advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.

Hillary Clinton's Use Of Personal Email At State Department Raises Questions : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/03/390429337/hillary-clinton-s-use-of-personal-email-account-at-state-draws-scrutiny)

Your sources say what I'm saying, so who didn't read them?

DOR
06 Mar 15,, 03:14
Quick run-down on the better-known GOP hopefuls

Jeb Bush (III)
Best known for: Stand Your Ground and related killings
Biggest asset: Family name.
Biggest handicap: Family name.

Scott Walker
Best known for: anti-union stance
Biggest asset: serving as Wisconsin governor; raising campaign money
Biggest handicap: “100% pro-life” stance (including in cases of rape and incest); abstinence = sex education; against modern medicine (STDs testing and treatment for teens); anti-contraceptives; anti-gay marriage; and pro-employing crooks (Kevin Kavanaugh, Tim Russell);

Rand Paul
Best known for: Tea Party ideology; younger half of the only father-son senator-representative combination in history
Biggest asset: Has actually read the original sources of some of his beliefs (Ayn Rand, Austrian economists);
Biggest handicap: “100% pro-life;” 20-year history of helping defeat moderate Republicans; supports “discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce” (yeah, really: he’s against Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);

Ted Cruz
Best known for: Only Canadian-born Latino Tea Partier from a pro-Castro (dad fought for Fidel) / anti-Castro (his aunt fought in the counter-revolution) family who’s running for national office
Biggest asset: excellent debater; very deep experience bringing politically motivated cases before the Supreme Court (Bush v Gore, DC v Heller, Van Orden v Perry)
Biggest handicap: Pro-life, except when mother endangered; anti-gay marriage; hyper pro-NRA; proudly proclaims GOP are the party of 47% of the people; birthplace and non-US father raises eligibility questions

= = = = =

zraver,

Yes, that's what the sources say: this isn't a story if she handed over the archives when asked to do so. There may be some question about what wasn't handed over, but that isn't at all related to the original story, is it?

zraver
06 Mar 15,, 04:02
zraver,

Yes, that's what the sources say: this isn't a story if she handed over the archives when asked to do so. There may be some question about what wasn't handed over, but that isn't at all related to the original story, is it?

Clinton (II)
Best known for- covering for her husband as he sexually abused multiple women, err shady business dealings in Whitewater, err getting fired from the Watergate Investigation for ethics violations, err shady commodities dealings err not rescuing a besieged American Ambassador, err complaining that making ends meet as a millionaire is hard... hard to pick since she has no legislative or executive credits or her own.
Biggest Asset: A compliant media who will protect her from everything until the Dem Party offers up a new bauble like they did with King Obama I, then they abandoned her.
Biggest Handicap: Age... Her husband was president 15 years ago. She's collecting social security. By the time the election rolls around, if she wins she will be 70 when she assumes office. 70 is important- we've never elected someone that old to office for their first term.

The real story is she violated federal law.

Doktor
06 Mar 15,, 07:44
One has to wonder if she likes being a scapegoat or if she really thinks there is s chance for her to live in the WH again.

DOR
06 Mar 15,, 10:43
Clinton (II)
Best known for- covering for her husband as he sexually abused multiple women, err shady business dealings in Whitewater, err getting fired from the Watergate Investigation for ethics violations, err shady commodities dealings err not rescuing a besieged American Ambassador, err complaining that making ends meet as a millionaire is hard... hard to pick since she has no legislative or executive credits or her own.
Biggest Asset: A compliant media who will protect her from everything until the Dem Party offers up a new bauble like they did with King Obama I, then they abandoned her.
Biggest Handicap: Age... Her husband was president 15 years ago. She's collecting social security. By the time the election rolls around, if she wins she will be 70 when she assumes office. 70 is important- we've never elected someone that old to office for their first term.

The real story is she violated federal law.

So, still nothing useful to offer?

zraver
06 Mar 15,, 14:24
So, still nothing useful to offer?

I'm using your sources and style against you and your support of Hillary. Some would call that very useful. Hillary broke the law when she did not archive her records. Don't forget the State Department was subject to FOIA requests and subpeonas it could not honor because she would not turn over her email records. She didn't find religion until her buddies email got hacked and the world learned of the emails existence. You seem to be of the impressions that whats another scandal, shes a Clinton after all so no big deal. I want someone honorable in office.

She is corrupt and needs to go away.

GVChamp
06 Mar 15,, 15:20
Corrupt? You mean, how she negotiated for Secertary of State by agreeing to stop her losing 2008 campaign....?

Fortunately, I don't support banning adultery, which actually means I support other men sleeping with your wife. They invite me over and I bring a cheerleading section. Because I support it. I'm evil like that, because I vote Republican.

zraver
06 Mar 15,, 15:55
Corrupt? You mean, how she negotiated for Secertary of State by agreeing to stop her losing 2008 campaign....?

Fortunately, I don't support banning adultery, which actually means I support other men sleeping with your wife. They invite me over and I bring a cheerleading section. Because I support it. I'm evil like that, because I vote Republican.

Corrupt- fired from Watergte, missing billing records from the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, bullying and slut shaming the women her husband abused, shady dealings with cattle futures, her foundation accepting money from foreign governments in what looks like qui pro quo, secret email and servers that violated federal record keeping requirements, stonewalling judicial and FOIA proceedings....

Wooglin
06 Mar 15,, 20:36
So, still nothing useful to offer?

Actually, I found this response very useful and was looking forward to an actual response...


From your sources

Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private e-mail account for her official government business when she was secretary of state and did not routinely preserve and turn over those e-mails for government records collection, the State Department said Monday.

Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post

5) The article confirms that Clinton’s office turned over “55,000 pages of emails” to the State Department. They allegedly didn’t turn over all emails, but 55,000 pages is a lot.

That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account Isn't as Awful as It Seems - The Daily Banter

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton's advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.

Hillary Clinton's Use Of Personal Email At State Department Raises Questions : The Two-Way : NPR

Your sources say what I'm saying, so who didn't read them?

Julie
23 Mar 15,, 04:34
I'm a Walker Warrior.

Vargas
03 Apr 15,, 05:22
For me it seems that there was an agreement behind the scenes with both parties that the next president will be a Republican... Obama is taking a bunch of really unpopular measures like legalizing the illegals right before the 2014 elections...
This, among with many others, helped the Republicans to expand their majority in the House of Representatives and to win the Senate. This however, was predicted. What really astonished me was that Maryland elected a Republican.
Now THAT means something! Maryland has more than twice registered Democrats than Republicans, is a multiracial state with only 58.34% white population and a huge, more than 30% black one.
Not only the Democratic candidate, Anthony Brown was partly black, but also, as I mentioned before, the state has more than twice the number of registered Democrats than Republicans.
And Larry Hogan won the gubernatorial elections with 6% of difference if you do not exclude third party votes. Now THAT is surprising. I wonder what surprises 2016 will have for us.

I really, really hope we don't have Jeb Bush as the Republican nominee, this may be the only possible way that the Democrats will win, I see even Republicans voting Democratic only not to get him elected.
If there is a real line separating Democrats and Republicans, he barely is to the Republican side of the line. I think the strongest candidate the Republicans can have is Ted Cruz.
He is an excellent orator, is a neoconservative so he will surely raise a lot of money due to the Israel Lobby, is a great speaker and he is a white Hispanic.
This last thing is crucial because allowed him in Texas to appeal both to the Anglo-Americans and to the Hispanics, politics is very tribal in America and he was able to get almost 50% of the Hispanic vote.

With differential birth-rates and the immigration trends, the Hispanics, who are already 17.1% of the population, in the end of the decade will be at least 20% and the blacks stagnated with 13%.
Even Republican presidents who won with landslides like Ronald Reagan, managed barely to get 2% of the black vote, the same percentage that David Duke when he got elected representative in Louisiana.
Trying to appeal for the black vote is not only useless, but a shot in the foot for the Republicans... They never manage to get it and they alienate their own base when they do it. So the future seems to be with Ted Cruz.
A white Hispanic (he is half-Cuban) that is a Neoconservative seem to be the only logic solution for the Republicans, they attract the Hispanic vote, the white vote and lots of money from the Israel Lobby.

As Auguste Comte said: "Demography is destiny."

tuna
03 Apr 15,, 17:14
People need to vote in the primary elections!!!!! This is why we have such terrible choices - it isn't the party's fault, it is the lazy self absorbed couch potatos who make up this country who love to whine but won't get away from their tv to vote for a candidate.

astralis
03 Apr 15,, 17:31
tuna,


This is why we have such terrible choices - it isn't the party's fault, it is the lazy self absorbed couch potatos who make up this country who love to whine but won't get away from their tv to vote for a candidate.

well, politicians also have a nasty habit of choosing which voters get to vote for them...

GVChamp
03 Apr 15,, 17:50
Whoever gets picked is going to piss off someone. Politics isn't about everyone getting along in Pleasantville, it's much more striking various deals that are just good enough and then letting people get along with their lives.

Vargas
03 Apr 15,, 23:02
Whoever gets picked is going to piss off someone. Politics isn't about everyone getting along in Pleasantville, it's much more striking various deals that are just good enough and then letting people get along with their lives.

The only certain way to failure is trying to please everyone.

DOR
04 Apr 15,, 00:05
tuna,

well, politicians also have a nasty habit of choosing which voters get to vote for them...

The primaries are all about money, less so about the political machine (cf, Obama / McCain '08; entire GOP field '08 and '12). The only response to that wall of money -- far worse since "Citizens United" [sic] -- is a high voter turnout.

2014 was a sad surrender to the wall of money.

astralis
04 Apr 15,, 03:59
DOR,


The only response to that wall of money -- far worse since "Citizens United" [sic] -- is a high voter turnout.

well, i was referring to gerrymandering, which can effectively negate high vote turnout.

i think they've done some studies where even if the US had a mandatory voting system, the electoral map would not change significantly.

bonehead
04 Apr 15,, 04:04
Oh for the love of God. Someone please put this thread to rest for about 12 months. In the mean time I am wishing someone better than the usual clowns will step out from the shadows and be a viable candidate.

Vargas
04 Apr 15,, 16:00
Another thing that would be great to happen would be the appearance of a Third Party that can at least elect one governor. This would put a lot of pressure in the donkeys and elephants.

Monash
09 Apr 15,, 13:01
Oh for the love of God. Someone please put this thread to rest for about 12 months. In the mean time I am wishing someone better than the usual clowns will step out from the shadows and be a viable candidate.

Ah yes, election fatigue sets in after exactly how many days? Just think of all the joyous, fun filled months ahead! All those lovely news reports, caucuses, roundtables, pundits, charts and WAB posts. Sleeping pills anyone? :whome:

DOR
22 Apr 15,, 03:43
http://libertypell.com/running-for-something-but-maybe-not-president/

Running for Something But Maybe Not President

Payback Time for the Girl Who Wouldn’t be my Prom Date

• Mark Everson, former IRS Commissioner
• Bob Ehrlich, a former Maryland Governor who lost twice to a former Democratic Governor who will lose to Hillary Clinton if he runs
• Jim Gilmore, a former Virginia Governor who was crushed in 2008 and then lost a Senate race
• Peter King, a New York Congressman who hates Ron Paul and Ted Cruz
• George Pataki, a former New York Governor who would be in the Vermin Supreme category if he wore a boot on his head


I Don’t Want to be Fired on the Apprentice

• Donald Trump (62% of voters promise never to vote for him, which is a problem since there are only 100% of voters available)


Just Making Sure You Still Know Who I Am and Keeping My Speaking Fees High

• Mitt Romney
• Ben Carson, a physician at Johns Hopkins and leading expert on extracting feet from mouths


Actually Running for Pope or Evangelical Equivalent

• Rick Santorum
• Mike Huckabee


I Want to Run a Defense Company

• John Bolton, hyper hawk, pro gay marriage, former Ambassador to the UN who did not much like the UN
• Lindsey Graham, though he risks killing the South Carolina primary payday if none of the others waste their time competing against him


Two- (or maybe Three-) Putt Green, Even if They Did Think 2016 Was Their Year

• New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, but 2016 is a bridge too far
• Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, if he ever gets past the Religious Freedom Restoration Act


Running for Vice President

• Former Hewlett Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina
• Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal
• Ohio Governor, John Kasich presently seeking “guidance from God” presumably about making his battleground state sufficiently important to get him the nod
• Ohio Senator, Rob Portman, if he can nose Kasich out in the battleground race


Keep My Name in the Paper and Because I Have the Backers

• Libertarian Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul (and because it is the family business)
• Texas Senator, Ted Cruz (and because he likes pissing people off)
• Former Texas Governor, Rick Perry


Actually Running for President in 2016
With the 21 time wasters who are running for something but maybe not president now dismissed, you end up with three real candidates:
• Marco Rubio
• Jeb Bush
• Scott Walker

gunnut
22 Apr 15,, 20:28
What the hell happened to the "like" button?

DOR
17 Jul 15,, 08:51
Nominee update! We’re up to 43 declared and suspected perps


On the left, we have Bernie Sanders leading Martin O’Malley and the still invisible Joe Biden.

In the middle, Hillary Rodham Clinton is miles ahead of Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee.

Representing the Old School wing of the Republican Party, we have Scott Walker, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.

The far right is fertile ground for Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal.

The wing-nuts are led by The Donald Trump and The Two Ricks (Santorum and Perry).

And tossing peanuts from the cheap seats are Ben Carson, Jeff Boss, Robby Wells, Mark Everson, Jack Fellure, Jim Gilmore, John Kasich, Bob Ehrlich and Willie Wilson.

[The list of 14 third party / independent candidates features Roseanne Barr . . . enough said.]

Amended.

Bigfella
17 Jul 15,, 10:29
Nominee update! We’re up to 43 declared and suspected perps


On the left, we have Bernie Sanders leading Martin O’Malley and the still invisible Joe Biden.

In the middle, Hillary Rodham Clinton is miles ahead of Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee.

Representing the Old School wing of the Republican Party, we have Scott Walker, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.

The far right is fertile ground for Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal.

The wing-nuts are led by The Donald Trump and The Two Ricks (Santorum and Perry).

And tossing peanuts from the cheap seats are Ben Carson, Jeff Boss, Robby Wells, Mark Everson, Jack Fellure, Jim Gilmore, John Kasich, Bob Ehrlich and Willie Wilson.

[The list of 14 third party / independent candidates features Roseanne Barr . . . enough said.]

Good list, though I'm not sure I'd go with your categorizations in every instance. I would have thought Jeb was more 'Old School Republican' than Rubio or even Walker. Really only one serious contender for the Dems (for better or worse), but the GOP field is fun. Choose correctly and they are a big chance of winning the chokkies, choose incorrectly or make the fight too bloody (and on exposed form they are good at this) and they blow it again.

Julie
17 Jul 15,, 14:00
Americans are tired of the Clinton scandals and want real change in office. To effect that, Hillary will not be President. Whoever the Republican nominee is, all Republicans will come out to vote, just to stop another Democrat from becoming President the next term.

astralis
17 Jul 15,, 15:18
Julie, want to make a butter cookie bet? :-)

btw, DOR, Walker is not an "old school" republican, he leans quite far to the right. (see the way he methodically demolished unions in Wisconsin.)

he just doesn't make a point of grabbing a stick and poking the Establishment repeatedly in the eye, like a certain man whose last name names with frump.

calling it now, I think Republican primary will ultimately be a fight between Bush and Walker. Clinton will win Democratic primary by absorbing more of Bernie Sander's positions, and will ultimately take the Presidency in results that look much like 2012. demographics play against the Republicans and they're certainly digging a hole for themselves on that point at the moment.

Versus
17 Jul 15,, 16:09
Hillary 100%, my hunch is never wrong.

Bigfella
17 Jul 15,, 17:10
Hillary 100%, my hunch is never wrong.

I'm waiting until Nate Silver makes his prediction. (insert wink)

Bigfella
17 Jul 15,, 17:20
Julie, want to make a butter cookie bet? :-)

btw, DOR, Walker is not an "old school" republican, he leans quite far to the right. (see the way he methodically demolished unions in Wisconsin.)

he just doesn't make a point of grabbing a stick and poking the Establishment repeatedly in the eye, like a certain man whose last name names with frump.

calling it now, I think Republican primary will ultimately be a fight between Bush and Walker. Clinton will win Democratic primary by absorbing more of Bernie Sander's positions, and will ultimately take the Presidency in results that look much like 2012. demographics play against the Republicans and they're certainly digging a hole for themselves on that point at the moment.

My theory is that if the GOP nominates Rubio it has a shot. He can play up the 'youth & vigour' angle against an ageing insider while helping with at least one demographic issue. Also appeals to conservative Republicans. Bush loses entirely on the first angle, though not a disaster on the second. Don't see him winning unless Hilary self destructs or something massive about her comes out (way bigger than so far). No idea on Walker.

Once again the danger for the GOP is a feral base that is currently giving Donald 'not all Mexicans are rapists & murderers' Trump a platform to wreck the party's chances.

looking4NSFS
17 Jul 15,, 19:12
IIRC Walkers main focus was public sector unions. I'm a staunch Roosevelt Democrat when it comes to public sector unions. Although Wisconsin did pass right to work legislation, all that means is that Unions have to compete for workers loyalty. If they are worth the cost to the individual, then they will flourish. Private sector unions may have to hustle a little more than before, but they oftentimes provide valuable service, and should be ok. Especially the Trade Unions.

astralis
17 Jul 15,, 20:17
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8090309/walker-wisconsin-union-membership

of all the Republican candidates thus far, he's probably been the most effective at carrying out his stated agenda.

SteveDaPirate
17 Jul 15,, 23:10
Bernie Sanders has seen a surge in his numbers, but interestingly enough, it hasn't hurt Hillary (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bernie-sanders-surge-is-about-bernie-not-hillary/).

I suspect his popularity will continue to grow, although I'll be interested to see if his increased popularity comes at the expense of Hillary down the road, or ends up pushing her more to the left.

As far as Republican candidates are concerned, I agree with Bigfella that Rubio is probably the only one of the bunch that has a good shot at taking on Hillary.

DOR
18 Jul 15,, 07:35
btw, DOR, Walker is not an "old school" republican, he leans quite far to the right. (see the way he methodically demolished unions in Wisconsin.)

he just doesn't make a point of grabbing a stick and poking the Establishment repeatedly in the eye, like a certain man whose last name names with frump.

Agreed, and amended on the previous page.

= = = = =


Steve da Pirate,

Bernie is bringing out people who usually don't vote, which is always a positive in my book. Unfortunately The Frump is doing the same.

Bigfella
18 Jul 15,, 09:42
Agreed, and amended on the previous page.

= = = = =


Steve da Pirate,

Bernie is bringing out people who usually don't vote, which is always a positive in my book. Unfortunately The Frump is doing the same.

If it makes you feel any better, Trump will bring out voters on the other side too, Sanders probably not so much.

Julie
19 Jul 15,, 02:53
Julie, want to make a butter cookie bet? :-)Yes sir I would and I will tell you why. Clinton was way ahead of everybody in the polls the last time she run for office. As soon as someone exciting and new came in, she tanked like yesterdays news. It was incredible to watch and I couldn't believe she lost her voters in the blink of an eye. A tin of butter cookies says she doesn't make it again.

Bigfella
19 Jul 15,, 03:21
Looks like the Trump train has derailed sooner than expected. The Donald forgot one of the rules of US politics - attacking the service of veterans in a big no no (unless they are Democrats). This is the beginning of the end. Good news for the other GOP contenders.


Mr. Trump upended a Republican presidential forum here, and the race more broadly, by saying of the Arizona senator and former prisoner of war: “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/us/politics/trump-belittles-mccains-war-record.html?_r=0

Gun Grape
19 Jul 15,, 04:40
Americans are tired of the Clinton scandals and want real change in office. To effect that, Hillary will not be President. Whoever the Republican nominee is, all Republicans will come out to vote, just to stop another Democrat from becoming President the next term.

Wasn't that the plan last election? All Republicans turn out to vote to insure President Obama was a one term affair?

We saw that it does matter who the nominee is.

With the choices that are on the table now. this Republican (since 1981), sees Clinton by a landslide

JAD_333
20 Jul 15,, 01:41
With the choices that are on the table now. this Republican (since 1981), sees Clinton by a landslide

She'll lose for sure if she doesn't shake her sense of entitlement.

If it's a Bush-Clinton match-up, neither will suffer the dynasty label.

In any case, there won't be a landslide unless the GOP nominates someone way out on the right.

DOR
20 Jul 15,, 02:51
JAD_333,

I feel like I'm wandering around in the dark, trying to find that elusive GOPer not "way out on the right" who can actually get nominated.

Any ideas?

Parihaka
20 Jul 15,, 08:46
http://triblive.com/politics/salenazito/8759861-74/americans-government-president#ixzz3gM61yyXv

Julie
22 Jul 15,, 03:51
Great article sweetheart. Trump may be a nut job but the reason he is polling high is because he is not an establishment candidate, and wont dance to the tune of his donors because he is already rich. Trump is just as sick of American politics as American voters are.

Genosaurer
22 Jul 15,, 03:55
Great article sweetheart. Trump may be a nut job but the reason he is polling high is because he is not an establishment candidate, and wont dance to the tune of his donors because he is already rich. Trump is just as sick of American politics as American voters are.

I feel like there's also the novelty/entertainment factor. Trump's antics are doing a very good job of keeping him centered in the media spotlight.

I'd be sorely tempted to vote for him just for the entertainment value coming out of the Trump White House.

We could probably sell the State of the Union on Pay-Per-View and use the money to start paying down the deficit...

Julie
22 Jul 15,, 04:16
I feel like there's also the novelty/entertainment factor. Trump's antics are doing a very good job of keeping him centered in the media spotlight.

I'd be sorely tempted to vote for him just for the entertainment value coming out of the Trump White House.

We could probably sell the State of the Union on Pay-Per-View and use the money to start paying down the deficit...I'm totally with you on that. No doubt Trump would shake lots of things up in there.

zraver
22 Jul 15,, 05:21
JAD_333,

I feel like I'm wandering around in the dark, trying to find that elusive GOPer not "way out on the right" who can actually get nominated.

Any ideas?

Rand Paul

TopHatter
22 Jul 15,, 19:52
I think I have a theory about why Trump is doing so well in the polls (Julie already mentioned some of these)


He's not an establishment politician or even a politician, period, yet he has arguably more name-brand recognition than any of them

He speaks loudly and proudly what much of his target audience thinks but cannot say due to political correctness.

He is unapologetic for perceived multiple faux pas and apparently fearless of the consequences.

His money allows him to, supposedly, speak his mind without fear of angering potential donors.

In many ways, he's the right-wing equivalent of Barack Obama circa 2008, albeit a rather clownish caricature. He's energizing the Right by telling them what they want to hear, just like Obama did.



It's fairly obvious that Trump has some degree of psychopathy (http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2015/04/why-a-disproportionate-number-of-ceos-are-psychopaths) and he's got these traits on full display at the moment.

The question is, what are his motives for running? To obtain the office of President? Sure that's possible but I don't believe that's the case here. Something else is at work but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

The bad news is, the GOP has managed to come up with yet another overstuffed clown car of idiot candidates (for the 2nd election in a row, no less!) and Trump has managed to somehow make things worse.

At the end of the day, my prediction (you heard it here first!) is that the GOP will, once again, hand the election to the Democrats on a silver platter, just like they did in 2012.

Bigfella
22 Jul 15,, 22:54
At this point we are almost up to 'clown minivan'. Quite the list.

Fair points on Trump. One really big difference with Obama....and most of the GOP field....Trump doesn't actually have any interest in being President. He'll have his fun & walk away again.

SteveDaPirate
22 Jul 15,, 23:25
The question is, what are his motives for running? To obtain the office of President? Sure that's possible but I don't believe that's the case here. Something else is at work but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

Interesting theory about Trump from another forum.


I think he's kamikazing the early election. None of the other republican candidates are getting looked at closely because he's all over the news with his nonsense. This buys them time to get closer to the election before their own faults become apparent. He'll drop out at the last minute for some reason, and bamn they'll have a better option and nobody will know about their bullshit because everyone was watching Trump dance for the cameras. He's diving on the grenade for the good of his party and it just might work.

astralis
22 Jul 15,, 23:57
lol, i think the internet conspiracy theory that Trump is a secret Democratic operative is more likely...:-)

seriously though, i think this is pretty indicative of where the respective bases are today. trump is getting a lot of love from the republican base not DESPITE the fact that he's a border-line (okay, maybe not so borderline) racist and blowhard who likes to flaunt his wealth, but BECAUSE he is one...i'm sorry, i mean a brave, unapologetic, and un-PC independent.

who does the democratic base love? in 2008 it was a constitutional law professor and now it's a 73-year old reedy senator from Vermont who looks more comfortable at a lectern than he does at a popular rally.

geezus, george bush the elder must be privately crying tears of blood at what passes for leadership in the republican party.

TopHatter
23 Jul 15,, 00:19
Trump doesn't actually have any interest in being President. He'll have his fun & walk away again.


Interesting theory about Trump from another forum.

I think that's what he's doing, having his fun and walking away. I don't think there's a master plan at all. He's trolling on a massive scale.


who does the democratic base love? in 2008 it was a constitutional law professor and now it's a 73-year old reedy senator from Vermont who looks more comfortable at a lectern than he does at a popular rally.

An Old. White. Man.

Irony, thou art a sadistic bitch :-D

Julie
23 Jul 15,, 04:24
Astralis, I raise you a bag of Cheetos. Clinton is already beginning to tank in the poll numbers. Trump is ahead in the polls. Omg get the popcorn smilies fixed! Hahaha

astralis
23 Jul 15,, 15:28
excellent, excellent. the murdering Mexican rapists have got a good thing with Cheetos going, they put spices and melted cheese and chorizo into it, so if Hillary wins I'll make sure to have a good meal of it :-)

TH,


An Old. White. Man.

Irony, thou art a sadistic bitch :-D

yeah, thus the recent fracas in the Democratic base about the Black Lives Matter activists pummeling on said old white man.

OTOH he's not likely to win the nomination. Hillary's done a pretty good job of absorbing most of his policy concerns from the get-go, having learned her lessons from 2012.

TopHatter
23 Jul 15,, 17:07
OTOH he's not likely to win the nomination. Hillary's done a pretty good job of absorbing most of his policy concerns from the get-go, having learned her lessons from 2012.

Agreed, it's entirely possible that Mrs. Clinton will be our next President.

Oddly enough, this might actually lead to some actual bipartisanship occurring...She doesn't have the Messiah-complex that Obama did.

(Although I'm not holding my breath lol)

JAD_333
24 Jul 15,, 03:34
Trump's telling them what they want to hear, the way they want to hear it. Even if he doesn't make it through the primaries, he's put the GOP candidates on notice that 19% of the conservative electorate wants action on illegal immigration.

astralis
24 Jul 15,, 03:44
TH,



Oddly enough, this might actually lead to some actual bipartisanship occurring...She doesn't have the Messiah-complex that Obama did.

i doubt it. politics is less personality-based than one might assume. IE, the very same political incentives that encourage congressional Republicans to not cooperate with Obama now, will remain the very same incentives that encourage congressional Republicans to not cooperate with Clinton later.

ironically Congress is having a very, very surprisingly productive time even as Obama is doing all these "Messianic" executive orders-- precisely because he's removed himself from -Congressional- fights. congressional Republicans can rail about the orders all they want, but they're not subject to votes that have "Obama stink" on them, thus that incentive to lock everything up is lessened.

astralis
24 Jul 15,, 03:50
JAD,


Trump's telling them what they want to hear, the way they want to hear it. Even if he doesn't make it through the primaries, he's put the GOP candidates on notice that 19% of the conservative electorate wants action on illegal immigration.

lol, i bet if it looks like he might get locked out of the debates (let alone the primaries), he's gonna go independent. he's already threatening the RNC on this right now and there's no DISincentive for him to not toe the line.

as pointed out earlier...he's not reliant on -them- for funding, after all.

this is all an ego-game for the Donald.

from my perspective this is great. of course the partisan perspective is obvious, but even from a strictly non-partisan standpoint, the entertainment value is enormous.

====

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895

The latest polls are out, and just as I predicted, I’m leading the Republican presidential race by a wide margin. You might be wondering how that could be. After all, it’s hardly been a month since I entered the field and I’ve already alienated America’s largest immigrant population, seen dozens of my high-profile business deals implode one after the other, and publicly insulted a national hero’s military service, all while not offering a single viable policy idea. But none of that matters at all, and my candidacy continues to surge forward, because none of you—not a single one of you—can look away. Not even for a second.

Admit it: You people want to see just how far this goes, don’t you?

My campaign’s just barely begun and I’ve already got you begging for more. Sure, you can say you oppose me or that you don’t even take me seriously. But let me ask you: How many articles have you read about Ted Cruz lately? How many news segments have you watched on Bobby Jindal? Or Rand Paul? But if those stories have the name “Donald Trump” in them, well, look who suddenly can’t get enough.

The thing is, I’ve got all of you eating out of my hand and I haven’t even released a single campaign commercial yet. Don’t look me in the eye and tell me you don’t want to stick around and see what that looks like, because you and I both know these ads are going to be absolutely incredible. I’ll be standing there projecting my best presidential air, saying “I’m Donald Trump, and I approve this message,” and you won’t be able to take your eyes off it.

You keep obsessing over every little thing I do and say, and I promise you’ll get your commercials real soon.

I can tell you’re practically salivating right now. And I’m going to keep riding this fascination, this little fixation you have with me as far as you’ll take me. You know I will.
And the TV spots are just the beginning. I know you, and I know what you like. You’ll absolutely eat it up when you see the “Trump ’16” T-shirts, the lawn signs, the bumper stickers; in fact, you’ll probably get a real kick out of pointing them out to your friends. Now, just imagine me shaking hands with senior citizens at a nursing home in Iowa. Wouldn’t you love to watch that? Or hear what comes out of my mouth when I speak to blue-collar workers at a struggling auto factory?

You say that doesn’t interest you? Oh, right, because you’re dying to see how Scott Walker behaves in those situations, right? Give me a break.

Just take a moment and imagine the primary debates: Jeb Bush; Chris Christie; me. Of course, they’ll put me in the middle because I’m ahead in the polls—far ahead at the moment. You already know how I answer even the most basic inquiries, so just picture me staring down the barrel of a question about foreign affairs or agriculture policy or something like that. You think you won’t sit there with bated breath while I try to tackle a question about using military force, or about food stamps, or about how my faith influences my decision-making? I guarantee you that my answers will be worth watching. And we both know you wouldn’t miss them for the world. It’d be the biggest, most-watched primary debate in history, courtesy of all of you.

And might I remind you that the longer this goes on, the closer I get to selecting a running mate. That realization kind of delighted you in a way, didn’t it? You absolutely want to know who I’d pick. A defeated GOP challenger who hates my guts? Another lunatic billionaire? Maybe my own son, Donald Trump Jr.? Whatever your wildest expectation is, I promise you I will surpass it. You’re not going to pass up an opportunity to see that, are you?

I can tell you’re practically salivating right now. And I’m going to keep riding this fascination, this little fixation you have with me as far as you’ll take me. You know I will.

So don’t try to tell me you’d be just as happy to watch one of these other bozos go toe-to-toe with Hillary Clinton or give a soaring speech at the national convention. And don’t delude yourself into thinking it’s everyone else who wants to watch me do this and you’re somehow above it. You want to see it. You want more. You hear “Trump” and your attention snaps to the TV screen right away.

Don’t think it’s true? Fine. You know what you have to do to make me go away. Just quit paying attention. Stop reading this right now.

That’s right, I didn’t think so. I have the power to make the next 16 months one of the most incredible times in our nation’s history, and not a single one of you can say you’re not at least a little bit curious to see how this wild ride shakes out. So just keep clicking every link that mentions my name and hitting play on every clip of my public appearances, and I promise you will not be disappointed.

Now, excuse me, but I have to go appear at a New Hampshire town hall and make a statement that every last one of you will be eagerly reading about and discussing in just a few hours’ time.

JAD_333
24 Jul 15,, 06:09
JAD,



lol, i bet if it looks like he might get locked out of the debates (let alone the primaries), he's gonna go independent. he's already threatening the RNC on this right now and there's no DISincentive for him to not toe the line.

as pointed out earlier...he's not reliant on -them- for funding, after all.

this is all an ego-game for the Donald.

from my perspective this is great. of course the partisan perspective is obvious, but even from a strictly non-partisan standpoint, the entertainment value is enormous.

====

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895

The latest polls are out, and just as I predicted, I’m leading the Republican presidential race by a wide margin. You might be wondering how that could be. After all, it’s hardly been a month since I entered the field and I’ve already alienated America’s largest immigrant population, seen dozens of my high-profile business deals implode one after the other, and publicly insulted a national hero’s military service, all while not offering a single viable policy idea. But none of that matters at all, and my candidacy continues to surge forward, because none of you—not a single one of you—can look away. Not even for a second.

Admit it: You people want to see just how far this goes, don’t you?

My campaign’s just barely begun and I’ve already got you begging for more. Sure, you can say you oppose me or that you don’t even take me seriously. But let me ask you: How many articles have you read about Ted Cruz lately? How many news segments have you watched on Bobby Jindal? Or Rand Paul? But if those stories have the name “Donald Trump” in them, well, look who suddenly can’t get enough.

The thing is, I’ve got all of you eating out of my hand and I haven’t even released a single campaign commercial yet. Don’t look me in the eye and tell me you don’t want to stick around and see what that looks like, because you and I both know these ads are going to be absolutely incredible. I’ll be standing there projecting my best presidential air, saying “I’m Donald Trump, and I approve this message,” and you won’t be able to take your eyes off it.

You keep obsessing over every little thing I do and say, and I promise you’ll get your commercials real soon.

I can tell you’re practically salivating right now. And I’m going to keep riding this fascination, this little fixation you have with me as far as you’ll take me. You know I will.
And the TV spots are just the beginning. I know you, and I know what you like. You’ll absolutely eat it up when you see the “Trump ’16” T-shirts, the lawn signs, the bumper stickers; in fact, you’ll probably get a real kick out of pointing them out to your friends. Now, just imagine me shaking hands with senior citizens at a nursing home in Iowa. Wouldn’t you love to watch that? Or hear what comes out of my mouth when I speak to blue-collar workers at a struggling auto factory?

You say that doesn’t interest you? Oh, right, because you’re dying to see how Scott Walker behaves in those situations, right? Give me a break.

Just take a moment and imagine the primary debates: Jeb Bush; Chris Christie; me. Of course, they’ll put me in the middle because I’m ahead in the polls—far ahead at the moment. You already know how I answer even the most basic inquiries, so just picture me staring down the barrel of a question about foreign affairs or agriculture policy or something like that. You think you won’t sit there with bated breath while I try to tackle a question about using military force, or about food stamps, or about how my faith influences my decision-making? I guarantee you that my answers will be worth watching. And we both know you wouldn’t miss them for the world. It’d be the biggest, most-watched primary debate in history, courtesy of all of you.

And might I remind you that the longer this goes on, the closer I get to selecting a running mate. That realization kind of delighted you in a way, didn’t it? You absolutely want to know who I’d pick. A defeated GOP challenger who hates my guts? Another lunatic billionaire? Maybe my own son, Donald Trump Jr.? Whatever your wildest expectation is, I promise you I will surpass it. You’re not going to pass up an opportunity to see that, are you?

I can tell you’re practically salivating right now. And I’m going to keep riding this fascination, this little fixation you have with me as far as you’ll take me. You know I will.

So don’t try to tell me you’d be just as happy to watch one of these other bozos go toe-to-toe with Hillary Clinton or give a soaring speech at the national convention. And don’t delude yourself into thinking it’s everyone else who wants to watch me do this and you’re somehow above it. You want to see it. You want more. You hear “Trump” and your attention snaps to the TV screen right away.

Don’t think it’s true? Fine. You know what you have to do to make me go away. Just quit paying attention. Stop reading this right now.

That’s right, I didn’t think so. I have the power to make the next 16 months one of the most incredible times in our nation’s history, and not a single one of you can say you’re not at least a little bit curious to see how this wild ride shakes out. So just keep clicking every link that mentions my name and hitting play on every clip of my public appearances, and I promise you will not be disappointed.

Now, excuse me, but I have to go appear at a New Hampshire town hall and make a statement that every last one of you will be eagerly reading about and discussing in just a few hours’ time.

asty:

You might want to warn people that that article is a satirical piece from the Onion. But, you know, I can see him saying all that.

My thought is he doesn't run as a 3rd party candidate. The fact that he's already bringing up the possibility tells me he's angling to get one of the frontrunners to 'buy' his support later on. He'll need to hold his 20% to get a good deal. Right now he's all bluff because none of the candidates want or need his support this early in the game. Who knows; he could be in single digits a few months from now.

astralis
24 Jul 15,, 15:27
JAD,


You might want to warn people that that article is a satirical piece from the Onion.

that's why I put the link up top...:-)


The fact that he's already bringing up the possibility tells me he's angling to get one of the frontrunners to 'buy' his support later on. He'll need to hold his 20% to get a good deal. Right now he's all bluff because none of the candidates want or need his support this early in the game. Who knows; he could be in single digits a few months from now.

you think so? I don't see Trump having any policy issues he actually cares about, other than the veneration of Donald Trump. I don't see him playing second or third fiddle, or even the moneybags/kingmaker for another candidate...that's just not him.

remember this is the same guy who was for universal healthcare and was pro-choice fifteen years back.

Officer of Engineers
24 Jul 15,, 17:11
I can't believe there is someone actually worst than Obama vs Putin and that is Trump vs Putin.

JAD_333
24 Jul 15,, 17:29
JAD,



that's why I put the link up top...:-)

Missed it.






you think so? I don't see Trump having any policy issues he actually cares about, other than the veneration of Donald Trump. I don't see him playing second or third fiddle, or even the moneybags/kingmaker for another candidate...that's just not him.

remember this is the same guy who was for universal healthcare and was pro-choice fifteen years back.


He does think of himself as a wonderful fellow, although he admits of marital neglect. I think he is really riled up by the illegals thing, but it's hard to tell if he's on a crusade or just using it to get attention. Anyway, he knows how to pick a hot-button issue.

When he was flitting around the birther issue a few years ago, he reminded me of a friend who forwards viral emails to me saying "LOOK AT THIS, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE, THE MEDIA MISSED THIS, ETC. And then it turns out the data is wrong, or the quote is false. That's how I see Trump--sort of a sucker for this kind of thing. But that's not to say we don't have a serious problem with illegal immigration. We do. It's just that it's really hard to deal with an issue that has been framed wrongly. That's my bitch with Trump.

Bigfella
24 Jul 15,, 18:02
When he was flitting around the birther issue a few years ago, he reminded me of a friend who forwards viral emails to me saying "LOOK AT THIS, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE, THE MEDIA MISSED THIS, ETC. And then it turns out the data is wrong, or the quote is false. That's how I see Trump--sort of a sucker for this kind of thing. But that's not to say we don't have a serious problem with illegal immigration. We do. It's just that it's really hard to deal with an issue that has been framed wrongly. That's my bitch with Trump.

Your friend probably has people he respects who might be able to persuade him over time that his approach is flawed. The Donald knows he's always the most important guy in the room. Any room. Has been for decades. Throw in an occasional public crusade in which only the people who agree matter and a ton of money & you have a spectacular train wreck.

JAD_333
24 Jul 15,, 18:49
Your friend probably has people he respects who might be able to persuade him over time that his approach is flawed. The Donald knows he's always the most important guy in the room. Any room. Has been for decades. Throw in an occasional public crusade in which only the people who agree matter and a ton of money & you have a spectacular train wreck.

lol...My friend has learned to fact check.

I don't dispute what you say about Trump. He thinks highly of himself. But he is also a can-do guy, and not without justification. I recall an incident when I was living in NYC during the 1960s. The city was building an ice rink in Central Park. The project had ground on for years, stalled by squabbles with contractors, suppliers, and unions. Trump, then a brash, young upcoming developer, not well known outside NY, offered to solve all the problems, and guaranteed the rink would be finished in a few months. He kept his word. It was an example of his deal making genius. So, he's not just a clown who got rich on his father's company. Who wouldn't want a president with that ability? But Trump' problem is he's too one dimensional. A president has to be more than a problem solver. He has to be a uniter, not a divider, IMHO.

astralis
24 Jul 15,, 19:28
JAD,


Trump, then a brash, young upcoming developer, not well known outside NY, offered to solve all the problems, and guaranteed the rink would be finished in a few months. He kept his word.

that was a long time ago. these days, a lot of his ventures tend to go bankrupt, or trade heavily on the Trump name. in fact, I think his daughter Ivanka is a considerably better salesperson than the old man, which is why her name figures so prominently in some of the newer prestige projects (like the remaking of the old postal office in DC into a luxury hotel).

I have more respect for someone like Richard Branson than him.

in any case, he likes hot-button issues but again this seems to be more as a sales tactic rather than any deeply held belief. hell, immigration (both legal and otherwise) from mexico has been down significantly this past decade, a 60% reduction IIRC.

TopHatter
24 Jul 15,, 21:02
that was a long time ago. these days, a lot of his ventures tend to go bankrupt, or trade heavily on the Trump name. in fact, I think his daughter Ivanka is a considerably better salesperson than the old man, which is why her name figures so prominently in some of the newer prestige projects (like the remaking of the old postal office in DC into a luxury hotel).

I have more respect for someone like Richard Branson than him.

in any case, he likes hot-button issues but again this seems to be more as a sales tactic rather than any deeply held belief. hell, immigration (both legal and otherwise) from mexico has been down significantly this past decade, a 60% reduction IIRC.

He's a clown, pure and simple. A buffoonish clown. And he'll likely be a large factor in the GOP losing in '16.

That Onion satire was more truth than satire.

astralis
24 Jul 15,, 21:33
TH,


He's a clown, pure and simple. A buffoonish clown

that he is.

but what should be more worrisome to any thinking Republican is why/how it is that a buffoonish clown can get the support of such a large number of conservatives instead of being laughed off the stage...

Bigfella
25 Jul 15,, 04:10
lol...My friend has learned to fact check.

I don't dispute what you say about Trump. He thinks highly of himself. But he is also a can-do guy, and not without justification. I recall an incident when I was living in NYC during the 1960s. The city was building an ice rink in Central Park. The project had ground on for years, stalled by squabbles with contractors, suppliers, and unions. Trump, then a brash, young upcoming developer, not well known outside NY, offered to solve all the problems, and guaranteed the rink would be finished in a few months. He kept his word. It was an example of his deal making genius. So, he's not just a clown who got rich on his father's company. Who wouldn't want a president with that ability? But Trump' problem is he's too one dimensional. A president has to be more than a problem solver. He has to be a uniter, not a divider, IMHO.

Asty beat me to it - that was when he was a young up & comer, not a human brand name. He's a smart guy & has had some success in business, but he also has a record of being incredibly destructive to achieve his personal aims. That might work as a CEO, but its incredibly bad as a political leader in a democracy.

There is a theory I once saw put forward that capitalism benefits democracy because it gives people with dictatorial personalities an obvious route to power & success outside government. Not a perfect theory, but it has some merit. Trump is a dictator and he's playing politics like one. Fortunately the system will ultimately discourage him from continuing. Anyone who tells you this is some 'failure' because 'outsiders' can't break in really needs to reassess their understanding of things.

Mihais
25 Jul 15,, 10:25
TH,



that he is.

but what should be more worrisome to any thinking Republican is why/how it is that a buffoonish clown can get the support of such a large number of conservatives instead of being laughed off the stage...

Obama ain't better,yet he managed 8 years.
That people support such characters is because of frustration.And they are frustrated because whatever establishment there is offers them nothing of value.And leaves the impression they don't give a damn.

DOR
25 Jul 15,, 10:49
http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/admit-it-you-people-want-see-how-far-goes-dont-you-50895



Best thing ever written on the Hairpiece Support System known as The Donald.

JAD_333
25 Jul 15,, 17:06
That people support such characters is because of frustration.And they are frustrated because whatever establishment there is offers them nothing of value.And leaves the impression they don't give a damn.

Exactly. You nailed it.

JAD_333
25 Jul 15,, 17:21
Asty beat me to it - that was when he was a young up & comer, not a human brand name. He's a smart guy & has had some success in business, but he also has a record of being incredibly destructive to achieve his personal aims. That might work as a CEO, but its incredibly bad as a political leader in a democracy.

There is a theory I once saw put forward that capitalism benefits democracy because it gives people with dictatorial personalities an obvious route to power & success outside government. Not a perfect theory, but it has some merit. Trump is a dictator and he's playing politics like one. Fortunately the system will ultimately discourage him from continuing. Anyone who tells you this is some 'failure' because 'outsiders' can't break in really needs to reassess their understanding of things.

To you and Asty I would say, the fact that a lot of time has passed since someone achieved a success doesn't mean they cannot again. We all agree that Trump is a colorful, clownish fellow with a hair trigger mouth. But he's able enough to sniff the winds and pick up on the dissatisfaction of a large segment of voters and play on their dissatisfaction to gain traction in a field of 16 candidates.

But do Republicans as a whole like Trump? The most recent polls say no. That tells me that while Trump has revealed the anger existing over illegals, he won't be nominated to carry the banner forward.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184337/among-republicans-gop-candidates-better-known-liked.aspx

JAD_333
25 Jul 15,, 17:33
Sorry to hog the thread at this point, but maybe we should focus some attention on the dem side.

This issue has legs. How will it affect Clinton's chances.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html?ref=politics&_r=0

The democrat field is paltry at this point with Sanders and Clinton the frontrunners. Sanders is catching in New Hampshire.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx

If Sanders becomes the eventual nominee, the GOP will thrash him in the general election...a reprise of McGovern's loss to Nixon. He's just too liberal.

astralis
25 Jul 15,, 17:44
don't think Sanders will win, he doesn't have enough name recognition outside hardcore Dems.

Clinton is really akin to the Democrat's version of Mitt Romney-- got the organizational skills, the money, and just enough enthusiasm, or at least inevitability, to carry it off.

however, the demographics of 2016 favor Democrats significantly. national GOP is trying their hardest to stop talking about the immigration issue because the more they talk, the less popular they become among the largest/fastest growing minority group in the US...

tbm3fan
25 Jul 15,, 17:56
To you and Asty I would say, the fact that a lot of time has passed since someone achieved a success doesn't mean they cannot again. We all agree that Trump is a colorful, clownish fellow with a hair trigger mouth. But he's able enough to sniff the winds and pick up on the dissatisfaction of a large segment of voters and play on their dissatisfaction to gain traction in a field of 16 candidates.

But do Republicans as a whole like Trump? The most recent polls say no. That tells me that while Trump has revealed the anger existing over illegals, he won't be nominated to carry the banner forward.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184337/among-republicans-gop-candidates-better-known-liked.aspx

Almost like Huey Long who worried FDR greatly at the time. Populism is powerful when the guy at the head knows how to play to the people. Only Huey was assassinated to end his run and the Donald...

JAD_333
25 Jul 15,, 18:10
Almost like Huey Long who worried FDR greatly at the time. Populism is powerful when the guy at the head knows how to play to the people. Only Huey was assassinated to end his run and the Donald...

A bit. Look for a book called "Louisiana Hayride"...fascinating bio on Huey.

Doktor
25 Jul 15,, 18:37
What will be the keypoint(s) in 2016? Immigration?

Mihais
25 Jul 15,, 19:14
however, the demographics of 2016 favor Democrats significantly. national GOP is trying their hardest to stop talking about the immigration issue because the more they talk, the less popular they become among the largest/fastest growing minority group in the US...

This is how minor problems turn into major ones.

Bigfella
26 Jul 15,, 02:58
To you and Asty I would say, the fact that a lot of time has passed since someone achieved a success doesn't mean they cannot again. We all agree that Trump is a colorful, clownish fellow with a hair trigger mouth. But he's able enough to sniff the winds and pick up on the dissatisfaction of a large segment of voters and play on their dissatisfaction to gain traction in a field of 16 candidates.

But do Republicans as a whole like Trump? The most recent polls say no. That tells me that while Trump has revealed the anger existing over illegals, he won't be nominated to carry the banner forward.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184337/among-republicans-gop-candidates-better-known-liked.aspx

JAD,

My point on the passing of time was more to do with the extent to which he is still able to listen to others. I don't doubt he can still be successful in business. I don't believe for a second he can be successful in government (as opposed to politics). He isn't temperamentally suited to it. he can press a few buttons in a campaign, but he isn't a stayer.

JAD_333
26 Jul 15,, 21:43
JAD,

My point on the passing of time was more to do with the extent to which he is still able to listen to others. I don't doubt he can still be successful in business. I don't believe for a second he can be successful in government (as opposed to politics). He isn't temperamentally suited to it. he can press a few buttons in a campaign, but he isn't a stayer.

Gotcha. You're probably right.

Julie
27 Jul 15,, 07:40
however, the demographics of 2016 favor Democrats significantly.Really? You have a link for that?

DOR
27 Jul 15,, 11:01
Really? You have a link for that?

Here's a cool map of Hispanic voters, by congressional district:

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/mapping-the-latino-electorate-by-congressional-district/

And, by state:

http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/mapping-the-latino-electorate-by-state/


Playing with the (2014) numbers . . .

153 congressional districts have 10% or greater Latino voting population. Of those, 98 (64%) are held by Democrats, 55 (36%) by Republicans.

Of which, 56 districts have at least 25% Latino voters. Of which, 42 (75%) are Dems and 14 (25%) GOPers.

astralis
27 Jul 15,, 16:27
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-finds-hispanic-disapproval-of-trump-rhetoric-on-illegal-immigrants/2015/07/15/a39f53fc-2b05-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html

yes, caveat is that this is quite early on in the process, but bottom-line is that (the growing) under-35/minority coalition that powered Obama to victory in 2008 and 2012 will likely do the same with Clinton.

meanwhile, Republicans are having issues with popularity even among their own party (http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/24/poll-republican-party-approval-ratings-lowest-in-decades/). also, while Clinton is not exactly popular amongst Republicans, I don't think that she will get Republicans foaming at the mouth that Obama did.

TopHatter
27 Jul 15,, 18:06
also, while Clinton is not exactly popular amongst Republicans, I don't think that she will get Republicans foaming at the mouth that Obama did.

I agree...and it's entirely possible that Clinton will indeed be our next president.

Gun Grape
28 Jul 15,, 05:42
The party (Rep) is catering to the blue hair evangelical crowd.

They haven't gotten the memo that even among people my age (50s) are a bit more liberal on social issues. They try to frighten us with "Things are changing. its not like it use to be"

We have one Presidential hopeful that is proud that he doesn't know how to use a computer. Others that want to get rid of the Supreme Court because of one decision they didn't agree with.

I would have hoped that they were up to speed on that founding document that they so claim to revere, ( I believe in the Constitution/We need to get back to the Constitution) they would know better.

And even with winning both the House and Senate they have no ideas on what to do. The agenda is "Vote against anything the President wants to do" and "Try to repeal anything he accomplished"

My party is becoming the party of NO and the party of Stupid.

TopHatter
28 Jul 15,, 17:25
And even with winning both the House and Senate they have no ideas on what to do.

Nobody knows what to do. Every last one of them, Left to Right, is utterly f--king clueless.
Even when they've got a halfway good idea, it either gets shot out of the sky, twisted out of recognition by changes, amendments and earmarks, or backfires thanks to the Department of Unintended Consequences.

They're all just flailing about, trying desperately to:

A.) Get elected
B.) Get reelected
C.) Whatever helps accomplish A and B

So whenever the latest Messiah comes along, I have to laugh at the grasping self-delusion of people who somehow manage to convince themselves that "Our Man (or Woman) will set things right, if we can just get them into office"

Dream on you poor stupid fools.

Mihais
28 Jul 15,, 18:52
Ahh,well,welcome to the reality of the rest of the world.Most politruks are clueless.The few good ones can't do anything.They stumble from one day to the next due to a relatively small part of the public apparatus that still believes it has a mission and tries to do its job.
The public itself it's fvcking clueless.You're talking of the ''X will give me/money/a house etc...'' crowd.
The solution isn't in the political domain,as it is now.It's obsolete.It's a system designed for the industrial age.We're now beyond that,otherwise we wouldn't know of each other.Yet,we'll carry on , the crisis will deepen until there is a wind of history that will blow it away.Until then,we'd be wise to ignore the shenanigans,live our lives,raise the children well,do as much good as possible,enjoy the latest gadgets but still be able to make a fire in the woods or use a compass.The future is a direct democracy and local,self sustainable and networked communities .Or a dictatorial behemoth like PRC.

SteveDaPirate
28 Jul 15,, 20:37
Nobody knows what to do. Every last one of them, Left to Right, is utterly f--king clueless.
Even when they've got a halfway good idea, it either gets shot out of the sky, twisted out of recognition by changes, amendments and earmarks, or backfires thanks to the Department of Unintended Consequences.

They're all just flailing about, trying desperately to:

A.) Get elected
B.) Get reelected
C.) Whatever helps accomplish A and B

So whenever the latest Messiah comes along, I have to laugh at the grasping self-delusion of people who somehow manage to convince themselves that "Our Man (or Woman) will set things right, if we can just get them into office"

Dream on you poor stupid fools.

I think that is generally a sign that things are going pretty well in the US. The system is designed to slow down and frustrate proposals that don't have widespread support. 9/11 was a good example of how Washington can get it's ass in gear and take action when a pressing problem presents itself.

But while a serious problem will quickly get a consensus behind dealing with it, a lack of real problems allows every politician to make a lot of noise while tilting at their own personal windmill.

TopHatter
28 Jul 15,, 20:44
9/11 was a good example of how Washington can get it's ass in gear and take action when a pressing problem presents itself.

Therein lies the problem: Only after thousands of lives are lost within minutes or hours and billions in property damage are done, does the government (usually (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katr ina)) start moving.

This is purely reactive and the stakes are just too damn high to go through life in React Mode.

astralis
28 Jul 15,, 21:23
from a conservative standpoint, though, that's precisely what's wanted, yes?

frankly the main issue with the US is that politicians are picking their voters, and the side effects of that are seriously detrimental to the public discourse.

populist, violent voices drown out the increasingly apathetic majority, whom feel that their votes don't matter.

TopHatter
28 Jul 15,, 21:38
from a conservative standpoint, though, that's precisely what's wanted, yes?

What are you referring to?

SteveDaPirate
28 Jul 15,, 21:50
Therein lies the problem: Only after thousands of lives are lost within minutes or hours and billions in property damage are done, does the government (usually (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katr ina)) start moving.

This is purely reactive and the stakes are just too damn high to go through life in React Mode.

A very valid criticism and I sincerely wish we would invest more in preparedness. We have a cycle of getting caught flat footed by events, over responding to make up for the fact that the response was too late, then deeply cutting that funding a year or two later when it isn't in the news any longer, thus bringing things back to square one.

In the interests of disclosure, I work for the government in emergency preparedness so I am naturally biased. That said, I would love to see a sustained and rational level of funding rather than this stupid ping pong between feast and famine.

A huge one time grant after every H1N1 or Ebola scare just puts us in a position where we have an unreasonably large amount of money we are required to expend before the end of the fiscal year. Then we are right back to minimal funding for sustainment but now with a bunch of extra stuff try try to maintain. If they would spread this funding out over 5-10 years or just give us a general funding bump, we could actually hire an extra staff member or two and buy gear we can afford to maintain on an ongoing basis.

/end rant

Mihais
28 Jul 15,, 21:52
populist, violent voices drown out the increasingly apathetic majority, whom feel that their votes don't matter.

The reverse is rather true.Their votes don't matter,so they become apathetic and rise when hear what they want to hear.If there are no voices,or those voices are silenced,in time you get a population of serfs.

astralis
29 Jul 15,, 02:59
TH,


What are you referring to?

government in reactive mode is something that's generally seen as a positive among conservatives.

from their standpoint, an energetic, even worse...an energetic, competent government...would mean the government would be tempted to step more and more into people's lives.

TopHatter
29 Jul 15,, 23:17
TH,
government in reactive mode is something that's generally seen as a positive among conservatives.

from their standpoint, an energetic, even worse...an energetic, competent government...would mean the government would be tempted to step more and more into people's lives.

I can almost see the 2nd part but the 1st part? Can't say I've ever really seen that ascribed to conservatives, at least in the sense we're talking about, i.e. disaster relief, robust infrastructure etc.

(Of course, a government that's good at those things would, theoretically at least, be good at playing nanny with people's personal lives.

astralis
30 Jul 15,, 02:17
I can almost see the 2nd part but the 1st part? Can't say I've ever really seen that ascribed to conservatives, at least in the sense we're talking about, i.e. disaster relief, robust infrastructure etc.

for things like disaster relief and military operations, yes (although libertarians are wary about the latter).

but not for much more. robust infrastructure? that's not certainly not a conservative priority. the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion needs to be spent on infrastructure between now and 2020. bernie sanders recently proposed a bill that would cover $1 trillion. i'll let you guess how conservatives reacted to that one :-)

on a similar note, france/singapore/japan are routinely ranked as having the most efficient, effective, and low cost healthcare systems in the world. problem is, they use a singlepayer universal healthcare system. the US, on the other hand, routinely ranks in the lower-middle of the rankings and usually dead last in the developed world for efficiency, effectiveness, and cost.

can't see conservatives push for that either.

to be fair, i'm sure conservatives would like a competent government. but that's relatively low on the priority list; small government is more important than competent government, let alone energetic government...let alone a PROACTIVE government.

Albany Rifles
30 Jul 15,, 19:22
^Like Astralis...still don't have LIKE button.

Okay, I am not a conservative...but neither am I a raging liberal/progressive. (I hate fucking labels)

I am issue by issue.

As for infrastructure, I cannot see how the pro business conservatives (is that an oxymoron...seriously) are not running to work to improve the infrastructure.

1. Money is dirt cheap right now. Any bonds/loans would be at the most advantageous rate the government could ever hope for.

2. Improved infrastructure improves internal freedom of movement which is a boon to commerce.

3. Infrastructure improvement would mean millions of well paying middle class jobs.

A recent drive back and forth from Southside Virginia to Boston and back absolutely proves our roads, bridgaesa and rails are in a freakin' mess.

So how can conservatives not get behind this? I don't understand.

Conservatives like to point to the legacy of the rugged individualist who forged a settlement as he pushed Westward through the Wilderness.

Okay, that happened.

But as soon those rugged individualists got out there they wanted the Army to protect them from the Native Americans as well as infrastructure improvements (roads, canals, ertc) built and maintained by Federal funding.

Sure sounds like the conservative legacy is built on a foundation of government investment.

Parihaka
30 Jul 15,, 20:59
As for infrastructure, I cannot see how the pro business conservatives (is that an oxymoron...seriously) are not running to work to improve the infrastructure.

You're mistaking the Republican Party for conservatism. Conservatives in the U.S. only have one choice, liberals too. Your elected officials are neither republican nor democrat, simply professional bureaucrats. They keep you distracted arguing with each other rather than yelling at them. Hence the popularity of the Donald on one side and Saunders on the other. Neither is electable but DT is wildly popular at the moment even among Hispanics because he talks out loud about verbotten issues. Notice Saunders is now doing the same thing on immigration.

astralis
30 Jul 15,, 21:24
pari,


You're mistaking the Republican Party for conservatism. Conservatives in the U.S. only have one choice, liberals too. Your elected officials are neither republican nor democrat, simply professional bureaucrats. They keep you distracted arguing with each other rather than yelling at them.

given the way politics has evolved in the country over the last 40 years, either side has less and less inclination and political incentive to work with each other. gerrymandering means it's more lucrative politically (and economically) to argue with each other as opposed to working with each other. instead of appealing to a wider audience, one appeals to the politically-motivated.

thus it's not a case of politicians tricking the people, it's a case of vocal/dedicated minorities DEMANDING this of their politician. see the Tea Party revolt, for instance.

Albany Rifles
30 Jul 15,, 21:53
Pari,

I understand....

If I were to pick a member of the field I like it is Jim Webb.

But he doesn't stand a stand a chance.

Hell, I did a write in vote for Sam Nunn in 1984!

Parihaka
31 Jul 15,, 01:02
pari,



given the way politics has evolved in the country over the last 40 years, either side has less and less inclination and political incentive to work with each other. gerrymandering means it's more lucrative politically (and economically) to argue with each other as opposed to working with each other. instead of appealing to a wider audience, one appeals to the politically-motivated.

thus it's not a case of politicians tricking the people, it's a case of vocal/dedicated minorities DEMANDING this of their politician. see the Tea Party revolt, for instance.
yeah, this resonates with an article I've just read on Jon Stewart
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/television/the-divided-america-that-jon-stewart-leaves-behind/

DOR
31 Jul 15,, 04:03
^Like Astralis...still don't have LIKE button.

Okay, I am not a conservative....

Nailed it.

Consider that post "liked."

JAD_333
31 Jul 15,, 21:30
Okay, I am not a conservative...

I am issue by issue.

Okay. So, you're an independent...another label, but happily more adjective than noun.

Totally agree with you on infrastructure projects...I've never seen the Interstates in such bad condition. If ever there was an issue the GOP could score points on, this is it. Raise the gas tax a nickle and start fixing things up. I'd bet my bottom dollar, the GOP would gain wide support once the projects got started, both for the employment gains and the improvement in infrastructure safety.

JAD_333
31 Jul 15,, 21:47
pari,



given the way politics has evolved in the country over the last 40 years, either side has less and less inclination and political incentive to work with each other. gerrymandering means it's more lucrative politically (and economically) to argue with each other as opposed to working with each other. instead of appealing to a wider audience, one appeals to the politically-motivated.

thus it's not a case of politicians tricking the people, it's a case of vocal/dedicated minorities DEMANDING this of their politician. see the Tea Party revolt, for instance.

"So, what's new?" That's what a historian looking at the whole picture of American politics since 1800 would say I don't mean to excuse these phases of utter lack of cooperation between and within the parties. But it does say something about the phenomenon of recurring political cycles, the causes of which, if understood, would tell us more about what is happening today and where it is leading.

astralis
31 Jul 15,, 23:26
JAD,


But it does say something about the phenomenon of recurring political cycles, the causes of which, if understood, would tell us more about what is happening today and where it is leading.

i don't think it's simply an issue of cycles. IE, one of the reasons why party discipline is falling apart (amongst both parties, but especially among Republicans) is because communication technology combined with the unprecedented flow of money into politics means that party bagmen don't have quite the same power they used to have.

similarly, things that used to allow for greater party cooperation-- like pork-barreling, or even just the fact that you were STUCK in DC with your fellow Congressmen because of the inefficiency of travel/lack of need-- have disappeared.

there's a mix of new technological and cultural factors. the era of the big 3 TV channels is long over; people are now getting their "facts" from sources that tend to generally support their existing beliefs (like pari's article above).

i do see similarities here and there with previous historical episodes, but frankly i can't see enough of them where it's a good indicator of "what is happening today and where it is leading". it seems to me demographics would be a better predictor than historical models, and even then that's problematic.

besides, these cycles are often driven by completely unpredictable events.

JAD_333
01 Aug 15,, 00:58
JAD,



i don't think it's simply an issue of cycles. IE, one of the reasons why party discipline is falling apart (amongst both parties, but especially among Republicans) is because communication technology combined with the unprecedented flow of money into politics means that party bagmen don't have quite the same power they used to have.

similarly, things that used to allow for greater party cooperation-- like pork-barreling, or even just the fact that you were STUCK in DC with your fellow Congressmen because of the inefficiency of travel/lack of need-- have disappeared.

there's a mix of new technological and cultural factors. the era of the big 3 TV channels is long over; people are now getting their "facts" from sources that tend to generally support their existing beliefs (like pari's article above).

i do see similarities here and there with previous historical episodes, but frankly i can't see enough of them where it's a good indicator of "what is happening today and where it is leading". it seems to me demographics would be a better predictor than historical models, and even then that's problematic.

besides, these cycles are often driven by completely unpredictable events.


You make some excellent points. However, what I was saying, in effect, is that the causes of cycles, if we can discern them, open up an understanding of how they come about. True, in the present cycle, technology, rapid travel, and greater transparency play a role in illustrating the behavior of the political players and parties. But the underlying force is always a tendency to restore equilibrium after a long period of political imbalance either to the right or the left. In short, human nature expressed en mass--that is, as a society--will never change no matter modern innovations come along.

gunnut
01 Aug 15,, 01:00
All I have to say is, in a nation of 330 million, do we not have anyone else other than a Clinton and a Bush?

I don't know who I will vote for. I know I will not vote for Clinton, Bush, Sanders, and Christie.

I like Walker. Crush the greedy unions!

SteveDaPirate
01 Aug 15,, 08:18
All I have to say is, in a nation of 330 million, do we not have anyone else other than a Clinton and a Bush?

My money is on Clinton vs Rubio in the election.

That said, Trump vs Sanders would be more entertaining in a morbid sort of way.

Bigfella
01 Aug 15,, 15:35
Okay. So, you're an independent...another label, but happily more adjective than noun.

Totally agree with you on infrastructure projects...I've never seen the Interstates in such bad condition. If ever there was an issue the GOP could score points on, this is it. Raise the gas tax a nickle and start fixing things up. I'd bet my bottom dollar, the GOP would gain wide support once the projects got started, both for the employment gains and the improvement in infrastructure safety.

Unfortunately an influential part of the GOP has been captured by people who think government spending on stuff like infrastructure - especially if it is funded by borrowing (even at close to zero interest) is only mildly better than molesting children (in the case of Bill Donahue he's more likely to defend the latter than the former). it should be a no brainer.

On a related note, there is a new bumper sticker doing the rounds here that takes aim at our conservative government: 'Abbott's Australia - meaner, dumber, hotter'. Seems a neat summary of a particular segment of conservatism at the moment.

Albany Rifles
01 Aug 15,, 16:23
^Like BigFella

JAD & Asty,

Thanks for reminding me that I purport to be a historian and I overlooked my history. redface (NOTE: Emojis ain't working)

JAD, you are right.

About the ONLY times in our history where we were in concert was during a)the Era of Good Feelings and b) Post Pearl Harbor. The remainder of our history our various political parties treated our politics as little more than blood sport...and sometimes it did become quite bloody. Bleeding Kansas and Preston v Brooks are nto the only instances of bloody conflict in our political past. Today we see the weak beer of Ted Cruz calling out Mitch McConnell....yawn.

Asty,

The current "news" cycle and corporate money of today are little different than the money of the Robber Barons of the late 19th Century, the multiple newspapers of the 1830s-1870s who editorialized on their front pages, the waving of the Bloody Shirt in Post Bellum politics and durign the several Red Scares/Yellow Perils/inserthatedimmigrantgrouphere.

The single greatest catalyst for the growth of the US Postal Service during the early republic were the multiple daily newspapers published by all the various political organs. Heard a great program on Backstory about the history of the USPS. The historians there stated in the 1840s/1850s it was normal for a newspaper published in Baltimore on Monday was being read in the backwoods of Arkansas on Friday...delivered there by the USPS.

The electorates of the 1830s-1860s were very well informed...albeit they often did not willing listen to opposing views.



Its just a difference of means and technologies.

desertswo
01 Aug 15,, 16:52
One of the things I learned at the war college, and then practiced over the next three years on the Joint Staff J-3 was how to get together with the J-2/J-5 folks and look at a region and identify those countries sliding inexorably toward chaos. I have seen the enemy and it is us. There is a reckoning coming, and it ain't going to be pretty. The only question I have is the spark. What will it be; yet another unconstitutional executive order too many? Economic collapse? HANGINGCHADEX II? Pick your poison. I know a lot of otherwise sane, law abiding people, with skills, who are ready to rumble yesterday.

astralis
01 Aug 15,, 17:45
AR,


The current "news" cycle and corporate money of today are little different than the money of the Robber Barons of the late 19th Century, the multiple newspapers of the 1830s-1870s who editorialized on their front pages, the waving of the Bloody Shirt in Post Bellum politics and durign the several Red Scares/Yellow Perils/inserthatedimmigrantgrouphere.

The single greatest catalyst for the growth of the US Postal Service during the early republic were the multiple daily newspapers published by all the various political organs. Heard a great program on Backstory about the history of the USPS. The historians there stated in the 1840s/1850s it was normal for a newspaper published in Baltimore on Monday was being read in the backwoods of Arkansas on Friday...delivered there by the USPS.

The electorates of the 1830s-1860s were very well informed...albeit they often did not willing listen to opposing views.

i see some similarities. most disturbing one being how the wealthy started to create their own political machines.

there are quite a few differences, though, mostly that absent the overarching issue of slavery, ideology didn't become a big thing until the 1890s. before that it was mostly rent-seeking, and even afterwards.

we're in a sort of strange place in that relatively speaking, politics is cleaner than before, which ironically makes all the fights ideological ones.

---

OTOH, going back to my original argument, i'm really not sure how all of this has a predictive value, though. i don't really believe in JAD's equilibrium theory, primarily because 1.) the poles change over time, and 2.) humans aren't particles, and they're driven by events/people.

regarding 1.), for instance, today many conservatives/libertarians hold values that would have been considered socially degenerate back 50 years ago (gay marriage? interracial marriage?).

2.), politics is event driven. here's another historical example. without Vietnam simultaneously shattering people's trust in government, the splitting of the urban liberal and the Southern Democrats over things like the war, counterculture, and civil rights, we might still know Reagan today for Bedtime for Bonzo. Goldwater would have been little more than a footnote, a conservative aberration to the Eisenhower Republican.

politics may have a cycle but it's all driven by mostly unpredictable events.

looking4NSFS
01 Aug 15,, 22:41
I seem to remember an $800 billion stimulus package that was passed, supposed to be full of Shovel Ready Jobs. But we were lied to, and eventually the President had to admit there were no "shovel ready jobs" That stimulus package passed with plenty of support from people "who think government spending on stuff like infrastructure - especially if it is funded by borrowing (even at close to zero interest) is only mildly better than molesting children" Not sure why the dig at child molester had to be thrown in there, but the only child molester who's made the news recently was Jeff Epstein, a friend of Bill Clinton, who isn't a member of the GOP. Infrastructure spending that actually results in jobs is an issue that can be supported.

Mihais
01 Aug 15,, 23:28
One of the things I learned at the war college, and then practiced over the next three years on the Joint Staff J-3 was how to get together with the J-2/J-5 folks and look at a region and identify those countries sliding inexorably toward chaos. I have seen the enemy and it is us. There is a reckoning coming, and it ain't going to be pretty. The only question I have is the spark. What will it be; yet another unconstitutional executive order too many? Economic collapse? HANGINGCHADEX II? Pick your poison. I know a lot of otherwise sane, law abiding people, with skills, who are ready to rumble yesterday.

Captain Parul Gri,Sir,one of the best ways ever invented to connect people is not Nokia,but palinka.And what I hear from some lads is somewhat similar to what you say.
An old chap,told me a story.Back in 87-88 he sometimes had to stay in line for groceries on the way home from office.And he heard comments around,like ''of course communism will be over soon,can't you see a Colonel standing in line?''
You ain't that bad,but my point is that if mid-junior ranks say there are issues that don't have a solution,you're pretty advanced on the path to problems.

And the fundamental issue is the have's at some point get sick of won't have/have not's.You have a synergy between class struggle,cultural conflict and tribal/racial ethnic differences.Western Europe is even worse in that respect.
We may be allright in many respects,but you going bust is pretty much the white elephant in the room security wise.Screw Russia,they don't have the balls/reason for a fight to the death.

TopHatter
02 Aug 15,, 02:08
I seem to remember an $800 billion stimulus package that was passed, supposed to be full of Shovel Ready Jobs. But we were lied to, and eventually the President had to admit there were no "shovel ready jobs"

I'll be so happy when this fucking administration is gone. I don't even care if it's another Democrat in office. All the good intentions and good feelings and hope and change and whatever else duped people into voting this clown..what have they accomplished? Every "achievement" has a gigantic asterisk attached to it.

astralis
02 Aug 15,, 03:09
TH,


All the good intentions and good feelings and hope and change and whatever else duped people into voting this clown..what have they accomplished? Every "achievement" has a gigantic asterisk attached to it.

i dunno...

unemployment rate, jan 2009: 7.8%
unemployment rate, jun 2015: 5.3%

US deficit, jan 2009: $485 billion
US deficit, jun 2015: $431 billion

US uninsured rate, jan 2009: 16.1%
US uninsured rate, jun 2015: 11.4%

even if you're not inclined to give Obama all the credit...you can't say that the US is worse off today than when Obama took office.

that's something the administration prior to his could not say.

TopHatter
02 Aug 15,, 04:00
TH,
i dunno...

unemployment rate, jan 2009: 7.8%
unemployment rate, jun 2015: 5.3%

US deficit, jan 2009: $485 billion
US deficit, jun 2015: $431 billion

US uninsured rate, jan 2009: 16.1%
US uninsured rate, jun 2015: 11.4%

even if you're not inclined to give Obama all the credit...you can't say that the US is worse off today than when Obama took office.

Asterisks all around.

The unemployment rate? That's a lot of smoke and mirrors bullshit that hides a multitude of problems (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx).
"Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed."

Hell, let's ask a staunch conservative and well known anti-liberal what he (http://www.progressivestoday.com/dem-senator-real-unemployment-is-over-11-video/) thinks of that 5.3%:

“Real unemployment, government figures, excludes those people who have given up looking for work and those people who are working part-time when they want to work full-time. If you add those numbers together government statistics tell you that real unemployment in America is over 11%. Youth unemployment, which we never talk about, is 18%. African-American youth unemployment is close to 30%.”

How much of the deficit is due to sequestration? In other words, the cuts that no Democrat worth his tax-and-spend soul would ever voluntarily make?

The uninsured rate...even Jimmy Fallon called that one: "It’s amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory and fine people if they don’t do it and then keep extending the deadline for months". And I'm waiting to see what the long-term effects of the ACA on the economy are.

Sorry, still not buying it. The man is an arrogant egotistical naif that believes his own press. "Messiah complex" indeed.

About the only thing Obama has managed to do was lift the idiotic ban on gays in the military and give the go order to take out Bin Laden.


that's something the administration prior to his could not say.
It's interesting that criticism of Obama is invariably met by a finger pointing at Bush. Seriously could you move the goalposts a little closer?

Never said I was particularly enamored with George W. Bush. But I did say I wouldn't even mind another Democrat in office.

astralis
02 Aug 15,, 05:37
TH,


The unemployment rate? That's a lot of smoke and mirrors bullshit that hides a multitude of problems.
"Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed."

unemployment measuring method has been around for quite a while, so again, even if we say there's Americans "severely underemployed", that would have applied earlier as well. either way, unemployment is -still- lower now than when it was when Obama first came into office.


How much of the deficit is due to sequestration?

more due to the recovering economy, actually. sequestration was, and remains, stupid-- it was meant to be a poison pill for both parties to encourage smarter deficit savings. well that didn't happen so everyone ate the poison pill. finally, ACA cost savings as well as the dramatic slowdown in healthcare costs.

either way...the deficit went down.


"It’s amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory and fine people if they don’t do it and then keep extending the deadline for months".

recall what Republicans were saying, though-- that people would just ignore the fine, that the uninsured rate would spike, that costs to both people/government would spike...none of that happened.


And I'm waiting to see what the long-term effects of the ACA on the economy are.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252 -- ie, deficit increases dramatically without ACA, and worsens over time.


It's interesting that criticism of Obama is invariably met by a finger pointing at Bush. Seriously could you move the goalposts a little closer?

that's not central to my argument. note i'm not absolving Obama's various failures on Bush. nor am i here to persuade you that Obama's the greatest President ever, only to point out that there HAVE been positive changes. you're right, many of his achievements have asterisks next to them, and that's understandable...he's not the Messiah, yes? :-)

but if you want to measure a Presidency, simply ask yourself if the country is better today than it was when the President took office. Bush Jr failed there. Clinton succeeded. Bush Sr kinda-sorta succeeded (although that had more to do with the fall of the USSR). Reagan succeeded.

DOR
02 Aug 15,, 06:21
We've had folks making fun of the unemployment figures throughout the Obama Administration, but not before that.
I wonder why . . .

Here's the hard data: the standard measure and U6, which is the one people like TopHatter erroneously say is running at 11% (it's 10.5%).

Note that the U6 measure, by definition, is always higher than the standard measure. The reason is that they measure different things, and therefore cannot be compared. Compare unemployment to U6 and you are either (a) ignorant; or (b) deliberately trying to fool people into thinking unemployment [sic] is 11% .

Note also that U6 is falling farther, and faster than at any time in its short, 21 year history.

39806

DOR
02 Aug 15,, 06:56
The difference in the Federal budget numbers, 9 periods (all figures are averages):

% of GDP _ _ _ _ Revenue _ _ Spending _ _ Balance
RWR I (81-84) _ __ _17.7 _ _ _ _ _21.8 _ _ _ _ -4.1
RWR II (85-88) _ _ _17.4 _ _ _ _ _21.3 _ _ _ __-3.9
GHWB (89-92) _ __ _17.3_ _ _ _ _ 21.3_ _ _ _ _-4.0
WJC I (93-96) _ _ _ _17.7 _ _ _ _ 19.9 _ _ _ _ _ -2.2
WJC II (97-00) _ _ _ 19.3 _ _ _ _ 18.1 _ _ _ _ _+1.2
GWB I (01-04) __ _ _16.6 _ _ _ _ 18.6 _ _ _ _ _ -2.0
GWB II (05-08) __ _ 17.3_ _ _ _ _19.8 _ _ _ _ _-2.5
BHO I (09-12) _ _ _ 14.9_ _ _ _ _23.3 _ _ _ _ _-8.4
BHO II (13- ) _ _ _ _17.9 _ _ _ _ 20.6_ _ _ _ _ -2.6

BHO II through mid-2015.

TopHatter
02 Aug 15,, 19:09
TH,
unemployment measuring method has been around for quite a while, so again, even if we say there's Americans "severely underemployed", that would have applied earlier as well. either way, unemployment is -still- lower now than when it was when Obama first came into office.But pointing to that unemployment rate blithely ignores the tens of millions of Americans that have abandoned the workforce. Sweeping them under the rug, polishing up that 5.3% and putting it on the mantelpiece is ridiculous. They're a ticking time bomb and god only knows when that sucker is going go off.


more due to the recovering economy, actually. sequestration was, and remains, stupid-- it was meant to be a poison pill for both parties to encourage smarter deficit savings. well that didn't happen so everyone ate the poison pill. finally, ACA cost savings as well as the dramatic slowdown in healthcare costs. either way...the deficit went down.OK and that's great...but to bring it up as credit for Obama is rather disingenuous.


recall what Republicans were saying, though-- that people would just ignore the fine, that the uninsured rate would spike, that costs to both people/government would spike...none of that happened. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252 -- ie, deficit increases dramatically without ACA, and worsens over time. Once again, not terribly enamored with the GOP. And time is the ultimate judge of the ACA and so far we're still in the first or second inning. Projections are all well and good but get back to me when we're in the bottom on the ninth. (Say, 10 years from now). For the record I sincerely hope that the ACA reins in the outrageously stupid healthcare situation in this country.


that's not central to my argument. note i'm not absolving Obama's various failures on Bush. nor am i here to persuade you that Obama's the greatest President ever, only to point out that there HAVE been positive changes. you're right, many of his achievements have asterisks next to them, and that's understandable...he's not the Messiah, yes? :-)Sure there have been positive changes, I'll admit that (and have). Certainly I've benefited from the crash: After being out of work for 6 months, I was able to rebound and buy a house at rock bottom price and rate (which was something of a last minute fluke of random chance operating my favor but I'm not complaining). And he's not the Messiah, but don't tell him that.


but if you want to measure a Presidency, simply ask yourself if the country is better today than it was when the President took office. Bush Jr failed there. Clinton succeeded. Bush Sr kinda-sorta succeeded (although that had more to do with the fall of the USSR). Reagan succeeded.
Quite frankly I take each President on their own traits, merits and accomplishments, regardless of their predecessors.

In this case, I'll be absolutely ecstatic to see this fucking administration gone.

TopHatter
02 Aug 15,, 19:12
We've had folks making fun of the unemployment figures throughout the Obama Administration, but not before that.
I wonder why . . . Probably because, at least in my living memory, we never had the kind of slobbering hero worship heaped upon a neophyte that promised the sun, the moon and the stars and then fell flat on his face. Even his supporters will grudgingly admit that (occasionally)


Here's the hard data: the standard measure and U6, which is the one people like TopHatter erroneously say is running at 11% (it's 10.5%).

I was quoting Bernie Sanders. And holy shit was he off by a MILE! 0.5% The horror!

DOR
03 Aug 15,, 07:03
Tophatter,

People are trying to make us believe that U6 at 10.5% is a high number, and the only reason anyone would think so is because it is pitched it as if it were measuring unemployment. That way, when people think about unemployment at 5.3%, a double-digit figure looks scary.

It just doesn’t work that way. Go back and look at my graph. Read the comment I wrote, the one that says “U6 is falling farther, and faster than at any time in its short, 21 year history.”

Then, look at the record. We are currently in the longest continual increase in US employment since WWII . . . beating out the 1960s record that had economists in awe for decades.

. . .

The GOPers put Obama on a pedestal as soon as he was elected, because that was the easiest way to bring him down. The GOPers named it “Obamacare,” to try and pin responsibility on him, and he embraced the term and gets the credit.

Doktor
03 Aug 15,, 08:33
Waiting for someone to explain to me why Hillary is not a SecState if she was any good at it.

As an outsider, I can't think of a place in the world where US has better reputation today than 6 years ago, but maybe Japan and that would be China's "fault".

After such a stellar show, it would be only natural to grant her a sit in the WH for 4 years, right?

Officer of Engineers
03 Aug 15,, 09:10
The rest of the world don't get a vote.

Parihaka
03 Aug 15,, 12:25
The rest of the world don't get a vote.

Course we do, we vote with our feet. Like I said way back, we just have to transition them to a slow soft landing. We don't have a vote in who takes over is the problem.

TopHatter
03 Aug 15,, 17:18
Tophatter,

People are trying to make us believe that U6 at 10.5% is a high number, and the only reason anyone would think so is because it is pitched it as if it were measuring unemployment. That way, when people think about unemployment at 5.3%, a double-digit figure looks scary.

It just doesn’t work that way. Go back and look at my graph. Read the comment I wrote, the one that says “U6 is falling farther, and faster than at any time in its short, 21 year history.”

Then, look at the record. We are currently in the longest continual increase in US employment since WWII . . . beating out the 1960s record that had economists in awe for decades.
I'm not sure how (or why) you're spinning the U6 number as some benign bit of trivia that can be safely ignored. Seriously, a massive number of people leaving the workforce is a problem.

It's wonderful that it's falling...although as high as it's been, I would certainly hope that it is...but adding "jobs" is like saying it's raining during a drought: Is it merely drizzling or do we have good hard steady downpour?
In this case, the jobs are nothing like the kind that seriously sustain and economy and wages are flat. Like I've been saying, asterisks all around.


The GOPers put Obama on a pedestal as soon as he was elected, because that was the easiest way to bring him down. The GOPers named it “Obamacare,” to try and pin responsibility on him, and he embraced the term and gets the credit.
Ummm...I'm not sure if you were here in the United States back in 2008, prior to him being elected, but...

It was not the GOP that put Obama on a pedestal. When I said "slobbering hero worship" earlier, I wasn't talking about GOPers.
Obama was floating on that pedestal long before he was elected and it was blindingly obvious (https://youtu.be/no9fpKVXxCc) who put him there (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/barbara-walters-admits-we-thought-obama-was-next-m/).

As for "Obamacare", that was hardly a surprise that his "signature" piece of legislation would have his own name hung on it.

And "pinning the responsibility on him"? WTF? Who exactly should they have pinned the responsibility on? The janitor down the hallway from the Oval Office?

Zad Fnark
03 Aug 15,, 19:10
; )

39811

gunnut
03 Aug 15,, 20:45
I'll be so happy when this fucking administration is gone. I don't even care if it's another Democrat in office. All the good intentions and good feelings and hope and change and whatever else duped people into voting this clown..what have they accomplished? Every "achievement" has a gigantic asterisk attached to it.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Republicans were all high on defeating Hilary in 2008. The chant was "anyone but Hill." They got their wish.

People were complaining about how expensive housing was in 2006. They wished prices would come down. The price did come down, along with everything else.

History has a strange way of showing us just how bad things can get.

TopHatter
03 Aug 15,, 20:55
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Republicans were all high on defeating Hilary in 2008. The chant was "anyone but Hill." They got their wish.

People were complaining about how expensive housing was in 2006. They wished prices would come down. The price did come down, along with everything else.

History has a strange way of showing us just how bad things can get.

Oh to be sure! "The Department of Unintended Consequences" is one of my most favorite expressions.

Although instead of Hillary, I'm wondering how the GOP would deal with a President Joseph R. Biden Jr...

SteveDaPirate
03 Aug 15,, 21:10
Oh to be sure! "The Department of Unintended Consequences" is one of my most favorite expressions.

Although instead of Hillary, I'm wondering how the GOP would deal with a President Joseph R. Biden Jr...

The folks over at Fivethirtyeight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/joe-bidens-potential-2016-presidential-campaign/)are saying that Biden is well behind Clinton in almost every metric, but he could serve as an insurance policy for the Dems as someone that is more electable than Sanders if the Clinton campaign were to be derailed due to an unforeseen scandal or health issues.

TopHatter
03 Aug 15,, 21:23
The folks over at Fivethirtyeight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/joe-bidens-potential-2016-presidential-campaign/)are saying that Biden is well behind Clinton in almost every metric, but he could serve as an insurance policy for the Dems as someone that is more electable than Sanders if the Clinton campaign were to be derailed due to an unforeseen scandal or health issues.

It's odd, in the past 30 minutes or so since I posted that, I found myself wondering more and more how Biden would do as the front man on the ticket...and found myself more and more comfortable imagining him in the Big Chair. Certainly far more comfortable than Clinton, Sanders or the usual pack of GOP idiots that are jockeying for the job.

Bizarre!

gunnut
03 Aug 15,, 21:29
Oh to be sure! "The Department of Unintended Consequences" is one of my most favorite expressions.

Although instead of Hillary, I'm wondering how the GOP would deal with a President Joseph R. Biden Jr...

I actually don't mind old uncle Joe.

He's one of the poorest career politicians in DC. That means one of two things: 1. He's too honest to take bribes, or 2. He's too stupid to not ask for more bribes. Either way, he's better than other democrats.

Harry Reid, as much as he is for 2A, is a career bribes taker. His sons all work as lobbyists. They are corrupt.

Pelosi and Feinstein are all rich from lobbyist money.

Mihais
03 Aug 15,, 21:29
Trump as Prez with Biden as VP :D

gunnut
03 Aug 15,, 21:38
Trump as Prez with Biden as VP :D

I believe Trump is simply building his own name brand. He's a businessman first.

Of course what could happen is that he started out this venture as a name-recognition building exercise, and events turn, or even, force him, to be the president.

The good thing about him is that he doesn't care nor need lobbyist money. The bad thing is he's used to getting his own way and may not be a compromiser that good politicians need to be.

Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil and a democrat dominated congress to get his tax cuts through. In the end the US economy grew at an astronomical 7% under Reaganomics vs. less than 3% under Obamacare.

Can Trump work with other people? Does the public want Trump to compromise? Remember, Trump is popular because he's a straight shooter. How will the people react when Trump starts to bend?

SteveDaPirate
03 Aug 15,, 21:53
Trump is popular but polarizing. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-the-nickelback-of-gop-candidates/) Among republicans, he is out in front regarding people's "first choice", but his unfavorable ratings are very high as well. Someone like Rubio, on the other hand, has broad appeal and very few unfavorable ratings but may have trouble standing out.

3981239813

Mihais
03 Aug 15,, 22:00
I have no idea.I'm, not going to vote in your elections,but I can play the devil's advocate.First,you need to see where can be compromises and where there cannot be.In the matter of immigration,his program is simple and to the point:secure the border,expel illegals.If he gets elected,it means the majority wants the government to follow its own laws .He will be however fiercelly opposed by the left.It's a matter where I can't see a possible compromise,but a matter of brute power.
Anything else,he's able to negociate.ACA can be modified,trade relations etc... whatever bothers you.
The issue of illegals,everywhere in the West is one of the most important to the left.It's actually of vital importance to be able to secure as many migrants as possible,to be able to preserve their power.They simply can't compromise on this.

astralis
03 Aug 15,, 22:30
gunnut,


He's one of the poorest career politicians in DC. That means one of two things: 1. He's too honest to take bribes, or 2. He's too stupid to not ask for more bribes. Either way, he's better than other democrats.

bribes? no, no, no...money is free speech. :-)

gunnut
03 Aug 15,, 22:51
gunnut,

bribes? no, no, no...money is free speech. :-)

Well, at least it's better than "restrained speech."

Imagine a world in which we are not allowed to support politicians. Now that's a dream scenario for the "department of unintended consequences."

DOR
04 Aug 15,, 04:01
In the end the US economy grew at an astronomical 7% under Reaganomics vs. less than 3% under Obamacare.



On the assumption that anyone can grow an economy by ramping up the deficits, here’s a crude way of comparing various administrations. Note that the time periods assume one’s policy choices carry over into the first year of the next administration, so Jimmy Carter is 1978-81, rather than 1977-80 (his term).

_ _ _ _ _ _ Real GDP Growth _ _ _Budget Balance _ _ _ Simple
_ _ _ _ _ _ Percent per annum _ _ Percent of GDP _ _ _ _ Sum
1970-77 _ _ _ +2.7% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (1.9 %) _ _ _ _ _ _ +0.8%
1978-81 _ _ _ +3.2% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (2.3%) _ _ _ _ _ _ +0.9%
1982-90 _ _ _ +3.6% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (4.1%) _ _ _ _ _ _ (0.5%)
1991-94 _ _ _ +2.0% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (4.1%) _ _ _ _ _ _ (2.1%)
1995-01 _ _ _ +3.7% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (0.1%) _ _ _ _ _ _ +3.6%
2002-09 _ _ _ +1.9% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (3.3%) _ _ _ _ _ _ (1.4%)
2010-_ __ _ _ +1.7% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (5.5%) _ _ _ _ _ _ (-3.8%)

(2010- is to mid-2015)

Note that there is no evidence to support the myth that Reagan grew the economy at 7% p.a.

DOR
04 Aug 15,, 04:04
SteveDaPirate,

Nice graphs.

Doktor
04 Aug 15,, 06:10
Dave,

Why one year only?
Clinton's home loans caused banks crash, or so whats many argue was the main reason. Sure you can argue the next administration could have would have, but the reason stays. You can also argue the derivates and other financial creativity did it, but hardly it's Bush's invention.

JAD_333
04 Aug 15,, 06:13
During his recent visit to Kenya, Obama told an audience, "“I actually think I’m a pretty good president. I think if I ran, I could win. But I can’t. So there’s a lot that I’d like to do to keep America moving, but the law is the law.”

What a remarkable statement. Not that he thinks he was a 'pretty good president", which is probably what they all think, but the insinuation that America needs him to keep moving.

Doktor
04 Aug 15,, 06:51
What? No pen on this one?

Monash
04 Aug 15,, 08:47
During his recent visit to Kenya, Obama told an audience, "“I actually think I’m a pretty good president. I think if I ran, I could win. But I can’t. So there’s a lot that I’d like to do to keep America moving, but the law is the law.”

What a remarkable statement. Not that he thinks he was a 'pretty good president", which is probably what they all think, but the insinuation that America needs him to keep moving.

I don't think the last sentence stands on it's own but rather should be read as part of the entire statement i.e. it's not that America isn't or won't 'keep moving' without him but rather that he would keep it doing so if he was still in office for another term.

The whole thing should be read as "I'm good, I would win, I'd do better in office than the current bunch of contenders " ...etc etc, just like every politician on his way out the door.

DOR
04 Aug 15,, 08:56
Dave,

Why one year only?
Clinton's home loans caused banks crash, or so whats many argue was the main reason. Sure you can argue the next administration could have would have, but the reason stays. You can also argue the derivates and other financial creativity did it, but hardly it's Bush's invention.

One year? No, each line is an entire president's time in office (cf. 1982-90 for Reagan, where he shouldn't be held responsible for 1981, but gets credit/blame for 1990).

ADD: clarity ... the budget balance as a percent of GDP is an average over the same period.

DOR
04 Aug 15,, 09:15
Bobby Jindal Cuts Off Medicaid Funding to Planned Parenthoods In Louisiana
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jindal-louisiana-planned-parenthood-medicaid
.
Scott Walker Gets Punk'd At New Hampshire Campaign Event
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-walker-nh-koch-sign
.
Chris Christie Gets Booed 'Loudly' During Actual Horse Race In New Jersey
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-christie-booed-nj-horse-race
.
Hackers Hit Trump Website To Post Tribute To Jon Stewart
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/donald-trump-hackers-jon-stewart
.

And, an editorial:

The Declining Marginal Value of Crazy
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-declining-marginal-value-of-crazy
Several days ago, perennial presidential candidate Mike Huckabee charged that President Obama was ready to lead Israeli Jews "to the ovens." A few days later, he said he might use not only the FBI but even the US military to prevent abortions. And around the same time, Ted Cruz called Obama the world's biggest funder of Islamic terrorism. There was a day when cracks like these would have stopped the political world in its tracks, spurring transgressive glee from supporters and outrage from liberals and normal people. But this summer, they've struggled to break through. And the reason is obvious: Donald Trump has flooded the market with a new, purer brand of Crazy that has left the other candidates scrambling and basically unable to compete.

Trump is now in the lead in virtually every national poll of the Republican primary race. It's easy to overstate what that means since, in such a populous field, he can do that handily with something like a mere 20% support. But it's worth stepping back to see how we got here. Because Trump is in many ways the logical end result of seven years - really two-plus decades - of Republican cultivation of anger and grievance as a method of conducting politics.This is what brought us the 2010 and 2014 election triumphs on the one hand, but also government shut-downs, debt crises based on nothing, and more.

In a crowded field, for almost everyone but Bush, it’s critical to grab hold of the mantle of anger and grievance. But the Huckabees and Cruzes simply cannot compete with Trump, who is not only willing to say truly anything but also has - whatever else you can say about his nonsense - a talent for drama and garnering press attention honed over decades. With a mix of aggression, boffo self-assertion and nonsense, Trump has managed to boil modern Republicanism down to a hard precipitate form, shorn of the final vestiges of interest in actual governing.

In the economics of Crazy, there is purity and volume. Trump has brought to market a purer and more widely deployable product. He has also radically increased volume. Like a high-flying tech start-up or new drug syndicate, he has radically devalued the product, while dominating the transformed market in a way that allows him to make a killing even against reduced prices and margins. Many of us thought that the string of collapsed business deals and partnerships would hurt Trump. And they may have damaged his bottom line. But in the political realm they have only served to confirm his image as a no-nonsense (all nonsense?) truth-teller who is indifferent to how controversy may affect his personal fortunes. In both purity and volume, his competitors simply cannot compete.

Bush's aides appear to think that Trump may actually be helping them in their fight with Scott Walker, drawing away lots of voters who would never have supported Bush and clustering them around a candidate who will never go all the way. That may be true. But the biggest loser is Ted Cruz. Cruz's angle has been to be the one mainstream presidential contender who will take things just a little further than anyone else in the game. You're for the 2nd Amendment? That's great. But Ted is out there saying you need your guns ready in case you need to kill some federal officials who are endangering liberty. While the argument is well-know, few candidates for high office will quite go there. But Trumps do anything, say anything mode of militant nonsense has frozen Cruz out almost entirely. And his dipping poll numbers show it.

There is one additional point to keep in mind. It's not just Trump's willingness to say anything, or his flair for the dramatic. All of his Republican rivals are residents of the CPAC circuit, the annual archipelago of Republican confabs and conventions where top Republicans go to rail about and outdo each other on what is a fairly narrow range of top concerns: Obamacare, immigration, radical Islam and whatever else. Trump is clearly playing on that terrain, too. His entry into presidential quasi-politics in 2012 after all was with a massive embrace of birtherism. In 2016, Trump has focused his ire on illegal immigration. But in some very significant way he comes from outside the professional right-wing presidential, rubber-chicken circuit, bubble.

That novelty and lack of normal political constraints is what is allowing him to run circles around his competitors who had hoped to play in the Crazy space. Showmanship, lack of touch with reality, and a palpable handle on the grievance and unrestrained self-assertion that is at the center of modern Republican base politics have made Trump, for now, almost impossible to outdo in a crowded field.

Doktor
04 Aug 15,, 12:22
One year? No, each line is an entire president's time in office (cf. 1982-90 for Reagan, where he shouldn't be held responsible for 1981, but gets credit/blame for 1990).

ADD: clarity ... the budget balance as a percent of GDP is an average over the same period.

Looked like that. But the years look like someone is cherry-picking, so RR was in the office for 9 years but Bill was for 7?

Parihaka
04 Aug 15,, 20:34
I'm entranced by the notion that twenty to twenty five percent of your population is viewed as crazy. Here it would be like five percent.

astralis
04 Aug 15,, 20:37
Pari,

what do you mean? don't get it or the figures.

JAD_333
04 Aug 15,, 21:04
I'm entranced by the notion that twenty to twenty five percent of your population is viewed as crazy. Here it would be like five percent.

What a relief. Thought it was much higher.

Doktor
04 Aug 15,, 21:15
What a relief. Thought it was much higher.

Since we talk stereotypes, here it would be even lower. OTOH the perceived level of ignorance would be above 50%. The easiest way to show people how biased they are about the Americans is to ask them to show you where North Dacota is on the map. I mean it's huge, who'd miss it, right?

Back to the regular program

JAD_333
04 Aug 15,, 21:38
Since we talk stereotypes, here it would be even lower. OTOH the perceived level of ignorance would be above 50%. The easiest way to show people how biased they are about the Americans is to ask them to show you where North Dacota is on the map. I mean it's huge, who'd miss it, right?

Back to the regular program

It would surprise you to know how many Americans don't know where N. Dakota is.

Since we're talking obliquely about the 20% who support Trump, I will stick my neck out and say that most of them are not crazy. They're channeling through Trump to express their frustration about Washington's lack of action on immigration, etc. If that is the only way they have to let the rest of the field of presidential hopefuls know what's bugging them, why not. My sister was polled and she named Trump as her favorite, but told me she'd never really vote for him. Right message...wrong guy.

Mihais
04 Aug 15,, 23:01
The danger lies elsewhere.He may turn to be a Caesar to the Republic.But tha failt ain't his.The system has failed or is failing.

Parihaka
04 Aug 15,, 23:10
What a relief. Thought it was much higher.

I make up most of the five percent because of my sheer irascibility.

Parihaka
04 Aug 15,, 23:14
Pari,

what do you mean? don't get it or the figures.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/16/john_mccain_unloads_on_donald_trump_hes_fired_up_t he_crazies/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/03/donald-trump-plows-ahead-in-a-new-poll-but-the-best-news-belongs-to-john-kasich/
McCain (and others) say Trumps supporters are crazies. Trumps support seems to be floating around the 20-25% mark. Ergo, 20-25% of y'all are crazy :)

astralis
04 Aug 15,, 23:17
ah. but that's 20-25% of Republican voters, which is what, 25-30% of the electorate.

so it's pretty close to that 5% of New Zealanders you're talking about...:-)

Parihaka
04 Aug 15,, 23:54
ah. but that's 20-25% of Republican voters, which is what, 25-30% of the electorate.

so it's pretty close to that 5% of New Zealanders you're talking about...:-)
Nice try Asty but no cigar
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/731-trump-as-independent-gives-new-meaning-to-name-billary/
Face it, 20% of your population are bananas

Parihaka
05 Aug 15,, 00:13
In fact delving into it, while only 5% of Democrats are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.....
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us150722/2016July/Complete%20July%202015%20McClatchy_Marist%20Poll_2 016_Tables.pdf#page=26
39821

tbm3fan
05 Aug 15,, 18:55
Nice try Asty but no cigar
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/731-trump-as-independent-gives-new-meaning-to-name-billary/
Face it, 20% of your population are bananas

Bananas or kiwis. In the end we are all fruits...

Doktor
05 Aug 15,, 19:02
Bananas or kiwis. In the end we are all fruits...

Touche

astralis
06 Aug 15,, 03:40
pari,


Nice try Asty but no cigar
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/731-tru...-name-billary/
Face it, 20% of your population are bananas

ah, you're optimistic. truth be told, given the state of the Republican party since Bush the Elder, i'd say it's closer to 50%...

i kid, i kid. sort of. ;-)

by the way, JAD, more seriously-- i think the support for trump doesn't arise from his policy positions (he hasn't really articulated any, unless you count "build a wall on the Mexico border and forcing the Mexicans to pay for it", or "solving our energy problem by a combination of fracking and conquering parts of the Middle East and taking their oil" as policy positions).

it arises from the fact that he says whatever the hell he likes and is pretty much the opposite of the Mitt Romney/Hillary poll-test-every-position-to-death-and-then-triangulate.

in short, it's about HOW he says things, not really what he's spewing. look at the fact that he said he's still for universal healthcare, but somehow everyone's just about ignored that.

if he said any of his various "positions" without his usual bombastic tone, he'd have been laughed out already.

TopHatter
06 Aug 15,, 05:39
Economists dump on Trump boast to bring jobs back from China

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump vows to bring back the millions of American jobs lost to China and other foreign competitors if voters put him in the White House.

Economists say he wouldn't stand a chance: Trump's boundless self-confidence is no match for the global economic forces that took those jobs away.

Since the beginning of 2000, the U.S. economy has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. A study published last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that between 2 million and 2.4 million jobs were lost to competition from China from 1999 to 2011.

Announcing his presidential bid June 16, Trump declared: "I'll bring back our jobs from China, from Mexico, from Japan, from so many places. I'll bring back our jobs, and I'll bring back our money."

Economists were unimpressed. "It's completely implausible," says former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist who has studied the offshoring of American jobs.

Companies shifted low-skill jobs to China in the 2000s because American workers couldn't compete with Chinese workers earning around $1 an hour. Now China itself is losing low-wage manufacturing jobs to poorer countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam.

If America tried to block foreign-made products and make everything at home, prices would skyrocket and foreign countries would likely retaliate by blocking U.S. goods from their countries. "You can't turn back the clock," Blinder says.

But there's an even bigger problem for those who want to restore U.S. manufacturing employment (now 12.3 million) to its 1979 peak of 19.6 million: Technology has taken many of those jobs for good. Today's high-tech factories employ a fraction of the workers they used to. General Motors, for example, employed 600,000 in the 1970s. It has 216,000 now — and sells more cars than ever.

"No matter who becomes president," says economist David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "I cannot foresee a scenario where 5 million additional manufacturing jobs ... reappear in the U.S. in the decades ahead."

That's especially true with U.S. unemployment at a seven-year low 5.3 percent, a rate close to what economists consider full employment.

"If you took all the jobs we outsourced and brought them back, you'd have negative unemployment," says Harold Sirkin, senior partner at the Boston Consulting Group and an expert on manufacturing competitiveness worldwide. "We'd have to bring in people from other countries to do the work."

Trump, author of "The Art of the Deal," says he could have protected American jobs by negotiating smarter trade agreements with U.S. competitors. "When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal?" Trump said in June. "They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time."

But economists say trade deals — for all the political heat they generate — play only a modest role in job creation. "Better trade deals are unlikely to be a panacea," says Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University.

Prasad says U.S. policymakers should focus more on investing in things that will improve America's competitiveness over the long haul — schools, roads and airports, for example. And Blinder says the U.S. should do more to retrain American workers who lose their jobs to foreign competition.

Companies often decide where to locate factories and hire people on factors that can change: labor costs, energy bills, transportation expenses, proximity to customers.

Currently, several of those factors favor the United States over China. The fracking boom has cut energy costs for U.S.-based factories. Chinese wages have soared, while American wages have been flat. In parts of America, land is cheaper than in China.

So some American companies already are bringing jobs back, and some Chinese companies are investing in plants in America. Last year, for example, Chinese glassmaker Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co. announced plans to take over an abandoned GM plant in Moraine, Ohio, near Dayton, and create 800 jobs.

The Reshoring Initiative, which encourages companies to bring operations back to America, says the number of manufacturing jobs created in the United States by returning American companies and foreign investors exceeded those lost to offshoring last year by 10,000 — modest, to be sure, but a big change from the massive job outflows of the 1990s and 2000s.

Trump declared: "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created. I tell you that."

But Daniel Rosen, partner at the New York economic research firm Rhodium Group, says: "Global direct investment — including from China, Mexico and Japan — is already flowing into the United States, not due to God's political leanings but because the U.S. economy is open both to those who would invest here and those who would decide to move abroad." Link (http://news.yahoo.com/economists-dump-trump-boast-bring-jobs-back-china-072657240--finance.html)
______

This is what drives me nuts about people singing Trump's praises. He's not only a clown but he's a clueless obtuse starry-eyed idiot of a clown.
People, wake up. This is exactly what happened in 2008. Why oh why does Santayana have be proven right over and over again?

Doktor
06 Aug 15,, 08:43
He is not even seated and the jobs are coming back

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/05/the-rise-of-made-by-china-in-america.html

http://qz.com/470358/chinese-textile-manufacturers-found-a-cheap-new-place-for-outsourcing-the-us/

TopHatter
06 Aug 15,, 18:37
He is not even seated and the jobs are coming back

I don't think he'll settle for anything less than "crowned"

astralis
06 Aug 15,, 18:54
TH,


This is what drives me nuts about people singing Trump's praises. He's not only a clown but he's a clueless obtuse starry-eyed idiot of a clown.
People, wake up. This is exactly what happened in 2008

i have to say, at least you're fair...it's pretty funny how many of the same people who think Obama is arrogant are willing to give a pass (or even support) to someone who makes Obama look like the dictionary definition of modesty.

TopHatter
06 Aug 15,, 19:25
TH,
i have to say, at least you're fair...
Thanks :-) If there is one thing I pride myself on, it's fairness. Funny enough, because of that, I sometimes get called a "liberal" or "Democrat" :-D


it's pretty funny how many of the same people who think Obama is arrogant are willing to give a pass (or even support) to someone who makes Obama look like the dictionary definition of modesty.I think Trump gets that pass because he's seen as "stickin' it to The Man"...whereas Obama currently IS The Man.

The same of course was true of when George W Bush (or any Republican president) ordered a military action: He's a bloodthirsty warmonger. When a Democrat orders military strikes, the anti-war crowd is bizarrely muted.

Bigfella
07 Aug 15,, 01:05
Along the same lines, if a leading Dem candidate had been as disrespectful about the military service of someone like McCain as Trump was the ongoing hysterical screeching would be audible from the moon. Also not expecting Ted Cruz to be facing questions about his place of birth or Hilary to be getting questions about combining the Presidency with being a wife/mother from the left (as Palin did). Both sides love to shift dem goalposts.

DOR
07 Aug 15,, 04:05
Along the same lines, if a leading Dem candidate had been as disrespectful about the military service of someone like McCain as Trump was the ongoing hysterical screeching would be audible from the moon. Also not expecting Ted Cruz to be facing questions about his place of birth or Hilary to be getting questions about combining the Presidency with being a wife/mother from the left (as Palin did). Both sides love to shift dem goalposts.

Word.

= = = = =



[B][SIZE=3]Since the beginning of 2000, the U.S. economy has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the share of US employees actually making things – “production and nonsupervisory employees” in manufacturing – fell from a high of 34.4% in the second half of 1943 to a low of 19.7% in 1969.

(I should point out that China had nothing to do with it, and frankly, Japan wasn’t a big factor either. This shift was due to the US economy evolving out of low value-added activities and into higher value-added ones.)

In the 1970s and 1980s, the ratio dropped to a low of 11.7% (in 1989; see the pattern here? Latest data is lowest . . .). In the 1990s and 2000s, it dipped to 6.21%, and in this decade has held steady, averaging 6.13%.

Here’s another interesting comparison.

In absolute numbers, the June figure of 8.7 million is about the same as in 1939. The data I’m using is strictly production workers; no managers or supervisors. Add those in, and the total runs to 12.3 million.



But, consider this: Prior to 1970, 75-85% of the larger figure were production workers; today, it’s down to barely 70%. Why? Automation seems like as good an answer as any, unless of course, one is seeking to blame some other country.

JAD_333
07 Aug 15,, 05:47
Pretty good debate...if debate is what it was. Well, it was entertaining.

After it was over I narrowed my choices to Kasich and Bush. Part of that was because of what I believe is best for party unity and partly because I believe we need to offer an experienced executive to occupy the White House. Neophytes like Carson and Paul are appealing for their honesty, but would not make good presidents because their learning curve would soak up too much of their term in office.

I realize Huckabee is a former governor and executive, but he's too immersed in the Christian right to be a unifying force in the country. Walker is a comer, but it is too early for him. Cruz is too divisive; too conservative. He would get trounced. Cristie does not appeal to me at all. Trump? What can one say? He's not only an ace rabble rouser, but full of populist half-baked truths: (Japan sends millions of cars to US...huh?) Rubio was too glib for my taste; he does not come across as presidential, but neither did Obama in '08. Who'd I miss.

The Fox format gave us a chance to get a feel for the candidates. Overall I was impressed with their poise and ability to make points in a short space of time. Of course, there were a lot of mistakes and bull sh*t. Carson erred when he said the US had pledged to protect Ukraine when the latter gave up nukes (the infamous memorandum); he was hilarious when he spoke of operating on people with half a brain,one of which he suspected resides in the White House today. Walker would arms the Ukrainian military. And the jaw dropper--Rubio said God blessed the GOP with a great slate of candidates and shortchanged the Dems... and so it went. As for character and projecting leadership, I give the award to Kasich with honorable mention to Bush.

astralis
07 Aug 15,, 15:30
JAD,

ah, Kasich, the most moderate of the group....and unfortunately, with less name recognition, even amongst Republicans, than the premier of China.

he'll go the way of Huntsman, maybe a bit better just because huntsman went out of his way to demonstrate how genteel and moderate he was.

JAD_333
07 Aug 15,, 16:18
JAD,

ah, Kasich, the most moderate of the group....and unfortunately, with less name recognition, even amongst Republicans, than the premier of China.

he'll go the way of Huntsman, maybe a bit better just because huntsman went out of his way to demonstrate how genteel and moderate he was.

But, think Ohio and that means Iowa.

Huntsman, a great guy, was from Utah and a Morman--nothing wrong with that except it denied him a base.

Not saying you're wrong, but it's too soon to rule Kasich out.

astralis
07 Aug 15,, 20:17
JAD,

I think you'll get a kick out of this...:-)

http://www.theonion.com/article/frustrated-debate-moderator-reminds-audience-refra-51026

JAD_333
07 Aug 15,, 22:23
JAD,

I think you'll get a kick out of this...:-)

http://www.theonion.com/article/frustrated-debate-moderator-reminds-audience-refra-51026

The Onion strikes again.

Doktor
07 Aug 15,, 23:38
So, where the GOP candidates stand on housing and student loans?

tbm3fan
08 Aug 15,, 01:23
So, where the GOP candidates stand on housing and student loans?


Are you serious?

Why be concerned about the mundane when we have Hillary to bash, abortion to bash again, and prove to Fox you are conservative.

Doc, your priorities are suspect...

DOR
08 Aug 15,, 04:53
Who'd I miss.


The JV team, especially Carly Fiorina.

DOR
08 Aug 15,, 04:54
So, where the GOP candidates stand on housing and student loans?

GOP candidates taking positions on serious issues? Are you kidding?

JAD_333
08 Aug 15,, 22:22
GOP candidates taking positions on serious issues? Are you kidding?

This may come as a shock to you, but, yes, they do take positions. No kidding.

No federal college loans; just insure private loans
College costs are on an unsustainable trajectory, rising year by year far ahead of overall inflation. Nationwide, student loan debt now exceeds credit card debt, roughly $23,300 for each of the 35,000,000 debtors, taking years to pay off.

Federal student aid is on an unsustainable path, and efforts should be taken to provide families with greater transparency and the information they need to make prudent choices about a student's future: completion rates, repayment rates, future earnings, and other factors that may affect their decisions. The federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans; however, it should serve as an insurance guarantor for the private sector as they offer loans to students. Private sector participation in student financing should be welcomed. Any regulation that drives tuition costs higher must be reevaluated to balance its worth against its negative impact on students and their parents. Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012


Rebuilding Homeownership (Top)

We must establish a mortgage finance system based on competition and free enterprise that is transparent, encourages the private sector to return to housing, and promotes personal responsibility on the part of borrowers. Policies that promote reliance on private capital, like private mortgage insurance, will be critical to scaling back the federal role in the housing market and avoiding future taxpayer bailouts. Reforms should provide clear and prudent underwriting standards and guidelines on acceptable lending practices. Compliance with regulatory standards should provide a legal safe harbor to guard against opportunistic litigation. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a primary cause of the housing crisis because their implicit government guarantee allowed them to avoid market discipline and make risky investments. Their favored political status enriched their politically-connected executives and their shareholders at the expense of the nation. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be wound down in size and scope, and their officials should be held to account.

The FHA, tripled in size to more than $1 trillion under the current Administration, has crowded out the private sector and is at risk of requiring a taxpayer bailout. It must be downsized and limited to helping first-time homebuyers and low- and moderate- income borrowers. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to bail out borrowers and lenders by funding principal write-downs. While the federal government must prosecute mortgage fraud and other financial crimes, any settlements received thereby should be directed to individuals harmed by the misconduct, not diverted to pay for unrelated programs. FDIC insurance for bank depositors must be preserved. However, to correct for the moral hazard created by deposit insurance, banks should be well capitalized, which is the best insurance against future taxpayer bailouts.

The federal government has a role in housing by enforcing non-discrimination laws and assisting low-income families and the elderly with safe and adequate shelter, especially through the use of housing vouchers. Homeownership is an important goal, but public policy must be balanced to reflect the needs of Americans who choose to rent. A comprehensive housing policy should address the demand for apartments and multi-family housing. Any assistance should be subject to stringent oversight to ensure that funds are spent wisely....https://www.gop.com/platform/restoring-the-american-dream

DOR
09 Aug 15,, 04:06
This may come as a shock to you, but, yes, they do take positions. No kidding.

I don't see any actual candidates here, just the standard GOP platform.

JAD_333
09 Aug 15,, 05:45
I don't see any actual candidates here, just the standard GOP platform.

True, but that's the answer you'll get from most of them with a little flourish here and a twist there. Rubio, as you know, struggled with a $100k student loan until he got some "help". I quote him without comment on the value of his idea, but just to show one instance where a candidate has spoken on the issue:

Rubio: “[W]e must make the burden of student loans
more manageable. To do so, I propose that we make
an ‘Income-Based Repayment System’ the automatic
repayment method for student loans. Under this
system, graduates would make loan payments in
proportion to how much they earn. So the more
you make in a given month, the more you would
pay back. The less you make, the less your monthly
payment will be.” http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=6f8ff279-671b-42fa-b60a-10402e35747b

I could go to other websites, e.g. GOP senators to their official websites, and find plenty of references to student loans, etc. If I can do it, you can do it, and then you won't say things like, "GOP candidates taking positions on serious issues? Are you kidding?" :)

JAD_333
09 Aug 15,, 06:43
Here is trump in all his glory. No wonder so many people like him. Watch this CNN interview.

39876

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/politics/donald-trump-immigration-plan-healthcare-flip-flop/index.html

Bigfella
09 Aug 15,, 11:10
So, Trump went after latinos. GOP base shrugs. Then he disrespected McCains's wartime service. Shrug MkII. Now a crack about a female journo who dared to ask him a curly question menstruating. Red State is pissed off. Fellow Republicans making a few noises. Will we get another shrug? Is there anything he can say that will dent his popularity short of embracing Obamacare? A morbidly fascinating spectacle.

astralis
09 Aug 15,, 19:36
considering Erick Erickson is also a massive sexist and misogynist of the first water, the stench of hypocrisy from that is enormous.

it's also pretty funny to see how Fox is turning on Donald Trump after months of buttering him up, no wonder he's lashing out. this is great entertainment-- you can almost see rand paul burn with acid fury as Trump takes away his Tea Party/libertarian bunch.

Gun Grape
09 Aug 15,, 20:07
I'm entranced by the notion that twenty to twenty five percent of your population is viewed as crazy. Here it would be like five percent.

But in your country would you ever hear this question at a political debate :

"I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first?’
Because it was at our latest one.

Now that 20-25%. Is that just normal crazy or is that tea party/religious right crazy?

JAD_333
09 Aug 15,, 21:20
But in your country would you ever hear this question at a political debate :

"I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first?’
Because it was at our latest one.

Now that 20-25%. Is that just normal crazy or is that tea party/religious right crazy?

GG:

No doubt that question was meant to be a nod toward the Christian right. Personally, I was floored by the question when I heard it, but in retrospect I think it was probably good to hear what the candidates had to say on it. Rubio's answer was to me the most outlandish, something to the effect that God blessed the GOP with a good lineup of candidates while short changing the Dems. If Pari's country had a large Christian right voting bloc, I could see the same question being asked there. Fortunately, NZ doesn't.

MJH
09 Aug 15,, 22:57
You are probably right, from the Republican side. We'll see how well the same issue wears. It is a long time before the election. But one hardly heard a word of substance about say Iraq, ISIS, Iran deal from the Republican debate. Trump was absurd, bombastic and thin-skinned; his days probably are numbered. Huckabee just made the false assertion that we gave up everything and got not one thing from Iran in the deal. He must think that the Conservative Govt in UK, Kerry and the large support team, France, etc. are all stupid and just felt like being generous to Iran. Not that it was the result of 9 years of negotiating.

MJH
09 Aug 15,, 23:01
GG:

No doubt that question was meant to be a nod toward the Christian right. Personally, I was floored by the question when I heard it, but in retrospect I think it was probably good to hear what the candidates had to say on it. Rubio's answer was to me the most outlandish, something to the effect that God blessed the GOP with a good lineup of candidates while short changing the Dems. If Pari's country had a large Christian right voting bloc, I could see the same question being asked there. Fortunately, NZ doesn't.

Well, ignorant means ignoring information that is readily available. As in global warming. I saw plenty of evidence of ignorance in the Republican "debate" the other night. For an analysis of how the candidates did cf http://pragmaticliberalism.com/the-first-debate-initial-analysis-trumps-serious-candidacy-blew-up-observations-about-the-other-candidates/

MJH
09 Aug 15,, 23:08
H.L. Menken famously said that no one ever went broke undestimating the American public. So far we've still had the most free political debate with some stumbling as in the Jos. McCarthy era. I worry when I think of how Weimer Germany just laughed at Hitler's general appeal. Trump's popularity-so far-reminded me of that. Back in the '30s, re Hitler, Sinclair Lewis wrote It Can't Happen Here. Here's a blurb from Google/store

"The only one of Sinclair Lewis's later novels to match the power of Main Street, Babbitt, and Arrowsmith, It Can't Happen Here is a cautionary tale about the fragility of democracy, an alarming, eerily timeless look at how fascism could take hold in America. Written during the Great Depression when America was largely oblivious to Hitler's aggression,"

snapper
09 Aug 15,, 23:24
Word.

= = = = =




In the 1950s and 1960s, the share of US employees actually making things – “production and nonsupervisory employees” in manufacturing – fell from a high of 34.4% in the second half of 1943 to a low of 19.7% in 1969.

(I should point out that China had nothing to do with it, and frankly, Japan wasn’t a big factor either. This shift was due to the US economy evolving out of low value-added activities and into higher value-added ones.)

In the 1970s and 1980s, the ratio dropped to a low of 11.7% (in 1989; see the pattern here? Latest data is lowest . . .). In the 1990s and 2000s, it dipped to 6.21%, and in this decade has held steady, averaging 6.13%.

Here’s another interesting comparison.

In absolute numbers, the June figure of 8.7 million is about the same as in 1939. The data I’m using is strictly production workers; no managers or supervisors. Add those in, and the total runs to 12.3 million.



But, consider this: Prior to 1970, 75-85% of the larger figure were production workers; today, it’s down to barely 70%. Why? Automation seems like as good an answer as any, unless of course, one is seeking to blame some other country.


Are you saying that manufacturing was not redistributed to cheaper wage areas outside the US or that you do not wish it to return?

DOR
10 Aug 15,, 03:52
Are you saying that manufacturing was not redistributed to cheaper wage areas outside the US or that you do not wish it to return?

snapper,

Certainly US manufacturing relocated out of the country to places where it was more profitable. That’s what labor-intensive, low value-adding industries do, everywhere and all the time. What part of that was confusing?

Do I want North Carolina teens toiling in un-airconditioned, poorly ventilated, badly lit sweatshops to make $3 T-shirts? Hell, no.
I’d much rather see them toiling away in nicely cool, breezy, well-lit software houses making $3 apps.
It’s a value-added kind of thing.

JAD_333
10 Aug 15,, 04:22
Well, ignorant means ignoring information that is readily available. As in global warming. I saw plenty of evidence of ignorance in the Republican "debate" the other night. For an analysis of how the candidates did cf http://pragmaticliberalism.com/the-first-debate-initial-analysis-trumps-serious-candidacy-blew-up-observations-about-the-other-candidates/

I don't recall you introducing yourself. Just a general thumbnail will do. Go here: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=61571&page=183

With respect to your post, let me first say that I don't usually get into arguments over the definition of words unless someone applies their own definition to a word I've used, which you did to the word "ignorant" as it appears in my Plato signature quote. So, allow me to give you my definition.

Ignorant[i], in the sense I used the word means [I]not realizing[i]. For example, a person can hold a sincere opinion they don't realize is false and they may be totally unaware that it stems from faulty information or bad education. So yes; it's true, "To be truly ignorant, a man must first have an education". Plato just didn't say what kind of education, but it's not hard to figure out which he meant. And note that he said 'education' not 'knowledge'. The former is the process of accumulating the latter.

Plato argued that people's beliefs derive from what they are taught, and, by inference, if people are taught untrue knowledge and blindly act on it, then they are ignorant. Sort of like what we say about computers, "garbage in-garbage out'.

We see examples all the time. Nowhere more than in the political world, which is crawling with thought leaders on the extreme right and extreme left who issue streams of opposing opinion supported by seemingly unimpeachable arguments and data. You would think the existence of these two opposing streams of information would scare people into finding out for themselves where the truth lies (no pun intended). Unfortunately, most people don't see how enslaved they are to one or the other of these viewpoints, and they are more than willing to spread them around to whoever will listen, and yell at their opposites on the other side of the fence, which pretty much describes the chaotic state of politics these days. These people are by definition i[I]gnorant. They don't lack knowledge or education; they lack motivation to discover what's truth and not true in the knowledge that's been given to them.

Plato taught that a man's life is fulfilled by seeking and embracing the truth. Well, I don't know if that is correct, but it sounds like a plan.

Parihaka
10 Aug 15,, 15:00
Now where is that like button? Ah well, Jad, consider your post well liked.

JAD_333
10 Aug 15,, 15:54
Now where is that like button? Ah well, Jad, consider your post well liked.

Always knew you were a closet philosopher...: )

tbm3fan
10 Aug 15,, 18:57
Now where is that like button? Ah well, Jad, consider your post well liked.

Yes, that was a good one...

MJH
11 Aug 15,, 23:23
That's right ignore Donald Trumps insult, bombasticism and naive policy statements. Good analysis of debate and post debate [Spam Deleted]

Moderators Edit: This is your only warning. Do not advertise your website here. Either argue the matter yourself or go elsewhere.

tbm3fan
12 Aug 15,, 06:43
Who is ignoring the Donald? There is nothing that says we can't have fun with him and go slightly, mind you, off topic to have said fun. There is a long road to go so things will end up sorting themselves out eventually. Therefore is no reason not to enjoy this side diversion.

I'm going out on the limb and make a prediction and it is not about the World Series although I know Boston isn't going but maybe the Yankees. Is that going to get me a rebuke...

No, the Presidential Dream match up is: The Donald vs. Bernie

JAD_333
12 Aug 15,, 07:49
No, the Presidential Dream match up is: The Donald vs. Bernie

Give Bernie a break. He may be a tad liberal (understatement), but he's a gentleman, and within the narrow field of his political blinders, he's honest as well as coherent.

A more balanced match up for Trump would be Sydneys Voluptuous Buttocks, who is a presidential hopeful legally registered with the FEC. In fact there are another 170 or so unknowns running. Well, Santa Clause isn't unknown...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/there-are-nearly-200-americans-already-running-for-president-we-talked-to-a-few-of-them-20150323

astralis
12 Aug 15,, 17:41
and Bernie just overtook Hillary in the latest polling, which is causing some Dems to wonder if Biden should come in to save the day...I have to say, interesting campaign this time, more so than 2012.

TopHatter
12 Aug 15,, 17:53
and Bernie just overtook Hillary in the latest polling, which is causing some Dems to wonder if Biden should come in to save the day...I have to say, interesting campaign this time, more so than 2012.

I think so too, mainly because neither side has a clear-cut "All Star" warming up in the bullpen. Hillary is the closest candidate for that but she's being dragged down multiple scandals.

Stitch
12 Aug 15,, 20:10
I don't recall you introducing yourself. Just a general thumbnail will do. Go here: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=61571&page=183

With respect to your post, let me first say that I don't usually get into arguments over the definition of words unless someone applies their own definition to a word I've used, which you did to the word "ignorant" as it appears in my Plato signature quote. So, allow me to give you my definition.

Ignorant[i], in the sense I used the word means [I]not realizing[i]. For example, a person can hold a sincere opinion they don't realize is false and they may be totally unaware that it stems from faulty information or bad education. So yes; it's true, "To be truly ignorant, a man must first have an education". Plato just didn't say what kind of education, but it's not hard to figure out which he meant. And note that he said 'education' not 'knowledge'. The former is the process of accumulating the latter.

Plato argued that people's beliefs derive from what they are taught, and, by inference, if people are taught untrue knowledge and blindly act on it, then they are ignorant. Sort of like what we say about computers, "garbage in-garbage out'.

We see examples all the time. Nowhere more than in the political world, which is crawling with thought leaders on the extreme right and extreme left who issue streams of opposing opinion supported by seemingly unimpeachable arguments and data. You would think the existence of these two opposing streams of information would scare people into finding out for themselves where the truth lies (no pun intended). Unfortunately, most people don't see how enslaved they are to one or the other of these viewpoints, and they are more than willing to spread them around to whoever will listen, and yell at their opposites on the other side of the fence, which pretty much describes the chaotic state of politics these days. These people are by definition i[I]gnorant. They don't lack knowledge or education; they lack motivation to discover what's truth and not true in the knowledge that's been given to them.

Plato taught that a man's life is fulfilled by seeking and embracing the truth. Well, I don't know if that is correct, but it sounds like a plan.

Yes, where IS that "Like" button?

Once again, JAD very succinctly summed up the general political situation in the US for the last 12-15 years.

I tend to be left-moderate (on most issues), but I see pols on both sides wearing blinders. People have gotten lazy, and swallow whole whatever "their" side feeds them, whether it be Fox News with the latest scandal concerning the Dems (Obama, Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, take your pick), or it's NAACP protesters excoriating police treatment of certain minorities across the country (whether justified or not).

However, as most of you already know, people tend to listen to and take in what the want to hear; i.e. things that reinforce what they already believe in, instead of trying to get a wide range of opinions on any given topic. I like to think that I am open-minded enough to look at both sides of an issue, but I am sure there are times when I tend to focus on "facts" and "statements" that already agree with what I believe in.

Stitch
12 Aug 15,, 20:33
I think so too, mainly because neither side has a clear-cut "All Star" warming up in the bullpen. Hillary is the closest candidate for that but she's being dragged down multiple scandals.

. . . most of which are self-inflicted.

What I don't understand is, she's been active in the US political circus for decades, yet she keeps making rookie mistakes, like the Whitewater scandal (although that was years ago), sending potentially sensitive information through her personal e-mail system, and (depending on who you ask) the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi. I would've thought by now that she'd learned to keep her nose clean, but I guess not (and I think Bill falls prey to the same kind of stupid mistakes).

TopHatter
12 Aug 15,, 23:57
. . . most of which are self-inflicted.

What I don't understand is, she's been active in the US political circus for decades, yet she keeps making rookie mistakes, like the Whitewater scandal (although that was years ago), sending potentially sensitive information through her personal e-mail system, and (depending on who you ask) the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi. I would've thought by now that she'd learned to keep her nose clean, but I guess not (and I think Bill falls prey to the same kind of stupid mistakes).

I've always had a suspicion that politicians are, by their very nature, inherently narcissistic sociopaths (to one degree or another).
In order to put up with the massive amount of bulls--t and mudslinging and backstabbing and all the rest of the baggage that is part-and-parcel of holding public office, you virtually have to be. And for God's sake WHY would you put up with all that nonsense? Only one thing that I can think of.

A short trip to the Google brought this up. It's worth posting here in it's entirety:

Narcissistic Personality and Politics: Smiling while Insulting
Dr. Brian Carr

It use to be that crazed and delusional people had to work to gain an audience in our society. When I attended St. Mary’s University in San Antonio in the early 1980’s I recall going down to Alamo square and listening to the various citizens who shouted in the free speech area outside the historical shrine. Tourists, business men and women, and the general public passed by as they would yell and sermonize about the evils of our society.

With the advent of the Internet these same individuals are now able to expand to a wider audience. Gathering together these minority groups may only consist of a few people but, with organization, their message can easily spread and influence larger groups.

The problem is that their message remains out of step with the larger collective. The ugliness of politics has worsened under the passive-aggressive and ego-driven personalities of these extremists. Individuals who functional poorly in our social environment can create disruption as they exhibit the fundamental flaws of their personality.

Personality disorders are represented in politics to a larger degree than the general population. The upcoming release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition includes criteria regarding such disorders. I would like to focus on the narcissistic personality listing as an illustration of one of the problems seen in our community.

The manual lists nine traits that a narcissistic personality might have. They only need five of the nine to be diagnosed with this disorder.


They have an arrogant sense of self importance - they exaggerate their achievements - they expect to be recognized as superior. So many times we hear candidates tell us about the wonderful things they have accomplished only to find out they are not so. We chalk it up to campaign rhetoric. And it may be. But the truth has been compromised to impress us. And your vote may be cast based on lies and deceit.
They are preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love. It's the word 'fantasies' that's important here. That's why they commit illegal or immoral acts that they see others paying the consequences for. They actually do not believe hey will be caught. And they are truly surprised when they are. They are living in a fantasy that somehow they are more powerful or smarter then the person who got caught.

They see themselves as 'special' or 'unique' and believe they should only associate with 'high-status' people. Ordinary members of their constituency are looked down on. By being in office they are able to surround themselves with wealthier, more 'upscale' cohorts. They socialize a lot, but rarely with the people who actually elected them.

They require excessive admiration. Just take a look at the rallies and gatherings they experience on a regular basis with people holding signs and calling their name. Politicians and actors are the only people who experience that kind of adulation. It certainly isn't unique to see actors becoming politicians and politicians becoming actors. They have very similar personalities.

They have a sense of entitlement. They expect favorable treatment. If they commit a crime or a sexual dalliance they expect to be forgiven. They are above the law because they are so special.

They are interpersonally exploitative and take advantage of others to achieve their goals. People in power often find it hard to resist taking money or gifts from others. Their specialness entitles them to be indulged and deferred to.

They lack empathy and are unwilling to identify with the feelings and needs of others. Though politicians claim to care and express a desire to help their voters, they usually vote along party lines. This is far more beneficial to their careers then to the electorate. Promises made during campaigns are often forgotten once they get into office.

They are envious of others or believe others are envious of them. People often envy the travel, meeting of important people and power politicians seem to have. They want to be envied. They like being envied.

They display arrogant, haughty behaviors. Certainly the sexual activities eventually revealed would be an example of this. Another would be the refusal to leave office even after crimes have been revealed. They may have been 'bad' but they still deserve a place of power and esteem.

As noted in an article in the Washington Post the author Paula Carrasquillo the problems associated with narcissistic personality disorder should not be ignored as these individuals can create significant disruption around them.

Speaking to the problem of such a self-absorbed person “A pedantic sense of order is typical of the compulsive character,” wrote the Freudian analyst Wilhelm Reich in his 1933 book, “Character Analysis,” a groundbreaking text. “In both big and small things, he lives his life according to a preconceived, irrevocable pattern.”

A review of personality features of narcissism in an individual is described in a Psychology Today article as such individuals having “high self-esteem. However, narcissism is not the same thing as self-esteem; people who have high self-esteem are often humble, whereas narcissists rarely are. It was once thought that narcissists have high self-esteem on the surface, but deep down they are insecure. However, the latest evidence indicates that narcissists are actually secure or grandiose at both levels. Onlookers may infer that insecurity is there because narcissists tend to be defensive when their self-esteem is threatened (e.g., being ridiculed); narcissists can be aggressive. The sometimes dangerous lifestyle may more generally reflect sensation-seeking or impulsivity (e.g., risky sex, bold financial decisions).

It is also essential to note that one can have narcissistic tendencies and features that do not meet the threshold of a personality disorder. However, the point is to be aware of those in our midst who have a significant proportion of such personality features or even meet the full spectrum of the disorder. A coordinated response and public transparency is the most useful means of addressing their disruptive desires. Link (http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/dr-brian-carr/2013-06-09/narcissistic-personality-and-politics-smiling-while#.Vcu_qflVhBc)
________

Any of that sound familiar?

tbm3fan
13 Aug 15,, 01:54
I've always had a suspicion that politicians are, by their very nature, inherently narcissistic sociopaths (to one degree or another).


All politicians are narcissistic to some extent. Some way more than others. For example Trump is extremely narcissistic. The key with them is that they all need the all important sidekick who can keep them from getting too infatuated with themselves. Trump just dropped his manager who was that guy so no telling how far Trump will now go in seeking the adoration he carves. FDR was narcissistic but he had his wife and Harry Hopkins who kept him grounded.

Of course they are not the only ones. Steve Jobs was extremely narcissistic and a SOB to be around personally. Heard from a number of people I know up the food chain at Apple. You are in the hallway when down he walks said hallway, and he sees you, you are fired. The all time leader has to be Larry Ellison. It has been written, and I have heard from those on the inside, that when God was asked the difference between him and Larry, he said he doesn't pretend he is Larry.

JAD_333
13 Aug 15,, 03:37
I like to think that I am open-minded enough to look at both sides of an issue, but I am sure there are times when I tend to focus on "facts" and "statements" that already agree with what I believe in.

Perfectly all right to use facts that support your viewpoint as long as they are true.

JAD_333
13 Aug 15,, 06:06
I've always had a suspicion that politicians are, by their very nature, inherently narcissistic sociopaths (to one degree or another).
In order to put up with the massive amount of bulls--t and mudslinging and backstabbing and all the rest of the baggage that is part-and-parcel of holding public office, you virtually have to be. And for God's sake WHY would you put up with all that nonsense? Only one thing that I can think of.

Top:

Probably there are some narcissists among the political class. After all there are so many politicians in elected office.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/134822/large/Elected_officials.png?1426881549

And then there are the ones that ran and lost and all the aspiring up and comers. If they're all "narcissistic sociopaths" we're in some deep dodo.

Stitch
13 Aug 15,, 06:08
I've always had a suspicion that politicians are, by their very nature, inherently narcissistic sociopaths (to one degree or another).
In order to put up with the massive amount of bulls--t and mudslinging and backstabbing and all the rest of the baggage that is part-and-parcel of holding public office, you virtually have to be. And for God's sake WHY would you put up with all that nonsense? Only one thing that I can think of.

A short trip to the Google brought this up. It's worth posting here in it's entirety:

Narcissistic Personality and Politics: Smiling while Insulting
Dr. Brian Carr

It use to be that crazed and delusional people had to work to gain an audience in our society. When I attended St. Mary’s University in San Antonio in the early 1980’s I recall going down to Alamo square and listening to the various citizens who shouted in the free speech area outside the historical shrine. Tourists, businessmen and women, and the general public passed by as they would yell and sermonize about the evils of our society.

With the advent of the Internet these same individuals are now able to expand to a wider audience. Gathering together these minority groups may only consist of a few people but, with organization, their message can easily spread and influence larger groups.

The problem is that their message remains out of step with the larger collective. The ugliness of politics has worsened under the passive-aggressive and ego-driven personalities of these extremists. Individuals who function poorly in our social environment can create disruption as they exhibit the fundamental flaws of their personality.

Personality disorders are represented in politics to a larger degree than the general population. The upcoming release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition includes criteria regarding such disorders. I would like to focus on the narcissistic personality listing as an illustration of one of the problems seen in our community.

The manual lists nine traits that a narcissistic personality might have. They only need five of the nine to be diagnosed with this disorder.


They have an arrogant sense of self importance - they exaggerate their achievements - they expect to be recognized as superior. So many times we hear candidates tell us about the wonderful things they have accomplished only to find out they are not so. We chalk it up to campaign rhetoric. And it may be. But the truth has been compromised to impress us. And your vote may be cast based on lies and deceit.
They are preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love. It's the word 'fantasies' that's important here. That's why they commit illegal or immoral acts that they see others paying the consequences for. They actually do not believe they will be caught. And they are truly surprised when they are. They are living in a fantasy that somehow they are more powerful or smarter then the person who got caught.

They see themselves as 'special' or 'unique' and believe they should only associate with 'high-status' people. Ordinary members of their constituency are looked down on. By being in office they are able to surround themselves with wealthier, more 'upscale' cohorts. They socialize a lot, but rarely with the people who actually elected them.

They require excessive admiration. Just take a look at the rallies and gatherings they experience on a regular basis with people holding signs and calling their name. Politicians and actors are the only people who experience that kind of adulation. It certainly isn't unique to see actors becoming politicians and politicians becoming actors. They have very similar personalities.

They have a sense of entitlement. They expect favorable treatment. If they commit a crime or a sexual dalliance they expect to be forgiven. They are above the law because they are so special.

They are interpersonally exploitative and take advantage of others to achieve their goals. People in power often find it hard to resist taking money or gifts from others. Their specialness entitles them to be indulged and deferred to.

They lack empathy and are unwilling to identify with the feelings and needs of others. Though politicians claim to care and express a desire to help their voters, they usually vote along party lines. This is far more beneficial to their careers then to the electorate. Promises made during campaigns are often forgotten once they get into office.

They are envious of others or believe others are envious of them. People often envy the travel, meeting of important people and power politicians seem to have. They want to be envied. They like being envied.

They display arrogant, haughty behaviors. Certainly the sexual activities eventually revealed would be an example of this. Another would be the refusal to leave office even after crimes have been revealed. They may have been 'bad' but they still deserve a place of power and esteem.

As noted in an article in the Washington Post the author Paula Carrasquillo the problems associated with narcissistic personality disorder should not be ignored as these individuals can create significant disruption around them.

Speaking to the problem of such a self-absorbed person “A pedantic sense of order is typical of the compulsive character,” wrote the Freudian analyst Wilhelm Reich in his 1933 book, “Character Analysis,” a groundbreaking text. “In both big and small things, he lives his life according to a preconceived, irrevocable pattern.”

A review of personality features of narcissism in an individual is described in a Psychology Today article as such individuals having “high self-esteem. However, narcissism is not the same thing as self-esteem; people who have high self-esteem are often humble, whereas narcissists rarely are. It was once thought that narcissists have high self-esteem on the surface, but deep down they are insecure. However, the latest evidence indicates that narcissists are actually secure or grandiose at both levels. Onlookers may infer that insecurity is there because narcissists tend to be defensive when their self-esteem is threatened (e.g., being ridiculed); narcissists can be aggressive. The sometimes dangerous lifestyle may more generally reflect sensation-seeking or impulsivity (e.g., risky sex, bold financial decisions).

It is also essential to note that one can have narcissistic tendencies and features that do not meet the threshold of a personality disorder. However, the point is to be aware of those in our midst who have a significant proportion of such personality features or even meet the full spectrum of the disorder. A coordinated response and public transparency is the most useful means of addressing their disruptive desires. Link (http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/dr-brian-carr/2013-06-09/narcissistic-personality-and-politics-smiling-while#.Vcu_qflVhBc)
________

Any of that sound familiar?

Reading this article, I see it actually describing a large segment of our population, not just politicians (I use the term "our" to mean the US, not humans in general); unfortunately, to a large degree, people have been brought up to think that they are "special", "better", or "unique" (in a good way). A good arena to witness this phenomena is school: so many parents are SURE that their kid is the best, brightest, most talented child in the school, even when there is evidence to the contrary (my wife is a teacher, she sees this every day); it's good to be proud of their accomplishments, but what if there ARE no accomplishments? These self-centered parents imbue a sense of entitlement to their children, whether it's deserved or not.

I don't know where the blame lies (advertising agencies? television? the internet?), but this phenomena is feeding on itself, and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Perhaps this will be the way the Western world finally collapses, not with a bang, but with a whimper, as people manage to convince themselves that they are so entitled that don't need to do anything but bask in the adulation of the masses (even though everybody else is doing the exact same thing).

JAD_333
13 Aug 15,, 16:14
Reading this article, I see it actually describing a large segment of our population, not just politicians (I use the term "our" to mean the US, not humans in general); unfortunately, to a large degree, people have been brought up to think that they are "special", "better", or "unique" (in a good way). A good arena to witness this phenomena is school: so many parents are SURE that their kid is the best, brightest, most talented child in the school, even when there is evidence to the contrary (my wife is a teacher, she sees this every day); it's good to be proud of their accomplishments, but what if there ARE no accomplishments? These self-centered parents imbue a sense of entitlement to their children, whether it's deserved or not.

I don't know where the blame lies (advertising agencies? television? the internet?), but this phenomena is feeding on itself, and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Perhaps this will be the way the Western world finally collapses, not with a bang, but with a whimper, as people manage to convince themselves that they are so entitled that don't need to do anything but bask in the adulation of the masses (even though everybody else is doing the exact same thing).


The article you are referring to, the one Top posted, is highly suspect (no refection on Top). Firstly, it begs the question; is narcissistic behavior proof someone is clinically a narcissist? Further, is narcissism a threat to society? A real narcissist is a relatively rare bird and when you run into one you'll definitely know it. People tend to pin the label on politicians because the latter often exhibit narcissistic tendencies in their interactions with the public. But they are quite different out of the limelight and around their peers and staff. I know because I've been around politicians a good bit of my life: House page, advanceman for a presidential candidate, House subcommittee staff director, congressional campaign manager; 10 years as a political appointee in the Reagan admin. I'm not blowing my whistle here. These were jobs like any jobs, but my clientele, as it were, were elected politicians, and with a few exceptions, I saw them as regular folk doing their job, with one twist: To get their job and keep it they had to go through a periodic approval process we call election, and they had to convince everyone who is registered to vote that they are the best for the job while someone else (their opponent) is arguing just the opposite so he can take his job away. Imagine a doctor, a teacher, an engineer, etc, having to go through that process just to keep his or her job. But it's a good thing because politicians are dangerous when they don't have to answer to the public. So, we have this system which is designed to alternately bring in new people and purge old ones, to reward effective ones and discard ineffective ones, in a never ending process of renewal. It's not perfect, but overall it does force politicians to respect the will of a majority of society. Because of its nature, politicians seeking office or wishing to remain in office have to put their best face forward, seem to be in synch with the temper of the times, and put forward ideas to improve government. That they mask their true self to project a false image of their personality and character and propose ideas which will be neigh impossible to enact is to be expected. Ideally, they will be unmasked and debunked by the media, their opponents, and by their actions during the long slog of campaigning. The process works; we're still here after more than 250 years of bruising campaigning. But the problem we face now is not the campaign process, but the state of the nation and its increasing reliance by government on rules and laws designed to regulate society, the financial burden of an ever-swelling list of social programs and welfare rolls, and the distraction all this creates from the federal government's single most important constitutional duty, to maintain a strong national defense... So, getting wrapped around the axle about campaign hijinks is all well and good but not where we should be putting most of our attention. We really are at a pivotal point in our history. Gonna be interesting...

Albany Rifles
13 Aug 15,, 16:29
Been voting in every election for 4 decades (and that includes every local election as well) and 2016 maybe the year I finally say, "Screw it!"

A pox on all their houses.

I could take a Biden. His idea about Iraq being a Confederation of 3 semi-autonomous republics about 9 years ago would have been a pretty smart way to go. And all sides would have bought into it. He ain't perfect but he knows how to legislate and how to work across the aisle. I like Webb as well.

Somethings about Kasich annoy me but I could take him and see some success.

Beyond that its a vast wasteland.

astralis
13 Aug 15,, 16:47
JAD,

heh heh, aren't we -always- at a pivotal point in history? "pivotal" becomes pointless if used too frequently, and frankly I think the 2016 election will not be an especially "pivotal" one given existing trends. (2000 was pivotal only after the fact, for instance, just due to 9-11 alone.)


But the problem we face now is not the campaign process, but the state of the nation and its increasing reliance by government on rules and laws designed to regulate society, the financial burden of an ever-swelling list of social programs and welfare rolls, and the distraction all this creates from the federal government's single most important constitutional duty, to maintain a strong national defense

my biggest disagreement is here, but you knew that. there was a fundamental transformation of American society by Reagan. historically we're nowhere close to our previous tax burdens, minimum wage is almost at historical lows adjusting for inflation, and given the wealth gap it's pretty clear that over the last two decades, while the wealthy got a LOT wealthier, we're certainly not getting the trickle-down promised.

by far the worst danger to the US economy is -lack of regulation- of the big corporations and finance. everything else is small-ball in comparison, as few other areas of the economy have such a huge amount of money concentrated in one place, and have the ability to influence just about every other industry.

the financial crisis/great recession destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth over the period of six months; how many years of SS/medicare would that chunk of money have funded? and we haven't talked about medium/long-term effects, such as the effects of prolonged periods of unemployment on lifetime salary levels, money routed to unemployment benefits, etc. the CAUSE of "the financial burden of an ever-swelling list of social programs and welfare rolls" was the crisis/great recession, and not because the existing programs were made more generous.

the problem with Republican thinking is that economically it's always 1979 and foreign policy-wise it's always Munich 1938. thus the irony is that despite such a huge field of candidates, none of the GOP contenders have significantly different policies.

JAD_333
13 Aug 15,, 19:20
JAD,

heh heh, aren't we -always- at a pivotal point in history? "pivotal" becomes pointless if used too frequently, and frankly I think the 2016 election will not be an especially "pivotal" one given existing trends. (2000 was pivotal only after the fact, for instance, just due to 9-11 alone.)



my biggest disagreement is here, but you knew that. there was a fundamental transformation of American society by Reagan. historically we're nowhere close to our previous tax burdens, minimum wage is almost at historical lows adjusting for inflation, and given the wealth gap it's pretty clear that over the last two decades, while the wealthy got a LOT wealthier, we're certainly not getting the trickle-down promised.

by far the worst danger to the US economy is -lack of regulation- of the big corporations and finance. everything else is small-ball in comparison, as few other areas of the economy have such a huge amount of money concentrated in one place, and have the ability to influence just about every other industry.

the financial crisis/great recession destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth over the period of six months; how many years of SS/medicare would that chunk of money have funded? and we haven't talked about medium/long-term effects, such as the effects of prolonged periods of unemployment on lifetime salary levels, money routed to unemployment benefits, etc. the CAUSE of "the financial burden of an ever-swelling list of social programs and welfare rolls" was the crisis/great recession, and not because the existing programs were made more generous.

the problem with Republican thinking is that economically it's always 1979 and foreign policy-wise it's always Munich 1938. thus the irony is that despite such a huge field of candidates, none of the GOP contenders have significantly different policies.

Asty:

You're speed reading again. By 'pivotal' I meant point in time, not the coming election. When it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporations, I agree with you. But by 'regulation' I meant rules and regulations which we the people live under. That's not small ball; it's annoying and in many cases costs us wee folks lots of money. Look how people have to shell out a few grand to close on a house when not too long ago you could go down to the courthouse and do it yourself in an hour. Today settlement docs run to 90 pages where not long ago it was 10. Every mortgage loan application requires a separate house appraisal at $400 a pop. Thank Fed bank regulators for all that. And how about the complicated tax regs and forms? Compare a 1040 today to one from the 1950s. It's little stuff, but it weighs on voters.

On the contrary, the problem with Republican thinking is Democrats misconstrue it. It's not 1979 or 1938 Munich. It's about 2015 and how we're faring in the wake of the New Deal and its many iterations. It's not about throwing everything out (except to the crazies); it's about consolidating, pruning and ensuring vital interests are seen to. Something no dem can do. The Democratic party's momentum was built on creating ever more social programs and continues to be dependent on maintaining a progressive path. All the major social problems have been addressed since 1932. That leaves niche problems and redundancy for the Democrats to pursue. The Democrats can't do what the GOP can simply because its constituency won't allow it. They can't suddenly take a fiscally conservative course. The times are changing. Maybe 2016, maybe 2020 or 2024. Not all the GOP gets it yet. Look at the field of GOP candidates. Like Albany says, maybe one is right for the job. Kasich may be the best of the lot with Bush a close second. Rubio as VP? A Quayle pretty boy? Why not.

astralis
13 Aug 15,, 20:00
JAD,


By 'pivotal' I meant point in time, not the coming election.

ah, sure. even in point in time, though, I don't think this point in time is particularly pivotal. ISIS is a gnat compared to the threat of the USSR. the US economy is doing better. China, not so much, but it also doesn't look like a collapse.

in short, things are pretty good, relatively speaking.


When it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporations, I agree with you. But by 'regulation' I meant rules and regulations which we the people live under. That's not small ball; it's annoying and in many cases costs us wee folks lots of money. Look how people have to shell out a few grand to close on a house when not too long ago you could go down to the courthouse and do it yourself in an hour. Today settlement docs run to 90 pages where not long ago it was 10. Every mortgage loan application requires a separate house appraisal at $400 a pop. Thank Fed bank regulators for all that. And how about the complicated tax regs and forms? Compare a 1040 today to one from the 1950s. It's little stuff, but it weighs on voters.


I agree, but OTOH those aren't economy-killers. nor do I see these issues as the main driver of the election. have you seen specific policy on either side that address this?


not about throwing everything out (except to the crazies); it's about consolidating, pruning and ensuring vital interests are seen to. Something no dem can do. The Democratic party's momentum was built on creating ever more social programs and continues to be dependent on maintaining a progressive path.

eh....if you look at the domestic policies of just about every single Republican nominee, it's cutting programs to carve out bigger tax cuts for the wealthy. Rubio-- use savings to reduce the corporate tax rate, small business tax cuts, and then repeal Dodd-Frank. Walker talks vaguely about lower tax rates. rest talk vaguely about tax reform. in short, i don't see anything about "consolidating, pruning and ensuring vital interests are seen to", unless you count lower taxes as a vital interest.


The Democrats can't do what the GOP can simply because its constituency won't allow it. They can't suddenly take a fiscally conservative course.

I fail to see this. even -Sanders- isn't offering a recreation of the Great Society, let alone the New Deal. Hillary's economic platform consists of tax cuts to the middle class/small businesses, more affordable college/child care, and modestly raising taxes on the wealthy.

none of this speaks to big programs, and absent the latter, would probably be considered fairly close to a moderate republican's economic platform circa 1996.

in fact, the assertion that "All the major social problems have been addressed since 1932" (something I find highly questionable, but I leave this aside for now) and that this leaves "niche problems and redundancy for the Democrats to pursue" (a slightly more true statement) would argue that overall, there -will- be no more major expansion of the government by democrats.

in fact the last holy grail for the Democrats is likely universal healthcare, and note that liberals go about that topic by stating that doing so would -save- the government money.


Like Albany says, maybe one is right for the job. Kasich may be the best of the lot with Bush a close second.

hey, I'd agree with this assessment. but, I doubt the rest of your party would agree :-). and note, too, that Kasich really only differs from the other Republicans in tone (his economic platform: lower corporate taxes, reduce income taxes...), with his one major disagreement being the Medicare issue...and the issue which will likely torpedo his candidacy.

TL,DR; democrats differ from each other in policy but none are looking at big expansions to the government. republicans do not really differ from each other in policy...and none are doing more than lip service to the idea of "consolidating, pruning and ensuring vital interests are seen to".

Stitch
13 Aug 15,, 20:09
JAD,

heh heh, aren't we -always- at a pivotal point in history? "pivotal" becomes pointless if used too frequently, and frankly I think the 2016 election will not be an especially "pivotal" one given existing trends. (2000 was pivotal only after the fact, for instance, just due to 9-11 alone.)



my biggest disagreement is here, but you knew that. there was a fundamental transformation of American society by Reagan. historically we're nowhere close to our previous tax burdens, minimum wage is almost at historical lows adjusting for inflation, and given the wealth gap it's pretty clear that over the last two decades, while the wealthy got a LOT wealthier, we're certainly not getting the trickle-down promised.

by far the worst danger to the US economy is -lack of regulation- of the big corporations and finance. everything else is small-ball in comparison, as few other areas of the economy have such a huge amount of money concentrated in one place, and have the ability to influence just about every other industry.

the financial crisis/great recession destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth over the period of six months; how many years of SS/medicare would that chunk of money have funded? and we haven't talked about medium/long-term effects, such as the effects of prolonged periods of unemployment on lifetime salary levels, money routed to unemployment benefits, etc. the CAUSE of "the financial burden of an ever-swelling list of social programs and welfare rolls" was the crisis/great recession, and not because the existing programs were made more generous.

the problem with Republican thinking is that economically it's always 1979 and foreign policy-wise it's always Munich 1938. thus the irony is that despite such a huge field of candidates, none of the GOP contenders have significantly different policies.

I'm afraid I have to agree with astralis; I'm currently slogging through that macroeconomic tome that was published late last year called "Capital In The Twenty-First Century", by Thomas Piketty, and the conclusions he comes to are both well-researched and sobering. Basically, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer; within a century (give or take), there will BE no middle-class, if macroeconomic trends continue the way they're going. His argument is that only governments can reverse this trend, but guess what? Guess where 90% of the politicians get their money from? That's right: large corporations and rich individuals (mostly money managers and executives); why would any elected official voluntarily bite the hand that feeds him/her? Answer: They won't (well, at least MOST of them won't), and that's why nothing will change our current socioeconomic status, short of a very large upheaval in society, like a major depression. The Great Recession we just experienced changed some things temporarily, but the larger shareholders (both in terms of liquid wealth and paper wealth) were little affected by the precipitous decline in real wealth experienced by the rest of us. And the banks came out of the Recession stronger than ever; net income for banks overall has risen from (27,500,000,000) in Q4 2008, to 40,000,000,000 in Q1 2013 (source: http://www.moneyeconomics.com/research-reports/the-state-of-banking-data-insights-from-the-last-5-5-years/).

39951

In short, the richest of the rich (the top 0.01%), and the politicians who depend on them for a majority of their campaign financing, have no incentive to change the system from the way it is and, quite to the contrary, have a vested interest in keeping it the way it is. As I said, nothing will change until a major cataclysm affects this country in an existential way; there is too much inertia and vested interests by those who are truly in power to keep things just the way they are.

JAD_333
14 Aug 15,, 00:48
JAD,



ah, sure. even in point in time, though, I don't think this point in time is particularly pivotal. ISIS is a gnat compared to the threat of the USSR. the US economy is doing better. China, not so much, but it also doesn't look like a collapse.

in short, things are pretty good, relatively speaking.


I agree, but OTOH those aren't economy-killers. nor do I see these issues as the main driver of the election. have you seen specific policy on either side that address this?


eh....if you look at the domestic policies of just about every single Republican nominee, it's cutting programs to carve out bigger tax cuts for the wealthy. Rubio-- use savings to reduce the corporate tax rate, small business tax cuts, and then repeal Dodd-Frank. Walker talks vaguely about lower tax rates. rest talk vaguely about tax reform. in short, i don't see anything about "consolidating, pruning and ensuring vital interests are seen to", unless you count lower taxes as a vital interest.


I fail to see this. even -Sanders- isn't offering a recreation of the Great Society, let alone the New Deal. Hillary's economic platform consists of tax cuts to the middle class/small businesses, more affordable college/child care, and modestly raising taxes on the wealthy.

none of this speaks to big programs, and absent the latter, would probably be considered fairly close to a moderate republican's economic platform circa 1996.

in fact, the assertion that "All the major social problems have been addressed since 1932" (something I find highly questionable, but I leave this aside for now) and that this leaves "niche problems and redundancy for the Democrats to pursue" (a slightly more true statement) would argue that overall, there -will- be no more major expansion of the government by democrats.

in fact the last holy grail for the Democrats is likely universal healthcare, and note that liberals go about that topic by stating that doing so would -save- the government money.



hey, I'd agree with this assessment. but, I doubt the rest of your party would agree :-). and note, too, that Kasich really only differs from the other Republicans in tone (his economic platform: lower corporate taxes, reduce income taxes...), with his one major disagreement being the Medicare issue...and the issue which will likely torpedo his candidacy.

TL,DR; democrats differ from each other in policy but none are looking at big expansions to the government. republicans do not really differ from each other in policy...and none are doing more than lip service to the idea of "consolidating, pruning and ensuring vital interests are seen to".


Asty:

It's not like I disagree with what you're saying...but are you sure you know what I am saying.

To use an analogy, I'm talking about the long-range weather and you're saying, 'You're wrong; I just looked outside and the sun is shining."

I don't care what the candidates or the parties are saying these days; they're trying to win elections. I'm interested in the changing temper of the electorate and which way its heading.

And leave my 'pivots' alone. : )

GVChamp
14 Aug 15,, 14:54
Oh, the forum is back up! YAY!

Stitch,
Be careful about reading too much into Piketty's new book. There's been a lot of buzz around the econ blogosphere since it's release and some of the criticisms are absolutely damning.

Regarding the general trends. Reagan was a sea-change, but the Conservative Revolution was only partially completed. Yeah, he cut tax marginal tax rates and reformed the tax code, we cut a bunch of regulations (particularly in finance and transportation), but that's real small potatoes. Reagan did little to freeze entitlement spending and little to stop the growth of the regulatory thicket surrounding most businesses.
What Reagan really did, and we're not really talking Reagan because this started in the late Carter era, was arrest a period of absolute economic lunacy in American policy. "Let's print all the money to give people jobs, and then let's freeze all prices and wages to stop inflation!"-standard economic policy of the 60s and 70s.

Regarding current politics, Obama has attempted to "sea-change" in a progressive direction but ultimately failed due to Congressional intransigence. I think this Republican Congress has been one of the greatest American achievements and a total vindication of our political system. I think Obama is a crazy who wanted to fundamentally transform American society, down to local police interactions with their citizens. That was successfully tempered to a moderate universal health care plan, gay marriage, a more liberal court (which I hate because all the liberals on the court strike me as crazy), a slightly more dovish Fed, and expiration of Bush Tax Cuts.
System worked, as intended. Not only is the sky not falling, the US economy is the best of the major economies and improving, unlike everyone else.

Regarding the debate, wow, was that a blast! I like what Trump does for the process, even if I don't like the guy much myself. Gets people interested in the debate and gets Fox News interested in actually vetting the candidates a little bit.
Rubio was probably the stand-out, although I probably like Jeb best the more I think about it. My Wife likes Rubio, which is probably a good indicator since she normally votes D, but Rubio honestly strikes me as a naïve church-boy.
The Chris Christie-Rand Paul exchange made me smile.

astralis
14 Aug 15,, 15:45
GVChamp,


System worked, as intended. Not only is the sky not falling, the US economy is the best of the major economies and improving, unlike everyone else.

I don't think you'll find a single economist who'll argue that sequestration was -good- for the economy. :-)

and the irony is that had conservatives tried to negotiate with Obama over the ACA instead of scorched-earth warfare, they'd have made the ACA significantly more conservative in nature. similarly, had they reached an agreement with Obama in the Grand Bargain discussions, it would have represented a largely conservative reform of the welfare state.

i'm trying to look at this impartially, but it seems to me that the only thing which conservatives can rightly say they stopped cold was Obama's feeble attempts at gun control.

otherwise the achievement here is just running down Obama's clock, which again has to be balanced against the fact that the policies which did pass were more liberal than they would have been otherwise.

from a more partisan standpoint, my assessment is that Obama has played his political hand quite well, far better than Bush or even Clinton. close to Reagan levels, in that Obama succeeded where generations of Democrats failed before him, even FDR, in establishing almost-universal healthcare. isn't that a "partially completed" revolution vice "ultimately failed"? :-)

GVChamp
14 Aug 15,, 19:09
I think you're overestimating what Republicans could've extracted from these deals. What's the counter-factual? What do you think the Republicans are going to get out of these deals?

astralis
14 Aug 15,, 22:22
GVChamp,


I think you're overestimating what Republicans could've extracted from these deals.

not at all. look at what Obama was willing to sign away to get a Grand Bargain. (the offer on the table which Boehner walked away from was $1.2 trillion in agency cuts, smaller COLA increases for SS, and $250 billion in medicare savings for $800 billion in tax increases.)

correspondingly, look at all the stuff blue-dog Dems added to the ACA to get their votes. had Republicans played, they probably could have gotten significant chunks of their issues, like tort reform, in there. probably a less universal mandate, too.

Obama wanted bipartisan clothes very very badly, especially in his first administration.

DOR
21 Aug 15,, 05:49
Martin O'Malley is eager for debates. So eager, in fact, that the Democratic presidential hopeful on Thursday signed an online petition seeking to make comedian Jon Stewart, the recently retired host of “The Daily Show,” a presidential debate moderator.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/20/omalley-adds-his-name-to-a-petition-seeking-to-make-jon-stewart-a-debate-moderator/

DOR
21 Aug 15,, 05:50
Alberto Gonzales . . . Marco Rubio . . . Bobby Jindal . . . Ted Cruz . . . Pete Domenici . . . Sally Jewell . . . Samantha Power . . . Madeleine Albright . . . Zbigniew Brzezinski . . .Henry Kissinger . . . John McCain . . . John M. Deutch . . . Tom Lantos . . . George Romney . . . Arnold Schwarzenegger . . . Jerry Springer . . . John Sununu . . . Alexander Hamilton . . . Bruce Lee

Fortunately, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/birthright-citizenship-famous-people_55d5e712e4b055a6dab31447?kvcommref=mostpopu lar

Doktor
21 Aug 15,, 07:58
Alberto Gonzales . . . Marco Rubio . . . Bobby Jindal . . . Ted Cruz . . . Pete Domenici . . . Sally Jewell . . . Samantha Power . . . Madeleine Albright . . . Zbigniew Brzezinski . . .Henry Kissinger . . . John McCain . . . John M. Deutch . . . Tom Lantos . . . George Romney . . . Arnold Schwarzenegger . . . Jerry Springer . . . John Sununu . . . Alexander Hamilton . . . Bruce Lee

Fortunately, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/birthright-citizenship-famous-people_55d5e712e4b055a6dab31447?kvcommref=mostpopu lar

What is this list?

Arnie is born in Austria, McCain is a son of a US admiral, Brzezinski is born in Poland, Kissinger in Germany...

But, Hamilton is the gem.

Bigfella
21 Aug 15,, 10:46
Alberto Gonzales . . . Marco Rubio . . . Bobby Jindal . . . Ted Cruz . . . Pete Domenici . . . Sally Jewell . . . Samantha Power . . . Madeleine Albright . . . Zbigniew Brzezinski . . .Henry Kissinger . . . John McCain . . . John M. Deutch . . . Tom Lantos . . . George Romney . . . Arnold Schwarzenegger . . . Jerry Springer . . . John Sununu . . . Alexander Hamilton . . . Bruce Lee

Fortunately, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/birthright-citizenship-famous-people_55d5e712e4b055a6dab31447?kvcommref=mostpopu lar

I thought 'birthright citizenship' covered people born in the US to non-citizen parents or outside the US to an American parent? Have I misunderstood? if so I think that list is incorrect - as Doc has pointed out.

My personal favourite example is conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, whose parents moved to the US to work months before her birth. That would also make her an 'anchor baby' if her parents were Mexican & she was a left wing personality. I'm sure there are some other equally amusing examples like Rubio & Jindal.

Firestorm
21 Aug 15,, 22:37
My personal favourite example is conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, whose parents moved to the US to work months before her birth. That would also make her an 'anchor baby' if her parents were Mexican & she was a left wing personality. I'm sure there are some other equally amusing examples like Rubio & Jindal.
Jindal's parents moved to the US barely 6 months before he was born.

MJH
22 Aug 15,, 05:44
My prediction is that neither will make it. Analysis of Sanders v Hillary polls (with some on Trump) @ www.prag.............

JAD_333
22 Aug 15,, 06:09
Alberto Gonzales . . . Marco Rubio . . . Bobby Jindal . . . Ted Cruz . . . Pete Domenici . . . Sally Jewell . . . Samantha Power . . . Madeleine Albright . . . Zbigniew Brzezinski . . .Henry Kissinger . . . John McCain . . . John M. Deutch . . . Tom Lantos . . . George Romney . . . Arnold Schwarzenegger . . . Jerry Springer . . . John Sununu . . . Alexander Hamilton . . . Bruce Lee

Fortunately, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/birthright-citizenship-famous-people_55d5e712e4b055a6dab31447?kvcommref=mostpopu lar


Dor:

Most if not all of those people were either born to legal residents of the US or US citizens living abroad. There's no issue about McCain or Romney. If you are a US citizen living abroad your children are automatically considered native born US citizens. My son was born in Spain. I went to the US Embassy in Madrid, presented his birth certificate and my passport to a consular official and he added my son to my passport.

The idea behind the 14th Amendment was to assert federal law over state law with respect to citizenship. Before the amendment, Americans thought of themselves foremost as citizens of the state in which they were born or resided. People often wonder how Robert E. Lee could have in good conscience quit the US Army to fight in the Army of Virginia even though he was opposed to secession. The reason is that he felt a stronger loyalty to Virginia, the state of which he thought himself a citizen. State citizenship had more meaning back then.

In essence, being a citizen of a state was tantamount to US citizenship. Thus, if you were denied citizenship in the state where you were born, you were not considered a US citizen. The 14th Amendment was enacted to insure ex-slaves after the Civil War were nor denied citizenship, since some states did not recognize slaves and their descendents as citizens. It was never meant to cover children born of illegal immigrants, diplomats and foreign visitors. But unfortunately, the Supreme Court in an 1898 decision misinterpreted the meaning of the qualifying phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", or so some legal scholars believe.

Here is a pretty well reasoned legal argument--a bit wonky, but worth consideration.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship

Here's another dimension which people often overlook.
https://www.numbersusa.com/solutions/reform-birthright-citizenship

Bigfella
22 Aug 15,, 09:05
Dor:

Most if not all of those people were either born to legal residents of the US or US citizens living abroad. There's no issue about McCain or Romney. If you are a US citizen living abroad your children are automatically considered native born US citizens.

Does beg the obvious question as to what a section of the GOP base and at least one current Presidential candidate have been rabbiting on about since 2008 in regard to the current President. How can so much time & energy have been consumed discussing the status of someone whose mother was known to be a US citizen. It is little wonder some people see s racial dimension in all of this.

Parihaka
22 Aug 15,, 12:30
It is little wonder some people see s racial dimension in all of this.
Then they need to read history. The most successful litigants (they got a day in court) against Obama also challenged McCain, and there's a long list of prior candidates also challenged. The issue for the birthers is the phrase "natural born citizen" which they interpret as born on U.S. soil. The fact that numerous courts have ruled against this interpretation hasn't stopped a long line of idiots including Hillary Clinton's campaign staff of trying to claim that it does mean born on US soil.
The U.S. has enough racial problems without rewriting history to invent more, in just the way the birthers try to rewrite law.

JAD_333
22 Aug 15,, 17:11
like ^




Does beg the obvious question as to what a section of the GOP base and at least one current Presidential candidate have been rabbiting on about since 2008 in regard to the current President. How can so much time & energy have been consumed discussing the status of someone whose mother was known to be a US citizen. It is little wonder some people see s racial dimension in all of this.

Fair observation. But you will also observe that the media played an outsized role in amplifying the attack on Obama's citizenship over that of others under the gun. It's should be pretty obvious why: He was 1) president and 2) a lightening rod for racial overtones. Most of the Republicans I know personally lingered over the question briefly, saw that Obama indeed met the criteria for native born, and went on about their business.

There is always a fringe element in these super legalistic issues who grind them out and sometimes get their day in court. That's life. And in a way a good thing, because it gave a little education to average Americans who don't pay much attention to the constitution. It is to Trump's enormous discredit that he took the side of the birthers for a time, or was he just pandering to the fringe element? Who knows.

JAD_333
22 Aug 15,, 17:19
My prediction is that neither will make it. Analysis of Sanders v Hillary polls (with some on Trump) @ [url]www.pra...

You've been asked not to promote your blog on these threads. The mod who warned you may have more to say on the matter. I suggest you state your views here in original wording.

GVChamp
31 Aug 15,, 17:59
GVChamp,

not at all. look at what Obama was willing to sign away to get a Grand Bargain. (the offer on the table which Boehner walked away from was $1.2 trillion in agency cuts, smaller COLA increases for SS, and $250 billion in medicare savings for $800 billion in tax increases.)

correspondingly, look at all the stuff blue-dog Dems added to the ACA to get their votes. had Republicans played, they probably could have gotten significant chunks of their issues, like tort reform, in there. probably a less universal mandate, too.

Obama wanted bipartisan clothes very very badly, especially in his first administration.
But Boehner got the sequester, and agreeing to a deal with Obama requires agreeing to another $1+ trillion in tax hikes. So there's no significant progress to be made there. You can get Medicaid spending hikes and Social Security spending hikes, but the States themselves will whine about Medicaid spending before too much longer, and no one will sign off on additional tax hikes to fund SS (since it's regressive).
So there's not a lot on the table to say "Yep, we need to really make a deal on this one."

With the ACA: What are you going to get that outweighs adding a huge new entitlement to the government welfare state? Tort reform doesn't offset that. The problem will remain that the entitlement complex will demand handouts and increased handouts no matter what: I have health insurance now, but my deductible is too high. I need a handout for that. I have health insurance but I think it should cover my birth control. I need a handout for that. I have health insurance but illegal immigrants are people too and California lovessssss its illegals so now California wants a waiver from the federal government to use federal taxpayers to give premium support to illegals.

I'm not sure what Republicans got from the Dodd-Frank reform bill, where several Senators DID defect (both the Maine gals, and Scott Brown).

JAD_333
31 Aug 15,, 19:59
like ^^

antimony
31 Aug 15,, 20:49
There is always a fringe element in these super legalistic issues who grind them out and sometimes get their day in court. That's life. And in a way a good thing, because it gave a little education to average Americans who don't pay much attention to the constitution. It is to Trump's enormous discredit that he took the side of the birthers for a time, or was he just pandering to the fringe element? Who knows.

He went on record saying that he had sent his own men to Hawaii and they were on to something good. Then he took credit when Obama finally cleared the issue. Now this chump is leading some of the Repiblican polls. I think it was more than a fringe that wanted this issue fleshed out

DOR
02 Sep 15,, 10:24
Oh, dear God . . .

…51% [of Republican voters] overall want to eliminate birthright citizenship. 54% think President Obama is a Muslim. And only 29% grant that President Obama was born in the United States. That’s less than the 40% who think Canadian born Ted Cruz was born in the United States.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-base-obama-wasnt-born-us-cruz-was

Dazed
02 Sep 15,, 18:26
Oh, dear God . . .

…51% [of Republican voters] overall want to eliminate birthright citizenship. 54% think President Obama is a Muslim. And only 29% grant that President Obama was born in the United States. That’s less than the 40% who think Canadian born Ted Cruz was born in the United States.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-base-obama-wasnt-born-us-cruz-was

Did they contact every single Republican voter? Most polls are questions asked to a select few, the data is subjected to interpolation. Questionable data followed by questionable methodology enables you show how simple minded the opposition analysis is, and never as subtle and nuance as your point of view. MSNBC host about as accurate to actual events as a FOX host. When you have to speak five hours of outrage an ideologically purity a week, you have to kind of make up stuff. The press loves a stupid Republican. Of course they just report, the blow hard provides the material.

DOR I know you work with data all the time. I enjoy your post. It drives me crazy when I see some stupid poll. I know let it go

JAD_333
02 Sep 15,, 21:24
I wasn't polled, but if the question of birthright citizenship was worded right, I would have agreed to restrict it to those born of citizens or documented immigrants.

I believe Obama is a US citizen born in the US and take him at his word that he's a Christian, and so do many Republicans I know.

Cruz's mother was a US citizen and his father a legal resident of the US before they moved to Canada to work in the oil service industry. He would thus be considered a natural born US citizen. He's nowhere near being my choice for president, but let's call a spade a spade.

Stitch
02 Sep 15,, 21:35
Yes sir I would and I will tell you why. Clinton was way ahead of everybody in the polls the last time she run for office. As soon as someone exciting and new came in, she tanked like yesterdays news. It was incredible to watch and I couldn't believe she lost her voters in the blink of an eye. A tin of butter cookies says she doesn't make it again.

I am NOT taking that bet!

Hillary seems to be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; so far, the only government positions she has held have all been appointments, not elections. She's going to have to change her strategy or, just like 2008, she's going to lose again.

JAD_333
02 Sep 15,, 21:56
He went on record saying that he had sent his own men to Hawaii and they were on to something good. Then he took credit when Obama finally cleared the issue. Now this chump is leading some of the Repiblican polls. I think it was more than a fringe that wanted this issue fleshed out

Good point.

It's probably correct to say that overwhelmingly Americans are unhappy with the undocumented immigrant situation, and they want some action. However, there is no clear consensus on exactly what that should be. What Trump gets credit for is not so much his plan to deal with it, but that he has forced the issue to the forefront, while other candidates were content to downplay it.

gunnut
03 Sep 15,, 01:14
Oh, dear God . . .

…51% [of Republican voters] overall want to eliminate birthright citizenship. 54% think President Obama is a Muslim. And only 29% grant that President Obama was born in the United States. That’s less than the 40% who think Canadian born Ted Cruz was born in the United States.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-base-obama-wasnt-born-us-cruz-was

What does islam say about a child born to a muslim father?

DOR
03 Sep 15,, 09:48
What does islam say about a child born to a muslim father?

Maybe the same thing The Jewish faith says about a child born to a Jewish mother? Just a guess, but neither is important to what an adult says and doesabout himself.

Bigfella
03 Sep 15,, 15:47
Maybe the same thing The Jewish faith says about a child born to a Jewish mother? Just a guess, but neither is important to what an adult says and doesabout himself.

....unless he is the first black President & has a funny sounding name. Then he is whatever the people who dislike him most say he is until it is no longer expedient.

JAD,

If you want examples of why the many variations of the 'Obama is a foreigner' meme continued to have such traction for so long, you just got one. Don't blame the media, blame GOPers who have kept this stuff bubbling since Obama became the candidate. They aren't just a handful of fringe nutters.

JAD_333
03 Sep 15,, 18:27
.
JAD,

If you want examples of why the many variations of the 'Obama is a foreigner' meme continued to have such traction for so long, you just got one. Don't blame the media, blame GOPers who have kept this stuff bubbling since Obama became the candidate. They aren't just a handful of fringe nutters.

I think what we got was a sarcastic reminder of why some people think he's a Muslim.

True, we can't blame the media, unless, of course, blame is the proper way to characterize the media's tendency to cover controversy even when it comes from the fringes. But at the same time, the media publishes countervailing facts, which allows the public at large to decide for themselves. But there will always be people who decide first, creatively manufacture evidence, and oppose any fact that proves them wrong.

gunnut
03 Sep 15,, 19:57
Maybe the same thing The Jewish faith says about a child born to a Jewish mother? Just a guess, but neither is important to what an adult says and doesabout himself.

So you will disregard what an entire religion claims and take the words and action of the person himself?

I'm not saying Obama is or isn't a muslim. I just want to get some definitions down to have a discussion.

JAD_333
04 Sep 15,, 03:45
Jump shift. So, The Economist has just come out with an article blasting Trump. You would sort of expect the readers of this respected publication to join in the criticism, but no. The comments, some of them very well written, mostly blast The Economist. Very interesting reactions...worth perusing:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21663225-why-donald-dangerous-trumps-america?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

DOR
04 Sep 15,, 04:10
So you will disregard what an entire religion claims and take the words and action of the person himself?

I'm not saying Obama is or isn't a muslim. I just want to get some definitions down to have a discussion.

Sure, no problem

bolo121
04 Sep 15,, 05:57
Jump shift. So, The Economist has just come out with an article blasting Trump. You would sort of expect the readers of this respected publication to join in the criticism, but no. The comments, some of them very well written, mostly blast The Economist. Very interesting reactions...worth perusing:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21663225-why-donald-dangerous-trumps-america?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

I rather liked this comment especially the bold part.
As a foreigner its of course hilarious and great entertainment, but I do feel for the American people.
Their government has abandoned them to the mercies of the megacorps and big banks.



jusdocSep 3rd 2015 22:36 GMT
Sadly, this is a very incomplete and therefore misleading article. Yes, Donald Trump has a legion of negatives, but the article fails to point to the legitimacies underscoring some of his overstatements. American government is of, by, and for the lobbyists. Political elites in both parties are flip sides of the same coin. In short, our government is not working, and is badly in debt.

On the one side, our government panders to the corporate fat cats, and on the other side panders to people who want to live a middle class life style without working for it. In the meanwhile, the middle class is shrinking, college is becoming unaffordable, money is more concentrated at the top of society greater than at any time since just prior to the Great Depression, and we are rudderless on the international scene. The ridiculously dysfunctional Iran nuclear treaty shows just how foolish and naive our international "leadership" has become.

Now if the TE article took all of the above into account, there might be a legitimate discussion as to why even thoughtful, educated, and even progressive Americans (who do see though the bombast) are actually paying some attention to Donald Trump. As a final comment, I have commented here and elsewhere, that Trump will either moderate and nuance some of his overstatements, or he will burn out. Since that time, he has modified his statement on deporting 11+ million illegals, to first deporting the criminals and gang members, which is something most Americans strongly agree with. If he continues to clarify, modify, and nuance, he just might become the Republican nominee. At that point, he would most probably be a legitimate candidate. Unfortunately however, the Republican Party still has complete incompetents like Hucksterbee aka Huckabee, and Cruz et al, who want their knuckle dragging brand of parochial religion to be forced on everybody by the government. Given that, even if Trump is a reasonable candidate, the rest of the Republican rednecks may well drag him down to defeat.

DOR
12 Sep 15,, 04:31
If this goes on much longer, I'm going to start a threat called "My religion is better than yours," so you'll have a place to debate something that isn't the US 2016 Presidential Election!

Parihaka
12 Sep 15,, 05:06
If this goes on much longer, I'm going to start a threat called "My religion is better than yours," so you'll have a place to debate something that isn't the US 2016 Presidential Election!

Okay, religious posts moved to new thread here, apologies DOR

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=66139

Back to Trump and Clinton